The Intra-Sunni Divide: A history of the schools of Aqeedah wrt Sifat

[Muhammad Hasan]

Of course I affirm that Allah sees and hears!

Subhanallah, I leave this debate. No point discussing this with you. Take the advice of Ibn Kathir Rahimullah, Ibn Taymiyyah Rahimullah's student:

People have said a great deal on this topic and this is not the place to expound on what they have said. On this matter, we follow the Salaf: Malik, Awza'i, Thawri, Layth ibn Sa'd, Shafi'i, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ishaq Ibn Rahwayh, and others among the Imams of the Muslims, both ancient and modern that is, to let (the verse in question) pass as it has come, without saying how it is meant (min ghayr takyif), without likening it to created things (wa la tashbih), and without nullifying it (wa la ta'til): The literal (Zahir) meaning that occurs to the minds of anthropomorphists (al-mushabbihin) is negated of Allah, for nothing from His creation resembles Him: "There is nothing whatsoever like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing"

- Statement of Ibn Kathir Rahimullah in Tafsir al-Quran al-Azim, Vol 6, p.320

[Muhammad Hasan]

Subhanallah, I leave this debate. No point discussing this with you. Take the advice of Ibn Kathir Rahimullah, Ibn Taymiyyah Rahimullah's student:

To clarify, when I said Subhanallah I intend to show I am in agreement for Allah does see and hear, my point of not discussing this is related to what he stated above that.

[Abu 'Abdullaah]

Subhanallah, I leave this debate. No point discussing this with you. Take the advice of Ibn Kathir Rahimullah, Ibn Taymiyyah Rahimullah's student:

Thanks, I think I already follow that advice.

[Muhammad Hasan]

Please explain how you interpreted/translated the words highlighted in red.

I will just quote Tafsir Ibn Kathir:

Allah states that the Jews, may Allah's continuous curses descend on them until the Day of Resurrection, describe Him as a miser. Allah is far holier than what they attribute to Him. The Jews also claim that Allah is ppor, while they are rich. 'Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn Abbas commented on Allah's statement,

(" وَقَالَت� ٱلۡيَ��ود� يَد� ٱللَّه� مَغۡل�ولَةٌ‌ۚ")

("The Jews say, Allah's [Yad] is tied up.")

"They do not mean that Allah's [Yad] is literally tied up. Rather, they mean that he is a miser and does not spend from what he has. Allah is far holier than what they attribute to Him." Similar was reported from Mujahid, Ikrimah, Qatadah, As-Suddi and Ad-Dahhak.

- Tafsir Ibn Kathir, 10 Vols. English, Vol. 1, p. 221

Note: I dislike that the Saudi-based Darussalam has translated the Arabic Yad from Ibn Kathir's tafsir as "hand" so I have replaced it in blue. Yad is known linguistically, but not intepreted, it is an attribute of Allah and its nature is known to him.

[Muhammad Hasan]

After contemplating Abu Abdullah's comments, I have realised what his confusions are about.

Two Aspects - Verse and Attribute

There are two aspects we are talking about - the verse and the attribute. Example would be Surah Maidah, Verse 7:

And the Jews say, "The [Yad] of Allah is chained." Chained are their hands, and cursed are they for what they say. Rather, both His [Yadahu] are extended; He spends however He wills. And that which has been revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase many of them in transgression and disbelief. And We have cast among them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. Every time they kindled the fire of war [against you], Allah extinguished it. And they strive throughout the land [causing] corruption, and Allah does not like corrupters.

(Sahih International's Interpretation of al-Quran, Surah al-Ma'idah, verse 64, with my changing of the interpretation of some words to english transliteration of the Arabic in blue.)

First let us deal with the Attribute, Yad, mentioned in the verse.

The Attribute

Ibn `Asâkir wrote:

The Mu`tazila said: He has a Yad but His Yad is his power (qudra) and favor (ni`ma), while His wajh is His existence. The Hashwiyya said: His Yad is a jâriha, and His Wajh has a sûra. Al-Ash`arî took the middle road and said: His Yad is an Attribute and His Wajh is an Attribute, just like His hearing and His sight.

There are three possible things you can say about this word "Yad":

1. It is Allah's Power or Favor.
2. It is a limb (unlike our limbs).
3. It is an attribute (similar to his hearing and sight)

To say number 1, to say Yad is his power or favor (i.e. to do figurative tawil of the attribute) is Ta'til, rejection of the attribute. Allah has ascribed the Yad to himself saying Yadullah so it is impermissible to negate any reality to Yad. This is the position of the Mu'atillah e.g. Mutazilites/Jahmiyyah etc.

To say number 2, to say Yad is a limb he has (though it is unlike our limbs) is a blameworthy innovation and moreover it is likening Allah to his creation, it is Tasbih. This is the position of the Mushabihah e.g. Mujasimmah/Hashwiyyah etc.

To say number 3, that it is an attribute Bi La Kayf (without howness) is the correct position. One can also say Bi La Kayfa Wa La Ma'na as said by some late Atharis (negating meaning to the attribute - meaning as in an interpretation of what/how it is), but technically this is not required as if one negates Ta'til and Tasbih then one negates the two forms of Tawil of the attribute (figurative and literal) which implies La Ma'na anyway.

So to make it clear Ahlus Sunnah hold any interpretation (Ta'wil) of the Attribute (not the verse) is prohibited, whether figurative (Batin) or literal (Zahir).

Ahlus Sunnah, i.e. the Maturidis, the Asharis and the Atharis are united upon saying that Yad is an attribute of Allah, the divine reality of which is with him.

The Verse

This is where the schools of Ahlus Sunnah differ.

How do we deal with Surah al-Ma'idah, verse 64?

There are three ways of dealing with it.

1. Tafwid: To say we do not know what it means/ we do not interpret it and so pass over the verse. A layperson naturally does this with verses of the Quran he doesn't understand anyway. Tafwid means to literally consign the meaning/interpretation to Allah.
2. Figurative Tawil: To give an interpretation of the verse within the confines of the Arabic language that is metaphorical or symbolic that can be understood from the verse.
3. Literal Tawil: To give an interpretation of the verse likening the attribute in it to a human body part.

All three schools agree upon the first point, point 1 - Tafwid, even the Imam Abu Mansur al-Maturidi Rahimullah does Tafwid some times.

But the difference is over the second one, point 2 - Figurative Tawil.


The Athari school prohibits this, saying only do Tafwid and pass over the verse. They have held this position throughout history.

The Maturidi school permits this and e.g. Imam Maturidi Rahimullah will do Ta'wil of Surah al-Ma'idah, verse 64. They have held this position throughout history.

The Early Ashari school prohibited this (the likes of Imam Abu Hasan al-Ashari Rahimullah himself, al-Ghazali Rahimullah etc.), but the late Ashari school permits and does this (the likes of Imam an-Nawawi Rahimullah). The Ashari school seems to have changed their position to reflect the changing nature of deviancy since the early period of the Ummah.


All three schools agree upon their position with regards to point 3, i.e. it is prohibited as it is likening Allah to his creation. Moreover, it does not matter if you state "Yad is his attribute" if you will just go ahead and make a literal interpretation of the verse surrounding it anyway.

Examples of Ulama who did Tawil of the verses of Mutashabihat:
The Sahabi Ibn Abbas Radiyallahu An, Imam at-Tabari Rahimullah (an early example after the Sahabah), Imam Abu Mansur al-Maturidi Rahimullah (same period as al-Tabari Rahimullah), Ibn Kathir Rahimullah and an-Nawawi.

What is Ibn Taymiyyah Rahimullah's position?

I will not misrepresent his position, I will ask people of this forum who ascribe to his position e.g. TazkiyyatunNafs to clarify to me his position in the same manner I have clarified the position of the three schools of Ahlus Sunnah i.e. with regards to the Attribute itself and the Verse.

Jazakallah, Insha'Allah we can have a good discussion, not debate, on this where you present your views.

[Abu 'Abdullaah]

After contemplating Abu Abdullah's comments, I have realised what his confusions are about...

Projecting your own insecurities onto others again? Look, I know you think you're some kind of academic but you can't display arrogance like this and pretend to be humble at the same time.

[Abu 'Abdullaah]

I will just quote Tafsir Ibn Kathir:



Note: I dislike that the Saudi-based Darussalam has translated the Arabic Yad from Ibn Kathir's tafsir as "hand" so I have replaced it in blue. Yad is known linguistically, but not intepreted, it is an attribute of Allah and its nature is known to him.

Another meaningless reply brought to you by Muhammad Hasan.

[TazkiyyatunNafs]

... Having said that I don't wish to discuss this topic with you any further for the same reason I mentioned to Abu Sulayman and some additional ones. Wa Allaahu a3lam.

I said that in my last reply to you, which you didn't reply back. Discuss, debate it's all the same to me. I see no benefit in it and thus should refrain, even if I were to have a response to what you say. As for the additional reasons I mentioned above then I'll take this opportunity to expound on it, since you tagged me in your comment asking for a discussion.

I mentioned that Abu Sulayman and I hold different beliefs. I've seen some of his threads on this topic and based on that think it's of no benefit to discuss this with him since he seems very grounded in his beliefs and it would just be an endless going back and forth of things we interpret and understand differently. I see no khayr in that, just a waste of time. The same goes for you at this point. However, I don't see you the same as Abu Sulayman. I think you're making additional errors and I don't like your style of debating.

As for the errors, then what I mean by that is the following.
You tried to reject my quote because you saw Shaykh Fawzaan as an unreliable transmitter, yet posted a lecture to defend your opinion by someone who has deviated in matters of Aqeedah in your own opinion nonetheless. Then you're giving me a lecture about trustworthiness and taking things from people who's status is unknown trying to justify why you rejected the quote I shared, even though you yourself totally disregarded any of that when you posted from Yasir Qadhi. You try to apply principles on me and Salafis, while you yourself disregard them.

As for your style of debating, then I don't think you realise you're doing it. You try to display great manners and conduct, but in reality, in between the lines you're a bit passive aggressive and over the top in some of your approaches. You come with things like oaths, assumptions and other than that. All that in between the extra soft talk. I ignored and excused most of it since I don't think you're aware of it and I think it stems out of ignorance in some cases, but in addition to the standards you set for others while not holding on to them yourself like the point I mentioned above, your debating style becomes simply put a bit annoying. It also contains a lot of kalaam that I'm not interested in. Like trying to come up with a solution on how to make a mubtadi come to Ahlus-Sunnah while Ahlul-Bid3ah teaches him not to listen to others, "how can we reach such a person?" Which is funny you tried to apply that just a few comments ago to me. Especially considering the things you displayed on this thread that actually fit some of the discriptions you gave of this person. But I digress..

In the end I only blame myself for entertaining any of this. I'm the fool responding in the first place, since time can better be spend elsewhere and I should practice what I preach. And in the end Muhammad, I don't have anything personal against you as all of this is not personal in my eyes at all.

[Muhammad Hasan]

Projecting your own insecurities onto others again? Look, I know you think you're some kind of academic but you can't display arrogance like this and pretend to be humble at the same time.

If I could remove it I would, but the edit button seems to dissappear after some time.

[Abu 'Abdullaah]

If I could remove it I would, but the edit button seems to dissappear after some time.

If only we could erase our deeds, eh...

[aMuslimForLife]

If I could remove it I would, but the edit button seems to dissappear after some time.

Your arguments makes more sense than Abu Abdullah. I don't think it is necessary remove your post. But I would like to discuss some of these positions with you.

[aMuslimForLife]

so your beliefs haven't changed since the time of the sahabah radiallaho anhum. Does that mean the sahabah held the asharriyah position

Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah is comprised of Shafi, Maliki, Hanafi, and Hanbali scholars. These scholars are the preservers of corpus of Sunni Islam, Quran, Hadith, Usul, Arabic, etc etc.. These scholars not only developed these sciences, they were also instrumental in developing the science of Aqida.

In modern times, there are three main schools of Aqida from Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah. Asharis, Maturidis and Atharis. These three schools came from the Salafus Salih, which include the Sahaba, the Tabieen and the Tabi Tabieen, those early Muslims scholars that followed them.

Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah collectively made statements of belief which the Sahaba did not.

For example:

That the Speech of Allah is uncreated. There is no difference of opinion among the Asharis, Maturidis and Atharis concerning this. Yet, Sahaba never taught this.

There is ijithad in Aqida. Ijtihad exist in Aqida because, controversies arose after the time of the Sahaba, that scholars felt compelled to respond to. And not all Sunni scholars agreed on how to respond to these controversies, thus these schools of Aqida, developed.

Concerning the Speech of Allah.

The Late Asharis school, teach that Allah Speaks without letters and sounds. The Sahaba did not teach this, and the Early Ashari school, did not delve into this. However this is what I learned from modern day Ashari Shaykhs
A strand of Late Athari school, teach, that Allah speaks with letters and sounds. The Sahaba did not teach this and the Early Hanbali school, did not delve into this. However this is what I learned from modern day Salafi Shaykhs

Imam Tahawi said, "The Quran is the Speech of Allah that emanated from Him without, howness in its expression."

I've studied with Ashari Shaykhs and Salafi Shaykhs. However, on this particular issue, I follow Imam Tahawi position, which seems sounder to me.

BOTH ASHARIS and SALAFIS say things about Allah that the Sahaba never said. You have to be fair and truthful brother.

And Allah knows best.

[Muhammad Hasan]

Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah is comprised of Shafi, Maliki, Hanafi, and Hanbali scholars. These scholars are the preservers of corpus of Sunni Islam, Quran, Hadith, Usul, Arabic, etc etc.. These scholars not only developed these sciences, they were also instrumental in developing the science of Aqida.

In modern times, there are three main schools of Aqida from Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah. Asharis, Maturidis and Atharis. These three schools came from the Salafus Salih, which include the Sahaba, the Tabieen and the Tabi Tabieen, those early Muslims scholars that followed them.

Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah collectively made statements of belief which the Sahaba did not.

For example:

That the Speech of Allah is uncreated. There is no difference of opinion among the Asharis, Maturidis and Atharis concerning this. Yet, Sahaba never taught this.

There is ijithad in Aqida. Ijtihad exist in Aqida because, controversies arose after the time of the Sahaba, that scholars felt compelled to respond to. And not all Sunni scholars agreed on how to respond to these controversies, thus these schools of Aqida, developed.

Concerning the Speech of Allah.

The Late Asharis school, teach that Allah Speaks without letters and sounds. The Sahaba did not teach this, and the Early Ashari school, did not delve into this. However this is what I learned from modern day Ashari Shaykhs
A strand of Late Athari school, teach, that Allah speaks with letters and sounds. The Sahaba did not teach this and the Early Hanbali school, did not delve into this. However this is what I learned from modern day Salafi Shaykhs

Imam Tahawi said, "The Quran is the Speech of Allah that emanated from Him without, howness in its expression."

I've studied with Ashari Shaykhs and Salafi Shaykhs. However, on this particular issue, I follow Imam Tahawi position, which seems sounder to me.

BOTH ASHARIS and SALAFIS say things about Allah that the Sahaba never said. You have to be fair and truthful brother.

And Allah knows best.

There's a number of things you have stated that I disagree with, mostly the way you frame the way the schools of Aqeedah have developed.

I maintain two schools of Aqeedah have not really changed much or at all since conception (the Maturidi and Athari schools), and I believe the Ashari school only changed due to the changing nature of the opposition.

Also something you might not realise is that issues regarding the letters and sounds etc. are valid ikhtilaf according to Ahlus Sunnah.

But nevertheless, I would love to discuss these things with you. I will open a new thread where I will discuss my findings and feelings having listened to a traditional Athari and read Ibn Taymiyyah Rahimullah's creed.

- Salam

[aMuslimForLife]

There's a number of things you have stated that I disagree with, mostly the way you frame the way the schools of Aqeedah have developed.

I maintain two schools of Aqeedah have not really changed much or at all since conception (the Maturidi and Athari schools), and I believe the Ashari school only changed due to the changing nature of the opposition.

Also something you might not realise is that issues regarding the letters and sounds etc. are valid ikhtilaf according to Ahlus Sunnah.

But nevertheless, I would love to discuss these things with you. I will open a new thread where I will discuss my findings and feelings having listened to a traditional Athari and read Ibn Taymiyyah Rahimullah's creed.

- Salam

What about Ashari school do you disagree about?

[aMuslimForLife]

[U]Lists of some scholars representing each School/Sect[/LIST]
Ashari School - Early

• Imam Ahlus Sunnah Abu Hasan al-Ashari Rahimullah
• al-Baqillani Rahimullah
• al-Bayhaqi Rahimullah
• al-Juwayni Rahimullah (rejected Tawil at the end of his life)
• Hujjat al-Islam al-Ghazali Rahimullah
• and many more.

Ashari School - Late[LIST][*]Fakr-ad-din al-Razi Rahimullah[*]an-Nawawi Rahimullah[*]Qadi Ayyad Rahimullah[*]al-Zamakhshari Rahimullah[*]Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani Rahimullah[*]Yusuf an-Nabhani Rahimullah[*]and many more.

Why do you class the early school and late school, in this fashion?

Qadi Iyad

It is my understanding that Qadi Iyad followed a unique school of Aqida called Muwahidoon separate from the Ashari. The Malikis were introduced to the Ashari school by Ibn Arabi al Maliki. This is my understanding.

(Early)

Imam al Ashari followed Tafwid.
Imam al Baqillani introduced Tawil to the Ashari school.
Imam al Bayhaqi
Imam al Juwayni

(Late)
Imam al Ghazali (I would include him part of the late school because his text is still studied)
Imam al Sanusi
Imam al Bajuri
Imam Ibrahim al Laqqani
Imam Ahmad al Dardir
Imam Taftazani

I would include the Muhaditheen and Mufasireen, as they preserved the Athari part of the Ashari school.

Imam al Nawawi, Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani, Imam Qurtubi, Imam al Alusi, Imam Fakr al Din al Razi part of the late school.

And Allah knows best.