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

[AmantuBillahi]

The creed of Ibn Taymiyyah is NOT the creed of the Salaf. I rejected the creed of Ibn Taymiyyah because it is unnatural, it is forced. IT IS VERY FORCED.

The definition of a word is specific.
The meaning of a word is general.

The definition of hand in relationship to a human is a limb comprised of blood, bones and fleshed, used for writing, eating, etc. THIS IS SPECIFIC to a human.

The meaning of hand, is limb. Limb is general. It can be applied to a wood statue, a human, a jinn, an angel and if you are an anthropomorphist, god.

A wood statue has a wooden limb. A human has a limb made of flesh. A jinn has a limb made of fire. An angel has a limb made of light. In the view of the anthropomorphist, god has an uncreated limb. These are definitions of hand in relationship to those particular entities.

Hand can have an even more general meaning, part. The parts of a body. A hand is a part of the body. The hands of a clock are the parts of the clock used to tell time.

Any meaning outside these two general meanings, are philosophical. They aren’t so obvious.

The meaning of hand that Salafis affirm for Allah is a philosophical meaning, not a linguistic one. Salafis believe Allah has a real hand, that is not a limb. That is like saying, Allah has real mercy that isn’t kindness. Or like Christians who affirm that God is not a man (it says this clearly in the bible), yet believe God incarnated as Jesus. Or like Christians who affirm that God is One, yet Three. That’s all philosophical.

It doesn’t make sense in reality. Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah negates the literal meaning of hand, limb and body part for Allah. What linguistic meaning are you affirming for Allah after that? None, it is a philosophical meaning, because it takes reflection and convincing. IT IS FORCED, it is not natural. I personally rejected it, because I didn’t find the Salaf saying Allah had a real hand, there is nothing in the Shariah that says I have to believe Allah has a real hand (yad haqiqatan). Allah having a real hand, literal hand, is nothing more than Ibn Taymiyyah philosophizing trying to legitimize the anthropomorphic creed of the Hanbali which has its roots in fabricated hadiths.

There is nothing in the Shariah that say, I am obligated to believe Allah has a real (literal) hand. NOTHING. There isn’t a single authentic report of the Salaf, saying Allah has a real (literal) hand (yad haqiqatan). NOT a single report.

How can Ibn Taymiyyah’s creed be the creed of the Salaf???

How???

Brother the problem is you keep on strawmanning what the Salafis believe in order to bring about this seemingly contradictory scenario. We have already discussed this issue in other threads and I've provided you with numerous articles explaining the various nuances.

1. Dhahir = Apparrent meanings
2. Haqiqatan = Real (i.e. nonfigurative)

It is perferable not to translate either of these terms as "literal" due to the misunderstandings and abuse that often occur as a result. The Salafi methodology regarding the Dhahir isn't "literal" in the radical sense because they fully recognize the linguistic and theological context of the passages. None of the descriptions about Allah's Names & Attributes are to be understood without first acknowledging that the one being described is Eternal, Self-Sufficient and unlike His creation. Allah's Essence is completely unique from that of His creation and His Attributes are to be understood in light of this obvious distinction. The Salafi interpretation of Allah's Hands is not "forced" or "philosophical" because the Dhahir reading of the texts naturally distinguishes between the existence of Allah and His creation.

When Salafi-Atharis claim that the meanings of the Attributes are known what is meant is that the primary/basic conception of their descriptions are conceivable. This is different from Tahdid or 'universal definitions', which have been explicitly negated. When we affirm the Attributes of "Basr" or "Hayat" for Allah none of us are in doubt with regards to what type of qualities we're referring to. This is because Basr and Hayat are well-established linguistically via our own human experience with the attributes. Had the meanings of the Attributes been completely unknown due to how dissimilar Allah is from His creation, then it would be impossible for us to affirm any of the descriptions in the Quran/Sunnah beyond their mere wordings. However, this type of radical approach to the meanings of the Attributes wasn't adopted by any of the mainstream Sunni theological groups. Moreover, there are mass transmitted reports from the Salaf explicitly using certain Ayat which some scholars classified as Mutashabih in order to prove that Allah was Above the Throne and not everywhere. This could only take place if they recognized the Dhahir of the text as being a valid interpretation.

With regards to Allah's Hands there is Ijma from the Salaf (including the early Kullabi Ash'aris) that they are to be affirmed as Divine Attributes without Ta'weel. The Dhahir of the Quran & Sunnah indicate that certain passages are clear references to the Hands being Divine Attributes. What the Salafis and the Hanaabila mean when they say Haqiqatan is that the Attributes exist in reality. Allah has "real Hands", in the sense that they are not fake (i.e. figurative). Also, the meaning of Allah's Yad is known on a conceptual level due to the similiarities in usage with regards to how He described Himself. Allah created us with limbs or body parts called hands which we use to perform most of our physical tasks with. Allah also has Two Hands which He used to perform various tasks such as creating Adam(as); Writing the Torah; and grabing/holding certain things.

So the question is do you have a problem affirming for Allah Divine Attribute of the Essence called Yad or Hands which He uses to perform various tasks with? If not, then we both believe in the same thing. The term "literal" is misleading and unnecessary. The apparent meaning of hands is an attribute connected to the body/essence which is used to perform physical tasks. If Allah described Himself as creating and holding things with His Face or Shin, then I would agree that the meanings do not conceptually conform with our understandings of the term. However, the manner inwhich Allah described how His Divine Hands function relate to our perception of hands, and therefore their meanings are known in a manner which befits His unique Essence.

[Abu Sulayman]

The meaning of hand that Salafis affirm for Allah is a philosophical meaning, not a linguistic one. Salafis believe Allah has a real hand, that is not a limb. That is like saying, Allah has real mercy that isn’t kindness. Or like Christians who affirm that God is not a man (it says this clearly in the bible), yet believe God incarnated as Jesus. Or like Christians who affirm that God is One, yet Three. That’s all philosophical.

Correction: Some "Salafi" laymen believe the above, because of not having understood the 'Aqida of their Mashayikh. As for the leading Mashayikh of the "Salafiyya" themselves, then they believe that God has limbs, but they simply do not use this term while affirming it in meaning.

Ibn 'Uthaymin is quite clear on this and argues that God has inseparable eternal parts, but one should not call it as "parts" because in his mind this means that it could be separated in reality.
Al-Fawzan is also very clear on affirming the LINGUISTIC meaning.
Harras has not even a problem to describe God with having a part or a tool.

These statements obviously warrant either Tabdi' or even Takfir, so it's ridiculous to claim that these innovators and heretics are somehow representative of the creed of the Sahabat al-kiram - radhiallahu 'anhum ajma'in - or their followers.

It's only in the 21th century one is asked to respect these mindless pagan-minded people or to view them as representative of the correct creed and this while the state of their Islam is not even sure!

[aMuslimForLife]

When Salafi-Atharis claim that the meanings of the Attributes are known what is meant is that the primary/basic conception of their descriptions are conceivable. This is different from Tahdid or 'universal definitions', which have been explicitly negated. When we affirm the Attributes of "Basr" or "Hayat" for Allah none of us are in doubt with regards to what type of qualities we're referring to. This is because Basr and Hayat are well-established linguistically via our own human experience with the attributes. Had the meanings of the Attributes been completely unknown due to how dissimilar Allah is from His creation, then it would be impossible for us to affirm any of the descriptions in the Quran/Sunnah beyond their mere wordings. However, this type of radical approach to the meanings of the Attributes wasn't adopted by any of the mainstream Sunni theological groups. Moreover, there are mass transmitted reports from the Salaf explicitly using certain Ayat which some scholars classified as Mutashabih in order to prove that Allah was Above the Throne and not everywhere. This could only take place if they recognized the Dhahir of the text as being a valid interpretation.

With regards to Allah's Hands there is Ijma from the Salaf (including the early Kullabi Ash'aris) that they are to be affirmed as Divine Attributes without Ta'weel. The Dhahir of the Quran & Sunnah indicate that certain passages are clear references to the Hands being Divine Attributes. What the Salafis and the Hanaabila mean when they say Haqiqatan is that the Attributes exist in reality. Allah has "real Hands", in the sense that they are not fake (i.e. figurative). Also, the meaning of Allah's Yad is known on a conceptual level due to the similiarities in usage with regards to how He described Himself. Allah created us with limbs or body parts called hands which we use to perform most of our physical tasks with. Allah also has Two Hands which He used to perform various tasks such as creating Adam(as); Writing the Torah; and grabing/holding certain things.

So the question is do you have a problem affirming for Allah Divine Attribute of the Essence called Yad or Hands which He uses to perform various tasks with? If not, then we both believe in the same thing. The term "literal" is misleading and unnecessary. The apparent meaning of hands is an attribute connected to the body/essence which is used to perform physical tasks. If Allah described Himself as creating and holding things with His Face or Shin, then I would agree that the meanings do not conceptually conform with our understandings of the term. However, the manner inwhich Allah described how His Divine Hands function relate to our perception of hands, and therefore their meanings are known in a manner which befits His unique Essence.

Ibn Jawzi said, "And those writers who I have mentioned have erred in seven areas. The first of them is that they called the "reports" "Attributes." When they are merely annexations/possessive forms. And not every possessive form is an attribute. For Allah, High is He, has said, "And I have blown into him from my Spirit." (Al Hijr: 29). And Allah doesn't have an attribute known as a "spirit". So those who have called "the possessive form" idafa" "an attribute" are guilty of innovation." Daf‘ shubah al-tashbih bi akaff al-tanzih- Ibn Jawzi

If you actually go back and read the statements of the Salaf, they didn't called these "narrations" Attributes. You don't find Imam Malik, Imam Shafi or Imam Ahmad for example calling them Attributes or even your specific terminology, Attributes of the Essence. The term Attributes were widely used by the Khalaf more than the Salaf, if they used that terminology at all. The only scholar I could find amongst the Salaf using the word Attribute for the Hand of Allah was Imam Abu Hanifa in his book Fiqh al Akbar, which Salafis don't consider to be authentic. The Salaf, were very conservative when it came to speaking about Allah. They simply narrated what was transmitted. They didn't like additions.

That said, to say it is ijma that the Salaf affirm the Hand of Allah is an Attribute, I say, bring your proof.

"Ibn Wahb says, I heard Malik say, "Whoever recites "The Hand of Allah" (3:73)(5:64)(48:10)(57:29) and indicates his hand or recites "The eye of Allah" (20:39)(11:37)(23:27)(52:48)(54:14) and indicates that organ of his: let it be cut off to disciple him over Divine Sacredness and Transcendence above what he has compared Him to, and above his own comparison to Him. Both his life and the limb he compared to Allah are cuff off." (Ibn al Arabi al Maliki, Ahkam al Quran)

Imam Malik mentioned the verses where the Hand of Allah and eye of Allah are mentioned and DOES NOT call them Attributes.

Imam Shafi's student Imam al Humaydi said, “All that the Quran and Hadiths said, such as "The Jews say, the Hand of Allah is fettered. Their own hands are fettered."(5:64) "And the heavens are rolled up in His right hand." (39:67) and similar texts in the Quran and the hadith. We add nothing to them nor do we explain them. Rather, we stop exactly where the Quran and the Sunna stopped. You must say, "The Merciful established Himself over the Throne." (20:5). Whoever claims other than this is a Jahmi nullifier." (Al Humaydi's Musnad)

The student of Imam Shafi, mentioned the verse where the hand of Allah is mentioned and DOES NOT call them Attributes.

The Hand of Allah being referred to as the "Attribute of the Essence", is your emphasizes, not the Salaf. That is from your bag.

Regarding the early Asharis. The student of Imam Ashari, Imam Ibn Khafif said, "He created Adam with His Hand, not "the Hand that is His Power" but "the Hand that is His Attribute." Ibn Khafif also said, "The Attribute (al Sifa) is other than the Subject of Attribution (al Mawsuf). It is a notion pertaining to the subject and subsisting (qa'im) therein." (al Aqida al Sahiha - Ibn Khafif)

This is understood by the Asharis, as "The Attributes are nether Essence itself nor other than it."

And Allah knows best.

[aMuslimForLife]

When Salafi-Atharis claim that the meanings of the Attributes are known what is meant is that the primary/basic conception of their descriptions are conceivable. This is different from Tahdid or 'universal definitions', which have been explicitly negated. When we affirm the Attributes of "Basr" or "Hayat" for Allah none of us are in doubt with regards to what type of qualities we're referring to. This is because Basr and Hayat are well-established linguistically via our own human experience with the attributes. Had the meanings of the Attributes been completely unknown due to how dissimilar Allah is from His creation, then it would be impossible for us to affirm any of the descriptions in the Quran/Sunnah beyond their mere wordings. However, this type of radical approach to the meanings of the Attributes wasn't adopted by any of the mainstream Sunni theological groups. Moreover, there are mass transmitted reports from the Salaf explicitly using certain Ayat which some scholars classified as Mutashabih in order to prove that Allah was Above the Throne and not everywhere. This could only take place if they recognized the Dhahir of the text as being a valid interpretation.

With regards to Allah's Hands there is Ijma from the Salaf (including the early Kullabi Ash'aris) that they are to be affirmed as Divine Attributes without Ta'weel. The Dhahir of the Quran & Sunnah indicate that certain passages are clear references to the Hands being Divine Attributes. What the Salafis and the Hanaabila mean when they say Haqiqatan is that the Attributes exist in reality. Allah has "real Hands", in the sense that they are not fake (i.e. figurative). Also, the meaning of Allah's Yad is known on a conceptual level due to the similiarities in usage with regards to how He described Himself. Allah created us with limbs or body parts called hands which we use to perform most of our physical tasks with. Allah also has Two Hands which He used to perform various tasks such as creating Adam(as); Writing the Torah; and grabing/holding certain things.

So the question is do you have a problem affirming for Allah Divine Attribute of the Essence called Yad or Hands which He uses to perform various tasks with? If not, then we both believe in the same thing. The term "literal" is misleading and unnecessary. The apparent meaning of hands is an attribute connected to the body/essence which is used to perform physical tasks. If Allah described Himself as creating and holding things with His Face or Shin, then I would agree that the meanings do not conceptually conform with our understandings of the term. However, the manner inwhich Allah described how His Divine Hands function relate to our perception of hands, and therefore their meanings are known in a manner which befits His unique Essence.

Even the second generation Hanbali scholar, al Barbahari did not refer to them as Attributes.

Al Barbahari said, "Everything of the narrations which you heard but cannot fully understand, like the saying of the Messenger of Allah (Sallahu alayhi wa Salam), 'The hearts of the servants are between two fingers of the Most Merciful, the Majestic' (Muslim and Ahmad), His saying, 'Indeed Allah descends to the lowest Heaven,' (Bukhari and Muslim) 'He descends on the Day of Arafat,' (Daeef- Ibn Mandah in At Tawhid) 'He descends on the Day of Resurrection,' Ar add ala Jahmiyyah al Darimee) 'Hellfire does not cease having them thrown into it until He, the Majestic, places His Foot upon it,' ( Bukhari and Muslim) Allah the Most High's saying to the servant, 'If you walk towards ME, I run towards you,' (Bukhari and Muslim) his saying, 'Allah created Adam in his image,' (Muslim) the saying of the Messenger of Allah (sallahu alayhi wa salam), 'I saw my Lord in the most excellent form' (Musand Ahmad - Sahih) and the like of these ahaadeeth, then accept them and perform Tafweed. Do not explain any of them with your feelings/desires, since believing in them is obligatory. So anyone who explains anything from them according to his desires or rejects them is a Jahmee." (Explanation of the Creed by Al Barbahaaree - Salafi translation).

Abdullah Bin Hamid said, "As for referring to these problematic verses and hadiths as "Attribute verses" (Aayat al Sifat) or "Reports of the Attributes' (Akbar al Sifat), this was the specific terminology that scholars used to refer to them even though they didn't actually mean that such ascriptions mentioned in the scripture were attributes of Allah."

To me, it seems the terminology of referring to them as Attributes such as "Attribute verses" (Aayat al Sifat) or "Reports of the Attributes' (Akbar al Sifat), should understood, "the verses or narrations pertaining to the Attributes." This is would probably be a more accurate translation.

Don't be a blind follower... Do some research... Salafis are always making claims... Salafis use alot of HYPE words.... Ijma, follow the Salaf, Don't make taqlid follow the Quran and Sunnah... blah blah blah....

Hype words aren't a substitution for research... Many Salafis believe so, which is why they are where they are...

To be a seeker of knowledge, you have to have an empty cup. You can't receive more water if the cup is full...

And Allah knows best.

[AmantuBillahi]

Ibn Jawzi said, "And those writers who I have mentioned have erred in seven areas. The first of them is that they called the "reports" "Attributes." When they are merely annexations/possessive forms. And not every possessive form is an attribute. For Allah, High is He, has said, "And I have blown into him from my Spirit." (Al Hijr: 29). And Allah doesn't have an attribute known as a "spirit". So those who have called "the possessive form" idafa" "an attribute" are guilty of innovation." Daf‘ shubah al-tashbih bi akaff al-tanzih- Ibn Jawzi

This quote requires more context in order to understand where he's going with this. Regardless, I'm sure you're already aware that Ibn al-Jawzi was condemned by the majority of Hanaabila who proceeded him and his views do not represent Hanbali/Athari Aqeedah. The only people who seem to be quite fond of his theological views are followers of the later Ash'ari school.

If you actually go back and read the statements of the Salaf, they didn't called these "narrations" Attributes. You don't find Imam Malik, Imam Shafi or Imam Ahmad for example calling them Attributes or even your specific terminology, Attributes of the Essence. The term Attributes were widely used by the Khalaf more than the Salaf, if they used that terminology at all. The only scholar I could find amongst the Salaf using the word Attribute for the Hand of Allah was Imam Abu Hanifa in his book Fiqh al Akbar, which Salafis don't consider to be authentic. The Salaf, were very conservative when it came to speaking about Allah. They simply narrated what was transmitted. They didn't like additions.

What separates our Salaf from the Jahmiyyah and the Mu'tazila was their affirmation of what Allah described Himself with in the Quran & Sunnah without Ta'weel or Ta'teel. I'm not familiar with any books of creed except that they explicitly used the term "Attribute" or encouraged believing in certain contraversial descriptions that were disputed by their opponents.

If the Salaf affirmed certain Qualities/Descriptions for Allah and refuted those who would distort or deny them, then it logically follows that they considered them to be Attributes. For example, the Salaf were unanimous concerning the Quran being the Speech of Allah(swt). Let's say it wasn't popular amongst them to also mention that the Speech of Allah is a Sifah. The shortage of reports wherein they explicitly refer to the Kalam of Allah as a Sifah doesn't negate the fact that they actually did consider it to be an Attribute. We know this because the Jahmiyyah/Mu'tazila were arguing that Allah's Speech was created and therefore not a real Attribute. Had the Salaf not believed that the Speech of Allah was literally an Attribute, then the gist of their rivalry with the Mu'tazila would have merely been a semantical dispute.

The early Ash'aris were actually called "Sifatiyyah". Abu'l Hassan al-Ash'ari, Abu Bakr al-Baqillani and Imam al-Bayhaqi all held the view that Yad is an Attribute. Al-Baqillani and Imam Ash'ari were also vocal against the use of Ta'weel on the basis that it nullifies the Attribute.

That said, to say it is ijma that the Salaf affirm the Hand of Allah is an Attribute, I say, bring your proof.

The proof are the mass transmitted reports of the Salaf refuting the Jahmiyyah for nullifiying the descriptions of Allah in the Quran & the Sunnah on the pretext that they imply Tashbih. There are also quite a number of reports wherein they explicitly affirm the descriptions which the Jahmiyyah nullified and ascribed them to Allah. Again, if the claim is that their ascription of these descriptions to Allah does not necessarily indicate that they considered them to be Attributes, then much of their clashing with Ahl al-Bid'ah were semantical disagreements.

Since the standard view is that the Salaf believed in what Allah described Himself with in the Quran/Sunnah and weren't guilty of negating the Attributes, then the better question is do you have a single authentic report of a respected figure from the Salaf rejecting the notion of Yad being a Divine Attribute?

"Ibn Wahb says, I heard Malik say, "Whoever recites "The Hand of Allah" (3:73)(5:64)(48:10)(57:29) and indicates his hand or recites "The eye of Allah" (20:39)(11:37)(23:27)(52:48)(54:14) and indicates that organ of his: let it be cut off to disciple him over Divine Sacredness and Transcendence above what he has compared Him to, and above his own comparison to Him. Both his life and the limb he compared to Allah are cuff off." (Ibn al Arabi al Maliki, Ahkam al Quran)

Imam Malik mentioned the verses where the Hand of Allah and eye of Allah are mentioned and DOES NOT call them Attributes.

This narration doesn't really support your point. In this particular report Imam Malik is simply warning against Tashbih and makes no indication that Yad is not a Sifah. In fact, had he not believed that Allah was even attributed with these qualities in the first place, then he would have criticized making false interpretations rather than the Tashbih.

Imam Shafi's student Imam al Humaydi said, “All that the Quran and Hadiths said, such as "The Jews say, the Hand of Allah is fettered. Their own hands are fettered."(5:64) "And the heavens are rolled up in His right hand." (39:67) and similar texts in the Quran and the hadith. We add nothing to them nor do we explain them. Rather, we stop exactly where the Quran and the Sunna stopped. You must say, "The Merciful established Himself over the Throne." (20:5). Whoever claims other than this is a Jahmi nullifier." (Al Humaydi's Musnad)

The student of Imam Shafi, mentioned the verse where the hand of Allah is mentioned and DOES NOT call them Attributes.

Notice how at the end of the quote it says "whoever claims other than this is a Jahmi nullifier"? This is because the Jahmiyyah would negate what Allah described Himself with on the pretext of avoiding Tashbih and Tajsim. Hence, the correct way to understand this statement and the plethora of others similiar to it is strict affirmation of the Dhahir without making Ta'weel. The Salaf clearly believed that Allah was Above the Throne after making Istawa as the Hanaabila have claimed a concensus. Likewise it would be sensible to assume that Imam al-Humaydi doesn't consider the other examples he provided alongside al-Istawa to only be metaphors.

The Hand of Allah being referred to as the "Attribute of the Essence", is your emphasizes, not the Salaf. That is from your bag.

The earliest reference I can think of at the moment is Abu Bakr al-Baqillani. There are other sources people cite but the evidences are somewhat indirect if I'm not mistaken. I'll have to relook into this inshaAllah. But in any event, the meaning is clearly sound.

Regarding the early Asharis. The student of Imam Ashari, Imam Ibn Khafif said, "He created Adam with His Hand, not "the Hand that is His Power" but "the Hand that is His Attribute." Ibn Khafif also said, "The Attribute (al Sifa) is other than the Subject of Attribution (al Mawsuf). It is a notion pertaining to the subject and subsisting (qa'im) therein." (al Aqida al Sahiha - Ibn Khafif)

This is understood by the Asharis, as "The Attributes are nether Essence itself nor other than it."

This doesn't really seem to conflict with what I'm saying. The Hand that Allah created Adam with is an Attribute in reality. Whether it is an Attribute of the Essence or neither belonging to it nor detatched a technical difference.

Here's a quote from Imam al-Baqillani:

"And if someone says: Distinguish for us between the attributes of His Essence (dhaat) from the attributes of His Actions, so that I may know that. It is said to him: The attributes of His Essence are those that He has never ceased to be described with, and they are Life, Knowledge, Power, Hearing, Seeing, Speech, Wish (Iraadah), Permanence (al-Baqaa), Face, Two Eyes, Two Hands, and Anger, Pleasure..."

http://www.asharis.com/creed/article...f-hands-fa.cfm

[aMuslimForLife]

This quote requires more context in order to understand where he's going with this. Regardless, I'm sure you're already aware that Ibn al-Jawzi was condemned by the majority of Hanaabila who proceeded him and his views do not represent Hanbali/Athari Aqeedah. The only people who seem to be quite fond of his theological views are followers of the later Ash'ari school.



What separates our Salaf from the Jahmiyyah and the Mu'tazila was their affirmation of what Allah described Himself with in the Quran & Sunnah without Ta'weel or Ta'teel. I'm not familiar with any books of creed except that they explicitly used the term "Attribute" or encouraged believing in certain contraversial descriptions that were disputed by their opponents.

If the Salaf affirmed certain Qualities/Descriptions for Allah and refuted those who would distort or deny them, then it logically follows that they considered them to be Attributes. For example, the Salaf were unanimous concerning the Quran being the Speech of Allah(swt). Let's say it wasn't popular amongst them to also mention that the Speech of Allah is a Sifah. The shortage of reports wherein they explicitly refer to the Kalam of Allah as a Sifah doesn't negate the fact that they actually did consider it to be an Attribute. We know this because the Jahmiyyah/Mu'tazila were arguing that Allah's Speech was created and therefore not a real Attribute. Had the Salaf not believed that the Speech of Allah was literally an Attribute, then the gist of their rivalry with the Mu'tazila would have merely been a semantical dispute.

The early Ash'aris were actually called "Sifatiyyah". Abu'l Hassan al-Ash'ari, Abu Bakr al-Baqillani and Imam al-Bayhaqi all held the view that Yad is an Attribute. Al-Baqillani and Imam Ash'ari were also vocal against the use of Ta'weel on the basis that it nullifies the Attribute.



The proof are the mass transmitted reports of the Salaf refuting the Jahmiyyah for nullifiying the descriptions of Allah in the Quran & the Sunnah on the pretext that they imply Tashbih. There are also quite a number of reports wherein they explicitly affirm the descriptions which the Jahmiyyah nullified and ascribed them to Allah. Again, if the claim is that their ascription of these descriptions to Allah does not necessarily indicate that they considered them to be Attributes, then much of their clashing with Ahl al-Bid'ah were semantical disagreements.

Since the standard view is that the Salaf believed in what Allah described Himself with in the Quran/Sunnah and weren't guilty of negating the Attributes, then the better question is do you have a single authentic report of a respected figure from the Salaf rejecting the notion of Yad being a Divine Attribute?



This narration doesn't really support your point. In this particular report Imam Malik is simply warning against Tashbih and makes no indication that Yad is not a Sifah. In fact, had he not believed that Allah was even attributed with these qualities in the first place, then he would have criticized making false interpretations rather than the Tashbih.



Notice how at the end of the quote it says "whoever claims other than this is a Jahmi nullifier"? This is because the Jahmiyyah would negate what Allah described Himself with on the pretext of avoiding Tashbih and Tajsim. Hence, the correct way to understand this statement and the plethora of others similiar to it is strict affirmation of the Dhahir without making Ta'weel. The Salaf clearly believed that Allah was Above the Throne after making Istawa as the Hanaabila have claimed a concensus. Likewise it would be sensible to assume that Imam al-Humaydi doesn't consider the other examples he provided alongside al-Istawa to only be metaphors.



The earliest reference I can think of at the moment is Abu Bakr al-Baqillani. There are other sources people cite but the evidences are somewhat indirect if I'm not mistaken. I'll have to relook into this inshaAllah. But in any event, the meaning is clearly sound.



This doesn't really seem to conflict with what I'm saying. The Hand that Allah created Adam with is an Attribute in reality. Whether it is an Attribute of the Essence or neither belonging to it nor detatched a technical difference.

Here's a quote from Imam al-Baqillani:

"And if someone says: Distinguish for us between the attributes of His Essence (dhaat) from the attributes of His Actions, so that I may know that. It is said to him: The attributes of His Essence are those that He has never ceased to be described with, and they are Life, Knowledge, Power, Hearing, Seeing, Speech, Wish (Iraadah), Permanence (al-Baqaa), Face, Two Eyes, Two Hands, and Anger, Pleasure..."

http://www.asharis.com/creed/article...f-hands-fa.cfm

You are scrambling brother, the Salaf didn’t call them Attributes. You are back projecting the creed of Ibn Taymiyyah onto the Salaf and the early Asharis. The early Asharis did not have the same anthropomorphic beliefs of the Anthropomorphic Hanbalis. They didn’t.

I am not interested in theories, I need definitive proof, that it was an Ijma the Salaf called them Attributes,.

Allah said, “Say: the things that my Lord hath indeed forbidden are:.... and saying things about Allah of which ye have no knowledge.“ (7:33)

My whole point, is that, no Muslim is obligated to believe they are Attributes of Allah. You are only obligated to affirm what is in the Quran and Sunnah as being true. These verses and Hadith are from the ambiguous verses and Hadith. We are not obligated to delve into these particulars from a Shariah perspective.

Prove to me from a Shariah perspective that I have to be that I have to believe, the Hand of Allah is an Attribute. Please only use the Quran and Sunnah, and the first three generations, the Sahaba, Tabieen and Tabi Tabieen. And you won’t be able to do it.

Your personal conviction and belief is Not a proof. You have to separate what you want to be true and what is actually there in the text. I am NOT saying you can’t believe that. I am saying from a Shariah perspective, I am not obligated to believe what you believe, if there isn’t definitive proof.

A Muslim is only obligated to believe in what is in the Quran and Sunnah only.

Al Nawawi said, “As for the basic obligation of Islam, and what relates to tenets of faith, it is adequate for one to believe in everything brought by the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) and to credit it with absolute conviction free of any doubt. Whoever does this is not obliged to learn the evidences of the scholastic theologians. The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) did not require of anyone anything but what we have just mentioned, nor did the first four caliphs, the other prophetic Companions, nor others of the early Muslim community who came after them.” (Al Majmo - al Nawawi)


What did the first three generations actually say? The Sahaba, the Tabieen and the Tabi Tabieen.

Yes, the Hanbalis who came after Ibn Jawzi did not make his books on Aqida officially part of the Hanbali creed. But the Hanbalis who came after Ibn Taymiyyah did not make his books on Aqida officially part of the Hanbali creed either.

And Allah knows best.

[AmantuBillahi]

You are scrambling brother, the Salaf didn’t call them Attributes. You are back projecting the creed of Ibn Taymiyyah onto the Salaf and the early Asharis. The early Asharis did not have the same anthropomorphic beliefs of the Anthropomorphic Hanbalis. They didn’t.

I assure you I'm not the one scrambling here. Everything I mentioned was both rationally and historically consistent and you failed to address any of my points.

All of the early Ash'ari scholars (including the Kullabi influenced Fiqh al-Akbar) explicitly affirmed Yad as a Divine Attribute. Are you denying that this is the case? How am I backprojecting the creed of Ibn Taymiyyah on the early Ash'aris by stating this historical fact? Are the affirmations of the early Ash'aris not a Hujjah for you?

I am not interested in theories, I need definitive proof, that it was an Ijma the Salaf called them Attributes,

What I mentioned above are clear cut proofs for anyone who is intellectually honest. You are someone who in the past once said "I'm never going to believe that Allah is above the throne, unless the Hadith says literally" (you even bolded it like that). So the types of proofs and evidences your searching for are unreasonable to begin with.

My claim is that the Salaf of Ahl al-Sunnah affirmed the narrations regarding Allah's Descriptions as indications of Divine Attributes. They do not necessarily have to say "such and such is a Sifah" because their general affirmation of what Allah described Himself entails that they considered what was Haqeeqi as Attributes.

I'm interested to get your views on the following:

1. Do you believe the Salaf considered Uluw and specifically Istawa as a Divine Attribute? If they are not Divine Attributes, then how do you make sense of the Salafs refutation of the Jahmiyyah with the use of these passages? So Allah is Above the Throne and He performed Istawa, but it is incorrect to classify them as Attributes until every famous scholar explicitly mentions it?

2. Are you familiar with Imam Ahmad's affirmation of voice for Allah(swt)?

Abdullah Ibn Ahmad said: ‘I said to my father (i.e. Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal): ‘There are some people who say that Allah does not speak with a voice?’ He replied: ‘My son! These people are Jahmiyyah, they wish to negate the Attribute.’

Outside of Imam Ahmad explicitly confirming that it's an Attribute is there anything from the texts or from the other early scholars which indicate that Voice in this Hadith is a Divine Attribute? How did Imam Ahmad derive this conclusion from a so-called Mutashabih evidence and do you agree with his view?

What I'm trying to convey to you is that these narrations are generally understood as referring to Allah's Names & Attributes according to the methodology of the Salaf themselves. In order to go against their Usool and methodology, you would have to bring a narration wherein they completely reject the affirmation of Yad as an Attribute.

Here's an article written by an Ash'ari scholar you respect which clearly mentions that the correct view is to believe in the "Divine Attributes" just as the Salaf did:

https://seekersguidance.org/answers/...sunni-beliefs/

Notice how he didn't say the correct view is to merely affirm the wordings of the narrations, but to acknowledge them as Divine Attributes.

[Abu Sulayman]

This doesn't really seem to conflict with what I'm saying. The Hand that Allah created Adam with is an Attribute in reality. Whether it is an Attribute of the Essence or neither belonging to it nor detatched a technical difference.

Here's a quote from Imam al-Baqillani:

"And if someone says: Distinguish for us between the attributes of His Essence (dhaat) from the attributes of His Actions, so that I may know that. It is said to him: The attributes of His Essence are those that He has never ceased to be described with, and they are Life, Knowledge, Power, Hearing, Seeing, Speech, Wish (Iraadah), Permanence (al-Baqaa), Face, Two Eyes, Two Hands, and Anger, Pleasure..."

http://www.asharis.com/creed/article...f-hands-fa.cfm

This is NOT a technical difference. The problem my brother is that you have not properly understood these issues, yet you're defending "Salafis" on these issues and this while your own creed differs on a number of issues with them.

What scholars like Imam al-Baqillani (d. 403 AH) did was to affirm Yad, Wajh and 'Ayn as attributes (Sifat), which are meanings (Ma'ani) subsisting in the divine Self (Dhat) and this is like one also accepts 'Ilm and Qudra for example. This is also the position of Imam Abul Hasan al-Ash'ari (d. 324 AH) himself.
The difference between Yad and Wajh on one side and 'Ilm and Qudra on the other side is that the first are only known through the divine texts (and are therefore called Sifat Sam'iyya), while the latter ones are established already by reason (such that one can call them as Sifat 'Aqliyya).
As for the issue of Ta`wil, then this has been allowed by many scholars if there is necessity to do so in order to prevent misunderstandings, but not in order to reject Yad, Wajh or any description established by the Qur`an al-karim. As for those descriptions, which are not established with certainty, then Ta`wil is allowed anyways especially when it's supported by the usage in the Arabic language and the context. This is something that the likes of Imam Abu Sulayman al-Khattabi (d. 388 AH) explained quite well and Imam al-Bayhaqi (d. 458 AH) supported his explanation.

The "Salafis" however believe that Yad is not a meaning (Ma'na) subsisting in the divine Self, but rather an 'Ayn (tangible thing) that makes up the divine Self. This means that in their mind the divine Self itself is made up of eternal inseparable parts and Yad is one of these parts according to their pagan imagination.

When the "Salafis" mention the early Asha'ira and act as if their creed is like their pagan ["Salafi"] creed, then they're not just proving what kind of innovators and heretics they are, but also displaying the level of their compound ignorance.


Let us refer to Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728) and this not because he's reliable in these issues in any way or form, but rather to show how ignorant the "Salafi" laymen are in regards to the GREAT difference in this issue (and also how their Mashayikh are dishonest in bringing up early Ash'aris):

الوجه الحادي والأربعون: وهو قوله: «معلوم أن اليد والوجه بالمعنى الذي ذكروه مما لا يقبله الوهم والخيال» إما أن يريد به المعنى الذي يذكره المتكلمة الصفاتية الذين يقولون: هذه صفات معنوية، كما هو قول الأشعري والقلانسي وطوائف من الكرامية وغيرهم، وهو قول طوائف من الحنبلية وغيرهم. وإما أن يريد بمعنى: أنها أعيان قائمة بأنفسها. فإن أراد به المعنى الأول فليس هو الذي حكاه عن الحنبلية؛ فإنه قال: «وأما الحنابلة الذين التزموا الأجزاء والأبعاض فهم أيضًا معترفون بأن ذاته مخالفة لسائر الذوات» إلى أن قال: «وأيضًا فعمدة مذهب الحنابلة أنهم متى تمسكوا بآية أو خبر يوهم ظاهره شيئًا من الأعضاء والجوارح صرحوا بأنا نثبت هذا المعنى لله على خلاف ما هو ثابت للخلق، فأثبتوا لله وجهًا بخلاف وجوه الخلق، ويدًا بخلاف أيدي الخلق، ومعلوم أن اليد والوجه بالمعنى الذي ذكروه مما لا يقبله الوهم والخيال» ، فإذا كان هذا قوله فمعلوم أن هذا القول الذي حكاه هو قول من يثبت هذه بالمعنى الذي سماه هو «أجزاءً، وأبعاضًا» فتكون هذه صفات قائمة بنفسها، كما هي قائمة بنفسها في الشاهد، كما أن العلم والقدرة قائم بغيره في الغائب والشاهد، لكن لا تقبل التفريق والانفصال، كما أن علمه وقدرته لا تقبل الزوال عن ذاته، وإن كان المخلوق يمكن مفارقة ما هو قائم به، وما هو منه يمكن مفارقة بعض ذلك بعضًا، فجواز ذلك على المخلوق لا يقتضي جوازه على الخالق، وقد علم أن الخالق ليس مماثلًا للمخلوق، وأن هذه الصفات وإن كانت أعيانًا فليست لحمًا ولا عصبًا ولا دمًا ولا نحو ذلك، ولا هي من جنس شيء من المخلوقات

The 41th point: It is his statement (Imam al-Razi is intended): "It is known that the Yad (literally: hand) and the Wajh (literally: face) with this meaning mentioned by them is something that is not accepted by fantasy or imagination".
Then he either intends the meaning that the scholastic theologians who affirm the [divine] attributes (al-Mutakallima al-Sifatiyya) mentioned, who say that these are attributes of meanings (Sifat Ma'nawiyya) (!), just like it is the statement of al-Ash'ari (!), al-Qalanisi (!), groups from among the Karramiyya and other then them. It's also the statement of groups from among the Hanabila (!) and other than them.
Or he intends the meaning that they are tangible things / entities (A'yan) (!), which subsist in themselves (!).
If he intends the first meaning, then it is not the one which he narrated from [some of the] Hanabila, for he said "As for those Hanabila who sticked to [affirming] parts (Ajza`) and portions (Ab'adh) [regarding the Creator], then they also admitted that His Self (Dhat) is different to the rest of the selves", until he said "And also that the elect way of the Hanabila is that whenever they hold fast to a [Qur`anic] Aya or narration which seems to contain [the affirmation of] parts and limbs if taken literally, they state that we affirm this meaning for Allah in opposition to what is established regarding the creation. So they affirmed a Wajh (literally: face) for Allah which is unlike the faces of the creation, and a Yad (literally: hand) which is unlike the hands of the creation. It is known that the Yad (literally: hand) and the Wajh (literally: face) with this meaning mentioned by them is something that is not accepted by fantasy or imagination.".
So if this was his statement, then it's known that the statement that he narrated is the statement of those who affirm these [descriptions] with the meaning that he called as "parts and portions", so that these attributes are subsisting in themselves (!) JUST LIKE IT SUBSISTS IN THEMSELVES IN THAT WHICH WE PERCEIVE (Shahid); [and] just like knowledge ('Ilm) and power (Qudra) subsists in OTHER THAN THEMSELVES in that which we don't perceive (Gha`ib) and that which we perceive (Shahid), but it does not accept separation or division [in reality] just like His knowledge and His power does not accept to go away from his Self, even if in the creation it is possible for that which subsists in it to go away and it is [also] possible regarding a part from it to go away as a part. The possibility of this upon the creation, does not lead to its possibility regarding the Creator, and it has been known that the Creator is not like the creation and that these attributes - EVEN IF THEY ARE TANGIBLE THINGS (A'yan) (!!!) -, then they are not from flesh, nerves, bones and the like, nor from the kind of anything of the creation.
- end of quote (from Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyya 1/355 -357) -



Conclusion:
Ibn Taymiyya ADMITS that Imam al-Ash'ari accepted these descriptions as MA'ANI (MEANINGS) and not as A'YAN (TANGIBLE THINGS) and he clearly differentiated between these positions.
Ibn Taymiyya himself supports to affirm these descriptions as A'yan (!) - as is also clear from other statements - and thinks that just because he says that these tangible things that he regards as "divine attributes" are not made from flesh, nerves, bones or the like it saves him from this OBVIOUS TASHBIH AND TAJSIM!
So anyone of the "Salafis" claiming that "we accept Yad in the same manner as 'Ilm", let him first go and learn what his Mashayikh believe and then let him dare to make such false claims again!

[Abu Sulayman]

This is something that the likes of Imam Abu Sulayman al-Khattabi (d. 388 AH) explained quite well and Imam al-Bayhaqi (d. 458 AH) supported his explanation.

See:

The way of the early Muslims regarding the divine attributes

Imam Abu Sulayman al-Khattabi (d. 388 AH) said in his A'lam al-Hadith (p. 1907) the following in the context of a Hadith where Qadam (literally: foot) is mentioned in relation to Allah ta’ala:

وكان أبو عبيد ، وهو أحد أئمة أهل العلم ، يقول : نحن نروي هذه الأحاديث ولا نريغ لها المعاني

Abū ‘Ubayd [al-Qāsim ibn Sallām (d. 224 H)] – who was one of the imāms from the people of knowledge – would say: We narrate these hadīths and we do not search for meanings for them.
- end of quote -

The above is the Madhhab of Tafwidh and the way of the early Muslims - the companions and their direct followers - and the correct way and the way to success.

Imam al-Khattabi continued by saying:

ونحن أحرى بأن لا نتقدم فيما تأخر عنه من هو أكثر علما وأقدم زمانا وسنا

We are more worthy of not advancing into that which those with more knowledge and more senior in era and age retreated from.
- end of quote -


The exaggeration that happened from two groups in different directions and the reasoning behind Ta`wil

Imam Abu Sulayman al-Khattabi continued by saying:

ولكن الزمان الذي نحن فيه قد صار أهله حزبين : منكر لما يروى من نوع هذه الأحاديث رأسا ، ومكذب به أصلا ، وفي ذلك تكذيب العلماء الذين رووا هذه الأحاديث وهم أئمة الدين ونقلة السنن ، والواسطة بيننا وبين رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ، والطائفة الأخرى مسلمة للرواية فيها ذاهبة في تحقيق الظاهر منها مذهبا يكاد يفضي بهم إلى القول بالتشبيه ونحن نرغب عن الأمرين معا ، ولا نرضى بواحد منهما مذهبا ، فيحق علينا أن نطلب لما يرد من هذه الأحاديث إذا صحت من طريق النقل والسند ، تأويلا يخرج على معاني أصول الدين ، ومذاهب العلماء ، ولا نبطل الرواية فيها أصلا ، إذا كانت طرقها مرضية ونقلتها عدولا

However, the time that which we are in, its people have evolved into two camps:
the denier of what has been narrated of these hadīths entirely and a belier of them completely and in this is [entailed] accusing the scholars who narrated these hadīths of lying, while they are the imāms of religion, the transmitters of the sunnahs and the intermediaries between us and the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace);
and the second group accept the narration of them, adopting a path in actualising the outward of them which almost leads them to tashbīh.
We are averse to both approaches, and we are not pleased with either of them as a methodology.
Thus, it is necessary for us to search – with respect to the hadīths that have been transmitted when authentic in terms of transmission and chain – for an interpretation that emerges on the basis of the principles of the foundations of religion and the views of the scholars, and we do not nullify their narration completely when their routes are accepted and their transmitters righteous.
- end of quote -


Differentiating between dealing with Yad / Wajh / 'Ayn and Rijl / Qadam / Saq:

Imam al-Khattabi then said (p. 1911):

فإن قيل : فهلا تأولت اليد والوجه على هذا النوع من التأويل ، وجعلت الأسماء فيهما أمثالا كذلك ؟ فإن قيل : إن هذه الصفات مذكورة في كتاب الله عز وجل بأسمائها ، وهي صفات مدح ، والأصل أن كل صفة جاء بها الكتاب أو صحت بأخبار التواتر أو رويت من طريق الآحاد وكان لها أصل في الكتاب ، أو خرجت على بعض معانيه فإنا نقول بها ونجريها على ظاهرها من غير تكييف ، وما لم يكن له في الكتاب ذكر ، ولا في التواتر أصل ، ولا له بمعاني الكتاب تعلق ، وكان مجيئه من طريق الآحاد وأفضى بنا القول إذا أجريناه على ظاهره إلى التشبيه فإنا نتأوله على معنى يحتمله الكلام ويزول معه معنى التشبيه ، وهذا هو الفرق بين ما جاء من ذكر القدم والرجل والساق ، وبين اليد والوجه والعين ، وبالله العصمة

If it is said: Why do you not interpret hand and face in this manner of interpretation, and consider these terms metaphors likewise?
It will be said: These attributes are mentioned in the Book of Allāh (Exalted is He) with their names, and they are attributes of praise, and the default is that every attribute mentioned in the Book and are authentic by reports of continuous transmission or narrated through the route of solitary reporters but has a basis in the Book or emerges from some of its principles, then we profess it and we let it proceed on its outward, without giving it a modality.
And that which does not have any mention in the Book, nor a basis in continuous transmission and has no connection to the principles of the Book, and were we to let it proceed on its outward, it would lead [some people] to tashbīh, we will interpret it with a meaning which the speech accommodates and by which the meaning of tashbīh will be eliminated.
This is the difference between what has been transmitted of the mention of foot, leg and shin [on the one hand] and hand, face and eye [on the other].
- end of quote -


How to understand the Yad of Allah ta’ala as an example

Imam Abu Sulayman al-Khattabi said (p. 2347):

وليس معنى اليد عندنا 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

The meaning of yad (hand) according to us is not a physical appendage [as is its literal meaning]. Rather, it is an attribute brought forth by restraint [at the text]. Thus, we let it proceed as it has come, and we do not give it a modality, and we hold back to where the Book and the authentically transmitted reports kept us. This is the way of Ahlus Sunnah wa l- Jamā‘ah.
- end of quote -

(Note: Translation of all quotes taken from here: The Divine Attributes: Ahlus Sunnah vs. Mujassimah)

[aMuslimForLife]

I assure you I'm not the one scrambling here. Everything I mentioned was both rationally and historically consistent and you failed to address any of my points.

All of the early Ash'ari scholars (including the Kullabi influenced Fiqh al-Akbar) explicitly affirmed Yad as a Divine Attribute. Are you denying that this is the case? How am I backprojecting the creed of Ibn Taymiyyah on the early Ash'aris by stating this historical fact? Are the affirmations of the early Ash'aris not a Hujjah for you?



What I mentioned above are clear cut proofs for anyone who is intellectually honest. You are someone who in the past once said "I'm never going to believe that Allah is above the throne, unless the Hadith says literally" (you even bolded it like that). So the types of proofs and evidences your searching for are unreasonable to begin with.

My claim is that the Salaf of Ahl al-Sunnah affirmed the narrations regarding Allah's Descriptions as indications of Divine Attributes. They do not necessarily have to say "such and such is a Sifah" because their general affirmation of what Allah described Himself entails that they considered what was Haqeeqi as Attributes.

I'm interested to get your views on the following:

1. Do you believe the Salaf considered Uluw and specifically Istawa as a Divine Attribute? If they are not Divine Attributes, then how do you make sense of the Salafs refutation of the Jahmiyyah with the use of these passages? So Allah is Above the Throne and He performed Istawa, but it is incorrect to classify them as Attributes until every famous scholar explicitly mentions it?

2. Are you familiar with Imam Ahmad's affirmation of voice for Allah(swt)?

Abdullah Ibn Ahmad said: ‘I said to my father (i.e. Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal): ‘There are some people who say that Allah does not speak with a voice?’ He replied: ‘My son! These people are Jahmiyyah, they wish to negate the Attribute.’

Outside of Imam Ahmad explicitly confirming that it's an Attribute is there anything from the texts or from the other early scholars which indicate that Voice in this Hadith is a Divine Attribute? How did Imam Ahmad derive this conclusion from a so-called Mutashabih evidence and do you agree with his view?

What I'm trying to convey to you is that these narrations are generally understood as referring to Allah's Names & Attributes according to the methodology of the Salaf themselves. In order to go against their Usool and methodology, you would have to bring a narration wherein they completely reject the affirmation of Yad as an Attribute.

Here's an article written by an Ash'ari scholar you respect which clearly mentions that the correct view is to believe in the "Divine Attributes" just as the Salaf did:

https://seekersguidance.org/answers/...sunni-beliefs/

Notice how he didn't say the correct view is to merely affirm the wordings of the narrations, but to acknowledge them as Divine Attributes.

My whole point is to say that is not obligatory, to say the hand of Allah is an Attribute.

Yes there were some of Salaf who considered them to be Attributes. What I dislike about Salafi Aqida is they make obligatory that which is not obligatory.
Shaykh Faraz Rabbani is one of my teachers. He did not say you have to acknowledge them as Divine Attributes. You assume that to affirm them as it was revealed means to affirm them as attributes. That is an assumption.

Imam Ahmad's quote is not authentic, it is from ar-Radd ‘Ala al-Jahmiyyah, It is fabricated, according to Imam al Dhahabi.

I am well aware of what the early Asharis have stated. The early Asharis did refer to the Hand of Allah as an Attribute. However, they didn't understand it in the same way Ibn Taymiyyah understood it.

Ibn Taymiyyah considers the Attribute of Life and the Attribute of Hand equal, in that he affirmed a meaning for both.

The early Asharis considered both Life and Hand Attributes, but the Attribute of Life, the meaning is affirmed, while the Attribute of Hand, the meaning is not affirmed.

Imam al Bayhaqi said, "There is never in all this any likeness between Allah and creation whatsoever." So the early Asharis did not believe there is a conceptual similarity between Allah and His creation, like Salafis believe.

And Allah knows best.

[aMuslimForLife]

All of the early Ash'ari scholars (including the Kullabi influenced Fiqh al-Akbar) explicitly affirmed Yad as a Divine Attribute. Are you denying that this is the case? How am I backprojecting the creed of Ibn Taymiyyah on the early Ash'aris by stating this historical fact? Are the affirmations of the early Ash'aris not a Hujjah for you?

What I mentioned above are clear cut proofs for anyone who is intellectually honest. You are someone who in the past once said "I'm never going to believe that Allah is above the throne, unless the Hadith says literally" (you even bolded it like that). So the types of proofs and evidences your searching for are unreasonable to begin with.

Maybe unreasonable for you, but not unreasonable for me. It is not unreasonable for me, because I don't consider your beliefs obligatory for me to believe.

Imam al Bayhaqi said, "Some of the keenest scholars have said that the Right ( al Yamin) signifies the Hand (al Yad), and the Palm (al kaff) likewise, in the sense that the hand of Allah is an attribute, not a limb. [Here al Bayhaqi, negates the meaning]. Thus every passage that mentions it in the Book and authentic sunnah carries a meaning in connection with the object of mention such as folding up, taking, seizing, spreading, sweeping, accepting, giving, and other acts connecting the personal Attributes to what those attributes entail, without touch nor contact [Here al Bayhaqi, negates the meaning]. There is never in all this any likeness between Allah and creation between Allah and creation whatsoever. [negates all similarities even the conceptual similarity that Salafi affirm between Allah and His creation]. (Asma wa Sifat - al Bayhaqi)

Imam al-Bayhaqī said, “When Allāh intended to negate tashbīh (making a resemblance between Allāh and His creation) in the most emphatic way that a negation can [possibly] be made, He put together in our recitation the particles of similitude (i.e. ka) with the noun of resemblance (i.e. mithl), so that the negation is emphasized to the utmost.” (Al-Asmā’ wa l-Sifāt, 2:34)

Allah says, laysa ka mithlihī shay’. "There is absolutely nothing like Him." (42:11)

Laysa - No

Ka - particle of similitude - used for emphasizes (Absolutely)

mithl - likeness

hi - Him (referring to Allah)

shay - a thing

That is to say, the Salafi belief that Allah like His creation in some things but not other things, has been negated by Allah.

Ibn Uthaymeen said, "If you say, "What is the image of Allah in which Adam is created?" We reply, "Allah, the Mighty and Sublime, has a Face, an Eye, hand and foot, the sublime, but it is not imperative that these be similar to that of humans. While there is a form of resemblance, but it is not a similarity, as there is a resemblance between the first group to enter Paradise and the moon, but without being the same."

Ibn Uthaymen also said, "To negate Tashbih in its entirety is not correct, because there are no two things among entities or attributes except that they share something together between them. This commonality is a type of resemblance. If you therefore negate Tashbih absolutely, you are (by that) negating everything wherein there is a form of resemblance between the Creator and the creature." (Salafi translation - Sharh Al Aqida Wasatiyyah by Ibn Uthaymeen)

So it is not incorrect to call Salafis, (Al mushabbiha- Anthropomorphist)...

"Allah has a real hand that is not a limb." The absurd beliefs of the Salafi Dawah. Salafis can keep their anthropomorphic beliefs to themselves. I want no parts of it.

The Salaf never said, Allah has a real Hand. NEVER. And yes, the Salaf would have to literally say it for me to believe they believed in it. Because I know Ibn Taymiyyah was influenced by Hanbalis who used fabricated hadith to formulate some of their beliefs. Ibn Qayyim used fabricated hadiths in creedal matters and he was a student of Ibn Taymiyyah. So I do not trust Ibn Taymiyyah's assessments on the creed of the Salaf.

Allah says, "They comprehend Him not in knowledge." (20:110). And "There is nothing like Him, yet, He sees and hears." (42:11)

I did find Imam al Awzai calling the unclear verses and narrations Attributes, and He was from the Tabi Tabieen. I believe, Imam Awzai was from Syria and more than likely followed the Amal of Sham. So some of the Salaf did refer to them as Attributes. So I stand corrected in saying no one from the Salaf, said it. But I don't think it was ijma. I don't think the likes of Imam Malik or Imam Shafi said it. Their statements on Aqida, illustrate to me, they were conservative in the absolute sense. Imam Malik positions on fiqh, are very strict. And I can only imagine he was more strict in matters of Aqida. Imam Malik considered it an innovation (bidah) to recite from the mushaf in the masjid. Imam Malik followed the Amal of Medinah.

Are the affirmations of the early Ash'aris not a Hujjah for you?

I do not blindly follow the Asharis. I see the Ashari school as a means, not an end. It has to make sense to me in order for me to believe it and accept it. If something doesn't make sense, I go back to the Quran and Sunnah, and Ask did Allah and His Messenger say it. And if they did not say it, I do not have to believe it. My rejection of hand as an Attribute of Allah, has more to do with the Salafi understanding of it, then it has to do with the Ashari understanding of it. I do not want to be associated with having near anthropomorphic beliefs of some Salafis, and anthropomorphic beliefs of other Salafis.

And Allah knows best.

[AmantuBillahi]

Shaykh Faraz Rabbani is one of my teachers. He did not say you have to acknowledge them as Divine Attributes. You assume that to affirm them as it was revealed means to affirm them as attributes. That is an assumption.

This is from the article linked above:

"The Divine Attributes and the way of Consigning (tafwid) the meaning to Allah

"When it comes to understanding those Divine Attributes that may appear to indicate some similitude between the Creator and creation, the preferred position of both the Ash`aris and Maturidis is:

[1] Affirming what Allah has affirmed, such as istiwa’ or His Hand or Eyes, not more and not less."

1. The subtitle says "The Divine Attributes.."
2. In the description it says "When it comes to understanding those Divine Attributes that may..."
3. He then goes on to list Istawa, Hand and Eyes as examples

Now if you cannot put two and two together then that is your own problem.

Imam Ahmad's quote is not authentic, it is from ar-Radd ‘Ala al-Jahmiyyah, It is fabricated, according to Imam al Dhahabi.

This is a great article which covers the authenticity of the book:

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

[AmantuBillahi]

2. Are you familiar with Imam Ahmad's affirmation of voice for Allah(swt)?

Abdullah Ibn Ahmad said: ‘I said to my father (i.e. Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal): ‘There are some people who say that Allah does not speak with a voice?’ He replied: ‘My son! These people are Jahmiyyah, they wish to negate the Attribute.’

Outside of Imam Ahmad explicitly confirming that it's an Attribute is there anything from the texts or from the other early scholars which indicate that Voice in this Hadith is a Divine Attribute? How did Imam Ahmad derive this conclusion from a so-called Mutashabih evidence and do you agree with his view?

I just wanted to quickly clear this up. Voice (Sawt) is not considered a separate Divine Attribute in and of itself. The Speech of Allah is an uncreated Attribute which consists of letters (harf) and sounds (sawt). What Imam Ahmad(ra) meant when he said "they wish to negate the Attribute" is that they are trying to negate the Attribute of Kalam via the route of denying His voice.
In any case, what is important here is that he referred to Kalam as an Attribute - which is an obvious fact considering how the entire discussion between Ahl al-Sunnah and the Mu'tazila had to do with whether or not the Quran was created. If something is created then it is other than Allah, and if something is uncreated then it is an Attribute of Allah. The Hands of Allah are not other than Allah, and therefore they are his uncreated Attributes.

Wa Allahu Ta'ala Alam

[aMuslimForLife]

This is from the article linked above:

"The Divine Attributes and the way of Consigning (tafwid) the meaning to Allah

"When it comes to understanding those Divine Attributes that may appear to indicate some similitude between the Creator and creation, the preferred position of both the Ash`aris and Maturidis is:

[1] Affirming what Allah has affirmed, such as istiwa’ or His Hand or Eyes, not more and not less."

1. The subtitle says "The Divine Attributes.."
2. In the description it says "When it comes to understanding those Divine Attributes that may..."
3. He then goes on to list Istawa, Hand and Eyes as examples

Now if you cannot put two and two together then that is your own problem.

I understand why you understand it that way and that is fine.

This is a great article which covers the authenticity of the book:

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

I wouldn’t say the article is great, but it explains why Salafis see that book as authentic.

The text that we have here today is not authentic, in that it has an unbroken chain of transmitters of that text back to the author. Even in al Dhahabi’s time, the text had unknown narrators in the chain of transmitters, which was confirm by Ibn Qayyim. (And they lived in the same time) And based on the context of the text that reached al Dhahabi, he felt that the text was fabricated. But al Dhahabi doesn’t deny the possibility of Imam Ahmad may have written a text called al Radd Alan Jahmiyyah, he is just questioning the text that is before him.

I don’t think the text that is available today is authentic.

And Allah knows best.

[TheHaqq]

Ibn 'Uthaymin's claim: al-Saffarini is wrong and declaring God to be transcendent from being a body is not allowed


Ibn 'Uthaymin (d. 1421 AH) first spoke regarding the wording which is found in the poem of Imam al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH), so he stated in his "commentary" (read: attempt of refutation!) upon al-'Aqida al-Saffariniyya (i.e. al-Durra al-Mudhiyya):

قوله : ( وليس ربنا بجوهر ولا عرض ولا جسم ) : هذا الكلام من المؤلف يحتمل معنيين :... أما الوجه الأول : فهذا صحيح وهو أن ننفي القول بأنه جوهر ،لأنه ليس لنا أن نقول : إنه جوهر ، ولا لنا أن نقول : إنه ليس بجوهر ،وأما الوجه الثاني : وهو القول : بأنه ليس بجوهر ، فهذا غير صحيح ،وظاهر كلام المؤلف هو الثاني ،يعني أن المؤلف رحمه الله يرى أن من عقيدة أهل السنة والجماعة أنهم يقولون : ( إن الله ليس بجوهر ولا عرض ولا جسم ) ،ولا شك أن هذا النفي ليس بصحيح ولم يقل أهل السنة بذلك ، وليس هذا مذهبهم ،لأنهم لا يجزمون بنفي شيء أو إثباته إلا بدليل وهذا ليس فيه دليل لا إثبات ولا بنفي

[As for] his statement (i.e. al-Saffarini) that "Our Lord is not a substance / particle (Jawhar) nor /// [is He] an accident ('Aradh) or a body (Jism)", then this statement from the author can have two meanings:..
As for the first way [to understand it]: Then it's correct and that is that we reject the statement that He's a substance (Jawhar), because it is not allowed for us to say that "He's a substance", and likewise it's not allowed for us to say that "He's not a substance".
As for the second way [to understand it]: Then it's the statement that "He's not a substance", then this is not (!) correct, and the apparent from the saying of the author is the second.
This means that the author - may Allah have mercy upon him - is upon the position that the belief of Ahl al-Sunna wal Jama'a is that they say [and believe that] "Allah is indeed not a substance nor [is He] an accident or a body", and there is no doubt that this negation is not correct and the Ahl al-Sunna did not say this, nor is this their way (Madhhab), for they do not declare to be sure regarding negation of something or its affirmation except with a proof while there is no proof regarding this [issue], not [for its] affirmation nor [for its] negation.
- end of quote -

It should be noted here that the statement of Imam al-Saffarini can actually have only one meaning and that is the second way that Ibn 'Uthaymin mentions. But at least he admits here that the author intended the second meaning, so let's overlook this.
What we can not overlook here is his claim that the Ahl al-Sunna did not say this. It seems for Ibn 'Uthaymin only the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) is from the Ahl al-Sunna, while all the Hanabila - and the non-Hanabila anyways - who have stated the same as Imam al-Saffarini stated - like al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la (d. 458 AH) in al-Mu'tamad, Imam Ibn Abi Ya'la (d. 526 AH) in Tabaqat al-Hanabila, Imam Ibn Hamdan (d. 695 AH) in Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in, Imam 'Abd al-Baqi al-Mawahibi (d. 1071 AH) in al-'Ayn wal Athar, Imam Ibn Balban (d. 1083 AH) in Qala`id al-'Iqyan, Imam 'Uthman al-Najdi (d. 1097 AH) in Najat al-Khalaf and many others - are "not upon the way of Ahl al-Sunna" in this.


Ibn 'Uthaymin then went on and referring to the explanation of these terms and said (so this time he's speaking regarding the meaning and not just the terms!):

أما عن تفسير جوهر وعرض وجسم فكالآتي : الجوهر : ما قام بنفسه ،والعرض : ما قام بغيره ،والجسم : القائم المجسم ، فالمؤلف يرى أن من عقيدتنا أن ننفي هذه الثلاثة عن الله عز وجل ، ولكن هذا ليس بصحيح ،وليس من مذهب أهل السنة والجماعة

As for the explanation of [the expressions] substance (Jawhar), accident ('Aradh) and body (Jism), then it is as follows:
A substance (Jawhar): That which subsists in itself.
An accident ('Aradh): That which subsists in others.
A body: The corporeal [thing or being] subsisting [in itself[.
So the author (i.e. al-Saffarini) is on the position that it's from our beliefs to deny these three regarding Allah ta'ala - 'azza wa jall -, but this is not correct and not from the way (Madhhab) of Ahl al-Sunna wal Jama'a.
- end of quote -

It should be noted here that his definition of substance and accident is way too broad and not complete (!) and not in accordance with what Imam al-Saffarini said, but let's concentrate on the explanation of body - which is correct - even though he does not use the terms used by Imam al-Saffarini (as quoted ABOVE).
So according to Ibn 'Uthaymin it's "not from the way of Ahl al-Sunna" to deny that God is a "corporeal [thing or being] subsisting [in itself]", nor is it allowed to affirm this.


To make it short: Ibn 'Uthaymin does not know our Lord! He does not know what he's worshipping and what not! He claims that this ignorance is the correct way, but the Hanabila quoted in this thread said all the exact opposite!
So let no one try to claim that the "Salafis" agree with the Hanabila on Tanzih and Tajsim, for they EXPLICILTY reject the statement of mainstream Hanabila as shown here.



PS: Ibn 'Uthaymin is the same person who explicitly claimed that "there is some [sort of] of similarity (!) [between the Creator and the creation]" (see HERE), and this claim is what is against the Madhhab of Ahl al-Sunna in reality and shows even more that he does not know the Creator, Exalted is He above what his likes claim!

Interesting