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

[AmantuBillahi]

Yes, for example.



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.



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.



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.



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.



Interesting.

1. We're talking about how to understand the terminology of the Hanabila here (Tafwid, Tajism, Hawadith, Tahdid, Hadd, Makkan, etc). The issue of Harf and Sawt is out of the question because that's an uncompromising aspect of Hanbali theology. Besides, by the looks of it the teacher of this student isn't preaching his beliefs in the university.
2. The mainstream Hanbalis are not Salafi inclined despite referring to Ibn Taymiyyah as Shaykh al-Islam and not condemning him as a Mujassim for what is mentioned in Dar at-Taarad and Bayan Tablis? Again, this would need an extremely sophisticated explanation to relieve my suspicions.
3. Al-Azhar would never allow a Salafi-Hanbali (and I'm only using this term for convenience sake) to teach at their university. Common sense suggests that the Hanbalis they'd employ would be of the type who make Tafwid al-Ma'na and negate modality to the point where it falls virtually in line with Ash'ari theology.

It's difficult for me to continue discussing this point without the sufficient resources. There are no debates between Salafis and "mainstream Hanbalis" in the English Da'wah scene. Even Farah. A was surprised to hear of these Azhari Hanbalis (not that they studied Aqeedah there, but still). I'll have to investigate some of these issues further with a Salafi student of knowledge, inshaAllah.

[AmantuBillahi]

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.

Right.

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.

Well if you have any more content from personalities like him then feel free to share them. I'm going to listen to the entire Q&A in a few hours inshaAllah (it's very difficult to find time during this month).

[AmantuBillahi]

Yasir Qadhi is questioned and gives a brief answer on what is Hanbali Aqeedah at 35:47:

This is the paper he submitted to that conference - The genesis of the 'Salafi-Ash'ari' divide:

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

[AmantuBillahi]

Ibn Taymiyyah and the Contingency Argument:

Excerpt from Mohammad Hijab's "Kalam Cosmological Arguments":

"Despite his critique of the philosophers and the Ash’arites, Ibn Taymiyyah has made important contributions to the cosmological argument. Some of his works on this argument include Dar’ Al-Ta’rrud, Al-Safadiyah, Mas’alah Hudooth Al-Aalam, and Sharh Aqeedah Al-Isbahani. We will focus on the latter text, which translates to An Explanation of the Creed of Al-Isfahani. Ibn Taymiyyah undoubtedly affirmed not only the term wajib al-wujood (necessary existence), but also the rationale that led to it. Ibn Taymiyyah connects this kind of rationalisation with Qur’anic arguments and alludes to the fact that the argument is, in effect, Qur’anic. This is similar to Al-Ghazali in his book Al-Qistaas al Mustaqeem. After mentioning the standard ways in which the philosophers and Ash’arites have argued the existence of God, Ibn Taymiyyah writes..."

PDF Download link:

https://salam.org.uk/wp-content/uplo...n-Tayymiah.pdf

[AmantuBillahi]

The Rational - Episode 4 - Ibn Taymiyyah and the Existence of the Creator:

Transcript:

https://www.jaafaridris.com/rational-episode-04/

[AmantuBillahi]

Abu Sulayman

Since you brought up Shaykh Hatim al-Awni(H) earlier tell me what position you think he holds on Allah's Attributes. Yasir Qadhi is quite fond of him despite being someone who sympathizes with Ibn Taymiyyah's theology and affirms the Dhahir of the Ayat pertaining to Allah's Sifat as demonstrated on the previous page.

In the Facebook post you cited on page #19 he mentioned that his difference with Ibn Taymiyyah on "Tafwid" is only in wording. Could you provide us with more of his theological posts/writings? I'm interested to know what other Salafis think of him specifically on the issue of Asma wa Sifat.

[aMuslimForLife]

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.

Point one: You are oversimplifying the differences between al Barbahari and Ibn Taymiyyah. It is more than just Ibn Taymiyyah's involvement in ilm kalam. Ibn Taymiyyah had alot of philosophical theories and beliefs that are part of his own reasoning and logic, that are unknown to the Salafus Saleh, as well as many Hanbalis before him. I don't have the time to spell them out right now. But it is obvious for anyone who compares al Barbahari and Ibn Taymiyyah.

Point two: Do not back project Yasir Qadhi's creed and Ibn Taymiyyah's creed onto al Barbahari. I am not interested in Yasir Qadhi personal preference when it comes to creed. Thanks for sharing. I posted this because I was interested in the differences between al Barbahari's and Ibn Taymiyyah's creed.

Yasir Qadhi said, “Both Asharis and Atharis simplistically read their bias into the past, both sides want to claim these people for themselves. But if you actually do the research and go deep in you find that history is more complex than reality. History is not as black and white. And yes trends developed. ( Forward to about 1:01 Towards Bridging the Salafi-Ashari Divide).

DO NOT SIMPLISTICALLY READ YOUR BIAS INTO THE PAST.

Ibn Taymiyyah and al Barbahari had difference influences, different background, different structure of education, different books of Aqida that they studied and read etc etc. When you read Ibn Taymiyyah and al Barbahari their creeds are different.

When I get the time, I will post some of the differences.

[aMuslimForLife]

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?

This was excellent. Jazakullahu khairan.

[aMuslimForLife]

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]

This was not the approach of Imam Ahmad.

Imam Ahmad said, "We believe in it, attest to it, without how and without meaning." (Lumatu al Itqaad - ibn Qudamah)

Imam Ahmad did not say "we understand the word."

Imam Ibn Qudamah explains this methodology in detail, providing proofs for this methodology from the Quran. And the Quran is very clear.

Ibn Qudamah said, "He is to be described in the manner that He has spoken of Himself in his Grand Book or according to the statements of His Noble Prophet.

All of what has been brought in the Quran or is authentically related by the Chosen One, peace and blessings be upon him, regarding the Attributes of the Most High Merciful is compulsory to believe. Whatever has been related must be met with submission and acceptance, while abandoning investigation into by way of rejection, interpretation, likening the expressions to the creation or giving likeness to the Creator as we would the creation.

Any expression such as that which would be ambiguous, it is necessary to affirm the wording, while abandoning the seeking of the meaning of the text.

We leave the knowledge of the expression to the speaker and the responsibility of knowing its meaning to the one who narrated it. This is in accordance with following the way of those well-grounded in knowledge. Allah praised these people in His Clear Book when He said,

Those who are well grounded in knowledge say, "We believe in it. All of it has come from Our Lord." (Quran 3:7).

He (Allah), in mentioning the blameworthy nature of those seeking the meaning of the allegorical passages of His Revelation, said,

"Those who have a disease in their hearts follow what is ambiguous, seeking tribulation and seeking its meaning. And no one knows its meaning except Allah." ( Quran 3:7).

Allah with this ayah made seeking the meaning of the text a sign of the disease in the heart and He equated it with seeking evil and tribulation, both being held as blameworthy. So He veiled them from that which they sought and blinded them from what they were seeking according to the words of the Glorified One,

"And no one knows the meaning except Allah." (Quran 3:7)

Imam Abu Abdullah Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Ibn Hanbali, may Allah have mercy on him, regarding the statements of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon, “Indeed Allah descends to the lowest sky” and Indeed Allah will be seen in the Hereafter.” And other statements, said the following:

“We believe in it, attest to it, without how and without meaning. We do not deny any of it; but we know that what the Messenger came with is true and we do not reject the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him. We do not describe Allah with more than what He has described Himself with, (but He is) without boundary and without limit.

There is nothing like Him. He is the All Seeing, the All Hearing. (42:11)

We say just as He said. We describe Him how He has described Himself and we do not transgress that. No description given could reach Him. We believe in all of the Quran, the decisive and the allegorical. We do not use falsehood to negate any of His Attributes.

We do not transgress the Quran and the Hadith. We do not know the essence of it, only testifying to the Messenger, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, and affirming the Quran.” (Lumatu al Itqaad - ibn Qudamah)


The Attributes of Allah are from the unclear verses according to the Hanbali madhab.

Imām Ibn Qudamah al-Maqdisī (ra) said “What is correct is that the Mutashābih (unclear verses and narrations) are: what has been narrated (textually) regarding the attributes of Allāh the Exalted.” (ar-Rawdah an-Nādhir with the gloss of Ibn Badrān (1/186)

[AmantuBillahi]

This was not the approach of Imam Ahmad.

Imam Ahmad said, "We believe in it, attest to it, without how and without meaning." (Lumatu al Itqaad - ibn Qudamah)

Take it up with Yasir Qadhi. That is your biased understanding of the statement of Imam Ahmad. Salafis do not interpret this to phrase to mean that the verses pertaining to Allah's Attributes are meaningless because it would conflict with other statements/beliefs of Imam Ahmad(ra).

Ibn Qudama on Tafwid:

https://aqeedah.wordpress.com/2006/0...ama-on-tafwid/

Anyway, I don't mind you quoting me and sharing your views, but I'm not going to repeat 23 pages with another person.

[AmantuBillahi]

Point one: You are oversimplifying the differences between al Barbahari and Ibn Taymiyyah. It is more than just Ibn Taymiyyah's involvement in ilm kalam. Ibn Taymiyyah had alot of philosophical theories and beliefs that are part of his own reasoning and logic, that are unknown to the Salafus Saleh, as well as many Hanbalis before him. I don't have the time to spell them out right now. But it is obvious for anyone who compares al Barbahari and Ibn Taymiyyah.

Point two: Do not back project Yasir Qadhi's creed and Ibn Taymiyyah's creed onto al Barbahari. I am not interested in Yasir Qadhi personal preference when it comes to creed. Thanks for sharing. I posted this because I was interested in the differences between al Barbahari's and Ibn Taymiyyah's creed.

Yasir Qadhi said, “Both Asharis and Atharis simplistically read their bias into the past, both sides want to claim these people for themselves. But if you actually do the research and go deep in you find that history is more complex than reality. History is not as black and white. And yes trends developed. ( Forward to about 1:01 Towards Bridging the Salafi-Ashari Divide).

DO NOT SIMPLISTICALLY READ YOUR BIAS INTO THE PAST.

Ibn Taymiyyah and al Barbahari had difference influences, different background, different structure of education, different books of Aqida that they studied and read etc etc. When you read Ibn Taymiyyah and al Barbahari their creeds are different.

When I get the time, I will post some of the differences.

Yasir Qadhi explains what he meant by the creedal developments at 5:35:

"Would you agree with the overall theological premise that the further you go back the purer the source?" "The purer the source is, but the less discussion taking place." [9:10]

He's expected to publish a book on Salafism some time in the near future.

[aMuslimForLife]

Take it up with Yasir Qadhi. That is your biased understanding of the statement of Imam Ahmad. Salafis do not interpret this to phrase to mean that the verses pertaining to Allah's Attributes are meaningless because it would conflict with other statements/beliefs of Imam Ahmad(ra).

I don't think the verses of Quran are meaningless either. I certainly don't think, Alif Lam Meem is meaningless, even though I may not know the intended meaning.

[aMuslimForLife]

Yasir Qadhi explains what he meant by the creedal developments at 5:35:

"Would you agree with the overall theological premise that the further you go back the purer the source?" "The purer the source is, but the less discussion taking place." [9:10]

He's expected to publish a book on Salafism some time in the near future.

He is simply saying there is ijithad in Aqida, and that all schools of Aqida (Ashari, Maturidi and Athari) make ijithad based on the Quran, Sunnah, and statements of those who came before them. And because of that one cannot necessarily say they are wrong in their ijithad.

The Hanbali Athari creed developed, you had the Hanbali Athari of Lebonon, Syria, Palestine, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

The late traditional Hanbalis outside of Nadj, rely on Ibn Qudamah in matters of Aqida, and exercise Tafwid as a methodology in Aqida.
The late Salafi Hanbalis from Nadj, rely on Ibn Taymiyyah in matters of Aqida, and exercise the Dhahir approach as a methodology in Aqida.

I mention this to say that both traditional Hanbalis and Salafi Hanbalis consider Ibn Qudamah, an Imam in Aqida, but Salafis and traditional Hanbalis rely on different commentaries of his text Lumat al Itiqad.

In Shafi fiqh it is the same. There are Shafis in Sham, Yemen and Egypt. Although they rely on al Nawawi's Minhaj al Talibeen for fiqh, each region relies on different commentaries. In Sham, they rely on al Ramli commentary of Minhaj al Talibeen, In Yemen, they rely on Ibn Hajar al Haytami's commentary of Minhaj al Talibeen, and in Egypt, they rely on Shirbini's commentary of Minhaj al Talibeen.

You can personally disagree with tafwid, but tafwid is an Athari development, within the Hanbali Madhab.
I can personally disagree with the dhahir approach of the Salafis, but the Dhahir approach is an Athari development, within the Hanbali Madhab.

Is that what you understand???

[Abu Sulayman]

1. We're talking about how to understand the terminology of the Hanabila here (Tafwid, Tajism, Hawadith, Tahdid, Hadd, Makkan, etc). The issue of Harf and Sawt is out of the question because that's an uncompromising aspect of Hanbali theology. Besides, by the looks of it the teacher of this student isn't preaching his beliefs in the university.

I agree that there are SOME terms that maybe understood differently (like for example Jiha (direction) as already shown in the verification of the issue). What can also be differed upon is whether a statement necessitates the belief in corporeality or not.
But to claim that all terms are understood differently by them, then this is not correct and even "Salafi" scholars will not accept such a claim.


Let us get more specific and discuss the term Jism (body) and Tajsim (belief in corporeality), because I think this is the most important term in the context of this thread.

Major Hanbali A`imma - like Abu Ya'la, Ibn Abu Ya'la, Ibn Qudama, Ibn Hamdan, 'Abd al-Baqi al-Mawahibi, Ibn Balban, 'Uthman [Ibn Qa`id] al-Najdi and al-Saffarini - have been quoted in this thread here, who explicitly rejected the belief in corporeality (Tajsim).

- The Qadhi Abu Ya'la (d. 458 AH) mentioned in his al-Mu'tamad that Jism (body) is that which is composed from substance and whatever is composed is a body and every body is composed.
- The 'Allama al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) mentioned in his Lawami' al-Anwar that Jism (body) is that which is composed from two parts or more, and according to some polemicists it is necessary for it to be composed of three parts [at least], so that the three dimensions (al-Ab'ad al-Thalatha) - I mean length [or height], width [or breadth] and depth - are fulfilled, and according to some [it is necessary for it to be composed] of eight parts so that the intersection of the dimensions upon right angles are fulfilled.

So both of them are saying that the term Jism indicates composition [from parts] - and this in line with its meaning in the Arabic language as already shown - and this composition leads to the establishment of the dimensions (which is typical of every body].
And both of them explicitly stated that Allah ta'ala is not a body.

Al-Sayyid al-Sharif al-Jurjani (d. 816 AH) - who was an expert of Arabic language and the author of a commentary upon al-Mawaqif by the major Ash'ari scholar 'Adhud al-Din al-Iji (d. 756 AH) - said in his al-Ta'rifat that Jism is a substance regarding which the three dimensions are possible and that it was also said that Jism is that which is composed and formed by substance.

So the Ash'aris and Hanbalis mentioned above understood the term Jism in the same way based upon what has been mentioned.

2. The mainstream Hanbalis are not Salafi inclined despite referring to Ibn Taymiyyah as Shaykh al-Islam and not condemning him as a Mujassim for what is mentioned in Dar at-Taarad and Bayan Tablis? Again, this would need an extremely sophisticated explanation to relieve my suspicions.
theology.

The reason why one can not claim that their mindset is like that of "Salafis" is that they do not agree with the abnormal views of the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH), while the "Salafis" agree with him on that.
This is a major difference which you can not simply overlook just because they praise him!

Then: Are you saying that the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya was believing in the above meaning [or definition] of Jism mentioned above regarding Allah ta'ala?
- If you say "no" (and this is what the Hanbalis believed regarding him!), then this would mean that he was not a Mujassim in reality even if he made some mistakes.
- As for those who call the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya as Mujassim (as many Ash'aris do), then this is because they believe that he did believe that the above mentioned meaning of Jism applies to Allah ta'ala in reality.

3. Al-Azhar would never allow a Salafi-Hanbali (and I'm only using this term for convenience sake) to teach at their university. Common sense suggests that the Hanbalis they'd employ would be of the type who make Tafwid al-Ma'na and negate modality to the point where it falls virtually in line with Ash'ari theology.

I also don’t think that Al-Azhar al-sharif would allow a "Salafi" to be a teacher at their institution, especially when Shaykh Ahmad al-Tayyib is very concerned regarding keeping al-Azhar as traditional as possible!

But Tafwidh al-Ma'na (consignment of the meaning) is something that most Hanbalis supported and there are even "Salafi" scholars who acknowledged that most Hanabila in the time of the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya were Mufawwidha!
Add to that: Their Tafwidh was slightly different to that of Ash'aris, because they excluded the figurative meanings that one reaches through Ta`wil (Interpretation) and only accepted Ithbat (affirmation) with Tanzih (transcendence) as correct, while the Ash'aris regarded all of it as possible options in their Tafwidh.

Add to that also: If you're believing that God is not something corporeal, then you’re actually in agreement with me on Sifat like Yad, Wajh and 'Ayn, even if you say that you consign the Kayfiyya only. So our difference becomes one in wording and not in meaning.
(That is why the Shaykh Hatim al-'Awni regarded the difference in this issue as Lafdhi only!)

[AmantuBillahi]

He is simply saying there is ijithad in Aqida, and that all schools of Aqida (Ashari, Maturidi and Athari) make ijithad based on the Quran, Sunnah, and statements of those who came before them. And because of that one cannot necessarily say they are wrong in their ijithad.

The Hanbali Athari creed developed, you had the Hanbali Athari of Lebonon, Syria, Palestine, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

The late traditional Hanbalis outside of Nadj, rely on Ibn Qudamah in matters of Aqida, and exercise Tafwid as a methodology in Aqida.
The late Salafi Hanbalis from Nadj, rely on Ibn Taymiyyah in matters of Aqida, and exercise the Dhahir approach as a methodology in Aqida.

I mention this to say that both traditional Hanbalis and Salafi Hanbalis consider Ibn Qudamah, an Imam in Aqida, but Salafis and traditional Hanbalis rely on different commentaries of his text Lumat al Itiqad.

In Shafi fiqh it is the same. There are Shafis in Sham, Yemen and Egypt. Although they rely on al Nawawi's Minhaj al Talibeen for fiqh, each region relies on different commentaries. In Sham, they rely on al Ramli commentary of Minhaj al Talibeen, In Yemen, they rely on Ibn Hajar al Haytami's commentary of Minhaj al Talibeen, and in Egypt, they rely on Shirbini's commentary of Minhaj al Talibeen.

You can personally disagree with tafwid, but tafwid is an Athari development, within the Hanbali Madhab.
I can personally disagree with the dhahir approach of the Salafis, but the Dhahir approach is an Athari development, within the Hanbali Madhab.

Is that what you understand???

I don't disagree with the notion that some of the Hanabila were Mufaawid. What is being questioned here is whether or not those Hanbalis represent the mainstream.

What sources are you relying upon for your information on the Hanablis?