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

[Abu Sulayman]

Hanbali position: All bodies are emergent and therefore created and the corporealists are disbelievers


From the Hanbali creed book al-Mu'tamad fi Usul al-Din (page 35) [by al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la (d. 458 AH)]:

All originated / created things (Muhdathat) fall under three categories: indivisible particle (Jahwar munfarid; a particle / substance that can not be further divided [and makes up bodies]), composed body (Jism mu`allaf) and accident ('Aradh) that exists in bodies.
- end of quote -

Al-Mu'tamad (page 36):

As for body (Jism), then it's that which is composed (mu`allaf) from substance / particles (Jawhar) and whatever is composed is a body and every body is composed.
...
A body is emergent (Muhdath), because we have found that these bodies go through change in their states (Ahwal) and attributes (Sifat), so that sometimes they're in movement and then in stillness, and sometimes they are alive and then dead.
- end of quote -

Al-Mu'tamad (page 38):

Temporality (Hawadith) has a first where it started, [and this is] in oppostion to [the statement of] the atheists (Malahida). The proof for this is [that] we've known that the meaning (Ma'na) of emergent (Muhdath) is that it is being existent (Mawjud) after nonexistence ('Adam) and the meaning of temporality (Hawadith) is that it is existent after nonexistence, so if among it is that which has no first, then it would be necessitated to be eternal (Qadim) and this is wrong, because of what we've shown from the establishment of proofs for its origination (Huduth).
...
The world is ending and the bodies are partitioned and divided until they end to a part that can not be further divided or partitioned (i.e. the indivisible particle), [and this is] in opposition to al-Nadhdham and the philosophers (who say otherwise).
- end of quote -

Al-Mu'tamad (page 39):

All that is in the world - its substance / particles (Jawhar), its accidents (A'radh) and its bodies (Ajsam) - is emergent (Muhdath) and we've already proven the origination (Huduth) of each one of the particles, bodies and accidents. If it's proven that all of these [particles, bodies and accidents] are emergent / originated (Muhdath), then they need an Originator (Muhdith) who has made them emerge and a Maker (Sani') who has made them, [and this is] in opposition to the atheists (Malahida) who deny the Maker.
- end of quote -


Al-Mu'tamad (page 60):

The Maker (al-Bari) - glory be to Him - is [completely] different (Mukhalif) from the world, [and this is] in opposition to Abu Hudhayl and al-'Allaf in their statement "He's not different".
The proof for this is that He is not similar to the particles (Jawahir), bodies (Ajsam) and accidents (A'rdah), and if he's not similar to them, then this necessitates Him to be different from [the world].

Section

Allah ta'ala is not similar to any [of the] originated things (Hawadith), [and this is] in opposition to those who ascribe similarity (Mushabbiha) in their statement "Allah is similar to the bodies (Ajsam)".
The proof upon this is the statement [of Allah] ta'ala { Nothing is like Him } [42:11] and His statement { “And there is none equal to Him.� } [122:4] and if He would be similar to originated things (Hawadith), then that which is possible regarding them would also be possible regarding Him from defect, need, origination and weakness.
- end of quote -

Al-Mu'tamad (page 271):

The one who believes that Allah ta'ala 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 displacement (Intiqal) from [one] place to [another] place (min Makan ila Makan), then he's a disbeliever (!) (Kafir), because he does not know Allah ta'ala. For it is impossible regarding Allah ta'ala to be described with these attributes [in reality]; and if someone does not know Allah, then it necessitates him being a disbeliever.
If someone [however] stated this term (i.e. Jism) regarding Him and said "[He's] a body unlike [other] bodies" (Jism la kal Ajsam) while [at the same time] not ascribing to Him the reality of a body, then it has been stated that he [still] becomes a disbeliever because of the usage of this term, because he has named Allah with that which He did not name Himself nor has the Messenger named Him with this nor have the Muslims agreed upon naming Him with this, rather they warned against this. It has [also] been stated that he does not become a disbeliever, rather is disobedient - and this is the statement of some Ash'ari [scholars]-, because [for it to be] disbelief the meaning has to be found and not just the wording, [while this person] has indeed rejected its meaning, so that he does not become a disbeliever.
- end of quote -



Conclusion:
Bodies are composed and need someone who has composed them. They go through changes in their states, and being subject to temporality necessitates origination (this by the way is in rejection to infinite regression to the past and in the above texts it's regarded an atheist belief!). Both of this leads to them being emergent / originated. Whatever is originated needs an Originator and Maker.
The Maker is not similar to bodies [or the world and whatever is in it] in any way, because otherwise that which is possible regarding them would also apply to Him and this would make Him originated, and this is impossible.
The one believing Allah ta'ala to be a body has disbelieved, because he does not know Allah ta'ala.
The above is what mainstream Hanabila - and infact ALL Sunnis - believed.

Yet we find people in our time who do not believe that all bodies are created, nor do they believe that God is free from temporality, and then they still claim to be "Sunnis" and upon the truth.
We ask Allah ta'ala for well-being.

[AmantuBillahi]

Hanbali position: All bodies are emergent and therefore created and the corporealists are disbelievers


From the Hanbali creed book al-Mu'tamad fi Usul al-Din (page 35) [by al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la (d. 458 AH)]:

All originated / created things (Muhdathat) fall under three categories: indivisible particle (Jahwar munfarid; a particle / substance that can not be further divided [and makes up bodies]), composed body (Jism mu`allaf) and accident ('Aradh) that exists in bodies.
- end of quote -

Al-Mu'tamad (page 36):

As for body (Jism), then it's that which is composed (mu`allaf) from substance / particles (Jawhar) and whatever is composed is a body and every body is composed.
...
A body is emergent (Muhdath), because we have found that these bodies go through change in their states (Ahwal) and attributes (Sifat), so that sometimes they're in movement and then in stillness, and sometimes they are alive and then dead.
- end of quote -

Al-Mu'tamad (page 38):

Temporality (Hawadith) has a first where it started, [and this is] in oppostion to [the statement of] the atheists (Malahida). The proof for this is [that] we've known that the meaning (Ma'na) of emergent (Muhdath) is that it is being existent (Mawjud) after nonexistence ('Adam) and the meaning of temporality (Hawadith) is that it is existent after nonexistence, so if among it is that which has no first, then it would be necessitated to be eternal (Qadim) and this is wrong, because of what we've shown from the establishment of proofs for its origination (Huduth).
...
The world is ending and the bodies are partitioned and divided until they end to a part that can not be further divided or partitioned (i.e. the indivisible particle), [and this is] in opposition to al-Nadhdham and the philosophers (who say otherwise).
- end of quote -

Al-Mu'tamad (page 39):

All that is in the world - its substance / particles (Jawhar), its accidents (A'radh) and its bodies (Ajsam) - is emergent (Muhdath) and we've already proven the origination (Huduth) of each one of the particles, bodies and accidents. If it's proven that all of these [particles, bodies and accidents] are emergent / originated (Muhdath), then they need an Originator (Muhdith) who has made them emerge and a Maker (Sani') who has made them, [and this is] in opposition to the atheists (Malahida) who deny the Maker.
- end of quote -


Al-Mu'tamad (page 60):

The Maker (al-Bari) - glory be to Him - is [completely] different (Mukhalif) from the world, [and this is] in opposition to Abu Hudhayl and al-'Allaf in their statement "He's not different".
The proof for this is that He is not similar to the particles (Jawahir), bodies (Ajsam) and accidents (A'rdah), and if he's not similar to them, then this necessitates Him to be different from [the world].

Section

Allah ta'ala is not similar to any [of the] originated things (Hawadith), [and this is] in opposition to those who ascribe similarity (Mushabbiha) in their statement "Allah is similar to the bodies (Ajsam)".
The proof upon this is the statement [of Allah] ta'ala { Nothing is like Him } [42:11] and His statement { “And there is none equal to Him.� } [122:4] and if He would be similar to originated things (Hawadith), then that which is possible regarding them would also be possible regarding Him from defect, need, origination and weakness.
- end of quote -

Al-Mu'tamad (page 271):

The one who believes that Allah ta'ala 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 displacement (Intiqal) from [one] place to [another] place (min Makan ila Makan), then he's a disbeliever (!) (Kafir), because he does not know Allah ta'ala. For it is impossible regarding Allah ta'ala to be described with these attributes [in reality]; and if someone does not know Allah, then it necessitates him being a disbeliever.
If someone [however] stated this term (i.e. Jism) regarding Him and said "[He's] a body unlike [other] bodies" (Jism la kal Ajsam) while [at the same time] not ascribing to Him the reality of a body, then it has been stated that he [still] becomes a disbeliever because of the usage of this term, because he has named Allah with that which He did not name Himself nor has the Messenger named Him with this nor have the Muslims agreed upon naming Him with this, rather they warned against this. It has [also] been stated that he does not become a disbeliever, rather is disobedient - and this is the statement of some Ash'ari [scholars]-, because [for it to be] disbelief the meaning has to be found and not just the wording, [while this person] has indeed rejected its meaning, so that he does not become a disbeliever.
- end of quote -



Conclusion:
Bodies are composed and need someone who has composed them. They go through changes in their states, and being subject to temporality necessitates origination (this by the way is in rejection to infinite regression to the past and in the above texts it's regarded an atheist belief!). Both of this leads to them being emergent / originated. Whatever is originated needs an Originator and Maker.
The Maker is not similar to bodies [or the world and whatever is in it] in any way, because otherwise that which is possible regarding them would also apply to Him and this would make Him originated, and this is impossible.
The one believing Allah ta'ala to be a body has disbelieved, because he does not know Allah ta'ala.
The above is what mainstream Hanabila - and infact ALL Sunnis - believed.

Yet we find people in our time who do not believe that all bodies are created, nor do they believe that God is free from temporality, and then they still claim to be "Sunnis" and upon the truth.
We ask Allah ta'ala for well-being.

How is that you reference 1 Hanbali scholar and conclude that such and such is the "mainstream Hanbali position". Even if it was, what kind of a methodology is this for proving your point? Are you speaking to yourself or trying to give us Da'wah? I'm not convinced by your arguments and conclusions. The best way to give me Da'wah - and I assume that you're partially doing this for me considering how my name is in the OP - would be to cite modern Salafis/pro-Ibn Taymiyyah Hanbalis making the same conclusions. I'm not going to learn about the Hanbali/Athari creed from the enemies of the Hanbalis i.e. the Ash'aris. That would be like learning Tawheed from a Trinitarian.

If the Hanbalis understood terms like bodies and accidents in the exact same manner as the Ash'aris and other Mutakalimoon, then it necessitates that a large group from the latter Hanbalis would condemn Ibn Taymiyyah as a clear Mujasimma. Your OP demonstrates that you yourself are perplexed at how Ibn Taymiyyah was received by his successors. It doesn't make sense on any level how they could believe in what you perceive to be the Hanbali creed and yet defend/honour Ibn Taymiyyah from his enemies.

There are 3 options:

1) They were Jahil concerning the beliefs of Ibn Taymiyyah
2) They were Munafiqoon who remained silent/spoke highly of him for polemical reasons
3) They agreed with his Aqeedah but used a distinct vernacular from the Ash'aris concerning terms like Tafwid al-Ma'na, Hadd, Tajsim, etc

[AmantuBillahi]

How is that you reference 1 Hanbali scholar and conclude that such and such is the "mainstream Hanbali position". Even if it was, what kind of a methodology is this for proving your point? Are you speaking to yourself or trying to give us Da'wah? I'm not convinced by your arguments and conclusions. The best way to give me Da'wah - and I assume that you're partially doing this for me considering how my name is in the OP - would be to cite modern Salafis/pro-Ibn Taymiyyah Hanbalis making the same conclusions. I'm not going to learn about the Hanbali/Athari creed from the enemies of the Hanbalis i.e. the Ash'aris. That would be like learning Tawheed from a Trinitarian.

If the Hanbalis understood terms like bodies and accidents in the exact same manner as the Ash'aris and other Mutakalimoon, then it necessitates that a large group from the latter Hanbalis would condemn Ibn Taymiyyah as a clear Mujasimma. Your OP demonstrates that you yourself are perplexed at how Ibn Taymiyyah was received by his successors. It doesn't make sense on any level how they could believe in what you perceive to be the Hanbali creed and yet defend/honour Ibn Taymiyyah from his enemies.

There are 3 options:

1) They were Jahil concerning the beliefs of Ibn Taymiyyah
2) They were Munafiqoon who remained silent/spoke highly of him for polemical reasons
3) They agreed with his Aqeedah but used a distinct vernacular from the Ash'aris concerning terms like Tafwid al-Ma'na, Hadd, Tajsim, etc

Article on Abu Ya'la al-Hanbali d. 458AH:

http://www.asharis.com/creed/article...h-wal-jama.cfm

The Hanbalis who strayed away from Imam Ahmad:

http://www.asharis.com/creed/article...gy-of-the-.cfm

Mind you Abu Ya'la was not listed as an "authoritative Hanbali scholar" in the OP. Please post modern Salafis/pro-Ibn Taymiyyah Hanbalis confirming each one of the scholars you listed in the OP as mainstream Hanbali authorities.

[Abu Sulayman]

How is that you reference 1 Hanbali scholar and conclude that such and such is the "mainstream Hanbali position". Even if it was, what kind of a methodology is this for proving your point?

I did not quote some abnormal or random book, but rather al-Mu'tamad fi Usul al-Din, which is among the relied upon books for Hanbali creed! It's not my fault that those "Salafis" don't tell you about the relied upon books of Hanbali creed - such that you people have not even heard the names of such important books! - and even when they they mention a relied upon book (usually only Lum'at al-I'tiqad and sometimes Lawami' al-Anwar) , then only with so called "explanation" (read: distortion) by them, where they reject major points made by Hanbali authors!
Billahi 'alayk, have you ever heard about al-Mu'tamad fi Usul al-Din or Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in before this thread of mine? And this with the knowledge that Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in is HIGHLY RELIED UPON by the Hanabila!

And I did not quote regarding a random issue, rather regarding one where there is agreement among mainstream Hanbalis - and in fact ALL Sunnis - and that is the reality of the existence of Allah ta'ala being a non-bodily one and that He - subhanahu wa ta'ala - is not subject to temporality.

I've already proven in my previous posts that this is the mainstream Hanbali position. Read again:

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.

There are much more quotes. So there is no way to deny that this is there is position.

[Abu Sulayman]

Are you speaking to yourself or trying to give us Da'wah? I'm not convinced by your arguments and conclusions.

I'm trying to present the Hanbali creed as presented by themselves in their relied upon books with the intention that people benefit from it and do not get fooled by the modern-day fake "Atharis".

The best way to give me Da'wah - and I assume that you're partially doing this for me considering how my name is in the OP - would be to cite modern Salafis/pro-Ibn Taymiyyah Hanbalis making the same conclusions.

Well the Hanbali scholars that I've mentioned on the first page - like the Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid [al-Azhari al-Hanbali] and the Shaykh Muhammad al-Sayyid [al-Azhari al-Hanbali] - both respect the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) and do NOT regard him a Mujassim and regard him as Shaykh al-Islam, but they still disagree with some of his abnormal views (like his view that God is subject to changes and his view on infinite regression to the past and his view on Ziyara and his view on Talaq!) and do not follow him blindly.
And to treat the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya in this waq is the way of the mainstream Hanabila in general as it's clear from their books. It's not my fault that you've not come across their works to see that they do not support his abnormal views!

And: Modern-day "Salafi" Mashayikh are at least innovators, so don't expect me to quote them except for the sake of refutation. If you were able to understand Arabic, then the works of the "Salafi" Mashayikh are filled with attacks against mainstream Hanbalis and you could recheck that for yourself.
Just look into any Hanbali book that they print or any commentary that they have written regarding them and you'll see them denying what the Hanbali authors have said in the most obvious manner and sometimes even using a very disrespectful way like for example "And who are you, o Khalwati...!". Imagine this disrespect towards a scholar is just a footnote!
This is what these people write in their footnotes, so what about their worthless commentaries?! And what about their own creedal works?!

I'm not going to learn about the Hanbali/Athari creed from the enemies of the Hanbalis i.e. the Ash'aris. That would be like learning Tawheed from a Trinitarian.

I'm not an enemy of the Hanbalis and I respect them just like I respect Ash'aris. I'm a normal Sunni who respects both.
I respect them (Hanbalis) MUCH more than your "Salafi" Mashayikh do, who accuse them of not knowing the correct 'Aqida, being influence by Kalam, supporting polytheism and not differentiating between the religion of Islam and that of the 'Amr bin Luhayy (!). Should I go on?!
These are the people you trust! The same people whose spiritual forefathers were trying to kill the leading Hanbali scholars in the whole region during the first and second Najdi state!

Then: If you want to know what mainstream Hanabila believed, then the book Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in and the book Qala`id al-'Iqyan are both available. Both books are specifically written for the purpose of teaching!
You can even go to Youtube and listen to the lessons regarding Qala`id al-'Iqyan by the Shaykh Muhammad al-Sayyid al-Azhari al-Hanbali.

But please don't expect the heirs of the Najdis - i.e. the "Salafis" - to teach you the authentic Hanbali creed! The forefathers of these "Salafis" did not leave a single Hanbali scholar in the whole region without making Takfir upon them and then you're expecting them to teach you THEIR creed?!

If the Hanbalis understood terms like bodies and accidents in the exact same manner as the Ash'aris and other Mutakalimoon, then it necessitates that a large group from the latter Hanbalis would condemn Ibn Taymiyyah as a clear Mujasimma. Your OP demonstrates that you yourself are perplexed at how Ibn Taymiyyah was received by his successors. It doesn't make sense on any level how they could believe in what you perceive to be the Hanbali creed and yet defend/honour Ibn Taymiyyah from his enemies.

There are 3 options:

1) They were Jahil concerning the beliefs of Ibn Taymiyyah
2) They were Munafiqoon who remained silent/spoke highly of him for polemical reasons
3) They agreed with his Aqeedah but used a distinct vernacular from the Ash'aris concerning terms like Tafwid al-Ma'na, Hadd, Tajsim, etc

You're speaking as if it's easy to understand the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH), which is not the case in the first place!
Who told you that laymen or those who are not that different to laymen in their level of understanding (i.e. "Salafi" Mashayikh!) should read his works? Who told you that?
This is like saying the works of the Shaykh Ibn 'Arabi (d. 638 AH) should be studied by laymen and those similar to them. There is really no difference!

Anyways, I had already written this:

First of all: The ones EXPLICITLY ascribing ignorance to the Hanabila are the "Salafi" Mashayikh and this for the very issue of how they dealt with the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH)!
So don't use the very issue of how they USED his words in SOME ISSUES while at the same time IGNORING his words in SOME OTHER ISSUES or USING his words to establish a SPECIFIC point while REJECTING his position in the very issue CONNECTED to it, because the "Salafi" Mashayikh have attacked the Hanabila for this very issue and for how they dealt with his words and accused them (the Hanabila) of IGNORANCE.
The way the Hanabila have dealt with the words of the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya has been explained by the Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid al-Azhari al-Hanbali in detail (FIRST PART and SECOND PART), so I would like to refer you to listen to him (and he brings a lot of examples!). If you don't have that much time just listen to this video HERE, which is in order for you to understand the general approach.

If you could simply understand Arabic, then these above videos would be really eye openers for you.

And also:

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!

Article on Abu Ya'la al-Hanbali d. 458AH:

http://www.asharis.com/creed/article...h-wal-jama.cfm

The Hanbalis who strayed away from Imam Ahmad:

http://www.asharis.com/creed/article...gy-of-the-.cfm

Mind you Abu Ya'la was not listed as an "authoritative Hanbali scholar" in the OP. Please post modern Salafis/pro-Ibn Taymiyyah Hanbalis confirming each one of the scholars you listed in the OP as mainstream Hanbali authorities.

The above links are AGAINST you, because they prove what I'm saying and that is that "Salafis" accuse mainstream Hanbali scholars of ignorance and "being influenced by Kalam" and the like! According to the mindset of these people basically NO SCHOLAR understood Islam correctly except Ibn Taymiyya (whose works are difficult to understand in the first place!). If this is not Ta'assub, then what is it?!

Then: Al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la (d. 458 AH) is one of the most important (!) scholars of the Hanbali Madhhab and the scholars of the Madhhab - like Imam al-Mardawi (d. 855 AH) for example - have referred to him as the pillar (Rukn) of the Madhhab! Any person attacking him can NOT claim to be "mainstream Hanbali"!
Some Ash'aris did attack him because of his Ibtal al-Ta`wilat - which contains a lot of very weak, baseless and really weird narrations -, but these scholars were Ash'aris and were not claiming to be "mainstream Hanbali"!

And: Are you seriously asking me to post whom the "Salafis" regard as "mainstream Hanbalis"? And this while I'm saying that they are in opposition to their creed?! What kind of logic and what kind of demand is that?

And: In the OP I tried to mention only smaller books, which are good for the purpose of learning and can be read quickly. Al-Mu'tamad fi Usul al-Din is not a short book (even though it's a reliable book regarding Hanbali creed).
I didn't even want to mention Lawami' al-Anwar (because of its length) and only mentioned it because it's the commentary on al-Saffariniyya.

[AmantuBillahi]

Abu Sulayman

1. The majority of Ash'aris consider Ibn Taymiyyah a Mujasimma and his books filled with Tajsim.
2. The majority of Hanbalis do not consider Ibn Taymiyyah a Mujassima and neither are his books filled with Tajsim.
3. The Ash'aris and the latter Hanbalis have a different understanding of terms like Tajsim, Hawadith, Hadd, Makkan, etc.

[AmantuBillahi]

[B]Well the Hanbali scholars that I've mentioned on the first page - like the Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid [al-Azhari al-Hanbali] and the Shaykh Muhammad al-Sayyid [al-Azhari al-Hanbali] and do NOT regard him a Mujassim and regard him as Shaykh al-Islam, but they still disagree with some of his abnormal views (like his view that God is subject to changes and his view on infinite regression to the past and his view on Ziyara and his view on Talaq!) and do not follow him blindly.

Are these Hanbalis that studied at the Ash'ari university al-Azhar? If so, then they're obviously biased and not trustworthy. You don't learn Hanbali creed at an Ash'ari institute. Regardless, it would be interesting to hear how they justify Ibn Taymiyyah not being a Mujassim in light of Hawadith entailing Tajsim. The reason why Ash'aris negate "change" and "limit" is because it entails anthropomorphism. So how could these "Hanbalis" acknowledge that Ibn Taymiyyah believed in these things without considering him a Mujassim in light of all your quotations?

[AmantuBillahi]

Concerning the Affirmation and Negation of al-Hadd and the doubts of the Jahmites:

"From the talbīs of the Jahmiyyah is their deceiving of the people regarding the words ḥadd, and taḥdīd, and the manner in which they have been used by the Imams of the Salaf in various contexts and situations - all in order to support their Jahmite creed of negating their is a Lord above the Throne."

http://www.asharis.com/creed/article...he-jahmite.cfm

Download link:

http://www.asharis.com/creed/dld.cfm...add-tahdid.pdf

[Abu Sulayman]

Abu Sulayman
1. The majority of Ash'aris consider Ibn Taymiyyah a Mujasimma and his books filled with Tajsim.
2. The majority of Hanbalis do not consider Ibn Taymiyyah a Mujassima and neither are his books filled with Tajsim.
3. The Ash'aris and the latter Hanbalis have a different understanding of terms like Tajsim, Hawadith, Hadd, Makkan, etc.

The first two points are correct, but one should add the note that Hanabila themselves did not accept his abnormal views as it‘s obvious from their works. You‘re still not acknowledging that and that’s because you’re 100 % relying upon what others claim and are unaware of their statements!
Did the Hanabila believe God being subject to changes? Did they regard the Qur`an as emergent in line with the Taymiyyan "eternal in kind, emergent as a singular"-way? Did they believe in infinite regression to the past and that the world is "eternal in kind, emergent as a singular"? Did they agree with the Taymiyyan "visitation of the Prophetic grave is an innovation"? Did they agree with three Talaq being one? Should I go on? All these points show that you’re wrong.


As for the third point: It‘s wrong and nothing but an unacademic and baseless claim of yours. You do know that Hanabila have detailed books and that there is no doubt that they believed in a non-bodily existence for Allah ta'ala and that He is not subject to changes? There is literally no way for you to show otherwise.
In fact this is even acknowledged by "Salafi“ Mashayikh and that is why they criticize mainstream Hanbali scholars.

Do you really think that the major scholars of this Umma - Hanbalis and Ash‘aris fall both under this category! - were in disagreement regarding the very reality of the existence of Allah ta'ala?! This is an insult to these scholars!

The above claim may actually only be true regarding the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) and I‘m mentioning this in order to absolve him from the accusation of Tajsim and not the other way around.

Are these Hanbalis that studied at the Ash'ari university al-Azhar? If so, then they're obviously biased and not trustworthy. You don't learn Hanbali creed at an Ash'ari institute. Regardless, it would be interesting to hear how they justify Ibn Taymiyyah not being a Mujassim in light of Hawadith entailing Tajsim. The reason why Ash'aris negate "change" and "limit" is because it entails anthropomorphism. So how could these "Hanbalis" acknowledge that Ibn Taymiyyah believed in these things without considering him a Mujassim in light of all your quotations?

So them having studied in al-Azhar makes them unreliable?!? And this while they have chains of knowledge going back to classical Hanabila?!
But "Salafis“ who have no such chain and do not study the Madhhab in a systematic way and accuse these very mainstream Hanbalis of all kinds of things (including polytheism!) and whose forefathers were trying to kill the mainstream Hanbalis, are somehow reliable!?
Is this justice, o slaves of Allah?!

Imagine this: These Najdis and "Salafis" closed down ALL the schools of the 4 Madhahib when they came into the control of the Arabian peninsula - similar to what the Safawis did in Iran! - and now the schools and institutions in other countries that they couldn’t close down are unreliable?!
Allahul musta'an.

By the way: The Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid used to be "Salafi“ and you can see him even appearing on the "Salafi" al-Rahma channel in the past, but since his Itila' is very broad and since he saw that knowledge dictates to be upon the mainstream Hanbali way and not to exaggerate regarding Ibn Taymiyya - as "Salafis" clearly do! - he became a mainstream Hanbali.
So he’s basically like Imam Ibn Rajab (d. 795 AH), for he also used to be Taymiyyan, but then after studying more became mainstream Hanbali while still respecting the Shaykh and benefiting from his works.

As for how it is possible to acknowledge that the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya believed the things that I have already mentioned without regarding him a Mujassim:
Well, it‘s because of Lazim al-Madhhab laysa bi Madhhab (that which a statement necessitate is not the statement itself).

[Abu Sulayman]

So them having studied in al-Azhar makes them unreliable?!? And this while they have chains of knowledge going back to classical Hanabila?!

On a general note regarding al-Azhar al-sharif:
Major scholars from this Umma - including Hanabila! - were and are connected to al-Azhar al-sharif and calling someone as "al-Azhari" is actually understood as a praise in the Middle East among those who care for the Islamic sciences! Even "Salafis" in the Middle East will not deny the status of al-Azhar!
So attacking al-Azhar al-sharif and acting as if someone studying or teaching there makes him unreliable, then this can only come from nonacademic people and from people with no connection to the Middle East whatsoever!

Then: In the OP I mentioned the Imam 'Abd al-Baqi al-Mawahibi (d. 1071 AH) - the author of the Aqida work Al-'Ayn wal Athar [fi 'Aqa`id Ahl al-Athar] - and if one looks at his full name it contains "al-Azhari" and he's among the scholars who have studied there.
And the Imam Mar'i bin Yusuf al-Karmi (d. 1033 AH) - the author of many many works among them the 'Aqida work Aqawil al-Thiqat [fi Ta`wil al-Asma` wal Sifat...] and the famous Fiqh work Ghayat al-Muntaha [fil Jam' bayna al-Iqna' wal Muntaha] - was also mentioned here and his full name also contains "al-Azhari" and he is among the the scholars who studied there.

These are just two scholars which have been mentioned by name in this thread and where I'm sure that they have studied al al-Azhar al-Sharif. If one studies the issue more in depth one will find a lot more [Hanbali and non-Hanbali] scholars (especially the famous Egyptian scholars), who had studied and / or given lessons at al-Azhar al-sharif.

But it seems that some people want to take away al-Azhar al-sharif from the people of Islam and Sunna and turn it into an institution that calls to [reprehensible] innovation and heresy. As if this here was not enough:

Imagine this: These Najdis and "Salafis" closed down ALL the schools of the 4 Madhahib when they came into the control of the Arabian peninsula - similar to what the Safawis did in Iran! - and now the schools and institutions in other countries that they couldn’t close down are unreliable?!
Allahul musta'an.

Closing down the schools of the 4 Madhahib on the Arabian peninsula by Najdis and "Salafis"


The Sayyid and Shaykh Yusuf al-Rifa'i said in his Nasiha li Ikhwanina 'Ulama` Najd (English translation can be found here: ADVICE To Our Brothers the Scholars of Najd) the following:

49. Contempt of the Ulema

The Four Madhahib had pulpits in the Meccan Sanctuary --you destroyed them⁵¹ and teaching chairs -- you banned them. Among the last to date was that of Dr. Muhammad ibn 'Alawi al-Maliki who succeeded his father and grandfather. But your eyes could not bear to see him there, so you accused him of misguidance and sheer disbelief in your book al-Hiwar. Had Allah not prompted me to defend him with my book al-Radd al-Mani' and others of the people of learning with theirs, ⁵² and if King Fahd, the Custodian of the Two Sanctuaries, had not interfered to protect him, he would have been ancient history today.

There used to be Ulema also in the Noble Prophetic Sanctuary, teaching the Four Schools of Law. The last one was Shaykh 'Abd al-Rahman al-Juhani al-Shafi'I- the author of the manual Qatf al- Thimar fi Ahkam al-Hajj wa al-I'timar- whom you prevented from teaching, 'until he obtain a permit for teaching, until he obtain a permit from Shaykh Ibn Baz.' The permit was never issued and so he was stopped from teaching.

Another was the scrupulous, erudite scholar and mufti, Shaykh 'Abd Allah Sa'id al-Lahji al-Shafi'I - rahimahullah! One of your spies stopped him from teaching and all requests to Ibn Baz to return him to teaching failed. As a result, the students were deprived of the benefit of his valuable lessons. Before him the verifying, erudite scholar, Shaykh Isma'il 'Uthman al-Zayn al-Shafi'I --rahimahullah!-- was also stopped and harassed. Allah is the one who shall take accounts of you!

Thus was the gate of teaching in the Four Madhahib closed shut after such teaching had lived on uninterruptedly since the earliest ages of Islam-- the days of the Tabi'in and their Successors from the best praised Islamic centuries and even in the time of your predecessors when they penetrated the Hijaz. Yet you gave full opportunity there to al-Jaza'iri and his ilk, such as his in-law, to repeat and shout at the top of his lungs, right next to al-Mustafa, peace and greetings be upon him, "The father and mother of the Prophet, peace and greetings be upon him, are in hellfire! The father and mother of the Prophet, peace and greetings be upon him, are in hellfire!" repeatedly.⁵³Truly we belong to Allah and to Him is our return, there is no change and no power except with Allah, sufficient for us is Allah, and what a wonderful reliance! All this is in the balance of your deeds and under your responsibility in the presence of our Almighty Lord, without fear not trembling on your part before Allah Most High, Who said,

"Lo! Those who malign Allah and His messenger, Allah has cursed them in the world and the Hereafter and prepared for them the doom of the disdained" [33:57]

and

"Those who vex the messenger of Allah, for them there is a painful doom" [9:61].
- end of quote -


And the Shaykh also said:

53. Closing the Madrasas in al-Ahsa'

Followers of the Four Schools from the population of al-Ahsa' used to have private schools for the study of each madhhab. You closed them down and forbade any teaching from taking place in them because, according to you, it is impermissible to teach other than your madhhab in the schools for men and women under your jurisdiction. When they began to hold private tuition in their own houses you surveiled them, harrassed them, besieged them, and spied on them! Are these the acts of the righteous callers to Allah, the elite of the people of Allah, and the scrupulously God wary servants of simple living (zuhd) who fear their Almighty Lord, Subhanahu wa ta'ala, Who said,

"And guard yourselves against a day in which you will be brought back to Allah. Then every soul will be paid in full that which it has earned and they will not be wronged" [2:281].

"Do such (men) not consider that they will be raised again Unto an awful Day, The day when (all) mankind stand before the Lord of the Worlds?" (83:4-6).
- end of quote -


Comment: When the Islamic nation reached 1000 years after the Hijra it started to get weaker day by day, so they lost Iran - the intellectual center of this Umma - to the Rafidhi Safawis, the Arabian peninsula - the spiritual center of this Umma - to the Wahhabi Najdis and Turkey - the military center of this Umma - to the secularist nationalists.
Thus this Umma reached such a low point: Intellectually, spiritually and militarily.
After the Muslims lost all those regions, they also lost al-Quds al-sharif - our former Qibla - to the accursed Zionists!
Truly we belong to Allah and to Him is our return. We ask Allah ta'ala to help the Umma of our Master Muhammad - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and to save them from the plots of their [internal and external] enemies!

[AmantuBillahi]

The first two points are correct, but one should add the note that Hanabila themselves did not accept his abnormal views as it‘s obvious from their works. You‘re still not acknowledging that and that’s because you’re 100 % relying upon what others claim and are unaware of their statements!

(...Red herrings...)


As for the third point: It‘s wrong and nothing but an unacademic and baseless claim of yours. You do know that Hanabila have detailed books and that there is no doubt that they believed in a non-bodily existence for Allah ta'ala and that He is not subject to changes? There is literally no way for you to show otherwise.
In fact this is even acknowledged by "Salafi“ Mashayikh and that is why they criticize mainstream Hanbali scholars.

Do you really think that the major scholars of this Umma - Hanbalis and Ash‘aris fall both under this category! - were in disagreement regarding the very reality of the existence of Allah ta'ala?! This is an insult to these scholars!

The above claim may actually only be true regarding the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) and I‘m mentioning this in order to absolve him from the accusation of Tajsim and not the other way around.

If the first 2 premises are true, then the conclusion naturally follows.

Fact 1 + Fact 2 = Fact 3.

You would have to provide a more plausible conclusion in order for me to consider it. So far all you've done is throw red herrings and make ad-hominem attacks which I could easily redirect back at you.

If the Ash'aris and latter Hanbalis apply terms like Jism, Hawadith, Hadd, Makkan, etc., in the exact same manner, then they should have a concensus regarding the status of Ibn Taymiyyah(rah) and his Aqeedah. This discrepancy requires a more sophisticated explanation.

So them having studied in al-Azhar makes them unreliable?!? And this while they have chains of knowledge going back to classical Hanabila?!...

Of course. Don't you disagree with the "form of Ash'arism" being spread by the Salafi Mashay'ikh who studied in Madinah? Al-Azhar is the modern day Nizamiyya. You don't learn pure Hanbalite creed at an Ash'ari institute.

Read posts 506 - 520 of this thread to get an idea of the history between Hanbalis/Ash'aris and the role of the Nizamiyya in the spread of the Ash'ari school:

https://www.ummah.com/forum/forum/is...-thread/page34

As for how it is possible to acknowledge that the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya believed the things that I have already mentioned without regarding him a Mujassim:
Well, it‘s because of Lazim al-Madhhab laysa bi Madhhab (that which a statement necessitate is not the statement itself).

Extreme hermeneutics.

Again, there are 3 viable options:

1. They were Jaahil concerning the Aqeedah of Ibn Taymiyyah
2. They were intellectually dishonest and covered up/spoke highly of him for polemical reasons
3. They agreed with his Aqeedah but employed a distinct vernacular from the Ash'aris regarding terms like Tajsim, Hawadith, Hadd/Tahdid, Makkan, Tafwid, etc

The Ash'ari influenced Hanbalis you've cited above fall into the 2nd category. There shouldn't be any doubts concerning the Aqeedah of Ibn Taymiyyah after reading Bayan Tablis and Dar at-Tarad. Where are the Hanbali scholars who consider Ibn Taymiyyah a Mujissim and a Zindeeq? There should be loads just like the Ash'aris; reference them!

[Abu Sulayman]

Ibn Taymiyyah(rah)... Ibn Taymiyyah... Ibn Taymiyyah... Ibn Taymiyyah!

No Muslim is obliged to follow the beliefs of the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) or any other fallible human being. There should be no Taqlid in beliefs anyways.
This is mentioned in Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in.

The reason why I'm mentioning this is because you're mentioning him so many times, that one really gets the feeling that according to you Islam is about following Ibn Taymiyya and finding out what his exact views were and arguing based upon his views and turning him into the absolute judge regarding everything in religion as if he's our Prophet, wal 'iyadhu billah.

Then: Let's make the issue easy:
- When Hanbali scholars quote Ibn Taymiyya regarding his abnormal views - in Fiqh and in 'Aqida - and thereafter DISAGREE with his conclusion, what do you do with with these quotes? The video with the Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid contains examples for this.
What do you do with these quotes? Ignore them? Act as if they don't exist? Disagreement means agreement?
- Can you explain to us why mainstream Hanbali scholars will NEVER EVER quote Ibn Taymiyya regarding the issue of God being subject to changes or not?! Please explain that and also why the "Salafi" Mashayikh criticize mainstream Hanbalis regarding this very isssue!
- Why do "Salafi" Mashayikh criticize the Hanbali position regarding the speech of Allah - which differs with that of Ash'aris and "Salafis"! - and also their position regarding declaring God transcendent and their position regarding the actions of Allah being eternal and other such issues?
There are so many sources were they do this. Why do they do this? For fun?

[AmantuBillahi]

Ibn Taymiyyah... Ibn Taymiyyah... Ibn Taymiyyah...

This thread is entitled "Hanbalis (past) vs Salafis". Of course I'm going to to keep referencing bn Taymiyyah- that's the entire point of the thread.

[AmantuBillahi]

Taḥrīm al-naẓar fī kutub ahl al-kal�m (Prohibition of Studying Kalam) - Ibn Qudama al-Hanbali:

"Do you suppose that the Prophet be wrong in accepting that from them and being contented with their pure and simple submission to God, rather than they should study the science of speculative theology (Kalam) and examine the "accident" ('Aradh), the "substance" (Jawahar), and the body (Jism); and on the other hand, that the speculative theologians (Mutakalimun) be right with regards to the transgressions of him who has not studied those things? If this be so, then let them claim for themselves a law and a system of worship other than that of Islam, and leave the religion of Muhammad alone" (Pg. 21)

"First, it entails accusing the Apostle of God of a fault of omission; for the Prophet did not order any one of his community to learn speculative theology (Kalam), and to examine the rational proofs, that one might thereby know the soundness of his creed" (Pg. 21)

[AmantuBillahi]

Article on Imam al-Saffarini and Tafwid:

Further on, Im�m as-Saf�rīnī mentions the text of his poem in creed. He said:
so they (the Athariyyah) affirmed the Nusūs (the texts regarding the Divine Attributes) with Tanzīh
without Ta’til (denial of the attributes) or Tashbīh
so all that has come from the Ay�t or been authentically reported from the reliable ones
from the Ah�dīth, we pass it on as it has come so hear my poem (Nadhm) and know.
In the course of explaining the meanings of his own words, he said:
from the Ah�dīth- the authentic ones and the clear Ath�r that appear to imply Tashbīh or likeness (tamthīl), they are from the Mutash�bih that none know but All�h, so we believe in them and that they are from All�h and (pass it on as it has come) from All�h or from the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi was sallam. (page 95-96)

The author here implies that al-Saffarini, by saying: ‘we pass it on as it has come’, refers to the Ash’ari concept of Tafwidh, that is to affirm the wording as detached letters while negating the literal meaning thereof, whereas the Salafi Tafweedh is to affirm the literal meaning and negate the kayf thereof.

As far as the issue of tafwidh is concerned, then like Imam Ahmad and Ibn Qudama, al-Saffarini was not a mufawwidh.

He says (1/98), while commenting on his saying, ‘we accept the narrations as they have been narrated’: Allah is described as He described Himself, and as His Messenger –SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam – described Him, and how the early companions described Him, without transgressing the Quran and the Hadeeth… The Madhab of the Salaf is not to delve into such (Attributes), to remain silent, and to render the meaning unto Allah Ta’ala. Ibn ‘Abbas said (with respect to verses pertaining to Attributes): ‘This is from the hidden which cannot be explained (tafsir).’ So it is obligatory upon a person to believe in the literal meaning (dhahir), and render the meaning unto Allah’

Perhaps, we cannot find something more explicit than this, that Imam al-Saffarini clearly believed in the literal meaning (dhahir), while rendering the meaning (i.e. the nature thereof) unto Allah.

With regards to Allah’s Speech and the Quran, al-Saffarini concludes (1/165): ‘In conclusion, the Mu’tazilites are in agreement with the Ash’arites, while the Ash’arites are in agreement with the Mu’tazilites, that this Quran contained within the two covers of the Mushaf is created and anew. The only difference between the two factions is that the Mu’tazila did not affirming any other Speech for Allah except this (the Quran, which they thought was created), whereas the Ash’arites affirmed al-Kalam al-Nafsi (self-speech/talking to oneself/inner-speech) subsisting in Allah’s essence. Whereas the Mu’tazilites say, the Speech of Allah is created (and not subsisting in Allah). The Ash’aris do not consider it (the Quran) the Speech of Allah. Yes, they call it ‘the Speech of Allah’, but only metaphorically, and that is the belief of the majority of their predecessors.’

Can anyone conclude from this that he was a mufawwidh?

Add to that, 23 pages of al-Saffarini’s Sharh where he quotes numerous scholars from the Salaf and the Khalaf from the four schools, literally affirming that Allah Rose over the Throne, and that He is literally in a direction (jiha), and then refutes the detractors of Ibn Taymiyya on the very issue of direction.

Then the author of the rotten ‘Apples and Oranges’ states:

He further said:

So the Madh’hab of the Salaf is that they describe All�h the Exalted with what He described Himself and what the Messenger of All�h sallallahu alayhi was sallam described Him with, without any altering (tahrīf) or ‘howness’ (Takyīf). And He the glorified there is nothing like unto Him-not in His Dh�t, not in His attributes, and not in His actions. All that necessitates deficiency or Hudūth (change), then All�h is free from that in reality (Haqīqatan), for He, the Exalted is the one fully deserving perfection that is the peak (of perfection) having nothing beyond it. The Madh’hab of the Salaf is to not to delve into the likes of this (Ta’tīl and Takyīf), to remain quiet concerning it, and to relegate knowledge of it (Tafwīd Ilmihi) to All�h the Exalted. (page 96-97)
speaking of the Madh’hab of the true Han�bilah regarding All�h’s Divine attributes, Im�m as-Saf�rīnī says:
“…and it is obligatory to affirm them for Him in the manner that they have appeared (in the texts- kama warad) and we entrust the meaning of it to al-‘Azīz al-Hakīm.� (page 107)

Firstly, the author translated Huduth as ‘change’, whereas linguistically it means, something new, recent, or occurrence. It does not refer to change. Moreover, Huduth in the terminology of Kalam is completely synonymous with the term ‘makhluq’, i.e. the creation. Hence, the author should have correctly translated as ‘created-ness’, thereby, rendering the sentence as such:

‘All that necessitates deficiency or Hudūth (created-ness), then All�h is free from that in reality (Haqīqatan)’

Secondly, it has already explained extensively that the Salaf affirmed the literal meanings (dhahir), while relegating the meaning (or kayf) to Allah. The ‘meaning’ being negated here is precisely the ‘kayf’, otherwise, it will be senseless for these Imams to affirm the literal meanings (dhahir) and demonstrate it by explicitly affirming Allah’s Rising over the Throne, ascribing a direction to Allah, and affirming vigorously that Allah Speaks with Sound and Letters.

(It continues..)

https://aqeedah.wordpress.com/2006/0...eaning-dhahir/