Al-Salamu 'alaykum wa rahmatullah,
After I had several discussions in different threads with the brother AmantuBillahi regarding the issue of the belief ('Aqida) of the Hanabila / Ahl al-Athar of the past in comparison to the modern-day "Salafis" I decided to open this thread here so that other threads are not filled with off-topic posts regarding this issue.
Before going on I would like to make a general note:
The best way to find out what a specific group believes is to look what the accepted scholars (i.e. accepted by the group itself) of that group wrote regarding beliefs ('Aqida). To rely upon what others claim regarding a group can NOT be used as a proof regarding their beliefs. Likewise picking just one scholar out of a group who is affiliated with them - but may have abnormal views [in their viewpoint] or unclear statements - can NOT be used to judge the beliefs of the whole group.
So let's try to implement the above point on the Hanabila / Ahl al-Athar of the past:
The best way to find out what they believed is to look what their authorities wrote in their treatises / books regarding beliefs. These treatises / books include:
- Lum'at al-I'tiqad [al-Hadi ila Sabil al-Rashad] by Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH)
- Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in [fi Usul al-Din] by Ibn Hamdan (d. 695 AH)
- Al-'Ayn wal Athar [fi 'Aqa`id Ahl al-Athar] by 'Abd al-Baqi al-Mawahibi (d. 1071 AH)
- Qala`id al-'Iqyan [fi Ikhtisar 'Aqidat Ibn Hamdan] by Ibn Balban (d. 1083 AH)
- Najat al-Khalaf [fi I'tiqad al-Salaf] by 'Uthman al-Najdi (d. 1097 AH)
- Al-Durra al-Mudhiyya [fi 'Aqd Ahl al-Firqa al-Mardhiyya] (famous 'Aqida poem better known as al-Saffariniyya) by al-Saffarini (d. 1188) (its explanation Lawami' al-Anwar al-Bahiyya [wa Sawati' al-Asrar al-Athariyya] is also written by the same author)
- etc.
When looking inside the above books one sees that they basically contain all the same beliefs without any major differences, so it is safe to say that these books represent the Hanbali / Athari beliefs.
The modern-day "Salafis" however rely heavily on Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) and Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) for their beliefs and ignore (and in many cases are even ignorant of) whatever the authorities of the Hanabila believed and or did not believe.
(In Fiqh the modern-day "Salafis" have no clear Usul and have created quite a huge mess and have clear Dhahiri tendencies, so it would not be correct in any way or form to regard them as Hanbalis in Fiqh. That's why I don't see any need for discussing whether they're Hanbalis in Fiqh or not and suffice with with discussing their beliefs only.)
As for Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH):
He can NOT be regarded as a scholar in the first place and was rejected by literally ALL the Hanbali scholars of his region, while he himself was deviant to such a degree to make Takfir upon ALL of them!
His major problem was that he regarded some Fiqhi issues as major issues of belief and disbelief and started to regard people as polytheists and disbelievers based upon that. He did not stop here: He said that whosoever does not regard these people as polytheists and/or disbelievers is himself a disbeliever. This lead him to regard basically all Muslims and their scholars as polytheists and disbelievers. The issues based upon which he started his Takfir were usually issues which were either forbidden, disliked and sometimes allowed or even recommended (especially something like seeking intercession with our beloved Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam).
Imagine: All this Takfir for issues which have NOT even been mentioned ONCE in classical 'Aqida texts, whether by Atharis, Ash'aris or Maturidis!!
And when he mentioned an issue where the classical scholars had indeed mentioned that it is disbelief, then he did this without applying the Tafsil that was mentioned by them and rushed towards Takfir (which is clearly indicating ignorance and extremism on his part).
Another issue was that he was hell-bent on proving that the Muslims of his time were worse than the Makkan pagans of the past and that the Makkan pagans where complete monotheists regarding the lordship of Allah ta'ala (that his claim meant to openly reject hundreds of Ayat and Ahadith did not disturb him in the least).
(I think AmantuBillahi agrees with me that he does not represent real Hanabila.)
As for the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) however: '
He is a major Hanbali scholar with broad and detailed knowledge in the Islamic sciences and very much respected among the Hanabila after him.
He had a number of abnormal views regarding Fiqh (law) and 'Aqida (belief), while his abnormal views regarding beliefs were more in number and greater in danger. The Hanabila would refer to him in both sciences while usually ignoring his mistakes and abnormal views and not taking them into consideration.
He himself admitted that he used to be upon "the Madhhab of the forefathers" in the Aslayn (meaning Usul al-Fiqh and Usul al-Din) and then changed his position. The interesting thing here to know is that his father was a classical Hanbali and that his grandfather the Imam Majd al-Din Ibn Taymiyya (d. 652 AH) was among the greatest scholars of the Hanabila, so leaving their way means to leave the relied upon positions of the Hanabila.
Imam Ibn Rajab (d. 795 AH) who like other Hanbalis respected him very much acknowledged that the Shaykh had abnormal views and even called the Hanbali judges who stopped him from issuing such Fatawa (i.e. containing abnormal positions) as upright ('adl) in his Dhayl Tabaqat al-Hanabila!
While Ibn Taymiyya has statements in his books which clearly go in the direction of Tajsim, Hanbali scholars like the 'Allama Yunis bin Mansur al-Buhuti (d. 1051 AH) defended him from the accusations of Tajsim. Likewise I have heard from [real] Hanbali Shuyukh in our time that even though Ibn Taymiyya had abnormal views in beliefs and differed from the relied upon positions of the Hanabila in some issues, he still was innocent of the accusation of Tajsim. What they also mention is that the works of Ibn Taymiyya are quite difficult and that beginners should not start with his books, rather his books should only be studied by people who are advanced in the knowledge of the Islamic sciences.
It seems that when it comes to the issue of Tajsim Ibn Taymiyya's case is similar to that of Shaykh Ibn al-Arabi (d. 638 AH) in the issue of Wahdat al-Wujud. Both scholars have problematic views and both of them have been defended by scholars who did not hold these problematic views. I guess one needs to be a scholar and to be affiliated to the same Madhhab (in the case of Ibn Taymiyya) or belong to a Sufi Tariqa (in the case Ibn al-'Arabi) to really understand them correctly.
What the "Salafis" now do is the following: They read Ibn Taymiyya's works and based upon what they understand or misunderstand from him they then claim "this is the Hanbali / Athari approach" or even go a step further and claim "this is what the Salaf al-salih believed", while completely ignoring [or even being ignorant of] what the Hanabila before and after him have stated regarding beliefs and what their relied upon positions were.
To take ones own understanding of the words of one scholar and then to act as if is the understanding of a whole Madhhab or worse the Salaf al-salih is not just completely unacademic, but it also shows the level of ones fanatism towards that scholar and also towards ones own understanding.
The other thing is that we know that the "Salafis" lack in their level of understanding to the degree that some of their Mashayikh openly say that when reading the works of the likes of Imam al-Ghazali (d. 505 AH) they did not understand him due to the usage of 'Ilm al-Kalam. Then the question arises how they understood the works of Ibn Taymiyya - especially those regarding beliefs - which are literally filled with Kalami discussions?!
The one who wants to see how "Salafis" reject Hanbali / Athari beliefs and put their own [lack of] understanding above everything, should simply go and read what their editors do when printing any classical Hanbali text regard 'Aqida:
Just concentrate on reading their footnotes. You'll see them every now and then saying things like "this statement of author is general... if he intends this, then this is wrong..." or they will just directly dismiss what the author said by saying "this is wrong and not according to the Madhhab of the Salaf..." or "this is from the way of the Mufawwidha" (maybe because the classical Hanabila supported Tafwidh!?) or "this is from the way of the people of Kalam".
And what is their proof regarding all of these claims of mistakes in classical Hanbali texts? The answer: "Shaykh al-Islam said...". This is how the religion of Allah works according to them. There is no doubt that the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya would not have supported this fanatism and blind following.
Start by reading the explanations (read: distorsions!) that these "Salafis" have written regarding Lum'at al-I'tiqad by Imam Ibn Qudama (a book that is so clear that until the "Salafis" came up no one even thought of writing an explanation regarding it!), then go and read the footnotes by "Salafi" editors in Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in by Imam Ibn Hamdan and then other classical Hanbali texts and you'll see them doing this over and over again to the degree that one asks oneself?:
Why do they even print these works, when they find fault on almost every page?
If one looks at the general mindset of the classical scholars however one sees that they regarded the one following one of the 4 accepted Madhahib in Fiqh and being upon the Ash'ari, Maturidi or Athari way in 'Aqida (belief) as a member of the Ahl al-Sunna. Some of the staunch Ash'aris and staunch Hanabila used to regard eachother as innovators (and you'll find that also between the Ash'aris and the Maturidis), but the general mindset was clearly: All three groups are Sunnis and this is explicitly mentioned in Hanbali books like in al-'Ayn wal Athar and in Lawami' al-Anwar.
After I had several discussions in different threads with the brother AmantuBillahi regarding the issue of the belief ('Aqida) of the Hanabila / Ahl al-Athar of the past in comparison to the modern-day "Salafis" I decided to open this thread here so that other threads are not filled with off-topic posts regarding this issue.
Before going on I would like to make a general note:
The best way to find out what a specific group believes is to look what the accepted scholars (i.e. accepted by the group itself) of that group wrote regarding beliefs ('Aqida). To rely upon what others claim regarding a group can NOT be used as a proof regarding their beliefs. Likewise picking just one scholar out of a group who is affiliated with them - but may have abnormal views [in their viewpoint] or unclear statements - can NOT be used to judge the beliefs of the whole group.
So let's try to implement the above point on the Hanabila / Ahl al-Athar of the past:
The best way to find out what they believed is to look what their authorities wrote in their treatises / books regarding beliefs. These treatises / books include:
- Lum'at al-I'tiqad [al-Hadi ila Sabil al-Rashad] by Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH)
- Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in [fi Usul al-Din] by Ibn Hamdan (d. 695 AH)
- Al-'Ayn wal Athar [fi 'Aqa`id Ahl al-Athar] by 'Abd al-Baqi al-Mawahibi (d. 1071 AH)
- Qala`id al-'Iqyan [fi Ikhtisar 'Aqidat Ibn Hamdan] by Ibn Balban (d. 1083 AH)
- Najat al-Khalaf [fi I'tiqad al-Salaf] by 'Uthman al-Najdi (d. 1097 AH)
- Al-Durra al-Mudhiyya [fi 'Aqd Ahl al-Firqa al-Mardhiyya] (famous 'Aqida poem better known as al-Saffariniyya) by al-Saffarini (d. 1188) (its explanation Lawami' al-Anwar al-Bahiyya [wa Sawati' al-Asrar al-Athariyya] is also written by the same author)
- etc.
When looking inside the above books one sees that they basically contain all the same beliefs without any major differences, so it is safe to say that these books represent the Hanbali / Athari beliefs.
The modern-day "Salafis" however rely heavily on Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) and Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) for their beliefs and ignore (and in many cases are even ignorant of) whatever the authorities of the Hanabila believed and or did not believe.
(In Fiqh the modern-day "Salafis" have no clear Usul and have created quite a huge mess and have clear Dhahiri tendencies, so it would not be correct in any way or form to regard them as Hanbalis in Fiqh. That's why I don't see any need for discussing whether they're Hanbalis in Fiqh or not and suffice with with discussing their beliefs only.)
As for Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH):
He can NOT be regarded as a scholar in the first place and was rejected by literally ALL the Hanbali scholars of his region, while he himself was deviant to such a degree to make Takfir upon ALL of them!
His major problem was that he regarded some Fiqhi issues as major issues of belief and disbelief and started to regard people as polytheists and disbelievers based upon that. He did not stop here: He said that whosoever does not regard these people as polytheists and/or disbelievers is himself a disbeliever. This lead him to regard basically all Muslims and their scholars as polytheists and disbelievers. The issues based upon which he started his Takfir were usually issues which were either forbidden, disliked and sometimes allowed or even recommended (especially something like seeking intercession with our beloved Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam).
Imagine: All this Takfir for issues which have NOT even been mentioned ONCE in classical 'Aqida texts, whether by Atharis, Ash'aris or Maturidis!!
And when he mentioned an issue where the classical scholars had indeed mentioned that it is disbelief, then he did this without applying the Tafsil that was mentioned by them and rushed towards Takfir (which is clearly indicating ignorance and extremism on his part).
Another issue was that he was hell-bent on proving that the Muslims of his time were worse than the Makkan pagans of the past and that the Makkan pagans where complete monotheists regarding the lordship of Allah ta'ala (that his claim meant to openly reject hundreds of Ayat and Ahadith did not disturb him in the least).
(I think AmantuBillahi agrees with me that he does not represent real Hanabila.)
As for the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) however: '
He is a major Hanbali scholar with broad and detailed knowledge in the Islamic sciences and very much respected among the Hanabila after him.
He had a number of abnormal views regarding Fiqh (law) and 'Aqida (belief), while his abnormal views regarding beliefs were more in number and greater in danger. The Hanabila would refer to him in both sciences while usually ignoring his mistakes and abnormal views and not taking them into consideration.
He himself admitted that he used to be upon "the Madhhab of the forefathers" in the Aslayn (meaning Usul al-Fiqh and Usul al-Din) and then changed his position. The interesting thing here to know is that his father was a classical Hanbali and that his grandfather the Imam Majd al-Din Ibn Taymiyya (d. 652 AH) was among the greatest scholars of the Hanabila, so leaving their way means to leave the relied upon positions of the Hanabila.
Imam Ibn Rajab (d. 795 AH) who like other Hanbalis respected him very much acknowledged that the Shaykh had abnormal views and even called the Hanbali judges who stopped him from issuing such Fatawa (i.e. containing abnormal positions) as upright ('adl) in his Dhayl Tabaqat al-Hanabila!
While Ibn Taymiyya has statements in his books which clearly go in the direction of Tajsim, Hanbali scholars like the 'Allama Yunis bin Mansur al-Buhuti (d. 1051 AH) defended him from the accusations of Tajsim. Likewise I have heard from [real] Hanbali Shuyukh in our time that even though Ibn Taymiyya had abnormal views in beliefs and differed from the relied upon positions of the Hanabila in some issues, he still was innocent of the accusation of Tajsim. What they also mention is that the works of Ibn Taymiyya are quite difficult and that beginners should not start with his books, rather his books should only be studied by people who are advanced in the knowledge of the Islamic sciences.
It seems that when it comes to the issue of Tajsim Ibn Taymiyya's case is similar to that of Shaykh Ibn al-Arabi (d. 638 AH) in the issue of Wahdat al-Wujud. Both scholars have problematic views and both of them have been defended by scholars who did not hold these problematic views. I guess one needs to be a scholar and to be affiliated to the same Madhhab (in the case of Ibn Taymiyya) or belong to a Sufi Tariqa (in the case Ibn al-'Arabi) to really understand them correctly.
What the "Salafis" now do is the following: They read Ibn Taymiyya's works and based upon what they understand or misunderstand from him they then claim "this is the Hanbali / Athari approach" or even go a step further and claim "this is what the Salaf al-salih believed", while completely ignoring [or even being ignorant of] what the Hanabila before and after him have stated regarding beliefs and what their relied upon positions were.
To take ones own understanding of the words of one scholar and then to act as if is the understanding of a whole Madhhab or worse the Salaf al-salih is not just completely unacademic, but it also shows the level of ones fanatism towards that scholar and also towards ones own understanding.
The other thing is that we know that the "Salafis" lack in their level of understanding to the degree that some of their Mashayikh openly say that when reading the works of the likes of Imam al-Ghazali (d. 505 AH) they did not understand him due to the usage of 'Ilm al-Kalam. Then the question arises how they understood the works of Ibn Taymiyya - especially those regarding beliefs - which are literally filled with Kalami discussions?!
The one who wants to see how "Salafis" reject Hanbali / Athari beliefs and put their own [lack of] understanding above everything, should simply go and read what their editors do when printing any classical Hanbali text regard 'Aqida:
Just concentrate on reading their footnotes. You'll see them every now and then saying things like "this statement of author is general... if he intends this, then this is wrong..." or they will just directly dismiss what the author said by saying "this is wrong and not according to the Madhhab of the Salaf..." or "this is from the way of the Mufawwidha" (maybe because the classical Hanabila supported Tafwidh!?) or "this is from the way of the people of Kalam".
And what is their proof regarding all of these claims of mistakes in classical Hanbali texts? The answer: "Shaykh al-Islam said...". This is how the religion of Allah works according to them. There is no doubt that the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya would not have supported this fanatism and blind following.
Start by reading the explanations (read: distorsions!) that these "Salafis" have written regarding Lum'at al-I'tiqad by Imam Ibn Qudama (a book that is so clear that until the "Salafis" came up no one even thought of writing an explanation regarding it!), then go and read the footnotes by "Salafi" editors in Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in by Imam Ibn Hamdan and then other classical Hanbali texts and you'll see them doing this over and over again to the degree that one asks oneself?:
Why do they even print these works, when they find fault on almost every page?
If one looks at the general mindset of the classical scholars however one sees that they regarded the one following one of the 4 accepted Madhahib in Fiqh and being upon the Ash'ari, Maturidi or Athari way in 'Aqida (belief) as a member of the Ahl al-Sunna. Some of the staunch Ash'aris and staunch Hanabila used to regard eachother as innovators (and you'll find that also between the Ash'aris and the Maturidis), but the general mindset was clearly: All three groups are Sunnis and this is explicitly mentioned in Hanbali books like in al-'Ayn wal Athar and in Lawami' al-Anwar.
Comment