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

[BintFulaan]

AbuNajm, I think you may have misunderstood my last comment. I'm obviously not advising anyone to move to warn torn countries or conflict zones. My comment was specifically about those supporting groups like ISIS while staying behind in the West. Those that live with disbelievers and 'benefit' from staying in Western countries, yet have the guts to spread and call for revolutions and detrimental ideologies. The same calls and ideologies that then harm the Muslims in the Middle East. How delusional these people are for thinking they're calling towards implementing Shari3ah and for thinking these groups actually do.

Having said that, if I gave you the feeling I was trying to demean or slander you, then I apologise. You're as well my brother in Islam and I respect the rights you have over me. The thing is that my initial comments towards you were not disrespectful at all which you then replied by a saddening comment. Honestly AbuNajm, I have zero tolerance for anyone promoting Khariji like ideologies. The harm it has brought upon Muslims pains me deeply. Your comment came across very insensitive, it did hit a nerve and I couldn't reply you after that. So I said what I said to the other brother about you lacking insight. I'm sorry for this as it would've been better if I stayed quiet.

More can be said about your recent comment, but I guess it would be better left to be. And Allah knows best.

[Abu 'Abdullaah]

Muhammad Hasan brought up ISIS in this thread for no reason at all and then bounced like the rodent that he is.

[Muhammad Hasan]

Muhammad Hasan brought up ISIS in this thread for no reason at all and then bounced like the rodent that he is.

You know maybe I missed it, but I think I still haven't received my answer...

[BintFulaan]

Your posts imply support for such groups, so it's your own fault if we understand you like that! And if I were to ask you whether you're disassociating yourself from AQI / ISI and ISIS, you would most likely again not answer just like you are unable to answer my other question.

I don't know why he's beating around the bush, because the matter is pretty clear. Especially after mentioning figures like Musa. And if I remember correctly another brother already asked him about his views on such groups, I don't recall him giving an answer to that. And Allah knows best.

[BintFulaan]

You know maybe I missed it, but I think I still haven't received my answer...

I replied before reading the new comments, but this was what I was referring to.

[Abu 'Abdullaah]

You know maybe I missed it, but I think I still haven't received my answer...

Rats don't deserve answers. Nobody likes rats.

[Abu 'Abdullaah]

I replied before reading the new comments, but this was what I was referring to.

Yeah, it's called dog-whistling.

[Abu Sulayman]

I will never wonder why almost ALL of the past students of knowledge and Muslim leaders who are active in their respective communities stopped being regulars here. Until some of these moderators are let go and the rules of the forum are applied equally and without prejudice, this forum will be frequented only by equally ignorant and biased individuals only capable of copying and pasting links to videos and other websites when it comes to "knowledge".

The only reason this forum is still around while most of the others have gone offline- someone keeps paying the bills. It's definitely NOT because mods and members foster an atmosphere of welcoming different views and respect for elders and those with more knowledge and experience.

Do you know what the ironic thing is: The main active mod is AA, who insults people left and right and trolls around. The same person whom you seem to like and supplicate for as if he's doing something really good!

[Abu Sulayman]

"Salafis" accuse classical Hanbalis of "treason" and "misrepresenting" Imam Ahmad's creed


Sultan al-'Id - one of the Mashayikh of the modern "Salafis" - stated:

ูƒุชุงุจู [ ุงู„ุนูŠู†ู ูˆุงู„ุฃุซุฑู ] ุจู†ุงู‡ ู…ุคู„ูู‘ููู‡ _ ูƒู…ุง ููŠ ู‡ุฐุง ุงู„ุชู‚ุฑูŠุฑ _ ุนู„ู‰ ุนู‚ูŠุฏุฉู : ( #ุงู„ุฃุดุงุนุฑุฉ ูˆุงู„ูƒู„ุงุจูŠุฉู !! ) ูˆู…ู† ุงู„ุฎูŠุงู†ุฉู ู„ู€ู€ #ุงู„ุญู†ุงุจู„ุฉ: ุงู„ุชู‘ุฑูˆูŠุฌู ู„ู‡ ุนู„ู‰ ุฃู†ู‡ { ู…ุนุชู‚ุฏ} ุฅู…ุงู…ู ุฃู‡ู„ ุงู„ุณู†ุฉ #ุฃุญู…ุฏ_ุจู†_ุญู†ุจู„ ูˆุชู„ุงู…ุฐุชู‡ ูˆุฃุตุญุงุจูู‡

The Book "al-'Ayn wal Athar" has been founded by its author - as shown in this verification - upon the creed of the Asha'ira and the Kullabiyya!! It's [a form of] treason towards the Hanabila to promote it as if it's [representative of] the creed of the Imam of Ahl al-Sunna - Ahmad bin Hanbal - and his students and companions!!
- end of quote -

The so called "verification" that he intends is the statement of 'Abd al-'Aziz al-Humaydi - one of the Mashayikh of the "Salafis" and a student of the anthropomorphist Ibn 'Uthaymin - in his book Bara`at al-A`imma al-Arba'a (p. 133), where he states:

"Al-'Ayn wal Athar fi 'Aqa`id Ahl al-Athar": It's a book regarding creed. Its author stated that he will mention the [explicit] statements of Imam Ahmad regarding creed and then you see him mentioning a creed that is Kullabi Ash'ari Kalami!
- end of quote -


The above mentioned book of creed - that these two "Salafi" Mashayikh are attacking! - was authored by Imam 'Abd al-Baqi al-Mawahibi (d. 1071 AH) - and it was also mentioned in the OP - and this book was regarded as reliable in creed by all Hanabila after him and they would teach it to their students.

The 'Allama al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) for example would teach it alongside Lum'at al-I'tiqad [of Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH)] and Qala`id al-'Iqyan [of Imam Ibn Balban (d. 1083 AH)].

Now this means that Imam 'Abd al-Baqi was a "traitor" (according to the "Salafi" mindset) and so were basically all Hanabila after him and this may explain why Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) hated the Hanabila of his time so much and wanted to kill them all!



But the issue does not stop here as we shall see insha`Allah. The book itself is clearly a Hanbali Athari one and not an Ash'ari one and that it why the author disallows Ta`wil and agrees with the Hanbali position on the speech of Allah ta'ala and not the Ash'ari one and so on.

So what's the problem that "Salafis" have with this book? Yes, their problem is that the author EXPLICITLY declares Allah ta'ala transcendent from corporeality and temporality. Imagine, this is a "problem" in their mind!


The author - may Allah ta'ala have mercy upon him - stated in his al-'Ayn wal Athar p. 34 - 35:

ูˆูŠุฌุจ ุงู„ุฌุฒู… ุจุฃู† ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุชุนุงู„ู‰ ู„ูŠุณ ุจุฌูˆู‡ุฑุŒูˆู„ุง ุฌุณู…ุŒ ูˆู„ุง ุนุฑุถุŒ ูˆู„ุง ุชุญู„ู‘ูู‡ู ุงู„ุญูˆุงุฏุซุŒ ูˆู„ุง ูŠุญู„ู‘ู ูู‰ ุญุงุฏุซุŒ ูˆู„ุง ูŠู†ุญุตุฑ ููŠู‡, ูู…ู† ุงุนุชู‚ุฏ, ุฃูˆ ู‚ุงู„: "ุฅู† ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุจุฐุงุชู‡ ูู‰ ู…ูƒุงู†", ููƒุงูุฑ.
ุจู„ ูŠุฌุจ ุงู„ุฌุฒู… ุจุฃู†ู‡ ุณุจุญุงู†ู‡ ูˆุชุนุงู„ู‰: ุจุงุฆู† ู…ู† ุฎู„ู‚ู‡ุŒ ููƒุงู† ูˆู„ุง ู…ูƒุงู†ุŒ ุซู… ุฎู„ู‚ ุงู„ู…ูƒุงู†ุŒ ูˆู‡ูˆ ูƒู…ุง ูƒุงู† ู‚ุจู„ ุฎู„ู‚ ุงู„ู…ูƒุงู†ุŒ ูˆู„ุง ูŠุนุฑู ุจุงู„ุญูˆุงุณุŒ ูˆู„ุง ูŠู‚ุงุณ ุจุงู„ู†ุงุณุŒ ูู‡ูˆ ุงู„ุบู†ูŠ ุนู† ูƒู„ ุดูŠุกุŒ ูˆู„ุง ูŠุณุชุบู†ูŠ ุนู†ู‡ ุดูŠุกุŒ ูˆู„ุง ูŠุดุจู‡ ุดูŠุฆู‹ุงุŒ ูˆู„ุง ูŠุดุจู‡ู‡ ุดูŠุก.
ูˆุนู„ู‰ ูƒู„ ุญุงู„: ู…ู‡ู…ุง ุฎุทุฑ ุจุงู„ุจุงู„ุŒ ุฃูˆ ุชูˆู‡ู…ู‡ ุงู„ุฎูŠุงู„ุŒ ูู‡ูˆ ุจุฎู„ุงู ุฐูŠ ุงู„ุฅูƒุฑุงู… ูˆุงู„ุฌู„ุงู„

It's obligatory to be certain that Allah ta'ala is not a substance (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 conceived by the imagination, then He is different from that, the Lord of Bounty and Majesty.
- end of quote -

Note that the above wording is taken almost word by word from the work Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in fi Usul al-Din by Imam Ibn Hamdan (d. 620 AH).
Imam Ibn Balban (d. 1083 AH) used almost the same wording in his Qala`id al-'Iqyan - which is the Ikhtisar of Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in - and Imam 'Uthman al-Najdi (d. 1097 AH) also used it in his Najat al-Khalaf fi I'tiqad al-Salaf.

(For those interested:
- The reliability and general acceptance of Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in of Imam Ibn Hamdan by the Hanabila
- Imam Ibn Rajab's praise for Imam Ibn Hamdan)

Now read the following post, where a number of Hanbali works are quoted:
"Mainstream Hanbalis: Allah is beyond space and time and His existence is non-bodily one"

So al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la (d. 458 AH) - as seen in his al-Mu'tamad and elsewhere - and his Hanbali predecessors and Imam Ibn Abi Ya'la (d. 526 AH) (see Tabaqat al-Hanabila and elsewhere) and also the 'Allama al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) - in his famous poem regarding creed (i.e. al-Durra al-Mudhiyya) and elsewhere - were also upon this "treason" (meaning: declaring our Lord ta'ala transcendent from corporeality and temporality).

Who else? Imam Ibn al-Banna` (d. 471 AH), Imam al-Kalwadhani (d. 510 AH), Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH), etc.

To make it short: Almost all major Hanabila were upon this "treason".


Who was one of the few, who left this "treason"? Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728) for he rejected the way of his Hanbali forefathers including that of his grandfather the Imam Majd al-Din Ibn Taymiyya (d. 652 AH) - one of the absolute top scholars of the Hanabila! - and OPENLY stated so as shown here:

"How Ibn Taymiyya left the way of his mainstream Hanbali forefathers"


This means that in the imagination of "Salafis" the majority of the major Hanabila "misrepresented" the creed of Imam Ahmad (d. 241 AH) - which explains their evil footnotes when printing classical Hanbali works! - and were committing "treason" and this while they had access to works that have not even reached us!


One last point: Sultan al-'Id teaches the Hanbali Fiqh work Akhsar al-Mukhtasarat by the "traitor" Imam Ibn Balban (d. 1083 AH) - the author of Qala`id al-'Iqyan, which he obviously also attacks elsewhere - and I just want to know why he takes his religion from "traitors" and teaches their works then!?

Would you - o Muslim - trust Sultan al-'Id and his "Salafi" Mashayikh regarding your religion after seeing the above?! Rather they themselves are the traitors and deceivers!


When this issue was new the Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid al-Hanbali responded to this accusation of "treason" and defended the classical Hanabila:

ุงู„ุฑุฏ ุนู„ู‰ ู…ู† ุงูุชุฑู‰ ุนู„ู‰ ุงู„ุดูŠุฎ ุนุจุฏ ุงู„ุจุงู‚ูŠ ุตุงุญุจ (ุงู„ุนูŠู† ูˆุงู„ุฃุซุฑ) ูˆ ุทุนู† ููŠ ุนู‚ูŠุฏุฉ ุงู„ุญู†ุงุจู„ุฉ

[Abu Sulayman]

AbuNajm instead of logging in just to like the insulting comments of AA, listen to the above video of the Shakyh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid al-Hanbali.

For once in your life listen to a real Hanbali and not these "Salafi" deceivers, who now have reached such a low degree to openly accuse the major scholars of the Madhhab of "treason"!
Note that before 10 or 20 years they would deny all that and now that these classic books are all getting printed, there doesn't remain any option for them except to attack these works (instead of accepting that they themselves were wrong)!

โ€‹โ€‹โ€‹โ€‹โ€‹โ€‹Just look into what a humiliated state these "Salafi" deceivers have brought you:

You're unable to tell us what the ruling upon the belief of the one who believes the Creator subhanahu wa ta'ala to be a 3-dimensional being is and also unable to declare our Lord transcendent from this disbelief!

You're also unable to disassociate yourself from a criminal group like AQI / ISI / ISIS and it seems that you're even regarding a person, who has denigrated the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam), as your brother!

Listen to the video. It's only a little longer than 30 minutes and don't waste your time with listening to "Salafi" deceivers, who have brought you into the miserable state that you are in.

We ask Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala - Who has no partner in His divine Lordship whatsoever and is described with absolute perfection and essential existence and is the One Who has no equal or likeness or similarity in His Self, Attributes and Actions - for well-being and protection. Amin.

[maturidee]

[maturidee]

Fakhr al-Din took Sunni Muslims of the Hanbali creed to task when he says,

โ€œThese people are so low as to not deserve mention among the group of the learned. It happened one day that I said to one of them: โ€œIf Allah spoke these, then either He spoke them in one go, or in succession. The first is void because the speaking of all these letters in one go will not convey orderly composition which is a combination in sequence. It necessarily follows that this composition combined with these successive letters cannot by themselves be Allahโ€™s speech. The second is void, because if Allah spoke them in succession then it will be originated.โ€™ When the man heard this statement |of mine|, he said: โ€˜It is obligatory for us to affirm and pass onโ€™, i.e., we affirm that the Qurโ€™an is eternal and pass by this statement that we have heard. At that point, I wonder greatly at the safety of this speaker. Source: (Al-Tafsir al-kabir (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Illmiyyah, 2nd edition, 27, 187-88)

Yet this jaahil Abu Sulayman does dare tot say that the asharis and hanabalis are actually united in this issue.

Note that it is the kalaami Hanbali Abu Yalaa who said that the speech of Allaah is without sequence.

Without sequence is true and false statement, it is true in the sense that there is no sequence for example Allaah van speak with a million at the same time. But the speaking itself consist of letters in sequence otherwise no speech is formed, speech without sequence does not make sense.

[TheHaqq]

Fakhr al-Din took Sunni Muslims of the Hanbali creed to task when he says,

โ€œThese people are so low as to not deserve mention among the group of the learned. It happened one day that I said to one of them: โ€œIf Allah spoke these, then either He spoke them in one go, or in succession. The first is void because the speaking of all these letters in one go will not convey orderly composition which is a combination in sequence. It necessarily follows that this composition combined with these successive letters cannot by themselves be Allahโ€™s speech. The second is void, because if Allah spoke them in succession then it will be originated.โ€™ When the man heard this statement |of mine|, he said: โ€˜It is obligatory for us to affirm and pass onโ€™, i.e., we affirm that the Qurโ€™an is eternal and pass by this statement that we have heard. At that point, I wonder greatly at the safety of this speaker. Source: (Al-Tafsir al-kabir (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Illmiyyah, 2nd edition, 27, 187-88)

Yet this jaahil Abu Sulayman does dare tot say that the asharis and hanabalis are actually united in this issue.

Note that it is the kalaami Hanbali Abu Yalaa who said that the speech of Allaah is without sequence.

Without sequence is true and false statement, it is true in the sense that there is no sequence for example Allaah van speak with a million at the same time. But the speaking itself consist of letters in sequence otherwise no speech is formed, speech without sequence does not make sense.

They are not united, the view of Ashar's and Hanbalis is quite different, the Ashari's are probably closer to the Mutazilite view

I don't think he claimed that they are united, refer back to the first page

[Abu Sulayman]

They are not united, the view of Ashar's and Hanbalis is quite different, the Ashari's are probably closer to the Mutazilite view

I don't think he claimed that they are united, refer back to the first page

The view of the Mu'tazila is that Allah ta'ala is not described with speech as an eternal attribute in the very first place, so their view differs from both Ash'aris and Hanbalis (who both agree on describing Allah ta'ala with eternal speech, while disagreeing on the issue of "letter and sound").

Anyways I wouldn't take his comments serious, because he has already proven that he doesn't deserve it.
If he wouldn't be blind, then he would have seen that I've stated the following on the very page that he's commenting on (so he wouldn't even need to go to the first page) and also posted a link to the Arabic original statement:

But the issue does not stop here as we shall see insha`Allah. The book [al-'Ayn wal Athar] itself is clearly a Hanbali Athari one and not an Ash'ari one and that it why the author disallows Ta`wil and agrees with the Hanbali position on the speech of Allah ta'ala and not the Ash'ari one and so on.

So what's the problem that "Salafis" have with this book? Yes, their problem is that the author EXPLICITLY declares Allah ta'ala transcendent from corporeality and temporality. Imagine, this is a "problem" in their mind!

Hanbali explanation of the issue of "letter and sound"

Imam 'Abd al-Baqi al-Mawahibi (d. 1071 AH) stated in his al-'Ayn wal Athar fi 'Aqa`id Ahl al-Athar on p. 32:

ูˆุจุฃู†ู‡ ุชุนุงู„ู‰: ู‚ุงุฆู„, ูˆู…ุชูƒู„ู… ุจูƒู„ุงู… ู‚ุฏูŠู… ุฐุงุชูŠ ูˆุฌูˆุฏูŠุŒ ุบูŠุฑ ู…ุฎู„ูˆู‚ ูˆู„ุง ู…ุญุฏุซ ูˆู„ุง ุญุงุฏุซุŒ ุจู„ุง ุชู…ุซูŠู„, ูˆู„ุง ุชุดุจูŠู‡, ูˆู„ุง ุชูƒูŠูŠู

And [it's obligatory to be certain that Allah] ta'ala is stating and speaking with a speech that is eternal, essential and existing and NOT created, NOR emergent, NOR new without ascribing likeness or similarity or modality.
- end of quote -

Note that the above is the classical position of the Hanabila in general starting with Imam Ahmad (d. 241 AH) until our time regarding the divine speech and this statement is in agreement with the Madhhab of the Asha'ira.


Now where is the difference between the Hanabila and the Asha'ira on this issue?: The Hanabila state that the divine speech is with Harf wa Sawt (letter and sound), while the Asha'ira state the opposite (i.e. without letter and sound) and based upon this they differed regarding the issue of our wording (Lafdh) of the Qur`an al-karim and whether it's allowed to describe is as created (meaning: the Lafdh) and criticized each other as is known. (Imam 'Abd al-Baqi also mentions that it's not allowed to say that the Lafdh is created and this in agreement with the Hanabila before him.)


Imam Qudama (d. 620 AH) is among those who famously spoke regarding this issue in detail and responded to the Ash'ari position:

The Imam Ibn al-Najjar al-Futuhi (d. 972 AH) - who is the author of the famous Hanbali Fiqh work Muntaha al-Iradat - quotes Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH) in his creedal work Sharh al-Kawkab al-Munir in response to some of the objections to the statement of the Hanabila regarding the issue of Harf wa Sawt.


The following objection is mentioned (among others) on the issue of the letters:

ุฃูŽู†ู‘ูŽ ุงู„ู’ุญูุฑููˆููŽ ูŠูŽุฏู’ุฎูู„ูู‡ูŽุง ุงู„ุชู‘ูŽุนูŽุงู‚ูุจูุŒ ููŽุงู„ู’ุจูŽุงุกู ุชูŽุณู’ุจูู‚ู ุงู„ุณู‘ููŠู†ูŽุŒ ูˆูŽุงู„ุณู‘ููŠู†ู ุชูŽุณู’ุจูู‚ู ุงู„ู’ู…ููŠู…ูŽ ูˆูŽูƒูู„ู‘ู ู…ูŽุณู’ุจููˆู‚ู ู…ูŽุฎู’ู„ููˆู‚ูŒ

Sequence (Ta'aqub) applies to letters (Huruf), so that [for example] the [letter] Ba` is before the [letter] Sin and the [letter] Sin is before the [letter] Mim; and whatever is preceded [by something] is created.
- end of quote (from Sharh al-Kawkab al-Munir 2/41) -

He then quotes the response of Imam Ibn Qudama on the issue of letter, who states:

ูˆูŽู‚ูŽูˆู’ู„ูู‡ูู…ู’: "ุฅู†ู‘ูŽ ุงู„ุชู‘ูŽุนูŽุงู‚ูุจูŽ ูŠูŽุฏู’ุฎูู„ู ูููŠ ุงู„ู’ุญูุฑููˆูู"ุŸ.ู‚ูู„ู’ู†ูŽุง: ุฅู†ู‘ูŽู…ูŽุง ูƒูŽุงู†ูŽ ุฐูŽู„ููƒูŽ ูููŠ ุญูŽู‚ู‘ู ู…ูŽู†ู’ ูŠูŽู†ู’ุทูู‚ู ุจูุงู„ู’ู…ูŽุฎูŽุงุฑูุฌู ูˆูŽุงู„ุฃูŽุฏูŽูˆูŽุงุชูุŒ ูˆูŽู„ุง ูŠููˆุตูŽูู ุงู„ู„ู‘ูŽู‡ู ุชูŽุนูŽุงู„ูŽู‰ ุจูุฐูŽู„ููƒูŽ.
ู‚ูŽุงู„ูŽ ุงู„ู’ุญูŽุงููุธู ุฃูŽุจููˆ ู†ูŽุตู’ุฑู: ุฅู†ู‘ูŽู…ูŽุง ูŠูŽุชูŽุนูŽูŠู‘ูŽู†ู ุงู„ุชู‘ูŽุนูŽุงู‚ูุจู ูููŠู…ูŽู†ู’ ูŠูŽุชูŽูƒูŽู„ู‘ูŽู…ู ุจูุฃูŽุฏูŽุงุฉู ูŠูŽุนู’ุฌูุฒู ุนูŽู†ู’ ุฃูŽุฏูŽุงุกู ุดูŽูŠู’ุกู ุฅู„ุงู‘ูŽ ุจูŽุนู’ุฏูŽ ุงู„ู’ููŽุฑูŽุงุบู ู…ูู†ู’ ุบูŽูŠู’ุฑูู‡ูุŒ ูˆูŽุฃูŽู…ู‘ูŽุง ุงู„ู’ู…ูุชูŽูƒูŽู„ู‘ูู…ู ุจูู„ุง ุฌูŽุงุฑูุญูŽุฉู ููŽู„ุง ูŠูŽุชูŽุนูŽูŠู‘ูŽู†ู ูููŠ ูƒูŽู„ุงู…ูู‡ู ุงู„ุชู‘ูŽุนูŽุงู‚ูุจู

As for their statement "Sequence (Ta'aqub) applies to the letters?", then we say: This applies regarding the one who speaks with orifices / outlets (Makharij) and tools / instruments (Adawat), while Allah ta'ala is not described with these.
The Hafidh Abu Nasr (d. 444 AH) stated: Sequence becomes necessary regarding the one who speaks with a tool such that he is unable to state something except after he has completed something else, but as for the One who speaks without limbs / organs, then sequence (Ta'aqub) does not become necessary in His speech.
- end of quote (from Sharh al-Kawkab al-Munir 2/48) -

(The above is also found quoted by Imam 'Abd al-Baqi in al-'Ayn wal Athar on p. 89 (and also on the same page the statement of Imam Abu Nasr al-Sijzi is quoted).)


He also quotes Imam Ibn Qudama regarding the issue of sound, who states:

ููŽุฅูู†ู’ ู‚ูŽุงู„ููˆุง: ู†ูŽุญู’ู†ู ู„ุง ู†ูุณูŽู…ู‘ููŠู‡ู ุตูŽูˆู’ุชู‹ุง ู…ูŽุนูŽ ูƒูŽูˆู’ู†ูู‡ู ู…ูŽุณู’ู…ููˆุนู‹ุง.ู‚ูู„ู’ู†ูŽุง: ุงู„ู’ุฌูŽูˆูŽุงุจู ู…ูู†ู’ ูˆูุฌููˆู‡ู.
ุฃูŽุญูŽุฏูู‡ูŽุง: ุฃูŽู†ู‘ูŽ ู‡ูŽุฐูŽุง ู…ูุฎูŽุงู„ูŽููŽุฉูŒ ูููŠ ุงู„ู„ู‘ูŽูู’ุธู ู…ูŽุนูŽ ุงู„ู’ู…ููˆูŽุงููŽู‚ูŽุฉู ูููŠ ุงู„ู’ู…ูŽุนู’ู†ูŽู‰ุŒ ููŽุฅูู†ู‘ูŽู†ูŽุง ู„ุง ู†ูŽุนู’ู†ููŠ ุจูุงู„ุตู‘ูŽูˆู’ุชู ุฅู„ุงู‘ูŽ ู…ูŽุง ูƒูŽุงู†ูŽ ู…ูŽุณู’ู…ููˆุนู‹ุง

If they say "We do not name [the divine speech] as sound even when it can be heard", then we say that the response is from [different] directions:
The first: This is just an opposition in wording, while agreeing in meaning [with us], for we do not intend with 'sound' except that which can be heard.
- end of quote (from Sharh al-Kawkab al-Munir 2/52) -

(Imam 'Abd al-Baqi also quoted the above in al-'Ayn wal Athar on p. 92.)

Imam Ibn al-Najjar also mentions the following statement:

ูˆูŽุญูŽุฏู‘ู ุงู„ุตู‘ูŽูˆู’ุชู: ู…ูŽุง ูŠูŽุชูŽุญูŽู‚ู‘ูŽู‚ู ุณูŽู…ูŽุงุนูู‡ู. ููŽูƒูู„ู‘ู ู…ูุชูŽุญูŽู‚ู‘ูู‚ู ุณูŽู…ูŽุงุนูู‡ู ุตูŽูˆู’ุชูŒุŒ ูˆูŽูƒูู„ู‘ู ู…ูŽุง ู„ุง ูŠูŽุชูŽุฃูŽุชู‘ูŽู‰ ุณูŽู…ูŽุงุนูู‡ู ุฃูŽู„ู’ุจูŽุชู‘ูŽุฉูŽ ู„ูŽูŠู’ุณูŽ ุจูุตูŽูˆู’ุชู ... ูˆูŽู‚ูŽูˆู’ู„ู ู…ูŽู†ู’ ู‚ูŽุงู„ูŽ: "ุฅู†ู‘ูŽ ุงู„ุตู‘ูŽูˆู’ุชูŽ ู‡ููˆูŽ ุงู„ู’ุฎูŽุงุฑูุฌู ู…ูู†ู’ ู‡ูŽูˆูŽุงุกู ุจูŽูŠู’ู†ูŽ ุฌูุฑู’ู…ูŽูŠู’ู†ู. ููŽุบูŽูŠู’ุฑู ุตูŽุญููŠุญูุ› ู„ุฃูŽู†ู‘ูŽู‡ู ูŠููˆุฌูŽุฏู ุณูŽู…ูŽุงุนู ุงู„ุตู‘ูŽูˆู’ุชู ู…ูู†ู’ ุบูŽูŠู’ุฑู ุฐูŽู„ููƒูŽ. ูƒูŽุชูŽุณู’ู„ููŠู…ู ุงู„ุฃูŽุญู’ุฌูŽุงุฑูุŒ ูˆูŽุชูŽุณู’ุจููŠุญู ุงู„ุทู‘ูŽุนูŽุงู…ู ูˆูŽุงู„ู’ุฌูุจูŽุงู„ู

As for the limit of [what can be described as] sound: It's that which can be heard, so whatever can be heard is a sound and whatever can not be heard is not a sound ...
As for the statment of the one who said "Sound is the exiting of air between two masses" (sound waves are intended), then it's not correct because there exists hearing of sound without this: Like the Taslim of the stones and the Tasbih of the food and the mountains...
- end of quote (from Sharh al-Kawkab al-Munir 2/56) -

(Also found stated in al-'Ayn wal Athar on p.94 and is most likely taken from the statement of Imam Abu Nasr al-Sijzi.)


Note that the above statements can be also found quoted by earlier Hanabila - and before Imam Ibn Qudama the like of these statements have also been made by them - and it is therefore what the Hanabila in general believed.


Conclusion:
So while it may seem on the first sight that the difference between the Hanabila and the Asha'ira is very big on this issue, when getting into the details their difference gets small (even if there still is a difference). These are issues of Ijtihad and should not be used in front of laymen to attack any of these two Sunni Madhahib.

Their difference had already been explained here:

There are two [famous] issues where the Ash'aris and the Hanbalis differed:

- ...
- After agreeing that the speech of Allah is eternal the Ash'aris differed with Hanabila regarding the Arabic wording (Lafdh) of the Qur`an al-karim: The Ash'aris said that it is created and that the speech of Allah ta'ala is without letters and sounds and that the Arabic words and letters are vehicles to understand the speech of Allah, which is eternal. The Hanabila however vehemently rejected this and said that God speaks with letters and sound. It should be noted here that with "sound" they ONLY intended that God's speech can be heard (and they used Allah ta'ala speaking to our Master Musa - peace be upon him - as a proof for this) (and this is accepted by Ash'aris also!) and not sound waves or something produced by tools or organs or having orofices. As for letters: They said that "Alif Lam Mim" is from the Qur`an and that in the Sunna it is proven that one is rewarded for every letter and therefore it is not allowed to say that God speaks without letters. What they at the same time clarified is that these letters and words are only following each other (Ta'aqub) in the case of human beings, but Allah's speech is without Ta'aqub. And they said that the speech of Allah is completely different from that of the creation and that one should consign the knowledge regarding the reality of Allah's speech to Him like the rest of the divine attributes.
The issue of the al-Harf wal Sawt (letter and sound) regarding the speech of Allah is heavily disputed among the Ash'aris and Hanbalis and both groups have attacked eachother because of this issue, but when one looks into the details of their statements one sees that both positions are actually very near to eachother to the degree that there is statement of Imam al-Tufi (d. 716 AH) (who defends the Hanbali position) where he suggests that the difference is actually only in wording between the two groups.

The catastrophe here is that a group of people have emerged in our time (yes, I intend the "Salafis), who claim that the speech of Allah ta'ala is emergent (!!!) and thereafter they try to act as if their way is in line with that of the classical Hanabila, while the Hanabila regard this very position they are calling towards as nothing less than disbelief!

They also think that the statement that some Hanabila made and that is that Allah ta'ala "speaks when He wills" means that He speaks and then gets silent (!) and then speaks again and so on (this is pure Tashbih!), while the Hanabila themselves have clarified that this means that Allah ta'ala let's the one whom He chooses from among His creation hear his ETERNAL speech whenever He wills and NOT what these mindless people claim!
And: When the Mu'tazila used an Aya where the Dhikr of Allah ta'ala - meaning the Qur`an - is described as Muhdath (emergent / new) to argue that the speech of Allah is created, the leading scholars responded that it's emergent / new to us (meaning its revelation), but not with Allah ta'ala (because it's His eternal speech!), so woe to the "Salafis" for claiming that the ETERNAL speech of our Lord is emergent!
If only these people would fear Allah ta'ala and stop speaking regarding our Lord without knowledge.

[maturidee]

Abu Sulayman stop with writing without knowledge.

Ashโ€™aris say that if Allah speaks with sound and letters, it implies that Allah has a tongue, a throat and lungs, since this is the only way one may speak. Ibn Qudamah says, the stones and trees of Makkah would say Salam to the Prophet โ€“ SallAllahu โ€˜alaihi wasallam without any of that, and likewise ones hands will bear witness against him on the day of judgement, without the need of any tongue or throat etc.


So according to you the trees and stones talked without taa'qub ?

You still propagandate the false Hanbali kalaami view as bring the view of the orthodox hanabalis including Imam Ahmad which is a big fraud of you!

And back to Razi's understanding, something in letters ans sound without taa'qub to be spoken / heard cannot even exist. And if you believe this can, then your the dumbest idiot in this universe!

The diagram below is what Imam Ahmad and orthodox Hanbalis believed, and to me this is the common belief with muslims: