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

[AmantuBillahi]

Isn't that interesting???

Not really. I've already explained previously that the difference being referred to here is Ibn Taymiyyah engaging in Ilm al-Kalam. This is something unheard of from the previous Hanabila and their books (including Sharh as-Sunnah by al-Barbahari) explicitly prohibit it. Yasir Qadhi is not referring to Tafwid or anything of that nature.

This is the paper he submitted in that conference:

https://www.amjaonline.org/wp-conten...asir-Qadhi.pdf

Read his dissertation for the historical background:

https://archive.org/details/YasirQad...e/n16/mode/1up

Yasir Qadhi affirms the Sifat of Allah Himself literally "Coming" on the Day of Judgement without Ta'wil or Tafwid:

Skip to 4:25.

[AmantuBillahi]

Useful resource:

Eight Early Hanbali Creeds:

https://www.academia.edu/36259260/Ei...eds_translated

The Ascription of the Book ar-Rad alal-Jahmiyyah to Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal:

http://www.aqidah.com/creed/articles...bin-hanbal.cfm

[AmantuBillahi]

List of Hanbali scholars compiled by Salafis:

http://muslimscholars.info/manage.ph...Search=Hanbali

1. Ibn Hamdan and Ibn Balban were not included on the list.

2. Under al-Saffarini's "Brief Biography" it says the following:

"A traditionist and jurist and a profound writer on various issues. He is most commonly famous for his poetic treatise on Hanbali theology called: al-Durrah al-Mudhiyah fi ‘Aqd al-Firqat al-Mardhiyah, which generally falls in line with the mainstream Hanbali dogma, bar few instances. However, in his commentary, known as Lawami’ al-Anwar al-Bahiyah, he often tends to contradict his poem, in agreement with the mainstream Hanbali doctrine. His poem, nevertheless, still remains popular amongst Hanbali students."

http://muslimscholars.info/manage.ph...olar&ID=120016

From the same website:

Ibn Taymiyah [Shaykh al-Islam]

A legendary figure in the Islamic history, known by his friends and foes for his expertise in all Islamic sciences. Aside from being a celebrated scholar, he also gained much prominence due to his fearlessness, zealous activism, political and military campaigns in Damascus against the invading Tatar. Ibn Nasir al-Din al-Dimashqi in his book al-Radd al-Wafir mentions 87 scholars from all schools who referred to Ibn Taymiya as ‘Sheikh al-Islam’, a prestigious title given only to jurists and traditionists whose verdicts reached a high level of fame and acceptance. His fame also earned him many envious enemies who continued to conspire against him, until he was imprisoned in the citadel of Damascus and died therein. His funeral was attended by a mammoth number of inhabitants of Damascus, while the funeral prayer in absentia was prayed over him throughout the Islamic world. He is remembered for his invaluable contributions, not only to the Hanbali school of jurisprudence and theology, but also to the rich Islamic heritage. He also produced many students of high calibre. Names such as Ibn al-Qayyim, al-Dhahabi and Ibn Kathir are but some of his virtues.
Shaykh al-Islam Taqi ud-Din Abu'l-Abbas Ahmad Ibn al-Halim ibn Abd al-Salam Ibn Taymiyah al-Hanbali was born in , 661 AH (1263 AC) in Haran, which is now in Eastern Turkey, near the border of northern Iraq.. His family had long been renowned for its learning , among his teachers, was Shams ud-Din Al-Maqdisi, first Hanbali Chief Justice of Syria following the reform of the judiciary by Baibars. The number of Ibn Taimiyah's teachers exceeds two hundred. Ibn Taimiyah was barely seventeen, when Qadi Al-Maqdisi authorized him to issue Fatwa (legal verdict). Qadi remembered with pride that it was he who had first permitted an intelligent and learned man like Ibn Taimiyah to give Fatwa. At the same age, he started delivering lectures. When he was thirty, he was offered the office of Chief Justice, but refused, as he could not persuade himself to follow the limitations imposed by the authorities. Imam Ibn Taimiyah's education was essentially that of a Hanbali theologian and jurisconsult. But to his knowledge of early and classical Hanbalism, he added not only that of the other schools of jurisprudence but also that of other literature. He had an extensive knowledge of Quran, Sunnah, Greek philosophy, Islamic history, and religious books of others, as is evident from the variety of the books he wrote.

http://muslimscholars.info/manage.ph...holar&ID=80001

[AmantuBillahi]

aMuslimForLife

I don't want to bicker over this too much, but have a view at the following:

"And he did something - and this is what really separates Ibn Taymiyyah from the previous Hanabils - he did something that the previous Hanabila, or previous Athari scholars never did, and that is, he read the works of his opponents (i.e. the Ash'aris and the philosophers). The previous Hanbali scholars were very close minded in this regard. They didn't want to read the books of the philosophers or the Greeks or the Mutakalimoon.

So therefore if you read pre-Ibn Taymiyyah Athari books you'll find them to be of a whole different character. Very simplistic. Quran, Hadith, Quran, Hadith. There's very little logic, there's very little rhetoric, there's very little development of ideas even. It's simply - this is what the Quran says you have to believe it. This is what the Hadith says you have to believe it. Very few people went against this trend. Ibn Taymiyyah was the greatest example of this. Ibn Taymiyyah spent years studying every single philosophy and ideology out there... and this gave him a type of mind, rhetoric and style that is simply unprecedented" [14:14]

[Abu Sulayman]

A very interesting Q & A session regarding the Hanbali Madhhab (recommended for the akh AmantuBillahi* especially):

Hanbali Madhhab Q & A by Shaykh Yusuf Sadiq al-Hanbali

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?sto...composer=false

(Biography of Shaykh Yusuf Sadiq al-Hanbali: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?sto...composer=false)

(*Note: He also teaches Sharh al-Sunna.)



7:15 Mu'tamad Fiqh books of early and middle phase?

12:30 Was Ibn Taymiyya a Mujtahid in the Madhhab or Mujtahid Mutlaq?

23:20 Are the differences between the Madhahib big and why did you choose the Hanbali Madhhab?

29:30 Question regarding Nisf Sha'ban in connection to the calendar and moonsighting?

30:50 How compatible is the Hanbali Madhhab with Ash'ari / Maturidi school?

36:20 The best book in Usul al-Fiqh in the Hanbali Madhhab for beginners?

38:30 How did you come to learn the Hanbali Madhhab in Fiqh and 'Aqida at al-Azhar where the Hanbali 'Aqida is not really approved?

42:10 What is better in Ramadan : Reading more Qur`an or acquiring more knowledge?

48:10 Who are the Hanbali scholars in our time?

49:10 Why don’t you recommend Zad al-Mustaqni'? (Good book, but to study its explanation al-Rawdh al-Murbi' is better.)

53:00 Difference between contemporary Salafis and Hanbalis? Any books on this?

58:30 The 'Aqida of Ibn Balban?

1:00:27 What is Mujamala?

1:01:00 Difference between Sunni Atharis and contemporary Salafis?

1:04:35 Hanbali Position on Imam Fakhr al-Din al-Razi?

1:07:05 Which Book were you talking about? A book that compares Hanbali with Salafi 'Aqida?

1:08:30 I have missed some of your lectures and lessons: Is there a way to get a hold of your lectures now? (Recordings of lessons should not be accessible to all.)

1:13:45 Are the Dhahiris a valid school? Why do some mention their rulings alongside the 4?

1:07:50 What do Hanabila say about flat earth? (lol)

1:08:00 Can we believe that man landed on the moon? ( weird question)

1:23:00 Can I recite words from the Qur`an to protect myself from corona virus?

1:26:25 Is Ta'widh (Taweez) a matter of Fiqh? Do the orthodox Hanabila permit them?

1:28:00 Jum'a prayer in prison?

1:28:40 Can you explain the Tasawwuf aspect that was practiced and promoted by the like of Imam Ahmad and the other 3 A`imma?

1:32:10 What is the Hanbali position on translating the Sifat of Allah ta'ala

1:35:55 Real Hanbalis? Fake Hanbalis?

1:37:35 The Hanbali approach regarding the question "Where is Allah?"?

1:40:45 Ruling regarding the Sahir (magician)?

1:42:05 How to answer someone who says that Allah was creating the world for all of pre-eternity?

1:44:30 What about Tasalsul? Still Kufr?

1:45:05 A movie like Harry Potter for kids?

1:46:50 Ruling of masturbation?

1:47:50 Can a man lead his family in Tarawih while the Masajid are closed? Can he read from the Mushaf in his hands?

[AmantuBillahi]

aMuslimForLife

Yasir Qadhi explains the controversy regarding Allah's attributes at 11:15:

He begins to illustrate the Athari position at 21:00.

"So when Allah is communicating to us in the Arabic language, we understand the word, but we will never understand 'how' that concept exists in Allah(swt) nor are we required to understand that concept. And this is the position of many scholars of Hadith especially, and many scholars from the Tabi'oon and Tabi Tabioon. Imam Malik was very explicit on this point. Imam Bukhari as well. Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal - many of the books his students wrote, it is very clear that this was his understanding. And it is an undeniable fact that this is the interpretation of a large group from very very early Islam" [22:55]

After quoting Uthmaan ad-Darimi (d. 280) on this issue affirming the meaning of "Coming" and making Tafwid of the how (Kayfiyya) he says "And in this beautiful phrase the Kayf or 'how' it happens we do not think about". He then cites Imam Tabari affirming the attribute of "Coming" and refuting those who say that it is the command of Allah and not Allah Himself. [23:37]

"Now, this is one interpretation. It is the interpretation of one school of Sunnism, and it is definitely found in many many early treatises of Islam, and it is defended by later scholars as well, the likes of Imam Dhahabi, Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al Qayyim and many scholars who followed that interpretation. But that is not the only interpretation. There are other interpretations as well. And we find these interpretations going back to schools called the Mu'tazili school and other schools as well. And eventually some of these interpretations were adopted by the Ash'ari and Maturidi schools. And they say that when Allah says "Your Lord will Come" we cannot affirm that Allah Himself comes" [28:55]

[Abu Sulayman]

"And he did something - and this is what really separates Ibn Taymiyyah from the previous Hanabils - he did something that the previous Hanabila, or previous Athari scholars never did, and that is, he read the works of his opponents (i.e. the Ash'aris and the philosophers). The previous Hanbali scholars were very close minded in this regard. They didn't want to read the books of the philosophers or the Greeks or the Mutakalimoon.

So therefore if you read pre-Ibn Taymiyyah Athari books you'll find them to be of a whole different character. Very simplistic. Quran, Hadith, Quran, Hadith. There's very little logic, there's very little rhetoric, there's very little development of ideas even. It's simply - this is what the Quran says you have to believe it. This is what the Hadith says you have to believe it. Very few people went against this trend. Ibn Taymiyyah was the greatest example of this. Ibn Taymiyyah spent years studying every single philosophy and ideology out there... and this gave him a type of mind, rhetoric and style that is simply unprecedented" [14:14]

The Tamimi Hanbalis, al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la, Imam Ibn 'Aqil, Imam Ibn al-Jawzi and others were all well-read in 'Ilm al-Kalam.
The book al-Mu'tamad fi Usul al-Din by al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la (d. 458 AH) is clearly not a simplistic book as the other books that are intended above.

Add to that: Ibn Taymiyya did not just read the works of philosophers, but he also got influenced by them to a certain degree in some issues.
His support for the issue of the possibility of Hawadith la Awwala laha (emergent things having no first) and the world (i.e. everything other than God) being emergent as a singular but eternal in kind (Qadim al-Naw') is a clear proof for that. None of the Hanabila before or after him supported such a belief. Al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la regards the issue of Hawadith la Awwala laha as an atheist position in his al-Mu'tamad.
A similar position as that of Ibn Taymiyya is only found by Ibn Rushd (d. 595 AH) - the philosopher! - before.

(Note: Takfir is done without hesitation upon the one saying that the world is eternal [as a singular and in kind]. As for saying it's eternal in kind only, then the issue is different even though it's a catastrophic and grave mistake. Ash'aris and Hanbalis are in full agreement on this.)

[Abu Sulayman]

List of Hanbali scholars compiled by a Salafi:

http://muslimscholars.info/manage.ph...Search=Hanbali

1. Ibn Hamdan and Ibn Balban were not included on the list.

2. Under al-Saffarini's "Brief Biography" it says the following:

"A traditionist and jurist and a profound writer on various issues. He is most commonly famous for his poetic treatise on Hanbali theology called: al-Durrah al-Mudhiyah fi ‘Aqd al-Firqat al-Mardhiyah, which generally falls in line with the mainstream Hanbali dogma, bar few instances. However, in his commentary, known as Lawami’ al-Anwar al-Bahiyah, he often tends to contradict his poem, in agreement with the mainstream Hanbali doctrine. His poem, nevertheless, still remains popular amongst Hanbali students."

http://muslimscholars.info/manage.ph...olar&ID=120016

It should be noted here that the 'Allama al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) himself wrote the reason for composing his poem in Athari creed (i.e. al-Durra al-Mudhiyya) in his Lawami' al-Anwar, the explanation of the poem:

قد كان في سنة ثلاث وسبعين بعد المائة وألف طلب [ ص: 2 ] منا بعض أصحابنا النجديين أن أنظم أمهات مسائل اعتقادات أهل الأثر في سلك سهل لطيف معتبر ، ليسهل على المبتدئين حفظه ، وتنفعهم معانيه ولفظه ، وذلك بعد قراءتهم علينا مختصرات العقائد جملة كلمعة الإمام الموفق ، ومختصر نهاية المبتدئين لشيخ مشايخنا البدر البلياني ، والعين والأثر للشيخ عبد الباقي والد أبي المواهب ، فابتهج قلبه بما أوقفناه عليه من الفوائد ، فتعللت باشتغال ( البال ، وتشويش ) الخاطر بالبلبال ، وتشتت الأفكار ، ( وتغير الأطوار ) ، فألح بالسؤال والالتماس ، وقال ما في فراغك عن هذه الخواطر واشتغالك بهذا المطلوب الحاضر مدة من باس ، فلما لم يندفع بالاندفاع ، ولم يفد التعليل لهذا الطالب الملتاع ، نظمت أمهات مسائل عقائد السلف في سمط عقد أبهى من اللآلئ البهية ، وسميتها ( الدرة المضية في عقد أهل الفرقة المرضية
- end of quote -

As you see above he mentions that a group from among the Hanabila in Najd* (!) asked him in the year 1173 AH to compose a poem regarding creed which can be easily memorized and contains the most important matters of creed and this after they had read short treatises of [Hanbali] creed to the 'Allama himself.
He names three works that he had teached them:
- Lum'at al-I'tiqad by Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH),
- Mukhtasar of Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in (i.e. Qala`id al-'Iqyan!) by the 'Allama Ibn Balban (d. 1083 AH), whom he refers to as the teacher of our teachers!
- al-'Ayn wal Athar by the 'Allama 'Abd al-Baqi al-Mawahibi (d. 1071 AH)

Note that al-'Ayn wal Athar is also based on the very wording of Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in by Imam Ibn Hamdan (d. 695 AH).

So 2 out of 3 books that he teached to them were based on Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in! This is for you to know the importance of this work by Imam Ibn Hamdan among the classical Hanabila.
Then: The Lum'a falls under the same direction as that of Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in and Imam Ibn Rajab (d. 795 AH) praises the works of creed of Imam Ibn Qudama in general and regards them to be upon Imam Ahmad's way.


* Important note: At that time the Wahhabi Da'wa had already started in Najd.
And the bad opinion of MIAW (d. 1206 AH) regarding the 'Allama al-Saffarini, his students and his teachers has also already been mentioned here:

Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab: Al-Saffarini, his teachers and his students did not know Islam!


Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) - the leader of the Najdis and "Salafis" - said in a letter to the Shaykh 'Abdullah bin 'Isa [al-Tamimi al-Hanbali] (d. 1175 AH) - a student of the 'Allama al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) - and his son and another scholar the following (as it is found in al-Rasa`il al-Shakhsiyya) while trying to justify to them his Takfir upon several families:

وأنتم تقرون أن الكلام الذي بينته في معنى لا إله إلا الله هو الحق الذي لا ريب فيه، سبحان الله إذا كنتم تقرون بهذا فرجل بين الله به دين الإسلام، وأنتم ومشايخكم ومشايخهم لم يفهموه ولم يميزوا بين دين محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم ودين عمرو بن لحى الذي وضعه للعرب بل دين عمرو عندهم دين صحيح ... الرجل الذي هداكم الله به لهذا إن كنتم صادقين لو يكون أحب إليكم من أموالكم وأولادكم لم يكن كثيراً فكيف يقال ... ا

You have [already] accepted that the statement which I have explained regarding the meaning of "La Ilaha illa Allah" is the truth without any doubt.
Subhanallah, if you are affirming this, then [this] is a man (he's intending himself!!!) through whom Allah has made the religion of Islam clear, [while] you and your teachers (Mashayikh) and their teachers did not understand [Islam], nor were they able to differentiate between the religion of Muhammad - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and the relgion of 'Amr bin Luhayy (!!) - who had invented a religion (i.e. that of idol worship) for the Arabs (those of pre-Islamic times) -, rather according to them the religion of 'Amr bin Luhayy is the correct religion...
The man (he's intenting himself again!) through whom Allah has guided you to this, [and] if you are truthful, [then] if he would be more beloved to you than your wealth and your children, then this would be not much [to ask]. Then how is possible to be said...
- end of quote -

Comment: Wallahi, he has lied that they agreed with his explanation and wallahi he has lied in his indirect claim for prophethood!
The one who is more beloved to us than our wealth, our children and even our ownselves and the one through whom Allah ta'ala guided us to Islam and pure Tawhid - not the fake "Tawhid" that IAW came with! - is our Master Muhammad al-Mustafa, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam!!!

And: Imam al-Saffarini and his teachers and his students knew Islam much better than him and his pagan minded followers, who do not know whether their Lord is a body or transcendent from being a body and who claim that "there is some [sort of] of similarity (!) [between the Creator and the creation]"!

In the above letter he's trying to convince the scholars to agree with his unjustified Takfir, but from his letters - and the answers of the scholars against him! - we know that they all rejected his ideas, so that he started making Takfir upon ALL the scholars of his region! This is the leader of the "Salafis", o slaves of Allah! This is their leader!

Even major Hanbali scholars of the region like the Shaykh [Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Rahman] Ibn 'Afaliq [al-Ahsa`i al-Hanbali] (d. 1164 AH) and the Shaykh [Muhammad bin 'Abdullah] Ibn Fayruz [al-Ahsa`i al-Hanbali] (d. 1216 AH) - who had to flee to Basra, because the Najdis were trying to kill him! - were not safe from the Takfir of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab! (See al-Rasa`il al-Shakhsiyya: "فأما ابن عبد اللطيف وابن عفالق وابن مطلق فحشوا بالزبيل أعني : سبابة التوحيد واستحلال دم من صدق به أو أنكر الشرك، ولكن تعرف ابن فيروز أنه أقربهم إلى الإسلام وهو رجل من الحنابلة، وينتحل كلام الشيخ وابن القيم خاصة ومع هذا صنف مصنفا أرسله إلينا قرر فيه هذا الذي يفعل عند قبر يوسف وأمثاله هو الدين الصحيح")

Conclusion: If the Shaykh and 'Allama al-Saffarini would have lived in their region, then you can be sure that they would have tried to kill him too!

[AmantuBillahi]

[U]A very interesting Q & A session regarding the Hanbali Madhhab (recommended for the Akh AmantuBillahi* especially)
...
...

Another "Azhari Hanbali". Interesting.

I'll have a view when I get a chance inshaAllah.

[Abu Sulayman]

Another "Azhari Hanbali". Interesting.

I'll have a view when I get a chance inshaAllah.

Insha`Allah.
Note that he does state that they do not really teach Hanbali 'Aqida inside al-Azhar, but rather only Fiqh (because al-Azhar is an Ash’ari institution as you have correctly said).

But the same Hanbali teacher does also teach you Hanbali creed outside. (This is something that is true regarding the Shaykh Muhammad al-Sayyid Mustafa for example.)
Rememer that the 'Allama al-Karmi (d. 1033 AH) - the author of Ghayat al-Muntaha - was also an Azhari. He was of course also Hanbali in creed (as it’s obvious from his Aqawil al-Thiqat), so he must also have learned his creed from somewhere, right?

[AmantuBillahi]

Insha`Allah.
Note that he does state that they do not really teach Hanbali 'Aqida inside al-Azhar, but rather only Fiqh (because al-Azhar is an Ash’ari institution as you have correctly said).
But the same Hanbali teacher does also teach you Hanbali creed outside. (This is something that is true regarding the Shaykh Muhammad al-Sayyid Mustafa for example.)

What do you mean by "outside"? Private lessons with the Shaykh? Well, the fact that these teachers are endorsed by al-Azhar could only take place if their Aqeedah fell in line with Ash'arism. They're not going allow "Salafi-inclined" Hanbali scholars propagate their pro-Ibn Taymiyyah anti-Ash'ari rhetoric within their own facility.

Also, these students at al-Azhar will most probably learn Ash'ari Aqeedah alongside studying Hanbali Fiqh, even if it's on a rudimentary level. This is going to impact their biases similiar to how a Salafi will be indoctrinated by the "Najdi Da'wah" at the university of Madinah.

Rememer that the 'Allama al-Karmi (d. 1033 AH) - the author of Ghayat al-Muntaha - was also an Azhari. He was of course also Hanbali in creed (as it’s obvious from his Aqawil al-Thiqat), so he must also have learned his creed from somewhere, right?

I'm not familiar him or how respected he is amongst Salafi-Hanbalis. We also don't know what his relationship was with al-Azhar and whether or not he taught Aqeedah at the university.

Check out this video:

"And If you want to get technical many teachers from the Islamic university of Madinah came from Azhar. They came from Azhar in the 60s and 70s. They were Azharis. Many of them established the curriculum and did things in Madinah. It doesn't mean we have to agree on everything" [7:38]

[AmantuBillahi]

I'm not familiar him or how respected he is amongst Salafi-Hanbalis. We also don't know what his relationship was with al-Azhar and whether or not he taught Aqeedah at the university.

This portion in bold was a slip. Obviously he didn't teach Hanbali Aqeedah at the university because it's an Ash'ari institute. But just like these other "Hanbali Azharis" who hold an Aqeedah that falls in line with the Ash'ari projection of the "Hanbali/Athari" creed (i.e. Tafwid), it wouldn't be a surprise me if this scholar was of their ilk. I'm not familiar with him and what his relationship was with al-Azhar or even how well he's received by the Salafi-Hanbalis. All of this would require a more thorough research in the Arabic language.

[AmantuBillahi]

What do you mean by "outside"? Private lessons with the Shaykh? Well, the fact that these teachers are endorsed by al-Azhar could only take place if their Aqeedah fell in line with Ash'arism. They're not going allow "Salafi-inclined" Hanbali scholars propagate their pro-Ibn Taymiyyah anti-Ash'ari rhetoric within their own facility.

Also, these students at al-Azhar will most probably learn Ash'ari Aqeedah alongside studying Hanbali Fiqh, even if it's on a rudimentary level. This is going to impact their biases similiar to how a Salafi will be indoctrinated by the "Najdi Da'wah" at the university of Madinah.[7:38]

But just like these other "Hanbali Azharis" who hold an Aqeedah that falls in line with the Ash'ari projection of the "Hanbali/Athari" creed (i.e. Tafwid), it wouldn't be a surprise me if this scholar was of their ilk.

Abu Sulayman

I listened to portions of that Q&A. This brother seems to be balanced and humble. It looks like he takes a different approach from Muhammad Abdul Wahid al-Hanbali.

Regarding studying Hanbali Fiqh and Aqeedah in al-Azhar he said:

"I learned Hanbali Fiqh at Jamiat Azhar al-Shareef. This was easy because there were Durus of the Hanbali Fiqh at al-Azhar, but the Durus were for beginners, and I spent a lot of time with my Shaykh. I used to go to my Shaykh every Sunday and Wednesday, and I used to spend a lot of time at his place reading books of Fiqh and Usool al-Fiqh. And my Shaykh is Hanbali in Aqeedah. So he taught me Hanbali Aqeedah; not in Jamiat al-Azhar, but in other places. Although my Shaykh took the initiative to teach Usool al-Sunnah by Imam Ahmad in Jamiat Azhar al-Shareef, although they do not really approve the Aqeedah of the Hanabila as a separate thing -- they consider it a part of the Ash'ari school, which is really ironic and funny,,,"

Elsewhere he said the difference between the Salafis and Hanbalis on certain aspects is in wordings. But anyway, I'll have to view the entire video and consult a Salafi student of knowledge to hear their take on who represents "mainstream Hanbali Aqeedah" and why/how do they supposedly differ with Salafis.

[Abu Sulayman]

What do you mean by "outside"? Private lessons with the Shaykh?

Yes, for example.

Well, the fact that these teachers are endorsed by al-Azhar could only take place if their Aqeedah fell in line with Ash'arism.

This is not correct. Let us not assume things without proofs.
The Shaykh Muhammad al-Sayyid - who is among the teachers of Shaykh Yusuf Sadiq and teaches at al-Azhar al-sharif - believes that Gods speaks with Harf wa Sawt and that Ta`wil is not allowed and so on. Have you ever in your whole life heard about an Ash'ari saying with Harf wa Sawt?
FYI: Just like Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH) is harsh on this issue against the Ash'aris, so are the Ash'aris harsh on Hanbalis and will attack them on this and call them even Hashwis or stubborn or other things.

They're not going allow "Salafi-inclined" Hanbali scholars propagate their pro-Ibn Taymiyyah anti-Ash'ari rhetoric within their own facility.

The mainstream Hanbalis were themselves not "Salafi-inclined" and their level of anti-Ash'arism differed from scholar to scholar. They in generally respected the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) and benefited from his immense knowledge, but at the same time they did not turn him into the judge upon everything as the "Salafis" have done.
Mainstream Hanbalis will quote the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya and simply disagree with him after this. Do "Salafis" do this?
Mainstream Hanbalis did not regard the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya's creed as fully reliable, that's why even someone like the 'Allama al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) - who quotes him a lot in his Lawami' al-Anwar (much more than others) - disagrees a lot with him after quoting him. While the same 'Allama al-Saffarini did regard works such as Lum'at al-I'tiqad and the Mukhtasar of Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in (i.e. Qala`id al-'Iqyan) and al-'Ayn wal Athar (its autor is also an Azhari!) as fully reliable and that's why he teached it to his students.

Note that mainstream Hanbalis did not write a single commentary on the creedal works of the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya, while the "Salafis" have written a lot in our times.

Also, these students at al-Azhar will most probably learn Ash'ari Aqeedah alongside studying Hanbali Fiqh, even if it's on a rudimentary level. This is going to impact their biases similiar to how a Salafi will be indoctrinated by the "Najdi Da'wah" at the university of Madinah.

Again: Let's not assume something without knowledge. The Shaykh said that he went and learned Hanbali Fiqh there and that's it.
Then: The Hanbali scholars after the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya had almost all studied some Ash'ari works. Does this turn them into Ash'aris? No.

I'm not familiar him or how respected he is amongst Salafi-Hanbalis. We also don't know what his relationship was with al-Azhar and whether or not he taught Aqeedah at the university.

He's very respected even among them. Bakr Abu Zayd called him as the 'Allama and Faqih.
I told you that he's the author of Ghayat al-Muntaha and this should be enough for you to know his status in the Hanbali Madhhab. Works like al-Iqna', Kashaf al-Qina', Ghayat al-Muntaha, Muntaha al-Iradat and others are among the most important works in Hanbali Fiqh and when you hear someone saying "the author of this and that work" (mentioning one of the mentioned books), then there is no need to ask regarding their status.

By the way: Since you have spoken about sincerity and honesty more than once in this thread: Honesty dictates that the question "was this scholar a mainstream one?" regarding major Hanbali scholars - who are much higher in rank and knowledge than the people of today - are not judged based upon the views of people of today, but rather based upon what classical Hanabila themselves thought of this scholar.

"And If you want to get technical many teachers from the Islamic university of Madinah came from Azhar. They came from Azhar in the 60s and 70s. They were Azharis. Many of them established the curriculum and did things in Madinah. It doesn't mean we have to agree on everything" [7:38]

Interesting.

[Abu Sulayman]

This portion in bold was a slip. Obviously he didn't teach Hanbali Aqeedah at the university because it's an Ash'ari institute. But just like these other "Hanbali Azharis" who hold an Aqeedah that falls in line with the Ash'ari projection of the "Hanbali/Athari" creed (i.e. Tafwid), it wouldn't be a surprise me if this scholar was of their ilk. I'm not familiar with him and what his relationship was with al-Azhar or even how well he's received by the Salafi-Hanbalis. All of this would require a more thorough research in the Arabic language.

His Aqawil al-Thiqat is nowhere Ash'ari and his status among Hanbalis has already been mentioned above.
Then: Do you know how the Ash'ari take actually is on these issues? They well mention Imam Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 597 AH) and Imam Ibn 'Aqil (d. 513 AH) - who were both inclined towards Ta`wil - and act as if they represent the "mainstream Hanbali view". This is what they will do.
They will not even mention to you the issue of Harf wa Sawt and this with the knowledge there is basically no Hanbali who does not support this issue.
I did none of this.

Remember this post here (it's only a part of it):

The different directions among the Hanbalis regarding creed:


- The majority of the Hanabila are in agreement with the creed that is found in Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in by Imam Ibn Hamdan (d. 695 AH), which is to accept the Ayat and Ahadith regarding the Sifat as they have come while adhering to transcendence and not exaggerating in affirmation.

- There is also another direction, which exaggerates in affirmation and that is the direction of the Shaykh Ibn Hamid (d. 403 AH), who was among the teachers of al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la (d. 458 AH) who did not agree with him in this direction.
What is interesting to note here is that Imam Ibn Hamdan mentioned the statements of Hanbali scholars regarding 'Uluw, Istiwa and Nuzul and when he mentioned the statement of Ibn Hamid he directly and clearly rejected his position, while he did do the same with any of the other statements! (See HERE)

- There is another direction which is that of Imam Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 597 AH) and Imam Ibn 'Aqil (d. 513 AH), who were inclined towards Ta`wil of the Ayat and Ahadith of the Sifat and this is rejected by the rest of the Hanabila as it is known.
It should be however noted that Imam Ibn al-Jawzi has also statements in line with the majority direction.

Abu Sulayman

I listened to portions of that Q&A. This brother seems to be balanced and humble. It looks like he takes a different approach from Muhammad Abdul Wahid al-Hanbali.

Regarding studying Hanbali Fiqh and Aqeedah in al-Azhar he said:

"I learned Hanbali Fiqh at Jamiat Azhar al-Shareef. This was easy because there were Durus of the Hanbali Fiqh at al-Azhar, but the Durus were for beginners, and I spent a lot of time with my Shaykh. I used to go to my Shaykh every Sunday and Wednesday, and I used to spend a lot of time at his place reading books of Fiqh and Usool al-Fiqh. And my Shaykh is Hanbali in Aqeedah. So he taught me Hanbali Aqeedah; not in Jamiat al-Azhar, but in other places. Although my Shaykh took the initiative to teach Usool al-Sunnah by Imam Ahmad in Jamiat Azhar al-Shareef, although they do not really approve the Aqeedah of the Hanabila as a separate thing -- they consider it a part of the Ash'ari school, which is really ironic and funny,,,"

Elsewhere he said the difference between the Salafis and Hanbalis on certain aspects is in wordings. But anyway, I'll have to view the entire video and consult a Salafi student of knowledge to hear their take on who represents "mainstream Hanbali Aqeedah" and why/how do they supposedly differ with Salafis.

The Shaykh Muhammad al-Sayyid (his teacher) is also very humble and balanced (I think it was him who tried teaching Usul al-Sunna inside al-Azhar).

As for the Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid, then he has the same creed as them, but is much harsher towards "Salafis" because he himself used to be a "Salafi" and they attacked him a lot and lied a lot about him since he distanced himself from them.