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

[Abu Sulayman]

- The Christians and Jews took their monks and priests (the so called "early church fathers" and the rabbis) as Lords besides Allah ta'ala and this man similarly took Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) and some other people as Lords.

I seriously don't understand why some people are such extreme blind followers of Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) to the degree that they are ready to accept whatever they understood or misunderstood from his words and this even if it's wrong with certainity.

What is also shocking is that they are ready to accuse anyone of a mistake to the degree that they may even not shy away from accusing Prophets (peace be upon them), but when it comes to their Ibn Taymiyya it suddenly becomes disallowed for anyone to say a word against him.


Since Imam Ibn Rajab's quote was mentioned: Let it be known to the blind followers of Ibn Taymiyya in their ignorance that he names one of those upright Hanbali judges elsewhere and states that he disallowed him giving Fatwa regarding the issue of triple Talaq.

Only an innovator or a heretic will deny that Ibn Taymiyya had abnormal positions and this both regarding creed and regarding jurisprudence.


Let everyone know that blind following in major issues of creed is NOT an excuse in front of Allah ta'ala.
If Ibn 'Uthaymin utters words of disbelief and paganism (which he certainly did!), then following him regarding this is likewise disbelief and paganism and bringing up Ibn Taymiyya is no excuse.

[Abu Sulayman]

Regarding the Hanabila and their creed and using them as a proof upon us:

Allah ta'ala has not obliged us to follow anyone in the manner he obliged us to follow our Master Muhammad (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam). So if the claims of the anthropomorphists of our time regarding the Hanabila would be true, then it would not change the fact that we're obliged to follow our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) and to reject any way that opposes his way.

Now the Hanabila have actually several ways in creed. One could basically divide them into three groups:
- The mainstream group, which is represented by al-Mu'tamad of al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la and the Lum'at al-I'tiqad of Imam Ibn Qudama and their likes and they regard Tafwidh with the understanding of Ithbat with Tanzih as the only correct way.
- The group that is inclined towards Ta`wil (but supports Tafwifh in general), which is that of Imam Ibn 'Aqil and Imam Ibn al-Jawzi and their likes.
- The group that are basically anthropomorphists and they are represented by the likes of Ibn Hamid and Ibn Taymiyya.

Note that the Hanabila in general (till this day) like to deny that the last group are actually anthropomorphists and like to present them as "mistaken only", but this most likely due to their partisanship to their Madhhab.
In other contexts they mention the very statements that this last group believes in and then openly describe it as Tashbih and Kufr.


Now the question is: How did Tashbih creep into the last group?
The answer: A good portion of the Hanabila - and this even from the mainstream group - relied upon utterly weak and inauthentic narrations for issues of creed, which lead to the formation of the last group, which said due to sheer number of these inauthentic narrations that all these types of texts are to be understood literally and thereby fell into anthropomorphism.
In addition to this the majority of the Hanabila regarded single authentic narrations as proofs even in major issues of creed, so anytime they would falsely regard a narration as authentic they would rely upon it. The scholars of the other Madhahib however were more cautious and only relied upon that which is established beyond doubt in authenticity.

With time many Hanabila realized the weakness of all these narrations - and this usually thanks to the efforts of Ash'ari scholars! - and therefore distanced themselves from these narrations.

Note that even al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la and Imam Ibn Qudama (who were both mainstream Hanbalis and supporters of Tafwidh) relied upon utterly weak and inauthentic narrations as seen in Ibtal al-Ta`wilat and al-'Uluww.
In fact Ibtal al-Ta`wilat contains the affirmation of so many utterly weak and inauthentic narrations with some narrations being so obviously from the creed of the Jews (like "god" lying on the back and putting one foot upon the other or the affirmation of molar teeth or other rather strange narrations) and their likes that a lot of other scholars have heavily attacked this work and accused its author of anthropomorphism and this despite the author clearly and explicitly declaring Allah ta'ala transcendent from corporeality and temporarility in the very same work.


There is really a reason why the majority of the scholars preferred the Ash'ari way over the Hanbali one, because unlike the Hanabila the Asha'ira were much more cautious in how they describe their Lord jalla jalaluhu.


We should not forget that those issues which are important to believe in are stressed upon in the book of Allah ta'ala and upon the tongue of our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) such that we should not look for our creed in strange narrations here and there.
And we should also not forget that the foundations of our creed are the texts with a clear meaning which allow for one interpretation only and that everything else must be understood in their context.

So any statement like "so and so stated this and that" can never take precedence over the clear texts for we are neither Jews nor Christians nor pagans, but rather pure monotheists who submit completely to their Creator jalla jalaluhu and affirm His absolute uniqueness, oneness and perfection as is established by revelation and sound reason.

[Abu Sulayman]

After discussing with some Christians recently on this forum I realized even more that anthromorphists like this Ibn 'Uthaymin have a lot in common with Jews and Christians and that their creed is a pagan one and has no connection to Islam other than his claim to Islam:


Some similarities between Ibn 'Uthaymin and the Jews and the Christians:


- Like Christians this man claims to believe in the Creator jalla jalaluhu, but at the same time describes that which He worships besides Allah ta'ala with all kinds of anthropomorphistic meanings. He believes in a literal descent to the lowest heaven for that which he worships and this is similar to the Christian belief that "god" literally came to earth. He also believes that "god" is subject to changes just like Christians do.


- The Christians and Jews took their monks and priests (the so called "early church fathers" and the rabbis) as Lords besides Allah ta'ala and this man similarly took Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) and some other people as Lords.


- The Jews and the Christians relied on severly weak and even corrupt texts for their creed and the forefathers of this man also relied upon severly weak and corrupt narrations for their creed. In fact till this day some of his followers affirm a weight for what they worship besides Allah ta'ala and say that this weight causes the throne to make a specific sound when that which they worship sits upon it and this all based upon an inauthentic narration.


- The Christians are famous for being unable to differentiate between those texts which are clear in meaning and those which are indistinct and allow for several interpretations. They do not build their creed upon the clear texts and instead resort to interpretations of the indistinct texts in a manner which leads to falling into opposition to the clear texts.
This is also what this man and his followers are famous for.


- The Christians don't understand that major issues of belief should be built upon texts that are authenically transmitted without any doubt and this also true regarding this man and his followers.


- The Christians and the Jews even more so do not have the needed respect for our Creator jalla jalaluhu and think that they are speaking about their neighbor next door or someone like that. This is also true regarding this man for he does not even shy away from mentioning the body parts of animals while speaking regarding the divine attributes. One of his admirers in Egypt (whom some ignorant people regard as a scholar) even mentioned donkeys in this context. May Allah ta'ala give him what he deserves.


- The Christians are known for making claims that openly contradict sound reason. This man is also famous for this. Both of them claim then that their disbelief is based upon the scriptures and that we should through away the reason that Allah ta'ala gave us and submit to their pagan interpretations of the scriptures.


- The Christians are lacking in detailed knowledge of the Hebrew language and that's why they misinterpret the Old testament. And this man is lacking in the detailed knowledge of the language of the Arabs and therefore comes up with all kinds of ridiculous misinterpretations (his affirmation of clothing for that which he worships is prime example for his ignorance of language).



I could go on and on, but the above should be enough. We ask Allah ta'ala to protect us from following the footsteps of the Jews and the Christians. Amin.

[Abu Sulayman]

What was their reasoning behind saying "if Allah is not one eyed, then he must have two eyes"?

Just because something isn’t one, it doesn’t necessarily mean it is two. It can be zero.

Al-Salamu 'alaykum,

my problem is actually not the affirmation of A'yun or even 'Aynayn, but rather the way this Ibn 'Uthaymin affirms it and the absolute pagan reasoning that he uses.
The affirmation of A'yun as a description of Allah ta'ala is correct, but we don't delve into its exact meaning and relegate its reality to Allah ta'ala while being sure that similarity is not intended in any way.
We basically rely on the Muhkamat for our creed and understand the Mutashabihat in their context and not the other way around.

As for what Ibn 'Uthaymin affirms: He affirms two tangible entities (meaning: which can be physically pointed at) that make up the divine Self (because in his pagan imagination "god" is made up of inseparable eternal parts), so his affirmation of 'Aynayn is such that it shares the reality of the eyes of the creation and just differs with it in size, form, substance and so on.
In his imagination these 'Aynayn are the TOOLS OF SEEING and he explicitly states this here:

المجسم ابن عثيمين لله عينين حقيقتين يبصر بهما لأن العينين هما أداة الإبصار !!! (تجسيم

His whole imagination and understanding is nothing less than Kufr. And whosoever defends this Kufr is also guilty of it.



If we get back to the post that you quoted, then you will see that he stated the following:

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

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

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

Note that his statement that multiplicity indicates power, perfection and completion is from the reasoning of the pagans in order to affirm the multiplicity of divine beings.
Connecting the above pagan reasoning with his claim that "god has only two real eyes", it is an affirmation of a lack of perfection for that which he worships besides Allah ta'ala.

And as for him stating that if "god" would have "more than two eyes" that it would become more obvious that the Dajjal is not our Lord, then it shows that he's a full-fledged pagan, who has no knowledge of our Lord whatsoever to the degree that even if a man with all the characteristics of a creation stands before him he will still need to check how many of healthy eyes this man has in order to know that this man is not our Lord jalla jalaluhu.

[AbuNajm]

That was what I was asking. Why do they claim that it is necessary to say Allah is two eyed because we read in the Hadith that "Allah is not one eyed"? Why do they not consider the possibility of Allah not having an eye since Allah is not one eyed?

The Hadith does not say "Allah is not one-eyed". The word in Arabic is "A'war" which means "one eye out of two is blind". It doesn't mean "possessing only one physical eye ball". The detailed descriptions of the Dajjal in Hadith state the Dajjal has two eyes and the right one is deformed like a "protruding grape" and he is blind in that eye.

Blind in both eyes is called "A'maa". And despite calling a person who is blind in one eye "one-eyed", we do not call a person who is blind in both eyes "no-eyed".

So, these Hadith affirm that Allah AWJ has "Two Eyes" and is not blind in one of His Two Eyes, which would make Him SWT "A'war".

Likewise, this Hadith affirms that Allah AWJ does not have more than Two Eyes.

Your mistake was in using "logic" without first understanding the meaning of the Hadith beyond the English translation presented.

[Rauf]

Al-Hafiz Uthman bin Sa'eed ad-Darimi said that the Hadith of the Dajjal implies that Allah AWJ has Two Eyes way back in the 3rd century Hijri. Every Imam of Aqidah for Ahl as-Sunnah has affirmed that since then.

Don't let these people fool you into thinking this started with Ibn Taymiyyah or Ibn Uthaymeen.

That was what I was asking. Why do they claim that it is necessary to say Allah is two eyed because we read in the Hadith that "Allah is not one eyed"? Why do they not consider the possibility of Allah not having an eye since Allah is not one eyed?

[AbuNajm]

Ibn Rajab on Ibn Taymiyyah, and the Hanbalis Prohibition of his time against him Giving Fatwa

Imam Ibn Rajab wrote, “Large groups of the Imams of Ahlul Hadith and their hadith masters and Jurists loved the Shaykh and venerated him but they disliked that he was involved with the theologians and philosophers, for uninvolvement was the way of the early Imams of Ahlul Hadith such as Ash Shafi, Ahmad, Ishaq, Abu Ubayd and the like. Similarly, many of the Ulama among the Jurists, the hadith scholars, and the righteous hated his idiosyncratic promotion of certain aberrant matters which the Salaf had condemned together with those who promoted them to the point that one of the judges among our companions forbade him to give fatwa in some of those instances.” (Ibn Rajab, Dhayl Tabaqat al Hanabila -2:394)

Another false quote-

Nowhere does the above quote in Arabic suggest that Ibn Taymiyyah was prohibited from "giving Fatwa" in general.

وطوائف من أئمة أهل الحديث وحفاظهم وفقهائهم: كَانُوا يحبون الشيخ ويعظمونه، وَلَمْ يكونوا يحبون لَهُ التوغل مَعَ أهل الْكَلام ولا الفلاسفة، كَمَا هُوَ طريق أئمة أهل الْحَدِيث المتقدمين، كالشَّافِعِي وَأَحْمَد وإسحاق وأبي عبيد ونحوهم، وكذلك كثير هن الْعُلَمَاء من الْفُقَهَاء والمحدثين والصالحين كرهوا لَهُ التفرد ببعض شذوذ المسائل الَّتِي أنكرها السلف عَلَى من شذ بِهَا، حَتَّى إِن بَعْض قضاة العدل من أَصْحَابنا منعه من الإفتاء ببعض ذَلِكَ

For obvious reasons, the translators of the above Arabic quote from Dhayl Tabaqat il-Hanabilah intentionally take liberties to give a completely different impression of what the text actually says.

When the Arabic says: "wa lam yakunu yahibbuna lahu..." which means: "and they did not like him to...", they translated it as: "but they disliked that he..." There is no word for "dislike" in Arabic!

And when the Arabic says: "karihu lahu at-tafarrud bi-ba`dhi shudhudh il-masa'ili..." which means: "they disliked for him to focus specifically on some of the rare/abnormal issues...", they translated it as: "hated his idiosyncratic promotion of certain aberrant matters..." There is no word in the Arabic for "promotion" or attributing "idiosyncrasy" to 'Ibn Taymiyyah!

When the Arabic says: "they did not like/love for him", the distorters say: "they disliked..." But when the Arabic says: "they disliked...", the distorters say: "they hated..."

What is wrong with these people? Their only audience must be fellow distorters of texts and people who have no clue about the Arabic language...

When the Arabic says: "hatta 'inna ba`dha qudat il-`adli min 'as'habina mana'ahu min al-'ifta'i bi-ba`dha dhalika" which means: "to the point that some of the judges of probity from among our companions prevented him from giving verdicts in some of that..." They translated "some of the judges" as "one of the judges"!

So, the alleged "prohibition of Fatwa" was limited to the "rare/abnormal issues" dealing specifically with rare/abnormal issues related to theological rhetoric [kalaam] and philosophy. It was not a general prohibition from giving Fatwa.

If anything, this prevention of the Fatawa of Ibn Taymiyyah by any Hanabilah referred to by Ibn Rajab was related to the position of the Salaf to avoid Kalaam and philosophy altogether and to not expose the common Muslims to it. And Ibn Taymiyyah's involvement with it was always related to his rebuttals towards the philosophers and rhetoricians.

This false translation presents readers with the invention that Ibn Taymiyyah was somehow rebuked by Hanbalis for "promoting aberrant matters" and of course they wish that was somehow related, even if only by implication, to his beliefs and creed, when, in fact, it is not.

Terrible.

This is why I can't participate here. Too much distortion for one man to deal with and several people who are the kings of copy & paste with apparently nothing better to do than create hundreds of posts full of awful translations, distorted quotes, and even worse conclusions.

[AbuNajm]

What was their reasoning behind saying "if Allah is not one eyed, then he must have two eyes"?

Just because something isn’t one, it doesn’t necessarily mean it is two. It can be zero.

Al-Hafiz Uthman bin Sa'eed ad-Darimi said that the Hadith of the Dajjal implies that Allah AWJ has Two Eyes way back in the 3rd century Hijri. Every Imam of Aqidah for Ahl as-Sunnah has affirmed that since then.

Don't let these people fool you into thinking this started with Ibn Taymiyyah or Ibn Uthaymeen.

[AbuNajm]

Imam Dhahabi on Ibn Taymiyyah, on how the scholars rejected him, and the ignorant embraced him

Imam Dhahabi said, “If you were to excel in the Principle (al usul) and their affiliates – logic, ethics, philosophy, the sayings of the ancients and the conundrums – all the while protecting yourself with the Book and the Sunnah as well as the doctrines of the Salaf, then joined between reason and transmission, still, I do not think you would reach the level of Ibn Tamiyyah. No by Allah. You would not even come hear it. Yet, I saw what happened to him, how much opposition he faced, desertion, rightful and wrongful declarations of heresy, apostasy, and mendacity! Before he entered into this science (ie Islamic Doctrine), he was shining with light and enlightening others, bearing the marks of the Salaf on his face. Then he became lightless, dark and somber to countless droves of people, a wicked anti-christ and disbeliever according to his enemies, while great numbers of the wise and the elite (ie scholars of Islam), considered him an eminent, brilliant and scholarly innovator (Mubtadi fadil muhaqqiq bari), while the commonality of his uneducated friends, one and all, deemed him the standard-bearer of Islam, the defender of the Religion, and the reviver of the Sunnah.” (Al Dhahabi, Bayan Zaghl al-Ilm)

There are those who considered Imam Dhahabi’s statement fabricated.

And I responded with the following.[LIST=1][*]Imam Sakhawi quotes Bayan Zaghl al Ilm, in this book, al-I`lan, he quotes from al Dhahabi, “Ibn Taymiyya was considered by his enemies to be a wicked Anti-Christ and disbeliever, while great numbers of the wise and the elite considered him an eminent, brilliant, and scholarly innovator (mubtadi` fadil muhaqqiq bari`).”

Why does this matter?, Imam Sakhawi was the student of Al Dhahabi’s son Imam Abu Hurayra. Imam Abu Hurayra ibn al Dhahabi was also the teacher of Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani, and Imam Ibn Nasir al Din al Dimashqi.

That is a very short sanad, al Dhahabi – Abu Hurayra – Sakhawi

Which of these two Imams are you accusing of fabricating this quote from Al Dhahabi?
Al Dhahabi’s Son Imam Abu Hurayra or Imam Sakhawi?

The fact that Imam al-Sakhawi quoted al-Dhahabi verbatim in his al-I’lan is proof that he accepted the authenticity of al-Dhahabi’s attack on Ibn Taymiyya.

This authenticity is amplified by the fact that Imam al Sakhawi was the student of al Dhahabi’s son.

Imam Sakhawi was also the student of Imam Ibn Hajar al Asqalani.

2. There are two works that I am aware of in which al Dhahabi censures Ibn Taymiyyah.

a. Bayan Zaghl al-`Ilm wa al-Talab in which al-Dhahabi states: “Ibn Taymiyya was considered by his enemies to be a wicked Anti-Christ and disbeliever, while great numbers of the wise and the elite considered him an eminent, brilliant, and scholarly innovator (mubtadi` fadil muhaqqiq bari`).”

It's not necessarily a quote fabricated by Shams ad-Deen adh-Dhahabi, but rather a very poor translation leading some biased people to allege an "attack" by the Imam against his Shaykh.

The problem is with the translation underlined and bolded above where Shams ad-Deen adh-Dhahabi is accused of saying that "great numbers of the wise and elite considered him an eminent, brilliant, and scholarly innovator". How does that even make sense?

The original Arabic is:

ثُمَّ صَارَ مُظْلِمًا مَكْسُوفًا عَلَيْهِ قُتْمَةٌ عِنْدَ خَلَائِقَ مِنَ النَّاسِ، وَدَجَّالًا أَفَّاكًا كَافِرًا عِنْدَ أَعْدَائِهِ وَمُبْتَدِعًا، فَاضِلًا مُحَقِّقًا بَارِعًا عِنْدَ طَوَائِفَ مِنْ عُقَلَاءِ الْفُضَلَاءِ، وَحَامِلَ رَايَةِ الْإِسْلَامِ وَحَامِي حَوْزَةِ الدِّينِ وَمُحْيِي السُّنَّةِ عِنْدَ عُمُومِ عَوَامِّ أَصْحَابِهِ".

The term Mubtadi` goes with the previous descriptions of Dajjal, Afak, and Kafir which are attributed to his "enemies". While the terms Fadil, Muhaqqiq, and Bari` are descriptions attributed to 'Ibn Taymiyyah by the "Tawa'if" of the "wise and elite".

There are no connective particles between any of the grouped descriptions in this section of the quote except before the term "Mubtadi`" which indicates it belongs with the previous grouping of descriptions, not the subsequent ones.

Even the editor of this transcript for the Shamela version of this book places punctuation after the term "Mubtadi`" indicating that the previous phrase pauses afterwards. This suggests that the term "Mubtadi`" belongs with the previous descriptions and is separated from what comes next of positive descriptions.

So, it's not an "attack" by Imam adh-Dhahabi on his teacher, Ibn Taymiyyah. Only a bad translation could serve as proof for that.

This is why I never trust these translations or quotes from Mu'attilah and Jahmiyyah when they talk about Aqidah or the Hanabilah.

Several of my chains of transmission for the works of Shams ad-Deen adh-Dhahabi go through this chain of Shams ad-Deen as-Sakhawi and the son of adh-Dhahabi, Imam Abu Hurayrah.

[Rauf]

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

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

What was their reasoning behind saying "if Allah is not one eyed, then he must have two eyes"?

Just because something isn’t one, it doesn’t necessarily mean it is two. It can be zero.

[aMuslimForLife]

Ibn Kathir and Ibn Taymiya Answered by Shaykh Nuh Keller

Questions:

Was Ibn Kathir considered to be part of Ahl al-Sunna by the orthodox community even though he was a student of Ibn Taymiya?

Was Ibn Kathir’s Islamic faith (‘aqida) actually different than Ibn Taymiya’s? If so, on what points? (I will need references.) I know he differed on many fiqh issues, but that is because Ibn Kathir was a Shafi‘i scholar, one such difference being the Mawlid.

Ibn Kathir’s tafsir (Qur’anic exegesis) is widely regarded as one of the great works of tafsir, but doesn’t it contain anthropormorphic assertions about the attributes of Allah Most High? If so, how can we reconcile that with the Ash‘ari and Maturidi positions?

Answer:

Ibn Kathir (d. 774/1373) is a scholar of Ahl al-Sunna who was of the Shafi‘i school (according to the first volume of his main work, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim, 1.2), while Ibn Taymiya (d. 728/1328) was a scholar whose fiqh remained in the general framework of the Hanbali school. Ibn Taymiya’s controversies in tenets of faith (‘aqida) and literalist interpretations of the attributes of Allah were mostly adopted from what had historically been the more anthropomorphic end of the previous spectrum of Hanbali ‘aqida–Hanbali in that some of the followers of this school had these beliefs, not that Ahmad ibn Hanbal in any way supported them or that they were part of his madhhab. They have been resurrected in our times as Salafism or "return to early Islam" by moneyed supporters of the Wahhabi sect, whose differences with Ahl al-Sunna consist almost entirely of the ideas of Ibn Taymiya. In scholarship, Ibn Kathir was a hadith master (hafiz, someone with at least 100,000 hadiths by memory), while Ibn Taymiya was not: his name does not appear in any of the works of tabaqat al-huffaz or "successive generations of hadith masters," that comprehensively document such scholars. Whatever length of time Ibn Kathir studied with Ibn Taymiya, he was in his twenties when the latter died, and his long and fruitful career extended over the next forty-six years.

Alhough I have not read all of Ibn Kathir’s Qur’anic exegesis (tafsir), I have not found in it any traces of Ibn Taymiya’s more unusual positions, the most significant of which, for ‘aqida and Qur’anic exegesis, is his claim that "there is no figurative expression (majaz) in the Qur’an" (Ibn Taymiya: al-Iman, 83), even in the use of such words as ‘hand’, ‘face’, ‘eyes’, ‘shin’, and the like with reference to Allah. He says, "Every word in the Book of Allah and His messenger is conditioned by that which clarifies its meaning, in none of which is there any figurative expression (majaz); rather, all of it is literal (haqiqa)" (ibid., 78). Compare this with what Ibn Kathir says about the verse "Then He ‘was established’ (istawa) upon the Throne" (Qur’an 7:54), (istawa here rendered as "was established" not by way of definitive interpretation, but rather out of need to answer the question):

People have many positions on this matter, and this is not the place to present them at length. On this point, we follow the position of the early Muslims (salaf)–Malik, Awza‘i, Thawri, Layth ibn Sa‘d, Shafi‘i, Ahmad, Ishaq ibn Rahawayh, as well as others among the Imams of the Muslims, ancient and modern–namely, to let the verse pass as it has come, without saying how it is meant (bi la takyif), without any resemblance to created things (wa la tashbih), and without nullifying it (wa la ta‘til): the literal outward meaning (dhahir) that comes to the minds of anthropomorphists (al-mushabbihin) is negated of Allah [italics mine], for nothing created has any resemblance to Him: "There is nothing whatsoever like unto Him, and He is the All-hearing, the All-seeing" (Qur’an 42:11) (Ibn Kathir: Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim, 2.220).

This is precisely the position of tafwid or "consigning the knowledge of what is really meant by such scriptural expressions to Allah" that Ash‘aris like Imam Nawawi and many others held concerning such verses. It cannot be lost on you how far Ibn Kathir is from anthropomorphism, and I haven’t found anything else in his tafsir that suggests he followed the ideas of Ibn Taymiya or his student Ibn Qayyim in the literalism that gives the impression of likening Allah to created things. And Allah knows best.

[aMuslimForLife]

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.


As for those not understanding Arabic, then I also recommend watching this video by the
Shaykh Yusuf Sadiq al-Hanbali [in English] regarding Ibn Taymiyya's position in the Hanbali Madhhab:

Note that both Shuyukh respect the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya and regard him as one of the great scholars within the Madhhab, but they do not exaggerate regarding him - as the modern day "Salafis unfortunately do - and do not follow his abnormal views, rather they take from all of the scholars of the Hanbali Madhhab and follow that which is relied upon in the Madhhab.
In fact some people even call Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid al-Hanbali as the "walking Muntaha al-Iradat on earth" (which is a famous Hanbali book), because of his strict adherence to the relied upon (mu'tamad) positions within the Hanbali Madhhab.
(I've personally changed my negative view towards the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya since I'm listening to him and are more neutral towards Ibn Taymiyya since then. For me he's like the Shaykh Ibn 'Arabi: Both scholars have been attributed with wrong beliefs, but where at the same time defended by scholars who had no such wrong beliefs.)

For those who are interested learning more about the Hanbali / Athari approach to beliefs:
You'll find speeches of Shaykh Muhammad al-Sayyid al-Azhari al-Hanbali (teacher at al-Azhar al-sharif!) on youtube regarding Lum'at al-I'tiqad and Qala`id al-'Iqyan and other known books on youtube.


Some last points which I would like to mention:
- Why is it that the classical Hanbali / Athari books mentioned in the first post (which are all for the purpose of teaching!) are not teached by "Salafis"?
(The only exception is Lum'at al-I'tiqad, but even then they do not teach the book like that but rather teach it with their own explanations, which contains rejecting major points made by the author (like his statement regarding Tafwidh or his statement that the Qur`an is eternal and other than that). And at the same time they do NOT regard it as sufficient in creed (which is the name of the book!), because it does not contain a single word regarding those issues upon which they [falsely] accuse other Muslims of polytheism and disbelief.)
- Why is it that when they print such books, they add footnotes to it and attack the statements made in these books on almost every page?

The answer is clear:
Because they do not follow the Hanbali / Athari approach to beliefs!

Shaykh Yusuf Bin Sadiq al Hanbali is the real deal. He is an Athari par excellence. I'm taking a couple of classes with him, and he is very knowledgeable across the board. He knows Salafi Aqida as Salafis understand it, he knows Ashari Aqida as Asharis understand it. And he knows Athari Aqida as he is Athari with an unbroken chain back to Imam Ahmad. He is well read.

For those who would like to learn real Athari Aqida, seek him out on facebook and join his classes.

[BintFulaan]

Wa 'alaykum al-salam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh,

Usul al-Sunna by Imam Ahmad (d. 241 AH) himself is good and easy to understand.
Al-I'tiqad al-Qadiri by the 'Abbasi Khalifa al-Qadir billah (d. 422 AH) is also good and was supported by the Hanabila in general and on top of them by al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la (d. 458 AH).

There are also other works, but they are not that easy.
__________



These are the relevant quotes in this thread here until now:

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


Table of contents (until 30-1-2021):


- Opening post: Some books and treatises that represent mainstream Hanbali creed and the mentioning of those who don't represent them

- Comparison between the beliefs of Hanbalis with Ash'aris and Maturidis from one side and the "Salafis" from another side

- From Imam Ahmad to Ibn Qudama to al-Saffarini: Tafwidh is the correct way! (Part 1)
- From Imam Ahmad to Ibn Qudama to al-Saffarini: Tafwidh is the correct way! (Part 2)
- From Imam Ahmad to Ibn Qudama to al-Saffarini: Tafwidh is the correct way! (Part 3)

- Belief of early Hanabila from Tabaqat al-Hanabila (Part 1)
- Belief of early Hanabila from Tabaqat al-Hanabila (Part 2)
- Belief of early Hanabila from Tabaqat al-Hanabila (Part 3)
- Belief of early Hanabila from Tabaqat al-Hanabila (Part 4)
- Belief of early Hanabila from Tabaqat al-Hanabila (Part 5)

- Mainstream Hanbalis: Allah is beyond space and time and His existence is non-bodily one
- Hanbali position (as in al-Mu'tamad): All bodies are emergent and therefore created and the corporealists are disbelievers

- Imam Ibn Qudama's rejection of Tajsim

- Hanbali position regarding 'Uluw and Istiwa` as mentioned by Imam Ibn Hamdan (short quote)
- Hanbali position regarding the divine 'Uluw, Istiwa and Nuzul as mentioned by Imam Ibn Hamdan (long quote)
- The difference of Hanbalis and Ash'aris on Istiwa` and 'Uluw as mentioned by al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la

- 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

- 'Allama al-Saffarini: Tafwidh al-Ma'na is the correct way and the Ahl al-Sunna are three groups and Yad is a divine attribute and not a limb
- 'Allama al-Saffarini: Allah is not composed of parts and the three dimensions do not apply to Him
- Three reliable books of creed that the 'Allama al-Saffarini teached himself

- Rejecting or affirming the expression of direction and the verification of this issue as explained by Shaykh al-Gharsi

- The exact difference of Ash'aris and Hanbalis in Tafwidh
- Ash'ari and Hanbali agreement on Tafwidh and disagreement on Ta`wil
- Hanbali explanation of the issue of "letter and sound"

- Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid on the historical dispute between Ash'aris and Hanbalis
- Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid: Hanbali position regarding Ash'aris in comparison to their position regarding Najdis
- Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid: The arrogance and foolishness of the Nabita ("Salafis")!
- Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid regarding the chaos and confusion that "Salafis" have caused
- Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid and his defence of al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la
- Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid: The position of a Madhhab is what their adherents have stated in their books and not what others claim against them

- Hanbali Madhhab Q & A session by Shaykh Yusuf Sadiq al-Hanbali

- Shaykh al-'Awni: I wish I would be an Ash'ari like al-Baqillani!
- Shaykh al-'Awni: Tafwidh is the Madhhab of the Salaf and the difference between Ash'aris and Hanbalis in the foundations of creed are only in wording!

- The different directions of the Hanabila regarding creed

- Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid regarding the difference between Hanbalis and the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya on Tafwidh; Shaykh Yusuf Sadiq regarding Ibn Taymiyya's position in the Hanbali Madhhab



- How Ibn Taymiyya left the way of his mainstream Hanbali forefathers
- Ibn Taymiyya's distinction between Sifat Ma'nawiyya and Sifat 'Ayniyya

- Ibn 'Uthaymin ("Salafi"): There is some degree of similarity between the Creator and the creation vs. the Hanbali response
- Ibn 'Uthaymin's claim: al-Saffarini is wrong and declaring God to be transcendent from being a body is not allowed
- Ibn 'Uthaymin: Al-Saffarini is upon polytheism in lordship and divinity; Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab: Al-Saffarini, his teachers and his students did not know Islam!
- Ibn 'Uthaymin and his broken chain of knowledge
- Ibn 'Uthyamin turning the 'Ayn of Allah into the tool of seeing
- Ibn 'Uthaymin: God has ONLY two eyes and IF He would have MORE eyes, then this would be MORE perfect!
- Putting the puzzles together regarding the Tashbih of Ibn 'Uthaymin

- "Salafi" Mashayikh admitting that Imam Ibn Qudama was from the people of Tafwidh
- "Salafi" belief regarding Istiwa` and 'Uluw; Ibn 'Uthaymin's interpretaton of Istiwa` as Istiqrar (settlement)
- "Salafis" accuse classical Hanbalis of "treason" and "misrepresenting" Imam Ahmad's creed




Additional posts:

- Imam al-Tahawi: Islamic understanding of the Tawhid of Allah ta'ala (very recommended)
- Imam al-Tahawi: Our belief in the divine attributes

- How to understand the texts regarding the divine attributes and the different Sunni positions as mentioned by Imam al-Nawawi
- The way of the early Muslims regarding the divine attributes according to Imam al-Khattabi

- What's the safest view regarding our belief in the Tawhid of Allah ta'ala?

- Meaning of Jism in the language and in terminology

- Imam al-Qurtubi's Takfir upon those affirming the literal meaning of the Mutashabihat
- Regarding those who claim to worship the Creator, but do not know Him in reality
- The importance of denying corporeality regarding the Creator

- Note on al-Azhar and the closing down of the schools of the 4 Madhahib on the Arabian peninsula by Najdis and "Salafis"
- Another defense of al-Azhar al-sharif and the Hanabila connected to them

- The Legal Ruling Upon Those who Undermine the Ash’aris: Imam Ibn Rushd al-Jadd [al-Maliki] (d. 520 AH)

(There are other interesting posts in this thread, but the above are the most relevant ones.)

I've taken Usool as-Sunnah before but based upon or with the explanation of Salafis. I will have to read it again without their explanation this time insha'Allah. I haven't heard of the other work mentioned and will definitely have a look insha'Allah. If you have or remember any other recommendations, then this is always welcome insha'Allah.

Thanks for the table contents, they help a lot.
جزاكم الله خيرا

[Abu Sulayman]

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته
Abu Sulayman I was wondering if you have any recommendations for 'Aqeedah books that are from early Hanbali scholars and are easy to understand by laymen like myself insha'Allah?

Wa 'alaykum al-salam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh,

Usul al-Sunna by Imam Ahmad (d. 241 AH) himself is good and easy to understand.
Al-I'tiqad al-Qadiri by the 'Abbasi Khalifa al-Qadir billah (d. 422 AH) is also good and was supported by the Hanabila in general and on top of them by al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la (d. 458 AH).

There are also other works, but they are not that easy.
__________



These are the relevant quotes in this thread here until now:

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


Table of contents (until 30-1-2021):


- Opening post: Some books and treatises that represent mainstream Hanbali creed and the mentioning of those who don't represent them

- Comparison between the beliefs of Hanbalis with Ash'aris and Maturidis from one side and the "Salafis" from another side

- From Imam Ahmad to Ibn Qudama to al-Saffarini: Tafwidh is the correct way! (Part 1)
- From Imam Ahmad to Ibn Qudama to al-Saffarini: Tafwidh is the correct way! (Part 2)
- From Imam Ahmad to Ibn Qudama to al-Saffarini: Tafwidh is the correct way! (Part 3)

- Belief of early Hanabila from Tabaqat al-Hanabila (Part 1)
- Belief of early Hanabila from Tabaqat al-Hanabila (Part 2)
- Belief of early Hanabila from Tabaqat al-Hanabila (Part 3)
- Belief of early Hanabila from Tabaqat al-Hanabila (Part 4)
- Belief of early Hanabila from Tabaqat al-Hanabila (Part 5)

- Mainstream Hanbalis: Allah is beyond space and time and His existence is non-bodily one
- Hanbali position (as in al-Mu'tamad): All bodies are emergent and therefore created and the corporealists are disbelievers

- Imam Ibn Qudama's rejection of Tajsim

- Hanbali position regarding 'Uluw and Istiwa` as mentioned by Imam Ibn Hamdan (short quote)
- Hanbali position regarding the divine 'Uluw, Istiwa and Nuzul as mentioned by Imam Ibn Hamdan (long quote)
- The difference of Hanbalis and Ash'aris on Istiwa` and 'Uluw as mentioned by al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la

- 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

- 'Allama al-Saffarini: Tafwidh al-Ma'na is the correct way and the Ahl al-Sunna are three groups and Yad is a divine attribute and not a limb
- 'Allama al-Saffarini: Allah is not composed of parts and the three dimensions do not apply to Him
- Three reliable books of creed that the 'Allama al-Saffarini teached himself

- Rejecting or affirming the expression of direction and the verification of this issue as explained by Shaykh al-Gharsi

- The exact difference of Ash'aris and Hanbalis in Tafwidh
- Ash'ari and Hanbali agreement on Tafwidh and disagreement on Ta`wil
- Hanbali explanation of the issue of "letter and sound"

- Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid on the historical dispute between Ash'aris and Hanbalis
- Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid: Hanbali position regarding Ash'aris in comparison to their position regarding Najdis
- Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid: The arrogance and foolishness of the Nabita ("Salafis")!
- Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid regarding the chaos and confusion that "Salafis" have caused
- Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid and his defence of al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la
- Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid: The position of a Madhhab is what their adherents have stated in their books and not what others claim against them

- Hanbali Madhhab Q & A session by Shaykh Yusuf Sadiq al-Hanbali

- Shaykh al-'Awni: I wish I would be an Ash'ari like al-Baqillani!
- Shaykh al-'Awni: Tafwidh is the Madhhab of the Salaf and the difference between Ash'aris and Hanbalis in the foundations of creed are only in wording!

- The different directions of the Hanabila regarding creed

- Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid regarding the difference between Hanbalis and the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya on Tafwidh; Shaykh Yusuf Sadiq regarding Ibn Taymiyya's position in the Hanbali Madhhab



- How Ibn Taymiyya left the way of his mainstream Hanbali forefathers
- Ibn Taymiyya's distinction between Sifat Ma'nawiyya and Sifat 'Ayniyya

- Ibn 'Uthaymin ("Salafi"): There is some degree of similarity between the Creator and the creation vs. the Hanbali response
- Ibn 'Uthaymin's claim: al-Saffarini is wrong and declaring God to be transcendent from being a body is not allowed
- Ibn 'Uthaymin: Al-Saffarini is upon polytheism in lordship and divinity; Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab: Al-Saffarini, his teachers and his students did not know Islam!
- Ibn 'Uthaymin and his broken chain of knowledge
- Ibn 'Uthyamin turning the 'Ayn of Allah into the tool of seeing
- Ibn 'Uthaymin: God has ONLY two eyes and IF He would have MORE eyes, then this would be MORE perfect!
- Putting the puzzles together regarding the Tashbih of Ibn 'Uthaymin

- "Salafi" Mashayikh admitting that Imam Ibn Qudama was from the people of Tafwidh
- "Salafi" belief regarding Istiwa` and 'Uluw; Ibn 'Uthaymin's interpretaton of Istiwa` as Istiqrar (settlement)
- "Salafis" accuse classical Hanbalis of "treason" and "misrepresenting" Imam Ahmad's creed




Additional posts:

- Imam al-Tahawi: Islamic understanding of the Tawhid of Allah ta'ala (very recommended)
- Imam al-Tahawi: Our belief in the divine attributes

- How to understand the texts regarding the divine attributes and the different Sunni positions as mentioned by Imam al-Nawawi
- The way of the early Muslims regarding the divine attributes according to Imam al-Khattabi

- What's the safest view regarding our belief in the Tawhid of Allah ta'ala?

- Meaning of Jism in the language and in terminology

- Imam al-Qurtubi's Takfir upon those affirming the literal meaning of the Mutashabihat
- Regarding those who claim to worship the Creator, but do not know Him in reality
- The importance of denying corporeality regarding the Creator

- Note on al-Azhar and the closing down of the schools of the 4 Madhahib on the Arabian peninsula by Najdis and "Salafis"
- Another defense of al-Azhar al-sharif and the Hanabila connected to them

- The Legal Ruling Upon Those who Undermine the Ash’aris: Imam Ibn Rushd al-Jadd [al-Maliki] (d. 520 AH)

(There are other interesting posts in this thread, but the above are the most relevant ones.)

[BintFulaan]

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته
Abu Sulayman I was wondering if you have any recommendations for 'Aqeedah books that are from early Hanbali scholars and are easy to understand by laymen like myself insha'Allah?