|
It seems that every fifteen minutes another textual tampering or distortion of meaning is born at the hands of a certain sect, and to refute them is like trying to reason with Gog and Magog. However, the following reply is not addressed to them.
This is without doubt a forged report as indicated by Imam al-Bayhaqi himself when he cited it in Manaaqib al-Shafi`i.
The above is cut-and-paste and a lie against the great Ash`ari Maliki Imam al-Qurtubi. The authentic position of al-Qurtubi from his Tafsir is thus:
1. The original quote from al-Qurtubi in al-Dhahabi's `Uluw [full edition, 600 pages edited by Hasan al-Saqqaf] here states (p. 574): "for its reality cannot be known." This is also what is found in al-Qurtubi's Tafsir. This tampering is one among many examples of the mendacity of al-Albani and his followers! The reason for this particular tahrif is that when the Salafiyya were faced with the reality of Tafwid (committal) among the Salaf, they invented the subdivision of Tafwid al-Kayfiyya ('committal of modality'!) so as to deny that the Salaf actually practiced Tafwid al-Ma`na ('committal of meaning'!) which is pure and unadulterated nullification (ta`teel). So when proof to actual committal of meaning comes up, they deny it or manipulate it, as in this case.
2. Al-Qurtubi stated verbatim: "Istiwa' is one of the Attributes of acts (min sifat al-af`al) according to the majority of the explanations." Al-Qurtubi, Tafsir (18:281). This is is the exact same position of Imam Abu al-Hasan al-Ash`ari RadyAllahu `anh and the position of the entirety of the Ash`ari School. There is no disagreement over the fact that istiwa' is real. Anyone that denies it is a kafir since it is in the Qur'an. What is rejected is vulgar, meddlesome, ignorant literalism and the attribution of istiwa' to Allah SWT as an attribute of the Essence as if the Throne existed without beginning, like the Essence!
3. The continuation of al-Qurtubi's words quoted in Mukhtasar al-`Uluw (p. 286) states: "And He mentioned His Throne specifically because it is the greatest of His creations. However, they actually did not know the modality or howness of his Istiwa' for its haqiqa cannot be known." This shows that al-Qurtubi understood the modality of istiwa' to be the same as the actuality of istiwa'. Why do the Hashwiyya (gross anthropomorphists) not mention this when they cite from Mukhtasar al-`Uluw?
4. Then al-Qurtubi continues, in his Tafsir (al-A`raf 54): "I SAY: the `Uluw [exaltation] of Allah Most High and His irtifa` [elevation] are an expression of the `uluw of His Majesty, Attributes, and Dominion. Meaning: There is nothing above Him whatsoever in the sense of Majesty and its qualities, nor with Him as a partner. Rather, He is the Most High in absolute and unconditional terms - exalted is He!" Why do the Hashwiyya not mention this when they cite from Tafsir al-Qurtubi?
5. To cite Imam al-Qurtubi in support of literalism and anthropomorphism in the Attributes is the height of ignorance and impertinence, as his strong Ash`ari position is clear as the sun in his book on the Names and Attributes of Allah SWT titled al-Asna fi Sharh al-Asma', in print in two volumes. But it is the historical proof against the Mujassima of Ahl al-Bid`a that just as their predecessors lied, they have no choice but to lie also. The examples of Tahreef and distortion in their books today are simply beyond count. See the introduction and appendices to our translation of Sayyid Yusuf al-Rifa`i's Nasiha to the Ulema of Najd for many examples of such tampering and misreprentations of the Ulema of Islam and their books. (Forthcoming at the Islamic Supreme Council of America publications insha Allah.)
Yet another example of manipulation: What Imam al-Baghawi said is that "they relegated their knowledge to Allah." He never said "They relegated the knowledge (of their kayfiyyah) to Allah."
As for Shaykh Shu`ayb, whoever said he is a "Salafi"? Rather, most of his marginal comments on the hadiths of the Attributes in his editions of the Musnad of Imam Ahmad, Sahih Ibn Hibban, Sharh al-Sunna of al-Baghawi, and Riyad al-Salihin of al-Nawawi, show clearly that he follows the Ash`ari position. Now watch them turn against him just like the Yahud, after first praising him, turned against `Abd Allah ibn Salam when they learnt he was now a Muslim.
[for an updated version see below 
]
Someone wrote:
Mawdu` and a lie in its attribution to the Imam. Al-Dhahabi himself states [Mukhtasar p. 136 #118; al-`Uluw p. 391 #327] that everything above was reported from the Imam by Abu Muti` al-Hakam ibn `Abd Allah al-Balkhi who is DISCARDED as a narrator according to Imam Ahmad, Ibn `Adi, Abu Dawud, a liar according to Abu Hatim, and a forger according to al-Dhahabi himself as reported by Ibn Hajar in Lisan al-Mizan (2:407)!.
Even so, the text mentioned by the Hanafi authorities is: "Whoever says, 'I do not know whether my Lord is in the heaven or on earth' is a disbeliever and, similarly, whoever says, 'He is on the Throne and I do not know whether the Throne is in the heaven or on earth ' is a disbeliever."
As to its meaning: al-Bayadi said in Ishaaraat al-Maraam: "This is because he implies that the Creator has a direction and a boundary, and anything that possesses direction and boundary is necessarily created. So this statement explicitly attributes imperfection to Allah Most High. The believer in [divine] corporeality and direction is someone who denies the existence of anything other than objects that can be pointed to with the senses. They deny the Essence of the Deity that is transcendent beyond that. This makes them positively guilty of disbelief." As quoted in al-Kawthari, "Khuturat al-Qawl bi al-Jiha" ("The Gravity of the Doctrine That Attributes Direction [to Allah Most High]") in his _Maqalat_ (p. 368-369).
Imam Abu Mansur al-Maturidi states something similar in Sharh al-Fiqh al-Akbar, and others.
From Mutarrif ibn 'Abd Allâh - al-Bukhârî's shaykh - and Habib ibn Abî Habib
on the h.adîth of descent ("Our blessed Lord descends in the lat third of
the night"): "It is our Blessed and Exalted Lord's command which descends
NOTES
1 The bracketed words are only in the wording cited by al-Qâdî 'Iyâd in his Tartîb al-Madârik (2:44).
I have this edition in front of me and the title is incorrectly reported.
The actual title is: Mukhtasar al-`Uluw i.e. the abridgment - in 300 pages -
edited by the chief innovator of our time, Nasir Albani. The complete
edition is not that of Albani but that of Hasan al-Saqqaf - in over 600
pages - which I also have.
Now, if it was a "most excellent work" then why did al-Dhahabi disclaim it
later in his adult career (he wrote the book as a young man)? He wrote on
its manuscript with his own hand, "I have realized it [this book] contains
baseless narrations and statements by many people that spoke loosely, and so
I neither subscribe to those expressions nor follow those people in them -
may Allah forgive them - nor do I consider them binding upon me as long as I
live, and this is my firm conviction, and I know that Allah - there is
nothing whatsoever like Him." As reported by the Hadith Master Ibn Nasir
al-Din al-Dimashqi in his handwriting on the front page of the original
manuscript of al-`Uluw.
I have that book also and al-Qurtubi in it makes abundantly clear that he is
against the position of the anthropomorphists!
The continuation of al-Qurtubi's words quoted in Mukhtasar al-`Uluw (p. 286)
states:
"And He mentioned His Throne specifically because it is the greatest of His
creations. However, they actually did not know the modality or howness of
his Istiwa' for the reality of its modality cannot be known."
NOTE: The original in al-Dhahabi's `Uluw [full edition, 600 pages edited by
Hasan al-Saqqaf] here states (p. 574): "for its reality cannot be known."
This is also what is found in al-Qurtubi's Tafsir. This tampering is one
among many examples of the mendacity of al-Albani and his followers! The
reason for this particular tahrif is that when the Salafiyya were faced with
the reality of Tafwid among the Salaf, they invented the subdivision of
Tafwid al-Kayfiyya so as to deny that the Salaf actually practiced Tafwid
al-Ma`na. So when proof to the latter comes up, they deny it or manipulate
it, as in this case.
THEN al-Qurtubi continues, in his Tafsir: "I SAY: the `Uluw [exaltation] of
Allah Most High and His irtifa` [elevation] are an expression of the `uluw
of His Majesty, Attributes, and Dominion. Meaning: There is nothing above
Him whatsoever in the sense of Majesty and its qualities, nor with Him as a
partner. Rather, He is the Most High in absolute and unconditional terms -
exalted is He!"
See the introduction and appendices to our translation of Sayyid Yusuf
al-Rifa`i's Nasiha to the Ulema of Najd for many more examples of their
tampering and misreprentations of the Ulema of Islam and their books.
As for the Ghunya: it is not an integrally preserved text and the copies we
have today are corrupt. As for the book Ijtima` al-Juyush al-Islamiyya it is
crammed with forgeries - like al-Sunna by `Abd Allah ibn Ahmad - and Ibn
al-Qayyim is a notorious Mujassim.
In conclusion:
Those who call themselves Salafiyyah do not mind lying about the Ulema they
quote; make up their own definitions of tafwid and ta'wil; and generally
have no idea of the accurate positions of the Salaf and the latter are
innocent of them. Allah is our refuge from their bid`a and dalala. And Allah
knows best.
Hajj Gibril
[March 10, 2001]
Refutation of the "Salafi" refutation of the Encyclopedia of Islamic
Doctrine
Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim
Quotations from troid.org site as of March 2003.
See also the chapter "More tamperings of Salafis"
above
Look at the ignorance of those people who take bladders for
lanterns. Abu `Amr ibn al-Sammak is one of the great Hadith
Masters, the Shaykh of al-Hakim and al-Daraqutni over whom
there is no doubt. Al-Dhahabi called him "the Shaykh, the
Imam, the abundant Muhaddith, the truthful, the Musnid of
Iraq, `Uthman ibn Ahmad ibn `Abd Allah..." (Siyar) and he
mentions him in Tadhkirat al-Huffaz also.
The one referred to in Talkhis al-Mustadrak is a different
person. How ignorant to confuse the two! Here is the chain
in question: Haddathana Ibn al-Sammak, haddathana Muhammad
ibn `Isa al-Mada'ini, haddathana Shu`ayb ibn Harb, haddathana
jaarun lana yukanna Aba `Amr = one of our neighbors called
Abu `Amr narrated to us. The latter is the unknown, not Ibn
al-Sammak.
The above is false on many levels. First, the narration
from Ahmad under discussion is his ta'wil of the "coming"
and "arrival" - maji' and ityan - of Allah Most High in
the Qur'anic verses to that effect, NOT the hadith of Nuzul.
Second, Abu Ya`la is considered unreliable by the Hanbalis
themselves in matters of `Aqida and he is notorious for
being a Mujassim; as is Ibn al-Qayyim without doubt, not
to mention the centuries between him and Imam Ahmad
in the first place - where are their isnads to begin?!
Third, the book named al-Sunna and attributed to `Abd Allah
ibn Ahmad contains things like "Is istiwa' any other than
sitting??" and contains MOSTLY FORGERIES according to
Shaykh Shu`ayb al-Arna'ut.
Fourth, a few lines below these people adduce that same
man's - Ibn al-Qayyim - claim that Hanbal ibn Ishaq is
supposedly unreliable in relating matters from Ahmad.
Consider how they produce him when it suits them and
reject him when it suits them!
Note that the above is a purely conjectural argument
because he is unable to weaken the report outwardly.
So he resorts to zann i.e. "He couldn't have said so."
It is typical of Ibn Taymiyya to use grand terms such as
the attribution of tawatur and so forth to defend his
views. The fact is, he is notorious for his unreliable
manner in quoting the Salaf.
For example, in Majmu` al-Fatawa (4:319) you find:
The above is a thoroughly inaccurate statement.
Qadi `Iyad in al-Shifa' said that the Jumhur of the
Fuqaha' from the schools of Malik, al-Shafi`i, and
Abu Hanifa, agree that the Prophets are protected from
all minor sins because one is required to follow them in
the minutest matters. It is even reported from Malik that
this is obligatory to believe.
As for the report from al-Amidi it is inaccurate. He
actually said in al-Ihkam (1:171) that all but the
Khawarij concur Prophets are protected from the minor sins
if the latter bear on their character. If, however, it
comes to a rare word spoken out of anger, then the
majority of the Ash`aris and Mu`tazilis allow it. So
the issue is not by any means as clearcut as the words
attributed to Ibn Taymiyya would lead one to believe.
Ibn Taymiyya often relies on tahweel - verbal intimidation -
with phrases such as "the Book, the Sunna, the Companions,
the Tabi`in, their successors, and the Imams all support what
I am saying." This impressed the public in his time as it
continues to do in ours and there is no power save by Allah.
This is among the typical high-handed statements of
Ibn al-Qayyim and his teacher. Ibn Abi Ya`la in
Tabaqat al-Hanabila narrated that al-Khallal - the
principal compiler of the early Hanbali Madhhab -
said of Hanbal that his narrations from Ahmad were
so good that "I might compare them to those of al-
Athram in excellence, thoroughness, and perfection"!
It is no use to attempt ta`til of his reliability.
More importantly, note that the positions of Imam
Ahmad in `Aqida are one thing and those held by
later Hanbalis are another! Even in his own lifetime,
Imam Ahmad had a problem with some of his students
in their attributing to him things he never said.
I have discussed this in some detail in my new book
_The Four Imams and Their Schools_, please look it up.
with the meaning: His command descends. This report
(from Maalik) has two chains of narration; the first: from Habeeb his
scribe, and this Habeeb is not the actual Habeeb, rather he is a liar
(kadhdhaab) and a forger (waddaa) by unanimous agreement of all the Ahl
ul-Jarh wat-Tadeel and not a single one of the scholars depended upon him
in his narration and in the isnaad. The second, in which there is an unknown
person (majhool) whose condition is not known. Therefore, amongst his
companions are some who affirm this narration and amongst them are those who
do not because the most famous of his companions have not narrated
anything like this from him." (ibn al-Qayyim, Mukhtasar us-Sawaaiq
al-Mursalah, 2/260-
261)
The above is more of the same unreliability in reporting
in addition to a mindless mistake in translation. What
one of the Ulema said is: This Habeeb is no habeeb i.e.
he is not lovely as his name claims - etc. - not "this
Habeeb is not the actual Habeeb"!!
To address Ibn al-Qayyim's argument: first, we are not
discussing interpolations in Malik's discourse - a claim
which also requires proof - but a narration authentically
related from Imam Ahmad and verified by the Huffaz. It is
useless to discuss other matters rather than focussing on
this chain: it is either false or true.
Second, Ibn al-Qayyim has not gotten all the facts about
the narration he brought up from Imam Malik. If he had,
he would have seen that it supports the opposite of what
he is trying to claim. Namely, that the SECOND narration
from Malik to that effect is from Mutarrif ibn `Abd Allah,
one of al-Bukhari's authorities, a most reliable companion
of Malik and most definitely one of his most famous ones.
Nor does his chain contain any unknown narrator. I refer
to it again further below.
Third, the bases of Ibn al-Qayyim's argument is that the
Malik report is definitely inauthentic, which is not at
all the position of the Hadith Masters - namely, Salih ibn
Ayyub, Yahya ibn Bukayr, Qadi `Iyad, and Ibn `Abd al-Barr!
`Iyad even questions the weakening of Ibn Abi Habib as
exaggerated. In all, it is evident that Ibn al-Qayyim is
swayed by his bias in `aqida, which clouds his judgment.
Yet another irrelevancy. The above refers to another verse
and has nothing to with the discussion at hand. Further,
the chains from Qatada are very weak because of Ibn Humayd
who was accused of lying while the report from al-Dahhak
refers to the *vision* of Allah together with the vision of
Hellfire, not their *being* side by side - subhan Allah!
Even supposing the above were authentic, we can mention
far many more reports from the Salaf confirming the view
of Imam Ahmad's ta'wil.
The Tâbi`î Abû al-`Aliya (d. 90) and al-Rabî` (d. 139) said of 2:210: "It
means the angels come in the clouds. It is confirmed by His saying: {A day
when the heaven with the clouds will be rent asunder and the angels will be
sent down, a great descent} (25:25)."1
Al-Bayhaqî said: "[Abû al-`Aliya's] commentary rightly establishes that the
clouds are a place and vehicle only for the angels, whereas there is neither
place nor vehicle for Allâh Almighty."2
Al-Ash`arî said that Allâh Almighty on the Day of Judgment shall bring about a certain act (fî`l) which He named "coming" and "arrival."3
Al-Qurtubî reiterated al-Ash`arî's explanation and said: "It is based on the
lexical meaning of ityân, which is to proceed to do something (al-qasd ilâ
al-shay'). The meaning of the verse is thus: Wait they for naught else than
that Allâh should cause to pass a certain act with some of His creatures
whereby He shall proceed to requite them and judge them, just as He brought
to be a certain act which He called `descent' and another which He called
`establishment.'"4
The grammarian al-Akhfash (d. 210) said that {that Allâh should come}
(2:210) is not understood literally concerning Allâh, but means that His
order (amr) should come.5
The grammarian al-Zajjâj (d. ~310) said: "It means the promised reckoning
and punishment shall come to them in the form of a cloud, as in His saying:
{Allâh visited them from a place whereof they recked not} (59:2), that is:
by abasing them."6
Al-Fakhr al-Râzî reiterated Ahmad's interpretation of verse 2:210: "It means
that His order should come unto them, as proved by His saying: {Await they
aught save that the angels should come unto them or your Lord's command
should come to pass?} (16:33). The two verses relate a single event, and one
explains the other."7
Al-Râzî further said that the saying of Allâh {Wait they} (2:210, 16:33) is
referring to the Jews: "His saying: {O you who believe! Come, all of you,
into submission} (2:208) was revealed only concerning the Jews.8
Concerning the h.adîth: "On the Day of Resurrection, Allâh shall come to the
people in the form (s.ûra) that is familiar to them" 11
Similarly, Imâm Abû Sulaymân al-Khat.t.âbî said:
Similarly Sult.ân al-`Ulamâ':
Similarly Shaykh al-Islâm:
; as for Him, He is eternally the same, He
does not move or go to and fro."2 Ibn Rushd in Sharh. al-'Utbiyya - a
commentary on an early work of Mâlikî jurisprudence by Muh.hammad ibn Ah.mad
ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz al-'Utbî al-Qurt.ubî (d. 254) - stated that Mâlik's
position is: "The Throne is not Allâh's location of settledness (mawdi'
istiqrâr Allâh)."3 The report attributing to Imâm Mâlik the words: "Allâh is
in the heaven and His knowledge is in every place" is a condemned (munkar),
anomalous (shâdhdh) report of questionable authenticity narrated through
Ah.mad ibn H.anbal from Surayj ibn al-Nu'mân al-Lu'lu'i 4 from 'Abd Allâh ibn
Nâfi' al-Sa'igh from Mâlik.5 Imâm Ah.mad himself declared 'Abd Allâh ibn
Nâfi' al-Sa'igh weak (da'îf), Abû Zur'a frowned at his name and declared him
"condemned" (munkar), al-Bukhârî questioned his memorization, and Ibn 'Adi
stated that he transmitted oddities (gharâ'ib) from Mâlik.6 As for the
content of the report, Shaykh 'Abd al-Fattah Abû Ghudda noted in his
commentary on Ibn 'Abd al-Barr's al-Intiqa' that it is contradicted by what
is firmly established in mass-transmitted narrations from Mâlik and by
al-Sa'igh's other report from Mâlik omitting the above words.7 The report is
made further dubious by the fact that Mâlik was well-known to condemn any
statements about the Essence and Attributes of Allâh Most High other than
sound reports, particularly statements that suggest anthropomorphism.8
Al-Awzâ'î said: "Whoever holds on to the rare and unusual positions of the
scholars has left Islâm."9 
2 Narrated from Mutarrif by Ibn 'Abd al-Barr in al-Tamhîd (7:143) with a weak
chain because of Jâmi' ibn Sawada as per al-Dâraqut.nî in Ibn H.ajar's Lisân
(2:93). Also narrated from Salih ibn Ayyûb from Habib ibn Abî Habib - who is
very weak - by al-Dhahabî in Syar A'lâm al-Nubalâ' (8:418). The latter
reported in his Mîzân (1:452) from Ibn 'Adi's Kamil (2"818) the opinion that
all of Ibn Abî Habib's narrations are forged but this is an extreme
statement in light of three factors: (a) Ibn 'Abd al-Barr in al-Tamhîd
(24:177) mentioned Habib as merely weak, adding: "His reports from Mâlik are
full of mistakes and condemned matters"; (b) Salih ibn Ayyûb said: "I
mentioned this report to Yah.yâ ibn Bukayr and he said: "Excellent, by
Allâh! and I did not hear it from Mâlik." Narrated by al-Dhahabî who
describes Ibn Bukayr in Tadhkirat al-H.uffâz. (2:420) as "the muh.addith of
Egypt, the Imâm and trustworthy h.adîth Master... one of the vessels of
knowledge together with truthfulness and complete reliability... Where is
the like of Ibn Bukayr in his leadership in the Religion, his insight in
fatwâ, and the abundance of his learning?" (c) Ibn 'Abd al-Barr in al-Tamhîd
(7:143) also narrates this report from Habib, then goes on to narrate it
from Mutarrif, adding: "It is possible that the matter be as Mâlik said, and
Allâh knows best." It is established that Jâmi' did narrate from Mutarrif,
as stated by al-Mizzî in Tahdhîb al-Kamâl (28:71).
3 As quoted in Fath. al-Bârî (1959 ed. 7:124 #3592).
4 Misspelt Shurayh in al-Saqqâf's edition of al-'Uluw (p. 396 #340) and
al-Mahdî's edition of al-Shari'a (p. 293 #663-664). Shurayh ibn al-Nu'mân
al-Sa'idi al-Kûfî is a Tâbi'î who died before al-Sa'igh was born.
5 In Ibn 'Abd al-Barr's al-Intiqa' (p. 71), al-Dhahabî's Mukhtasar al-'Uluw
(p. 247), and al-Ajurrî's al-Shari'a (p. 293 #663-664).
6 Al-Dhahabî, Mîzân (2:513-514 #4647); al-'Uqayli, al-Du'afa' (2:311), Ibn
'Adi, al-Kamil (4:242 #1070=4:1556); Abû Hatim, al-Jarh wa al-Ta'dil
(5:183); Ibn H.ajar, Tahdhîb al-Tahdhîb (6:46-47 #99). Dr. Nur al-Dîn 'Itr,
however, states in his margins on al-Dhahabî's al-Mughnî fî al-Du'afa'
(1:513 #3396) that al-Sa'igh is very reliable when narrating from Mâlik and
that Ibn H.ajar declared him trustworthy (thiqa) in al-Taqrîb. Yet, the
latter grading was downgraded to "truthful" (sadûq) by al-Arna'ût and Ma'rûf
in al-Tahrir (2:277 #3659). Al-Albânî in his notes in Mukhtasar al-'Uluw (p.
140) criticized al-Kawthari for citing al-Sa'igh as weak in his introduction
to al-Bayhaqî's al-Asmâ' wa al-Sifat (p. 0), but he himself cites him as
weak in al-Silsila al-Da'ifa (2:231-232) as pointed out by Shaykh H.asan
al-Saqqâf in his edition of al-'Uluw (p. 397 n. 708)!
7 In Ibn 'Abd al-Barr, al-Intiqa' (p. 71 n. 3 and p. 73).
8 For example, Mâlik said: "Allâh is neither ascribed a limit nor likened
with anything" (lâ yuhaddad wa lâ yushabbah). Ibn al-'Arabi, Ahkam al-Qur'ân
(4:1740).
9 Cited by al-Dhahabî, Siyar A'lâm al-Nubalâ' (1997 ed. 7:99). 3. Imaam adh-Dhahabee said in the final lines of his most excellent work,
'al-Uluww lil-'Aliyyil-Ghaffaar' (pp.286-287):"Al-Qurtubee said concerning the saying of Allah, the Most High, "Then he
ascended (istawaa) the Throne", We have explained the sayings of the
Scholars regarding this issue in the book 'al-Asnaa fee Sharh al-Asmaa
al-Husnaa' and we mentioned fourteen different sayings therein"up until he said, "And the Salaf of the very first times - may Allah be
pleased with them all - never used to negate direction (al-jihah) for Allah
and nor did they used to express this (negation). Rather, they, and all of
the others, used to speak with its affirmation for Allah, the Most High
just as His Book has spoken about it and just as His Messengers informed of
it. And not a single one of the Salaf denied that his ascending (istawaa)
the Throne was real and true (haqeeqah) (as opposed to metaphorical,
majaaz)."
GF Haddad ©Refutation of the "Salafi" refutation and < Ibn Taymiyya, a survey > 
(1) "Salafi" refutation of Imam Ahmad's Ta'wil....
[Interpretation of the "coming of Allah" as the coming
of his order (amr) or that of his reward (thawab).]
(Ibn Hazm, al-Fisal (2:173). Al-Kawthari in his
edition of al-Bayhaqis al-Asma wal-Sifat (p. 448
cf. p. 292) states that Abu Yala also narrates it
from Ahmad. See also Ibn al-Jawzis Daf Shubah
al-Tashbih (Saqqaf ed. p. 110 and 141).
The "Salafis" said:
This presentation of Imaam Ahmads view is rejected for a number of reasons:
i. The chain of transmission of the narration which al-Bayhaqee mentions
from Haakim
from Aboo Amr ibn as-Sammaak is weak. Adh-Dhahabee said in his Talkhees of
al-
Haakims al-Mustadrak (1/539) that Aboo Amr ibn as-Sammaak is unknown.
The "Salafis" said:
ii. What is authentically related from Imaam Ahmad is that which al-Qaadee
Aboo Yalaa
narrates in his book Ikhtilaaf ur-Riwaayatain (1/250) and also ibn al-Qayyim
in Mukhtasar
us-Sawaaiq (p.386): "Hanbal said: I said to Aboo Abdullaah (Imaam Ahmad):
Allaah - the
Mighty and Magnificent - descends to the lowest heaven? He said: Yes. I
said: Is His
descent by His Knowledge or what? He said to me: Be quiet about this, and
he became
very angry and said: Pass on the hadeeth as it has come". And Abdullaah bin
Ahmad said
in his book as-Sunnah: "I asked my father: Allaah descends to the lowest
heaven. How is
his descending, is it His knowledge or not? He said: Be quiet or severe
punishment shall
afflict you! Then he said: Pass on the hadeeth as it has come."
The "Salafis" said:
iii. Ibn Taymiyyah said: "There is no doubt that that which is reported in
mutawaatir form
from Ahmad opposes this narration (in which Imaam Ahmad is supposed to have
resorted
to taweel) and makes it clear that he does not say: The Lord comes
(meaning) His
command comes and descends, rather he rejects the one who says that." (ibn
Taymiyyah,
Sharh Hadeeth an-Nuzool, p.202)
"The view that the Prophets were protected from the major sins
but not from the minor sins is that of the majority of the
Ulema of Islam and all the groups. It is even the view of
most of the people of Kalam; as mentioned by Abu al-Hasan al-
Amidi, this is the view of most of the Ash`aris. It is also
the view of most of the people of Tafsir and Hadith and the
Fuqaha'. In fact, nothing was reported from the Salaf, the
Imams, the Companions, the Tabi`in, and their successors
except what conforms to this view...."The "Salafis" said:
iv. Ibn al-Qayyim wrote: "As for the narration reported from Imaam Ahmad -
then his
companions are divided into three groups regarding it. The first: That this
is mistakenly
attributed to him since the only one who spoke about it is Hanbal and he is
one who has
many opinions/reports which are in opposition to what is well known from the
madhhab
of Ahmad... However, what is correct is that it is a rejected narration
(shaadh) which
opposes the essence of his madhhab."
The "Salafis" said:
Ibn al-Qayyim went on to say that a similar
difference arose amongst the companions of Imaam Maalik: "Something similar
to this
difference occurred in the madhhab of Maalik. It is well known from him and
from the
Scholars of the Salaf to affirm the texts of the Attributes and the
prohibition of resorting to taweel (interpolation). It has been reported
from him (Maalik) that he interpolated the saying (of Allaahs Messenger):
Our Lord descends The "Salafis" said:
v. Furthermore, ibn Jareer at-Tabaree in his Tafseer of 89:22 reports the
following
narrations from the Salaf in explanation of the verse: Ad-Dahhaak said:
"the angels
descend in ranks of separate lines, then the Exalted King descends with
Jahannam next to
Him, on His left." Qataadah said: " and Allaah comes on that Day with
Jahannam." He
also said: "Paradise and Hellfire are next to Him when He descends from His
Throne to
His Kursee to judge His creation."
Then His
saying {And if you slide back after the clear proofs have come unto you}
(2:209) addresses the Jews, and therefore His saying {Wait they} is
referring to them.9 The meaning is: "They shall not accept your Religion
except if Allâh comes to them in the shadows of the clouds so that they can
see Him distinctly, for the Jews were anthropomorphists (mushabbiha). They
considered it possible for Allâh to come and go, and they said that He
manifested Himself to Mûsâ - upon him peace - on the Mount in the shadows
of the clouds. So they asked for something similar in the time of Muh.ammad
upon him blessings and peace."10 Imâm al-Bayhaqî said:
This can be interpreted to mean that He shall come to them in the
Attribute (s.ifa) that is familiar to them... What confirms this
interpretation is the Prophet's saying
upon him blessings and peace - in
the narration of `At.â' ibn Yasâr from Abû Sa`îd al-Khudrî: "Then Allâh will
come to them in a form lower [or more suitable] (adnâ) than the one wherein
they had seen Him," 12 whereas they had not seen Him at all prior to this.
One understands therefore that the meaning of "form" here is
"Attribute."13 The meaning of 'Allâh shall come to the people etc.' is He shall lift the
veil for them so that they shall see Him with the eyes (h.attâ yarawnahu
`iyânan) just as they used to know Him in the world through proofs (kamâ
kânû `arafûhu fîl-dunyâ istidlâlan). And the sight of Him after they used
not to see Him, is equivalent to the coming of someone never seen
heretofore.14
His coming (majî'uhu) is a figure of speech (majâz) for His being present
(h.ud.ûr) and His appearing for the eyes to see following invisibility, as
in the verse {And your Lord shall arrive with angels, rank on rank}
(89:22).15
Know that there are two positions among the people of learning on the
narrations and verses of the Divine Attributes. The first one - and this is
the school of the majority of the Salaf or rather all of them - states that
one does not address their meaning but says: We are obliged to believe in
them and we hold, concerning them, whatever befits the majesty of Allâh Most
High and His magnificence, at the same time categorically believing that
Allâh Most High - {Nothing whatsoever is like unto Him} (42:11) and that He
is declared transcendent (munazzah) beyond corporeality (al-tajsîm),
displacement (al-intiqâl), dimensionality (al-tah.ayyuz) in any given
direction (jiha), and all the rest of the attributes of creatures. And this
position is that of a group of the scholars of kalâm and a group of their
verifying scholars have preferred it. And it is the safest position (wa-huwa
al-aslam).
The second position - and it is that of most of the mutakallimûn
- is that such texts be interpreted (tata'awwal) according to what befits
them in their respective contexts, and that this is permissible only to
those who are qualified to interpret them. Namely, one thoroughly versed in
the language of the Arabs, the principles of jurisprudence, and the branches
of the Law, with mastery in learning. According to this position one says,
about the words "Then Allâh shall come to them": the "coming" (al-ityân) is
an expression for their seeing Him. For custom dictates that whoever is
absent from someone else cannot be seen by the latter except by coming to
him. So the "coming" and "arrival" (majî') here express the vision
metaphorically (majâzan). It was also said that the "coming" is an act among
the acts of Allâh Most High which He named "coming." It was also said that
by the coming of Allâh is meant that one of the angels of Allâh comes to
them. Al-Qâd.î `Iyâd. said: "This latter meaning is the most correct for
the h.adîth in my view."16
The above suffices to refute any claim of a supposed consensus of the Salaf
(as claimed by a modern Wahhabi) whereby they did not interpret the "coming"
of Allâh Most High as His order.17
NOTES
1 Narrated from Abû al-`Aliya [al-Riyâh.î the student of Ibn `Abbâs] by
al-Bayhaqî in al-Asmâ' (Kawtharî ed. p. 448; H.âshidî ed. 2:370 §943)
through al-H.âkim with a chain containing Abû Ja`far al-Râzî (`Isâ ibn Abî
`Isâ Mâhân) whom al-Khat.îb and Ibn H.ajar declared "truthful but poor in
memorizing" - although considered trustworthy (thiqa) by Ibn al-Madînî, Ibn
Ma`în, Abû H.âtim, and al-D.iyâ' al-Maqdisî - and by al-T.abarî, Ibn Abî
H.âtim, al-Qurt.ubî, and al-Suyût.î in their Tafsîr (verse 2:210), also by
Abû `Ubayd ibn Sallâm and Ibn al-Mundhir as stated in al-Suyût.î's al-Durr
al-Manthûr.
2 Al-Bayhaqî, Al-Asmâ' wal-S.ifât (Kawtharî ed. p. 448; H.âshidî ed. 2:370).
3 Ibid. (Kawtharî ed. p. 448; H.âshidî ed. 2:371).
4 Al-Qurt.ubî, Tafsîr (verse 2:210).
5 As cited by al-Qurt.ubî in his Tafsîr (verse 2:210).
7 As cited by al-Kawtharî, Al-Asmâ' wal-S.ifât (Kawtharî ed. p. 447).
8 As established in al-Wâh.idî's Asbâb al-Nuzûl and al-Suyût.î's Asbâb
al-Nuzûl.
9 This is also the position of Ibn Kathîr, al-Qurt.ubî, and others on verse
2:210.
10 As cited by al-Kawtharî, Al-Asmâ' wal-S.ifât (Kawtharî ed. p. 448).
11 Narrated in a long h.adîth from Abû Hurayra and Abû Sa`îd by al-Bukhârî
and Muslim.
13 Al-Asmâ' wal-S.ifât (Kawtharî ed. p. 296; H.âshidî ed. 2:70).
14 In Ibn al-Jawzî, Daf` Shubah al-Tashbîh (1998 al-Kawtharî repr. p. 35).
15 Ibn `Abd al-Salâm, al-Ishâra ilâ al-Ijâz (p. 106-107).
16 Al-Nawawî, Sharh. S.ah.îh. Muslim (Turâth ed. 3:19).
17 "To explain these verses as a reference to the coming or arrival of the
order of Allâh is unsound because it contravenes the literal meaning (z.âhir
al-lafz.) of the verse and the consensus of the salaf, and there is no proof
for it." Muh.ammad ibn S.âlih. al-`Uthaymîn, Commentary on Ibn Taymiyya's
`Aqîda Wâsit.iyya (Cairo: Maktabat al-`Ilm, p. 23). In reality, such
interpretation is in strict conformity with the principles of Qur'anic
commentary nor is there any consensus to its contrary, as shown by the above
quotes. As for its proof, it is given in the verse (16:33) adduced by Imâm
Ah.mad.
The phrase "as he wills" in no way contradicts the ta'wil reported from Imam Ahmad.
Can they read?? They are attributing to Ibn Hajar what in fact is his quotation of al-Amidi, one of the famous mutakallimun of the Khalaf, in a long passage in which al-Amidi begins by quoting the positions of those who support the way of the Khalaf as wiser and explaining what they mean - namely, that it is more complex and detailed for persuading atheists or skeptics - then he moves to the contra argument and says: Others said that one who takes the path of the Khalaf cannot be sure..." There is no doubt that al-Amidi supports qualified ta'wil.
Note that the Juwayni in question here is not Imam al- Haramayn - Abu al-Ma`ali - but his father Abu Muhammad. More importantly, the above epistle is SPURIOUS. Even if it were authentic, his own son followed the Ash`ariyya and so did the latter's student, Hujjat al-Islam al-Ghazzali. As for the "Salafis'" reference to Fath al-Bari 13:350 to show that Imam Ibn al-Juwayni - Imam al-Haramayn - abandoned `Ilm al-Kalam and the way of the Ash`ariyya, it is another falsehood built on a deliberate misrepresentation of Ibn al- Juwayni's words. What Ibn Hajar said is that he embarked on the perilous seas of Kalam i.e. he over-specialized in it, and this is why he recommended to others not to follow his path. Al-Shafi`i disrecommended kalam to al-Muzani on the very same grounds: "You are in Taran" i.e. a whirlpool in the Black Sea. This does not mean that their involvement in Kalam was not necessary. Rather, it was both necessary and useful since it is by such involvement that they defeated the heretics of their time. However, the exact words of Ibn al-Juwayni do not even mention kalam but sound more like a Sufi search for the simplest direct taste (dhawq) of faith: Ibn al-Sam`ani in Dhayl Tarikh Baghdad narrated from Abu Ja`far Muhammad ibn Abi `Ali al-Hamadhani that Imam al- Haramayn said:
"I read fifty thousand times fifty thousand [folios]. Then I left behind the people of Islam and their Islam of outward sciences in those books. I took to the vast sea and probed what Muslims deem prohibited to probe. I did all this in the pursuit of truth. I used, in bygone times, to flee from imitation. Now I have returned from all this to the word of truth: 'Cling to the faith of old women' (`alaykum bi-din al-`aja'iz). If Allah does not catch me with His immense kindness so that I shall die with the faith of old women and my final end be sealed with the uprightness of the People of Truth and the pure declaration: la ilaha illallah - then woe to al-Juwayni's son!"Ibn al-Subki comments in Tabaqat al-Shafi`iyya al-Kubra (5:191-192):
"Ash`aris have two well-known positions regarding the affirmation of the Attributes and whether they are let pass according to their literal meaning but in confirmity with Transcendence, or whether they should be interpreted. The first position is that which is traced back to the Salaf and forms the Imam's choice in al-Risala al-Nizamiyya as well as in other passages of his kalam works. So his 'return' means a return from interpretation (al-ta'wil) to committal (al-tafwid). Neither the latter nor the former are condemned for it is a question of ijtihad. I mean the question of interpreting on the one hand or committing together with Transcendence. The great problem and terrible disaster consists in letting them pass according to literal meaning while believing that the latter is the actual meaning and that it is not impossible for it to apply to the Creator. And that is the creed of the idol-worshipping anthropomorphists. {Those in whose hearts is doubt} (3:7), their doubt impels them to pursue that which is allegorical {seeking to cause dissension}. Allah's curses be upon them uninterruptedly! How bold they are in committing lies, and how little is their understanding of realities!"As for the "Salafis'" citation of Imam al-Dhahabi in his Siyar A`lam al-Nubala' censuring Ta'wil, our reply is that al-Dahahabi is not ma`sum. He claimed that the Salaf "never subjected the verses and hadiths of the Attributes to tawil" but this is not entirely true. Yet, what is more to the point here, is that the Salaf never subjected the verses and hadiths of the Attributes to ta'wil leading to tajsim, which is what the "Salafis" do at the drop of a hat. The same goes for their citation of a similar claim by Ibn Qudama in Tahrim al-Nazar: he requests proofs of the ta'wil of the Salaf. But these proofs are many and can be readily accepted by those who have no leaning to anthropomorphism.
The above is definitely not al-Ash`ari's original text. Ibn `Asakir's citation of the same passage in Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari (p. 158-159) states: "[Our position is] that He has an eye (`aynan) without saying how." A recent edition of the Ibana by Bashshar `Uyun (p. 44) consequently amended its own tradition to follow the text cited by Ibn `Asakir since the evidence of the Qur'an and the Sunna mentions {My Eye (`ayni)} (20:39) in the singular and {Our Eyes} (52:48, 54:14) in the plural but never two eyes in the dual. Accordingly Ibn Hazm said:
"Saying: 'He has two eyes' is null and void and part of the belief of the anthropomorphists... Allah I said 'eye' (`ayn) and 'eyes' (a`yunin)... so it is not permissible for anyone to describe Him as possessing 'two eyes' because no text has reached us to that effect." Al-Fisal fil-Milal (2:166).Today's anthropomorphists continue to insist on the attribution of two eyes without proof, adducing the Prophet's statement, upon him peace: "The Antichrist (al-dajjal) is one-eyed whereas your Lord is not one-eyed" [Narrated from Ibn `Umar in al-Bukhari, Muslim, and the Sunan] but ignoring or rather pretending to ignore that Ahl al-Sunna explained this statement to mean that Allah Most High is exempt of defects and of the attributes of creatures, whereas the Antichrist is both created and imperfect. Cf. Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari and al-Nawawi, Sharh Sahih Muslim.
Further down, in all versions of the Ibana, the text states: "Allah Most High said that He possesses a face and an eye which is neither given modality nor defined"! Al-Ash`ari also said, in two editions of the Ibana (Dr. Fawqiyya Husayn Mahmud's 1977 edition and Abbas Sabbagh's 1994 edition):
"And [we believe] that He established Himself over the Throne in the sense that He said and the meaning that He wills in a way that transcends touch, settlement, fixity, immanence, and displacement. The Throne does not carry Him, rather the Throne and its carriers are carried by the subtleness of His power, subdued under His grip. He is above the Throne and the Heavens and above everything to the limits of the earth with an aboveness which does not bring Him nearer to the Throne and the Heavens, just as it does not make Him further from the earth. Rather, He is Highly Exalted above the Throne and the Heavens, just as He is Highly Exalted above the earth. Yet He is near to every entity and is {nearer to [the worshipper] than his jugular vein} and He witnesses everything."Al-Ash`ari also said, in his Risala ila Ahl al-Thughar, that it is categorically obligatory to affirm that Allah is not a body and that such attributes are not in the sense of organs, and that Allah has no limit and does not move from one place to another. He said these were a matter of Ijma` among Ahl al-Sunna.
This hadith has been graded Hasan by Ibn Hajar (Fath al-Bari, 13/373).
More precisely, he upon him peace - "placed his thumb
on his ear and his index finger on his eye."
You will find this hadith explained by our Sunni Imams
- Ibn Hibban and al-Bayhaqi with further comments by al-
`Izz Ibn `Abd al-Salam - in the PDF file "The 'Hand' of
Allah Most High" available at http://www.aqsaonline.co.uk/
It is evident that al-Buti has a mixed opinion of the man as is clear from his suspecting Ibn Taymiyya of following Aristotelian causality and his accusing him of over-involvement in philosophy and kalam cf. al-Buti, al-Salafiyya (p. 164-175).
Such defense was probably because he was a loyal young student of Ibn Taymiyya and probably thought that he deserved better consideration for his learning. A close examination of Ibn Kathir's Tafsir and his other works shows that he shared none of the anthropomorphist errors of the Hamawiyya and Wasitiyya but steered clear of them.
This is narrated marfu` from the Prophet upon him peace
- by Sufyan al-Thawri in his Tafsir with a sound chain
according to Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Bari (1959 ed. 8:199)
and al-Tabarani in al-Sunna. It is narrated mawquf at
Ibn `Abbas by al-Tabari with three sound chains in his
Tafsir (3:9-11) and others. Al-Tabari chooses it as the
most correct explanation:
"The external wording of the Qur'an indicates the correctness
of the report from Ibn `Abbas that it [the kursi] is His `ilm
and the original sense of al-kursi is al-`ilm."
Also narrated in "suspended" form (mu`allaq) by al-
Bukhari in his Sahih from Sa`id ibn Jubayr (Book of
Tafsir, chapter on the saying of Allah Most High:
{And if you go in fear, then (pray) standing or on
horseback} (2:239). Its chains are documented by Ibn
Hajar in Taghliq al-Ta`liq (2/4:185-186) where he
shows that Sufyan al-Thawri, `Abd al-Rahman ibn Mahdi,
and Waki` narrated it marfu` from the Prophet upon
him peace - although in the Fath he declares the
mawquf version from Ibn `Abbas more likely.
This report was never declared weak by Ibn Kathir nor
by Ibn Hajar, the author of al-Taqrib. Yes, al-Dhahabi
tends to weaken its chain in Mizan al-I`tidal because,
like Ibn Kathir, he prefers the "footstool" version.
The report from Ibn `Abbas is also found in `Abd Allah
ibn Ahmad's book al-Sunna (2:501). They rely on it
when it is convenient to them then they disregard it
when it is invonvenient to them.
Imam al-Bayhaqi in al-Asma' wal-Sifat (2:272), like
the rest of the Salaf already mentioned, gives
precedence to Ibn `Abbas's authentic explanation of
the Kursi as "His Knowledge."
And this is a flagrant example of their perverse tampering of the books of Islam as Imam al-Baghawi never said anything close to their words "They relegated the knowledge of the 'how' (of the Attributes) to Allah" but what he said is "wa-wakalu al-`ilma fiha ila Allah" - meaning, "they RELEGATED ALL KNOWLEDGE PERTAINING TO THEM [THE ATTRIBUTES] TO ALLAH." {Qaatalahum Allah anna yu'fakun.}
It is narrated by al-Bayhaqi in al-Asma' wal-Sifat (Kawthari ed. p. 408=Hashidi ed. 2:304 #865 isnad layyin) with a weak chain containing Muhammad ibn Kathir al- Missisi who is da`if cf. al-Arna'ut, Tahrir Taqrib al- Tahdhib (3:310) while Muhammad ibn `Ali al-Jawhari is unknown. Yet Ibn Hajar grades its chain "good" (isnad jayyid) in the Fath (13:406) while others go to rather typical excess such as Ibn Taymiyya who claimed the chain was sahih in his Fatwa Hamawiyya and Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyya (2:38) as did Ibn al-Qayyim in his Ijtima` al-Juyush al-Islamiyya (p. 69) while in al-Sawa`iq (2:211) he claims, "Its narrators are all trustworthy Imams"! As for al-Dhahabi his case is the strangest of the four as he declares the chain sound in Tadhkirat al-Huffaz (1:181-182) although he himself states of al-Missisi in the Siyar (Fikr ed. 9:113): "His narrations can be written but, as for providing any proof, they are not up to it."
From Mutarrif ibn 'Abd Allâh - al-Bukhârî's shaykh - and Habib ibn Abî Habib
on the h.adîth of descent ("Our blessed Lord descends in the lat third of
the night"): "It is our Blessed and Exalted Lord's command which descends
NOTES
1 The bracketed words are only in the wording cited by al-Qâdî 'Iyâd in his Tartîb al-Madârik (2:44).
[from above]
Imam al-Bayhaqi said in al-Asma' wal-Sifat (Kawthari ed. p. 426-427; Hashidi
ed. 2:334-336):
Al-Kawthari pointed out that nowhere in the Qur'an and Sunna are the terms
"in the seventh heaven" applied to Allah Most High nor the term "on His
Throne" other than exactly as the verse of istiwa' said and that that report
from Ibn al-Mubarak is therefore munkar regardless of its chain.
May Allah ever curse the liars and the people of ta`teel
and tahreef. The above excerpt deliberately cuts out the
core of Ibn Hajar's words in which he identifies the
culprits that are meant. Namely: "It is established from
Malik that in the time of the Prophet, upon him peace,
and that of Abu Bakr and `Umar, there was nothing of these
idle lusts - *meaning the innovations of the Khawarij,
Rawafid, and Qadariyya*." This is the passage that was
suppressed from the above excerpt, in place of the ellipsis.
As Imam Muhammad Abu Zahra said in his book on Abu Hanifa
(p.133): "Whenever you hear Abu Yusuf or Muhammad [ibn al-
Hasan] or al-Shafi`i or Ibn Hanbal and others [among the
early Imams] revile the science of kalam and those who
take knowledge by following the methods of the mutakallimun,
know that they only meant by their criticism the Mu`tazila
and the methodology of the Mu`tazila."
In fact, beginning with Sayyiduna `Ali and through the time
of the four Imams, Ahl al-Sunna did involve themselves in
kalam to the extent that they refuted the innovators, just
as we now wade through those time-consuming proofs against
illiterate promoters of Salafitic kalam to stem somewhat the
tide of moneyed misguidance now flooding the Muslim world.
Ibn Khuwayz Mindaad died in 390. He is NOT a companion of Imam Malik but
came 200 years and seven biographical layers later. When he says "Maalik
said..." he is not a reliable source unless he is confirmed independently.
This, even if he produced his chain to Malik's supposed statement; what then
if he does not even have a chain!
Ibn Khuwayz Mindaad's reports from Maalik "contain anomalies" and he
"contradicts the Madhhab in both Fiqh and Usul nor do the [Maliki] experts
rely on his positions" according to al-Qadi `Iyad (d. 544) in Tartib
al-Madaarik (Moroccan ed. 7:77-78). `Iyad also said: "He was not insightful
in his positions nor strong in fiqh. Abu al-Walid al-Baji said of him: I
never heard him mentioned once by the Ulema of Iraq."
`Iyad also exposes Ibn Khuwayz Mindaad as an extremist in his anti-kalam
stance: "He alienated the Mutakallimin of Ahl al-Sunna and ruled that all of
them were among the people of vain lusts (ahwa') concerning whom Malik said
his famous statement on [avoiding] their marriage, [rejecting] their witness
and leadership, and alienating them." Ibn Farhun (d. 799) cites all of the
above in al-Deebaaj al-Mudhahhab (#491).
Imam Malik meant the Mu`tazilis and their sub-sects by consensus in the
statement in question, as is made clear (among other sources) by Ibn `Abd
al-Barr himself in his report from the same Ibn Khuwayz Mindaad in the
previous page cf. Jaami` Bayaan al-`Ilm wa Fadlih (1994 Saudi ed. 2:942-943
#1800). It is known that Imam Malik never retained any Mu`tazilis, Qadaris,
or Khawaarij in his Muwatta' as narrators, while the Two Shaykhs (al-Bukhari
and Muslim) and their students such as Imam al-Tirmidhi did narrate from
Qadaris and even Jahmis. See on this the relevant chapter in al-Suyuti's
Tadrib al-Raawi.
Clearly, the misguided view Ibn Khuwayz Mindaad expressed in including the
Ash`aris among the people of innovation was rejected by his own School and
is not considered in the least valid by the major Maliki Huffaz and Fuqaha'
such as Qaadi `Iyaad, al-Maazari, Abu Bakr ibn al-`Arabi, Abul-Walid
al-Baaji, al-Qurtubi, and others - all thorough Ash`aris.
The passage in question in al-Tawbikh (p. 56-57 of the Dar al-Kitab
al-`Arabi ed.) is about criticism by Ibn al-Subki of his teacher al-Dhahabi,
not Ibn Taymiyya. It is inside a series of excerpts from Ibn al-Subki's
Tabaqat. Al-Sakhawi considers that Ibn al-Subki exaggerated in his criticism
of al-Dhahabi and cites al-`Izz al-Kinani's violent comments to show the
counter-effect of those exaggerations. This never means that he approved of
- even less endorsed - al-Kinani's comments!
Ibn al-Subki may have gone too far against al-Dhahabi, but he is unanimously
respected, especially in the Shafi`i madhhab. To call him ignorant or a
mu`attil is itself a mark of ignorance and disrespect that does not speak
well for the accuser. Similarly, al-Sakhawi does not approve of all of Ibn
al-Subki's criticism of al-Dhahabi or the excessive, sweeping barb against
the Hanbalis ("Did any Hanbali ever merit to raise his head?...") at which
al-Kinani rightly took offence, but al-Sakhawi did approve of some of it as
he states further down (p. 76): "He [Ibn al-Subki] went too far in his
anti-Hanbali fanaticism as I showed before... although I do not exonerate
al-Dhahabi from some of the charges he brought against him." Al-Sakhawi
probably quotes Ibn al-Subki as a historian more than anyone else in
al-Tawbikh - a book written in praise of history and historians.
WAllahu a`lam. Was-Salam, ; as for Him, He is eternally the same, He
does not move or go to and fro."2 Ibn Rushd in Sharh. al-'Utbiyya - a
commentary on an early work of Mâlikî jurisprudence by Muh.hammad ibn Ah.mad
ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz al-'Utbî al-Qurt.ubî (d. 254) - stated that Mâlik's
position is: "The Throne is not Allâh's location of settledness (mawdi'
istiqrâr Allâh)."3 The report attributing to Imâm Mâlik the words: "Allâh is
in the heaven and His knowledge is in every place" is a condemned (munkar),
anomalous (shâdhdh) report of questionable authenticity narrated through
Ah.mad ibn H.anbal from Surayj ibn al-Nu'mân al-Lu'lu'i 4 from 'Abd Allâh ibn
Nâfi' al-Sa'igh from Mâlik.5 Imâm Ah.mad himself declared 'Abd Allâh ibn
Nâfi' al-Sa'igh weak (da'îf), Abû Zur'a frowned at his name and declared him
"condemned" (munkar), al-Bukhârî questioned his memorization, and Ibn 'Adi
stated that he transmitted oddities (gharâ'ib) from Mâlik.6 As for the
content of the report, Shaykh 'Abd al-Fattah Abû Ghudda noted in his
commentary on Ibn 'Abd al-Barr's al-Intiqa' that it is contradicted by what
is firmly established in mass-transmitted narrations from Mâlik and by
al-Sa'igh's other report from Mâlik omitting the above words.7 The report is
made further dubious by the fact that Mâlik was well-known to condemn any
statements about the Essence and Attributes of Allâh Most High other than
sound reports, particularly statements that suggest anthropomorphism.8
Al-Awzâ'î said: "Whoever holds on to the rare and unusual positions of the
scholars has left Islâm."9
2 Narrated from Mutarrif by Ibn 'Abd al-Barr in al-Tamhîd (7:143) with a weak
chain because of Jâmi' ibn Sawada as per al-Dâraqut.nî in Ibn H.ajar's Lisân
(2:93). Also narrated from Salih ibn Ayyûb from Habib ibn Abî Habib - who is
very weak - by al-Dhahabî in Syar A'lâm al-Nubalâ' (8:418). The latter
reported in his Mîzân (1:452) from Ibn 'Adi's Kamil (2"818) the opinion that
all of Ibn Abî Habib's narrations are forged but this is an extreme
statement in light of three factors: (a) Ibn 'Abd al-Barr in al-Tamhîd
(24:177) mentioned Habib as merely weak, adding: "His reports from Mâlik are
full of mistakes and condemned matters"; (b) Salih ibn Ayyûb said: "I
mentioned this report to Yah.yâ ibn Bukayr and he said: "Excellent, by
Allâh! and I did not hear it from Mâlik." Narrated by al-Dhahabî who
describes Ibn Bukayr in Tadhkirat al-H.uffâz. (2:420) as "the muh.addith of
Egypt, the Imâm and trustworthy h.adîth Master... one of the vessels of
knowledge together with truthfulness and complete reliability... Where is
the like of Ibn Bukayr in his leadership in the Religion, his insight in
fatwâ, and the abundance of his learning?" (c) Ibn 'Abd al-Barr in al-Tamhîd
(7:143) also narrates this report from Habib, then goes on to narrate it
from Mutarrif, adding: "It is possible that the matter be as Mâlik said, and
Allâh knows best." It is established that Jâmi' did narrate from Mutarrif,
as stated by al-Mizzî in Tahdhîb al-Kamâl (28:71).
3 As quoted in Fath. al-Bârî (1959 ed. 7:124 #3592).
4 Misspelt Shurayh in al-Saqqâf's edition of al-'Uluw (p. 396 #340) and
al-Mahdî's edition of al-Shari'a (p. 293 #663-664). Shurayh ibn al-Nu'mân
al-Sa'idi al-Kûfî is a Tâbi'î who died before al-Sa'igh was born.
5 In Ibn 'Abd al-Barr's al-Intiqa' (p. 71), al-Dhahabî's Mukhtasar al-'Uluw
(p. 247), and al-Ajurrî's al-Shari'a (p. 293 #663-664).
6 Al-Dhahabî, Mîzân (2:513-514 #4647); al-'Uqayli, al-Du'afa' (2:311), Ibn
'Adi, al-Kamil (4:242 #1070=4:1556); Abû Hatim, al-Jarh wa al-Ta'dil
(5:183); Ibn H.ajar, Tahdhîb al-Tahdhîb (6:46-47 #99). Dr. Nur al-Dîn 'Itr,
however, states in his margins on al-Dhahabî's al-Mughnî fî al-Du'afa'
(1:513 #3396) that al-Sa'igh is very reliable when narrating from Mâlik and
that Ibn H.ajar declared him trustworthy (thiqa) in al-Taqrîb. Yet, the
latter grading was downgraded to "truthful" (sadûq) by al-Arna'ût and Ma'rûf
in al-Tahrir (2:277 #3659). Al-Albânî in his notes in Mukhtasar al-'Uluw (p.
140) criticized al-Kawthari for citing al-Sa'igh as weak in his introduction
to al-Bayhaqî's al-Asmâ' wa al-Sifat (p. 0), but he himself cites him as
weak in al-Silsila al-Da'ifa (2:231-232) as pointed out by Shaykh H.asan
al-Saqqâf in his edition of al-'Uluw (p. 397 n. 708)!
7 In Ibn 'Abd al-Barr, al-Intiqa' (p. 71 n. 3 and p. 73).
8 For example, Mâlik said: "Allâh is neither ascribed a limit nor likened
with anything" (lâ yuhaddad wa lâ yushabbah). Ibn al-'Arabi, Ahkam al-Qur'ân
(4:1740).
9 Cited by al-Dhahabî, Siyar A'lâm al-Nubalâ' (1997 ed. 7:99). The "Salafis" said:
Shaykh ul-Islaam Abdullaah ibn al-Mubaarak (d.181H): "He is above the
seventh heaven
above His Throne and we do not say as the Jahmiyyah say: He is here on the
earth."
(Khalq Afaalul-Ibaad no.13 of al-Bukhaaree, ar-Radd alal Mareesee pp.24,
103 and ar-
Radd alal-Jahmiyyah p.50 of ad-Daarimee and Abdullaah ibn Ahmad in
as-Sunnah pp.7,
25, 35 and 72)
As for the report to which cling those who believe that Allah Most High
has a direction, whereby `Ali ibn al-Hasan said: 'I asked `Abd Allah ibn
al-Mubarak, "How (kayf) do we know our Lord?" He replied, "In the seventh
heaven on His Throne." I said, "The Jahmiyya also say He is such." He said,
"We do not mean it like the Jahmiyya. We mean He Himself (huwa huwa)." I
said, "With a limit (bi-hadd)??" He said, "Yes, by Allah, with a limit!"'
[Narrated mostly in anthropomorphist works: `Abd Allah ibn Ahmad's al-Sunna,
`Uthman ibn Sa`id al-Darimi's al-Radd `ala al-Marisi and al-Radd `ala
al-Jahmiyya, al-Dhahabi's al-`Uluw, and Ibn Taymiyya's Hamawiyya.] - `Abd
Allah only meant by 'limit' the limit dictated by transmission (hadd
al-sam`), namely, that the truthful report stated that {He established
Himself on the Throne} (20:5), so He is on the Throne as He related. By
saying this, he meant to belie the Jahmiyya who claimed that He is in every
place. His other report confirms this, and Allah knows best.
From `Ali ibn al-Hasan ibn Shaqiq: 'I heard `Abd Allah ibn al-Mubarak say,
"We know our Lord to be above (fawq) seven heavens, [He established Himself
over His Throne], distinct (ba'in) from His creation, and we do not say as
the Jahmiyya said, that He is right here' - and he pointed to the ground
(hahuna fil-ard)."' By the term 'distinct' he means, as he explained
directly afterwards, to negate the claim [of intermixing (imtizaj)] of the
Jahmiyya, NOT to suggest direction on the opposite side. He means what the
Law said in absolute terms, and Allah knows best.The "Salafis" said:
Al-Haafidh ibn Hajar wrote:
"Some embarked to affirm (the Attributes of Allaah) whilst others negated
it. The former
went to the extent of making resemblance between Allaah and the creation,
whilst the
latter went to the extent of denying the Attributes of Allaah (tateel). The
rejection of thisfrom the Salaf, such as Aboo Haneefah, Aboo Yusuf and
ash-Shaafiee, and their sayings in regards to the censure of the people of
kalaam, is well known. The reason for such censure was that the people of
kalaam spoke about those matters which both the Prophet sallallahu alayhi
wa sallam and his Companions remained quiet about The people of kalaam did
notcontent themselves until they filled the Religion with issues and the
sayings of the philosophers. They made this philosophy the basis and the
foundational principle to which everything was referred back to, and all
that which opposed it from the narrations then false interpretation
(taweel) was made of them, even if they were averse to the result. They
claimed that what they had compiled was the noblest branch of knowledge and
the most deserving to be acquired, and those who did not utilise what they
had laid down, then they were from the laymen and the ignorant ones. So
delight is for the one who clings to what the Salaf were upon and distances
himself from the innovations that the khalaf introduced. However, if one
cannot keep away from it, then let him take only that which he needs and let
the way of the Salaf be his intended goal."
(Fath al-Baaree, 13/253)
The "Salafis" said:
Imaam Aboo Yusuf, a leading student of Imaam Aboo Haneefah, said:
"Whoever seeks his religion through kalaam is a heretic (zindeeq)."
(Taweel Mukhtalif al-Hadeeth (p.43) of ibn Qutaybah; Tabyeen Kadhib
al-Muftaree
(p.333) of ibn Asaakir; Sharfu Ashaab al-Hadeeth (p.4) of al-Khateeb
al-Baghdaadeel; and
Sawn al-Mantiq wal-Kalaam (p.60) of as-Suyootee)
The "Salafis" said:
Al-Haafidh ibn Abdul-Barr wrote (citing ibn Khuwaizimdaad):
"The people of the innovated sects in the view of (Imaam) Maalik and the
remainder of our
companions (of the Maalikee madhab) are the people of kalaam. Every person
of kalaam is
from the people of the innovated sects and innovations, whether he is an
Asharee or other
than an Asharee, and his witness is never accepted in Islaam. Indeed, his
witness is to be
ostracised and he is to be punished for his innovation, and if he persists
then repentance is sought from him." (Jaami Bayaan al-Ilm, 2/117)
The "Salafis" said:
As for al-Subkis son, Taaj ad-Deen al-Subki, he went to extremes in
criticising ibn
Taymiyyah. Such that as-Sakhaawee endorsed the following words about him,
following his
statement: "Did any of the Hanbalees raise their heads (i.e. become
prominent)?"
"This is from the strangest of things, and the most sectarian/partisan of
attitudes, and this is why the Qaadee of our time, and Shaykh of the madhhab
al-Izz al-Kanaanee wrote under this statement: 'And likewise Allaah did not
raise the heads of the Mu'attila' and then he said about Taaj ad-Deen Subki:
'He is a man having little manners, lack of scholarly integrity, ignorant of
Ahl as-Sunnah and their ranks.'"
(al-I'laan bi at-Tawbeekh liman Dhamma at-Taareekh (94-95) of as-Sakhaawee)
GF Haddad
[11 Mar 2003]next page
home
latest update: Sun, 10 Feb 2008
2002-10-20
* living Islam – Islamic Tradition *
http://www.livingislam.org