Belief of Hanbalis / Atharis (past) vs "Salafis"

[Abu Sulayman]

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.

[Abu Sulayman]

The reason why they (Ash'aris, Maturidis and Hanbalis) all are regarded as Sunnis is that they are in agreement in these major issues of 'Aqida:

- They believe that God is described with the attributes of absolute perfection and is free from any flaws. They believe that God is described with eternal attributes that are meanings subsisting in the divine essence and this is contrast to the belief of the Mu'tazila who reject the notion that God is described with attributes that are za`ida 'ala al-dhat (additionally to the essence) and also in contrast to the belief of the Mushabbiha and Mujassima who believe that some of these attributes are actually not Ma'ani (meanings) subsisting in the divine essence, but rather A'yan (tangible entities) which make up the divine essence.
- They believe that God is free from any likeness AND similarity and therefore reject Tamthil AND Tashbih in an absolute way. They believe that God is not described with any of the meanings that apply to the creation (doing otherwise is explicitly regarded as disbelief in al-Tahawiyya!!) and that the Ishtirak (having something in common) in the attributes of the Creator with that of the creation is only one of wording (lafdh) and some of that which these attributes necessitate (Lawazim) and NOT in the real meaning (which includes the reality of the attribute).
- Since they reject the meanings that apply to the creation they do NOT have any problem with rejecting descriptions that apply to the creation like being a body, having limbs, parts or tools, being subject to changes, being in motion or stillness, having a weight, a form or a size, being spatially confined or having any type of flaw. They believe that whatever is attributed with these descriptions is not eternal and therefore created by Allah ta'ala, who is completely unlike is creation.
- They believe that the Qur`an is the speech of Allah and his revelation. They believe that the speech of Allah ta'ala is eternal just like the other divine attributes and can not be described with being created or having a beginning in any way or form!
- They believe that the world (everything other than Allah ta'ala) has a beginning (as a singular AND in its kind!) and that only the Creator can be described with being eternal, because He's the First without beginning and the Last without end. Praise be to Him!


There are two issues where the Ash'aris and the Hanbalis differed:

- The Hanabila believe that regarding the divine attributes the only correct way is that of Tafwidh (consigning the real meaning to Allah) and that Ta`wil (interpretation) is categorically wrong (except if the Sunna or the Athar contain an interpretation), while the Ash'aris also accept Ta`wil if the context and the usage of the Arabs is considered (especially in order to answer wrong interpretations). So they both actually agree that Tafwidh is the correct way and the Madhhab of the Salaf al-salih and disagree regarding the permissibility of Ta`wil,
- After agreeing that the speech of Allah is eternal the Ash'aris differed with Hanabila regarding the Arabic wording (Lafdh) of the Qur`an al-karim: The Ash'aris said that it is created and that the speech of Allah ta'ala is without letters and sounds and that the Arabic words and letters are vehicles to understand the speech of Allah, which is eternal. The Hanabila however vehemently rejected this and said that God speaks with letters and sound. It should be noted here that with "sound" they ONLY intended that God's speech can be heard (and they used Allah ta'ala speaking to our Master Musa - peace be upon him - as a proof for this) (and this is accepted by Ash'aris also!) and not sound waves or something produced by tools or organs or having orofices. As for letters: They said that "Alif Lam Mim" is from the Qur`an and that in the Sunna it is proven that one is rewarded for every letter and therefore it is not allowed to say that God speaks without letters. What they at the same time clarified is that these letters and words are only following each other (Ta'aqub) in the case of human beings, but Allah's speech is without Ta'aqub. And they said that the speech of Allah is completely different from that of the creation and that one should consign the knowledge regarding the reality of Allah's speech to Him like the rest of the divine attributes.
The issue of the al-Harf wal Sawt (letter and sound) regarding the speech of Allah is heavily disputed among the Ash'aris and Hanbalis and both groups have attacked eachother because of this issue, but when one looks into the details of their statements one sees that both positions are actually very near to eachother to the degree that there is statement of Imam al-Tufi (d. 716 AH) (who defends the Hanbali position) where he suggests that the difference is actually only in wording between the two groups.

(Note: I've not mentioned the issue of 'Ilm al-Kalam, because it is also differed upon between the Hanbalis themselves and you'll find major scholars from among them using it in order to refute the innovators and the heretics. What the Hanabila however agreed upon is that Islamic belief should be based upon the divine texts and not 'Ilm al-Kalam.)



As for the beliefs of the modern-day "Salafis"* in comparison to the three Sunni groups mentioned above:

- They believe that God is not only described with attributes that are meanings (Ma'ani) subsisting in the divine essence, but also with A'yan (tangible entities) that make up the divine essence. They claim that Yad, Wajh, 'Ayn and other such attributes are Sifat 'Ayniyya!
- They believe that rejecting Tamthil (attributing a likeness) regarding God in an absolute way is correct, but Tashbih (attributing similarity) should not be rejected in an absolute way (as explicitly stated by Ibn 'Uthaymin). They believe that there is a Qadar Mushtarak (certain amount of having something in common) between the Creator and the creation and that this Ishtirak (having something in common) is not just regarding the wording (Lafdh) of the attributes and some of what it necessitates (Lawazim), but rather in the real meaning.
- Based upon the above they have a HUGE problem to reject those descriptions that apply to the creation and usually say "we neither reject them nor confirm them" or they will use the "if you intend this, then this..."-argumentation, which basically no scholar of the past - other than Ibn Taymiyya - used while discussing these issues.
To add to all this: They will show a whole new level of ignorance by claiming that it is 'Ilm al-Kalam to reject these descriptions (even though confirming these descriptions is Kufr!), while the Hanabila throughout all ages and no matter how much they were against 'Ilm al-Kalam did NOT find any problem in rejecting these descriptions.
There is one issue however where the "Salafis" openly confirm and do not reject such a description: They believe that God is subject to changes (which is the belief of the Karramiyya!).
- They also believe that the Qur`an is the speech of Allah, but at the same time they claim that the speech of Allah is ONLY eternal in its kind, while it is new and has a beginning as a singular. This is in complete contrast to the statement of the Hanabila, who ALL say that the Qur`an al-karim is eternal from every side.
- They believe that the world has a beginning as singular, but it's eternal in its kind! This is among their biggest mistakes and from the statements of the philosophers and in direct contradiction to the clear-cut divine texts!

Imagine this: From one side they describe the eternal speech of Allah with having a beginning and they claim that Allah ta'ala is subject to changes and from the other side they describe the creation with being eternal [in its kind] and then they claim to know Tawhid better than the rest of the Umma!
What Tawhid is this where the Eternal one is ascribed with temporality and the creation is described with eternity?!

*Their scholars are meant, because they are the ones who ascribe to the above mentioned beliefs in their books and some of their speeches. Many of their layman do not actually believe in most of the above mentioned points and are not aware of these wrong beliefs.

[Abu Sulayman]

From Imam Ahmad to Ibn Qudama to al-Saffarini: Tafwidh is the correct way!

Know - may Allah ta'ala have mercy upon you - that the correct way to deal with the authentic religious texts regarding the divine attributes is that of Tafwidh without that of Ta`wil (except if such an interpretation is found in the Sunnah or the Athar) according to the Hanabila in general, no matter whether the early ones or the later ones or those in between. So I chose one major scholar to represent the Hanabila of every era (early, later and those in between).


Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (d. 241 AH) said:

أحاديث الصفات تمر كما جاءت من غير بحث عن معانيها ، ونخالف ما خطر في الخاطر عند سماعها ، وننفي التشبيه عن الله تعالى عند ذكرها مع تصديق النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - والإيمان بها ، وكل ما يعقل ويتصور فهو تكييف وتشبيه وهو محال

The narrations (Ahadith) regarding the [divine] attributes (Sifat) are to be passed on as they have come without searching for their meanings, and we go against that which comes to the mind upon hearing them, and we reject attributing similarity (Tashbih) to Allah ta'ala when they're mentioned while confirming [the words of] the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and having belief in them; and whatever can be comprehended and imagined is from the attributing of modality (Takyif) and similarity (Tashbih) and that is impossible [regarding Allah ta'ala].
- end of quote -

This statement has been mentioned in Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in [by Imam Ibn Hamdan] and Imam al-Saffarini mentioned this statement also in Lawami' al-Anwar and right after it he said:

وهذا مذهب السلف الأثرية فهو الحق ، وبالله التوفيق

And this is the way (Madhhab) of the Salaf [and] al-Athariyya, so it's the truth and with Allah is success.
- end of quote -

Imam Ahmad also said - as mentioned in Lum'at al-I'tiqad [by Imam Ibn Qudama] - regarding the narrations where the descending of Allah to the lowest heaven is mentioned and that He will be seen on the day of judgement and what is similar to that:

نؤمن بها ونصدق بها لا كيف ولا معنى ولا نرد شيئا منها ونعلم أن ما جاء به الرسول حق ولا نرد على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ولا نصف الله بأكثر مما وصف به نفسه بلا حد ولا غاية: { ليس كمثله شيء وهو السميع البصير

We believe in them and affirm them without a modality or meaning (la kayf wa la ma'na), and we do not reject anything from them, and we know that what the Messenger has came with is the truth and we do not confute upon the Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam -; and we do not describe Allah with more than what He described Himself, without a limit or a boundary (bila hadd wa la ghaya):
{ Nothing is like Him; and He only is the All Hearing, the All Seeing. } [42:11]
- end of quote -



Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH) said in his Lum'at al-I'tiqad:


موصوف بما وصف به نفسه في كتابه العظيم وعلى لسان نبيه الكريم وكل ما جاء في القرآن أو صح عن المصطفى عليه السلام من صفات الرحمن وجب الإيمان به وتلقيه بالتسليم والقبول وترك التعرض له بالرد والتأويل والتشبيه والتمثيل
وما أشكل من ذلك وجب إثباته لفظا وترك التعرض لمعناه ونرد علمه إلى قائله ونجعل عهدته على ناقله اتباعا لطريق الراسخين في العلم الذين أثنى الله عليهم في كتابه المبين بقوله سبحانه وتعالى: { والراسخون في العلم يقولون آمنا به كل من عند ربنا } وقال في ذم مبتغي التأويل لمتشابه تنزيله: { فأما الذين في قلوبهم زيغ فيتبعون ما تشابه منه ابتغاء الفتنة وابتغاء تأويله وما يعلم تأويله إلا الله

[Allah] is described with what He described Himself in his magnificent book and upon the tongue of his honorable Prophet. Whatever has been mentioned in the Qur`an or has been authentically reported from al-Mustafa - peace be upon him - regarding the attributes of the Most Gracious (al-Rahman): It is obilgatory to have belief in it and to welcome it with submission and acceptance and to abstain from going against it by rejection (Radd) or interpretation (Ta`wil) or attributing similarity (Tashbih) or likeness (Tamthil).
And whatever is ambiguous from these [verses and narrations]: It is obligatory to affirm its wording (Lafdh) and to abstain from seeking its meaning (Ma'na) while consigning its knowledge to the One who said it and we entrust it upon the one who transmitted it, following the way of those having sound knowledge, those whom Allah has praised in his manifest book by His - subhanahu wa ta'ala - statement: { And those having sound knowledge say, “We believe in it, all of it is from our Lord” } [3:7]
And He said censuring those seeking the interpretation of the Mutashabih (those verses which are indistinct in their meanings) of His revelation:
{ Those in whose hearts is deviation pursue the verses having indistinct meanings, in order to cause turmoil and seeking its (wrongful) interpretation; and only Allah knows its proper interpretation } [3:7]
- end of quote -

What is obvious from the above statement is that he regards the Ayat and Ahadith regarding the divine attributes to be from the Mutashabihat (which goes against the understanding of "Salafis") and that one should believe in these verses and narrations and affirm them while consigning the knowledge of the real meaning or interpretation to Allah ta'ala (i.e. Tafwidh) and knowing that Allah ta'ala is completely different from his creation.
The modern day "Salafis" usually make a huge issue out if this statement and will try to find some sort if interpretation (read: distortion) for the above statement so that it goes in line with their way (and some of them even openly admit that the above is nothing but the way of Tafwidh!), but to their dismay Imam Ibn Qudama has repeated very often in quite many books what he intends thereby leaving no room for their distortion.

Imam Ibn Qudama said while explaining why one does not need to know the meaning of these verses and narrations in his Tahrim al-Nadhar fi Kutub al-Kalam:

فإنه لا حاجة لنا إلى علم معنى ما أراد الله تعالى من صفاته جل وعز فإنه لا يراد منها عمل ولا يتعلق بها تكليف سوى الإيمان بها. ويمكن الإيمان بها من غير علم معناها. فإن الإيمان بالجهل صحيح. فإن الله تعالى أمر بالإيمان بملائكته وكتبه ورسله وما أنزل إليهم وإن كنا لا نعرف من ذلك إلا التسمية. وقال سبحانه وتعالى: { قولوا آمنا بالله وما أنزل إلينا وما أنزل إلى إبراهيم } الآية

For indeed, there is no need for us to have knowledge of the meaning (!) (Ma'na) that Allah ta'ala intended from His attributes - jalla wa 'azz -, because there is no action intended by them and neither is any responsibility attached to them besides believing in them.
And having faith in them without having knowledge of their meanings is possible, because having faith with ignorance [of their meanings] is correct, for indeed Allah ta'ala has commanded [us] to have belief in his angels, his books, his messengers and that which was been sent down upon them even though we do not know from them except their names.
[Allah] - subhanahu wa ta'ala - says: { Say, "We believe in Allah and what is sent down to us and what was sent down to Ibrahim, ... } [2:136] until the end of the Aya.
- end of quote -

[Abu Sulayman]

Imam Ibn Qudama says in the section regarding the Muhkam and the Mutashabih in the Qur`an al-karim in his famous Rawdhat al-Nadhir:

وفي كتاب الله -سبحانه- محكم ومتشابه، كما قال تعالى: {هُوَ الَّذِي أَنْزَلَ عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ مِنْهُ آيَاتٌ مُحْكَمَاتٌ هُنَّ أُمُّ الْكِتَابِ وَأُخَرُ مُتَشَابِهَاتٌ

The book of Allah - praise be to Him - contains the Muhkam (verses with clear meanings) and the Mutashabih (verses with indistinct meanings) as He ta'ala says:
{ It is He Who has sent down to you this Book (the Qur’an) containing the verses that have a clear meaning - they are the core of the Book - and other verses the meanings of which are indistinct; ... } [3:7]
- end of quote -

Thereafter he mentions different scholarly statements until he says:

والصحيح: أن المتشابه: ما ورد في صفات الله -سبحانه- مما يجب الإيمان به، ويحرم التعرض لتأويله، كقوله -تعالى-: {الرَّحْمَنُ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ اسْتَوَى} ، {بَلْ يَدَاهُ مَبْسُوطَتَان} ، {لِمَا خَلَقْتُ بِيَدَي} ، {وَيَبْقَى وَجْهُ رَبِّك} ، {تَجْرِي بِأَعْيُنِنَا} ، ونحوه. فهذا اتفق السلف -رحمهم الله- على الإقرار به، وإمراره على وجهه وترك تأويله. فإن الله -سبحانه- ذم المبتغين لتأويله، وقرنهم -في الذم- بالذين يبتغون الفتنة، وسماهم أهل زيغ

The correct position is that the Mutashabih (verses with indistinct meanings) is that which is revealed regarding the attributes of Allah - praise be to Him -, which is obligatory to have faith in and prohibited to seek its interpretation; like His ta'ala statement:
{ The Most Gracious Who (befitting His Majesty) established Himself upon the Throne (of control) } [20:5], { In fact, both His hands are free } [5:64], { before one whom I have created with My hands? } [38:75], { And eternal is the Entity of your Lord } [55:27], { Sailing in front of Our sight } [54:14] and whatever is similar to it.
Regarding these [verses and narrations] the Salaf - may Allah have mercy upon them - have agreed upon affirming them and passing them as they have come and abstaining from their interpretation, for indeed Allah - praise be to Him - has rebuked those seeking its interpretation and has included them - in censure - with those are seeking turmoil and has named them as people of deviation.
- end of quote -

Thereafter he explains the Aya 3:7 and that only Allah ta'ala knows the correct interpretation and that the correct stop is after { and only Allah knows its proper interpretation } until he says:

فلأنه ذم مبتغي التأويل، ولو كان ذلك للراسخين معلومًا: لكان مبتغيه ممدوحًا لا مذمومًا. ولأن قولهم {آمَنَّا بِهِ} يدل على نوع تفويض وتسليم لشيء لم يقفوا على معناه. سيما إذا اتبعوه بقولهم: {كُلٌّ مِنْ عِنْدِ رَبِّنَا} فذكرهم ربهم -ههنا- يعطي الثقة به، والتسليم لأمره، وأنه صدر منه، وجاء من عنده كما جاء من عنده المحكم

Since He has rebuked those seeking interpretation: If this [proper] interpretation would be known to those sound in knowledge, then the one seeking [the interpretation] would have been praised and not censured and because their statement { We believe in it } indicates a type of consignment (!) (Tafwidh) and submission (Taslim) of something regarding which they have not come across its meaning (Ma'na), especially when they followed it with their statement { all of it is from our Lord }, so their mentioning of their Lord here shows their trust in Him and their submission to His command and that it emanated from Him and that it came from Him just like the Muhkam (verses with clear meanings) came from Him.
- end of quote -

So here we see that he explicitly mentioned the consignment (Tafwidh) of the meaning (Ma'na)!

He kept on explaining until he said:

فإن قيل: فكيف يخاطب الله الخلق بما لا يعقلونه، أم كيف ينزل على رسوله ما لا يطلع على تأويله؟ قلنا: يجوز أن يكلفهم الإيمان بما لا يطلعون على تأويله؛ ليختبر طاعتهم، كما قال -تعالي-: {وَلَنَبْلُوَنَّكُمْ حَتَّى نَعْلَمَ الْمُجَاهِدِينَ مِنْكُمْ وَالصَّابِرِين} ، {وَمَا جَعَلْنَا الْقِبْلَةَ الَّتِي كُنْتَ عَلَيْهَا إِلَّا لِنَعْلَم ... } الآية، {وَمَا جَعَلْنَا الرُّؤْيا الَّتِي أَرَيْنَاكَ إِلَّا فِتْنَةً لِلنَّاس} . وكما اختبرهم بالإيمان بالحروف المقطعة مع أنه لا يعلم معناها. والله أعلم

If it is said: "How then does Allah address the creation with something that they do not comprehend or how does He sent down something on his Messenger regarding which the interpretation is not disclosed?"
We say: It is possible that He tasks them with having faith in something regarding which they do not know its interpretation in order to test their obediance as [Allah] ta'ala says:
{ And We shall indeed test you until We make known the warriors and the steadfast among you } [47:31], { We had appointed the qiblah which you formerly observed only to see (test) ... } [2:143] until the end of the Aya, { and We did not create the spectacle which We showed you except to try mankind } [17:60].
Just like He has tested them with having faith in the disconnected letters (!) (al-Huruf al-Muqatta'a) even though their meaning is not known. And Allah knows best.
- end of quote -

I guess the above answer is more than clear [in defending Tafwidh] and a good response to the "Salafis" who repeat the same question today and attack the people of the Sunna by saying "How is it possible that Allah reveals something while the meaning is not known?". Know that other Hanbali A`imma have also answered this question.

[Abu Sulayman]

Imam al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) said in his Lawami' al-Anwar:

فمذهب السلف في آيات الصفات أنها لا تؤول ، ولا تفسر بل يجب الإيمان بها ، وتفويض معناها المراد منها إلى الله تعالى ، فقد روى اللالكائي الحافظ عن محمد بن الحسن قال اتفق الفقهاء كلهم من المشرق إلى المغرب على الإيمان بالصفات من غير تفسير ولا تشبيه

So the way (Madhhab) of the Salaf regarding the verses of the attributes (Ayat al-Sifat) is that they're not to be interpreted nor to be explained, rather it is obligatory to have belief in them and to consign (!) (Tafwidh) their intended meanings (Ma'na) to Allah ta'ala for Al-Lalika`i, the Hafidh, reported from Muhammad bin al-Hassan that he said:
All the Fuqaha` (scholars of Islamic jurisprudence) from the east and the west have agreed upon having faith in the [divine] attributes without explanation (Tafsir) or attributing similarity (Tashbih).
- end of quote -

Imam al-Saffarini also said:

فمذهب السلف في هذا ونظائره من الأخبار المتشابهة الواردة في صفات الله عز وجل ما بلغنا ، وما لم يبلغنا مما صح عنه - صلى الله عليه وسلم - اعتقادنا فيه ، وفي الآي المتشابهة في القرآن أن نقبلها ولا نردها ، ولا نتأولها بتأويل المخالفين ، ولا نحملها على تشبيه المشبهين ، ولا نزيد عليها ، ولا ننقص منها ( ولا نفسرها ) ولا نكيفها ، فنطلق ما أطلقه الله ، ونفسر ما فسره رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم - وأصحابه ، والتابعون ، والأئمة المرضيون من السلف المعروفين بالدين والأمانة - رضوان الله عليهم أجمعين - فهذا مذهب سلف الأمة ، وسائر الأئمة ، والعدول عنه وصمة ، والالتفات إلى سواه نقمة ، وبالله التوفيق

So the way (Madhhab) of the Salaf regarding this and what is similar to it from the narrations that can be found regarding the attributes of Allah - 'azza wa jall - from that which reached us and that which did not reach us: Whatever has been authentically reported from [the Prophet] - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - then our beliefs regarding them and regarding similar verses in the Qur`an is to accept them and not to reject them or to interpret them with the interpretation (Ta`wil) of the opponents or to understand them by the attributing of similarity (Tashbih) of those who liken Allah to the creation or to add something to them or take away something from them or to explain them (Tafsir) or to attribute modality (Takyif) to them.
So we state what Allah has stated and [only] explain what the Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - has explained and his companions and those who followed them and the accepted scholars from the Salaf - may Allah be pleased with all of them - who are known for their religion and their uprightness.
So this is the way of the Salaf of this nation and that of the rest of the leading scholars; turning away from this [way] is disgrace and paying attention to other than it is affliction.
And with Allah is success.
- end of quote -


There are a lot of other statements that can be quoted here from the above mentioned scholars and from other Hanabila, but for now this should be enough.

[Abu Sulayman]

I also recommend listening to this video here:

Hanbalis VS Ibn Taymīyyah - Tafwīdh | Sh. Muhammad Abdul Wāhid al-Azhari al-Hanbali:

For those understanding Arabic: The Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid al-Hanbali has more in-depth speeches regarding this issue on youtube and facebook.


As for those not understanding Arabic, then I also recommend watching this video by the
Shaykh Yusuf Sadiq al-Hanbali [in English] regarding Ibn Taymiyya's position in the Hanbali Madhhab:

Note that both Shuyukh respect the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya and regard him as one of the great scholars within the Madhhab, but they do not exaggerate regarding him - as the modern day "Salafis unfortunately do - and do not follow his abnormal views, rather they take from all of the scholars of the Hanbali Madhhab and follow that which is relied upon in the Madhhab.
In fact some people even call Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid al-Hanbali as the "walking Muntaha al-Iradat on earth" (which is a famous Hanbali book), because of his strict adherence to the relied upon (mu'tamad) positions within the Hanbali Madhhab.
(I've personally changed my negative view towards the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya since I'm listening to him and are more neutral towards Ibn Taymiyya since then. For me he's like the Shaykh Ibn 'Arabi: Both scholars have been attributed with wrong beliefs, but where at the same time defended by scholars who had no such wrong beliefs.)

For those who are interested learning more about the Hanbali / Athari approach to beliefs:
You'll find speeches of Shaykh Muhammad al-Sayyid al-Azhari al-Hanbali (teacher at al-Azhar al-sharif!) on youtube regarding Lum'at al-I'tiqad and Qala`id al-'Iqyan and other known books on youtube.


Some last points which I would like to mention:
- Why is it that the classical Hanbali / Athari books mentioned in the first post (which are all for the purpose of teaching!) are not teached by "Salafis"?
(The only exception is Lum'at al-I'tiqad, but even then they do not teach the book like that but rather teach it with their own explanations, which contains rejecting major points made by the author (like his statement regarding Tafwidh or his statement that the Qur`an is eternal and other than that). And at the same time they do NOT regard it as sufficient in creed (which is the name of the book!), because it does not contain a single word regarding those issues upon which they [falsely] accuse other Muslims of polytheism and disbelief.)
- Why is it that when they print such books, they add footnotes to it and attack the statements made in these books on almost every page?

The answer is clear:
Because they do not follow the Hanbali / Athari approach to beliefs!

[Stoic Believer]

Very interesting.

[aMuslimForLife]

Yasir Qadhi said, “I think it is historically clear in Asma as Sifat, the early Muslims who ascribed themselves to the Sunnah affirm the attributes without thinking about their modality (howness) Bilakayf. I talking about the genesis of the Ashari-Athari divide the early manifestations of that (In his disertation). For a period of time, the division was not even clear, because it is within the same strand. You had people gravitating this way or that way. It wasn’t a clear division. Ibn Taymiyyah mentions this. And again, later scholars have their projections and coloring. Ibn Taymiyyah said Asharis and Ahlus Sunnah (Atharis) were essentially one until the Fitna of Al Qushayri took place in Baghdad. They were one against the Mutazilah. They were strands within Sunni Islam. These strands became more and more pronounced as time developed. Al Bayhaqi didn’t view himself as a different strand than Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal for example. Even within strand there were multiply understandings. Al Bayhaqi is one, Fulak is another, Juwayni is another. Al Juwayni strand because of his student Al Ghazali became the more prominent one. When Al Juwayni was alive, these were all variant strands, within Asharism, which kind of sort of attached itself to Atharism. There wasn’t thus clear cut division, that we later have. I’m just trying to point at in my humble opinion, given the current world we live in, we need to minimize this sectarian divide your average sufi, your average salafi. Stop fighting and hating one another. These differences you find the genesis of them in the third and fourth century of Islam.” (mamluk podcast. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEUkgXVcspM )


Yasir Qadhi said, “Both Asharis and Atharis simplistically read their bias into the past, both sides want to claim these people (the Salafus Saleh) for themselves. But if you actually do the research and go deep in you find that history is more complex than reality. History is not as black and white. And yes treads developed. My position is that even the later Athari Aqida is a development. The Sahaba did not have the aqida as the later Athari Aqida. Ibn Taymiyyah had volumes, if Imam al Babahari read Ibn Taymiyyah, Imam al Barbahari would have rejected Ibn Taymiyyah. This is my opinion. Because al Barbahari’s mind of the third century would not have admitted Ibn Taymiyyah as a Hanbali. Ibn Taymiyyah was a development even for Hanbalis.

With my utmost respect to my Athari brothers in the room. Please remember Ibn Taymiyyah’s greatest opponents in the beginning were his fellow Hanbalisand then Subki and other came along after. When Ibn Taymiyyah begin, his fellow Hanbali criticized him, because they couldn’t understand his methodology. So let us not romantically back projecting our own bias. This is my area of specialty.” ( Forward to about 1:01 Towards Bridging the Salafi-Ashari Divide). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WSwj_aS-6U&t=1188s

[Abu Sulayman]

Belief of early Hanabila

The Imam Ibn Abi Ya'la (d. 526 AH) has a famous book which he named as Tabaqat al-Hanabila.
In it he mentions the biographies of the Hanbali scholars from the time of Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (d. 241 AH) until his time.
Under the chaper regarding his father al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la (d. 458 AH) - who is one of the greatest scholars of the Hanabila and has a great role in transmitting and spreading the Madhhab and is one of the pillars (Arkan) of the Madhhab (as mentioned by Imam al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH)) - he mentions the beliefs of his father and those of his [Hanbali] predecessors (meaning: the early Hanbalis) by saying (qoute is long and splitted in 5 parts by me):


فلنذكر الآن البيان عن اعتقاد الوالد السعيد ومن قبله من السلف الحميد فِي أخبار الصفات. فاعلم زادنا اللَّه وإياك علما ينفعنا اللَّه به وجعلنا ممن آثر الآيات الصريحة والأحاديث الصحيحة عَلَى آراء المتكلمين وأهواء المتكلفين. أن الَّذِي درج عَلَيْهِ صالحو السلف وانتهجه بعدهم خيار الخلف: هُوَ التمسك بكتاب اللَّه عز وجل واتباع نبيه مُحَمَّد - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - ثُمَّ ما روي عن الصحابة رضوان اللَّه عليهم ثُمَّ عن التابعين والخالفين لهم من علماء المسلمين. والإيمان والتصديق بما وصف اللَّه تعالى به نفسه أو وصفه به رسوله مَعَ ترك البحث والتنفير والتسليم لِذَلِكَ من غير تعطيل ولا تشبيه ولا تفسير ولا تأويل وهي الفرقة الناجية والجماعة العادلة والطائفة المنصورة إلى يوم القيامة فهم أصحاب الحديث والأثر والوالد السعيد تابعهم هم خلفاء الرسول وورثة علمه وسفرته بينه وبين أمته بهم يلحق التالي وإليهم يرجع العالي وهم الذين نبذهم أهل البدع والضلال وقائلو الزور والمحال: أنهم مشبهة جهال ونسبوهم إلى الحشو والطغام وأساءوا فيهم الكلام. فاعتقد الوالد السعيد وسلفه قدس اللَّه أرواحهم وجعل ذكرنا لهم بركة تعود علينا فِي جميع ما وصف اللَّه تعالى به نفسه أو وصفه به رسوله - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ -: أن جميع ذَلِكَ صفات اللَّه عز وجل تمر كما جاءت من غير زيادة ولا نقصان وأقروا بالعجز عن إدراك معرفة حقيقة هَذَا الشأن. اعتقد الوالد السعيد ومن قبله ممن سبقه من الأئمة: أن إثبات صفات الباري سبحانه إنما هُوَ إثبات وجود لا إثبات تحديد لها حقيقة في علمه لم يطلع الباري سبحانه عَلَى كنه معرفتها أحدا من إنس ولا جان. واعتقدوا: أن الكلام فِي الصفات فرع الكلام فِي الذات ويحتذي حذوه ومثاله وكما جاء. وقد أجمع أهل القبلة: أن إثبات الباري سبحانه: إنما هُوَ إثبات وجود لا إثبات تحديد وكيفية

So let's now mention the explanation regarding the belief (I'tiqad) of [my] blissful father (al-Walid al-Sa'id; al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la is intended) and those before him from the praiseworthy predecessors (Salaf) regarding the narrations of the [divine] attributes:
Know - may Allah increase us and you in knowledge through which Allah benefits us and [not] make us from those who favor to take the clear verses (Ayat) and the authentic narrations (Ahadith) upon the opinions of the speculative theologians or the [vain] desires of the pretenders - that the way that the pious ones of the Salaf took and that which those after them from the best of the Khalaf regarded as [the correct] methodology is [the following]:
To hold firmly to the Book of Allah - 'azza wa jall - and the following of His Messenger Muhammad - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - then after that what has been narrated from the companions - may Allah be please with them - then those who followed them (Tabi'in) and those after them from scholars of the Muslims; and to believe and confirm that which Allah ta'ala described Himself with or that which His Messenger described Him with while leaving [further] discussion or repulsion and to submit to it without rejection (Ta'til) or attributing similarity (Tashbih) or explanation (Tafsir) or interpretation (Ta`wil). This [methodology is that of] the saved and righteous and victorious group (al-Firqa al-Najiyya wal Jama'a al-'Adila wal Ta`ifa al-Mansura) until the day of judgement; they are the people of al-Hadith wal Athar and [my] blissful father was from their followers, [for] they are the successors (Khulafa`) of the Messenger and the inheritors of his knowledge and the ambassadors between him and his nation (Umma), the coming is attached to them and the lofty [ones] go back to them and they are the ones whom the people of innovation and deviation and those who say falsehood and impossibilities ridicule as Mushabbiha (those who liken Allah to his creation) and ignorants and accuse of Hashw and being rabble and are abusive in their speech towards them.
So the belief of [my] blissful father and his predecessors - may Allah bless their souls and make our mentioning of them a blessing that returns on us - regarding all that which Allah ta'ala described Himself with or His Messenger - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - described Him with is: All of them are from the attributes (Sifat) of Allah - 'azza wa jall - and [they are] to be passed on as they've came without adding (Ziyada) anything to them or taking away (Nuqsan) from them while admitting ones inability to comprehend the reality of this issue.
The belief of [my] blissful father and of those before him from the leading scholars (A`imma) is that the affirmation (Ithbat) of the attributes of al-Bari (the Maker) - glory be to Him - is one of affirming their existance (Wujud) and not one of defining (Tahdid), they have a reality in His knowledge and the Maker - glory be to Him - has not shared its comprehension (Ma'rifa) with anyone from the humans and the jinn.
And they believed that speaking regard the attributes (Sifat) is a branch from the speaking regarding the [divine] essence (Dhat) and they took it as a lead and example and as mentioned.
Indeed the people of Qibla have agreed that affirming the Maker - glory be to Him - is an affirmation of [His] existance and not one of defining [Him] or [affirming] a modality [for Him].

- end of part 1, see next post -

[Abu Sulayman]

Belief of early Hanabila from Tabaqat al-Hanabila (part 2):


هكذا اعتقد الوالد السعيد ومن قبله ممن سلفه من الأئمة: أن إثبات الصفات للباري سبحانه إنما هُوَ إثبات وجود لا إثبات تحديد وكيفية وأنها صفات لا تشبه صفات البرية ولا تدرك حقيقة علمها بالفكر والروية. والأصل الَّذِي اعتمدوه فِي هَذَا الباب اتباع قوله تعالى: وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إِلا اللَّهُ وَالرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ يَقُولُونَ: آمَنَّا بِهِ كُلٌّ مِنْ عِنْدِ رَبِّنَا وَمَا يذكر إلا أولو الألباب وَقَالَ تعالى: وَلا يُحِيطُونَ بِهِ عِلْمًا وَعَنَتِ الْوُجُوهُ لِلْحَيِّ الْقَيُّومِ وَقَدْ خَابَ مَنْ حَمَلَ ظُلْمًا. فاعتقدوا أن الباري سبحانه وتعالى: فرد الذات متعدد الصفات لا شبيه لَهُ فِي ذاته ولا فِي صفاته ولا نظير ولا ثاني وسمعوا قوله عز وجل: الم ذَلِكَ الْكِتَابُ لا رَيْبَ فِيهِ هُدًى لِلْمُتَّقِينَ الَّذِينَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بالغيب فآمنوا بما وصف اللَّه به نفسه وبما وصفه به رسوله - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - تسليما للقدرة وتصديقاً للرسل وإيمانا بالغيب. واعتقدوا: أن صفات الباري سبحانه معلومة من حيث أعلم هُوَ غيب من حيث انفرد واستأثر كما أن الباري سبحانه معلوم من حيث هُوَ مجهول ما هُوَ. واعتقدوا: أن الباري سبحانه استأثر بعلم حقائق صفاته ومعانيها عن العالمين وفارق بها سائر الموصوفين فهم بها مؤمنون وبحقائقها موقنون وبمعرفة كيفيتها جاهلون لا يجوز عندهم ردها كرد الجهمية ولا حملها عَلَى التشبيه كما حملته المشبهة الذي أثبتوا الكيفية ولا تأولوها عَلَى اللغات والمجازات كما تأولتها الأشعرية. فالحنبلية لا يقولون فِي أخبار الصفات بتعطيل المعطلين ولا بتشبيه المشبهين ولا تأويل المتأولين مذهبهم: حق بين باطلين وهدى بين ضلالتين: إثبات الأسماء والصفات مَعَ نفي التشبيه والأدواتإذ لا مثل للخالق سبحانه مشبه ولا نظير لَهُ فيجنس مِنْهُ فنقول كما سمعنا ونشهد بما علمنا من غير تشبيه ولا تجنيس عَلَى أنه لَيْسَ كمثله شيء وهو السميع البصير

This is how the belief of [my] blissful father and those before him from those who preceded him from the leading scholars was: That the affirmation of the attributes of the Maker - glory be to Him - is an affirmation of their existance and not one of defining [them] or [ascribing] modality [to them] and that they're attributes that have no similarity to the attributes of the creation and that the reality of their knowledge can not be comprehended by pondering [upon them] or by careful consideration.
The foundation that they took regarding this issue is following the statement of [Allah] ta'ala:
{ And only Allah knows its proper interpretation; and those having sound knowledge say, “We believe in it, all of it is from our Lord”; and none accept guidance except the men of understanding. } [3:7]
And [Allah] ta'ala said: { ... whereas their knowledge cannot encompass it.} { And all faces shall bow before the Living, the All Sustaining; and the one who bore the burden of injustice, has failed. } [20:110-111].
So they believed that the Maker - subhanahu wa ta'ala - is One in his essence while having numerous attributes; He has no similarity to anyone in His essence and attributes and no match or a second [like Him]. And they heard His statement, 'azza wa jall: { This is the exalted Book (the Qur’an), in which there is no place for doubt; a guidance for the pious. } { Those who believe without seeing (the hidden),... } [2:2-3], so they believed in that which Allah described Himself with and His Messenger - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - described Him with while submitting to the power [of Allah] and affirming [the truthfulness of] the Messenger and having belief in the unseen (Ghayb).
And they believed that the attributes of the Maker - glory be to Him - are known as much as He has informed [us] and [at the same time] hidden (Ghayb) [and unknown] in what He's exclusive and alone [in knowing] just like it is known who the Maker - glory be to Him - is while it's unknown what His [reality] is.
And they believed that the Maker - glory be to Him - is exclusive in having knowledge of the realities of his attributes and their meanings (!) [without anyone] from the worlds [having this knowledge] and He is [completely] different from all that has descriptions; so they believe in them and have conviction in their realities while being ignorant of the realization of their nature.
According to them it is not allowed to deny them (the divine attributes) as the Jahmiyya did or to understand them upon attributing of similarity (Tashbih) as the Mushabbiha - who ascribed modality [to Allah] - did or to interpret (Ta`wil) them according to the languages and the metaphoric meanings like the Ash'aris did.
Because the Hanbalis are not upon the rejection (Ta'til) of the rejectors regarding the narrations of the [divine] attributes nor are they upon the attributing of similarity (Tahsbih) of the those who liken [Allah to His creation] nor the interpretation (Ta`wil) of the interpreters, so their way is the truth between two falsehoods and guidance between two deviations (meaning: between Ta'til and Tashbih): Affirming the names and attributes [of Allah ta'ala] while rejecting attributing similarity (Tashbih) or tools (Adawat) for their is no likeness to the Creator - glory be to Him - so that [anyone] becomes similar [to Him] nor is there a match to Him so that [something] becomes from his kind.
So we say as we've heard and testify that which we've been been given knowledge of without attributing similarity (Tashbih) nor attributing of being from the same kind [and this is] upon [following the verse]:
{ Nothing is like Him; and He only is the All Hearing, the All Seeing. } [42:11].

- end of part 2, see next post -

[Abu Sulayman]

Belief of early Hanabila from Tabaqat al-Hanabila (part 3):


وفي رد أخبار الصفات وتكذيب النقلة: إبطال شرائع الدين من قبل أن الناقلين إلينا علم الصلاة والزكاة والحج وسائر أحكام الشريعة: هم ناقلوا هَذِهِ الأخبار والعدل مقبول القول فيما قاله ولو تطرق إليهم والعياذ بالله التخرص بشيء منها: لأدى ذَلِكَ إلى إبطال جميع ما نقلوه وقد حفظ الله سبحانه الشرع عن مثل هَذَا.وقد أجمع علماء أهل الحديث والأشعرية مِنْهُمْ عَلَى قبول هَذِهِ الأحاديث فمنهم من أقرها عَلَى ما جاءت وهم أصحاب الحديث ومنهم من تأولها وهم الأشعرية وتأويلهم إياها قبول مِنْهُمْ لها إذ لو كانت عندهم باطلة لاطرحوها كما أطرحوا سائر الأخبار الباطلة. وقد روي عَنِ النَّبِيِّ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - أنه قَالَ: " أمتي لا تجتمع عَلَى خطأ ولا ضلالة ". وما ذكرناه من الإيمان بأخبار الصفات من غير تعطيل ولا تشبيه ولا تفسير ولا تأويل هُوَ قول السلف بدءا وعودا وهو الَّذِي ذكره أمير المؤمنين القادر رضوان اللَّه عَلَيْهِ فِي الرسالة القادرية قَالَ فِيهَا: " وما وصف اللَّه سبحانه به نفسه أو وصفه به رَسُول اللَّهِ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ -: فهو صفات اللَّه عز وجل عَلَى حقيقته لا علي سبيل المجاز ".وعلى هَذَا الاعتقاد: جمع أمير المؤمنين القائم بأمر اللَّه رضوان اللَّه عَلَيْهِ من حضره مَعَ الوالد السعيد من علماء الوقت وزاهدهم: أَبُو الحسن القزويني سنة اثنتين وثلاثين وأربعمائة وأخذ خطوطهم باعتقاده. وقد قَالَ الوالد السعيد رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ فِي أخبار الصفات: المذهب فِي ذَلِكَ: قبول هَذِهِ الأحاديث عَلَى ما جاءت به من غير عدول عَنْهُ إلى تأويل يخالف ظاهرها مَعَ الاعتقاد بأن اللَّه سبحانه بخلاف كل شيء سواه وكل ما يقع في الخواطرمن حد أو تشبيه أو تكييف: فالله سبحانه وتعالى عن ذَلِكَ وَاللَّهِ ليس كمثله شيء ولا يوصف بصفات المخلوقين الدالة عَلَى حدثهم ولا يجوز عَلَيْهِ ما يجوز عليهم من التغير من حال إلى حال ليس بجسم ولا جوهر ولا عرض وأنه لم يزل ولا يزال وأنه الَّذِي لا يتصور فِي الأوهام وصفاته لا تشبه صفات المخلوقين لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ وهو السميع البصير

In rejecting the narrations regarding the attributes and accusing the transmitters [of lying] there is the invalidation of the laws of the religion (i.e. the Shari'a), [because] those who have transmitted us the knowledge of [how to perform] the Salat, [pay] the Zakat, [perform] the Hajj and the rest of the rulings of the Shari'a are the [same] ones who have transmitted us these narrations [regarding the divine attributes]. So justice is to regard their statement as accepted and if [one] were to [accuse] them - Allah's refuge is sought - of fabricating lies, then this would lead to the invalidation of all that they transmitted, while [we know] that Allah - glory be to Him - has protected his law from the like of this.
Indeed the scholars of Ahl al-Hadith - and the Ash'aris are from among them (!) - are agreed upon accepting these narrations: From among them are those who accept them as they've come - and they are the Ashab al-Hadith - and from among them are those who interpret them - and they are the Ash'aris -; and their interpretation of these [narrations] is their acceptance to them, because if these narrations would be false for them they would have thrown them away just like they did with the rest of the false narrations.
For indeed, it has been narrated from the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - that he said: "My nation will not agree upon falsehood or deviation."
And that which we have mentioned regarding having faith in the narrations of the attributes without rejection (Ta'til) or attributing similarity (Tashbih) or explanation (Tafsir) or interpretation (Ta`wil) has always been the statement of the Salaf and that is [also] what Amir al-Mu`minin al-Qadir [billah] - may Allah be pleased with him - mentioned in the Risala al-Qadiriyya in which he said: "Whatever Allah - glory be to Him - described Himself with or the Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - described Him with: Then it is from the attributes of Allah - 'azza wa jall - in reality and not metaphorically."
Upon this belief Amir al-Mu`minin al-Qa`im bi Amrillah - may Allah be pleased with him - assembled those present with my blissful father from the scholars of that time and their ascetic Abul Hasan al-Qazwini in the year 432 AH and took from them their [own] writing in believing in this.
My blissful father - may Allah be pleased with him said that the [correct] way regarding this is to accept these narrations upon what they've come without turning to an interpretation that goes against the apparent while believing that Allah - glory be to Him - is different from everything else other than Him; whatever comes to the mind from limitation (Hadd) or attributing similarity (Tashbih) or attributing modality (Takyif), then Allah is glorified and exalted above it and there is nothing like Him. He is not described with the attributes of the creation that indicate their temporality and that which is possible regarding them - from the changing of one state to another - is not possible regarding Him.
[Allah ta'ala] is not a body (Jism) or a particle (Jawhar) or an accident ('Aradh) and has always existed and will always exist. He's the One who can not be imagined and his attributes are not similar to the attributes of the creation, { nothing is like Him; and He only is the All Hearing, the All Seeing. } [42:11].

- end of part 3, see next post -

[Abu Sulayman]

Belief of early Hanabila from Tabaqat al-Hanabila (part 4):


وأما كتابه قدس اللَّه روحه فِي إبطال التأويلات لأخبار الصفات: فمبني عَلَى هَذِهِ المقدمات وأن إطلاق ما ورد به السمع من الصفات: لا يقتضي تشبيه الباري سبحانه بالمخلوقات. وذكر رحمة اللَّه عَلَيْهِ كلاما معناه: أن التشبيه إنما يلزم الحنبلية أن لَوْ وجد مِنْهُمْ أحد أمرين: إما أن يكونوا هم الَّذِينَ ابتدأوا الصفة لله عز وجل واخترعوها أو يكونوا قد صرحوا باعتقاد التشبيه فِي الأحاديث الَّتِي هم ناقلوها. فإما أن يكون صاحب الشريعة - صَلَّى الله عليه وسلم - هو المبتدىء بهذه الأحاديث وقوله - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - حجة يسقط بها ما يعارضها وهم تبع لَهُ ثُمَّ يكون الحنبلية قد صرحوا بأنهم يعتقدون إثبات الصفات ونفي التشبيه فكيف يجوز أن يضاف إليهم ما يعتقدون نفيه؟ . وعلى أنه قد ثبت أن الحنبلية إنما يعتمدون فِي أصول الدين عَلَى كتاب اللَّه عز وجل وسنة نبيه - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - ونحن نجد فِي كتاب اللَّه وسنة رسوله ذكر الصفات ولا نجد فيهما ذكر التشبيه فكيف يجوز أن يضاف إليهم ما يعتقدون نفيه؟ . ومما يدل عَلَى أن تسليم الحنبلية لأخبار الصفات من غير تأويل ولا حمل عَلَى ما يقتضيه الشاهد وأنه لا يلزمهم في ذَلِكَ التشبيه: إجماع الطوائف من بين موافق للسنة ومخالف أن الباري سبحانه ذات وشيء وموجود ثُمَّ لم يلزمنا وإياهم إثبات جسم ولا جوهر ولا عرض وإن كانت الذات في الشاهد لا تنفك عن هَذِهِ السمات وهكذا لا يلزم الحنبلية ما يقتضيه العرف فِي الشاهد فِي أخبار الصفات.يبين صحة هذا: أن البارىء سبحانه موصوف بأنه: حي عالم قادر مريد والخلق موصوفون بهذه الصفات ولم يدل الاتفاق فِي هَذِهِ التسمية عَلَى الاتفاق فِي حقائقها ومعانيها هكذا القول فِي أخبار الصفات ولا يلزم عند تسليمها من غير تأويل إثبات ما يقتضيه الحد والشاهد فِي معانيها. وبهذا ونظيره استدل الوالد السعيد رحمة اللَّه عَلَيْهِ فِي كتابه " إبطال التأويلات لأخبار الصفات

As for his book - may Allah bless his soul - regarding the invalidation of the interpretation of the narrations of the attributes (Ibtal al-Ta`wilat li Akhbar al-Sifat), then it is build upon the [mentioned] premises and that to state that which can be found in the texts regarding the [divine] attributes does not constitute attributing similarity (Tashbih) of the Maker - glory be to Him - to the creation.
And he - may Allah have mercy upon him - mentioned statements with the meaning that attributing similarity (Tashbih) [only] becomes necessary upon the Hanabila if one of these two issues can be found regarding them: If they were the ones who started [to describe] Allah - 'azza wa jall - with these attributes and invented these [descriptions regarding Him] or if they have stated that they believe in attributing similarity (Tashbih) regarding the narrations that they have transmitted.
But the one who came with the Shari'a (i.e. the Prophet) - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - is the one who came with these narrations and his statement - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - is a proof that invalidates whatever is against it and they [will have to] follow him. Then the Hanbalis have openly stated that they believe in the affirmation of the [divine] attributes while rejecting attributing similarity (Tashbih), so how is it possible to accuse them of something (i.e. Tashbih) that they have [already] rejected? And it has been already proven that the Hanbalis rely upon the Book of Allah - 'azza wa jall - and the Sunna of His Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - regarding the foundations of the religion (Usul al-Din) and we find in the Book of Allah and the Sunna of His Messenger the mentioning of the [divine] attributes while we do not find the attributing of similarity in them, so how is it possible to accuse them (the Hanbalis) of something (i.e. Tashbih) that they have rejected?
That which shows that the submission (Taslim) of the Hanbalis to the narrations of the [divine] attributes without interpretation (Ta`wil) and without taking them upon what the Shahid (that which we can perceive) implies and that attributing similarity (Tashbih) does not become necessary upon [the Hanbalis] from this [submission] is [the following]:
The consensus of the groups that are in agreement with the Sunna and those who are against it is that the Maker - glory be to Him - [has] an essence (Dhat) and is a thing (Shay`) and exists (Mawjud), then this [consensus] does not necessitate upon us or them to affirm a body (Jism) or a particle (Jawhar) or an accident ('Aradh) [regarding Allah ta'ala] even though in the Shahid (that which we can perceive) an essence (Dhat) can not be separated from these traits. And likewise that which is the custom in what we can perceive (Shahid) does not become necessary upon the Hanabila [to accept] regarding the [divine] attributes and that which makes the correctness of this obvious is:
The Maker - glory be to Him - is described with being Living (Hayy), Knowing ('Alim), Powerful (Qadir) and Willing (Murid) while the creation is also described with these attributes and this agreement in the naming does not show their agreement in their realities (!) and meanings (!) and likewise is the statement regarding the narrations of the [divine] attributes; submitting to them without interpretation does not necessitate to affirm that which is implied by limitation (Hadd) and by the Shahid (that which we can perceive) regarding their meanings.
[My] blissful father - may Allah have mercy upon him - used this reasoning [mentioned above] and the like of it in his book "Ibtal al-Ta`wilat li Akhbar al-Sifat".

- end of part 4, see next post -

[Abu Sulayman]

Belief of early Hanabila from Tabaqat al-Hanabila (part 5):



فأما الرد عَلَى المجسمة لله: فيرده الوالد السعيد بكتاب وذكره أيضا فِي أثناء كتبه فَقَالَ: لا يجوز أن يسمى اللَّه جسما. قَالَ أَحْمَد: لا يوصف اللَّه تعالى بأكثر مما وصف به نفسه. قَالَ الوالد السعيد: فمن اعتقد أن اللَّه سبحانه جسم من الأجسام وأعطاه حقيقة الجسم من التأليف والانتقال: فهو كافر لأنه غير عارف بالله عز وجل لأن اللَّه سبحانه يستحيل وصفه بهذه الصفات وَإِذَا لم يعرف اللَّه سبحانه: وجب أن يكون كافرا

As for the response against the Mujassima (those who regard Allah a body), then [my] blissful father has also responded to them with a book and has mentioned [their refutation] in [other] books, so he said: It is not allowed to name Allah a body.
[Imam] Ahmad said: Allah ta'ala is not described with more than what He described Himself with.
[My] blissful father said: So whoever believes that Allah - glory be to Him - is a body from among the bodies (Jism min al-Ajsam) and describes Him with the reality of a body from composition (Ta`lif) and change [of place or state] (Intiqal), then he's a disbeliever (!) (Kafir) because he does not know Allah - azza wa jall. For it is impossible regarding Allah - glory be to Him - to be described with these attributes [in reality]; and if someone does not know Allah - glory be to Him -, then it necessitates him being a disbeliever.

- end of quote -


Know that the major points that are made by Imam Ibn Abi Ya'la in the above quote is found in ALL the books mentioned in my first post and in other classical Hanbali / Athari books and represents the beliefs of the Hanabila in general, so I would really recommend reading the above quote fully, even if it is long.




So the summary of the belief of the Hanabila is as follows:

- Whatever Allah ta'ala is described with in the Qur`an al-karim or the authentic narrations is to be regarded from the divine attributes: It's obligatory to believe in all these text and affirm them while relegating their meaning and reality to Allah ta'ala and knowing that Allah ta'ala is not like or similar to his creation in any way or form.
- This affirmation of the attributes is one of affirming their existance and not one of defining or ascribing modality. Since one is affirming them as attributes [and not as descriptions going back to other attributes] while at the same time admitting that one does not comprehend their reality (nor is it possible to do so!), it is not allowed to interpret them metaphorically or otherwise, rather one has to pass these Ayat and narrations as they have come without adding anything to them or taking away anything from them.
- It's obligatory to reject attributing likeness (Tamthil) OR attributing similarity (Tashbih) regarding the divine attributes. The agreement in the naming of the attributes of the Creator and the creation is only in naming, but NOT in meaning and reality! Whosoever describes Allah with the reality of a body (i.e. 3-dimensional being or object) has disbelieved!
- The foundation upon which the Ayat and Ahadith regarding the [divine] attributes is to be understood is the Aya 3:7 (which means that they're from the Mutashabihat!) and therefore it's not allowed to interpret or explain these Ayat and Ahadith, because { only Allah knows its proper interpretation; }.
- The reality of Allah's essence and his attributes can not be comprehended and Allah ta'ala is beyond imagination.

To add an interesting point to the above: The words of Imam Ibn Abi Ya'la in the above quote clearly indicate that he regards the Ash'aris - whom he regards wrong in their Ta`wil - as Sunnis and includes them explicitly in the Ahl al-Hadith!
(Note: The Ash'aris also agree with the Hanbalis regarding the correctness of Tafwidh!)

What is interesting here is how clearly all the mentioned Hanbali scholars rejected Tashbih, while a major modern-day "Salafi" scholar like Ibn 'Uthaymin explicitly denied that Tashbih can be rejected in an absolute way.
So how is is possible to regard the "Salafis" as Hanbalis / Atharis or let alone as Sunnis?!

[Abu Sulayman]

Ibn 'Uthaymin ("Salafi"): There is some degree of similarity between the Creator and the creation


Ibn 'Uthaymin is regarded as a major scholar by the modern-day "Salafis". We've already seen how the Hanabila rejected attributing similarity (Tashbih) in an explicit and absolute way.

So let's see wether Ibn 'Uthaymin agrees with them (the Hanbalis) or says something that no Sunni Muslim would ever say!

Ibn 'Uthaymin (d. 1421 AH) said [as mentioned in the book Majmu' Fatawa wa Rasa`il Ibn 'Uthaymin]:

والتعبير بنفي التمثيل أحسن من التعبير بنفي التشبيه، لوجوه ثلاثة: أحدها: أن التمثيل هو الذي جاء به القرآن وهو منفي مطلقا، بخلاف التشبيه، فلم يأت القرآن بنفيه
الثاني: أن نفي التشبيه على الإطلاق لا يصح، لأن كل موجودين فلا بد أن يكون بينهما قدر مشترك يشتبهان فيه ويتميز كل واحد بما يختص به، فالحياة مثلا وصف ثابت في الخالق والمخلوق، فبينهما قدر مشترك، ولكن حياة الخالق تليق به وحياة المخلوق تليق به
الثالث: أن الناس اختلفوا في مسمى التشبيه، حتى جعل بعضهم إثبات الصفات التي أثبتها الله لنفسه تشبيها، فإذا قلنا من غير تشبيه، فهم هذا البعض من هذا القول نفي الصفات التي أثبتها الله لنفسه

The expression of denying attributing likeness (Tamthil) [between the Creator and the creation] is better than expressing the denying of attributing similarity (Tashbih), and this is from three sides:
The first: Attributing likeness (Tamthil) is that which the Qur`an came to deny absolutely unlike attributing similarity (Tashbih), which the Qur`an did not deny.
The second: Denying attributing similarity (Tashbih) in an absolute way is not correct, because every two existing beings / things must have [at least] a common degree between them (Qadar Mushtarak) where they are similar to each other while every one of them is different in that which makes him special. Life (Hayat) for example is a proven description for the Creator and the creation, so there is a common degree (Qadar Mushtarak) between them, but the life of the Creator is [one] befitting Him and the life of the creation is [one] befitting them.
The third: That the people have disagreed regarding that which is named as "Tashbih" to the degree that some of them turned the affirmation of the attributes that Allah affirmed for Himself as attributing similarity (Tashbih). So if we say "without attributing similarity" some would understand from this statement the negation of the attributes that Allah affirmed for Himself.
- end of quote -

And Ibn 'Uthaymin also said [in the same book]:

فإذا قلت: ما هي الصورة التي تكون لله ويكون آدم عليها؟ قلنا: إن الله عز وجل له وجه, وله عين, وله يد, وله رجل - عز وجل - لكن لا يلزم من أن تكون هذه الأشياء مماثلة للإنسان، فهناك شيء من الشبه لكنه ليس على سبيل المماثلة، كما أن الزمرة الأولى من أهل الجنة فيها شبه من القمر لكن بدون مماثلة

If it is asked: What is the image (Sura) that Allah and Adam are [both] upon?
Then we say: Allah - 'azza wa jall - has a face, an eye, a hand, a foot - 'azza wa jall -, but this does not necessitate that these [descriptions] are like that of human beings, for there is some [sort of] of similarity (!), but not upon the way of likeness (Mumathala); just like the first group from the people of paradise are similar to the moon (i.e. shining), but without likeness.
- end of quote -

And Ibn 'Uthaymin said in one of his lectures (taken word by word from a "Salafi" website!):

نقول مثلاً وجه الله ولم نقل وجه وأطلقنا فوجه الله يكون لائقا لذاته أو لائقا بذاته ، كما لو قلت وجه الفرس ووجه القط الهر هل تفهم من قولك وجه الفرس أنه مثل وجه الهر ؟ أبداً

We say for example "face of Allah" and we do not just say "face" in general [terms], because the face of Allah is befitting to His essence or befitting His essence.
Just like when you say "face of a horse" and "face of a cat": Do you understand from your statement "face of a horse" that it is like (mithl) the "face of a cat"? Never...
- end of quote -

So this is how these people speak of Allah ta'ala! Allah's refuge is sought from this ugly Tashbih to the degree that they do not even shy away from mentioning animals while speaking about Allah ta'ala!
So the degree that Allah ta'ala is different from his creation - according to the above statements made by Ibn 'Uthaymin - is similar to the difference between the first group to enter paradise and the moon or similar to the difference between the face of a horse and that of a cat!? Is this the Tawhid?! Well, this sounds more like Wathaniyya (paganism)!



In response to this Tashbih I would like to remind you of the statement of Imam Ibn Abi Ya'la (d. 526 AH) in his Tabaqat al-Hanabila:

واعتقدوا: أن الباري سبحانه استأثر بعلم حقائق صفاته ومعانيها عن العالمين وفارق بها سائر الموصوفين
...
وكل ما يقع في الخواطرمن حد أو تشبيه أو تكييف: فالله سبحانه وتعالى عن ذَلِكَ وَاللَّهِ ليس كمثله شيء ولا يوصف بصفات المخلوقين الدالة عَلَى حدثهم ولا يجوز عَلَيْهِ ما يجوز عليهم من التغير من حال إلى حال ليس بجسم ولا جوهر ولا عرض وأنه لم يزل ولا يزال وأنه الَّذِي لا يتصور فِي الأوهام وصفاته لا تشبه صفات المخلوقين لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ وهو السميع البصير
...
أن البارىء سبحانه موصوف بأنه: حي عالم قادر مريد والخلق موصوفون بهذه الصفات ولم يدل الاتفاق فِي هَذِهِ التسمية عَلَى الاتفاق فِي حقائقها ومعانيها هكذا القول فِي أخبار الصفات

And they believed that the Maker - glory be to Him - is exclusive in having knowledge of the realities of his attributes and their meanings (!) [without anyone] from the worlds [having this knowledge] and He is [completely] different from all that has descriptions;
...
Whatever comes to the mind from limitation (Hadd) or attributing similarity (Tashbih) or attributing modality (Takyif), then Allah is glorified and exalted above it and there is nothing like Him. He is not described with the attributes of the creation that indicate their temporality and that which is possible regarding them - from the changing of one state to another - is not possible regarding Him.
[Allah ta'ala] is not a body (Jism) or a particle (Jawhar) or an accident ('Aradh) and has always existed and will always exist. He's the One who can not be imagined and his attributes are not similar to the attributes of the creation, { nothing is like Him; and He only is the All Hearing, the All Seeing. } [42:11].
...
The Maker - glory be to Him - is described with being Living (Hayy), Knowing ('Alim), Powerful (Qadir) and Willing (Murid) while the creation is also described with these attributes and this agreement in the naming does not show their agreement in their realities (!) and meanings (!) and likewise is the statement regarding the narrations of the [divine] attributes;...
- end of quote -

This is what real Hanbalis / Atharis believed!

[aMuslimForLife]

There are two issues where the Ash'aris and the Hanbalis differed:

- The Hanabila believe that regarding the divine attributes the only correct way is that of Tafwidh (consigning the real meaning to Allah) and that Ta`wil (interpretation) is categorically wrong (except if the Sunna or the Athar contain an interpretation), while the Ash'aris also accept Ta`wil if the context and the usage of the Arabs is considered (especially in order to answer wrong interpretations). So they both actually agree that Tafwidh is the correct way and the Madhhab of the Salaf al-salih and disagree regarding the permissibility of Ta`wil,

- After agreeing that the speech of Allah is eternal the Ash'aris differed with Hanabila regarding the Arabic wording (Lafdh) of the Qur`an al-karim: The Ash'aris said that it is created and that the speech of Allah ta'ala is without letters and sounds and that the Arabic words and letters are vehicles to understand the speech of Allah, which is eternal. The Hanabila however vehemently rejected this and said that God speaks with letters and sound. It should be noted here that with "sound" they ONLY intended that God's speech can be heard (and they used Allah ta'ala speaking to our Master Musa - peace be upon him - as a proof for this) (and this is accepted by Ash'aris also!) and not sound waves or something produced by tools or organs or having orofices. As for letters: They said that "Alif Lam Mim" is from the Qur`an and that in the Sunna it is proven that one is rewarded for every letter and therefore it is not allowed to say that God speaks without letters. What they at the same time clarified is that these letters and words are only following each other (Ta'aqub) in the case of human beings, but Allah's speech is without Ta'aqub. And they said that the speech of Allah is completely different from that of the creation and that one should consign the knowledge regarding the reality of Allah's speech to Him like the rest of the divine attributes.
The issue of the al-Harf wal Sawt (letter and sound) regarding the speech of Allah is heavily disputed among the Ash'aris and Hanbalis and both groups have attacked eachother because of this issue, but when one looks into the details of their statements one sees that both positions are actually very near to eachother to the degree that there is statement of Imam al-Tufi (d. 716 AH) (who defends the Hanbali position) where he suggests that the difference is actually only in wording between the two groups.

(Note: I've not mentioned the issue of 'Ilm al-Kalam, because it is also differed upon between the Hanbalis themselves and you'll find major scholars from among them using it in order to refute the innovators and the heretics. What the Hanabila however agreed upon is that Islamic belief should be based upon the divine texts and not 'Ilm al-Kalam.)

.

As Salam Alaykum,

How did the traditional Hanbali understand the word al Uluw? Ibn Qudamah wrote a book entitled Al Uluw?

Jazakullahu kahiran