Response to pseudo-salafi article "Imam Abu Haneefah on Tawheed"

**faqir** · 03-09-2005, 08:59 AM

One of the brothers from Islamica pm'd me and requested that I take a look at an article that was posted there.

I hope that the Sunnis here will help the brother in responding to the half truths, half quotes and gross manipulations, inshaAllah.

Here is the article reproduced in full:

Originally Posted by SamAlFarsi

Imam Abu Haneefah on Tawheed
http://www.*********************/view...articleID=806&

compiled by Muhammad bin Abdur-Rahmaan al-Khumayis

I'tiqaad al-A'immatil-Arba'ah - Abi Haneefah wa Maalik wash-Shafi'ee wa Ahmad
Dr. Muhammad bin Abdur-Rahmaan al-Khumayis - p8-14.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Imam on Tawassul (seeking nearness to Allah):

* It is not correct for anyone to call upon Allah except through Him and the permitted supplications that have been ordered as in the saying of Allah, the Most High:

"And to Allah belong the Most Beautiful Names, so call upon Him by them. And shun those who distort His Names, they will soon be requited for what they used to do." (al-A'raaf 7:180)

[ad-Dur al-Mukhtaar Ma'a Haashiya Rad al-MuHtaar 6/396-7]

* It is hated for the one who supplicates to say, "I ask You on the behalf of so and so, or on the behalf of Your Prophets and Your Messengers or on the behalf of the sacred house or on the behalf of al-Mash'ar al-Haraam (i.e. al-Muzdalifa - Ibn Katheer).

[SharH 'Aqeeda aT-TaHaawiyah p.234, SharH al-Fiqh al-Akbar by al-Qaari' p.198]

* It is not correct for anyone to supplicate to Allah except by Him and I hate it to be said 'on behalf of Ma'aaqid (junctions) al-'Izz (of Might) Min 'Arshik (of Your Throne), or on the behalf of Your creation.

[at-Tawussul wal-Waseelah p.72, see SharH al-Fiqh al-Akbar p.198]

The Imam on the Names and the Attributes of Allah:

* Allah the Most High is not described with the attributes of the creation. His Anger and His Pleasure are two attributes from His attributes without Kaif (asking the nature of the attributes), and it is the statement of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jama'ah. He becomes Angry and becomes Pleased, and it is not said that His Anger is His punishment and His Pleasure is His reward. We describe Him as He has described Himself: One, Samad (A self-sufficient master who is not in need of anything, yet everyone is in need of Him) who does not beget nor is He begotten, and there is none like unto Him. (He is) the Living, all-Able, all-Hearing, all-Seeing and all-Knowing. The Hand of Allah is over their hands, but not like the hands of His creation. His Face is not like the Face of His creation.

[al-Fiqh al-Absat p.56]

* He (Allah) has a Hand, a Face and a Self, as Allah the Most High mentioned in the Qur'an. So whatever Allah the Most High mentioned in the Qur'an concerning the Face, and Hand and the Self, then they are His Attributes without Kaif (asking the nature of the attributes), and it is not said that His Hand means His power or bounty, for this is the denial of His Attribute, and this is the statement of the people of al-Qadr (those who deny the predestination - al-Qadariyah) and al-I'tizaal (the rationalists - al-Mu'tazilah).

[al-Fiqh al-Akbar p.302]

* It is not correct for anyone to say anything about the Dhaat (person) of Allah. Rather he should describe Him as He has described Himself. He must not say of his own opinion anything about Him; Exalted the Most High is the Lord of the Worlds.

[SharH al-'Aqeeda aT-TaHaawiyah 2/427]

* When the Imam was asked about the descent of Allah, he replied, "He descends without Kaif (asking the nature of the attributes)"

[al-Asmaa' was-Sifaat by al-Bayhaqi p.456 SharH al-Fiqh al-Akbar by al-Qaari' p.60]

* Allah the Most High is called upon upward (i.e. towards the direction of the heavens) and not downward (i.e. towards the direction of the earth). Because the downward (direction) has nothing to do with the attributes of His Lordship or Worship.

[al-Fiqh al-Absat p.51]

* He becomes Angry and Pleased, and it is not said that His Anger is His punishment and His Pleasure is His reward.

[al-Fiqh al-Absat p.56]

* He does not resemble anything from the things from His creation, nor does anything resemble Him. He always was and will be with His Names and Attributes.

[al-Fiqh al-Akbar p.301]

* His Attributes are different from the attributes of the creation. He Knows but not like our knowledge. He has the Ability but not like our ability. He Sees but not like our seeing. He Hears but not like our hearing and He Speaks but not like our Speech.

[al-Fiqh al-Akbar p.302]

* Allah is not described by the attributes of the creation.

[al-Fiqh al-Absat 56]

* Whoever describes Allah with a quality from the qualities of a human, has disbelieved.

[al-Aqeeda aT-TaHaawiyah with the commentary by al-Albaani p.25]

* His Attributes (are to do with His) Person (Dhaatiyah) and His Actions (Fi'liyah). As for the Personal Attributes (then they are) the Life, the Ability (or Power), the Knowledge, the Speech, the Hearing, the Seeing and the Intent. As for the Actions (then they are) the (act of) Creating, (the act of) Providing, (the act of) Producing, (the act of) Innovating, (the act of) Making and others besides, are from the Attributes of Actions. He always was and will be with His Names and Attributes.

[al-Fiqh al-Akbar p.301]

* He never ceases to be the performer of His Actions, and His Action is an Attribute in eternity. The performer is Allah the Most High and the Action is an Attribute in eternity, and the subject (whom the action is being done on) is the creation, and the Action of Allah the Most High is not a creation.

[al-Fiqh al-Akbar p.301]

* One who says I do not know whether my Lord is above the heavens or above the earth has disbelieved! And likewise the one who says that He is above His Throne but I do not know whether the Throne is above the heavens or above the earth.

[al-Fiqh al-Absat p.46, al-'Uloo by adh-Dhahabi p.101-2, al-'Uloo by Ibn Qudaama p.116, and Ibn Abil-'Izz in SharH at-TaHaawiyah p.301]

* Upon being question by a woman who asked, "Where is your God that you worship", the Imam replied, "Indeed Allah, the Glorified, the Most High is above the heavens and not the earth". So a man said to him, "Have you not seen the statement of Allah the Most High:

"And He is with you" (al-Hadeed 57:4)?"

He replied, "Its like when you write to a man 'Indeed I am with you and you are absent from him'"

[al-Asmaa' was-Sifaat p.429]

* His Hand is over their hands, not like the hands of His creation

[al-Fiqh al-Absat p.56]

* The Imam said, "Indeed Allah is in the Heavens and not in the earth". So a man said to him, "Have you not seen the statement of Allah the Most High:

"And He is with you" (al-Hadeed 57:4)?"

He replied, "Its like when you write to a man 'Indeed I am with you and you are absent from him'"

[al-Asmaa' was-Sifaat p.429]

* He was Speaking (to Musa) and Musa was never speaking to Him.

[al-Fiqh al-Akbar p.302]

* He Speaks with His Speech, and His Speech is an eternal Attribute.

[al-Fiqh al-Akbar p.301]

* He Speaks not like our speech.

[al-Fiqh al-Akbar p.302]

* Musa AS heard the Speech of Allah the Most High, as Allah the Most High has said:

"And Allah spoke to Musa directly" (an-Nisa' 4:164)

Allah the Most High was Speaking and it was never Musa AS who spoke (to Him).

[al-Fiqh al-Akbar p.302]

* al-Qur'an is the Speech of Allah written in the copies (of the Qur'an), preserved in the hearts, recited upon the tongues and upon the Prophet SAW it was revealed.

[al-Fiqh al-Akbar p.301]

* al-Qur'an is not a creation.

[al-Fiqh al-Akbar]

**faqir** · 03-09-2005, 09:05 AM

First of all, I would like to say that in many places the author has not made clear which Sharh of Al-Aqeeda at-Tahawiyyah and al-Fiqh al-Akbar he is using and how is one to know, therefore, whether the quotes are even authentic or whether the Sharh is from dodgy source like a pseudo-Salafi theologian? Same goes with this book at-Tawussul wal-Waseelah!

Originally Posted by SamalFarsi

The Imam on Tawassul (seeking nearness to Allah):

* It is not correct for anyone to call upon Allah except through Him and the permitted supplications that have been ordered as in the saying of Allah, the Most High:

"And to Allah belong the Most Beautiful Names, so call upon Him by them. And shun those who distort His Names, they will soon be requited for what they used to do." (al-A'raaf 7:180)

[ad-Dur al-Mukhtaar Ma'a Haashiya Rad al-MuHtaar 6/396-7]

* It is hated for the one who supplicates to say, "I ask You on the behalf of so and so, or on the behalf of Your Prophets and Your Messengers or on the behalf of the sacred house or on the behalf of al-Mash'ar al-Haraam (i.e. al-Muzdalifa - Ibn Katheer).

[SharH 'Aqeeda aT-TaHaawiyah p.234, SharH al-Fiqh al-Akbar by al-Qaari' p.198]

* It is not correct for anyone to supplicate to Allah except by Him and I hate it to be said 'on behalf of Ma'aaqid (junctions) al-'Izz (of Might) Min 'Arshik (of Your Throne), or on the behalf of Your creation.

[at-Tawussul wal-Waseelah p.72, see SharH al-Fiqh al-Akbar p.198]

[Imam] Abu Hanifa [RH] & Tawassul

Answered by Shaykh Gibril F Haddad

Imam Abu Hanifa: His Supposed Objection to Tawassul (Using Intermediaries)

Imàm Abu Hanïfa nowhere objected to tawassul but only –as narrated from Abu Yosuf in Kitàb al-Àthàr–to the use of a specific wording in supplication, namely, “by the right You owe to So-and-so” (bi-haqqi fulàni ‘alayk), or “by the joints of power and glory in Your Throne” (bima ‘àqidal-‘izzmin‘arshik).[1] The reason for this is that, on the one hand, Allàh owes no-one any right whatso*ever except what He Himself conde*scends to state on His part as in the verse [To help believers is incumbent upon Us (haqqun ‘alaynà)](30:47). On the other hand, “by the right owed so-and-so” is an oath and is therefore a formula restricted to Allàh Himself on pains of shirk. Imàm Abu Hanïfa said: “Let one not swear any oath except by Allàh alone, with a pure affirmation of tawhïd and sincerity.”[2] A third reason is that the expression “the joints of power and glory in Your Throne” is a lone-narrator (àhàd) report and is therefore not retained nor put into practice, in accordance with the rule for any such reports that might suggest anthropomorphism.

Those that claim[3] that the Imàm objected to tawassul altogether are unable to adduce any*thing to sup*port such a claim other than the above caveat, which is not against tawassul but against a specific, prohibitive wor*ding in tawassul. A proof of this is that it is permissi*ble in the Hanafï School to say “by the sanctity/honor of so-and-so in Your presence” (bi-hurmati/bi-jàhi fulàn). This is stated in the Fatàwà Bazzàziyya (6:351 in the margin of the Fatàwà Hindiyya) and is also the position of Abþ al-Layth al-Samarqandï among the major Hanafï Jurists, not to mention that of Imàm Ibn ‘Àbidïn among the later ones.

Even so there is authentic evidence in[1]the hadïth of Fàtima bint Asad, [2] the hadïth of “the right of those who ask You,”[3] the hadïth: “O Allàh, I ask you by the joints of power in the Throne,” and [4] the hadïth: “Do you know the right owed to Allàh by His slaves and the right owed by Allàh to his slaves?”[4] to support the permissibility of such a wording. If the above objection is authentically reported from Abu Hanïfa then either he did not deem these hadïths authentic by his standards, or they did not reach him. An illustration of this is that Abu Yusuf permitted the formula “By the joints of power…”. [5] Further, the oppo*site is also reported from him, namely, that he per*mitted tawassul using those very expressions. Ibn ‘Àbidïn said: “In the Tatàrkhàniyya: The Àthàr also report what shows permissibility.” Then he cites–from al-Qàrï’s Sharh al-Niqàya, al-Munàwï quoting Ibn ‘Abd al-Salàm (cf. the very first of his Fatàwà in the printed Risàla edition), and al-Subkï –fur*ther explanations that it is permitted, then he cites the fatwa by Ibn Amïr al-Hajj in the thir*teenth chapter of Sharh al-Munya that such permissibility is not limited to tawassul through the Prophet e. i.e. it extends to the Sàlihïn.

NOTES:

[1] Cf. al-Zabïdï, It hàf (2:285) and Ibn Abï al-‘Izz, Sharhal-‘Aqïda al-Tahàwiyya (1988 9th ed. p. 237).

[2]Cf. al-Kasànï, Badà’i‘ al-Sanà’i‘ (3:8).

[3]Cf. Ibn Taymiyya, Majmþ‘ al-Fatàwà (1:202-203) and his imitators.

[4]The first hadïth is narrated from Anas by al-Tabarànï in al-Kabïr (24:351) and al-Awsat. (1:152) and Abu Nu‘aym in his Hilya (1985 ed. 3:121) with a chain contain*ing Rawh ibn Salàh concerning whom there is difference of opinion among the authorities. He is unknown according to Ibn al-Jawzï in al-‘Ilal al-Mutanàhiya (1:260-270), Ibn ‘Adï in al-Kàmil (3:146 #667), and al-Dàraqutnï in al-Mu’talif wal-Mukhtalif (3:1377); Ibn Màkþlà in al-Ikmàl (5:15) declared him weak while al-Hàkim asserted was trustwor*thy and highly dependable (thiqa ma’mun) –as men*tioned by Ibn Hajar in Lisàn al-Mïzàn (2:465 #1876), Ibn Hibbàn in*cluded him in al-Thiqàt (8:244), and al-Fasawï considered him trustworthy (cf. Mamdoh, Raf‘ [p. 148]). Al-Haythamï (9:257) said: “Al-Tabarànï narrated it in al-Kabïr and al-Awsat and its chain contains Rawh ibn Salàh whom Ibn Hibbàn and al-Hàkim declared trustworthy although there is some weakness in him, and the rest of its sub-narrators are the men of sound hadïth.” I was unable to find Abu Hàtim’s declaration of Rawh as trustworthy re*ported by Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Alawï in his Mafàhïm (10th ed. p. 145 n. 1). Nor does Shaykh Mahmod Mamdohin his discussion of this hadïth in Raf‘ al-Minàra (p. 147-155) mention such a grading on the part of Abu Hàtim although he con*sid*ers Rawh “truthful” (sadaq) and not “weak” (da‘ïf), according to the rules of hadïth science when no reason is given with regard to a nar*rator’s purported discreditation (jarhmubham ghayr mufassar). Mamdoh(p. 149-150) noted that al*though Albànï in his Silsila Da‘ïfa (1:32-33) claims it is a case of explicated discreditation (jarh mufassar) yet he himself de*clares identi*cally-formulated dis*creditation cases as unexplicated and therefore unaccept*able in two dif*ferent contexts! Ibn ‘Alawï adds that the hadïth is also narrated from Ibn ‘Abbàs by Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr –without specifying where –and from Jàbir by Ibn Abï Shayba, but without the du‘à. Imàm al-Kawtharï said of this hadïth in his Maqàlàt (p. 410): “It provides textual evidence whereby there is no difference between the living and the dead in the context of using a means (tawassul), and this is explicit tawassul through the Proph*ets, while the hadïth of the Prophet from Abu Sa‘ïd al-Khudrï ‘O Allàh, I ask You by the right of [the promise made to] those who ask You (bihaqqi al-sà’ilïna ‘alayk)’* constitutes tawassul through the generality of Muslims, both the living and the dead.”

*A hasan hadïth of the Prophet according to Shaykh Mahmod Mamdoh who showed in his mono*graph Mubàhathat al-Sà’irïn bi Hadïth Allàhumma Innï As’aluka bi-Haqqi al-Sà’ilïn, narrated from Abu Sa‘ïd al-Khudrï by Ahmad in his Musnad with a fair chain according to Hamza al-Zayn (10:68 #11099) –a weak chain according to al-Arna’þt(17:247-248 #11156) who considers it, like Abu Hàtim in al-‘Ilal (2:184), more like*ly a mawquf saying of Abu Sa‘ïd himself; Ibn Màjah with a chain he declared weak, Ibn al-Sunni in ‘Amal al-Yawm wa al-Layla (p. 40 #83-84), al-Bayhaqï in al-Da‘awàt al-Kabïr (p. 47= 1:47 #65), Ibn Khuzayma in al-Tawhïd (p. 17-18) [and his Sahïh (2:458?) as indicated by al-Busïrï in his Zawà’id (1:98-99)], al-Tabarànï in al-Du‘a (p. 149=2:990), Ibn Ja‘d in his Musnad (p. 299), al-Baghawï in al-Ja‘diyyat (#2118-2119) and –mawquf –by Ibn Abï Shayba (6:25=10:211-212) and Ibn Abï Hàtim in ‘Ilal al-Hadïth (2:184). Al-‘Iràqï in Takhrïj Ahàdïth al- Ihyà’ (1:291) graded it hasan as a marfu‘ Prophetic hadïth, as did the hadïth Masters al-Dimyàtï in al-Muttajir al-Ràbihfï Thawàb al-‘Amal al-Sàlih (p. 471-472), Ibn Hajar in Amàlï al-Adhkàr (1:272) and al-Mundhirï’s shaykh the hadïth Master Abu al-Hasan al-Maqdisï in al-Targhïb (1994 ed. 2:367 #2422=1997 ed. 2:304-305) and as indicated by Ibn Qudàma in al-Mughnï (1985 Dàr al-Fikr ed. 1:271). Shaykh Mamdohin his monograph refuted the reasoning of Nàsir Albànï and Hammàd al-Ansàrï in declaring this hadïth weak. The third hadïth is narrated from [1] the Companion Qayla bint Makhrama by al-Tabarànï in al-Kabïr (25:12) with a fair chain according to al-Haythamï (10:124-125); [2] Ibn Mas‘ud by al-Bayhaqï in al-Da‘awàt al-Kabïr (2:157 #392) –Ibn al-Jawzï in al-Mawdu‘àt (2:142) claimed that it was forged as cited by al-Zayla‘ï in Nasb al-Ràya (4:272-273) but this ruling was rejected by al-Suyutï in al-La’àli’ (2:68); [3] maqtþ‘ from Wuhayb by Abu Nu‘aym in the Hilya (1985 ed. 8:158-159); [4] Abþ Hurayra by Ibn ‘Asàkir with a very weak chain cf. Ibn ‘Arràq, Tanzïh al-Sharï‘a (1:228); and [5] Abþ Bakr in al-Tadwïn and al-Firdaws. The fourth is narrated from Mu‘àdh in the Six Books and Ahmad except for al-Nasà’ï.

[5]Cf. al-Kàsànï, Badà’i‘ al-Sanà’i‘ (5:126).

[6]Ibn ‘Àbidïn, Hàshiya (6:396-397).

**faqir** · 03-09-2005, 09:13 AM

Next up is the issue of the pseudo-Salafiyya quoting from texts like al-Fiqh al-Akbar. InshaAllah their hypocrisy in doing so will be exposed shortly! First, however, I enclose a translation with short commentary of al-Fiqh al-Akbar put together by Shaykh Muhammad bin Yahya al-Ninowy.

AL-FIQH AL-AKBAR
(THE GREAT FIQH)

By
Al-Imam Al-A’tham Abu Hanifah (R.A.) (90-150H.)

Comments and Translation
by
Muhammad bin Yahya Ninowy

May Allah forgive him, his fathers, and all believers.

Please see attached file:

**faqir** · 03-09-2005, 09:18 AM

Regarding the pseudo-Salafi's use of al-Fiqh al-Akbar on the issue of the Attributes of Allah including, for example the Speech of Allah please see the following article by Ustadh Abdullah:

Question:

Al-Salam alaykum

I have read Ustadh Abdullah's answer and understood it. I have just one
question regarding Imam Abu Hanifa's saying al-Fiqh al-Akbar which the
Salafis also use against us - it goes something like this

"wa lahu yadd lakin la ka aydina .... "

and then he says "kullu dhalika lahu sifaat"

Thus Imam Abu Hanifa called them attributes too. So based on what i read
below that there is no mention of the salaf calling them attributes how do
we respond to this?

Secondly Imam Nawawi and others refer to these as Ahaadith al-Sifaat also.

Please ask Ustadh Abdullah to respond.

Ustadh Abdullah’s response:

One must first understand that by virtue of the fact that this book is considered to be the first book written in the time of the Taabi’een on the topic of Tawheed in an organized and methodical fashion during an age of great controversy when Sunnis were attempting to codify the orthodox creed of Muslims that there will be statements found in it that may be problematic.

Of course Salafis would find great joy in seeing such statements like the one above, since it apparently gives credence to their arguments about what they refer to as ‘The Attributes of Allah,’ like the hand, face, eyes, foot, side, shin, self, etc.

They could easily make the claim that their ‘aqeedah is correct and in agreement with the creed of the Salaf, since Imam Abu Hanifa who is one of the Salaf says in Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar that Allah has a hand. And His hand is an attribute, similar to what they say.

So on the surface it would seem that the argument is over, and that Salafis have proven themselves to be victorious in their claims.

However, a number of other things have to be considered before accepting their arguments.

Firstly, if we are to accept that Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar is an authentic work legitimately ascribable to Abu Hanifa and that it represents the ‘aqeedah of the Salaf, Salafis have to accept all that it contains. So they’d have to also accept the following statement made by Abu Hanifa about Allah’s speech:

“And He speaks, not as our speech. We speak with tools and letters while Allah, High is He, speaks without a tool and without letters. The letters are created. And the speech of Allah, High is He, is uncreated.”`

In this passage, Abu Hanifa states that when Allah, High is He, speaks, He speaks without letters. But Salafis believe that when Allah speaks, He speaks with letters and sounds.

So, really this is another case of Salafis selectively abusing and misusing the words of the Salaf and those attributed to the Salaf in an attempt to make it seem that their creed agrees with that of the Salaf, when in fact it doesn’t.

Add to that, Salafis are those who argue that the current version of Kitab al-Ibaanah ‘an Usool ad-Diyaanah, attributed to Imam Abu al-Hasan Al-Ash’ari, is a proper ascription to him.

And in that book, it states that Imam Abu Hanifa believed that the Qur’an was created1,. But if Salafis accept that Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar is appropriately ascribed to Abu Hanifa, they have to also accept his words that contradict this claim when he says:

“The Qur’an is Allah’s word, High is He, in pages transcribed, in hearts protected, on tongues recited, and on the Prophet (PBUH) and His family revealed. Our utterance of the Qur’an is created. Our writing of it is created. Our recitation of it is created. And the Qur’an is uncreated.”

How more explicit can the Imam be? He expressly states in Al-Fiqh al-Akbar that the “Qur’an is uncreated.” But the Salafis claim that the narrations in Al-Ibaanah that claim that Abu Hanifa believed that it was created is a proper ascription to Abu al-Hasan. And at the same time they consider Al-Fiqh al-Akbar to be properly ascribed to Abu Hanifa.

In addition to that, Imam Abu al-Hasan doesn’t make any mention of Abu Hanifa as being one of those who believed that the Qur’an was created in his more prominent and well-established work entitled ‘Maqaalaat al-Islaamiyyeen.’ And according to Salafis, Kitaab al-Ibaanah was his last work.

So how do they explain the fact that Imam Al-Ash’ari waited until his final work to mention Abu Hanifa, who died more than a century prior to him, as one of those who believed that the Qur’an was created in his supposed last work, when he didn’t mention him in what they believe to be one of his earlier works?

Did not Al-Ash’ari know that Imam Abu Hanifa was the author of Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar?

They just can’t have it both ways.

Either Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar is Abu Hanifa’s work, which would make Kitaab al-Ibaanah – in its present form - not Abu al-Hasan’s work. Or the current Kitaab al-Ibaanah is Abu al-Hasan’s work, which would mean that Al-Fiqh al-Akbar is not Abu Hanifa’s work.

And if Al-Fiqh al-Akbar is Abu Hanifa’s work and Salafis want to use it as proof that their ‘aqeedah is no different than his, they have to accept everything in it without exception.

Now as for the issue of the statement in Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar about the hand, face, and self and them being attributes, we must consider two things in particular:

1 – Imam At-Tahaawi makes no mention of hands, a face, or a self in his ‘aqeedah. And his book has been accepted as the one that represents the ‘aqeedah of Imam Abu Hanifa and his two companions, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad Ash-Shaibaani.

2 – Secondly, we must understand any comment made in Al-Fiqh al-Akbar – as in other works - according to context.

According to Al-Fiqh al-Akbar, Allah has two general classifications of attributes known as ‘Attributes of the Essence’ and ‘Attributes of Action.’

Attributes of the Essence are the essential qualities of His being.

As for attributes of action, they are things that happen outside of His being. And since He is the one responsible for those occurrences, they are attributed to Him and called ‘Attributes of Action.’

Imam Abu Hanifa explains this in his book when he says:

“He doesn’t resemble anything of His creation, and nothing of His creation resembles Him. He has always and will always exist with His names and His attributes of the (divine) essence and those (attributes) of action.

As for those of the essence, they are: life, power, knowledge, speech, hearing, seeing, and will.

And as for those of action, they are: creating, providing, producing, originating, manufacturing, and other attributes of action.”

So the attributes of Allah’s divine essence are seven:
1- Life
2- Power
3- Knowledge
4- Speech
5- Hearing
6- Seeing
7- Will

As for the attributes of action, he states things like
- Creating,
- Providing,
- Producing,
- Originating,
- Manufacturing,
- And other attributes of action

Then, Abu Hanifa says,

“He has always and will always exist with His names and attributes. He has not acquired any new name or attribute.”

So according to Abu Hanifa, Allah has 7 confirmed attributes of the essence [2.], while he places no limit to His attributes of action, since the possibilities of what can exist are limitless.

As for restricting the attributes of the essence to merely seven, this is not to say that these are the only attributes that Allah has. It is merely to say that this is the number that both revelation and reason have been able to conclude. As for the standard view of Maaturidis, the attributes of the essence are 8.

As for Ash’aris, they divide attributes a bit further to the point that some of them have stated 13 [3.] and some have stated 20 [4.].

In the end, most of that is just a difference in semantics. And the true difference is with relationship to what Ash’aris call ‘Abstract Attributes’, which are the 7 that Abu Hanifa mentions in Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar, while Maaturidis add an eighth called ‘Takween.’

At any rate, notice how Abu Hanifa doesn’t make mention of the hand, face, and self until he enumerates the attributes of the essence. And, so that the readers can see, here is the complete text prior to the mention of the hand, face, and self:

“He doesn’t resemble anything of His creation, and nothing of His creation resembles Him. He has always and will always exist with His names and His attributes of the (divine) essence and those (attributes) of action.

As for those of the essence, they are: life, power, knowledge, speech, hearing, seeing, and will.

And as for those of action, they are: creating, providing, producing, originating, manufacturing, and other attributes of action.

He has always and will always exist with His names and attributes. He has not acquired any new name or attribute.”

So if He hasn’t acquired any new name or attribute, there are truly no other definitive attributes of essence other than those mentioned above[5], and the hand, face, and self aren’t included among them.

Then he continues:

“He has always been Knowing by His knowledge. And knowledge has been an attribute since pre-eternity.

(He has always been) Powerful by His power. And power has been an attribute since pre-eternity.

(He has always been) A Speaker by His speech. And speech has been an attribute since pre-eternity.

(He has always been) Creator by His creative-will[6]. And the creative-will has been an attribute since pre-eternity.

(He has always been) A Doer by His will to act[7]. And the will to act has been an attribute since pre-eternity. The Doer is Allah, High is He. The will to act has been an attribute since pre-eternity. And the resulting entity of His will to act is created, while Allah’s will to act, High is He, is uncreated. And His attributes have been since pre-eternity un-invented and uncreated. So whoever says that they are created or invented, remains silent about them, or entertains doubts about them is one who rejects faith in Allah, High is He.”

He also says,

“And Allah, High is He, was indeed a Speaker at a time when He had not yet spoken to Musa, upon him be peace. And Allah was indeed a Creator in pre-eternity even though He had not yet created. ((There is nothing like unto Him. And He is the All-Hearing All-Seeing)). So when He spoke to Musa, He spoke to him with His speech, which has been an attribute of His since pre-eternity. And All of His attributes are without beginning from pre-eternity; contrary to the state of the attributes of created beings.

He has knowledge, not as our knowledge. He has power, not as our power. He sees, not as our seeing. He hears, not as our hearing. And He speaks, not as our speech.

We speak with tools and letters while Allah, High is He, speaks without a tool and without letters. The letters are created. And the speech of Allah, High is He, is uncreated.

He is a thing, not like other things. And the point of saying ‘thing’ is to confirm His existence while not being a divisible body, an indivisible body, and not an accident of a body.

He has no boundary. He has no opposite. He has no rival. And He has no equal.

Then finally he says,

He has a hand, a face, and a self. So what He, High is He, mentions in the Qur’an of the mention of the face, hand, and self, are all attributes of His with no modality (or description).

It is not said that His hand is His power or His blessing, since such would be a nullification of the attribute. And such is the statement of the People of Qadar and ‘Itizaal.[8]

Rather, His hand is His attribute with no modality (or description). And His anger and His satisfaction are two of His attributes with no modality (or description)…”

So what are we to understand from all of this? How do we reconcile between Abu Hanifa’s saying after mentioning the seven attributes of the essence:

“He has always and will always exist with His names and attributes. He has not acquired any new name or attribute.”

And between his saying,

“He has a hand, a face, and a self. So what He, High is He, mentions in the Qur’an of the mention of the face, hand, and self, are all attributes of His with no modality (or description).”?

I believe that the best way to reconcile between the two is to say that ‘hand, face, and self’ are references to either one of Allah’s true attributes of the essence as stated in the first clause by Abu Hanifa. Or they are references to one of His attributes of action.[9]

One cannot deny that by such words being annexed to Allah’s name or pronoun in the Qur’an, they are being ‘attributed’ to Him directly even if calling them ‘attributes’ doesn’t coincide with the original linguistic definition of what an attribute is.

So calling them attributes would be a metaphorical application as opposed to a literal application. And if it is a metaphorical application, it would have to be accepted that such named ‘attributes’ are metaphorical ‘attributes.’ So the hand, face, and self would have to be a metaphorical ‘hand, face, and self,’ which are references to one of Allah’s true attributes, since there is nothing like unto Him. And ‘hand’ in its original linguistic understanding applies only to created beings.

Abdur-Rahman ibn Al-Jawzi says while mentioning the mistakes of some Hanbali scholars in the area of scriptural interpretation of the problematic verses of the Qur’an,

“And those writers who I have mentioned have erred in seven areas. The first of them is that they called the ‘reports’ ‘attributes.’ When they are merely annexations/possessive forms. And not every possessive form is an attribute. For Allah, High is He, has said: ((And I have blown into him from My spirit)) [Al-Hijr: 29]. And Allah doesn’t have an attribute known as a ‘spirit.’ So those who have called ‘the possessive form’ (idaafa) ‘an attribute’ are guilty of innovation.”

The linguist, Tha’lab says in Taaj al-‘Aroos,

“A ‘na’t’ is a description given to a specific part of the body like the word ‘lame’ (‘araj). A ‘sifa’ (attribute) is for non-specificity (‘umoom), like the word ‘magnificent’ (‘azeem) and ‘generous’ (kareem). So Allah is described with a ‘sifa’. But He is not described with a ‘na’t.’”

What this would mean is that the word ‘sifa’ (attribute) is being used metaphorically to mean ‘na’t’, which is another word for ‘attribute’ or ‘trait.’ The difference is that a ‘na’t’ describes a specific part of a body, like ‘lame’ or ‘blind’.

For this reason, Imam Bukhaari uses the word ‘nu’oot’ (plural of na’t), instead of ‘sifaat’ (plural of sifa) to refer to those reports that make mention of Allah’s anger, laughter, foot, hand, and face even though He isn’t a body and doesn’t have a body.

This would have to be the accepted interpretation. Otherwise, we must accept that Abu Hanifa contradicts his self by first limiting the attributes of the essence to the 7 mentioned above, and then later adding Allah’s face, hand, and self.

Another important question is ‘Why doesn’t Abu Hanifa add to what he considered attributes ‘the shin, the side, the eyes, the foot, and the spirit?’

This is important because Allah annexes His name or personal pronoun to each of these things in the Qur’an or the Messenger does so in the hadith. So if I am to accept that Allah has a face, self, and hand, simply because He annexes such things to His name or pronoun, I should also accept that He has eyes, a spirit, a foot, a side, a shin, a she-camel, a house, and any other thing that He has attached His name or pronoun to.

And if the Salafis agree with Abu Hanifa’s creed, they should only accept as attributes those things that Abu Hanifa declared to be attributes. This would mean that Salafis have to stop saying that Allah has a foot, a shin, a side, and eyes.

But we know that they won’t do that, because Salafis are very selective about what they want to accept from the Salaf and what they don’t want to accept, all the while claiming that their ‘aqeeda is the ‘aqeeda of the Salaf.

If they use Abu Hanifa’s words about the face, hand, and self as being proof that they follow the minhaaj and understanding of the Salaf, they should only say what the Salaf said and stop adding to their words.

So to accept that these are the words of Abu Hanifa, we’d either have to accept the first interpretation or we’d have to accept the second, which would mean that he is in contradiction with his self.

And if that is so, we’d have to accept that Abu Hanifa may not have been an authority on this subject.

As for referring to these problematic verses and hadiths as ‘Attribute Verses’ (Aayaat as-Sifaat) or ‘Reports of Attributes’ (Akhbaar as-Sifaat), this was the specific terminology that scholars used to refer to them even though they didn’t actually mean that such ascriptions mentioned in scripture were attributes of Allah. Imam Ibn Al-Jawzi’s words above clarify the error of this sort of designation. So hopefully that should resolve any confusion about the issue.

Was Salam
Abdullah

NOTES:

1, In Daar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah’s 1998/1418 publication of Kitaab al-Ibaanah, it reads on page 40:

“Haarun ibn Ishaaq al-Hamdaani mentioned about Abu Na’eem from Sulaimaan ibn ‘Eesaa Al-Qaari that Sufyaan Ath-Thauri said: “I said to Hammaad ibn Abi Sulaimaan: “Proclaim to Abu Hanifa, The Idolater, that I am innocent of him.”” Sulaimaan said: “Then Sufyaan said: “That’s because he used to say, ‘The Qur’an is created.’”

Sufyaan ibn Wakee’ said: “I heard ‘Umar ibn Hammaad, the grandson of Abu Hanifa, say: “My father said to me: “The comment that Ibn Abi Lailaa demanded that Abu Hanifa repent from was his statement: ‘The Qur’an is created.’” He (Hammaad) said: “So he repented from it and announced his repentance publicly. My (Hammaad) father said: “How did you turn to this?” He (Abu Hanifa) said: “I feared – By Allah – that I would be disciplined. So I used a misleading expression to trick him (heela).”

Haarun ibn Ishaaq said, “I heard Ismaa’eel ibn Abi Al-Hakam mention about ‘Umar ibn ‘Ubaid At-Tanaafusi that Hammaad – i.e. Ibn Abi Sulaimaan – sent someone to Abu Hanifa to say: “Verily I am innocent of what you say until you repent.”

Ibn Abi ‘Inabah was with him (i.e. Hammaad) and said: “Your neighbor told me that Abu Hanifa invited him to what he was asked to repent from after he had already been asked to repent from it.”
And it was mentioned that Abu Yusuf said, “I debated with Abu Hanifa for two months until he retracted his statement about the createdness of the Qur’an.”

[Al-Ash’ari, Abu al-Hasan (ascribed to him), Kitaab al-Ibaanah ‘an Usool ad-Diyaanah: 1998/1418 Daar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Marginal Notes by ‘Abdullah Mahmood Muhammad ‘Umar.]

On the same page, the commentator, Abdullah Mahmood Muhammad ‘Umar, makes the following comments:

“Tahaawi states in his book, Al-‘Aqeedah At-Tahaawiyyah, what contradicts these narrations that claim that Abu Hanifa used to state that the Qur’an is created. And Tahaawi is more reliable in transmission and more knowing of the creed of his comrades (Abu Hanifa and his two companions) than Al-Ash’ari is. Imam Tahaawi, the Hanafi, says: “The Qu’ran is the word of Allah. It came from Him as speech without it being possible to say how. He sent it down upon His messenger as revelation. The believers accept it as absolute truth. They are certain that it is, in truth, the word of Allah. It was not created like the speech of human beings…”

So the commentator, in spite of the fact that he seems to accept that the book is properly ascribed to Imam Al-Ash’ari, he establishes that such a claim made by him cannot be substantiated, since it conflicts with the reports given by those who have better knowledge of the creed of Abu Hanifa who conveyed it to the Ummah.

Add to this, Al-Ash’ari doesn’t list Imam Abu Hanifa among those who believed the Qur’an to be created in his book, Maqaalaat al-Islaamiyyeen, even though the narrations above from Al-Ibaanah give the impression that Abu Hanifa never actually relinquished the presumed belief that the Qur’an is created.

2. These seven attributes are referred to by Ash’aris as ‘The Abstract Attributes’ (Sifaat al-Ma’aani).

3. In addition to the seven aforementioned attributes, Ash’aris include the following six:

- Existence
- Permanence without beginning
- Endurance without end
- Absoluteness independence
- Dissimilarity to Created Things
- Oneness

Existence is known as the ‘Essential Attribute’ (As-sifah An-nafsiyyah), since without it Allah would not be able of being described by any of the others.

The other 5 are known as the ‘Negating Attributes’ (As-Sifaat As-Salbiyyah). This is because by establishing them, one negates their opposites from Allah’s being.

4. Ash’aris also include seven other attributes called ‘Signifying Attributes’ (As-Sifaat al-Ma’nawiyyah). They are:

- That Allah be Powerful
- That Allah be Willful
- That Allah be Knowing
- That Allah be Living
- That Allah be Seeing
- That Allah be Hearing
- That Allah be Speaking

They are called the ‘Signifying Attributes’ (As-Sifaat al-Ma’nawiyya), because they signify that Allah has the attribute that each adjective implies, i.e. power, will, knowledge, life, sight, hearing, and speech.

Abu Hanifa mentions only the 7 abstract attributes. But this doesn’t mean that he denies the existence of the other 13 mentioned by Ash’aris. This is because the ‘essential attribute’ of ‘existence’ and the other five negating attributes are characteristics of the 7 essential qualities. So they go without saying.

5 The reason that Abu Hanifa doesn’t mention the 5 ‘Negating Attributes’ (i.e. permanence without beginning, endurance without end, absolute independence, dissimilarity to creation, and oneness), the ‘Essential Attribute’ (Existence), and the 7 signifying attributes stated above, is that these attributes are actually qualities of Allah’s main qualities, which are the 7 Attributes of the Essence or as Ash’aris call them, ‘Abstract Attributes.’

6 The ‘creative-will’ is a translation of what Maaturidis refer to as ‘takhleeq.’

7 The ‘will to act’ is a translation for the word, ‘fi’l,’ usually translated as ‘action.’ I translated as ‘will to act’ since it is more in line with the actually creed of Maaturidis who based much of their creed off of the doctrine of Imam Abu Hanifa. To translate ‘fi’l’ as ‘action’ or ‘act’ would imply that the creation – one of Allah’s actions - is eternal without a beginning, since the author states that the ‘fi’l’ is uncreated.

8 In other words, to say such a thing would be equal to saying what the people who deny the divine decree (qadar) say and like the Mu’tazilites who say that every time Allah ascribes a hand to His self, it means ‘power.’

9 Imam Shaukaani states in his Irshaad al-Fuhool while discussing the different relationships that tie between literal and figurative language that one of them is, “Assigning a thing the name of one of its forms and manifestations, like using the word ‘hand’ to refer to ‘power…” [Irshaad al-Fuhool: 1/119] In other words, the hand is a form or manifestation of power. This would mean that when one says that the ‘hand’ is one of Allah’s attributes, he really means that it is His power even though a different word is used to apply to it. And Allah knows best.

**faqir** · 03-09-2005, 10:40 AM

A follow up question to the above response was posed on the Tariqul-Islam site. Please see attached file:

**faqir** · 03-09-2005, 10:44 AM

The Speech of Allah swt and Imam Abu Hanifah's stance towards it has already been dealt with in the response of ustadh Abdullah above.

See also the following link with various articles from the scholars of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah regarding this issue:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7630

.

**faqir** · 03-09-2005, 10:47 AM

As the "salafis" are keen on quoting from Imam Abu Hanifah and Imam Abu Ja'far al-Tahawi I am sure they will not then object to the following quotes:

"Allah existed eternally and there was no place. He existed before creating the creation. He existed, and there was no place, creation, or thing; and He is the Creator of everything."

Imam Abu Hanifa [Al-Fiqh al-Absat]

"Had He been in a place and needing to sit and rest before creating the Throne, then the question 'Where was Allah?' would have applied to Him, which is impossible."

Imam Abu Hanifa [Wasiyya al-Imam al-A'zam Abu Hanifa, pg. 10]

"Allah is supremely clear of all boundaries, extremes, sides, organs and instruments. The six directions do not contain Him--these are attributed to all created things."

Imam Abu Ja'far al-Tahawi [Al-Aqidah al-Tahawiyyah]

Wasalam.

**faqir** · 03-09-2005, 11:33 AM

An analysis of one of the quotes attributed to Imam Abu Hanifa RH in the article above and elsewhere was posted here