Ibn Rajab al Hanbali on the creed of Imam Ahmad and the Salaf

[aMuslimForLife]

Ibn Rajab al Hanbali on the creed of Imam Ahmad and the Salaf

Ibn Rajab al Hanbali said, “The correct position in all of this is the position of the Righteous Salaf in their leaving the verses and hadiths concerning the Attributes as they came without explanation, asking how or likening them to creation. There is nothing at all contravening this position that is authentically reported from them, especially Imam Ahmad. Neither is anything reported from them proving that they probed into their meanings or propounded analogies and similitudes for them. This, even though there some who lived close to the time of Ahmad who did do some of this, following the way of Maqqatil, but they are not to be followed in this. Those who should be followed are the Imam of Islam such as ibn al Mubarak, Malik, Thawri, Awza’I, Shafi, Ahmad, Ishaq, Abu ‘Ubaid and their likes.” (Fadhl 'Ilm al-Salaf 'ala 'Ilm al-Khalaf )

My Thoughts:

It is interesting to note in this statement of Ibn Rajab explaining the creed of the Salaf and in particular the creed of Imam Ahmad, he does not mention that their position concerning the unclear verses (ayat) and hadiths (narrations of the Prophet –sallahualayhiwasalam) related to Allah’s Attributes, that they are to be taken upon the literal meaning, but rather they would simply narrate them as they received them, as in the words of the Salaf themselves, “Leave them as they are without asking ‘How?”


The Creed of Imam Ahmad

Imam Ahmad (d. 241 AH) said, “Allah is not to be described other than in the terms with which He has described Himself, or in which the Messenger of Allah – sallahu alayhi wa salam- has described Him. We do not exceed the Quran and hadtih.” (IbnTaymiyyah Hamawiyya – pg 271-272)(IbnTaymiyya-majmu fatawa - 5:26)

Imam Ahmad also said, “We believe and confirm the hadiths of the Attributes without how and without meaning (wa la kayf wa la ma’na.) (Narrated from Hanbal ibn Ishaq through al Khallal by Ibn Qudamah in Dhamm al Tawil.)


The Creed of Those Who came before Imam Ahmad

Imam Shafi (d. 204 AH) was asked about the Divine Attributes. He said, “It is forbidden for the minds to represent Allah. It is forbidden for the imagination to conceive limits for Him. It is forbidden for speculation to presume anything about Him. It is forbidden for souls to think about His Essence. It is forbidden for consciences to deepen reflection about Him. It is forbidden for thoughts to grasp other than what He described Himself with, as conveyed by His Prophet –sallahualayhiwasalam. (Narrated from al Rabi ibnSulayman by IbnQudamah in Dhamm a Tawil g 20-21)

Nothing about the literal meaning...

Imam Shafi also said, “I believe in what comes from Allah in the meaning meant by the Messenger of Allah, sallahu alayhi wa salam.” (Ibn Qudamah in Lam’at al Itiqad)

Nothing about the literal meaning...


Al-Walid ibn Muslim (d. 194H) said, “I asked Malik, al-Awza’i, Laytb ibn Sa’d and Sufyan al-Thawri, may Allah have mercy upon them, concerning the reports related about the Attributes, so they all said, ‘Leave them as they are without asking ‘How?” (Reported by al-Aajurri in Ash-Sha’ri’ah, p. 314, al-Bayhaqi in Al-Asma was-Sifat, p. 453 and also al-I’tiqad, p. 118 and the chain of narration is hasan.)

Again nothing about taking them upon their literal meaning. .

Al-Awza’i (d.157H) said, “I asked az-Zuhri and Makhul about the ayat pertaining to the Sifat (Attributes of Allah), so they said, ‘Leave them as they are.” (Reported by al-Laalikaa’ee in SharhUsulul-I’tiqad 3/430 and IbnQudamah al-Maqdisi in Dhammut-Ta‘wil, p. 18 and the chain of narration is hasan.)

Again nothing about taking them upon their literal meaning.

There seems to be a pattern....

[aMuslimForLife]

Ibn Taymiyyah on the creed of the Salaf:

Ibn Taymiyyah says, “The Salafis, on the other hand, such as Al Khattabi, Abu Bakr Al Khatib and others have stated that the way of the Elders (Salaf) is to take the verses and hadiths of the attributes upon the dhahir (literal meaning)…..”

His proof:

His proof are all people who came after Imam Ahmad. Not a single one of them was from the first three generation, the Sahaba, the Tabieen and the tabi tabieen.

Al Khattabi died in 388 AH, Abu Bakr Al Khatubi died in 463 AH… and these people were not among the first three generations, the Salafus Saleh… (Early Righteous Muslims). And now there are people who are quoting Imam Tabari as evidence that the Salafus Saleh took the dhahir (literal meaning), and still he died in 380 AH.

It sound like this whole belief of taking the literal meaning is based on taqlid and not proof.

It is interesting to note that Ibn Rajab al Hanbali position of the Salaf doesn't conform to Ibn Taymiyyah position of the Salaf....

And Allah knows best....

[Abu Jahid]

Ibn Rajab al Hanbali on the creed of Imam Ahmad and the Salaf

Ibn Rajab al Hanbali said, “The correct position in all of this is the position of the Righteous Salaf in their leaving the verses and hadiths concerning the Attributes as they came without explanation, asking how or likening them to creation. There is nothing at all contravening this position that is authentically reported from them, especially Imam Ahmad. Neither is anything reported from them proving that they probed into their meanings or propounded analogies and similitudes for them. This, even though there some who lived close to the time of Ahmad who did do some of this, following the way of Maqqatil, but they are not to be followed in this. Those who should be followed are the Imam of Islam such as ibn al Mubarak, Malik, Thawri, Awza’I, Shafi, Ahmad, Ishaq, Abu ‘Ubaid and their likes.” (Fadhl 'Ilm al-Salaf 'ala 'Ilm al-Khalaf )

My Thoughts:

It is interesting to note in this statement of Ibn Rajab explaining the creed of the Salaf and in particular the creed of Imam Ahmad, he does not mention that their position concerning the unclear verses (ayat) and hadiths (narrations of the Prophet –sallahualayhiwasalam) related to Allah’s Attributes, that they are to be taken upon the literal meaning, but rather they would simply narrate them as they received them, as in the words of the Salaf themselves, “Leave them as they are without asking ‘How?”

My Thoughts:

If you want to be a Mu'attil then you're free to do so, but there is really no need for this dishonesty.
You very well know that the Hanabilah are not upon the 'Aqidah of the Asha'irah and it's a known matter that a real Hanbali/Athari would never ever go against the Dhahir, because we do NOT regard the Dhahir of the Qur`an al-karim and the Ahadith about the Sifat to be be Kufr unlike the Asha'irah and the other Mutakallimun, who do regard it as Kufr.
You wanna me show you what the Hanabilah thought about the Asha'irah??

And in the quote you brought from Imam Ibn Rajab (rahimahullah) there is nothing to support your position.

Imam Ibn Rajab said in his "Fath al-Bari":

ومن قال: الظاهر منها غير مراد، قيل له: الظاهر ظاهران: ظاهر يليق ببالمخلوقين ويختص بهم، فهو غير مراد، وظاهر يليق بذي الجلال والإكرام، فهو مراد، ونفيه تعطيل

And the one who says: 'The Dhahir (apparent meaning) is not intended', it is said to him: The Dhahir is 2 Dhahirs (Dhahiran): a Dhahir that is befitting of the creation, and is specifically for them, this is (the one) not intended, and a Dhahir that is befitting of the Owner of Majesty and Honour (meaning: Allah ta'ala), this is (the one) intended, and rejecting/negating it is Ta'til.

Source: It can be found under 233/7 in this link: http://sh.rewayat2.com/shoro7hadith/Web/137/003.htm
(The translation is by sister "Um Abdullah M.", but I changed it a little bit.)

And before you claim something else, then please read what he said right after that:

ولقد قال بعض أئمة الكلام والفلسفة من شيوخ الصوفية، الذي يحسن به الظن المتكلمون: إن المتكلمين بالغوا في تنزيه الله عن مشابهة الأجسام، فوقعوا في تشبيهه بالمعاني، والمعاني محدثة كالأجسام، فلم يخرجوا عن تشبيهه بالمخلوقات.
وهذا كله إنما أتى من ظن أن تفاصيل معرفة الجائز على الله والمستحيل عليه يؤخذ من أدلة العقول، ولا يؤخذ مما جاء به الرسول.
وأما أهل العلم والايمأن، فيعلمون أن ذلك كله متلقى مماجاء به الرسول - صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - وأن ما جاء به من ذلك عن ربه فهو الحق الذي لا مزيد عليه، ولا عدول عنه، وأنه لا سبيل لتلقي الهدى إلا منه، وأنه ليس في
كتاب الله ولا سنة رسوله الصحيحة ما ظاهره كفر أو تشبيه، أو مستحيل، بل كل ما أثبته الله لنفسه، أو أثبته له رسوله، فإنه حق وصدقٍ، يجب اعتقاد ثبوته مع نفي التمثيل عنه، فكما أن الله ليس كمثله شيء في ذاته، فكذلك في صفاته

Did you read the sentence that I marked in red ("وأنه ليس في كتاب الله ولا سنة رسوله الصحيحة ما ظاهره كفر أو تشبيه")?: "And there is nothing in the book of Allah or in the authentic Sunnah of his messenger, whose Dhahir is Kufr or Tashbih".

Subhanallah, can it get clearer than that??

So can you please leave this dishonesty and stop claiming things about the Hanabilah, even though you don't know anything about them!

It sound like this whole belief of taking the literal meaning is based on taqlid and not proof.

Really? Then please show us your proof for the following points:

- that one should accept the Dhahir of 6 Sifat ('Ilm, Hayat, Basar, Sam', Qudrah and Iradah) only and reject the Dhahir of all other Sifat. (I didn't mention speech (Kalam), because according to our Hanbali/Athari scholars the Asha'irah are not making Ithbat of it.)
- that Allah ta'ala has not created Adam ('alayhi salam) with his hands
- that Allah ta'ala did not speak directly to Musa ('alayhi salam)
- that Allah ta'ala is not above seven heavens and distinct from his creation
- that Allah ta'ala does not descend in the last third of the night
- that Allah ta'ala has not the Sifah of Rahmah (mercy), rather one should make Ta`wil of Rahmah and say that it's the "good willing of Allah ta'ala for his slave"
- etc.

Are you able to show us a proof for anything of the above mentioned points?? (We both know that you aren't able to so!)
What does that mean? This means that you're making Taqlid in 'Aqidah from some Mutakallimun and that you're are going against the words of Allah ta'ala and that of his messenger (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam)!

[aMuslimForLife]

My Thoughts:


So can you please leave this dishonesty and stop claiming things about the Hanabilah, even though you don't know anything about them!

The point of my thread is to illustrate the creed of the Salaf

No where did I say the late Hanbali school followed the way of the Salaf....

I merely only quoted Ibn Rajab al Hanbali assessment of the creed of the Salaf... And showed that his assessment is accurate... However I did show that Ibn Taymiyyah assessment of the Salaf is not accurate.... In that They didn't take the verses and Hadith on its literally meaning...

Even ibn Rajab never claims that the Salaf took*Them literally... He merely only stated (in fath bari) they never opposed it... (my thoughts: they never affirmed the literally meaning either, also regarding ibn taymiyyah application and understanding of dhahir, i say how can the Salaf oppose something that never existed... Who among the early Muslims (be they mutazila or whatever sect) ever said Allah has a hand haqiqatan (literally) for them*To oppose it)

If you want my current *opinion concerning the The Late Hanbali school (which I will be more specific, according to Ibn Qudamah) it is that the unclear verses and Hadith related to Allah's Attributes are to be taken upon their literal meaning (dhahir). I'm not sure what dhahir means to Ibn Qudamah but it does appear to be his position... And I'm not sure if Ibn Qudamah and Ibn Tamiyyah applied dhahir in the same way... Because I don't think ibn Qudamah ever said Allah has hands haqiqatan.... (literally) which seems to be the creed of Ibn Taymiyyah...

I'm NOT going to sit up here and say that what Ibn Qudamah or Ibn Taymiyyah said leads to kufr, but I will say with confidence that there is no evidence that taking the literal meaning was the way of the Salaf (first three generations).

In regards to the early Hanbali school... I don't have an opinion regarding them because I have not read many of their books.

Really? Then please show us your proof for the following points:

- that one should accept the Dhahir of 6 Sifat ('Ilm, Hayat, Basar, Sam', Qudrah and Iradah) only and reject the Dhahir of all other Sifat. (I didn't mention speech (Kalam), because according to our Hanbali/Athari scholars the Asha'irah are not making Ithbat of it.)
- that Allah ta'ala has not created Adam ('alayhi salam) with his hands
- that Allah ta'ala did not speak directly to Musa ('alayhi salam)
- that Allah ta'ala is not above seven heavens and distinct from his creation
- that Allah ta'ala does not descend in the last third of the night
- that Allah ta'ala has not the Sifah of Rahmah (mercy), rather one should make Ta`wil of Rahmah and say that it's the "good willing of Allah ta'ala for his slave"
- etc.

Are you able to show us a proof for anything of the above mentioned points?? (We both know that you aren't able to so!)
What does that mean? This means that you're making Taqlid in 'Aqidah from some Mutakallimun and that you're are going against the words of Allah ta'ala and that of his messenger (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam)!

Who said I agreed or even disagreed with anything you mentioned???

There is no obligation to follow the mutaklimeen in matters of creed according to Nawawii... And regarding*This I make taqlid on Nawawii...

And Allah knows best...

[warea]

Dont be fooled by salafi play with the word "dhaahir" and on that mere basis trying to associate it with their group.

Ibn Taymiyyah said:

Quote:ثم كثير من هؤلاء يقولون : تجري على ظاهرها فظاهرها مراد مع قولهم : إن لها تأويلا بهذا المعنى لا يعلمه إلا الله ، وهذا تناقض وقع فيه كثير من هؤلاء المنتسبين إلى السنة*Many from amongst them (i.e. Mufawwidha) say that they (passages on Sifaat) are to be passed along upon their Dhaahir. Their Dhaahir is what is intended, while they say: "It has an interpretation, which only Allah knows". And this contradiction has been committed by many of those who ascribe themselves to the Sunnah.*(Majmu' Al-Fataawa, Volume 5, page 35)

Therefore affirming the dhaahir alone is not enough to claim that a person is not a mufawwid. This is because the word dhaahir is understood in ways beyond the "literal meaning" creed of salafis.

[al-boriqi]

My Thoughts:

It is interesting to note in this statement of Ibn Rajab explaining the creed of the Salaf and in particular the creed of Imam Ahmad, he does not mention that their position concerning the unclear verses (ayat) and hadiths (narrations of the Prophet –sallahualayhiwasalam) related to Allah’s Attributes, that they are to be taken upon the literal meaning, but rather they would simply narrate them as they received them, as in the words of the Salaf themselves, “Leave them as they are without asking ‘How?”

asalamu alaykum warahmatullah akhee

firstly I disagree fully with employing the term "literal" when trying to describe the Athari concept of ijra’ adh-dhawaahir ‘ala mawaridiha, bila kayf

The most proper terms to use instead of "literal" are "apparent" or "obvious" and not "literal"

Secondly, when the salaf like Ahmad and before use to say "leave them as they are" then this phrasal clause IS pertaining to its dhaahir. That is the meaning of "leave them as they are" meaning upon its dhaahir.

This is similar to an argument I had with Abu Najm Muhamamd, in which he finally concured in that when they believed that Allah actually Istawa alal-arsh, then this meant Allah "bi dhaatih" i.e. Allah Himself and it did not mean other than Allah or a concept that made istawaa. The salaf did not have to say "bi dhaatih" in order to believe that it was Allah Himself who made istawa alal-arsh. Therefore when the later salaf like Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawaani and others employed bi dhaatih, it was to counter the jahmi argument of Allah being everywhere, and it can as well be used to counter the atheism argument of Ash'aris that Allah is no where.

The same applies here, when they said "pass them on as they have come", it means to pass these ayaat "as is" and as is has a "meaning" and Imaam maalik, the Imaam of the Atharis prior to Ahmad affirmed the fact that the Sifaat actuall have meanings that we know and we make tafweed of how it is.

asalamu alaykum

[al-boriqi]

I merely only quoted Ibn Rajab al Hanbali assessment of the creed of the Salaf... And showed that his assessment is accurate...

asalamu alaykum. How on earth do you call your misappropriation of Ibn Rab's creed as "accurate" when you haven't even relied on everything he said on the topic. This is half baked analysis to say the least and Abu Jahid had to correct you by pointing out some other statements you failed to bring up which contextualize the entire matter to be very different than your depiction of it presented in the first post, a clear indivation of proving stances based on your own predilections.

However I did show that Ibn Taymiyyah assessment of the Salaf is not accurate.... In that They didn't take the verses and Hadith on its literally meaning...

Another half baked analysis in the reverse because no where does he said this, he actually says that we take them upon the "dhawaahir" which is not the meaning of "literal". What further implicates this analysis of your to be bogus is the fact that Ibn rajb's creed is almost a direct extraction of Ibn Taymiyyah's.

For instance, in his tawtheeq for the creed of the Hanbali mujtahid Abdul-Ghaani al-Maqdisi, he says in his Dhayl Tabaqaat al-Hanaabilah

“In regards to his saying: «I do not affirm a transcendence for Him (Allah) that negates the reality of (the attribute of) nuzool (descending).» If this is authentically established from Him (i.e. Abdul Ghani al-Maqdisi alHanbali), it is the truth. It is like one saying: ‘I do not affirm a transcendence for Him (Allah) that negates the reality of His existence, or the reality of His speech, or the reality of His knowledge, or His hearing, or His sight, and so on.”

Even ibn Rajab never claims that the Salaf took*Them literally... He merely only stated (in fath bari) they never opposed it...

That reasoning makes no sense to nobody. In thecontext of aqeedah, there is only what is taken, or it is opposed because the subject matter of tawqeefiyyah which inevitably means that issues are either to be followed, or they are warned against. If they never "opposed" taking them "literally" (as you word it), then that means ipso facto that they accepted it.

Furthermore, if taking them as you word it "literally" was faulty, then the salaf by default HAD to by obligation warn from it and had to oppose it. Otherwise this is charging the salaf with negligence in the preservation of orthodoxy.

So either they never opposed it, which inadvertantly means they accepted it
OR
they opposed it, which inadvertantly means they were obligated to warn from it

Hence, if there is nothing coming from them about warning from it, and the issue did exist in their time, then it only means that this is by default their acceptance of it.

asalamu alaykum

[aMuslimForLife]

asalamu alaykum warahmatullah akhee
firstly I disagree fully with employing the term "literal" when trying to describe the Athari concept of ijra’ adh-dhawaahir ‘ala mawaridiha, bila kayf
The most proper terms to use instead of "literal" are "apparent" or "obvious" and not "literal"

Wa alaykum wa salam my dear brother,

I could care less how you understand dhahir… Allah and His Messenger, sallahu alayhi wa salam, never used such terms when describing Allah and His Attributes… So why should I be concerned with how you understand dhahir??? Why???

The fact of the matter, I am not interested in following you and the innovation of taking the unclear verses and hadith pertaining to Allah’s Attribute upon its literal meaning..

I am interested in following the Quran and Sunnah….

If your creed is not innovative, then where is the hadith in which Allah’s Messenger said, Allah’s hand is to be taken literally, or apparently, or obviously.

Secondly, when the salaf like Ahmad and before use to say "leave them as they are" then this phrasal clause IS pertaining to its dhaahir. That is the meaning of "leave them as they are" meaning upon its dhaahir.

Interesting theory but no proof… Well, I wouldn’t even call this half baked, you simply forgot to bring the oven…

This is similar to an argument I had with Abu Najm Muhamamd,

I like Abu Najm Muhammad, I find some of his post insightful, although I don’t agree with all his conclusions… I consider him sincere and genuine.

asalamu alaykum. How on earth do you call your misappropriation of Ibn Rab's creed as "accurate" when you haven't even relied on everything he said on the topic. This is half baked analysis to say the least and Abu Jahid had to correct you by pointing out some other statements you failed to bring up which contextualize the entire matter to be very different than your depiction of it presented in the first post, a clear indivation of proving stances based on your own predilections.

I didn’t speak about Ibn Rajab’s creed at all… I merely spoke about the creed of the Salaf… and I said, that Ibn Rajab’s assessment of the creed of the Salaf is accurate…

That reasoning makes no sense to nobody. In the context of aqeedah, there is only what is taken, or it is opposed because the subject matter of tawqeefiyyah which inevitably means that issues are either to be followed, or they are warned against. If they never "opposed" taking them "literally" (as you word it), then that means ipso facto that they accepted it.
Furthermore, if taking them as you word it "literally" was faulty, then the salaf by default HAD to by obligation warn from it and had to oppose it. Otherwise this is charging the salaf with negligence in the preservation of orthodoxy.
So either they never opposed it, which inadvertantly means they accepted it
OR
they opposed it, which inadvertantly means they were obligated to warn from it
Hence, if there is nothing coming from them about warning from it, and the issue did exist in their time, then it only means that this is by default their acceptance of it.

I understand your argument however I disagree…

No one during the time of the first three generations among the Sahaba, Tabi’een, and the Tabi Tabieen ever said, ‘The hands of Allah are to be taken haqiqatan’ or ‘Allah is above His Throne bi dhatihi.’

So I ask Ibn Rajab, how can the Salaf oppose something that did not exist during their time???

And Allah knows best.

[al-boriqi]

Wa alaykum wa salam my dear brother,

I could care less how you understand dhahir…

thats great. I was not asking you to. You are only obligated to follow how the rabbaani ulema have understood dhaahir, and that is whom I follow.

Allah and His Messenger, sallahu alayhi wa salam, never used such terms when describing Allah and His Attributes… So why should I be concerned with how you understand dhahir??? Why???

Because the prime athari principle with us, as the people of the sunnah and the jama'ah, is that
"We deny what Allah and His Messenger deny for Him, we fully accept everything whar Allah and His Messenger accepted for Him, and wherever they were silent, then we INVESTIGATE the matter and affirm what is correct and appropriate for Him and we reject what is contrary to this for Him"

That means that whenever Allah or His Messenger were silent, it does not by "default" mean that it is to be rejected. That is the false understanding of people infected with kalaam theology while trying to understand and acsertain the Athari aqeedah.

In light of this fact, our Athari Imaams including Imaam Ahli-Sunnah Ahmad bin Hanbal clearly affirmed understanding the Sifaat according to its dhaahir.

The fact of the matter, I am not interested in following you and the innovation of taking the unclear verses and hadith pertaining to Allah’s Attribute upon its literal meaning..

Im sorry to burst your bubble, but you've already did that. Did you know that the Aimah considered "laysa kamithlihi shay" as among the mutashabih. Apparently you didn't. Part of the reason why you didn't is because you have been educated under a western "English" format of understanding the concept of mutashaabih rather than how the Arabs understood it.

I am interested in following the Quran and Sunnah….

The qadari that Sufyaan ath-Thawri inquired about also claimed the same. Claims are worthless in light of substantive analysis.

If your creed is not innovative, then where is the hadith in which Allah’s Messenger said, Allah’s hand is to be taken literally, or apparently, or obviously.

The creed that commands you to believe in everything Allah said as He meant it just as Shafi'ee said.

Secondly, a hadeeth is not needed in the wake of forming an understanding of the Qur'an and Sunnah, otherwise we would all need hadeeths about legitimizing tassawuf, the principles that were formed in usoolul-fiqh, maqaasidu-shar'iyyah, etc.

I didn’t speak about Ibn Rajab’s creed at all… I merely spoke about the creed of the Salaf… and I said, that Ibn Rajab’s assessment of the creed of the Salaf is accurate…

that was what warranted the comment bro. You in this galaxy could you have landed on this conclusion that Ibn Rajb's assessment of the creed of the salaf was accurate in the failure of assessing the entirety of what he said about the creed of the salaf. I mean, you did know that he opined that the madhaab of the salaf was to accept the sifaat on their "dhaahir", right. That is antithetical to your own conclusions and how you understand what the creed of the salaf was, yes you find his conclusion accurate. That is a contradiction which I was trying to highlight.

I understand your argument however I disagree…

No one during the time of the first three generations among the Sahaba, Tabi’een, and the Tabi Tabieen ever said, ‘The hands of Allah are to be taken haqiqatan’ or ‘Allah is above His Throne bi dhatihi.’

that was unecessary and they didn't need to because it was already a given. When atheism entered into the Islamic realm under the auspices of the Jahmiyyah and M'utazilah, then that is when these "already understood meanings inherent in the texts concerning sifaat" had to be spoken.

asalamu alaykum

[aMuslimForLife]

thats great. I was not asking you to. You are only obligated to follow how the rabbaani ulema have understood dhaahir, and that is whom I follow.

I am only obligated to follow the scholars when they are correct, not when they are mistaken... Allah has only obligated us to follow the scholars... He never said, I had to follow the Hanbalis...

that was unecessary and they didn't need to because it was already a given. When atheism entered into the Islamic realm under the auspices of the Jahmiyyah and M'utazilah, then that is when these "already understood meanings inherent in the texts concerning sifaat" had to be spoken.

asalamu alaykum

Wa alaykum salam,

That is your belief, you haven't proven it to me. Just because you are convinced of this, doesn't mean I am... I am not ignorant of your beliefs and your proofs... I just don't agree with how you understand those proofs...

The fact of the matter is this, all those who say they are Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah, be he Hanbali, Ashari, Maturidi, we all believe it necessary to follow the Quran and the Sunnah, we also believe it necessary to follow the Salaf... We differ because we understand the statements of the Salaf differently...

The Athari text of the Asharis and Maturidis is Aqidah Tahawi.... This is our Athari approach toward the Quran, Sunnah and the statements of the Salaf... This seems to be the approach that is embraced by Imam Nawawi, Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani, Imam Suyuti, Imam Ibn Hajar al Haytami.... I mention these scholars because they are among the muhaditheen.... They have more of a tafwid approach...

The Athari approach of the Hanbalis is slightly different... They have a dhahir approach...

We (Me and You) are both Athari, but our approach toward the primary sources (Quran,Sunnah and statements of the Salaf) is different... Thus we are going to have different conclusions...

Im sorry to burst your bubble, but you've already did that. Did you know that the Aimah considered "laysa kamithlihi shay" as among the mutashabih. Apparently you didn't. Part of the reason why you didn't is because you have been educated under a western "English" format of understanding the concept of mutashaabih rather than how the Arabs understood it.
asalamu alaykum

Actually part of the reason we differ is our Athari approach…

The Hanbali approach

The Late Hanbali school when dealing with the unclear verses and hadith pertaining the Attributes of Allah, is you guys, Affirm and then you negate for example… You say, Allah has a hand literally… then you negate… it’s not a limb, it’s not a part….

The Ashari/Maturidi Approach

The Ashari/Maturidi, we negate and then we affirm… Allah doesn’t have parts, because He is Ahad… And then we affirm hand.. we can’t affirm the literal meaning, because we already negated the literal meaning in the beginning….

We believe our approach is actually Quranic in nature and Islamic as a whole, as the very essence of Tawhid is to negate first and then affirm….

La Ilaha Illa Allah… Negations, then Affirmation…. … Islamic
There is nothing like Him, yet He is Hearing and Seeing…. Quranic
Again, Negation then Affirmation…

And this is how our basic Aqidah text are designed….
First we have to acknowledge, His Existence, and then we teach
Attributes of Negation, and then the Attributes of Affirmation…

So I would strongly disagree that our approach is western.... It is Islamic and very Quranic in nature....

And Allah knows best....