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

[AmantuBillahi]

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

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

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

Salafis also believe in making Ithbat with Tanzih. Allah has eternaly existed with the Attributes of Perfection. They cannot be similar to His creation because He is Divine and eternal. The difference between us though is that our Tanzih is not excessive to the point where the implication of the Attributes are nullified.

I'm not sure if you've changed your view since the previous disussion, but you were using the "Tanzih" of some of the Hanbalis to suggest that they didn't literally believe Allah was Above the Throne. That is precisely the issue here. It is inconsistent to believe in Allah's Uluw bi-Dhatihi and make Tanzih to the point where it contradicts the implications of the Attribute.

Ibn Taymiyyah was a Hanbali scholar of Kalam. That is what separates him and his Dawah from the other Hanbalis. If you believe that Allah is Above the Throne, then it necessarily follows that He has a Hadd. Allah is not so dissimilar to the creation that it nullifies His Attributes. This is what logically follows from the explicit beliefs of the Hanbalis.

[AmantuBillahi]

Ibn Qudama on Tafiwd:

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

Statements are to be understood in light of their intended meanings. You know what someonee is intending by the implications of what they believe.

[AmantuBillahi]

.

[Abu Sulayman]

Salafis also believe in making Ithbat with Tanzih. Allah has eternaly existed with the Attributes of Perfection. They cannot be similar to His creation because He is Divine and eternal. The difference between us though is that our Tanzih is not excessive to the point where the implication of the Attributes are nullified.

Great, but in order to know what "Salafis" believe we need to refer to their scholars (because their laymen are not necessarily believing the same): What we see from them is that they REJECT almost EVERY statement of Tanzih found in Hanbali works.
Have you ever looked into books by Hanabila printed by them or having a commentary made by them regarding these books? It's filled with rejecting every statement of Tanzih that the Hanbali authors made! What does that show us?
I mean when Imam al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) said that Yadayn are divine attributes in the manner befitting the majesty of Allah ta'ala and that it's not with the meaning of an organ or a limb or corporeality or a part or a quantity, exalted is Allah above that ("لا بمعنى: العضو والجارحة، والجسمية، والبعضية، والكمية، تعالى الله عن ذلك"), do you seriously think that "Salafi" Mashayikh (like Ibn 'Uthaymin!) would accept to reject any of these descriptions? They don't!
They rather say "we do not affirm or reject these descriptions", even though affirming these descriptions is DISBELIEF according to mainstream Hanbalis!
Just imagine: They're unable to reject the meanings that constitute disbelief according to the very Hanabila that you claim they agree with!

]
I'm not sure if you've changed your view since the previous disussion, but you were using the "Tanzih" of some of the Hanbalis to suggest that they didn't literally believe Allah was Above the Throne. That is precisely the issue here. It is rationally inconsistent to believe in Allah's Uluw bi-Dhatihi while making Tanzih to the point where it contradicts the Attribute.

I'm not denying that the Hanabila believed that Allah ta'ala is upon the throne ('ala al-'Arsh) and beyond his creation (ba`in min khalqih), but this while at the same time denying that Allah ta'ala is limited or in a place. In fact I quoted Imam Ibn Hamdan (d. 695 AH) here and in our previous discussion who is saying exactly this.
What I'm telling you is: You people are not really understanding the Hanbali approach here (and even many Ash'aris today don't understand their approach)!

Let me explain: The creation is finite and ends at some point. After this point there is no place and our imagination stops at this point. Allah ta'ala is beyond that such that He's not in a place and beyond limits and our imagination. This is the mainstream Hanbali view!
The mistake that "Salafis" now commit is that they imagine that after the creation ends, there somehow still exists the notion of place (they may even call it as non-existing place or the like!) and that there is some sort of empty space and that is where God is. Based upon this very imagination they say: So God must have a limit, otherwise he would be mixed up with the creation. (So according to the above imagination of "Salafis" the creation ENDS and then the divine essence STARTS, that is why there must be a limit to the divine essence otherwise they would be mixed up.)
And this is Tashbih, no matter how we turn it! And the imagination that God fills up a void is actually Tajsim in itself, because it is to believe that God is a 3-dimensional being!
Where did "befitting his majesty" remain in this imagination?

The proof that the mainstream Hanbali view is what I mentioned first - and NOT what the "Salafis" imagine - is the statement of Imam Ibn Hamdan in his Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in (which is RELIED UPON by later Hanbalis!):

...He does not indwell in what is emergent (Hadith) nor is He confined by it, rather He is beyond His creation (ba`in min khalqih).
Allah is upon the throne ('ala al-'Arsh) not with a limitation [that limits Him], rather the limitation is that of the throne and of that which is besides it (or below it) [from the creation]; and Allah is above (fawq) [all of] that without place (Makan) or limitation (Hadd), because He existed and there was no place (Makan), then He created place and He is as He was before creating place.
- end of quote -

Please try to understand the difference!

Ibn Taymiyyah was a Hanbali scholar of Kalam. That is what separates him and his Dawah from the other Hanbalis. If you believe that Allah is Above the Throne, then it necessarily follows that He has a Hadd. Allah is not so dissimilar to the creation that it nullifies His Attributes. This is what logically follows from the explicit beliefs of the Hanbalis.

Yes, the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) was a Hanbali scholar of Kalam, but many other Hanabila also engaged in Kalam in order to respond to their opponents from the Ahl al-Bid'a and even from the Ahl al-Sunna!
What actually makes him different is his statement that God is subject to changes and his statement regarding endless chains of events to the past, which is completely rejected by mainstream Hanbalis. Note that while mainstream Hanbalis had no problem in referring to him in order to respond to Ta`wil, they NEVER referred to him regarding the issue of divine essence being subject to changes (i.e. Hulul al-Hawadith fil Dhat al-Ilahiyya) and their relied upon works explicitly state that God is NOT subject to changes. This is a major difference!

If you believe that Allah is Above the Throne, then it necessarily follows that He has a Hadd. Allah is not so dissimilar to the creation that it nullifies His Attributes. This is what logically follows from the explicit beliefs of the Hanbalis.

See above. Imam Ibn Hamdan and the mainstream Hanbalis are not agreeing with you. They believe that it's the throne that is limited (i.e. the Hadd is that of the throne!) and not Allah ta'ala and they also believe that Allah ta'ala is COMPLETELY dissimilar to the creation (see the whole quote from the translated section from Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in or the quote from Tabaqat al-Hanabila where they emphasized this very strongly).
As I stated: That is where the Tashbih of "Salafis" lies and where the Hanbalis disagree with them clearly.

[AmantuBillahi]

I'm not denying that the Hanabila believed that Allah ta'ala is upon the throne ('ala al-'Arsh) and beyond his creation (ba`in min khalqih), but this while at the same time denying that Allah ta'ala is limited or in a place. In fact I quoted Imam Ibn Hamdan (d. 695 AH) here and in our previous discussion who is saying exactly this.
What I'm telling you is: You people are not really understanding the Hanbali approach here (and even many Ash'aris today don't understand their approach)!

Brother you are mixing between issues here. The Salafis and "mainstream Hanbalis" share the same beliefs regarding Allah's Uluw. Outside of the creation (above the throne) is not inside a "place" and nothing is "limiting" Allah. The "Hadd" is the necessary distinction between Allah and His creation. Imam Ahmad, Ibn al-Mubarak and many of the scholars after them explicitly affirmed the term.

Let me explain:

The creation is finite and ends at some point. After this point there is no place and our imagination stops at this point. Allah ta'ala is beyond that such that He's not in a place and beyond limits and our imagination. This is the mainstream Hanbali view!
The mistake that "Salafis" now commit is that they imagine that after the creation ends, there somehow still exists the notion of place (they may even call it as non-existing place or the like!) and that there is some sort of empty space and that is where God is. Based upon this very imagination they say: So God must have a limit, otherwise he would be mixed up with the creation. (So according to the above imagination of "Salafis

From an Ash'ari Kalam perspective the Hanbali/Salafi belief is either Tajsim or nonsensical. If you believe Allah''s Essence is above the throne, then this necessarily implies a limit. If someone was to say that Allah's Essence is above the throne without it causing a limit, then this would be considered incoherent. In the other thread you also confirmed this belief as being "false" according to an Ash'ari Muhaqiq.

This video also explains that merely affirming Allahs Uluw bi-Dhatihi "limits" Allah:

[AmantuBillahi]

Abu Sulayman

"He does not indwell in what is emergent (Hadith) nor is He confined by it, rather He is beyond His creation (ba`in min khalqih).
Allah is upon the throne ('ala al-'Arsh) not with a limitation [that limits Him], rather the limitation is that of the throne and of that which is besides it (or below it) [from the creation]; and Allah is above (fawq) [all of] that without place (Makan) or limitation (Had), because He existed and there was no place (Makan), then He created place and He is as He was before creating place."

Can you show examples of other Hanbalis saying this:

"because He existed and there was no place (Makan), then He created place and He is as He was before creating place."

I don't disagree with it, but it could potentially be misunderstood. Did Ibn Hamdan agree with the Hanbalis like al-Saffarini who affirmed Allah's Istawa bi-Dhatihi?

‘He has risen’ over His Throne, above (fawq) the seven heavens, a rising that befits his Essence"

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

[Abu Sulayman]

Brother you are mixing between issues here. The Salafis and "mainstream Hanbalis" share the same beliefs regarding Allah's Uluw. Outside of the creation (above the throne) is not inside a "place" and nothing is "limiting" Allah. The "Hadd" is the necessary distinction between Allah and His creation. Imam Ahmad, Ibn al-Mubarak and many of the scholars after them explicitly affirmed the term.

Brother, it's you who is mixing up issues here by trying to mix up between mainstream Hanbalis and modern-day Salafis. Do you know that Arab speaking modern-day Salafis have already come to the conclusion that most Hanbalis are Mufawwidha and that it is only the non-Arab speaking ones who still do not know this?
Then: We are sure that Imam Ahmad (d. 241 AH) and the mainstream Hanbalis (but not all Hanbalis!) believe in a non-bodily existance of Allah ta'ala and that the divine essence is beyond limits and beyond imagination, but we are not able to say the same thing regarding the modern-day Salafi Mashayikh.
Do you know why? Because the mainstream Hanbalis explicitly deny bodily descriptions (i.e. length, quantity, limits, etc.) in general regarding Allah ta'ala and make it very clear that the existance of Allah ta'ala is a non-bodily one, while "Salafis" criticize these same Hanbalis for doing so!
Again: Refer to the [Arabic] books of "Salafis" and that which is printed by them!

From an Ash'ari Kalam perspective the Hanbali/Salafi belief is either Tajsim or nonsensical. If you believe Allah''s Essence is above the throne, then this necessarily implies a limit. If someone was to say that Allah's Essence is above the throne without it causing a limit, then this would be considered incoherent. In the other thread you also confirmed this belief as being "false" according to an Ash'ari Muhaqiq.

This video also explains that merely affirming Allahs Uluw bi-Dhatihi "limits" Allah:

Forget about this video (I didn't watch it, because it won't change anything and I don't know how knowledgeable the speaker is).
If you're really want to know the Ash'ari view from a very knowledgable and staunch Ash'ari scholar, then watch this short video (with English subtitles):
Spatial Correlations or Temporalities of Any Kind Do Not Apply to God | Sh. Saeed Fodeh

But, I'm not even discussing with you from an Ash'ari point of view nor telling you that the Ash'ari and Hanbali position regarding the issue of 'Uluw is exactly the same (because they are not), but rather simply trying to explain the Hanbali position and that they are in reality ALSO affirming a non-bodily existance for Allah ta'ala (which is in agreement with Ash'aris) and this based upon the very belief in 'Uluw.
As for the standard Ash'ari position, then it is that Allah ta'ala is not inside nor outside the creation, while the Hanabila will not say that (!) rather they will say that Allah ta'ala is upon the throne and beyond his creation (even though these type of statements will also be found in some Ash'ari works).
The reason for saying not "inside" is that it would mean that God is mixed with the creation and this is disbelief. As for rejecting "outside", then what they (Ash'aris) intended here is to reject the imagination of the Mushabbiha (of the past and the present) who believe that after the creation ends there is some sort of empty space or void and that God is filling it up.
Note that mainstream Hanbalis also reject this imagination, but won't use the wording used by Ash'aris, rather simply clarify that God's existance is a non-bodily one.
That is why I did not mention the issue of 'Uluw together with issues where the Hanbalis and Ash'aris differed (i.e. the issue of Harf and Sawt and the issue of Ta`wil) - even though one could mention it with them - and the reason is because even though they do seem to disagree on the first sight, they concluded both a non-bodily existance for Allah ta'ala from this issue.

So only "Salafis" actually vehemently reject to affirm a non-bodily existence for Allah ta'ala and their understanding of 'Uluw is based upon the imagination that I've already mentioned.

[Abu Sulayman]

What I'm telling you is: You people are not really understanding the Hanbali approach here (and even many Ash'aris today don't understand their approach)!

Let me explain: The creation is finite and ends at some point. After this point there is no place and our imagination stops at this point. Allah ta'ala is beyond that such that He's not in a place and beyond limits and our imagination. This is the mainstream Hanbali view!
The mistake that "Salafis" now commit is that they imagine that after the creation ends, there somehow still exists the notion of place (they may even call it as non-existing place or the like!) and that there is some sort of empty space and that is where God is. Based upon this very imagination they say: So God must have a limit, otherwise he would be mixed up with the creation. (So according to the above imagination of "Salafis" the creation ENDS and then the divine essence STARTS, that is why there must be a limit to the divine essence otherwise they would be mixed up.)
And this is Tashbih, no matter how we turn it! And the imagination that God fills up a void is actually Tajsim in itself, because it is to believe that God is a 3-dimensional being!
Where did "befitting his majesty" remain in this imagination?

So only "Salafis" actually vehemently reject to affirm a non-bodily existence for Allah ta'ala and their understanding of 'Uluw is based upon the imagination that I've already mentioned.

Let me give some examples that the imagination that I ascribed to the "Salafis" is indeed what they believe:

- The author of the "as-salaf"-website Um Abdullah - which AmantuBillahi has used in our previous discussion! - has posted this diagram (!!!) on the "Salafi" "ahlalhdeeth"-forum in order to explain [the] "aboveness" [that they ("Salafis") affirm for God]:

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0QnEQlONB...od%2BAbove.jpg

Note that the empty space or void that somehow exists even after the end of the creation according to the imagination of these "Salafis" and according to the diagram above is where God is in their imagination. So in their imagination Allah ta'ala is filling up a void - High Exalted is He above that! - and this is Tajsim according to both mainstream Hanabila and Asha'ira!
These "Salafis" have actually not understood what being beyond creation - which is stated by the Hanabila regarding Allah ta'ala! - means and that is why they have this imagination!

But let's refer to a leading scholar of the "Salafi" movement:

- Ibn 'Uthaymin (d. 1421 AH) said the following regarding the meaning of Istiwa`:

ونحن نعلم معنى الاستواء ونؤمن به ونقره، وهو أنه سبحانه وتعالى علا عرشه واستوى عليه علواً واستقراراً يليق به سبحانه وتعالى، ولكننا لا نعلم كيفية هذا الاستواء

We know the meaning of istawa and we believe it and accept/approve it and He subhanahu wa ta’ala is upon is His arsh and His establishment thereupon is of aboveness and settledness (istiqrar) Glorified and Exalted be He. We don’t know the howness of this al-istawa’.
- end of quote -

(Translation taken form here: Salafis say Allah is Settled on the Throne)

Note that understanding Istiwa` to mean settlement (Istiqrar) is the very imagination that I ascribed to the "Salafis" above AND it's the very interpretation given by the famous early Mushabbih Muqatil bin Sulayman (d. 150 AH)!
Please refer to the Tafsir of Muqatil bin Sulayman regarding the Aya 20:5 where he explicitly states that Istiwa` in the Aya "means settled [on it]" ("يعني استقر").

There are of course a lot more statements to show that this is the imagination that "Salafis" (or at least their scholars!) have regarding God, but the above should be enough.
________

Additionally one can also read the following article to see the weird 'Salafi" belief of God surrounding the world:
Salafis say Allah is Surrounding the World

And also how the "Salafi" Mashayikh reject statements of Tanzih whenever they find it:
Pseudo Salafis object to Muslims declaring Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala transcendent beyond possessing body, parts and limbs
(If one looks into Arabic books printed by them, then one will see that they are doing this non-stop!)

[Abu Sulayman]

Abu Sulayman


Can you show examples of other Hanbalis saying this:

"because He existed and there was no place (Makan), then He created place and He is as He was before creating place."

I don't disagree with it, but it could potentially be misunderstood. Did Ibn Hamdan agree with the Hanbalis like al-Saffarini who affirmed Allah's Istawa bi-Dhatihi?

‘He has risen’ over His Throne, above (fawq) the seven heavens, a rising that befits his Essence"

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

I've translated the statement of Imam Ibn Hamdan (d. 695 AH) with its context:

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

Note that he first declared Allah ta'ala to be transcendent from bodily descriptions (Jism, Jawhar, 'Aradh, Hawadith, etc.) and that He's beyond the creation and thereafter mentioned that "He existed and there was no place (Makan), then He created place and He is as He was before creating place" and thereafter he declared Allah ta'ala COMPLETELY dissimilar to the creation and EMPHASIZED this and even mentioned the Takfir upon the one going against this.
To make it short: He's affirming a non-bodily existance for Allah ta'ala and there is no way to deny this or misunderstand this.

And: Imam al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) also believed in a non-bodily existance for Allah ta'ala (explicitly stated by him in his poem regarding creed and its commentary) and is not upon the "Salafi" imagination of 'Uluw!
Yes, he does refer to the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) in his commentary a lot (i.e. much more than others), but this in order to refute Ta`wil while at the same time disagreeing with him a lot.


As for the understanding of Istiwa` according to Imam Ibn Hamdan, then I've already quoted his position:

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

The whole section has been translated HERE IN THIS POST.


As for other Hanbali scholars saying this (i.e. "because He existed and there was no place (Makan), then He created place and He is as He was before creating place."):

Imam Ibn Hamdan himself refers to Imam Abu Nasr al-Sijzi (d. 444 AH) - who is not Hanbali in Fiqh, but clearly in 'Aqida - who said exactly the same. So this is one example from early scholars.
As for an example from later scholars: Imam Ibn Balban (d. 1083 AH) also affirms this in his 'Aqida work Qala`id al-'Iqyan.
This statement is a mainstream Hanbali view.

The reason why I'm relying on Imam Ibn Hamdan - in this discussion - is the following:

The mindset of most Hanabila before the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) is in line with that of al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la (d. 458 AH) (see for example his al-Mu'tamad and its Mukhtasar also by him). This includes Imam Ibn Hamdan (and Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH) also).
As for the mindset of most Hanabila after the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya, then it's in line with that of Imam Ibn Hamdan and they regard his work Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in as RELIED UPON IN CREED and refer to it and use its wording.

[Abu Sulayman]

The reason why I'm relying on Imam Ibn Hamdan - in this discussion - is the following:

The mindset of most Hanabila before the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) is in line with that of al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la (d. 458 AH) (see for example his al-Mu'tamad and its Mukhtasar also by him). This includes Imam Ibn Hamdan (and Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH) also).
As for the mindset of most Hanabila after the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya, then it's in line with that of Imam Ibn Hamdan and they regard his work Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in as RELIED UPON IN CREED and refer to it and use its wording.

I would like to prove my above statement that the mainstream Hanbalis regard the 'Aqida work Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in by Imam Ibn Hamdan (d. 695 AH) as relied upon in creed and that they use its wording in their own creed works.
One could choose any of the main points mentioned in the book, but I chose specifically the chapter that establishes that the reality of the existence of Allah ta'ala is completely dissimilar to that of His creation and that He therefore is free from any bodily descriptions and not subject to any changes (i.e. that the existance of the divine essence is a non-bodily one and that Allah ta'ala is beyond space and time and that these concepts do not apply to Him.)


Mainstream Hanbalis: Allah is beyond space and time and His existance is a non-bodily one


Let us first start with the creed of al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la (d. 458 AH) and his Hanbali predecessors as reported from his son - the Imam Ibn Abi Ya'ala (d. 526 AH) - in his famous Tabaqat al-Hanabila:

Whatever comes to the mind from limitation (Hadd) or attributing similarity (Tashbih) or attributing modality (Takyif), then Allah is glorified and exalted above it and there is nothing like Him. He is not described with the attributes of the creation that indicate their temporality and that which is possible regarding them - from the changing of one state to another - is not possible regarding Him.
[Allah ta'ala] is not a body (Jism) or a particle (Jawhar) or an accident ('Aradh) and has always existed and will always exist. He's the One who can not be imagined and His attributes are not similar to the attributes of the creation, { nothing is like Him; and He only is the All Hearing, the All Seeing. } [42:11].
...
So whoever believes that Allah - glory be to Him - is a body from among the bodies (Jism min al-Ajsam) and describes Him with the reality of a body from composition (Ta`lif) and change [of place or state] (Intiqal), then he's a disbeliever (!) (Kafir) because he does not know Allah - azza wa jall. For it is impossible regarding Allah - glory be to Him - to be described with these attributes [in reality]; and if someone does not know Allah - glory be to Him -, then it necessitates him being a disbeliever.
- end of quote -

(Note: His statement regarding the Takfir upon the one who believes that God is a body from among the bodies is found in his book al-Mu'tamad (page 271). In the same quote he mentions the Takfir upon the one saying "He's a body unlike [other] bodies" (Jism la kal Ajsam), while also mentioning that the latter is differed upon.)

Al-Mu'tamad [fil Usul al-Din] (page 57) by al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la:

It is not allowed to describe him with being in every place or in [some] place...
- end of quote -


Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in [fi Usul al-Din] (page 30-31) by Imam Ibn Hamdan (d. 695 AH):

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


Al-'Ayn wal Athar [fi 'Aqa`id Ahl al-Athar] (page 34-35) by Imam 'Abd al-Baqi al-Mawahibi (d. 1071 AH):

It's obligatory to be certain that Allah ta'ala is not a particle (Jawhar) or a body (Jism) or an accident ('Aradh) and temporality (Hawadith) does not indwell in Him and He does not indwell in what is emergent (Hadith) nor is He confined by it, so whoever believes or says that Allah is - with His essence - in a place (Makan), then he's a disbeliever (Kafir).
Rather one has to be certain that [Allah] - subhanahu wa ta'ala - is beyond His creation (ba`in min khalqih), for He existed and there was no place (Makan), then He created place and He is as He was before creating place.
He is not known through the senses (Hawas) and He can not be compared to humans, for He's free of any needs and there is nothing that is not in need of Him. He's not similar to anything and nothing is similar to Him.
Whatever comes to the mind or [can] be conveived by the imagination, then He is different from that, the Lord of Bounty and Majesty.
- end of quote -


Qala`id al-'Iqyan [fi Ikhtisar 'Aqidat Ibn Hamdan] (page 96-97) by Imam Ibn Balban (d. 1083 AH):

It's obligatory to be certain that Allah ta'ala is not a particle (Jawhar) or a body (Jism) or an accident ('Aradh) and temporality (Hawadith) does not indwell in Him and He does not indwell in what is emergent (Hadith) nor is He confined by it, so whoever believes or says that Allah is - with His essence - in every place or in [some] place (Makan), then he's a disbeliever (Kafir).
Rather one has to be certain that He - subhanahu wa ta'ala - is beyond His creation (ba`in min khalqih), for Allah ta'ala existed and there was no place (Makan), then He created place and He is as He was before creating place.
He is not known through the senses (Hawas) and He can not be compared to humans and there is no entry for analogy [or comparing] (Qiyas) regarding His essence, attributes and actions.
He has not taken a wife or a child [for Himself], for He's free of any needs and there is nothing that is not in need of Him.
He's not similar to anything and nothing is similar to Him, so whoever attributes similarity to Him with His creation has disbelieved, like the one who believes Him - ta'ala - to be a body (Jism) or says that "He's a body unlike [other] bodies" (Jism la kal Ajsam).
Imagination does not reach Him and comprehension does not grasp Him. He's not similar to the creation and no examples can be given in behalf of Him.
He's not known by the sayings [of the people].
Whatever comes to the mind or [can] be conveived by the imagination, then He is different from that, the Lord of Bounty and Majesty.
- end of quote -


Najat al-Khalaf [fi I'tiqad al-Salaf] (page 14) by Imam 'Uthman al-Najdi (d. 1097 AH):

It's obligatory to be certain that... [Allah] - glory be to Him - is not a particle (Jawhar) or a body (Jism) or an accident ('Aradh) and temporality (Hawadith) does not indwell in Him and He does not indwell in what is emergent (Hadith) nor is He confined by it, so whoever believes or says that Allah ta'ala is - with His essence - in every place or in [some] place (Makan), then he's a disbeliever (Kafir).
Rather one has to be certain that He - glory be to Him - is beyond His creation (ba`in min khalqih), for Allah ta'ala existed and there was no place (Makan), then He created place and He is as He was before creating place.
- end of quote -


Al-Durra al-Mudhiyya [fi 'Aqd Ahl al-Firqa al-Mardhiyya] (famous 'Aqida poem better known as al-Saffariniyya) by Imam al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH):

Our Lord is not a particle (Jawhar) or /// an accident ('Aradh) or a body (Jism), Exalted is He who is [Most] High
Glory be to him, He is indeed established (Istawa) as it is found [stated in the texts] /// without modality, He is indeed Exalted above being limited
- end of quote -


Conclusion: The Hanbalis after Imam Ibn Hamdan relied upon his work Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in to the degree that they used the very wordings used by him (in the above issue and in other than it!) in their own works regarding creed. What is also obvious from the above quotes is that they believed that the existance of Allah ta'ala is beyond space and time and a non-bodily one.


PS: The statement "He existed and there was no place (Makan), then He created place and He is as He was before creating place" (which obviously means that place / space does not apply to Allah ta'ala) which is found is Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in is also stated in al-'Ayn wal Athar, Qala`id al-'Iqyan and Najat al-Khalaf as quoted above (and also in other works).

[salafi7]

abu sulayman you are just copying and pasting a bunch of things and adding your own words as well and I dont have time to read all you wrote but you are definitely lying about a lot of things. one thing you lied about is abdul wahab not being a scholar and all the scholars rejecting him as a scholar. I dont know where you got that information from but its not true you are definitely misguided and mislead.

[SeekingtheCreator]

abu sulayman you are just copying and pasting a bunch of things and adding your own words as well and I dont have time to read all you wrote but you are definitely lying about a lot of things. one thing you lied about is abdul wahab not being a scholar and all the scholars rejecting him as a scholar. I dont know where you got that information from but its not true you are definitely misguided and mislead.

I haven't read everything on this thread, but how are you discounting the brother's deep research as copying and pasting? He has meticulously provided references that you can go and check for yourself. Then you accuse him of misguidance? Rather than blindly following your scholars, go and study. If you have any claims, bring daleel- without copying and pasting , cite books.

Those who are of the pseudo Salafi madh'hab should sincerely read brother Abu Sulayman''s work. The issue is they don't think they need to be corrected.

[salafi7]

I haven't read everything on this thread, but how are you discounting the brother's deep research as copying and pasting? He has meticulously provided references that you can go and check for yourself. Then you accuse him of misguidance? Rather than blindly following your scholars, go and study. If you have any claims, bring daleel- without copying and pasting , cite books.

Those who are of the pseudo Salafi madh'hab should sincerely read brother Abu Sulayman''s work. The issue is they don't think they need to be corrected.

lol you seem to be misguided as well

[SeekingtheCreator]

lol you seem to be misguided as well

Everyone besides you seems to be misguided. Laa ilaha illa Allah. May Allah guide us all. Ameen. Hopefully you will realise your stupidity some day inshaa Allah.

[salafi7]

Everyone besides you seems to be misguided. Laa ilaha illa Allah. May Allah guide us all. Ameen. Hopefully you will realise your stupidity some day inshaa Allah.

you are an idiot i hate ppl like you who assume things and act like they are smarter than they really are. you are probally a coward who is scared to fight jihad if the time ever came