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

[Abu Sulayman]

I'm under deadline for a translation to be used as a textbook in an Islamic college for a course on Hanbali Fiqh taught by a former instructor of Usul al-Fiqh/Fiqh at Umm al-Qura University.

So, forgive me if my responses, if any, will be short until after that.

No problem, don't put yourself under any pressure please because of our conversation and complete your work. I'm also busy with work, family and other issues (i.e. solving problems that only exist in our country, which should really get a price for being the most corrupt country upon this globe), so if we can concentrate on one issue it's better for me also.

It's obvious to me that you have read a lot - especially due to your work as a translator -, but it seems to me that when it comes to 'Aqida you have first and foremost read only what "Salafis" recommended you to read or what they have commented on from the classical works without getting much outside of that.
You should however have also studied Ash'ari works regarding creed - especially considering that most of the best works of the different Islamic sciences are written by them - in order to understand them correctly and not accuse them of being "Jahmis", while they're clearly not. I mean if they were indeed Jahmis - who by they way were heretics and not even Muslims! - then why do you read their books regarding the sciences of Hadith or Tafsir for example?
You should have also studied more works that Hanabila would teach themselves in the past to their own students and then you would have seen that I've definitely a point when I say that the traditional Hanbali creed is different from the modern "Salafi" one on more than just one level. I will get to the Hanbali works that I'm intending here later on.

There is another thing and that is an advice: Maybe I understood you wrong, but from your facebook account it seems that you have some sort of sympathy for SJ groups. Let me tell you that from far away it's easy to get fooled by their propaganda, but when you live in Muslim societies where these groups committed quite huge crimes (including killing Sunni Mashayikh and blowing up Masajid!), then your view of them will change very much. I'm telling you this as someone who does not regard any of today's governments in our countries to be legitimate from a Shar'i point of view, so imagine!
Once upon a time I used to live in the West and I was myself SJ inclined for a period of time (even though I always respected the 4 Madhahib) and showed sympathy towards them, so I'm telling you this from my own experience.

The best thing in our time is not to support any of the modern groups, but rather to be a simple normal Sunni Muslim who adheres to classical Islam and that includes the 4 Madhahib in Fiqh and the Ash'aris, Maturidis and Hanabila in creed. Remember that these were the people who transmitted this religion to us and that those people in our time, who want us to hate the Asha'ira or the Hanabila, are not even worth the shoes of these leading scholars, may Allah ta'ala have mercy upon them.
These very people who want us to hate the leading scholars of Islam before us and want us to regard their way as "deviant" have not even done 1 % of what they have done for this religion nor do they reach their level of knowledge and understanding in any way or form. Why is it that Allah ta'ala has given this Umma the greatest of victories at the hand of people who were known Ash'aris or Maturidis? Can anyone claim for himself that his group is more deserving of being from the victorious group which fights for the truth more than let's say the group of Sultan Salah al-Din [al-Ash'ari] (d. 589 AH)?

Anyways, let's get back to issue at hand.

[Abu Sulayman]

I'm sure you're aware of the differences of opinion in what constitutes Muhkam and Mustashaabih. For the sake of argument, if you think that I'm going to concede the major Ash'ari/Mutakallimi view to define "mutashaabih" as all the verses referring to Allah's Attributes, then that's not happening.

Don't forget that we want to know the classical position of the Hanabila on these issues and not those of the Asha'ira nor those of the modern "Salafis". So to whom should we refer to know their position? We should refer to their works and see what the majority of their scholars stated.

When we do this, what do we see? What did Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH) state? What did Imam Ibn Muflih (d. 763 AH) state? What did Imam al-Mardawi (d. 885 AH) state? What did other of their scholars state?
Yes, I know that the Hafidh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) had a different view, but his position is clearly not the majority view here by any means. This is simply a matter of fact and there is no running away from this.

You are contradicting yourself above- so saying that Allah is "corporeal" is NOT saying that Allah AWJ is like man?

The actual contradiction is that of the anthropomorphists, who from one side believed in the corporeality of the Creator and from the other side claimed that they believe that the Creator is unlike man.
So if someone believes that the Creator may have a "rectangular or circular [face] or another form" and does not declare Him transcendent from this, then his claim of believing in the Creator being unlike man does not save him from being regarded as an antropomorphist! I think my point is very clear.

My statement on this was meant to be as general as possible to include all the historical groups that Ahl as-Sunnah are agreed upon in regarding their beliefs as "Tajseem" and "Tashbeeh", i.e., Mujaasimah/Mushaabihah. That is to say, unless you can point to a group still around today that Ahl as-Sunnah are on record as agreeing upon their being a part of those historical groups, then let's not split hairs about the historical groups and the criteria for their inclusion in a larger category of heresy.

The biggest group of the anthropomorphists were the Karramiyya and we know their creed quite well (because of their number) and we also know why the scholars included them among the anthropomorphists. They believed that the Creator is corporeal (meaning has the 3 dimensions as clarified more than once) and they also believed that He is subject to temporality in His Self, Exalted is Allah above their claims with supreme Exaltation.
We also know that they would call the Creator a "Jism" and when asked regarding their intention they would say "that He exists and is established by Himself" (as if any Muslim would deny this!) thinking they could fool the scholars and hide that they intend him to be a 3-dimensional being in reality (as was clear from their other statements).
Does that maybe remind you of any group today, who do not declare the the Creator to be transcendent from being a body "because He exists and is established by Himself" (as if body means this!)? What a coincidence, right?

(For those interested in further reading regarding "Jism": "Meaning of Jism in the language and in terminology")

In other words, yes, there are sects which are guilty of Shirk via Hululiyyah and others means, however, they are not typically included among the Mujaasimah/Mushaabihah. Not every sect involved in the Kufr of Tashbeeh and Tajseem were categorized by that act or those statements, for whatever reason.

So you affirm that Tajsim - the belief that God is a 3-dimensional being - is Kufr? I really hope so.

This is what I mean by warning you and others to verify and contextualize quotes before bringing them as if they are fact and the only perspective:

وأما مقاتل فالله أعلم بحقيقة حاله. والأشعري ينقل هذه المقالات من كتب المعتزلة، وفيهم انحراف عن مقاتل بن سليمان، فلعلهم زادوا في النقل عنه، أو نقلوا عنه، أو نقلوا عن غير ثقة، وإلا فما أظنه يصل إلى هذا الحد

"Ans as for Muqaatil, then Allah knows best the reality of his condition. Al-'Ash'ari related these statements from the books of the Mu'tazilah and in them are distortions on authority of Muqaatil bin Sulayman. So, perhaps they added to the reports on his authority; or they themselves related on his authority; or non-trustworthy individuals related on his authority; otherwise, I do not believe he reached to this extent [of Tashbeeh]."

Shaykh ul-Islam 'Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmu' al-Fatawa 2/619

There are plenty of scholars who understood the same about Muqaatil and even al-'Imam al-Azam Abu Hanifah suffered from this unfortunate type of misunderstanding as well. There are well-known comments about Abu Hanifah, rahimahu Llahu, that accuse him of all sorts of heresy and innovated statements which are not authentically attributed to him.

Well, I already know that there is not just one opinion regarding Muqatil bin Sulayman (d. 150 AH), but that is completely beside the point that I wanted to make.
The point is that the scholars who regarded that which was attributed to him from believing in corporeality to be indeed his position, did declare him an anthropomorphist and did NOT say "o but he said God is unlike man, so he is free to say whatever he wants after that and we won't regard him as an anthropomorphist".
And by the way: The Hafidh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) is one scholar out of hundreds, so let's not be like "Salafis" and act as if his words are "the final verdict" upon almost every thing.

Imam Abu Hanifa (d. 150 AH) was a contemporary to Muqatil and in the Tafsir of Muqatil there are things which do imply Tashbih (so this accusation against him is not out of nowhere, but the level of his Tashbih maybe exaggerated!). But like I said: That was not even the point.
But I find it strange that you give benefit of doubt to Muqatil, but when it comes to the Asha'ira you easily call them as "Jahmis".

You keep circling back to the same thing, time and again. You would make a great herder [and I don't mean this pejoratively].

Do you know why I'm circling back to the same thing again and again? Because I'm unable to overlook statements where someone speaks regarding Allah ta'ala as if He's a man / creation. I can't understand the mindset that says "let's act as if nothing happened and and also act as if he did not utter something really really ugly".

I can also not overlook this statement of Ibn 'Uthaymin, which doesn't just imply Tashbih, but is even quite obviously disrespectful towards Allah ta'ala:

نقول مثلاً وجه الله ولم نقل وجه وأطلقنا فوجه الله يكون لائقا لذاته أو لائقا بذاته ، كما لو قلت وجه الفرس ووجه القط الهر هل تفهم من قولك وجه الفرس أنه مثل وجه الهر ؟ أبداً

We say for example "face of Allah" and we do not just say "face" in general [terms], because the face of Allah is befitting to His essence or befitting His essence.
Just like when you say "face of a horse" and "face of a cat": Do you understand from your statement "face of a horse" that it is like (mithl) the "face of a cat"? Never...
- end of quote -

Note that the face of a horse and the face of a cat may be not exactly like each other, but they are similar to each other! So is this what he's trying to affirm? (Well he does explicitly state in other statements that there is some sort of similarity [between the Creator and the creation], so the answer is yes!)
Then: Mentioning the body parts (!) of animals (!!!) in the context of the divine attributes is called what? Disrespectful!

Bring me an explicit statement of this belief as an Attribute of Allah from a major scholar of Aqidah, then I will respond, In Sha' Allah.

Come on bro, don't play these games with me. If you were to ask me "what's the ruling of the one who literally believes the Creator to be everywhere", then I would answer without any hesitation "DISBELIEF by agreement" and would NOT tell you "bring me explicit statements of this belief as an...".


Then: I didn't say that Ibn 'Uthaymin for example believed that being a 3-dimensional being is "an attribute of Allah", but rather that he thinks that this may fall under the common degree (al-Qadar al-mushtarak) between the Creator and the creation (which in his mind exists) and therefore he is unable to to declare the Creator transcendent from having a "rectangular or circular [face] or another form".

Anyways, my question is regarding the belief and not regarding a person. Didn't you affirm above that Tajsim - the belief that God is a 3-dimensional being - is Kufr? Or was that stated by mistake?


(If you could just answer this question, it would be nice. What I'm intending here is to ask you then regarding some statements of a quite knowledgeable scholar - I'm intending the Hafidh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) - and not the statements of "Salafis", who are blind followers in creed anyways. But my question would only make sense, if I know that you regard the belief in the Creator being a 3-dimensional being (or let's say a being with height, width and depth) to be definitely wrong and a big mistake.)

[Abu Sulayman]

It's obvious to me that you have read a lot - especially due to your work as a translator -, but it seems to me that when it comes to 'Aqida you have first and foremost read only what "Salafis" recommended you to read or what they have commented on from the classical works without getting much outside of that.
You should however have also studied Ash'ari works regarding creed - especially considering that most of the best works of the different Islamic sciences are written by them - in order to understand them correctly and not accuse them of being "Jahmis", while they're clearly not. I mean if they were indeed Jahmis - who by they way were heretics and not even Muslims! - then why do you read their books regarding the sciences of Hadith or Tafsir for example?
You should have also studied more works that Hanabila would teach themselves in the past to their own students and then you would have seen that I've definitely a point when I say that the traditional Hanbali creed is different from the modern "Salafi" one on more than just one level. I will get to the Hanbali works that I'm intending here later on.

Some relevant comments:

Before going on I would like to make a general note:
The best way to find out what a specific group believes is to look what the accepted scholars (i.e. accepted by the group itself) of that group wrote regarding beliefs ('Aqida). To rely upon what others claim regarding a group can NOT be used as a proof regarding their beliefs. Likewise picking just one scholar out of a group who is affiliated with them - but may have abnormal views [in their viewpoint] or unclear statements - can NOT be used to judge the beliefs of the whole group.

So let's try to implement the above point on the Hanabila / Ahl al-Athar of the past:

The best way to find out what they believed is to look what their authorities wrote in their treatises / books regarding beliefs. These treatises / books include:
- Lum'at al-I'tiqad [al-Hadi ila Sabil al-Rashad] by Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH)
- Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in [fi Usul al-Din] by Ibn Hamdan (d. 695 AH)
- Al-'Ayn wal Athar [fi 'Aqa`id Ahl al-Athar] by 'Abd al-Baqi al-Mawahibi (d. 1071 AH)
- Qala`id al-'Iqyan [fi Ikhtisar 'Aqidat Ibn Hamdan] by Ibn Balban (d. 1083 AH)
- Najat al-Khalaf [fi I'tiqad al-Salaf] by 'Uthman al-Najdi (d. 1097 AH)
- Al-Durra al-Mudhiyya [fi 'Aqd Ahl al-Firqa al-Mardhiyya] (famous 'Aqida poem better known as al-Saffariniyya) by al-Saffarini (d. 1188) (its explanation Lawami' al-Anwar al-Bahiyya [wa Sawati' al-Asrar al-Athariyya] is also written by the same author)
- etc.

When looking inside the above books one sees that they basically contain all the same beliefs without any major differences, so it is safe to say that these books represent the Hanbali / Athari beliefs.

Al-Salamu 'alaykum wa rahmatullah,
The one who wants to see how "Salafis" reject Hanbali / Athari beliefs and put their own [lack of] understanding above everything, should simply go and read what their editors do when printing any classical Hanbali text regard 'Aqida:
Just concentrate on reading their footnotes. You'll see them every now and then saying things like "this statement of author is general... if he intends this, then this is wrong..." or they will just directly dismiss what the author said by saying "this is wrong and not according to the Madhhab of the Salaf..." or "this is from the way of the Mufawwidha" (maybe because the classical Hanabila supported Tafwidh!?) or "this is from the way of the people of Kalam".
And what is their proof regarding all of these claims of mistakes in classical Hanbali texts? The answer: "Shaykh al-Islam said...". This is how the religion of Allah works according to them. There is no doubt that the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya would not have supported this fanatism and blind following.

Start by reading the explanations (read: distorsions!) that these "Salafis" have written regarding Lum'at al-I'tiqad by Imam Ibn Qudama (a book that is so clear that until the "Salafis" came up no one even thought of writing an explanation regarding it!), then go and read the footnotes by "Salafi" editors in Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in by Imam Ibn Hamdan and then other classical Hanbali texts and you'll see them doing this over and over again to the degree that one asks oneself?:
Why do they even print these works, when they find fault on almost every page?

It should be noted here that the 'Allama al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) himself wrote the reason for composing his poem in Athari creed (i.e. al-Durra al-Mudhiyya) in his Lawami' al-Anwar, the explanation of the poem:

قد كان في سنة ثلاث وسبعين بعد المائة وألف طلب [ ص: 2 ] منا بعض أصحابنا النجديين أن أنظم أمهات مسائل اعتقادات أهل الأثر في سلك سهل لطيف معتبر ، ليسهل على المبتدئين حفظه ، وتنفعهم معانيه ولفظه ، وذلك بعد قراءتهم علينا مختصرات العقائد جملة كلمعة الإمام الموفق ، ومختصر نهاية المبتدئين لشيخ مشايخنا البدر البلياني ، والعين والأثر للشيخ عبد الباقي والد أبي المواهب ، فابتهج قلبه بما أوقفناه عليه من الفوائد ، فتعللت باشتغال ( البال ، وتشويش ) الخاطر بالبلبال ، وتشتت الأفكار ، ( وتغير الأطوار ) ، فألح بالسؤال والالتماس ، وقال ما في فراغك عن هذه الخواطر واشتغالك بهذا المطلوب الحاضر مدة من باس ، فلما لم يندفع بالاندفاع ، ولم يفد التعليل لهذا الطالب الملتاع ، نظمت أمهات مسائل عقائد السلف في سمط عقد أبهى من اللآلئ البهية ، وسميتها ( الدرة المضية في عقد أهل الفرقة المرضية
- end of quote -

As you see above he mentions that a group from among the Hanabila in Najd* (!) asked him in the year 1173 AH to compose a poem regarding creed which can be easily memorized and contains the most important matters of creed and this after they had read short treatises of [Hanbali] creed to the 'Allama himself.
He names three works that he had teached them:
- Lum'at al-I'tiqad by Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH),
- Mukhtasar of Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in (i.e. Qala`id al-'Iqyan!) by the 'Allama Ibn Balban (d. 1083 AH), whom he refers to as the teacher of our teachers!
- al-'Ayn wal Athar by the 'Allama 'Abd al-Baqi al-Mawahibi (d. 1071 AH)

Note that al-'Ayn wal Athar is also based on the very wording of Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in by Imam Ibn Hamdan (d. 695 AH).

So 2 out of 3 books that he teached to them were based on Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in! This is for you to know the importance of this work by Imam Ibn Hamdan among the classical Hanabila.
Then: The Lum'a falls under the same direction as that of Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in and Imam Ibn Rajab (d. 795 AH) praises the works of creed of Imam Ibn Qudama in general and regards them to be upon Imam Ahmad's way.


* Important note: At that time the Wahhabi Da'wa had already started in Najd.
And the bad opinion of MIAW (d. 1206 AH) regarding the 'Allama al-Saffarini, his students and his teachers has also already been mentioned here:

[Abu Sulayman]

Don't forget that we want to know the classical position of the Hanabila on these issues and not those of the Asha'ira nor those of the modern "Salafis". So to whom should we refer to know their position? We should refer to their works and see what the majority of their scholars stated.

When we do this, what do we see? What did Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH) state? What did Imam Ibn Muflih (d. 763 AH) state? What did Imam al-Mardawi (d. 885 AH) state? What did other of their scholars state?
Yes, I know that the Hafidh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) had a different view, but his position is clearly not the majority view here by any means. This is simply a matter of fact and there is no running away from this.

In this context I would recommend these comments here:

Imam Ibn Qudama says in the section regarding the Muhkam and the Mutashabih in the Qur`an al-karim in his famous Rawdhat al-Nadhir:

وفي كتاب الله -سبحانه- محكم ومتشابه، كما قال تعالى: {هُوَ الَّذِي أَنْزَلَ عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ مِنْهُ آيَاتٌ مُحْكَمَاتٌ هُنَّ أُمُّ الْكِتَابِ وَأُخَرُ مُتَشَابِهَاتٌ

The book of Allah - praise be to Him - contains the Muhkam (verses with clear meanings) and the Mutashabih (verses with indistinct meanings) as He ta'ala says:
{ It is He Who has sent down to you this Book (the Qur’an) containing the verses that have a clear meaning - they are the core of the Book - and other verses the meanings of which are indistinct; ... } [3:7]
- end of quote -

Thereafter he mentions different scholarly statements until he says:

والصحيح: أن المتشابه: ما ورد في صفات الله -سبحانه- مما يجب الإيمان به، ويحرم التعرض لتأويله، كقوله -تعالى-: {الرَّحْمَنُ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ اسْتَوَى} ، {بَلْ يَدَاهُ مَبْسُوطَتَان} ، {لِمَا خَلَقْتُ بِيَدَي} ، {وَيَبْقَى وَجْهُ رَبِّك} ، {تَجْرِي بِأَعْيُنِنَا} ، ونحوه. فهذا اتفق السلف -رحمهم الله- على الإقرار به، وإمراره على وجهه وترك تأويله. فإن الله -سبحانه- ذم المبتغين لتأويله، وقرنهم -في الذم- بالذين يبتغون الفتنة، وسماهم أهل زيغ

The correct position is that the Mutashabih (verses with indistinct meanings) is that which is revealed regarding the attributes of Allah - praise be to Him -, which is obligatory to have faith in and prohibited to seek its interpretation; like His ta'ala statement:
{ The Most Gracious Who (befitting His Majesty) established Himself upon the Throne (of control) } [20:5], { In fact, both His hands are free } [5:64], { before one whom I have created with My hands? } [38:75], { And eternal is the Entity of your Lord } [55:27], { Sailing in front of Our sight } [54:14] and whatever is similar to it.
Regarding these [verses and narrations] the Salaf - may Allah have mercy upon them - have agreed upon affirming them and passing them as they have come and abstaining from their interpretation, for indeed Allah - praise be to Him - has rebuked those seeking its interpretation and has included them - in censure - with those are seeking turmoil and has named them as people of deviation.
- end of quote -

Thereafter he explains the Aya 3:7 and that only Allah ta'ala knows the correct interpretation and that the correct stop is after { and only Allah knows its proper interpretation } until he says:

فلأنه ذم مبتغي التأويل، ولو كان ذلك للراسخين معلومًا: لكان مبتغيه ممدوحًا لا مذمومًا. ولأن قولهم {آمَنَّا بِهِ} يدل على نوع تفويض وتسليم لشيء لم يقفوا على معناه. سيما إذا اتبعوه بقولهم: {كُلٌّ مِنْ عِنْدِ رَبِّنَا} فذكرهم ربهم -ههنا- يعطي الثقة به، والتسليم لأمره، وأنه صدر منه، وجاء من عنده كما جاء من عنده المحكم

Since He has rebuked those seeking interpretation: If this [proper] interpretation would be known to those sound in knowledge, then the one seeking [the interpretation] would have been praised and not censured and because their statement { We believe in it } indicates a type of consignment (!) (Tafwidh) and submission (Taslim) of something regarding which they have not come across its meaning (Ma'na), especially when they followed it with their statement { all of it is from our Lord }, so their mentioning of their Lord here shows their trust in Him and their submission to His command and that it emanated from Him and that it came from Him just like the Muhkam (verses with clear meanings) came from Him.
- end of quote -

So here we see that he explicitly mentioned the consignment (Tafwidh) of the meaning (Ma'na)!

He kept on explaining until he said:

فإن قيل: فكيف يخاطب الله الخلق بما لا يعقلونه، أم كيف ينزل على رسوله ما لا يطلع على تأويله؟ قلنا: يجوز أن يكلفهم الإيمان بما لا يطلعون على تأويله؛ ليختبر طاعتهم، كما قال -تعالي-: {وَلَنَبْلُوَنَّكُمْ حَتَّى نَعْلَمَ الْمُجَاهِدِينَ مِنْكُمْ وَالصَّابِرِين} ، {وَمَا جَعَلْنَا الْقِبْلَةَ الَّتِي كُنْتَ عَلَيْهَا إِلَّا لِنَعْلَم ... } الآية، {وَمَا جَعَلْنَا الرُّؤْيا الَّتِي أَرَيْنَاكَ إِلَّا فِتْنَةً لِلنَّاس} . وكما اختبرهم بالإيمان بالحروف المقطعة مع أنه لا يعلم معناها. والله أعلم

If it is said: "How then does Allah address the creation with something that they do not comprehend or how does He sent down something on his Messenger regarding which the interpretation is not disclosed?"
We say: It is possible that He tasks them with having faith in something regarding which they do not know its interpretation in order to test their obediance as [Allah] ta'ala says:
{ And We shall indeed test you until We make known the warriors and the steadfast among you } [47:31], { We had appointed the qiblah which you formerly observed only to see (test) ... } [2:143] until the end of the Aya, { and We did not create the spectacle which We showed you except to try mankind } [17:60].
Just like He has tested them with having faith in the disconnected letters (!) (al-Huruf al-Muqatta'a) even though their meaning is not known. And Allah knows best.
- end of quote -

I guess the above answer is more than clear [in defending Tafwidh] and a good response to the "Salafis" who repeat the same question today and attack the people of the Sunna by saying "How is it possible that Allah reveals something while the meaning is not known?". Know that other Hanbali A`imma have also answered this question.

I also recommend listening to this video here:

Hanbalis VS Ibn Taymīyyah - Tafwīdh | Sh. Muhammad Abdul Wāhid al-Azhari al-Hanbali:

For those understanding Arabic: The Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid al-Hanbali has more in-depth speeches regarding this issue on youtube and facebook.

[Abu Sulayman]

@AbuNajm I seriously recommend you to listen to the Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid al-Hanbali and his videos regarding "Salafis" and also regarding the issue of the Sifat and then recheck his statemens for yourself in the books of the Hanabila. Then you'll insha`Allah understand what is wrong with "Salafis" and that they're not related to the Hanabila in any way or form.

You'll see that he's presenting the Madhhab of the Hanabila - in Fiqh and in 'Aqida! - as their scholars presented them.

The interesting thing about him is that there are also "Salafis" among his teachers and that he used to be "Salafi" himself and even respected among their circles in Egypt and would even appear on their television channels.


Just for anyone who wonders why some of his speeches are inside a car: He does live sessions and his internet-connection is quite weak at home, so he does them inside the car sometimes. Yes, we third-world people have these type of unthinkable problems :-)

[Simply_Logical]

I can't lie to me as a layman thisis a complex and complicated subject if being honest, I want to ask and know what is the safest opinion on this matter and what's classed as the middle path?

[Abu Sulayman]

I can't lie to me as a layman thisis a complex and complicated subject if being honest, I want to ask and know what is the safest opinion on this matter and what's classed as the middle path?

Surat al-Ikhlas, my brother!
If you believe in it, then you're on the safe side regarding the Tawhid of Allah ta'ala.

Our noble Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - used to regard it as equal to one-third of the Qur`an and this should be enough for you to understand its importance!

[BintFulaan]

I can't lie to me as a layman thisis a complex and complicated subject if being honest, I want to ask and know what is the safest opinion on this matter and what's classed as the middle path?

Assalamu alaykum,

I'm a laymen just like you. And I personally believe the safest opinion is stopping where the Salaf stopped. I affirm the Attributes, without going in to the how or explaining them away. I don't say anymore than the Salaf said on this insha'Allah. We pass them on as they've come. And Allah knows best.

[AbuNajm]

In this context I would recommend these comments here:

First- I don't trust ANY "Hanbalis" from al-Azhar. They tend to be crypto-Ash'aris/Mutakallimeen.

Second- the quotes of Ibn Qudaamah are taken from a book on Usul al-Fiqh, not Aqidah. And I object to the list of books you claim represent "Hanbali Aqidah".

To understand the technical terms used by Hanabilah in Aqidah, you have to first understand their roots. Here's what al-Imam Ahmad had to say in his "Refutation of the Followers of Jahm & Atheists":

وتلوا آية من المتشابه من قول الله جل ثناؤه: {لا تُدْرِكُهُ الأَبْصَارُ وَهُوَ يُدْرِكُ الأَبْصَارَ} [الأنعام: 103] .
وقد كان النبي -صلى الله عليه وسلم- يعرف معنى قول الله: {لا تُدْرِكُهُ الأَبْصَارُ} وقال: "إنكم سترون ربكم" 1.

"And they recite a verse from among the Mutashaabih from the statement of Allah, jalla thanaa'uhu: {The eyes do not perceive Him while He perceives the eyes}[al-'An`aam; 103].
While the Prophet SAWS knew the meaning of the statement of Allah: {The eyes do not perceive Him...} and he said: "Truly, you will see your Lord"..."

And the Companions RA knew the meaning of that "Mutashaabih" verse since they transmitted the Ahadith from the Prophet SAWS that the Believers will see their Lord in the Afterlife.

So, should we take the words of Ibn Qudaamah in his book on Usul al-Fiqh as the relied-upon view from the Hanaabilah about the Mutashaabihah verses and whether their meanings are known or unknown to scholars? Or should we take the words of al-Imam Ahmad himself from a book he wrote about Aqidah?

The quotes of Ibn Qudaamah are another case wherein you're cherry-picking quotes in order to give a false impression.

[AbuNajm]

I can't lie to me as a layman thisis a complex and complicated subject if being honest, I want to ask and know what is the safest opinion on this matter and what's classed as the middle path?

The "safest" opinion on this matter is NOT to believe as the Ash'aris and deviants believe about Allah AWJ. It is their objective to confuse and bewilder laypeople with terms like "accidents" and "limbs". They intentionally indulge in philosophical terms and paint the true beliefs of Ahl as-Sunnah as "anthropomorphism" and "Disbelief".

Allah AWJ most certainly has a Face, Hands, Eyes, Shin, Feet, Speech, Legs, Forearms, Fingers, Palms, among other Perfect Attributes. And He AWJ laughs, gets angry, descends, is on His Throne, hears, sees, loves, hates, and is above creation, just as any layperson would understand those statements.

There is no need to explain them except to a person keen on negating them or falsely interpreting them as something other than what they apparently mean.

What gets complicated is responding to Ash'aris and Jahmis using their arguments and terms. That is why only scholars of Aqidah specialized in refutations and responses to such people. That is why many scholars do not allow laypeople to even listen to such discussions until they're well-established in the foundational principles and beliefs of Ahl as-Sunnah first.

[Muhammad Hasan]

The "safest" opinion on this matter is NOT to believe as the Ash'aris and deviants believe about Allah AWJ. It is their objective to confuse and bewilder laypeople with terms like "accidents" and "limbs". They intentionally indulge in philosophical terms and paint the true beliefs of Ahl as-Sunnah as "anthropomorphism" and "Disbelief".

Allah AWJ most certainly has a Face, Hands, Eyes, Shin, Feet, Speech, Legs, Forearms, Fingers, Palms, among other Perfect Attributes. And He AWJ laughs, gets angry, descends, is on His Throne, hears, sees, loves, hates, and is above creation, just as any layperson would understand those statements.

There is no need to explain them except to a person keen on negating them or falsely interpreting them as something other than what they apparently mean.

What gets complicated is responding to Ash'aris and Jahmis using their arguments and terms. That is why only scholars of Aqidah specialized in refutations and responses to such people. That is why many scholars do not allow laypeople to even listen to such discussions until they're well-established in the foundational principles and beliefs of Ahl as-Sunnah first.

What do you say regarding the one who says the following:

We do not reject Allah's attribute of Ridwan (pleasure). It is his attribute and not a changing state, nor a feeling in the heart, nor do we attribute the human/animal features to Allah. So it is his attribute without contingency.

We do not reject Allah's attribute of Dahk (laughter). It is his attribute and not a movement, nor a change he experiences, nor does Allah have organs, nor do we use the term 'emotion' etc. It is his attribute without contingency.

Exalted is Allah above jogging and feeling bored.

And he says similar for Allah's loving (this person affirms it as such) etc.

And the same one who says this affirms the Nuzul of Allah (the divine descent), his Fawqiyyah (the divine aboveness), his Yad (the divine Hand), his Wajh (the divine Countenance) etc. but he says all of this e.g. the Nuzul is not a physical Nuzul i.e. a spatial descending down into a place with movement etc. He says Yadullah is not a physicallity/limb, and that Allah is not in a place nor can one continue in the six physical directions to find him. He permits the statement "Allah is above the throne" and says it means he transcends his creation.

He negates for Allah, limits, parts, limbs etc.

And he says the one who says "Yadullah is the Qudrah of Allah" has performed Ta'til i.e. negated Yadullah.

And he says the one who says "Yadullah is a physical hand/limb/body part" has peformed Tasbih i.e. likening Yadullah.

This one negates such things he considers "Kayfiyyah" whilst affirming these which he calls attributes.

What is the ruling on him?


Perhaps it is clear that the Asha'irah whom you call "Jahmiyyah" do not like such things:

[Muhammad Hasan]

The "safest" opinion on this matter is NOT to believe as the Ash'aris and deviants believe about Allah AWJ. It is their objective to confuse and bewilder laypeople with terms like "accidents" and "limbs". They intentionally indulge in philosophical terms and paint the true beliefs of Ahl as-Sunnah as "anthropomorphism" and "Disbelief".

Yeah I never understood why Imam at-Tahawi (239 - 321 H) delved into these philosophical things.

وَتَعَالَى عَنِ الْحُدُودِ وَالْغَايَاتِ وَالْأَرْكَانِ وَالْأَعْضَاءِ وَالْأَدَوَاتِ لَا تَحْوِيهِ الْجِهَاتُ السِّتُّ كَسَائِرِ الْمُبْتَدَعَاتِ

What a "Jahmi" thing to say, right?

Confusing the laypeople!

What was this Abu Jafar Ahmad at-Tahawi thinking? He didn't even affirm the hand of Allah etc. in his so-called creed! Why do the scholars refer to such works? How is his creed all-encompassing when it doesn't even contain fundamental points of belief?

[Muhammad Hasan]

There is another thing and that is an advice: Maybe I understood you wrong, but from your facebook account it seems that you have some sort of sympathy for SJ groups. Let me tell you that from far away it's easy to get fooled by their propaganda, but when you live in Muslim societies where these groups committed quite huge crimes (including killing Sunni Mashayikh and blowing up Masajid!), then your view of them will change very much. I'm telling you this as someone who does not regard any of today's governments in our countries to be legitimate from a Shar'i point of view, so imagine!

The brother above has reminded me.


Brother AbuNajm you have still not told me your view on ISIS (aka "ad-Dawlah al-Islamiyyah" aka Daesh aka ISIL). Please could you do this?

I get more suspicious when you refuse to give an answer.

[Abu 'Abdullaah]

The brother above has reminded me.


Brother AbuNajm you have still not told me your view on ISIS (aka "ad-Dawlah al-Islamiyyah" aka Daesh aka ISIL). Please could you do this?

I get more suspicious when you refuse to give an answer.

I'm starting to suspect that you are an undercover pig trying to incriminate Muslims.

[Abu Sulayman]

The brother above has reminded me.


Brother AbuNajm you have still not told me your view on ISIS (aka "ad-Dawlah al-Islamiyyah" aka Daesh aka ISIL). Please could you do this?

I get more suspicious when you refuse to give an answer.

Just some days ago there was a twin suicide attack in Bagdhad and it was stated that ISIS took responsibility.
Note that it has been 3 years since our capital has not seen an attack like this (basically since the defeat of ISIS). Now one can't say with absolute certainty that it was ISIS, but the evil style of the act is in line with that of the Da'ishis and it's no secret that the satanic organisation of ISIS believes in the permissibility of these type of attacks and would proudly and openly take responsibility of these type of attacks in the past.

I seriously hope that we don't go back to the days when not a single day would pass without these type of satanic attacks against the popoulation.

Note that these type of attacks are also used by the criminal Americans to justify a greater presence in Iraq. That's why I have always said that this Da'ishi organisation is used by the enemies of Islam in order to reach their geo-stratetegic and political goals in our region.
It was also AQI / ISI, which destroyed the resistance against the Americans and turned it into a secterian war where they would at the end kill anyone and everything that has a Muslim name including another SJ group, who were not dogs like them.
And their killing of a huge number of Sunni Mashayikh and Khutaba` is common knowledge.