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

[TheHaqq]

I would like to give an example such that the issue becomes even clearer:

Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala is al-Basir (i.e. the All-Seeing), so He is decribed with Basar as a divine attribute. The creation is also described with Basar (seeing).
That which follows from this attribute is the detection or perception of that which can be seen.

Does this now mean that the Creator is like or similar to the creation in His reality? No!

When it comes to the Creator, then the reality of Basar is an eternal attribute subsisting in the divine Self and beyond our imagination and not something corporeal nor an organ or a tool.

When it comes to the creation however, then the reality of their seeing is based on a corporeal organ or tool and their perception of what can be seen is emergent and they need light and it is limited and so on.

So the only common thing between the Creator and the creation is in naming [and that which follows from the attribute], but NOT in its reality.

This is how the scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah - be they Hanbali or Ash'ari - have understood this issue.



Ibn 'Uthaymin however believes in a certain degree of similarity in the very reality!!!
That is why he claims (as in Majmu' Fatawa) that the Madhhab of the Ahl al-Sunna is that God has two real (!) eyes with which he sees (!) ("مذهب أهل السنة والجماعة أن لله عينين، اثنتين، ينظر بهما حقيقة على الوجه اللائق به , وهما من الصفات الذاتية الثابتة بالكتاب، والسنة.. . فهما عينان حقيقيتان لا تشبهان أعين المخلوقين").

Note that his statement two real eyes implies corporeality. If he had simply stated that Allah ta'ala is described with 'Ayn or A'yun, then this would not be a problem. The scholars of Islam said that 'Ayn either goes back to the attribute of Basar or is an additional attribute and in every case the reality is beyond our comprehension.
Then he adds to this that God sees with these two real eyes. So he turns the reality of Basar similar to the seeing of the creation, such that 'Ayn becomes the tool of seeing!!
This is clear and obvious Tashbih in the very reality of the attributes!!!
And the one who knows the thinking of this man, knows that he even thinks that God's seeing is only eternal in its kind and that His seeing is subject to temporality (this is why he says "sees with them in reality")!
This is yet another Tashbih upon his Tashbih regarding Basar and this upon his Tashbih regarding 'Ayn!
We as Allah ta'ala for well-being.

A known Hanbali statement regarding these type of issues (as found in Tabaqat al-Hanabila, Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in and other works!): They explicitly state that they reject ascribing similarity (Tashbih) and [ascribing] tools (Adawat).

So this is yet another great difference between Hanbalis and these so called "Salafis".

Very interesting

[TheHaqq]

Ibn 'Uthaymin: God has ONLY two eyes and IF He would have MORE eyes, then this would be MORE perfect!

We have already seen that Ibn 'Uthaymin believes that "God has two real eyes with whom He sees in reality" (as in Majmu' Fatawa: "مذهب أهل السنة والجماعة أن لله عينين، اثنتين، ينظر بهما حقيقة على الوجه اللائق به , وهما من الصفات الذاتية الثابتة بالكتاب، والسنة.. . فهما عينان حقيقيتان لا تشبهان أعين المخلوقين"). So he has turned the 'Ayn of Allah ta'ala into the tool of seeing and the addition "real" implies corporeality, while the scholars of Islam have stated that God is not described with tools, organs, limbs or any thing corporeal and that the 'Ayn of Allah ta'ala is either going back to the attribute of Basar (from which being All-seeing follows) or it's an additional attribute subsisting in the divine Self and its reality is beyond imagination or comprehension.

Now there is a narration in Sahih al-Bukhari where the Dajjal is mentioned and it is said "He is blind in one eye, and your Lord is not so" and any sane person will understand from this that God is free from any flaws and defects, while the Dajjal is not.
But let's see what one of the leading scholars of the "Salafis" understood from this narration.


Ibn 'Uthaymin said in Sharh al-'Aqida al-Wasitiyya (scanned page HERE):

وهذا الحديث يدل على أن لله تعالى عينين اثنتين فقط. ووجه الدلالة أنه لو كان لله أكثر من اثنتين، لكان البيان به أوضح من البيان بالعور، لأنه لو كان لله أكثر من عينين، لقال: إن ربكم له أعين، لأنه إذا كان له أعين أكثر من ثنتين، صار وضوح أن الدجال ليس برب أبين. وأيضاً: لو كان لله عز وجل أكثر من عينين، لكان ذلك من كماله، وكان ترك ذكره تفويتاً للثناء على الله، لأن الكثرة تدل على القوة والكمال والتمام، فلو كان لله أكثر من عينين، لبينها الرسول عليه الصلاة والسلام، لئلا يفوتنا اعتقاد هذا الكمال، وهو الزائد على العينين الثنتين

This narration indicates that Allah ta'ala has only two eyes.
The way of indication [here] is that if Allah would have more than two eyes, then its proclamation would be clearer than the proclamation of one-eyedness (or blindness of one eye) [found in the narration], because if Allah would have more than two eyes, then he would have said "your Lord has eyes". [This is so] because if He would have more than two eyes, than the clarity of the Dajjal not being the Lord [of the worlds] would be more obvious.
And also: If Allah 'azza wa jall would have more than two eyes, then this would be from His perfection; and then abstaining from mentioning [this] would be missing out on mentioning the praise of Allah, because multiplicity indicates power, perfection and completion. So if Allah would have more than two eyes, then the Messenger - peace and blessings be upon him - would have made it clear, so that we do not miss out on believing in this perfection, and that is the addition [of more eyes] to the two eyes.
- end of quote -

He has mentioned the same [lack of] understanding in many of his lessons such that one can find it in several of his recorded lessons like Sharh Nuniyyat Ibn Qayyim, Sharh 'Aqidat Ahl al-Sunna wal Jama'a and Sharh al-'Aqida al-Wasitiyya.


Comments and thoughts:
- The above [lack of] reasoning is a completely pagan one! This is diametrically opposed to the mindset of Muslims and to true reason and logic!
- If a person stands in front of someone and this someone first needs to see how many eyes this person has in order for him to know that he's not his Lord, then this someone does not even know the Lord of the worlds in the first place!
- The above statement that "God has only two eyes... if he would have more than this, then this would be from his perfection" clearly indicates disbelief! Allah ta'ala has always been and will always be absolutely perfect and free from any flaws and defects. If someone claims that He could have been more perfect, then this means that he's describing Him with being not fully perfect and this is opposed to Him being essential in existence.
- Whosoever wants to worship a "god" with many arms, eyes, legs and so on, then let him not claim to be a Muslim! This is from the religion of Hindus and other pagans. As Muslims we know that the Lord of the worlds is transcendent from any corporeal descriptions, flaws, defects, likeness or similarity and that He is described with absolute perfection and essential existence!

Did any athari in the past say anything like this?

[TazkiyyatunNafs]

Regarding the Sharh of Ibn Uthaymeen concerning the Eyes. I'd like to retract my attempt to actually defend the stance of Ibn Uthaymeen regarding this.

Lose from the change of heart I had about the Najdi Da3wah, this is also something I've been thinking about. I got reminded of the Sharh of Ibn Uthaymeen a couple of days ago and went to read it again. I'm embarrassed and regretful I actually defended it. I went to ask a fellow 'Salafi' because I felt uneasy with these statements of Ibn Uthaymeen. The answer was not satisfying and basically reflected how I used to look at it, astaghfirullaah. I don't wish to reply any more on it, but felt it was necessary to publicly retract it especially for those reading along.

[Abu Sulayman]

Did any athari in the past say anything like this?

Obviously no, because the "reasoning" he presents is not an Athari one.
This is why I stated that modern "Salafis" are not Hanbali / Athari in creed.

[TheHaqq]

Obviously no, because the "reasoning" he presents is not an Athari one.
This is why I stated that modern "Salafis" are not Hanbali / Athari in creed.

The thing is, not even Ibn Taymiyyah said such things, modern salafis have gone step further in the wrong direction.
That being said, I'm sure even today not all salafi scholars would agree with Ibn Uthaymeen.

I use to think that modern salafis and asharis are arguing mostly over semantics, but that's because I assumed modern salafis follow the Ibn Qudamah approach, I myself thought Ibn Qudamah's aqeedah was the same as what modern salafis follow, but it seems that salafis call it the wrong type of tafweed!

[TheHaqq]

Regarding the Sharh of Ibn Uthaymeen concerning the Eyes. I'd like to retract my attempt to actually defend the stance of Ibn Uthaymeen regarding this.

Lose from the change of heart I had about the Najdi Da3wah, this is also something I've been thinking about. I got reminded of the Sharh of Ibn Uthaymeen a couple of days ago and went to read it again. I'm embarrassed and regretful I actually defended it. I went to ask a fellow 'Salafi' because I felt uneasy with these statements of Ibn Uthaymeen. The answer was not satisfying and basically reflected how I used to look at it, astaghfirullaah. I don't wish to reply any more on it, but felt it was necessary to publicly retract it especially for those reading along.

You would rather defend Allah's rights than any scholar's for sure.

[Abu Sulayman]

The thing is, not even Ibn Taymiyyah said such things, modern salafis have gone step further in the wrong direction.
That being said, I'm sure even today not all salafi scholars would agree with Ibn Uthaymeen.

I use to think that modern salafis and asharis are arguing mostly over semantics, but that's because I assumed modern salafis follow the Ibn Qudamah approach, I myself thought Ibn Qudamah's aqeedah was the same as what modern salafis follow, but it seems that salafis call it the wrong type of tafweed!

The Atharis / Hanbalis and the Ash'aris / Maturidis differ mostly on semantics and this is why the Shaykh Hatim al-'Awni stated that "their difference with the Hanbalis is in wording in the foundations of beliefs and real in its [detailed] branches".
Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH) was a completely classical Athari / Hanbali scholar and I personally have very much respect for him.

"Salafis" obviously don't agree with him and that's why in their so called "explanation" (read: distorsion) on his known creedal work, they will try to refute major points made by him, especially his statement on Tafwidh and his statement regarding the speech of Allah* and his rejection of Tashbih and so on.

* Speech of Allah: According to "Salafis" the speech of Allah is emergent (Muhdath) and uncreated (ghayr Makhluq) at the very same time. This would be Kufr according to Imam Ibn Qudama, because he stresses VERY VERY much - and this in more than one work - that the speech of Allah is neither emergent nor new nor created! He quite harshly refuted Ash'aris regarding the issue of the Lafdh of the Qur`an al-karim (where the Asha'ira are in agreement with the likes of Imam al-Bukhari (d. 256 AH)).
Now imagine what he would have done with these "Salafis" who dare to call the eternal (!) speech of Allah as emergent!

[TheHaqq]

The Atharis / Hanbalis and the Ash'aris / Maturidis differ mostly on semantics and this is why the Shaykh Hatim al-'Awni stated that "their difference with the Hanbalis is in wording in the foundations of beliefs and real in its [detailed] branches".
Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH) was a completely classical Athari / Hanbali scholar and I personally have very much respect for him.

"Salafis" obviously don't agree with him and that's why in their so called "explanation" (read: distorsion) on his known creedal work, they will try to refute major points made by him, especially his statement on Tafwidh and his statement regarding the speech of Allah* and his rejection of Tashbih and so on.

* Speech of Allah: According to "Salafis" the speech of Allah is emergent (Muhdath) and uncreated (ghayr Makhluq) at the very same time. This would be Kufr according to Imam Ibn Qudama, because he stresses VERY VERY much - and this in more than one work - that the speech of Allah is neither emergent nor new nor created! He quite harshly refuted Ash'aris regarding the issue of the Lafdh of the Qur`an al-karim (where the Asha'ira are in agreement with the likes of Imam al-Bukhari (d. 256 AH)).
Now imagine what he would have done with these "Salafis" who dare to call the eternal (!) speech of Allah as emergent!

This is interesting, I do think salafis will slowly start moving away from this and become closer to the hanabilah, just like they are slowly moving away from the najdi dawah, almost without realising it.

[AmantuBillahi]

Ibn Hajr(ra) in Fath al-Bari confirmed the majority position of the Hanaabilah on the Speech of Allah:

"The fifth: That it is the speech of Allaah, uncreated, that He has not ceased to be one who speaks when He wills. Ahmad textually stated this in the book "ar-Radd alal-Jahmiyyah", and his associates split into two factions: Amongst them are those who said that it (the Qur'an) is inherent, imperative to His essence, and that the letters and voices are simultaneous and not successive, and that He causes whomever He wills to hear His speech. But the majority of them (associates of Ahmad) said that He is one who speaks (mutakallim) with whatever He wills, whenever He wills and that He called out to Moses (alayhis salaam) when He spoke to him, and had not called out to him previously."

Imam Bukhari was neither in conformity with the Ash'aris who believe that the Arabic Quran is created. In fact, Imam Bukhari is a weapon against the Mutakalimoon in distinguishing between Muhdath and Makhlooq as explained by Shaykh al-Islam Ibnu Taymiyyah(ra).

[Abu Sulayman]

Ibn Hajr(ra) in Fath al-Bari confirmed the majority position of the Hanaabilah on the Speech of Allah:

"The fifth: That it is the speech of Allaah, uncreated, that He has not ceased to be one who speaks when He wills. Ahmad textually stated this in the book "ar-Radd alal-Jahmiyyah", and his associates split into two factions: Amongst them are those who said that it (the Qur'an) is inherent, imperative to His essence, and that the letters and voices are simultaneous and not successive, and that He causes whomever He wills to hear His speech. But the majority of them (associates of Ahmad) said that He is one who speaks (mutakallim) with whatever He wills, whenever He wills and that He called out to Moses (alayhis salaam) when He spoke to him, and had not called out to him previously."

Imam Bukhari was neither in conformity with the Ash'aris who believe that the Arabic Quran is created. In fact, Imam Bukhari is a weapon against the Mutakalimoon in distinguishing between Muhdath and Makhlooq as explained by Shaykh al-Islam Ibnu Taymiyyah(ra).

Regarding the quote of Imam Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani (d. 852 AH):
- Who said that you understood his statement correctly?
- Imam Ibn Hajar is not a Hanbali himself, so why not refer to Imam Ibn Qudama who is famous in discussing this issue?
- Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH) has several works on this issue (some of which are not translated) and they represent the Athari way (Hanabila quote his reasoning on this!)!
- Ever looked into any Athari / Hanbali works regarding this issue? If yes, then you would know that that which is called as "the minority position" is what is present in ALMOST ALL of their books. (Even the second position can be interpreted in line with the first.)

Regarding Imam al-Bukhari (d. 256 AH):
- He was in agreement with Imam Ibn Kullab (d. 241 AH) on this (and on creed in general)!
- He was heavily attacked by some early zealot Hanbalis for his position (which was unjust towards him)!
- He never argues that the Qur`an is Muhdath (emergent) and Ghayr Makhluq (uncreated) at the very same time, rather it's Ghayr Makhluq (uncreated) and NOT Muhdath (emergent)! It's only OUR Lafdh (wording / reading) of it that is Muhdath (emergent)! Seriously, where do you get these claims? The Hanabila couldn't even stand it to call OUR Lafdh (reading / wording) as Muhdath (emergent) - which is why they attacked Imam al-Bukhari - and now you call the very speech of Allah as Muhdath (emergent)?!?!? This is PURE JAHMISM!
- According to Maqalat al-Islamiyyin of Imam al-Ash'ari (d. 324 AH) all Islamic groups in his time regarded Muhdath (emergent) and Makhluq (created) as synonyms; so this differentiation is something invented later on and it does not make any sense whatsoever... how is something emergent and uncreated at the same time? Sounds like Christianity and paganism.

Then: The speech of Allah ta'ala is eternal! It's neither emergent nor new nor created and anyone saying otherwise is a Jahmi! This can be found in basically ALL relied upon works on Hanbali creed! (You don't know HOW MANY quotes I could bring on this!)

[TheHaqq]

Ibn Hajr(ra) in Fath al-Bari confirmed the majority position of the Hanaabilah on the Speech of Allah:

"The fifth: That it is the speech of Allaah, uncreated, that He has not ceased to be one who speaks when He wills. Ahmad textually stated this in the book "ar-Radd alal-Jahmiyyah", and his associates split into two factions: Amongst them are those who said that it (the Qur'an) is inherent, imperative to His essence, and that the letters and voices are simultaneous and not successive, and that He causes whomever He wills to hear His speech. But the majority of them (associates of Ahmad) said that He is one who speaks (mutakallim) with whatever He wills, whenever He wills and that He called out to Moses (alayhis salaam) when He spoke to him, and had not called out to him previously."

Imam Bukhari was neither in conformity with the Ash'aris who believe that the Arabic Quran is created. In fact, Imam Bukhari is a weapon against the Mutakalimoon in distinguishing between Muhdath and Makhlooq as explained by Shaykh al-Islam Ibnu Taymiyyah(ra).

السلام عليكم
We need to get to the bottom of this, since you are defending a certain position, you must know exactly what you are defending.

You follow the salafi view of sifaat, whether it's the Hanbali view or one stand doesn't matter, I have a question:

You say that Allah has a hand(s), and that you know what a hand is and means, but we don't know the how, correct? This is what you affirm for Allah.

Here is a basic definition of a hand:
"The part of the body at the end of the arm that is used for holding, moving, touching, and feeling things"

This is what a hand is and what it means, do you affirm all of this for Allah?

Well let's make it more detailed, break each part down and tell me what you affirm, negate or neither affirm/negate for Allah.

It would be interesting to see what the salafi position is, I used to think I knew it but now I'm not sure.

[AmantuBillahi]

السلام عليكم
We need to get to the bottom of this, since you are defending a certain position, you must know exactly what you are defending.

This question is irrelevant to the post you have quoted me. I have answered this in detail on the last page and in response to brother Muhammad Hassan in the 'Ibn Abdul Wahhab's lack of qualifications' thread. We do not ascribe a Tahdid to Allah but believe that the descriptions/attributes share conceptual similarities. In other words, they are similiar in concept but not in reality.

[AmantuBillahi]

This question is irrelevant to the post you have quoted me. I have answered this in detail on the last page and in response to brother Muhammad Hassan in the 'Ibn Abdul Wahhab's lack of qualifications' thread. We do not ascribe a Tahdid to Allah but believe that the descriptions/attributes share conceptual similarities. In other words, they are similiar in concept but not in reality.

https://www.ummah.com/forum/forum/li...5#post12742565

[AmantuBillahi]

TheHaqq

You might enjoy reading these 2 articles:

https://theboriqeenotes.com/2020/02/...hs-attributes/
https://aqeedah.wordpress.com/2006/0...hs-attributes/

[TazkiyyatunNafs]

This is interesting, I do think salafis will slowly start moving away from this and become closer to the hanabilah, just like they are slowly moving away from the najdi dawah, almost without realising it.

What makes you think they will? I can't speak for all Salafis but the ones in my community are not really exposed to outsources. The explanations of scholars like Ibn Uthaymeen are spoon fed to us and everyone that opposes Salafi scholars are deviant and shouldn't be listened to. My first two comments reflect their mindset pretty well. Only difference is that I'm a bad Salafi that actually came on here and started reading. The good Salafis would never. I hope they will move away as you say though.. may Allah guide us all.