hanaabilah.co m http://www.hanaabilah.com/2012/07/false-accusations-against-hanaabilah.html

False Accusations Against the Hanaabilah

I decided to write this af ter being f alsely accused of kuf r by not f ollowing Imam Ahmad in the "correctway", In which case the person posted this Article to show what Imam Ahmad "Really" believed. I realizethe article is old, however, the age of it doesn't prevent people f rom relying on it, and even though I didn'tsearch to f ind if it was ever answered, Insha'a Allah what I wrote here will benef it people in order toexpose the mistakes the Original author presented as the truth. From here on out the Color RED in Italicf ont will symbolize the Original Authors words.

Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

""Regarding the question of whether Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 241/855) was ananthropomorphist, this is something that has been asked since early times, particularly sincesomeone forged an anthropormorphic tract called Kitab al-sunna [The book of the sunna] andput the name of Imam Ahmad’s son Abdullah (d. 290/903) on it.I looked this book over withour teacher in hadith, Sheikh Shu‘ayb al-Arna’ut, who had examined it one day, and said thatat least 50 percent of the hadiths in it are weak or outright forgeries. He was dismayed howMuhammad al-Qahtani, the editor and commentator, could have been given a Ph.d. in Islamicfaith (‘aqida) from Umm al-Qura University in Saudi Arabia for readying for publication a workas sadly wanting in authenticity as this. Ostensibly a "hadith" work, it contains some of themost hard-core anthropomorphism found anywhere.....""

To proclaim the work is f orged simply because someone disagrees with some of the content isincorrect, as is known this work is a work of Hadith and as was of ten done All of the sayings werecombined and kept in order to preserve them, regardless of whether or not they were Saheeh orotherwise, simply by putting the hadith in the book doesn't make the Author not the Author, nor does itmake the Author an anthropomorphist (As is claimed by Al-Kawthari)

The f act of the matter is that many scholars had thought that this work was indeed the work of the Sonof Imam Ahmad, Including:

1) Abi Ya'la Al-Hanbali (Born in 381 Hijri)

2) Al-Laalikaa'i (Died in 418 Hijri)

3) Al-Bayhaqi (384 – 458 H)

4) Ibn Al-Jawzi ( Died in 597 Hijri)

5) Ibn Taymiyyah (Died 728 Hijri)

6) Ibn Al-Qayyim (Died 751 Hijri)

7) Ibn Abi Izz (Died 792 Hijri)

8) Adh-Dhahabi (Died 748 Hijri)

9) Al-Kitaani (Born 1274 Hijri)

Scans of the pages related to when and where the af orementioned scholars ascribed the book toAbdullah Bin Ahmad Bin Hanbal:

__________________________________________

Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

""The real (‘aqida) of Imam Ahmad was very simple, andconsisted, in the main, of accepting the words of themutashabihat or ‘unapparent meanings’ of the Qur’an and hadithas they have come without saying how they are meant. Hisposition is close to that of a number of other early scholars, whowould not even countenance changing the Qur’anic order of thewords or substituting words imagined to be synonyms. For them, the verse in Sura Taha,

"The All-merciful is ‘established’ (istawa) upon the Throne" (Qur’an 20:5)

Does not enable one to say that "Allah is ‘established’ upon Throne," or that "The All-mercifulis upon the Throne" or anything else besides "The All-merciful is ‘established’ (istawa) uponthe Throne." Full stop.""

This is completely incorrect f rom multiple angles:

1) Allah says in 17:110:

Say, "Call upon Allah or call upon theMost Merciful. Whichever [name] you call- to Him belong the best names." And do

not recite [too] loudly in your prayer or[too] quietly but seek between that an [intermediate] way

2) His posit ion isn’t close to not changing the word order in order to conf irm the meaning and this can beseen in two places.

He conf irmed that Allah is everywhere with his knowledge, while still being above the throne. This

does not come in that exact wording in the Quran. As seen in the f ollowing scan:

He believed the Quran is the speech of Allahwith Sound and Letters, again which didn’t comein that exact wording in the Quran. As seen in thef ollowing scan:

3) Imam Ahmad also stated that the verse “LaysaKamithlihi Shay”-There is nothing like unto him- Wasf rom the Mutaashaabih, does this mean there wasno Apparent meaning f or this verse to him, so thathe would say “It has come without knowing what itmeans?

As seen in the f ollowing scan:

4) Imam Ahmad also said that he takes the ahadiththat are related to seeing Allah and others like themupon there Apparent meanings,

As seen in the f ollowing scan:

__________________________________________

Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

""It should be appreciated how far this positionis from understanding the mutashabihat or‘unapparent in meaning,’ scripturalexpressions about Allah as though they weremeant literally (‘ala al-dhahir). The HanbaliImam Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Khallal (311/923), who took his fiqh from Imam Ahmad’sstudents, relates in his al-Sunna[The sunna] through his chain of narrators from Hanbal [ibnIshaq al-Shaybani] (d. 273/886), the son of the brother of Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s father, thatImam Ahmad was asked about the hadiths mentioning "Allah’s descending," "seeing Allah,"and "placing His foot on hell"; and the like, and he replied: "We believe in them and considerthem true, without ‘how’ and without ‘meaning’ (bi la kayfa wa la ma‘na) [emphasis mine].""

1) In terms of what is and what isn’t Mutaashabihat this has been dealt with above when Imam Ahmadsaid the statement of Allah:“There is nothing unto like him (Allah)” was f rom them, the least that can besaid concerning this issue is that since the time of the Salaf there has been dif f erent opinions aboutwhat is and what isn’t Mutashaabih of the ayat, that is why you f ind Ibn Abbas accusing the Khawaarij ofusing verses improperly and saying that were using Mutashaabih verses.

2 ) There is academic dishonesty when one presents only one version of something without at leastacknowledging that other opinions are present. In f act, At-Tabari (224 – 310 AH) doesn't even makemention of this meaning f or "Mutaashabihaat" in his Taf seer.

See: Taf seer At-Tabari 3:7

3) Without meaning has also been dealt with, by it being clear that Imam Ahmad as well as the Salaf haveadmitted that there is a meaning to the Sif aat, such as Withness “Ma’iyah” In which case they conf irmthat Ma’iyah (withness) means with Allahs knowledge, and He is above The Throne. Likewise, ImamAhmad was beaten and tortured because he rightf ully believed that the Qu’ran was the speech of Allah,uncreated, with sound and letters, this is what was understood f rom the Islamic texts, notsomething explicit ly mentioned. As seen in the f ollowing scan, Imam Ahmad in speaking concerning theverses pertaining to the speech of Allah he said:

"These verses are in a clear Arabic language, it doesn't require any explanation, it's clear AllPraise be to Allah."

3) Alaa Dhaahirihi (Upon the Apparent Meaning) is the Madhab of Imam Ahmad, and the Madhab of theHanaabilah in general as understood f rom his above text concerning the seeing of Allah, and asunderstood by the Sheikh Al-Hanaabilah Muwaf iq –u- Deen Ibn Qudaama Al-Maqdisi (Died 620 Hijri). As seen in the f ollowing scan:

__________________________________________

Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

""And he said, when they asked him about Allah’s istiwa’[translated above as established]: "He is ‘established’ uponthe Throne (istawa ‘ala al-‘Arsh) how He wills and as He wills,without any limit or any description that be made by anydescriber (Kawthari, Daf‘ shubah al-tashbih. Cairo n.d.Reprint. Cairo: al-Maktaba al-Tawfiqiyya, 1396/1976, 28).""

1) In order to properly represent the Aqeedah of Imam Ahmad (and the rest of the Salaf ) one would haveto do a comprehensive research, and be truthf ul in that he would provide f ull detail of what he f ound ifhe intends f or his opinion to be made public concerning what they believed. In which case the issue ofAllah having limits then this is something that the Salaf have conf irmed in some of their sayings, and inf act one scholar as represented below wrote an entire book on the topic. In which case, we can’t simplyaccept the statement of Ibn Al-Jawzi as the be all end all of the belief s of Imam Ahmad in this regard,especially when he himself was not Athari/Hanbali when it comes to most of the Attributes of Allah. Asseen in the f ollowing scan, It ’s reported that Ahmad Ibn Hanbal conf irmed f or Allah a “Hadd.”:

2) As will be mentioned later, there is actually no dif f erence between conf irming limit or Sitt ing andconf irming Rising and Descending, the Modality is still unknown, and to those who dislike to conf irm thelater two, the f ormer two would be no dif f erent in that regard, to them they would both be incorrect toconf irm f or Allah.3) The def init ion of Hadd (limit) according to the author of the above book is: The separation betweenthe created and the Creator.__________________________________________

Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

""Ahmad condemned those who said Allah was a "body," saying, "The names of things aretaken from the Shari‘a and the Arabic language. The language’s possessors have used thisword [body] for something that has height, breadth, thickness, construction, form, andcomposition, while Allah Most High is beyond all of that, and may not be termed a "body"because of being beyond any meaning of embodiedness [emphasis mine]. This has not beenconveyed by the Shari‘a, and so is refuted" (‘Azzami, al-Barahin al-sati‘a [Cairo: Najm al-Dinal-Kurdi, 1366/1947], 164).""

1) And no one f rom the Salaf ees in Aqeedah conf irm f or Allah a “body” in that by doing so it would seemas though they believe Allah has a body like the creation. Rather conf irmation and negation are twocategories.

Absolutely: These are those Names and Attributes absolutely conf irmed in Quran and Sunnah.

Dependent on the intended meaning: If the name or attribute is something that resemblesanother one of his names and attribute then it may be permissible in certain circumstances.

2) As is Known, Imam Ahmad specif ically said any and all Attributes are conf irmed only f rom the

sources, not f rom anything else, and likewise negation only comes f rom those sources as well, and thisis the well know Belief of Imam Muwaf iq u deen ibn Qudaama in his various books of Aqeedah.

This is taken f rom the verse:

Say, "My Lord has only forbidden immoralities - what is apparent of them and what is concealed - and sin,and oppression without right, and that you associate with Allah that for which He has not sent down

authority, and that you say about Allah that which you do not know."__________________________________________

Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

""As you may know, the true architect of the Hanbali madhhab was not actually Imam Ahmad,who did not like to see any of his positions written down, but rather these were conveyedorally by various students at different times, one reason there are often a number of differentnarratives from him on legal questions. It is probably no exaggeration to say that the realfounder of the Hanbali madhhab was the Imam and hadith master (hafiz) ‘Abd al-Rahman ibnal-Jawzi (d. 597/1201), who recorded all the narratives from Imam Ahmad, distinguished thewell-authenticated from the poorly-authenticated, and organized them into a coherent body offiqh.""

1) I don’t know whether to laugh or cry really, f or him to proclaim that the “The real f ounder of theHanbali Madhab” was Imam Ibn Al-Jawzi is extremely strange, in f act the compiler of Imam AhmadsMadhab was none other than his students including, Al-Khallal (Died in 311 Hijri) who compiled most ofImam Ahmads statements, and then Al-Khiraqi (Died in 334 Hijri) who was the f irst to write a Fiqh Manual,named “Mukhtasar Al-Khiraqi" who was the son of the student of Imam Ahmad, Abu 'Alee Al-Hussayn binAbdullah al-Khiraqi (Died 299 Hijri). Ibn Badraan in his Introduction to the Hanbali Madhab, Makes itentirely clear that Khiraqis book was the book that the Madhab was pretty much built upon.

__________________________________________

Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

""Ibn al-Jawzi took the question of people associating anthropomorphism with Hanbalism soseriously that he wrote a book, Daf‘ shubah al-tashbih bi akaff al-tanzih[Rebuttal of theinsinuations of anthropomorphism at the hands of transcendence] (N.d. Reprint. Cairo: al-Maktaba al-Tawfiqiyya, 1396/1976), refuting this heresy and exonerating his Imam of anyassociation with it.""

1) We agree that Imam Ahmad was not a Mujassim, we also say that Imam Ibn Taymiyyah was not aMujassim f or understanding the creed of Imam Ahmad and the Salaf better than Imam Ibn Al-Jawzi, andwhile Ibn Al-Jawzi did write the above book, it was not because he himself had the absolute correct beliefwhen it came to the attributes of Allah, because he himself did Ta’weel, the likes of which the otherHanaabilah truly despised. In f act who f rom the Hanaabilah have ever considered him to be relied upon inissues of Asma wa Sif aat? 2) And while he seems to have an inf atuation with Ibn Al-Jawzi lit t le does he realize that he also wasHanbali in certain aspects of his belief , including one that the Neo-Asharis would consider Kuf r andTajseem?As in this f ollowing scan Imam Ibn Al-Jawzi conf irms That the speech of Allah is with Sound and letters,and he also conf irms the permission of Asking “Where is Allah” using the hadith in Sahih Muslim of theslave girl.

3) In this scan it shows that no Hanbali is f ree f rom the accusations of Tajseem, not even Ibn Al-Jawzibecause simply conf irming that the Quran is the speech of Allah with sound and letters, allows one tobecome a “Neo-Hanbali”. So the question arises, which one of the Hanaabilah ever said Allah doesn’tspeak with sound and letters?

__________________________________________

Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

""One of the most significant points he makes in this work is the principle that al-Idafatu latufidu al-sifa ("an ascriptive construction (Ar. idafa, "the X of the Y") does not establish [that Xis] an attribute [of Y]"). This is very interesting because the anthropomorphists of his day, aswell as Ibn Taymiyya in the seventh century after the Hijra, used many ascriptiveconstructions (idafa) that appear in hadiths and Qur’anic verses as proof that Allah had"attributes" that bolstered their conceptions of Him""

1) The book Ibn Al-Jawzi wrote had nothing to do with Ibn Taymiyah because he wasn’t even born yet, inf act those that Ibn Al-Jawzi did write against were not wrong because they used gave Allah attributeswhich he calls "Ascriptive Constructions" f rom the Quran and Sunnah, rather the mistake they made wasthat they went to extremes in conf irming these Ascriptive Constructions f rom narrations that were weak.If an Attribute becomes an Attribute f rom an authentic text, and it ’s an Ascriptive Construction (idhaaf )than it is an attribute, and the Salaf would have conf irmed it way bef ore Ibn Taymiyah.

__________________________________________

Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

""To clarify with examples, you are doubtless familiar with the Qur’anic verse of the Sahabaswearing a fealty pact (bay‘a) to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), that says,"Allah’s hand is above their hands" (Qur’an 48:10). Here, Ibn al-Jawzi’s principle means thatwe are not entitled to affirm, on the basis of the Arabic wording of the verse alone, that "Allahhas a hand" as an attribute (sifa) of His entity. It could be that this Arabic expression is simplymeant to emphasize the tremendousness of the offense of breaking this pact, as somescholars state.""

1) That’s a terrible example because hand is without a doubt an attribute of Allah, and even those whodo Ta’weel of Hand to Power or Ability conf irm this. Not only that, but At-Tabari conf irmed this as anAttribute of Allah, without doing Ta’weel, he said:

"And the correct statement is the statement that says, that yadd (hand) for Allah ( يلاعت ) is anattribute"

__________________________________________

Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

""There are many similar examples in theArabic language in which an ascriptiveconstruction (idafa) conveys something aboutthe possessor that is not literally an attribute. For example, in Arabic, it is said of someonewith considerable power and influence in society that Ba‘uhu tawil ("His fathom (the length ofhis outstretched arms) is long,"), in which the ascriptive construction His fathom does notprove that the individual literally "has the attribute of an fathom," but the words rather signifythat he has power, and mean nothing besides. Or as Imam al-Ghazali says of the wordhand:""

1) Again none of this has to do with those Ascriptive Constructions that are f rom authentic texts thatare Attributes of Allah.

Such as Hand, Face, etc.

2) Those that are Ascriptive constructions that Aren’t Sif aat are clarif ied by the Hanaabilah, Such as IbnTaymiyyah, Ibn Al-Qayyim, As-Saf aareeni (Died 1188 Hijri), and other than them.

Such as House, Camel, and Book.

As shown in the f ollowing scan of the Statement of As-Saf aareeni Al-Hanbali:

__________________________________________

Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

""One should realize that hand may mean two differentthings. The first is the primary lexical sense; namely,the bodily member composed of flesh, bone, andnervous tissue. Now, flesh, bone, and nervous tissuemake up a specific body with specific attributes;meaning, by body, something of an amount (withheight, width, depth) that prevents anything else fromoccupying wherever it is, until it is moved from thatplace.""

1) If we are discussing the Aqeedah of Imam Ahmad and subsequently the Hanaabilah/Ahl Athar, we haveto be f air in saying that such rhetoric was never part of their method in conf irming the Attributes of Allah,rather they believed in them how they came without likening them to the creation.

One such statement he made was:

"I am not a person of Rhetoric (Kalaam), And I don't see rhetoric being anything (worthwhile), Except thatwhich is in the Book of Allah, or in the Sayings of His Prophet, or on the Authority of the Companions ofthe Prophet, As f or other than that, Rhetoric concerning that is not praiseworthy."

As seen in the f ollowing Scan:

__________________________________________

Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

""Or [secondly] the word may be used figuratively, in anothersense with no relation to that of an body at all: as when onesays, "The city is in the leader ’s hands," the meaning of whichis well understood, even if the leader ’s hands are amputated, for example (Ghazali, Iljam al-‘awam ‘an ‘ilm al-kalam [Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-‘Arabi, 1406/1985], 55).""

There are a f ew things to mention here.

1) As the Hanaabilah we don’t deny linguistic possibilit ies in connection to the speech of Allah nor hisMessenger.

2) A verse being metaphorical doesn’t make the Attribute in that verse also metaphorical, as wasconf irmed by At-Tabari in his Taf seer.

As Allah says in 5:64

“And the Jews say, "The hand of Allah is chained."Chained are their hands, and cursed are they for what

they say. Rather, both His hands are extended; Hespends however He wills. And that which has been

revealed to you from your Lord will surely increasemany of them in transgression and disbelief.”

Here Allah says the Jews Said that His Hands weretied, but it didn’t mean actually t ied rather it meantthat he was not generous. So while this saying is metaphorical it doesn’t mean that the Attribute within the verse is also metaphorical, rather the Attribute of Allah, Hands, here are not metaphorical at all, andthis is the belief of Ahlul Sunnah.

3) A word being a Metonymy (a f igure of speech that replaces the name of one thing with the name ofsomething else closely associated with it) also does not negate the f act that the original meaning is alsoan attribute, such as in the verse in 28:77

“And invoke not any other ilah (god) along with Allah( يلاعت ), La ilaha illa Huwa (none has the right to be

worshipped but He). Everything will perish save HisFace. His is the Decision, and to Him you (all) shall be

returned.”

Here Face is a Metonym f or Allahs Essence, this is possible in the language and doesn’t mean that Allahdoesn’t have the Attribute of Face as well, As Allah says: 13:22

"And those who remain patient, seeking their Lord'sCountenance, perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat),and spend out of that which We have bestowed onthem, secretly and openly, and defend against evil

with good, for such there is a good end;"

Not only that, but the Salaf and the Athariyah in Aqeedah who f ollowed them believed that Wajh (f ace,Countenance) is an attribute of Allah.

__________________________________________

Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

""Because that was the way the Arabic language was, and also to protect against the dangerof anthropomorphism, many Muslim scholars were to explain certain of the mutashabihat or‘unapparent in meaning’ expressions in Qur’anic verses and hadiths by ta’wil, or ‘figuratively.""

1) The Hanaabilah don’t believe that the apparent meaning of the Quran leads to Anthropomorphism(Disbelief ). In f act if it is as he says it is, that these verses are “Unapparent in meaning.” Then whyweren’t the Salaf (including the Sahaba and the Prophet) completely clear when delivering the Message

of Islam that we have no idea what these words mean in relation to Allah, rather they are without meaningto us? Or why did they (according to him) do ta'weel of some of the Attributes but not all of them?

2) The Hanaabilah don’t believe that verses of the Attributes are completely without meaning, rather themeaning (not the def init ion) is known, and the Modality is unknown, and this is in conf ormation with thestatement of Imam Malik(Died 179 Hijri):

"How did Allah make istiwa' on the throne?" Imam Malik inclined his head and was silent untilthe sweat of fever covered his brow, then he looked up and said: "Istiwa' is notunknown (ghayru majhul), the modality of it is inconceivable in the mind (al-kayfu minhughayru ma`qul); but belief in it is obligatory, and inquiring about it is a heretical innovation.You are an innovator." And he gave orders for him to be taken out."

3) The Hanaabilah (By and large) didn’t do Ta’weel.

__________________________________________

Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

""This naturally drew the criticism of neo-Hanbalis, at their forefront Ibn Taymiya and Ibn al-Qayyim, as it still does of today’s "reformers" of Islam, who echo the former two’s argumentsthat figurative interpretation (ta’wil) was a reprehensible departure (bid‘a) by Ash‘aris andothers from the way of the early Muslims (salaf); and who call for a "return to the sunna," thatis, to anthropomorphic literalism.""

1) Actually the crit ism came bef ore them, by one of the two most relied upon scholars in the HanbaliMadhab, Imam Mawaf iq u deen Ibn Qudaama Al-Maqdisi, In which case he called Ta'weel a reprehensibleInnovation in the religion:

2) We don’t agree that the Salaf did Ta’weel, rather if and when you show us an Ayah that you think wasrelated to an Attribute of Allah, and there was Ta’weel done to it, it most likely wasn’t Ta’weel or wasn’tconcerning an Attribute. __________________________________________

Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

""Now, it seems worthwhile in the face of such "reforms," to first ask an obvious question,namely: Is literalism really identical with pristine Islamic faith (‘aqida)?""

1) What is meant by Literalism? Because if what is meant by that is “Non Metaphorical” Then this hasbeen the belief of the Salaf and the Khalaf who f ollowed them in the correct creed in this regard, likewiseit has been reported that this is the belief of Imam Ahmad, Where it is reported that he believed the Faceof Allah to upon Non-Metaphorical:__________________________________________

Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

""Or rather did figurative interpretation (ta’wil)exist among the salaf? We will answer thisquestion with a few actual examples ofmutashabihat or ‘unapparent in meaning’Qur’anic verses and hadiths, and examinehow the earliest scholars interpreted them:

1. Forgetting. We have mentioned above theQur’anic verse,

"Today We forget you as you have forgotten this day of yours" (Qur’an 45:34),

which the early Muslims used to interpret figuratively, as reported by a scholar who washimself an early Muslim (salafi) and indeed,the sheikh of the early Muslims in Qur’anicexegesis, the hadith master (hafiz) Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (d. 310/922); who explains the aboveverse as meaning: "‘This day, Resurrection Day, We shall forget them,’ so as to say, ‘We shall

abandon them to their punishment’" [emphasis mine] (Tabari, Jami‘ al-bayan [Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, 1405/1984], 8.202). Now, this is precisely ta’wil, or interpretation in other than the verse’sostensive sense. Al-Tabari ascribes this interpretation, through his chains of transmission, tothe Companion (Sahabi) Ibn ‘Abbas (Allah be well pleased with him) (d. 68/687) as well as toMujahid [ibn Jabr] (d. 104/722), Ibn ‘Abbas’s main student in Qur’anic exegesis""

1) We agree that this is Ta’weel in the sense of it being Taf seer, however we don’t agree that this is theTa’weel that is propagated by the Ashaa’irah, in which case the Attributes of Allah are changed to animpossible meaning. This is because here the Arabic word f or “Forget” can linguistically mean “Leave”,even in the English language this is possible. For if a person says “Forget you!” he wouldn’t ACTUALLYf orget him rather he would remove that person f rom his lif e.

2) Allah Himself negates that he f orgets in the sense of not remembering or knowing when he said in20:52:

[Moses] said, "The knowledge thereof is with my Lordin a record. My Lord neither errs nor forgets.

__________________________________________

Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

""2. Hands. In the verse,

"And the sky We built with hands; verily We outspread [it]" (Qur’an 51:47),

al-Tabari ascribes the figurative explanation (ta’wil) of with hands as meaning "with power (biquwwa)" through five chains of transmission to Ibn ‘Abbas (d. 68/687), Mujahid (d. 104/722),Qatada [ibn Da‘ama] (d. 118/736), Mansur [ibn Zadhan al-Thaqafi] (d. 131/749), and Sufyanal-Thawri (d. 161/778) (Jami‘ al-bayan, 27.7–8).""

The Verse is 51:47 ;

And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander.1) The word in the verse is “Ayyd” which depending on the spelling can either literally mean power orhands because it is f rom the same root word, so again this is NOT Ta’weel because the word itselfmeans power. That’s why in the previous verse where the Jews said Allahs Hands are tied, Imam At-Tabari conf irmed that Hands are an Attribute of Allah and can’t be considered power, or ability. __________________________________________

Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

""3. Shin. Of the Qur’anic verse,

"On a day when shin shall be exposed, they shall be ordered to prostrate, but be unable"(Qur’an 68:32),

al-Tabari says, "A number of the exegetes of the Companions (Sahaba) and their students(tabi‘in) held that it [a day when shin shall be exposed] means a dire matter (amr shadid)shall be disclosed [emphasis mine] [n: the shin’s association with direness being that it wascustomary for Arab warriors fighting in the desert to ready themselves to move fast and hardthrough the sand in the thick of the fight by lifting the hems of their garments above the shin.This was apparently lost upon later anthropomorphists, who said the verse proved ‘Allah hasa shin,’ or, according to others, ‘two shins, since one would be unbecoming’]" (Jami‘ al-bayan,29.38). Al-Tabari also relates from Muhammad ibn ‘Ubayd al-Muharibi (d. 245/859), whorelates from Ibn al-Mubarak (d. 181/797), from Usama ibn Zayd [al-Laythi] (d. 153/770), from‘Ikrima [ibn ‘Abdullah al-Barbari] (d. 104/723), from Ibn ‘Abbas (d. 68/687) that shin in theabove verse means "a day of war and direness (harb wa shidda)" [emphasis mine] (ibid.,29.38). All of these narrators are those of the rigorously authenticated (sahih) collectionsexcept Usama ibn Zayd, whose hadiths are well authenticated (hasan).""

1) The conf irmation of shin f or Allah as an Attribute does not come f rom this verse, because this versedoes not have proof in it to make f rom his attributes, rather the verses apparent meaning is that it istalking about a dire matter (The last day) being revealed, and this is the linguistic meaningthat doesn't need any Ta’weel to be understood by the Arabs of that t ime.

2) Rather Shin as an Attribute of Allah is taken f rom a hadith in Saheeh Muslim Where the Prophet (AlayhiSalaatu wa Salaam) said:

، ةعمسو ءایر ایندلا يف دجسی ناك نم ىقبیو ةنمؤمو ، نمؤم لك هل دجسیف هقاس ، نع انبر فشكی ادحاو اقبط هرهظ دوعیف دجسیل بهذیف

(Our Lord will reveal His Shin, and every believing male and f emale will prostrate to Him. The only peoplewho will remain standing are those who prostrated in the worldly lif e only to be seen and heard (showingof f ). This type of person will try to prostrate at that t ime, but his back will made to be one stif f plate (thebone will not bend or f lex).

__________________________________________

Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

""4. Laughter. Of the hadith related in Sahih al-Bukhari from Abu Hurayra that the Prophet(Allah bless him and give him peace) said,

"Allah Most High laughs about two men, one of whom kills the other, but both of whom enterparadise: the one fights in the path of Allah and is killed, and afterwards Allah forgives thekiller, and then he fights in the path of Allah and is martyred,"

The hadith master (hafiz) Imam al-Bayhaqi (d. 458/1066) records that [Muhammad ibn Yusuf]al-Farabri (d. 320/932) related from the hadith master Imam al-Bukhari (d. "The meaning oflaughter in it is mercy" [emphasis mine] (Bayhaqi, Kitab al-asma’ wa al-sifat [1358/1939.Reprint. Beirut: Dar Ihya’ al-Turath al-‘Arabi, n.d.], 298).""

1) And without any possible bias, Imam Ibn Hajr Al- 'Asqalaani in his Sharh of Saheeh Al-Bukhari, Fath Al-Baari said: "I didn't see this in the copy that came f rom Al-Bukaari."- Meaning the Ta'weel of Laughter toMercy

هللا همحر يباطخلا لوق ركذ دعب هللا - همحر ينالقسعلا رجح نبا لاقو - :كحضلا ) ةفصل هللا همحر يراخبلا لیوأت " ىری امل ينعی يراخبلا ) نم انل تعقو يتلا خسنلا يف كلذ رأ ملو تلق :

ةمحرلاب "

__________________________________________

Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

"" 5. Coming. The hadith master (hafiz) Ibn Kathir (d. 774/1373) reports thatImam al-Bayhaqi (d. 458/1066) related from al-Hakim (d. 405/1014), from Abu‘Amr ibn al-Sammak (d. 344/955), from Hanbal [ibn Ishaq al-Shaybani] (d.273/886), the son of the brother of Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s father, that "Ahmad ibnHanbal (d. 241/855) figuratively interpreted the word of Allah Most High, "asmeaning ‘His recompense (thawab) shall come’" [emphasis mine]. Al-Bayhaqisaid, "This chain of narrators has absolutely nothing wrong in it" (Ibn Kathir, al-Bidaya wa al-nihaya [Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyya, 1985/1405], 10.342). Inother words, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, like the Companions (Sahaba) and other earlyMuslims mentioned above, also gave figurative interpretations (ta’wil) toscriptural expressions that might otherwise have been misinterpretedanthropomorphically, which is what neo-Salafis condemn the Ash‘ari school fordoing."‘And your Lord shall come . . .’ (Qur ’an 89:22),""

1) This has been dealt with bef ore here :

http://hanaabilah.blogspot.com/2012/06/did- imam-ahmad-do-taweel.html

In which Ibn Rajab says:

“It has been reported that Imam Ahmad said concerning Allahscoming, that it meant his order, however in this Hanbal wassingled out as the only one with this narration, and from ourcompanions (The Hanaabilah) are those that said, Hanbal isdeluded in that which he transmitted, and he is against thefamous madhab (of Imam Ahmad) that has many chains ofnarrator.(the one without ta'weel)"

__________________________________________

Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

""In light of the above examples, it is plain that the Ash‘ari school did not originate figurativeinterpretation, but rather it had been with Muslims from the beginning. And if the abovefigures are not the salaf or ‘early Muslims,’ who are? Ibn Taymiya (d. 728/1328) and Ibn al-Qayyim (d. 751/1350)?""

1) In light of the above examples it ’s clear to see that the bigger picture is not being presented, in thatthose examples either:

Weren't attributes

Wasn't Ta'weel that is dispraised.

Or weren't authentically attributed to the person that he attempted to attribute it to.

__________________________________________

Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

""These do not have to be an either-or for Muslims. Jahm’s brand of Mu‘tazilism has beendead for over a thousand years, while anthropomorphic literalism is a heresy that in previouscenturies was confined to a handful of sects like the Hanbalis addressed by ‘Abd al-Rahmanibn al-Jawzi in his Daf‘ shubah al-tashbih, or like the forgers of Kitab al-sunna who ascribed itto Imam Ahmad’s son ‘Abdullah, or like the Karramiyya [the followers of Muhammad al-Karram (d. 255/869)], who believed Allah to be a corporeal entity "sitting in person on HisThrone."

It is with all the greater concern that we see, in our times, pamphlets being circulated in an

attempt to create acceptance for these ideas, such as The Muslim’s Belief, a English tract onIslamic faith (‘aqida) that tells Western Muslim readers:

His [Allah’s] ‘settling [istiwa’] on the Throne’ means that He is sitting in person on His Throne[emphasis mine] in a way that is becoming to His Majesty and Greatness. Nobody except Heknows exactly how He is sitting (Sheikh Muhammad al-Salih al-‘Uthaymin, The Muslim’s Belief[tr. Dr. Maneh Hammad al-Juhani. Intr. Sheikh Ibn Baz. Riyad: World Assembly of MuslimYouth, 1407/1987], 11).

In previous Islamic centuries, someone who worshipped a god who ‘sits,’ moves about, andso forth, was considered to be in serious trouble in his faith (‘aqida). Listen to the words of theImam of Ahl al-Sunna in tenets of faith and heresiology, ‘Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi (d.429/1037):""

1) Why use the plural "Hanbalis" when he can only mention one person f rom among the Hanaabilah whoattacked "Literalism."?

2) Some Hanaabilah were much closer to the Asha'irah than others, the likes of which may have delvedinto a bit of Kalaam, or may have taken some rules f rom the Ashaa'irah, however, that doesn't changethe Madhab in whole, Especially when you have key scholars of the Madhab who made it perf ectly clearthat none of this should be used, rather, the original pure creed of Imam Ahmad and the Salaf shouldalways be relied upon, and is suf f icient. But again, you will very rarely f ind anyone completely attackingmembers of the Madhab the way that Ibn Al-Jawzi did.

3) Accusations of Tajseem have nothing to do with the word “Sitt ing” or "Limit" because if Sitt ing or Limitis authentically attributed to the Salaf , it would be no dif f erent than Rising (istawa) or Descending(nuzool), or Hands, Face, Feet, all of which are authentically attributed, and which also cause the Neo-Ashaai'rah to accuse the Salaf of being “In big trouble.” All of which when believed in with the method ofthe Salaf , all lead to same False Accusations of Anthropomorphism, while in reality they conf irmed themhow they came, without making a similitude between the Creator and the creation. So why single outSitt ing?

4) In f act sitt ing according to Adh-Dhahabi comes in a Saheeh saying of Umar (Radhi Allahu Anhu) inwhich multiple scholars of the Salaf conf irmed including:

Abu Ishaaq al-Sabi’i

At-Thawri

Al- ‘Amash

Israa’iil

Abd Ar-Rahman bin Mahdi

Abu Ahmad Az-Zubair

Wakee’

Ahmad Bin Hanbal

__________________________________________

Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

""Anyone who considers his Lord to resemble the form of aperson—as do the Bayaniyya [the followers of Bayan ibnSam‘an al-Tamimi (d. 119/737)], the Mughiriyya [followers ofal-Mughira ibn Sa‘id al-‘Ajali (d. 119/737)], the Jawaribiyya[followers of Dawud al-Jawaribi, (d. 2nd Hijra century)], and theHishamiyya [followers of Hisham ibn Salim al-Jawaliqi, theteacher of al-Jawaribi in anthropomorphism]—is onlyworshipping a person like himself. As for the permissibility ofeating the meat he slaughters or of marriage with him, hisruling is that of an idol-worshipper. . . . Regarding the anthropomorphists of Khurasan, of theKarramiyya, it is obligatory to consider them unbelievers because they affirm that Allah has aphysical limit and boundary from underneath, from whence He is contact with His Throne(Baghdadi, Usul al-din [Istanbul: Matba‘a al-Dawla, 1346/1929], 337).""

1) Again, this has nothing to do with the belief s of the Salaf , in that they did absolute af f irmation of theAttributes of Allah upon their apparent meaning by relinquishing the modality to Him. We don't believeAllah resembles a person at All, Neither did Ibn Taymiyyah, nor the Hanaabilah.

2) The true Anthropomorphisist believed that God was a Human being as he himself says as well as theAshaa'rah say here:

__________________________________________

Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

""If anthropomorphic literalism were anacceptable Islamic school of thought, why wasit counted among heresies and rejected for thefirst seven centuries of Islam that precededIbn Taymiya and his student Ibn al-Qayyim?

Anthropomorphism was not accepted, however, the creed of the Salaf has been and alwayswill be accepted, however, since that is also not accepted in reality by the likes of the Neo-Asha’irah, they would like to pretend that it was the fault of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Al-Qayyim,when it has been the creed of the Salaf, Ahlul Hadeeth, Athariyah, And Hanaabilah beforethem, and just like they were called Mujassimah without actually being from them, it’s notsurprise that Ibn Taymiyyah has to take the brunt of the accusations and hate, becauseotherwise these Jahmis would be more obvious in their hatred for the Aqeedah of the Salaf.

To summarize: we have distinguished three ways of understanding the mutashabihat, or‘unapparent in meaning’ verses and hadiths. The first is the way of tafwid, or ‘consigning theknowledge of what is meant to Allah,’ which was the way of Shafi‘i and many of the earlyMuslims; in accordance with the reading of the Qur’anic verse about the mutashabihat:

"though none knows its meaning except Allah [emphasis mine]. And those firm in knowledgesay, ‘We believe in all of it. All is from our Lord’" (Qur’an 3:7);

though another possible reading of the same verse is closer to the way of ta’wil, or ‘figurativeinterpretation’ which, as reported above, was done by the Companion (Sahabi) Ibn ‘Abbasand many other early Muslims; namely,

"though none knows its meaning except Allah and those firm in knowledge [emphasis mine];they say, ‘We believe in all of it. All is from our Lord’" (Qur’an 3:7)"""

To summarize we have only One correct way of understanding the Sif aat of Allah, and in this article theintent was not to do a complete assessment of that and present it to the readers, rather the intent wasto expose the wrong accusations of the writer in regard to what he thinks the Aqeedah of the Salaf was.

Including:

1) Ibn Al-Jawzi in no way represents the Hanaabilah f or his Ta'weel of SOME of the Attributes of Allah.

2) One of his books accusations is completely negated by the f act that those he wrote it against didconf irmation of things that were f rom weak narrations, the likes of which the modern day Hanaabilahdon't do.

3) It is not Anthropomorphism to conf irm the Attributes of Allah upon the Apparent meaning ('AlaaDhaahihiri) Rather Anthropomorphism comes when a person says that Allah is like the creation.

4) Attributes weren't mentioned in the Taf seer of the verse of "Mutashaabihaat" in 3:7, According to theMuf assir of the Salaf Imam At-Tabari.

5) In order to truly understand Imam Ahmads Aqeedah, one has to look the books of the Salaf , and thebooks of the Hanaabilah, including Imam Ibn Qudaama Al-Maqdsis, Ibn Rajab, and other than them.

6) As modern day Hanaabilah we don't simply say that just because one thing is taken f rom one book itmeans the entire book is accepted as correct, rather things are examined through the scope of QuranAnd Sunnah and the Way of the Salaf .

__________________________________________

Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

In my view, both these are Islamic, and both seem needed, though tafwid is superior where itdoes not lead to confusion about Allah’s transcendence beyond the attributes of createdthings, in accordance with the Qur’anic verse,

"There is nothing whatsoever like unto Him" (Qur’an 42:11).

As for anthropomorphism, it is clear from this verse and from the entire previous history ofthis Umma, that it is not an Islamic school of thought, and never has been. And Allah knowsbest.

Perhaps one should point out that his entire article was built upon a f alse premise, and in logicalarguments we call that.

1) A straw man is a type of argument and is an inf ormal f allacy based on misrepresentation of anopponent's posit ion. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having ref uted a proposition byreplacing it with a superf icially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and ref uting it,without ever having actually ref uted the original posit ion.

May Allah f orgive all the scholars mentioned, whether they be Hanbali, or Ashari, or otherwise, Ameen.

May Allah send his Peace and Blessings upon the Prophet Muhammad, On his Family, His Companionsand All those who f ollow them, Ameen.

________________________________________________________________________________

The original article written by Nuh Ha Mim Keller can be f oundhere: http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/masudq5.htm

Kitaab As-Sunnah: Abdullah Bin Ahmad Bin Hanbal

Kitaab Al- ‘It iqaad Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal: Abu Al-Fadhl ‘Abd Al-Waahid Abd Al- ‘Azeez Bin HaarithAt-Tamimi (Died 410 Hijri)

Ar-Rad ‘Alaa Al-Jahmiyah Wa Az-Zanaadiqa: Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal

Usool As-Sunnah: Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal

Lum’atul ‘It iqaad: Muwaf iq Ad-Deen Bin Qudaama

Ithbaat Al-Haddi Lillah: Abu Muhammad Mahmood Bin Abi Al-Qaasim Ad-Dashti (Died 665 Hijri)

Al-Madkhal Ilaa Madhab Al- Imam Ahmad: Abd Al-Qaadir Bin Badran Ad-Dimishqi (Died 1346 Hijri)

Sayd Al-Khaatir: Ibn Al-Jawzi

Sharh Jawhara At-Tawheed: Burhaan Ad-Deen Ibraheem Al-Baajoori (Died 1276)

Taf seer At-Tabari: Ibn Jareer At-Tabari

Sharh Al-Mandhooma As-Saf aareeniyah: Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Saalim As-Saf aareeni (Died1188)

Ahmad Bin Hanbal: Abd Al-Ghani Ad-Daqr

Tahreem An-Nadhr Fi Kutub Al-Kalaam: Ibn Qudaama

Sharh Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: Ibn Rajab

Kitaab Al- ‘Arsh: Imam Adh-Dhahabi