Upbringing and Salafism

[TheHaqq]

The proof for me we are not upon the same beliefs as me is you have not once negated a physical place, physical direction, physical dimension etc. for Allah. You have not once negated size, boundary etc. You struggle to deny Hadd and hold onto it. Quoting the negation of Hadd by earlier authorities, Shaykh Abu Jafar al-Hanbali says, "it is clear the god of the Salafis is not the same as our God" (quoting from memory, non-verbatim)

Follow the path of Imam at-Tahawi and negate contingencies for Allah. Then we have no doubt over your views - and this is the path of Imam Ahmad and the Salaf. This is the path reported of Imam Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah:



And also reported of him:



(Also quoted in other works of Aqeedah e.g. Aqeedah Nasafiyyah etc.)


Allah is the transcendent God, there is not Lord or Divinity but Him, Huwa Rab al-'Ala.

I do not believe that Allah is in a physical direction or that size and space applies to him.

Does any athari believe that? Show me clear quotes if they do.

[Muhammad Hasan]

Ye I'm surprised there's no reference.

Well my view is, using the term hadd is fine depending on what you intend, just like using the word jism is fine depending on what you intend.

Similar to affirming a hand for Allah, yes the Quran says it, but does that mean it cannot be interpreted in a tajseemi way? Of course not.

And your 'view' must be changed. You are taking terms used by the innovators for Tajsim and allowing their use contextually. The use of such terms is prohibited, and we negate what they connote.

Now there is no Hadd (in that sense) nor Jism in the Qur'an nor the Sunnah of the Prophet Alayhis Salatu Was-Salam. Why are you treating it as if it is some kind of divine attribute? All we have reliably from the Salaf is negation of it.

Jism is a term used to mean "body". According to the ignorant one I am quoting in the other thread (from the website AboveTheThrone), it was used by the Aristotelians for any entity. The Aristotelians are Kuffar. We do not use such a term as they use it or at all and prohibit its use. Investigating its meaning is only done to determine whether the one uttering such a thing has uttered innovation or disbelief. It is innovation if he did not intend Tajsim and it is Kufr if he did.

Instead the one who uses that term should be educated not to use it and then he should use the term "Shay" instead - this is an acceptable term used by the scholars to denote an entity (thing). Allah is not a body unlike bodies (that is disbelief or innovation depending on what the ignorant one who says this means). Allah is a thing unlike anything else.

You realise that the scholars who defend the use of that term - Jism meant to use it to defend the Karramiyyah and other anthropomorphist sects from the (correct) accusation of innovation and disbelief?

I mean why do we even call the Mujassimah heretics in the first place?

Because they affirm Jism. So you must say now "The Mujassimah are not all heretics, rather if they intend x.." - that is ridiculous and opening the door to misunderstanding on both sides (e.g. the other scholars will now accuse you of Tajsim and when you teach such things and use it amongst yourselves you can confuse people until people do believe in Tajsim)

When such a term is taught to the layperson, he will understand it in the intuitive manner it is understood - I.e. as a corporeality.

And the word Tajsim itself is of the same root of Jism and Mujassimah - so are you going to say "Not all Tajsim is bad, rather when they intend x or y..."

In fact we can use this exact same logic to accept absolutely any anthropomorphic term for Allah - e.g. "Allah has physical dimension" oh but what I mean by physical is x and what I mean by dimension is y... That is complete nonesense. The meaning of Jism is not Shay - the one who says this is ignorant of the Arabic language! May Allah's wrath be upon any Aristotelians who spread this nonesense.

This is what you get when you people cut yourself off from the Sunni scholars of Kalam and then try and attempt to do Kalam yourselves - you go into the books of the Kuffar greeks and their blind aristotelian followers like Ibn Sina and think everything in there and all there terminology is what is used in Kalam. Rather the terminology they use has Kufr in it - we do not use the words and terminology of such innovators!

Evidences for this from the past scholars

Aqeedah Tahawiyyah

Imam at-Tahawi said:

Whoever describes Allah with a meaning from the meanings of the human being has disbelieved. Whoever grasps this will be careful and restrained from the likes of what is said by the unbelievers. He knows that the attributes of Allah are unlike those of human beings.

- Aqeedah Tahawiyyah

His Dhat is his Dhat, it is not a body.

His Yad is his Yad, it is not a limb.


Lum'ah al-I'tiqad

Imam Ibn Qudamah said:

We do not make comparisons with the attributes of creation nor do we use the names (given) by the innovators. And we know that Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He, has no similar and equal: 'There is nothing whatsoever like Him. And he is al-Sami al-Basir'. Hence eveything that is imagined by the mind or produced in ones thought, then surely Allah is different from it.

- Lum'ah al-I'tiqad of Imam Ibn Qudamah al-Maqdisi

He also negates Hadd in what he quotes from Imam Ahmad:

Imam Abu Abd Allah Ahmad bin Hanbal, may Allah have mercy on him, said concerning the saying of the Prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam 'Verily Allah yanzilu to the heaven of this world' and 'Verily, Allah will be seen on the Day of Resurrection' and what is similar to these narrations:

"We believe in it and testify to the truthfulness of it, without explaining 'how' and without 'meaning', nor do we reject anything of it. We know that whatever the Messenger Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam came with is the truth; we do not reject anything from the Messenger of Allah Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam, nor do we describe Allah with more than he described himself with, without any limit nor any boundaries. "There is nothing equal to him, and He is al-Sami' al-Basi' We say as He said and describe Him with what he described Himself with nor do we go beyond this. The descriptions of those who attempt to describe him cannot grasp Him. We believe in all of the Qur'an, the muhkam and mutashabih. We do not reject any of His attributes due to them appearing repulsive, we do not go beyond the Qur'an and the narrations and we do not know how to understand them, except through the truthfulness of the Messenger Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam and the affirmation of the Qur'an"

- Lum'ah al-Itiqad of Imam Ibn Qudamah
Also mentioned by Ibn Qudamah in Dhamm al-Ta'wil Hadith 33, Qadi Abu Ya'la in Ibtal al-Taw'wilat vol.1, no.9, and Ibn Battah (d.387 H) in al-Ibanah vol.7 Hadith 5, who reports it via Abdullah bin Hanbal instead of Hanbal bin Ishaq.

We also have the rather explicit sentence in the Athari creed of Ibn al-Balbani and Ibn Hamdan negating the particular words being discussed:

Qala'id al-Iqyan

It is obligatory to believe the Allah The Most High is not a Jawhar, nor a Jism nor an Arad.

- Qala'id al-Iqyan of Imam Ibn Balban and this is found in the previous work of Ibn Hamdan who died during the life of Ibn Taymiyyah

Such words are used for the innovators for heresy and disbelief and must not be used for Allah.

So it is impermissible to say "Allah has a Jism" or "Allah has a Hadd" regardless of what one intends.

[Muhammad Hasan]

I do not believe that Allah is in a physical direction or that size and space applies to him.

Does any athari believe that? Show me clear quotes if they do.

(Skip to bottom for quote from early work of Athari Creed)

In most true Athari creeds, Hudood and Ghayat are negated for him, which would deal with all of these succinctly.

As for space:

I mean there are explicit mentions of negation of Makan in the creed of Ibn Hamdan and of Ibn al-Balban etc. This also goes back to Imam Ahmad through some other Athari works and reports on Imam Ahmad's beliefs where he denounced the use of such terms on the basis they are used for limitation. You can also find detailed discussion in some works like those of Imam as-Saffarini.

If you want clear quotes:

Abu Sulayman has made this thread which goes into much more depth, and he quotes from various works in Arabic.

Also, even though it is not an Athari work, one should bear in mind what Imam at-Tahawi has said in the line in Aqeedah Tahawiyyah:

He is Exalted above any limits, ends, supports, limbs, or tools. He is not contained by six directions like the rest of created things.

- Aqeedah Tahawiyyah

(Aqeedah Tahawiyyah is a Hanafi work of creed seeking to expound the beliefs of Abu Hanifah and Shaykhayn - Qadi Abu Yusuf and Imam Muhammad Ash-Shaybani - and it fits in with what is called these days "Maturidi" Usul, the Maturidi in the past used to simply be called Hanafis. E.g. Imam An-Nawawi refers to something where the scholars of the Ash'ari and "Hanafi" are in agreement. There are statements in Aqeedah Tahawiyyah that are untenable for any Ash'ari and Athari, particular the statement relating the Hanafi/Maturidi view on Iman vs Taqwa, so it is technically incorrect to say Ahlus Sunnah are in agreement with absolutely all of it.

It is however recognised as a Sunni creed by all, even the innovators who claim to be Sunnis.)


(Ibn Hamdan's work Nihayah is especially recommended as he quotes from previous Atharis as well proving this e.g. from Itiqad Ahmad of Abu Fadl at-Tamimi (d. 410 AH), etc. There is also Qadi Abu Ya'la's son Ibn Abi Ya'la (d. 526 AH)'s work Tabaqat al-Hanabilah. I think Ibn Rajab made another work of history documenting the Hanabila which you can refer to as well.)

---

From an Early Work of Athari Creed:

He stated clearly when explaining the Sifat of Nuzul:
"And this and what resembles it; then taking al-Nuzul to be descending to empty space, occupying space and movement, is kufr. To carry it upon zahirihi (its apparentness) is permissible."

- Al-Usul al-Mujarradah of Ibn al-Banna (d. 471 H), p.47

I apologise for my accusation against you, I see no reason to call you an innovator - rather you are my Sunni brother for you negate for Allah what is to be negated and affirm for him what is to be affirmed. Exalted is He the Most High.

[TheHaqq]

And your 'view' must be changed. You are taking terms used by the innovators for Tajsim and allowing their use contextually. The use of such terms is prohibited, and we negate what they connote.

Now there is no Hadd (in that sense) nor Jism in the Qur'an nor the Sunnah of the Prophet Alayhis Salatu Was-Salam. Why are you treating it as if it is some kind of divine attribute? All we have reliably from the Salaf is negation of it.

Jism is a term used to mean "body". According to the ignorant one I am quoting in the other thread (from the website AboveTheThrone), it was used by the Aristotelians for any entity. The Aristotelians are Kuffar. We do not use such a term as they use it or at all and prohibit its use. Investigating its meaning is only done to determine whether the one uttering such a thing has uttered innovation or disbelief. It is innovation if he did not intend Tajsim and it is Kufr if he did.

Instead the one who uses that term should be educated not to use it and then he should use the term "Shay" instead - this is an acceptable term used by the scholars to denote an entity (thing). Allah is not a body unlike bodies (that is disbelief or innovation depending on what the ignorant one who says this means). Allah is a thing unlike anything else.

You realise that the scholars who defend the use of that term - Jism meant to use it to defend the Karramiyyah and other anthropomorphist sects from the (correct) accusation of innovation and disbelief?

I mean why do we even call the Mujassimah heretics in the first place?

Because they affirm Jism. So you must say now "The Mujassimah are not all heretics, rather if they intend x.." - that is ridiculous and opening the door to misunderstanding on both sides (e.g. the other scholars will now accuse you of Tajsim and when you teach such things and use it amongst yourselves you can confuse people until people do believe in Tajsim)

When such a term is taught to the layperson, he will understand it in the intuitive manner it is understood - I.e. as a corporeality.

And the word Tajsim itself is of the same root of Jism and Mujassimah - so are you going to say "Not all Tajsim is bad, rather when they intend x or y..."

In fact we can use this exact same logic to accept absolutely any anthropomorphic term for Allah - e.g. "Allah has physical dimension" oh but what I mean by physical is x and what I mean by dimension is y... That is complete nonesense. The meaning of Jism is not Shay - the one who says this is ignorant of the Arabic language! May Allah's wrath be upon any Aristotelians who spread this nonesense.

This is what you get when you people cut yourself off from the Sunni scholars of Kalam and then try and attempt to do Kalam yourselves - you go into the books of the Kuffar greeks and their blind aristotelian followers like Ibn Sina and think everything in there and all there terminology is what is used in Kalam. Rather the terminology they use has Kufr in it - we do not use the words and terminology of such innovators!

Evidences for this from the past scholars

Aqeedah Tahawiyyah

Imam at-Tahawi said:


His Dhat is his Dhat, it is not a body.

His Yad is his Yad, it is not a limb.


Lum'ah al-I'tiqad

Imam Ibn Qudamah said:



He also negates Hadd in what he quotes from Imam Ahmad:





We also have the rather explicit sentence in the Athari creed of Ibn al-Balbani and Ibn Hamdan negating the particular words being discussed:

Qala'id al-Iqyan



Such words are used for the innovators for heresy and disbelief and must not be used for Allah.

So it is impermissible to say "Allah has a Jism" or "Allah has a Hadd" regardless of what one intends.

I would agree with you, one should refrain from using terminology that is not found in the Quran and Ahadith unless there is a need for it to clarify our position.

For example many early scholars (including some asharis) said Allah is above his throne and distinct from his creation, though these terms are not found in Quran or Hadith.

Would you agree that it's ok to use such terms to distinguish from the jahmiyyah and others?

[Abu Sulayman]

Regarding the word Jism (body) I would advice to read this:

If someone wants to discuss what Jism means in the language and in terminology, then this is how it is done (by referring to experts of language and terminology!):
https://www.facebook.com/AswdAlashar...5152131260235/

Meaning of Jism in the language:

[Zayn al-Din] al-Razi (d. 666 AH) in Mukhtar al-Sihah (1/44):

أبو زيد : الجسم : الجسد ، وكذا الجسمان والجثمان . وقال الأصمعي : الجسم والجسمان ، الجسد ، والجثمان : الشخص . وقال جماعة : جسم الإنسان أيضا يقال له الجسمان ، مثل ذئب وذؤبان ، وقد جسم الشيء ، أي : عظم جسيم وجسام بالضم
- end of quote -

Ibn Mandhur (d. 711 AH) in Lisan al-'Arab (12/99):

مادة جسم : الجسم : جماعة البدن أو الأعضاء من الناس والإبل والدواب وغيرهم من الأنواع العظيمة الخلق
- end of quote -


Ibn Faris (d. 395 AH) in Mu'jam Maqayis al-Lugha (1/457):

الجيم السين والميم يدل على تجمع الشيء . فالجسم كل شخص مدرك ، كذا قال ابن دريد ، والجسيم : العظيم الجسم ، وكذلك الجسام . والجسمان : الشخص
- end of quote -

Al-Fayumi (d. 770 AH) in al-Misbah al-Munir (1/101):

الجسم) قال ابن دريد : هو كل شخص مدرك وقال أبو زيد (الجسم ) الجسد ، وفي ( التهذيب) ما يوافقه قال ( الجسم) : مجمع البدن وأعضاؤه من الناس والإبل والدواب ونحو ذلك مما عظم من الخلق
- end of quote -

Murtadha al-Zabidi (d. 1205 AH) in Taj al-'Arus (1/7648):

الجسم بالكسر : جماعة البدن أو الاعضاء من الناس والابل والدواب وسائر الأنواع العظيمة الخلق كالجسمان بالضم
قال أبو زيد الجسم الجسد ، وكذلك الجسمان والجثمان : الشخص ويقال : إنه لنحيف الجسمان ، وقال بعضهم إن الجثمان والجسمان واحد
قال الراغب :الجسم ماله طول وعرض وعميق ، ولا تخرج أجزاء الجسم عن كونها أجساما وإن قطع وجزئ ، بخلاف الشخص فإنه يخرج عن كونه شخصا بتجزئه
- end of quote -

From the same author in Ithaf al-Sada al-Muttaqin (2/148) (only clarifying the difference between Jawhar and Jism):

الجوهر : ماله قيام بذاته ، بمعني أنه : لا يفتقر إلى محل يقوم به ، والعرض : ما يفتقر إلى محل يقوم به ، وقد يعبر بعضهم بدل الجواهر الأجسام ، وعليه جرى المصنف ، وهما في اللغة بمعنى ، وإن كان الجسم أخص من الجوهر اصطلاحا ، لأنه المؤلف من جوهرين أو أكثر ، على الخلاف في أفل ما يتركب منه الجسم على ما بين في المطولات – والجوهر يصدق بغير المؤلف وبالمؤلف
- end of quote -


Meaning of Jism in terminology:

[Al-Sharif] al-Jurjani (d. 816 AH) in al-Ta'rifat (1/104):

(الجسم : جوهر قابل للأبعاد الثلاثة ( أي الطول والعرض والعمق ) وقيل : الجسم هو المركب المؤلف من الجوهر
الجسم التعليمي : هو الذي يقبل الانقسام طولا وعرضا وعمقا ، ونهايته السطح وهو نهاية الجسم الطبيعي ، ويسمي جسما تعليميا إذ يبحث عنه في العلوم التعليمية والرياضية فإنهم كانوا يبتدؤون بها في تعاليمهم ورياضتهم لنفوس الصبيان لأنها أسهل إدراكا
- end of quote -

['Abd al-Ra`uf] al-Munawi (d. 1031 AH) in [al-Tawqif 'ala Muhimmat] al-Ta'arif (1/245 AH):

الجسم : ماله طول وعرض وعمق ، ولا يخرج أجزاء الجسم عن كونها أجساما وإن قطع وجزئ ، بخلاف الشخص فإنه يخرج عن كونه شخصا بتجزئته ، كذا عبر عنه الراغب
- end of quote -

[Abul Hasan] al-Ash'ari (d. 324 AH) in Maqalat al-Islamiyyin (from p. 301 on, 12 different positions of the theologians are mentioned) :

اختلف المتكلمون في الجسم ما هو ، على اثنتى عشرة مقالة :
ا1- فقال قائلون : الجسم هو ما احتمل الأعراض ، كالحركات والسكون وما أشبه ذلك ، فلا جسم إلا ما احتمل الأعراض ولا ما يحتمل أن تحل الأعراض فيه إلا جسم ، وزعموا أن الجزء الذي لا يتجزأ جسم يحتمل الأعراض ، وكذلك معنى الجوهر أنه يحتمل الأعراض ، وهذا قول أبي الحسين الصالحي ...ا
ا2- وقال قائلون : الجسم إنما كان جسما للتأليف والاجتماع ، وزعم هؤلاء أن الجزء الذي لا يتجزأ إذا جامع جزءا آخر لا يتجزأ ، فكل واحد منهما جسم في حال الاجتماع ، لأنه مؤتلف بالآخر . فإذا
ا3- وقال قائلون : معنى الجسم أنه مؤتلف ، وأقل الأجسام جزءان ، ويزعمون أن الجزءين إذا تألفا فليس كل واحد منهما جسما ، ولكن الجسم هو الجزءان جميعا ، وأنه يستحيل أن يكون التركيب في واحد ، والواحد يحتمل اللون والطعم والرائحة وجميع الاعراض ، إلا التركيب . وأحسب هذا القول للإسكافي ...ا
ا4- وقال أبو الهذيل : الجسم هو ما له يمين وشمال ، وظهر وبطن ، واعلى واسفل وأقل ما يكون الجسم ستة اجزاء احدهما يمين والآخر شمال وأحدهما ظهر والآخر بطن ، واحدهما أعلى والآخر اسفل
ا5- وزعم بعض المتكلمين : أنه الجزءان اللذين لا يتجزءان يحلهما جميعا التاليف وأن التأليف واحد يكون في مكانين ، وهذا قول الجبائي.ا
ا6- وقال معمر: هو الطويل العريض العميق ، واقل الأجسام ثمانية أجزاء ، فإذا اجتمعت الأجزاء وجبت الأعراض ، وزعم أنه إذا انضم جزء إلى جزء حدث طول ، وأن العرض يكون بانضمام جزءين إليهما ، وأن العمق يحدث بأن يطبق على أربعة أجزاء ، اربعة أجزاء ، فتكون الثمانية الأجزاء جسما عريضا طويلا عميقا
ا7- وقال هشام بن عمرو الفوطي : إن الجسم ستة وثلاثون جزءا لا يتجزأ ، وذلك أنه جعله ستة اركان وجعل كل ركن منه ستة أجزاء فالذي قال أبو الهذيل : إنه جزء جعله هشام ركنا...ا
ا8- وقال قائلون : الجسم الذي سماه أهل اللغة جسما هو ماكان طويلا عريضا عميقا ، ولم يحددوا في ذلك عددا من الاجزاء ، وإن كان لأجزاء الجسم عدد معلوم
ا9- وقال هشام بن الحكم : معنى الجسم أنه موجود ، وكان يقول : إنما أريد بقولي جسم أنه موجود وأنه شئ وأنه قائم بنفسه
ا10- وقال النظام : الجسم هو الطويل العريض العميق ، وليس لأجزائه عدد يوقف عليه ، وأنه لا نصف إلا وله نصف ، ولا جزء إلا وله جزء ، وكانت الفلاسفة تجعل حد الجسم أنه العريض العميق
ا11- وقالعباد بن سليمان : الجسم هو الجوهر والاعراض التي لا ينفك منها ، وما كان قد ينفك منها من الآعراض ، فليس ذلك من الجسم بل ذلك غير الجسم ..ا
ا12- وقال ضرار بن عمرو : الجسم أعراض ألفت وجمعت ، فقامت وثبتت فصارت جسما يحتمل الاعراض إذا حل والتغير من حال الى حال ، وتلك الأعراض هي ما لا تخلو الأجسام منه أو من ضده نحو الحياة والموت....ا
- end of quote -

['Adhud al-Din] Al-Iji (d. 756 AH) in al-Mawaqif with the commentary of al-Jurjani (d. 816 AH) (2/312):

ويطلق عند الحكماء بالاشتراك على معنيين:
أحدهما : يسمى جسما طبيعيا : لأنه يبحث عنه في العلم الطبيعي منسوبا إلى الطبيعة التى هي مبدأ الآثار ، وعرف بأنه : جوهر يمكن أن يفرض فيه أبعاد ثلاثة متقاطعة على زوايا قائمة...ا
وتصوير فرض الأبعاد أن نفرض فيه بعدا ما كيف اتفق وهو الطول ، ثم بعدا آخر في أي جهة شئنا مقاطعا له بقائمة وهو العرض ، ثم بعدا ثالثا مقاطعا لهما وهذا متعين لا يتصور غير واحد وهو العمق ، وهذا القيد لم يذكر لتميز الجسم ، بل لتحقيق ما هيته ، فإن الجوهر القابل للأبعاد الثلاثة لا يكون إلا كذلك ، والذي يقبل أبعادا لا على هذا الوجه ، إنما السطح والجوهر لا يتناوله
- end of quote -

Al-Jurjani (d. 816) in commentary upon al-Iji (d. 756 AH) (2/323):

ثم إنه أشار الى بطلان تعريفات منقولة عم بعض المتكلمين فقال :وما هو كقول الصالحيه من المعتزلة في تعريف الجسم : هو القائم بنفسه ، وقول بعض الكرامية : هو الموجود ، وقول هشام : هو الشيء ، باطل لا نتقاض الأول بالباري تعالى والجوهر الفرد ، وانتقاض الثاني بهما وبالعرض أيضا ، وانتقاض الثالث بالثلاثة.ا
على أن في هذه التعريفات فسادا آخر ، لأن هذه أقوال لا تساعد عليها باللغة بل تخالفها ، فإنه يقال : زيد أجسم من عمرو ، أي : أكبر ضخامة وانبساط أبعاد وتأليف أجزاء فلفظ الجسم بحسب اللغة ينبئ عن التركيب والتأليف ، وليس في هذه الاقوال إنباء عن ذلك
- end of quote -

Al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) in Lawami' al-Anwar (from p. 181 on, translated HERE):

وهو ما تركب من جزئين فصاعدا وعند بعض النظار لا بد من تركبه من ثلاثة أجزاء لتحقق الأبعاد الثلاثة ، أعني : الطول والعرض والعمق ، وعند البعض من ثمانية ليتحقق تقاطع الأبعاد على زوايا قائمة
ا- قال السعد : وليس هذا نزاعا راجعا إلى الاصطلاح حتى يدفع بأن لكل واحد أن يصطلح على ما شاء ، بل هو نزاع في أن المعنى الذى وضع لفظ الجسم بإزائه : هل يكفي فيه التركيب من جزئين أو لا ؟
ا- احتج الأولون بأنه يقال لأحد الجسمين إذا زاد عليه في جزء واحد : إنه أجسم من الآخر ، فلولا أن مجرد التركيب كاف في الجسمين ، لما صار بمجرد زيادة الجزء أزيد في الجسمية فيه أنه أفعل من الجسمامة بمعنى الضخامة وعظم المقدار ، يقال : جسم الشيء إذا عظم فهو جسيم ، والكلام في الجسم الذي هو اسم لا صفة انتهى.ا
ا- وقال الكرماني في ( شرح الجواهر ) : الجسم يطلق بالاشتراك على معنيين : الأول الجسم الطبيعي المنسوب إلى الطبيعة التي هي مبدأ الآثار ، وعرفه الحكماء بأنه جوهر يمكن أن يفرض فيه أبعاد ثلاثة متقاطعة على زوايا قائمة
ا- فقوله : يمكن ، مشعر بأن مناط الجسمية ، ليس فرض الأبعاد بل مجرد إمكان الفرض ، وإن لم تفرض اصلا كاف
ا- وتصوير فرض الابعاد في الجسم بعد تأليف ما كان وهو الطول وبعد آخر مقاطع لهما كذلك ، وهو العمق . فقوله : على زويا قائمة ، ليس للاحتراز ، بل بيان الواقع ، فإن حقيقة الجسم لا يكون إلا كذلك
- end of quote -

Conclusion: The meaning of Jism in the language and in terminology is very near to eachother. In the language it indicates formation, composition and being a person / man and in terminology it indicates composition, being a person / man and having dimensions.
Based upon this the Ash'aris, Maturidis and Hanbalis (!) denied God to be a body, because God is not composed [of parts] and the three dimensions do not apply to Him.
(This is something clearly established in Lawami' al-Anwar!)


Note how none of the definitions in language mentioned "established by itself"! And even in terminology we see that in Maqalat al-Islamiyyin it was mentioned among the 12 statements only as the statement of Hisham bin al-Hakam (d. 179 AH), the Rafidhi MUJASSIM!
This Rafidhi anthropomorphist also said that he meant that [God] is Mawjud (existing) [by his statement that God is a Jism]. Know that Mujassima usually only say that to hide their actual intention (which is that they believe God to be 3-dimensional being!).
Who from among the Muslims even denied the existence of God and that He is established by Himself in order for these Mujassima to use a term that is not even understood with this meaning in the Arabic language?!

[Abu Sulayman]

Belief of real Hanabila / Atharis:

Mainstream Hanbalis: Allah is beyond space and time and His existance is a non-bodily one


Let us first start with the creed of al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la (d. 458 AH) and his Hanbali predecessors as reported from his son - the Imam Ibn Abi Ya'ala (d. 526 AH) - in his famous Tabaqat al-Hanabila:

Whatever comes to the mind from limitation (Hadd) or attributing similarity (Tashbih) or attributing modality (Takyif), then Allah is glorified and exalted above it and there is nothing like Him. He is not described with the attributes of the creation that indicate their temporality and that which is possible regarding them - from the changing of one state to another - is not possible regarding Him.
[Allah ta'ala] is not a body (Jism) or a particle (Jawhar) or an accident ('Aradh) and has always existed and will always exist. He's the One who can not be imagined and His attributes are not similar to the attributes of the creation, { nothing is like Him; and He only is the All Hearing, the All Seeing. } [42:11].
...
So whoever believes that Allah - glory be to Him - is a body from among the bodies (Jism min al-Ajsam) and describes Him with the reality of a body from composition (Ta`lif) and change [of place or state] (Intiqal), then he's a disbeliever (!) (Kafir) because he does not know Allah - azza wa jall. For it is impossible regarding Allah - glory be to Him - to be described with these attributes [in reality]; and if someone does not know Allah - glory be to Him -, then it necessitates him being a disbeliever.
- end of quote -

(Note: His statement regarding the Takfir upon the one who believes that God is a body from among the bodies is found in his book al-Mu'tamad (page 271). In the same quote he mentions the Takfir upon the one saying "He's a body unlike [other] bodies" (Jism la kal Ajsam), while also mentioning that the latter is differed upon.)

Al-Mu'tamad [fil Usul al-Din] (page 57) by al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la:

It is not allowed to describe Him with being in every place or in [some] place...
- end of quote -


Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in [fi Usul al-Din] (page 30-31) by Imam Ibn Hamdan (d. 695 AH):

Allah ta'ala is not a particle (Jawhar) or an accident ('Aradh) or a body (Jism) and temporality (Hawadith) does not indwell in Him and He does not indwell in what is emergent (Hadith) nor is He confined by it, rather He is beyond His creation (ba`in min khalqih).
Allah is upon the throne ('ala al-'Arsh) not with a limitation [that limits Him], rather the limitation is that of the throne and of that which is besides it (or below it) [from the creation]; and Allah is above (fawq) [all of] that without place (Makan) or limitation (Hadd), because He existed and there was no place (Makan), then He created place and He is as He was before creating place.
He is not known through the senses (Hawas) and He can not be compared to humans and there is no entry for analogy [or comparing] (Qiyas) regarding His essence and attributes. He has not taken a wife or a child [for Himself], rather He's free of any needs and there is nothing that is not in need of Him. He's not similar to anything and nothing is similar to Him. Whosoever attributes similarity to Him with His creation has disbelieved. This is what [Imam] Ahmad (d. 241 AH) stated; and the same goes regarding the one who regards him a body. Or if someone says "He's a body unlike [other] bodies" (Jism la kal Ajsam). This was mentioned by al-Qadhi [Abu Ya'la] (d. 458 AH).
Imagination does not reach Him and comprehension does not grasp Him. He's not similar to the creation and no examples can be given in behalf of Him.
He's not known by the sayings [of the people].
Whatever comes to the mind or [can] be conveived by the imagination, then He is different from that, the Lord of Majesty and Bounty.
...
We're certain in denying attributing similarity (Tashbih) or attributing corporeality (Tajsim) or any flaw and that is the ruling [to be followed] for all verses (Ayat) concerning the [divine] attributes and the authentic and explicit narrations.
...
So whoever says that He's - with His essence - in every place or in [some] place, then he's a disbeliever (Kafir),
- end of quote -


Al-'Ayn wal Athar [fi 'Aqa`id Ahl al-Athar] (page 34-35) by Imam 'Abd al-Baqi al-Mawahibi (d. 1071 AH):

It's obligatory to be certain that Allah ta'ala is not a particle (Jawhar) or a body (Jism) or an accident ('Aradh) and temporality (Hawadith) does not indwell in Him and He does not indwell in what is emergent (Hadith) nor is He confined by it, so whoever believes or says that Allah is - with His essence - in a place (Makan), then he's a disbeliever (Kafir).
Rather one has to be certain that [Allah] - subhanahu wa ta'ala - is beyond His creation (ba`in min khalqih), for He existed and there was no place (Makan), then He created place and He is as He was before creating place.
He is not known through the senses (Hawas) and He can not be compared to humans, for He's free of any needs and there is nothing that is not in need of Him. He's not similar to anything and nothing is similar to Him.
Whatever comes to the mind or [can] be conveived by the imagination, then He is different from that, the Lord of Bounty and Majesty.
- end of quote -


Qala`id al-'Iqyan [fi Ikhtisar 'Aqidat Ibn Hamdan] (page 96-97) by Imam Ibn Balban (d. 1083 AH):

It's obligatory to be certain that Allah ta'ala is not a particle (Jawhar) or a body (Jism) or an accident ('Aradh) and temporality (Hawadith) does not indwell in Him and He does not indwell in what is emergent (Hadith) nor is He confined by it, so whoever believes or says that Allah is - with His essence - in every place or in [some] place (Makan), then he's a disbeliever (Kafir).
Rather one has to be certain that He - subhanahu wa ta'ala - is beyond His creation (ba`in min khalqih), for Allah ta'ala existed and there was no place (Makan), then He created place and He is as He was before creating place.
He is not known through the senses (Hawas) and He can not be compared to humans and there is no entry for analogy [or comparing] (Qiyas) regarding His essence, attributes and actions.
He has not taken a wife or a child [for Himself], for He's free of any needs and there is nothing that is not in need of Him.
He's not similar to anything and nothing is similar to Him, so whoever attributes similarity to Him with His creation has disbelieved, like the one who believes Him - ta'ala - to be a body (Jism) or says that "He's a body unlike [other] bodies" (Jism la kal Ajsam).
Imagination does not reach Him and comprehension does not grasp Him. He's not similar to the creation and no examples can be given in behalf of Him.
He's not known by the sayings [of the people].
Whatever comes to the mind or [can] be conveived by the imagination, then He is different from that, the Lord of Bounty and Majesty.
- end of quote -


Najat al-Khalaf [fi I'tiqad al-Salaf] (page 14) by Imam 'Uthman al-Najdi (d. 1097 AH):

It's obligatory to be certain that... [Allah] - glory be to Him - is not a particle (Jawhar) or a body (Jism) or an accident ('Aradh) and temporality (Hawadith) does not indwell in Him and He does not indwell in what is emergent (Hadith) nor is He confined by it, so whoever believes or says that Allah ta'ala is - with His essence - in every place or in [some] place (Makan), then he's a disbeliever (Kafir).
Rather one has to be certain that He - glory be to Him - is beyond His creation (ba`in min khalqih), for Allah ta'ala existed and there was no place (Makan), then He created place and He is as He was before creating place.
- end of quote -


Al-Durra al-Mudhiyya [fi 'Aqd Ahl al-Firqa al-Mardhiyya] (famous 'Aqida poem better known as al-Saffariniyya) by Imam al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH):

Our Lord is not a particle (Jawhar) or /// an accident ('Aradh) or a body (Jism), Exalted is He who is [Most] High
Glory be to him, He is indeed established (Istawa) as it is found [stated in the texts] /// without modality, He is indeed Exalted above being limited
- end of quote -


Conclusion: The Hanbalis after Imam Ibn Hamdan relied upon his work Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in to the degree that they used the very wordings used by him (in the above issue and in other than it!) in their own works regarding creed. What is also obvious from the above quotes is that they believed that the existence of Allah ta'ala is beyond space and time and a non-bodily one.

[abdurrahman]

Just a muslim who follows Qur'an and Sunnah.
Sadly people nowdays are trying to divide them into sects and they make their own version of Islam.
I call this "a moderate Islam". They say that anyone who believes in tawheed than he is an extremist takfiri. Anyone who wants the sharia and khilafah than he is a Spy working for government.