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

[Abu Sulayman]

As Salam Alaykum,

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

Jazakullahu kahiran

Wa 'alaykum al-Salam,

the Hanabila stated that Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala is established upon the throne (Mustawin 'ala al-'Arsh) without modality (bila kayf) and that He's beyond His creation (ba`in min khalqih).
The Istiwa of Allah ta'ala is in a manner befitting His majesty and not to be understood in the manner that we know from that which we can perceive (i.e. not in the manner of bodies!) and its reality should be consigned to Allah ta'ala, because it's beyond our comprehension and imagination.

As for the Highness ('Uluw) of Allah ta'ala, then Allah has always been and will always be the Most High no matter whether that is before or after bringing the creation into existance. Allah ta'ala is beyond limits, rather the throne (which is the biggest creation in size) and what is besides it [from the creation] is limited and Allah ta'ala is above [all of] that without place or limitation, because He existed and there was no place, then He created place and He is as He was before creating place.


Imam Ibn Hamdan [al-Hanbali] (d. 695 AH) said in his Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in:

https://ia801601.us.archive.org/Book...ale=6&rotate=0
https://ia801601.us.archive.org/Book...ale=6&rotate=0

Allah ta'ala is not a particle (Jawhar) or an accident ('Aradh) or a body (Jism) and temporality (Hawadith) does not indwell in Him and He does not indwell in what is emergent (Hadith) nor is He confined by it, rather He is beyond his creation (ba`in min khalqih).
Allah is upon the throne ('ala al-'Arsh) not with a limitation [that limits him], rather the limitation is that of the throne and of that which is besides it (or below it) [from the creation]; and Allah is above (fawq) [all of] that without place (Makan) or limitation (Hadd), because He existed and there was no place (Makan), then He created place and He is as He was before creating place.
...
Imagination does not reach Him and comprehension does not grasp Him. He's not similar to the creation and no examples can be given in behalf of Him.
...
We're certain that Allah is in the heaven (fil Sama`) and that He [is] established upon the throne (Istawa 'ala al-Arsh) without modality (bila kayf), and all that in the manner befitting him. We do not interpret that nor do we explain it or ascribe modality to it or imagine it or specify it or reject it or deny it, rather we relegate its knowledge to Allah ta'ala.
We're certain in denying attributing similarity (Tashbih) or attributing corporeality (Tajsim) or any flaw and that is the ruling [to be followed] for all verses (Ayat) concerning the [divine] attributes and the authentic and explicit narrations.
...
- end of quote -

If I get time, I'll inshallah translate the whole section until the end, because it contains many statements from Hanbali scholars before him and the book is relied upon for creed by the Hanabila after him.

[aMuslimForLife]

If I get time, I'll inshallah translate the whole section until the end, because it contains many statements from Hanbali scholars before him and the book is relied upon for creed by the Hanabila after him.

Jazakullah khairan. Just because people don't post, it doesn't mean that people don't read this. That is to say, I have people who have come to me years after reading my post that it had a positive effect on their decision to follow the truth. It took me six to seven years to fully leave Salafism. It is not an easy thing to leave something you believe in.

[Abu 'Abdullaah]

...It took me six to seven years to fully leave Salafism. It is not an easy thing to leave something you believe in.

From time to time, you might even create sock puppets to relive your previous life.

[aMuslimForLife]

Qala'id al Iqyan by Imam Muhammad Ibn Badr al Din al Balbani al Hanbali is available in English.

Fun title. Qala'id al Iqyan fi Ikhtisar Aqida Ibn Hamdan (The Golden Pendant: The Summarized Creed of Ibn Hamdan)

[Abu Sulayman]

If I get time, I'll inshallah translate the whole section until the end, because it contains many statements from Hanbali scholars before him and the book is relied upon for creed by the Hanabila after him.

Hanbali position regarding the divine 'Uluw, Istiwa` and Nuzul


Imam Ibn Hamdan (d. 695 AH) said in his book Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in - which was written for teaching purpose and is relied upon by the Hanabila after him - the following:

https://ia801601.us.archive.org/Book...ale=6&rotate=0
https://ia801601.us.archive.org/Book...ale=6&rotate=0
https://ia801601.us.archive.org/Book...ale=6&rotate=0
https://ia801601.us.archive.org/Book...ale=6&rotate=0
https://ia801601.us.archive.org/Book...ale=6&rotate=0

Allah ta'ala is not a particle (Jawhar) or an accident ('Aradh) or a body (Jism) and temporality (Hawadith) does not indwell in Him and He does not indwell in what is emergent (Hadith) nor is He confined by it, rather He is beyond His creation (ba`in min khalqih).
Allah is upon the throne ('ala al-'Arsh) not with a limitation [that limits Him], rather the limitation is that of the throne and of that which is besides it (or below it) [from the creation]; and Allah is above (fawq) [all of] that without place (Makan) or limitation (Hadd), because He existed and there was no place (Makan), then He created place and He is as He was before creating place.
He is not known through the senses (Hawas) and He can not be compared to humans and there is no entry for analogy [or comparing] (Qiyas) regarding His essence and attributes. He has not taken a wife or a child [for Himself], rather He's free of any needs. He's not similar to anything and nothing is similar to Him. Whosoever attributes similarity to Him with His creation has disbelieved. This is what [Imam] Ahmad (d. 241 AH) stated; and the same goes regarding the one who regards him a body. Or if someone says "He's a body unlike [other] bodies" (Jism la kal Ajsam). This was mentioned by al-Qadhi [Abu Ya'la] (d. 458 AH).
Imagination does not reach Him and comprehension does not grasp Him. He's not similar to the creation and no examples can be given in behalf of Him.
He's not known by the sayings [of the people].
Whatever comes to the mind or [can] be conveived by the imagination, then He is different from that, the Lord of Majesty and Bounty.

Section

We're certain that Allah is in the heaven (fil Sama`) and that He [is] established upon the throne (Istawa 'ala al-Arsh) without modality (bila kayf), and all that in the manner befitting him. We do not interpret that nor do we explain it or ascribe modality to it or imagine it or specify it or reject it or deny it, rather we relegate its knowledge to Allah ta'ala.
We're certain in denying attributing similarity (Tashbih) or attributing corporeality (Tajsim) or any flaw and that is the ruling [to be followed] for all verses (Ayat) concerning the [divine] attributes and the authentic and explicit narrations.
[Imam] Ahmad said: "We believe that Allah is upon the throne ('ala al-'Arsh) as He intends without modality (bila kayf) or a description that a describer can reach or a limit (Hadd) that limits him."
So whoever says that He's - with His essence - in every place or in [some] place, then he's a disbeliever (Kafir), because this [belief] necessitates place (Makan) to be eternal and that [Allah] is occupying filthy places and other than them; High Exalted is Allah above that. And this does not negate Him being in the heaven (fil Sama`) and above the throne ('ala al-'Arsh) in the manner befitting him, as clarified.
And the same statement applies regarding the narration of descent (Nuzul) and other than it which has an authentic chain and is explicit in wording, so that it's impossible to understand it literally.

Al-Tamimi (d. 410 AH) said in I'tiqad [al-Imam] Ahmad (belief of Imam Ahmad) regarding the narration of descent: "Displacment (Intiqal) is not possible regarding Him nor occupying places."
Ibn al-Banna` (d. 471 AH) said regarding it (i.e. the narration of descent) in the belief of [Imam] Ahmad: "It's not [allowed] to say with movement (Haraka) or displacement (Intiqal)."
Al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la (d. 458 AH) said: "The Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - has described Him with descent (Nuzul) to the lowest heaven and with Highness ('Uluw), [but] not in the way of displacement (Intiqal) or movement (Haraka), just like it is possible to see Him (i.e. beatific vision of Allah ta'ala in the hereafter) without [Him] being in a direction (Jiha) and [just like Allah] revealed Himself to the mountain (referring to Aya 7:143), [but] not in the way of movement (Haraka) or displacement (Intiqal)."
And he (al-Qadhi Abu Ya'ala) said: "A descent (Nuzul) from highness ('Uluw) and disappearance [from one place to another] (Zawal) is not affirmed, but rather a descent whose meaning (Ma'na) can not be comprehended and a [beatific] vision without [Him] being in a direction and this can not be comprehended from that which we can perceive [in this world] (Shahid)."
Ibn 'Aqil (d. 513 AH) said: "Not with disappearance [from one place to another] (Zawal) or displacement (Intiqal) and [also] not like our descent."
And he (Ibn 'Aqil) said: "The consensus of the [Islamic] nation [is] that He (i.e. Allah ta'ala) is beyond His creation (ba`in min khalqih) and [that] He's upon distinctness from His creation in His essence and attributes."; and he declared the one attributing similarity to [to Allah] with His creation to be a disbeliever.
Abu Nasr al-Sijzi (d. 444 AH) said : "In the statement that Allah is above the throne ('ala al-'Arsh) there is no limitation [to Him], rather it's a limitation of the throne and of that which is besides it (or below it) [from the creation]; and Allah is above (fawq) [all of] that such that [He's] not in a place (Makan) and [has] no limit (Hadd), because He existed and there was no place (Makan), then He created place and He is as He was before creating place."
Ibn Hamid (d. 403 AH) said: "He's upon the throne - with His essence - touching it (!) and He descends from the place that He's in (!) and changes place (!)"; Ibn 'Aqil and others rejected this [statement] and declared him to be mistaken and censured him; and they were right in this and not him.
Ibn 'Aqil said: "Upon the throne ('ala al-'Arsh), not like someone sitting on the bed nor like someone riding an animal."
Al-Qadhi said: "Without being seated (Qa'id) and without touching (Mumasa)."
Ibn Batta (d. 387 AH) said in al-Ibana al-Sughra and Abu al-Faraj al-Shirazi (d. 486 AH): "Allah is upon His throne ('ala 'Arshih), beyond His creation (ba`in min khalqih)".

Al-Qadhi said: "Descent (Nuzul) is an attribute of the [divine] essence and that's why we do not say that His descent is by displacement" and the last of the two statements of al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la is that of affirming [the expression] of direction.
According to [Imam] Ahmad establishment [upon the throne] (Istiwa`) is an attribute of action and [it has] also [been reported] from him [to be] an attribute of essence and that it [means] Highness ('Uluw) and Elevation (Irtifa') .
He (Imam Ahmad) said: "Allah has always been High and Elevated before creating His throne, so He is above everything and the Most High above all".
[Allah's] statement { established [Himself] upon the throne } [20:5] means: "Exalted [Himself] ('Ala) without touching (Mumasa)", and it's better to abstain from both statements.
Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 597 AH) chose to reject [the expression] of direction and narrated it from [Imam] Ahmad through the narration of Hanbal and Ibn 'Aqil was inclined to this [also] and al-Qadhi in the beginning. There is [however] weakness in the narration from [Imam] Ahmad, for he said: "Allah is upon His throne and His knowledge is in every place"; [Imam] Ahmad used to criticize the one who claims that He's in every place.
Abu Muhammad Rizqallah bin 'Abd al-Wahhab al-Tamimi (d. 388 AH) said: "We do not say that the throne is His place (Makan), because the places are [all] created by Allah and they are after Him and we do not say that He is - with his essence - seated upon the throne or standing or lying down or sleeping [on it] or touching [it] or attached [to it], rather we state the attribute as it was mentioned by the Qur`an and abstain from getting into that which reality can not be reached by language."
[Imam] Ahmad said: "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]."
[Imam] Ahmad [also] said: "Above His throne (fawq al-'Arsh) and His knowledge is everywhere"; this was mentioned by Abu Nasr al-Sijzi.
Al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la said: "He's established upon the throne (mustawin 'ala al-'Arsh) without modality (bila kayf) and without analogy (Mutabaqa) or touching (Mumasa) or that which is subject to assessment (Taqdir) or distance / space (Masaha)."

Ibn 'Aqil said in al-Ishara: "The throne and those [angels] who carry it: Allah - Exalted be He - is [the One] carrying [all of] them [by his power]".

- end of quote -

[AmantuBillahi]

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...

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.
T

Assalamu alaykum

There seems to be a contradiction in what you're saying here. You're claiming that the authoritatie Hanbali scholars were consistent with the Ash'aris in making Tafwid and negating modality (Bila Kayf). The mainstream Hanbali position is not guilty of implying Tashbih and Tajsim in their beliefs.

So if this is the case, then how is it possible that these same authorities recognized Ibn Taymiyyah as a Hanbali scholar and held him in high regard? If the Hanbalis and Ahlul Kalam understand Tajsim/Hawadith the exact same way, then shouldn't Ibn Taymiyyah be classified as a Zindeeq for going against the Madhhab and teaching anthropomorphism?

This simple truth destroys much of your premise concerning the Hanbalis being Mufaawid and misunderstanding the speech of their scholars. In fact, to suggest otherwise would be to charge the succeeding Hanbali authorities with Jahl and Nifaq. In the previous thread I cited the article of Imam al-Saffarini quoting Ibn Taymiyyah verbatim as a reference on Uluw. He then praises the books written by al-Dhahabi and Ibn al-Qayyim on this issue and recommends them as references. It would be ridiculous to classify al-Saffarini as someone who believed Allah's Aboveness is "without modality" in the Ash'ari sense (which renders it a metaphor). This same logic could also be applied to any Hanbali scholar who praises Ibn Taymiyyah and doesn't condemn him as a Mujjasim Zindeeq for affirming Allah's literal Uluw (bi-Dhatihi) Above the Heavens.

[AmantuBillahi]

This excerpt proves that Imam al-Saffarini considered Ibn Taymiyyah's understanding of Uluw to be correct and orthodox:

Great article detailing Imam as-Saffarini's position on Uluw:

Glory be to Him’, the author mentioned the Glorification of Lord, referring to sanctifying Allah from the beliefs of the negators (mu’attila) and the beliefs of the anthropomorphists (al-mumathila). ‘He has risen’ over His Throne, above (fawq) the seven heavens, a rising that befits his Essence, ‘as has been mentioned in the text’ of the Quranic verses, and the Prophetic traditions, and the Salafi texts (from the Salaf), which are too numerous to be investigated. This is the Book of Allah, from beginning to the end, and the Sunnah of His Messenger, from the beginning to the end, then the general statements of the companions, may Allah be pleased with them, and the Successors to them in good, may Allah be merciful with them; then the statements of the rest of the Imams of religion, whose statements are held in high regard, and no one disputes therein, except every stubborn and arrogant person; that Allah Ta’ala is (mustawin) established above His Throne, separate from His creation. Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya and his student al-Imam al-Muhaqqiq Ibn al-Qayyim said, in his book al-Juyush al-Islamiyya (which Keller calls anthropomorphic)…’ He then quotes Ibn al-Qayyim for about half of the page, then begins to quote the Quranic verses in support for Allah’s literal elevation upon His creation... (it continues)

...He then quotes Ibn Taymiyya literally affirming Allah’s elevation upon His creation saying: ‘Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya said: As for the traditions and narrations from the Companions and the Successors, then no one knows how numerous they are accept Allah. He (Ibn Taymiyya) said: Either, that which these texts contribute towards from affirming Highness of Allah Ta’ala over His creation and Rising above the Throne, that it is the truth, or the truth is the opposite of that, since the truth must either be of the two opposing possibilities. Either He, Jalla Sha’nuhu, Himself (nafsuhu) above the Creation, or He is not above the Creation as the Jahmites say; those who say that He Subhanahu is not above them, nor in them, nor inside the world, nor outside of it, nor separate, nor attached. Often they say, He is in Essence everywhere, while in both beliefs, they avoid saying that He Himself is above (fawq)…’ The quote then continues over two pages, up until Ibn Taymiyya says: ‘The scholars of Hadeeth have compiled the narrations from the Salaf concerning affirmation (of Highness), that none can count except the Lord of the Heavens; yet, no one has been able to narrate from them in negation (of Highness) a single letter, except fabricated lies narrated by one who is the most furthest of all from understanding their statements.’

I say (al-Saffarini): ‘The scholars wrote numerous works, and greatly endeavored to produce books, in affirmation of (Allah’s) Highness and Rising, pointing it out using the verses and traditions and what they comprise of. Hence, from them is one who narrates the traditions with chains, whilst from them is one who excludes the chains bringing meaningful wording. From them is one who extensively elaborates, whilst from them is one who wrote small-sized, medium-sized works, or refined existing ones. From such works is Mas’alat al-‘Uluw (The Issue of Allah’s Elevation) by Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya; al-‘Uluw by al-Imam al-Muwaffaq, the author of various Sunni works; al-Juyush al-Islamiyya by al-Imam al-Muhaqqiq Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya; Kitab al-‘Arsh by al-Hafidh Shams al-Din al-Dhahabi, the author of highly precious works; and other works which cannot be counted except with difficulty, while Allah Ta’ala is the source of ability.’... (continues)


https://aqeedah.wordpress.com/2006/0...and-direction/

[Abu Sulayman]

Assalamu alaykum

There seems to be a contradiction in what you're saying here. You're claiming that the authoritatie Hanbali scholars were consistent with the Ash'aris in making Tafwid and negating modality (Bila Kayf). The mainstream Hanbali position is not guilty of implying Tashbih and Tajsim in their beliefs.

Wa 'alaykum al-Salam,

What I'm saying is that the mainstream Hanbali position is that of Tafwidh [without that of Ta`wil (except if there is an interpretation found in the Sunna or the Athar)] and that they are free from Tashbih and Tajsim.

But before I go on I really have a request from you:
Please let's try to keep these issues as academic as possible and let's try to understand what the other side is saying. What I'm presenting here in this thread is not from an Ash'ari view, but rather from a general Sunni view, which respects both the Ash'ari and the Hanbali view and regards their differences as Ijtihadi and this has been the general mindset of the scholars, so let's not try to act as if Ahl al-Sunna are only one tiny group while excluding hundreds of classical major scholars from each side!
Let's also not turn this thread like the other thread were we had discussed. It's also important to concentrate on the meaning of the what is being said and not the wording, because two persons may say things differently while intending the same. An example for this is the position of the those Sunni scholars called as the Murji`a al-Fuqaha` regarding Iman in comparison to other Sunni scholars, who in reality believe both in the same thing in meaning while differing only in wording.

And please don't try to reuse the wrong way of argumentation that Abuz Zubair has used in the past (what you've posted is his way of argumentation and the website you used are actually the his posts taken from the IA Forums!). If we were to accept for the sake of argument that the mainstream Hanbali position regarding the Highness of Allah ta'ala is completely different from that of the Ash'aris, then this would still not necessitate that they have not made Tafwidh in the rest of the divine attributes.
In fact I'm telling you that Hanbalis do not make complete Tafwidh if they believe that something has been clarified to a certain extent by authentic texts and the first issue to mention here is the issue of the speech of Allah: When Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH) was confronted regarding affirming the issue of Harf (letter) and Sawt (sound) regarding the speech of Allah ta'ala (and this is a famous Hanbali position, even though often misunderstood by a lot of today's Ash'aris and "Salafis") and why they did not make complete Tafwidh like in the rest of the divine attributes (they do Tafwidh, but only after affirming Harf and Sawt because they say that this is established by authentic texts and the meaning they intend here is actually not impossible even according to the Ash'aris!), he stated by saying that the divine texts have explained this issue to this extent unlike the rest of the divine attributes. So he did not deny that when it comes to other attributes they make complete Tafwidh!
Remember what I said and understand it: The Hanabila do COMPLETE Tafwidh and are AGAINST Ta`wil (interpretation) and Tafsir (explanation) of any text regarding the divine attribute EXCEPT if the Sunna or the Athar contain a certain interpretation or explanation. This is something clarified by the Hanabila themselves.
If you just look one page after my last quote from Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in by Imam Ibn Hamdan (d. 695 AH) you'll see this mentioned by him!

That's why I'm asking you to look at this issue through the words of the Hanabila themselves (!) and not to try to superimpose the words of people who themselves are pro-Najdis (like Abuz Zubair)!
And by the way: It's easy to quote scholars of the "Salafis" (and not random internet-personalities like Abuz Zubair!), who explicitly admit that most Hanbalis were people of Tafwidh.

So if this is the case, then how is it possible that these same authorities recognized Ibn Taymiyyah as a Hanbali scholar and held him in high regard? If the Hanbalis and Ahlul Kalam understand Tajsim/Hawadith the exact same way, then shouldn't Ibn Taymiyyah be classified as a Zindeeq for going against the Madhhab and teaching anthropomorphism?

Well maybe because the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) was indeed a very knowledgeable Hanbali scholar? And maybe because they understood his words in such a way that they do not necessarily constitute Tajsim - but rather only mistaken [in wording at least and sometimes in meaning also] in some issues - just like many scholars praised the Shaykh Ibn 'Arabi (d. 638 AH) highly and regarded him from the Awliya` and would regard him as an authority in Tasawwuf, while understanding his problematic words in some of his works in such a way that they do not go against the Shari'a or by saying that they have been later added!

So how does praising the likes of those two scholars necessitate to agree with some of the wrong and abnormal views that are - either rightly or wrongly! - ascribed to them? Is this an academic and real argument?
Should we base our beliefs based upon what was - rightly or wrongly - ascribed to some scholars or should we base it upon the truth?

This simple truth destroys much of your premise concerning the Hanbalis being Mufaawid and misunderstanding the speech of their scholars. In fact, to suggest otherwise would be to charge the succeeding Hanbali authorities with Jahl and Nifaq. In the previous thread I cited the article of Imam al-Saffarini quoting Ibn Taymiyyah verbatim as a reference on Uluw. He then praises the books written by al-Dhahabi and Ibn al-Qayyim on this issue and recommends them as references. It would be ridiculous to classify al-Saffarini as someone who believed Allah's Aboveness is "without modality" in the Ash'ari sense (which renders it a metaphor). This same logic could also be applied to any Hanbali scholar who praises Ibn Taymiyyah and doesn't condemn him as a Mujjasim Zindeeq for affirming Allah's literal Uluw (bi-Dhatihi) Above the Heavens.

Okay, so you want to claim that Imam al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) is not a supporter of Tafwidh, right? I'll qoute him in my next post insha`allah, but before doing so I would like to mention that pro-Najdis (and you're not one of them, but Abuz Zubair is or at least was when writing the above posts which are quoted in your link!) should not be using him in the first place!
Ibn 'Uthaymin (d. 1241 AH) explicitly accuses him of polytheism and Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) wrote a letter to one of his students and said to him that he and his teachers (which includes Imam al-Saffarini!) and their teachers (which includes the teachers of Imam al-Saffarini!) would not differentiate between the religion of Islam and that of 'Amr bin Luhayy (the one who introduced polytheism to the people of Hijaz!!!).

[Abu Sulayman]

This simple truth destroys much of your premise concerning the Hanbalis being Mufaawid and misunderstanding the speech of their scholars. In fact, to suggest otherwise would be to charge the succeeding Hanbali authorities with Jahl and Nifaq. In the previous thread I cited the article of Imam al-Saffarini quoting Ibn Taymiyyah verbatim as a reference on Uluw. He then praises the books written by al-Dhahabi and Ibn al-Qayyim on this issue and recommends them as references. It would be ridiculous to classify al-Saffarini as someone who believed Allah's Aboveness is "without modality" in the Ash'ari sense (which renders it a metaphor). This same logic could also be applied to any Hanbali scholar who praises Ibn Taymiyyah and doesn't condemn him as a Mujjasim Zindeeq for affirming Allah's literal Uluw (bi-Dhatihi) Above the Heavens.

First of all: The ones EXPLICITLY ascribing ignorance to the Hanabila are the "Salafi" Mashayikh and this for the very issue of how they dealt with the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH)!
So don't use the very issue of how they USED his words in SOME ISSUES while at the same time IGNORING his words in SOME OTHER ISSUES or USING his words to establish a SPECIFIC point while REJECTING his position in the very issue CONNECTED to it, because the "Salafi" Mashayikh have attacked the Hanabila for this very issue and for how they dealt with his words and accused them (the Hanabila) of IGNORANCE.
The way the Hanabila have dealt with the words of the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya has been explained by the Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid al-Azhari al-Hanbali in detail (FIRST PART and SECOND PART), so I would like to refer you to listen to him (and he brings a lot of examples!). If you don't have that much time just listen to this video HERE, which is in order for you to understand the general approach.

And in general: Imam al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) does use the words of the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya in order to answer the Ta`wil of the opponents, but does not agree with him always and sometimes completely ignores his position and states the opposite of his words.

Then: Even if for the sake of argument we would say that Imam al-Saffarini did completely disagree with the Ash'aris regarding the Highness of Allah ta'ala, then this would not necessitate him being against Tafwidh in the rest of the divine attributes!

And I've already clarified what the Hanabila believe regarding Istiwa` and 'Uluw:

the Hanabila stated that Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala is established upon the throne (Mustawin 'ala al-'Arsh) without modality (bila kayf) and that He's beyond His creation (ba`in min khalqih).
The Istiwa of Allah ta'ala is in a manner befitting His majesty and not to be understood in the manner that we know from that which we can perceive (i.e. not in the manner of bodies!) and its reality should be consigned to Allah ta'ala, because it's beyond our comprehension and imagination.

As for the Highness ('Uluw) of Allah ta'ala, then Allah has always been and will always be the Most High no matter whether that is before or after bringing the creation into existance. Allah ta'ala is beyond limits, rather the throne (which is the biggest creation in size) and what is besides it [from the creation] is limited and Allah ta'ala is above [all of] that without place or limitation, because He existed and there was no place, then He created place and He is as He was before creating place.

I have also already quoted the whole chapter from Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in - an authoritative work on Hanbali creed! - which establishes exactly what has been mentioned above.

And Imam al-Saffarini's creed is no different to that of Imam Ibn Hamdan (d. 695 AH) regarding this as shown in another thread:

Imam al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) mentioned the affirmation of the Highness of Allah ta'ala in his Lawami' al-Anwar and clarified that this affirmation of Istiwa` and 'Uluw does not necessitate Tajsim until he said:

قال الإمام القرطبي ، وابن أبي زيد ، والقاضي عبد الوهاب من المالكية ، وجماعة من شيوخ الحديث والفقه ، وابن عبد البر ، والقاضي أبو بكر بن العربي ، وابن فورك ، وغيرهم ممن لا يحصى عددهم أنه سبحانه مستو على العرش بذاته ، وأطلقوا في بعض الأماكن : فوق عرشه ، قال القاضي أبو بكر - وهو الصحيح الذي أقول به - : من غير تحديد ، ولا تمكن في مكان ولا مماسة

Imam al-Qurtubi and Ibn Abi Zayd and al-Qadhi 'Abd al-Wahhab from the Malikis and a group from among the scholars of Hadith and Fiqh and Ibn 'Abd al-Barr and al-Qadhi Abu Bakr bin al-'Arabi and Ibn Furak and others whose number can not be counted said that [Allah] - glory be to Him - is elevated upon the throne by his essence. In some places [of their books] they stated "above His throne".
Al-Qadhi Abu Bakr said - and that is the correct [position] which I [also] say: Without limitation (Tahdid) nor being located (Tamakkun) in [a] place (Makan) nor touching (Mumassa).
- end of quote -

So here we see again: That the Highness that is affirmed here is one befitting Allah‘s majesty and not a sensory one and that the statement "with his essence" - even though disliked and rejected by many other scholars - does not necessitate affirmation in a sensory manner!

The interesting thing here is that the scholars that he ascribes this position to are mostly Ash'aris and it's a known thing that Asha'ira do NOT believe in any [divine] attribute in a SENSORY manner, rather explicitly state that the reality of Allah ta‘ala is beyond imagination and comprehension.
Imam al-Saffarini obviously knows that (and he agreed with that!).

Now one issue remains and that is his position on Tafwidh.

[Abu Sulayman]

Now one issue remains and that is his position on Tafwidh.

Imam al-Saffarini: Tafwidh al-Ma'na is the correct way!

The general approach regarding the divine attributes according to Imam al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) is explained by him in his Lawami' al-Anwar by the following statement:

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 -

Note that he's explicit in affirming Tafwidh al-Ma'na (!) as the way of the Salaf al-salih and he's from the later scholars, so there is no way to argue that he intended anything else other than Tafwidh al-Ma'na by this statement!

Now let us see who the Ahl al-Sunna are according to him:


Imam al-Saffarini: The Ahl al-Sunna are three groups: Atharis, Ash'aris and Maturidis

He said in his Lawami' al-Anwar:

أهل السنة والجماعة ثلاث فرق: الأثرية وإمامهم أحمد بن حنبل رضي الله عنه، والأشعرية وإمامهم أبو الحسن الأشعري رحمه الله، والماتريدية وإمامهم أبو منصور الماتريدي، وأما فرق الضلال فكثيرة جدا

Ahl al-Sunna wal Jama'a [consist of] three groups:
- Al-Athariyya, and their Imam is Ahmad bin Hanbal, may Allah be pleased with him;
- al-Ash'ariyya, and their Imam is Abul Hasan al-Ash'ari, may Allah have mercy upon him;
- and al-Maturidiyya, and their Imam is Abu Mansur al-Maturidi, [may Allah have mercy upon him];
as for the groups of deviation, then they're many...
- end of quote -

If the difference between mainstream Atharis / Hanbalis and Ash'aris / Maturidis would be soo great [according to him] he would have not included them into the definition of Ahl al-Sunna,

Now let's see some examples how the Imam dealt with texts regarding the divine attributes (I'm quoting here as quoted by the Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid al-Azhari al-Hanbali!):


Imam al-Saffarini: Yad is a divine attribute and not a limb

He first quoted Imam al-Bayhaqi (d. 458 AH) (a major Ash'ari scholar!) saying:

المتقدمون من هذه الأمة لم يفسروا ما ورد من الآي والأخبار في هذا الباب، مع اعتقادهم بأجمعهم بأن الله واحد، لا يجوز عليه التبعيض. وذهب بعض أهل النظر: إلى أن اليمين يراد به اليد، واليد لله صفة بلا جارحة، فكل موضع ذكرت فيه من الكتاب أو السنة= فالمراد بذكرها: تعلقها بالمكان المذكور معها؛ من الطي والأخذ والقبض والبسط والقبول والإنفاق وغير ذلك، تعلق الصفة الذاتية بمقتضاها؛ من غير مباشرة ولا مماسة، وليس في ذلك تشبيه بحال
- end of quote -

So here it is mentioned that the early scholars did not explain these type of verses and narrations while at the same time believing that God is one and that he's not consisting of parts; and that the people of Nadhar mentioned that Yad (literal translation: hand) regarding Allah ta'ala is an attribute and not a limb (Jariha) until the end of the quote.

Then Imam al-Saffarini comments by saying:

وهذا مذهب السلف والحنابلة ومن وافقهم.
قال الخطابي: وليس معنى اليد عندي الجارحة، وإنما هي صفة جاء بها التوقيف، فنحن نطلقها على ما جاءت، ولا نكيفها، وننتهي إلى حيث انتهى بها الكتاب والأخبار الصحيحة، وهو مذهب أهل السنة والجماعة
- end of quote -

He says that this is also the way of the Salaf and that of the Hanabila (i.e. he agrees with what Imam al-Bayhaqi stated!) and thereafter refers to Imam al-Khattabi (d.386 AH), who explicitly states that the meaning of Yad is not a Jariha (limb) [regarding Allah ta'ala].

If that is not clear enough, then let's add another statement regard the issue of Yad from him:

اعلم أن مذهب السلف الصالح، وعلماء الحنابلة، ومن وافقهم من أهل الأثر: أن المراد باليدين إثبات صفتين ذاتيتين تسميان يدين تزيدان على النعمة والقدرة، محتجِين بما مر من الآيات القرآنية والأخبار النبوية
...
فكذلك هنا لما كان ذكر التخصيص مضافا إلى صفة وجب إثبات تلك الصفة على وجه يليق بجلال الله وعظمته،
لا بمعنى: العضو والجارحة، والجسمية، والبعضية، والكمية، تعالى الله عن ذلك
- end of quote -

Here he affirms Yadayn as divine attributes (additionally to Qudra and Ni'ma!) in the manner befitting the majesty of Allah ta'ala while clearly stating: "Not with the meaning of an organ or a limb or corporeality or a part or a quantity."
So here we see that he completely declares Allah ta'ala transcendent from all bodily meanings, while affirming the divine attributes as stated (and this is in agreement with the Asha'ira!).

(By the way: I'm sure that AmantuBillahi also believes that Allah ta'ala described Himself with having created Adam - peace be upon him - with his Yadayn (literal translation: two hands) and that these are divine attribute and not something with a form or a quantity or any other bodily description. And if that is indeed what he believes, then he's actually in agreement with the classical Hanabila and Asha'ira while wrongly thinking that he's in agreement with the "Salafi" scholars.)

Should I resume, or is this enough?
Because he uses the same approach regarding Wajh and 'Ayn also.

[AmantuBillahi]

What I'm saying is that the mainstream Hanbali position is that of Tafwidh [without that of Ta`wil (except if there is an interpretation found in the Sunna or the Athar)] and that they are free from Tashbih and Tajsim.

This isn't true. What you have described above is the standard Ash'ari position. The "mainstream Hanbali position" is to make Ithbat of the Sifat and Tafwid of its ultimate reality (Kayfiyya) while negating similiarities (Tashbih) with the creation.

The Hanbalis affirm the Divine Attributes that were mentioned in the Quran/Sunnah without distorting their meanings. When Ash'aris utilize Tafwid, they do not affirm the descriptions in the Quran/Sunnah as Divine Attributes. Rather they consign the true interpretation back to Allah and reject the apparent meaning because they imply Tajsim/Tashbih.

Well maybe because the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) was indeed a very knowledgeable Hanbali scholar? And maybe because they understood his words in such a way that they do not necessarily constitute Tajsim - but rather only mistaken [in wording at least and sometimes in meaning also] in some issues - just like many scholars praised the Shaykh Ibn 'Arabi (d. 638 AH) highly and regarded him from the Awliya` and would regard him as an authority in Tasawwuf, while understanding his problematic words in some of his works in such a way that they do not go against the Shari'a or by saying that they have been later added!

So how does praising the likes of those two scholars necessitate to agree with some of the wrong and abnormal views that are - either rightly or wrongly! - ascribed to them? Is this an academic and real argument?
Should we base our beliefs based upon what was - rightly or wrongly - ascribed to some scholars or should we base it upon the truth?

There is a very key point here. The Ash'aris from the beginning have always considered Ibn Taymiyyah to be a clear-cut anthropomorphist. So if your argument is that Ash'aris and Hanbalis technically share the same Aqeedah, then you would have to explain how Ibn Taymiyya became so reverred and influential within the Hanbali Madhhab. Why would his Hanbali successors refer to him as "Shaykh al-Islam" and defend him from the accusations of his enemies if they did not agree and sympathize with him? If you believe that it is possible for a Hanbali to interpret Ibn Taymiyyah's theology as not being anthropomorphic, then you have agreed with my original premise that the Hanbalis and Ash'aris understand terms like Tajsim/Hawadith differently from one another. It's either that or we have to question the integrity of the latter Hanbalis who practically handed over their beloved school to a deviant Mujasima.

Ibn Taymiyyah was a unique scholar in that he was the only prominent Hanbali to have mastered Ilm al-Kalam and philosophy. I don't find anything strange about other Hanbalis finding some of his views abnormal. The question of course is which one of his views were they specifically referring to? Could it be possible that they honoured him with the title "Shaykh al-Islam" while believing that he was deviant in the core aspects of theology (Aqeedah al-Wasitiyya/Hamawiyya)? Or were they apprehensive towards some of his more advanced philosophical positions which didn't necessarily have a Hanbali precedence?

It would take a quite a bit to convince me that these Hanbalis disagreed with Ibn Taymiyyah on the fundamentals of Asma wa Sifat. The Hanbali books of creed are filled with instructions to affirm the Divine Attributes which the schools of Kalam failed to acknowledge. Not only did the Salaf/Hanbalis affirm the verses pertaining to Allah's Attributes, but also the contextualized implication of their descriptions. The clearest example of this is the Salaf's refutation of the Jahmiyyah using the Ayat of Istawa and Uluw. Had the Salaf made complete Tafwid of the Ma'na (meaning/implication), then they wouldn't have used "Istawa alal Arsh" to prove that Allah's Essence was Above the Throne and not everywhere. Likewise the example of al-Saffarini demonstrates that when a Hanbali appears to negate modality it doesn't necessarily imply that he's negating the implications/reality of the Attribute

[AmantuBillahi]

Imam al-Saffarini: Tafwidh al-Ma'na is the correct way!

The general approach regarding the divine attributes according to Imam al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) is explained by him in his Lawami' al-Anwar by the following statement:

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 -

Note that he's explicit in affirming Tafwidh al-Ma'na (!) as the way of the Salaf al-salih and he's from the later scholars, so there is no way to argue that he intended anything else other than Tafwidh al-Ma'na by this statement!

Now let us see who the Ahl al-Sunna are according to him:


Imam al-Saffarini: The Ahl al-Sunna are three groups: Atharis, Ash'aris and Maturidis

He said in his Lawami' al-Anwar:

أهل السنة والجماعة ثلاث فرق: الأثرية وإمامهم أحمد بن حنبل رضي الله عنه، والأشعرية وإمامهم أبو الحسن الأشعري رحمه الله، والماتريدية وإمامهم أبو منصور الماتريدي، وأما فرق الضلال فكثيرة جدا

Ahl al-Sunna wal Jama'a [consist of] three groups:
- Al-Athariyya, and their Imam is Ahmad bin Hanbal, may Allah be pleased with him;
- al-Ash'ariyya, and their Imam is Abul Hasan al-Ash'ari, may Allah have mercy upon him;
- and al-Maturidiyya, and their Imam is Abu Mansur al-Maturidi, [may Allah have mercy upon him];
as for the groups of deviation, then they're many...
- end of quote -

If the difference between mainstream Atharis / Hanbalis and Ash'aris / Maturidis would be soo great [according to him] he would have not included them into the definition of Ahl al-Sunna,

Now let's see some examples how the Imam dealt with texts regarding the divine attributes (I'm quoting here as quoted by the Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid al-Azhari al-Hanbali!):


Imam al-Saffarini: Yad is a divine attribute and not a limb

He first quoted Imam al-Bayhaqi (d. 458 AH) (a major Ash'ari scholar!) saying:

المتقدمون من هذه الأمة لم يفسروا ما ورد من الآي والأخبار في هذا الباب، مع اعتقادهم بأجمعهم بأن الله واحد، لا يجوز عليه التبعيض. وذهب بعض أهل النظر: إلى أن اليمين يراد به اليد، واليد لله صفة بلا جارحة، فكل موضع ذكرت فيه من الكتاب أو السنة= فالمراد بذكرها: تعلقها بالمكان المذكور معها؛ من الطي والأخذ والقبض والبسط والقبول والإنفاق وغير ذلك، تعلق الصفة الذاتية بمقتضاها؛ من غير مباشرة ولا مماسة، وليس في ذلك تشبيه بحال
- end of quote -

So here it is mentioned that the early scholars did not explain these type of verses and narrations while at the same time believing that God is one and that he's not consisting of parts; and that the people of Nadhar mentioned that Yad (literal translation: hand) regarding Allah ta'ala is an attribute and not a limb (Jariha) until the end of the quote.

Then Imam al-Saffarini comments by saying:

وهذا مذهب السلف والحنابلة ومن وافقهم.
قال الخطابي: وليس معنى اليد عندي الجارحة، وإنما هي صفة جاء بها التوقيف، فنحن نطلقها على ما جاءت، ولا نكيفها، وننتهي إلى حيث انتهى بها الكتاب والأخبار الصحيحة، وهو مذهب أهل السنة والجماعة
- end of quote -

He says that this is also the way of the Salaf and that of the Hanabila (i.e. he agrees with what Imam al-Bayhaqi stated!) and thereafter refers to Imam al-Khattabi (d.386 AH), who explicitly states that the meaning of Yad is not a Jariha (limb) [regarding Allah ta'ala].

If that is not clear enough, then let's add another statement regard the issue of Yad from him:

اعلم أن مذهب السلف الصالح، وعلماء الحنابلة، ومن وافقهم من أهل الأثر: أن المراد باليدين إثبات صفتين ذاتيتين تسميان يدين تزيدان على النعمة والقدرة، محتجِين بما مر من الآيات القرآنية والأخبار النبوية
...
فكذلك هنا لما كان ذكر التخصيص مضافا إلى صفة وجب إثبات تلك الصفة على وجه يليق بجلال الله وعظمته،
لا بمعنى: العضو والجارحة، والجسمية، والبعضية، والكمية، تعالى الله عن ذلك
- end of quote -

Here he affirms Yadayn as divine attributes (additionally to Qudra and Ni'ma!) in the manner befitting the majesty of Allah ta'ala while clearly stating: "Not with the meaning of an organ or a limb or corporeality or a part or a quantity."
So here we see that he completely declares Allah ta'ala transcendent from all bodily meanings, while affirming the divine attributes as stated (and this is in agreement with the Asha'ira!).

(By the way: I'm sure that AmantuBillahi also believes that Allah ta'ala described Himself with having created Adam - peace be upon him - with his Yadayn (literal translation: two hands) and that these are divine attribute and not something with a form or a quantity or any other bodily description. And if that is indeed what he believes, then he's actually in agreement with the classical Hanabila and Asha'ira while wrongly thinking that he's in agreement with the "Salafi" scholars.)

Should I resume, or is this enough?
Because he uses the same approach regarding Wajh and 'Ayn also.

Where do you think Ibn Taymiyyah or Salafis would disagree with this post? We have already established that al-Saffarini affirmed the Dhahir implications of Istawa and Uluw (i.e. that Allah is literally Above us). So it is not reasonable to assume that what he means here is Tafwid al-Ma'na in the Ash'ari sense. He's not asking us to believe in a bunch of indistinguishable Divine Attributes. Tafwid al Ma'na here refers to Kayfiyya.

We would need to contextualize his statement regarding Ahl al-Sunnah. Ibn Taymiyyah also included the Ash'aris and Maturidis in the broad defition of Sunni Islam. Perhaps that is what al-Saffarini is implying here as well. I've read articles where he explicitly refutes the Ash'aris on Uluw and another claiming that the majority of their predecessors believed in the Bid'ah of the Quran's creation.

[AmantuBillahi]

This isn't true. What you have described above is the standard Ash'ari position. The "mainstream Hanbali position" is to make Ithbat of the Sifat and Tafwid of its ultimate reality (Kayfiyya) while negating similiarities (Tashbih) with the creation.

The Hanbalis affirm the Divine Attributes that were mentioned in the Quran/Sunnah without distorting their meanings. When Ash'aris utilize Tafwid, they do not affirm the descriptions in the Quran/Sunnah as Divine Attributes. Rather they consign the true interpretation back to Allah and reject the apparent meaning because they imply Tajsim/Tashbih.

From Ibn Qudama's Lumatul I'tiqad:

He starts off the book with 42:11 and immediately follows it with 20:05-08 (Istawa/subsequent verses) and comments "His Knowledge encompasses everything.."

He then says:

"Allah is described by what He attributed to Himself, in His Magnificent Book, and upon the tongue of His honourable Messenger(saws).

We are obligated to believe in and welcome with submission and acceptance everything that is mentioned in the Quran or reported by the Messenger(saws) concerning the Attributes of Allah. We must abandon apposing this, by rad (rejection), tawil (distorted misinterpretation), Tashbih and Tamtheel. As for what appears unclear from that, then we are obligated to affirm its wording and not oppose its meaning. We are to return the precise knowledge to the one who stated it.."

He then cites the Hadith of Nuzul and quotes Imam Ahmad:

"We believe in them, and we attest to their validity, without saying how (Bila Kayf) and without ascribing an interpretation to them. Nor do we reject any part of them. We know that whatever the Messenger(saws) brought was the truth. We do not reject what the Messenger came with, nor do we describe Allah with more than He described Himself."

This statement of Imam Ahmad demonstrates how "Bila Kayf" doesn't negate the existence of the Attribute and "without interpretation" doesn't negate the description provided in the text.

He then goes on to scold those who take issue with the way of the Salaf and quotes some of the Attributes they struggle with:

Quran:

1. Face
2. Hands
3. Self (Nafs)
4. "And your Lord Comes"
5. "And do they wait for anything other than Allah to Come to them"

Sunnah:

1. Descending
2. Amazed
3. Laughter

"..we do not reject it nor do we negate it. Nor do we change its meaning with something that contradicts what is literally apparent from it. We do not compare it to the attributes of the creation, nor by using the naming schemes of the innovators. We know that Allah Ta'ala has no equals or comparisons.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.has...n-qudamah/amp/

[Abu Sulayman]

This isn't true. What you have described above is the standard Ash'ari position.

What I mentioned is explicitly mentioned in Hanbali creed books, so for you to simply say "it isn't true" is really not acceptable.
Add to that: What I mentioned is NOT the Ash'ari position. Ash'aris also believe in the correctness of Tafwidh, but at the same time they regard Ta`wil also as correct (unlike Hanabila!) and this is an Ijtihadi and known difference with the Hanabila.
If someone now asks "then what is the difference between Ash'aris and the Mu'tazila, who also engage in Ta`wil", then the answer is:
The Ash'aris accept the narrations of the divine attributes, while the Mu'tazila reject a lot of these narrations in the first place. As for the Ayat, then the Mu'tazila reject the very notion that God is described with attributes by saying for example "God is Al-Basir (All-Seeing), but without being described with Basar (Seeing)", while the Ash'aris do believe that God is described with eternal attributes subsisting in the divine essence.

Remember what Imam Ibn Abi Ya'la (d. 526 AH) said in his Tabaqat al-Hanabila:

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

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."
- end of quote -

The "mainstream Hanbali position" is to make Ithbat of the Sifat and Tafwid of its ultimate reality (Kayfiyya) while negating similiarities (Tashbih) with the creation.
The Hanbalis affirm the Divine Attributes that were mentioned in the Quran/Sunnah without distorting their meanings. When Ash'aris utilize Tafwid, they do not affirm the descriptions in the Quran/Sunnah as Divine Attributes. Rather they consign the true interpretation back to Allah and reject the apparent meaning because they imply Tajsim/Tashbih.

According to Imam al-Sanusi (d. 895 AH) - a major Ash'ari scholar and author of the famous Umm al-Barahin - there are three positions regarding the divine attributes among the scholars of Ahl al-Sunna (as mentioned in Sharh al-Muqaddimat):
1) Tafwidh (consignment)
2) Ta`wil (interpretation)
3) Ithbat with Tanzih (affirmation with transcendence)

The third position is based upon Tafwidh in reality which is why a lot of scholars will usually only mention two positions. The third position is also supported by many early Ash'aris and the Hanabila.

So if you're supporting Ithbat with Tanzih (which seems to be what you're on), then Ash'aris do not have a problem with that.

As for your statement regarding Kayfiyya:
This is why I told you that you should concentrate on the meaning of what is being said!
- 1st meaning: If you're intending the [ultimate] reality (i.e. Kunh) of the divine attributes are not known and should be consigned (and this is what you're saying above!), then we're in agreement! So why are you hellbent in finding difference in what we agree upon?
- 2nd meaning If however someone believes that Kayfiyya is the quantity or form or similar descriptions [of the attribtues] and that this applies to Allah ta'ala and that we're ignorant of this Kayfiyya (and the "Salafi" Mashayikh like Ibn 'Uthaymin are intending this!), then this is obviously Tashbih according to both Hanbalis and Ash'aris.
(Keep in mind that while Imam al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) and the Hanabila before him affirmed the attributes, they explicitly rejected descriptions like quantity, parts, limits and what is similar to it.)

So please before repeating yourself, clarify whether you are also rejecting the second meaning of Kayfiyya regarding Allah ta'ala or not? Concentrate on the meaning of what is being said, please.
And if you agree with the Hanabila (and Asha'ira) with rejecting the second meaning and accepting the first meaning, then this means we're in agreement in meaning - even if we use different wordings! - and the only thing that remains is whether "Salafis" also reject that or not.

...Ibn Taymiyyah... Ibn Taymiyya.. Ibn Taymiyyah's... Ibn Taymiyyah... Ibn Taymiyyah...

Bro, do you see how many times you mentioned the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) in one post alone? Do you think he would have accepted you turning him into the absolute authority of differentiating between truth and falsehood and this while the one who received revelation is the Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and not him?
By the way: You're not even aware how the Hanabila dealt with him, so it's not allowed for you to use this as an argument until you are aware of how they dealt with him in the first place.
And: Not all Ash'aris (whether those of the past or those of today) regard the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya as a Mujassim and even a major Ash'ari scholar like Shaykh al-Buti - who was aware of his writings! - did not regard him a Mujassim.
And again: The Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya is no different to the likes of the Shaykh Ibn 'Arabi (d. 638 AH), who had also problematic statements in his books, yet you'll find major scholars - who do not believe in these problematic things - praising him and regarding him from among the greatest of Awliya`!

Where do you think Ibn Taymiyyah or Salafis would disagree with this post? We have already established that al-Saffarini affirmed the Dhahir implications of Istawa and Uluw (i.e. that Allah is literally Above us). So it is not reasonable to assume that what he means here is Tafwid al-Ma'na in the Ash'ari sense. He's not asking us to believe in a bunch of indistinguishable Divine Attributes. Tafwid al Ma'na here refers to Kayfiyya.

We would need to contextualize his statement regarding Ahl al-Sunnah. Ibn Taymiyyah also included the Ash'aris and Maturidis in the broad defition of Sunni Islam. Perhaps that is what al-Saffarini is implying here as well. I've read articles where he explicitly refutes the Ash'aris on Uluw and another claiming that the majority of their predecessors believed in the Bid'ah of the Quran's creation.

If he says that Ahl al-Sunna are the three groups mentioned (Atharis, Ash'aris and Maturidis), then this means that he's intending that Ahl al-Sunna are three. If you're trying to reject whatever the Hanabila explicitly state, then this turns the whole discussion into a joke and you're right now accusing Hanabila of being "ignorants and unable to articulate what they intend" with this way of argumentation! Do you realize that?
And why are you so hellbent on throwing the scholars of Islam out of the definition of Ahl al-Sunna? Why not simply realize that there are Ijtihadi differences in the detailed issues of creed between the Sunni scholars and admitting that we as laymen are in NO position to attack these major scholars from each side.

Let's make the issue easy: Concentrate on the meaning of Kayfiyya. Is the Kayfiyya that you apply regarding Allah ta'ala and which you consign to Allah ta'ala the first meaning or the second meaning mentioned above?

[Abu Sulayman]

From Ibn Qudama's Lumatul I'tiqad:
...

This is taken from the article Imām ibn Qudāmah The Mufawwiḍ:

_________________

...

Admission of the Figureheads from the Opposing View

After presenting the above statements of Imām ibn Qudāmah, the fact of him being a Mufawwiḍ has been explicitly elucidated. If however, any mind is still in doubt then they may see below how some of the figureheads of the proponents of Ithbāt al-Ma’nā ala’l Dhāhir have conceded that Imām ibn Qudāmah was a Mufawwiḍ.

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Sālih al-‘Uthaymīn states in his explanation of the statement in Lum’at al-I’tiqād (first quote in further explanatory quotes mentioned above):

أما ما ذكره في “اللمعة” فإنه ينطبق على مذهب المفوضة، وهو من شر المذاهب وأخبثها، والمصنف -رحمه الله- إمام في السنة، وهو أبعد الناس عن مذهب المفوضة وغيرهم من المبتدعة، والله أعلم

[تعليق مختصر على لمعة الإعتقاد للعثيمين ج ١ ص ٣١]
“As for what he mentioned in ‘al-Lum’ah‘, then indeed, he was an adherent upon the methodology of the Mufawwiḍah, it is from the worst of methodologies and the filthiest of them. The author, may Allāh have mercy on him, is an Imām in the Sunnah and he is the furthest of the people from the methodology of the Mufawwiḍah and others beside them from the innovators. And Allāh knows best.” [Ta’liq Mukhtasar ‘alā Kitāb Lum’at al-I’tiqād al-Hādī ilā Sabīl al-Rashād, 1/31]

Although Shaykh Muhammad ibn Sālih al-‘Uthaymīn admits that this is what Imām ibn Qudāmah adhered to, he also attempts to repel the position from him since he considers him an Imām of what he considers to be the Sunnah, the reason for this is explained by another proponent of the view opposing Tafwīḍ al-Ma’nā:

Shaykh ‘Abd al-Razzāq ‘Afīfī said:

مذهب السلف هو التفويض في كيفية الصفات لا في المعنى، وقد غلط ابن قدامة في لمعة الاعتقاد، وقال: بالتفويض ولكن الحنابلة يتعصبون للحنابلة، ولذلك يتعصب بعض المشايخ في الدفاع عن ابن قدامة، ولكن الصحيح أن ابن قدامة مفوض

[فتاوى ورسائل سماحة الشيخ عبد الرزاق عفيفي]
“The methodology of the Salaf was consignment regarding the modality (kayfiyyah), not in the meaning (ma’nā), and indeed ibn Qudāmah erred in Lum’at al-I’tiqād as he said with Tafwīḍ; but the Ḥanābila are partisan to the Ḥanābila. Therefore, some Mashā’ikh are extreme when it comes to defending ibn Qudāmah. However, what is correct is that ibn Qudāmah was a Mufawwiḍ.” [Fatāwa wa Rasā’il Samāhat al-Shaykh ‘Abd al-Razzāq ‘Afīfī]

Finally, here is the verdict of the late Shaykh Nāsir al-Dīn al-Albānī from the footnotes of a book attributed to him entitled “Fundamentals of the Salafee Methodology: An Islamic Manual for Reform“. The scan below was provided by our respected Shaykh, Dr. Abul Hasan Hussain Ahmed (hafidhahullāh):



http://www.darultahqiq.com/wp-conten...a-Mufawwid.jpg

_________________


I would like you to concentrate on the following in your response:

As for your statement regarding Kayfiyya:
This is why I told you that you should concentrate on the meaning of what is being said!
- 1st meaning: If you're intending the [ultimate] reality (i.e. Kunh) of the divine attributes are not known and should be consigned (and this is what you're saying above!), then we're in agreement! So why are you hellbent in finding difference in what we agree upon?
- 2nd meaning If however someone believes that Kayfiyya is the quantity or form or similar descriptions [of the attributes] and that this applies to Allah ta'ala and that we're ignorant of this Kayfiyya (and the "Salafi" Mashayikh like Ibn 'Uthaymin are intending this!), then this is obviously Tashbih according to both Hanbalis and Ash'aris.
(Keep in mind that while Imam al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) and the Hanabila before him affirmed the attributes, they explicitly rejected descriptions like quantity, parts, limits and what is similar to it.)

So please before repeating yourself, clarify whether you are also rejecting the second meaning of Kayfiyya regarding Allah ta'ala or not? Concentrate on the meaning of what is being said, please.
And if you agree with the Hanabila (and Asha'ira) with rejecting the second meaning and accepting the first meaning, then this means we're in agreement in meaning - even if we use different wordings! - and the only thing that remains is whether "Salafis" also reject that or not.