Did Ibn Khuzaymah (d. 311 A.H.) Retract His Stance on Sifat?

Below is a translation of Ustadh Alaa Ismai’l’s article, Shubhat Rujūʿ Ibn Khuzaymah ʿan ʿAqīdat Ahl al-Ḥadīth.

It is well-known that one of the primary sources for establishing the beliefs of Ahl al-Sunnah is the books and treatises authored by the Imams of Hadith, which articulate the creed of the righteous predecessors. These works have historically been, and continue to be, a major obstacle for those who oppose the beliefs of Ahl al-Hadith. In the past, the Jahmiyya and extreme Ash’aris accused them of anthropomorphism and corporealism, often without reading these texts due to their ignorance of the traditions and the sayings of the Hadith scholars. In modern times, with the widespread availability and accessibility of these books, opponents have taken two main approaches. The first is to claim that these works were written to espouse tafwid (consigning the meanings of the divine attributes to Allah), and the second is to assert that their authors later recanted their beliefs.

Among those who posed a significant challenge to the Mutakallimun was the Imam of the Imams, Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Khuzaymah (223 AH – 311 AH), particularly through his book Kitab al-Tawhid wa-Ithbat Sifat al-Rabb which contains profound assertions of the beliefs of the righteous Salaf. Consequently, opponents have either attacked him or attempted to claim that he repented and reverted to their beliefs. What concerns us here is to discuss the claim of his retraction and repentance.

Before addressing this claim, it is important to acknowledge the high regard in which the leaders of the righteous Salaf held this eminent scholar. Ibn Hibban said:

ما رأيت على وجه الأرض من يحسن صناعة السنن ويحفظ ألفاظها الصحاح وزياداتها حتى كأنّ السنن كلها بين عينيه، إلا محمد بن إسحاق فقط

“I have not seen anyone on the face of the earth who mastered the craft of the Sunnah, memorized its authentic words and their additions, as if the Sunnah was all before his eyes, except for Muhammad ibn Ishaq alone.”[1]

Al-Daraqutni said:

كان ابن خزيمة ثبتًا معدوم النظير

"Ibn Khuzaymah was unmatched in his reliability and precision."[2]

Ibn Abi Hatim, when asked about Ibn Khuzaymah, responded:

ويحكم، هو يُسأل عنّا ولا نُسأل عنه، وهو إمام يقتدى به

“Woe to you! He is someone who should inquire about us, not us about him. He is an Imam to be followed.”[3]

Ibn Suraij said:

ابن خزيمة يخرج النكت من حديث رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بالمنقاش

"Ibn Khuzaymah extracts the subtleties from the Hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) with precision."[4]

Muhammad ibn Sahl al-Tusi said:

سمعت الربيع بن سليمان –صاحب الشافعي- وقال لنا: هل تعرفون ابن خزيمة ؟ قلنا: نعم. قال: استفدنا منه أكثر ما استفاد منا

"I heard Rabi' ibn Sulayman, a companion of al-Shafi'i, say to us: 'Do you know Ibn Khuzaymah?' We said: 'Yes.' He said: 'We have benefited from him more than he has benefited from us.'"[5]

Imam Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Ali al-Shashi narrated:

حضرت ابن خزيمة، فقال له أبو بكر النقاش المقرئ: بلغني أنه لما وقع بين المزني –صاحب الشافعي- وابن عبد الحكم، قيل للمزني: إنه يرد على الشافعي. فقال المزني: لا يمكنه إلا بمحمد بن إسحاق النيسابوري [ابن خزيمة]. فقال أبو بكر: كذا كان.

“I was present with Ibn Khuzaymah when Abu Bakr al-Naqqash, the reciter, said to him: ‘It has come to my attention that when there was a dispute between al-Muzani, a companion of al-Shafi’i, and Ibn Abd al-Hakam, it was said to al-Muzani: “He refutes al-Shafi’i.” Al-Muzani replied: “He cannot do so except through Muhammad ibn Ishaq al-Nisaburi [Ibn Khuzaymah].” Abu Bakr said: “That was indeed the case.’”

Muhammad ibn Isma'il al-Sukari said:

حضرت مجلس المزني، فسئل عن “شِبه العمد” فقال له السائل: إن الله وصف في كتابه القتل صنفين: عمدا وخطأ، فلم قلتم: إنه على ثلاثة أقسام؟، وتحتج بعلي بن زيد بن جدعان ؟ فسكت المزني، فقلت لمُناظره: قد روى الحديث أيضا أيوب وخالد الحذاء، فقال لي: فمن عقبة بن أوس ؟ قلت: شيخ بصري قد روى عنه ابن سيرين مع جلالته، فقال للمزني: أنت تناظر أو هذا ؟!! قال –أي المزني-: إذا جاء الحديث، فهو يناظر ; لأنه أعلم به مني، ثم أتكلم أنا

“I heard Ibn Khuzaymah say: ‘I attended a session of al-Muzani, and he was asked about “semi-premeditated killing.” The questioner said to him: “Allah has described two types of killing in His Book: premeditated and unintentional. Why do you say it falls into three categories and cite Ali ibn Zayd ibn Jud’an as evidence?” Al-Muzani remained silent, so I told his opponent: “Ayyub and Khalid al-Hadhdha also narrated this hadith.” He then asked me: “Who is Uqbah ibn Aws?” I replied: “He is a Basran Sheikh from whom Ibn Sirin, despite his high status, has narrated.” He then asked al-Muzani, “Are you debating, or is he?” Al-Muzani responded: “When it comes to hadith, he debates because he is more knowledgeable about it than I am, and then I will speak.’”[6]

Knowing the high regard Ibn Khuzaymah held among the Imams of the Salaf and even among the students of al-Shafi’i, it becomes clear why some contemporary Ash’aris are eager to prove his repentance.

The Misconception of Ibn Khuzaymah’s Repentance from the Beliefs of the Salaf:

Some contemporary Ash’aris and others cite what Al-Bayhaqi mentioned regarding Ibn Khuzaymah’s alleged repentance and retraction. Al-Bayhaqi stated in his book Al-Asma wal-Sifat when recounting his story with his students:

وقد رجع محمد بن إسحاق إلى طريقة السلف وتلهف على ما قال، والله أعلم

“Muhammad ibn Ishaq returned to the way of the Salaf and regretted what he had said, and Allah knows best.”[7]

Some contemporaries have understood this to mean that Al-Bayhaqi was referring to Ibn Khuzaymah’s retraction from his book Al-Tawhid and anthropomorphism, but this understanding is incorrect.

Firstly, we say that what Al-Bayhaqi reported about Ibn Khuzaymah’s retraction pertains to a specific issue: the dispute between him and the Kullabiyya regarding the occurrence of voluntary actions in the attribute of speech. Al-Bayhaqi said:

حتى خرج عليهم وطالت خصومتهم، وتكلم بما يوهم القول بحدوث الكلام

“Until he came out to them and their dispute prolonged, and he spoke in a manner that gave the impression of advocating the temporal creation of speech.”[8]

The intent here is that Al-Bayhaqi did not mean that Ibn Khuzaymah retracted from affirming the attributes or from his book Al-Tawhid, as some contemporaries have misunderstood. Rather, he referred to a specific issue, which is the matter of temporal events (divine volitional attributes), which is more specific than merely affirming the essential attributes, Uluww of the divine essence, and other attributes that Al-Bayhaqi and others agree upon.

Even in this specific matter, Ibn Khuzaymah did not retract. Instead, it was his students who came to him repenting, renouncing their previous statements, and weeping before him, as reported by Al-Hakim al-Nisaburi, and this will be clarified further.

Did Ibn Khuzaymah Retract on the Issue of Divine Volitional Attributes?

The Beginning of the Dispute Between Ibn Khuzaymah and the Kullabiyya:

The deniers of divine volitional attributes split into two groups:

1. A group following the Athari approach, which affirms letters and sound, known as the Salimiyya and those Hanbalis who followed them.

2. A group that denies divine letters and sounds, known as the Kullabiyya and those Ash’aris who followed them.

The first group’s innovation gained traction among the Hanbalis and the scholars of Hadith due to its close resemblance to their beliefs. Ghulam al-Khallal narrated it as a secondary opinion among the Hanbalis of his time. The core of their belief is that Allah does not speak by His will; rather, the letters and sounds are eternal and pre-existent. Allah reveals His eternal speech to whomever He wills among His servants. They argue that if Allah were to produce new speech, it would imply that the new speech is a temporal creation.

The early signs of this innovation appeared among hadith scholars during the time of Ibn Khuzaymah, as their beliefs outwardly resembled those of Imam Ahmad, leading to confusion among some of his students. They claimed that the specific words of Allah’s speech are eternal and concluded that Allah does not renew or repeat His speech after having spoken it in eternity.

Imam of the Imams and the final representative of the Salaf, Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Khuzaymah, took a firm stand against this innovation and disassociated himself from the statements of his students. He said about the various groups of innovators concerning the attribute of speech:

أو يقول: إن الله لا يتكلم بعدما كان تكلم في الأزل.. فهو عندي جهمي يُستتاب فإن تاب وإلا ضربت عنقه

"Whoever says that Allah does not speak after having spoken in eternity... to me, he is a Jahmi and should be asked to repent; if he repents, he is spared, and if not, his neck should be struck."[9]

Al-Hakim al-Nisaburi reported:

سمعت أبا عبد الرحمن بن أحمد المقري يقول: سمعت أبا بكر محمد بن إسحاق بن خزيمة يقول: «زعم بعض جهلة هؤلاء الذين نبغوا في سنيننا هذه: أن الله لا يكرر الكلام، فهم لا يفهمون كتاب الله؛ إن الله قد أخبر في نص الكتاب في مواضع أنه خلق آدم، وأنه أمر الملائكة بالسجود له… ولم أتوهم أن مسلمًا يتوهم أن الله لا يتكلم بشيء مرتين

“I heard Abu Abd al-Rahman ibn Ahmad al-Muqri say: I heard Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Khuzaymah say: ‘Some ignorant individuals who have emerged in our times claim that Allah does not repeat His speech. They do not understand the Book of Allah. Allah has informed us in clear terms in multiple places in the Book that He created Adam and commanded the angels to prostrate to him… I never imagined that a Muslim would think that Allah does not speak something twice.’”[10]

Abu Ismail al-Ansari al-Harawi al-Hanbali said in his book Manaqib al-Imam Ahmad:

ثم جاءت طائفة فقالت: لا يتكلم بعدما تكلم فيصير كلامه حادثًا!!، فطار لتلك الفتنة ذاك الإمام أبو بكر -يعني ابن خزيمة-؛ فلم يزل يصيح بتشويهها ويصنف في ردها؛ كأنه منذر جيش، حتى دون في الدفاتر وتمكن في السرائر، ولقن في الكتاتيب ونقش في المحاريب: أن الله متكلم، إن شاء تكلم وإن شاء سكت؛ فجزى الله ذاك الإمام وأولئك النفر الغر عن نصرة دينه وتوقير نبيه خيرًا

“Then a group came and said: ‘Allah does not speak after having spoken, for that would make His speech temporally created!’ This caused the great Imam Abu Bakr - meaning Ibn Khuzaymah - to rise against this fitnah. He continuously cried out against it and wrote extensively to refute it, like a warner of an approaching army, until it was recorded in books, established in hearts, taught in schools, and inscribed in mosques: that Allah speaks when He wills and is silent when He wills. May Allah reward that Imam and those noble men who supported His religion and honored His Prophet.”[11]

The Cause of the Dispute:

The cause of the dispute was that Ibn Khuzaymah and other scholars of Hadith were initially unaware of the terminology used by the deniers of divine volitional attributes, as it outwardly resembled the terminology of the scholars of Hadith. Meanwhile, some of the Mu’tazilites understood the stance of the Kullabiyya and knew that they implied by “eternality” that speech would not occur again. These Mu’tazilites went to Ibn Khuzaymah and informed against four of his students, explaining to him the true nature of their belief and that their affirmation of the attribute of speech was not how he and his teachers affirmed it.

Ibn Taymiyyah Narrates the Dispute:

Ibn Taymiyyah explains the cause of the dispute, saying:

ولما كان الإثبات هو المعروف عند أهل السنة والحديث -كالبخاري وأبي زرعة وأبي حاتم ومحمد بن يحيى الذهلي وغيرهم من العلماء الذين أدركهم الإمام محمد بن إسحاق بن خزيمة- كان المستقر عنده ما تلقاه عن أئمته: من أن الله تعالى لم يزل متكلمًا إذا شاء وأنه يتكلم بالكلام الواحد مرة بعد مرة، وكان له أصحاب كأبي علي الثقفي وغيره تلقوا طريقة ابن كلَّاب، فقام بعض المعتزلة وألقى إلى ابن خزيمة سرَّ قول هؤلاء، وهو أن الله لا يوصف بأنه يقدر على الكلام إذا شاء ولا يتعلق ذلك بمشيئته، فوقع بين ابن خزيمة وغيره وبينهم في ذلك نزاع حتى أظهروا موافقتهم له فيما لا نزاع فيه، وأمر ولاة الأمر بتأديبهم لمخالفتهم له، وصار الناس حزبين، فالجمهور من أهل السنة وأهل الحديث معه، ومن وافق طريقة ابن كلاب معه، حتى صار بعده علماء نيسابور وغيرهم حزبين، فالحاكم أبو عبد الله وأبو عبد الرحمن السلمي وأبو عثمان النيسابوري وغيرهم معه، وكذلك يحيى بن عمار السجستاني وأبو عبد الله بن منده وأبو نصر السجزي وشيخ الإسلام أبو إسماعيل الأنصاري وأبو القاسم سعد بن علي الزنجاني وغيرهم معه، وأما أبو ذر الهروي وأبو بكر البيهقي وطائفة أخرى فهم مع ابن كلاب

“When affirmation (of Allah’s attributes) was the well-known stance among Ahl al-Sunnah and the Hadith scholars—such as al-Bukhari, Abu Zur’a, Abu Hatim, Muhammad ibn Yahya al-Dhuhli, and other scholars who were contemporaries of Imam Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Khuzaymah—it was well-established in his mind what he had received from his Imams: that Allah, the Exalted, has always been speaking when He wills and that He speaks the same speech multiple times. He had companions like Abu Ali al-Thaqafi and others who had adopted the methodology of Ibn Kullab. Some Mu’tazilites went to Ibn Khuzaymah and revealed to him the underlying meaning of these individuals’ beliefs, which stated that Allah is not described as being able to speak when He wills and that this attribute is not connected to His will. This caused a dispute between Ibn Khuzaymah and others and these individuals until they openly agreed with him on what was undisputed. The authorities were instructed to discipline those who disagreed with him. As a result, people were divided into two groups: the majority of Ahl al-Sunnah and the Hadith scholars were with him, while those who followed Ibn Kullab’s method were with him. After him, the scholars of Nishapur and others were divided into two parties. Al-Hakim Abu Abdullah, Abu Abd al-Rahman al-Sulami, Abu Uthman al-Nisaburi, and others were with him, as well as Yahya ibn Ammar al-Sijistani, Abu Abdullah ibn Manda, Abu Nasr al-Sijzi, Shaykh al-Islam Abu Ismail al-Ansari, Abu al-Qasim Sa’d ibn Ali al-Zanjani, and others were with him. On the other hand, Abu Dharr al-Harawi, Abu Bakr al-Bayhaqi, and a group of others were with Ibn Kullab.”[12]

Al-Hakim Al-Nisaburi Narrates the Dispute:

Al-Hakim said:

حدثني أبو بكر أحمد بن يحيى المتكلم قال: اجتمعنا ليلة عند بعض أهل العلم وجرى ذكر كلام الله: أقديم لم يزل أو يثبت عند اختياره تعالى أن يتكلم به؟ فوقع بيننا في ذلك خوض، قال جماعة منا: إن كلام الباري قديم لم يزل، وقال جماعة: إن كلامه قديم غير أنه لا يثبت إلا باختياره لكلامه. فبكرت أنا إلى أبي علي الثقفي وأخبرته بما جرى فقال: من أنكر أنه لم يزل فقد اعتقد أنه مُحدث!، وانتشرت هذه المسألة في البلد، وذهب منصور الطوسي (المعتزلي) في جماعة معه إلى أبي بكر محمد بن إسحاق وأخبروه بذلك، حتى قال منصور: ألم أقل للشيخ: إن هؤلاء يعتقدون مذهب الكلابية، وهذا مذهبهم، فجمع أبو بكر أصحابه وقال: ألم أنهكم غير مرة عن الخوض في الكلام، ولم يزدهم على هذا في ذلك اليوم، وذكر أنه بعد ذلك خرج على أصحابه وأنه صنف في الرد عليهم وأنهم ناقضوه ونسبوه إلى القول بقول جهم في أن القرآن محدث وجعلهم هو كلابية

“Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn Yahya, the Mutakallim, narrated to me: ‘One night, we gathered with some scholars, and the topic of Allah’s speech was discussed. Is it eternal, having always existed, or is it affirmed only by His will to speak? This led to a debate among us. Some of us said that Allah’s speech is eternal and has always existed, while others said that His speech is eternal but is only affirmed by His will to speak. The next morning, I went to Abu Ali al-Thaqafi and informed him of what had transpired. He said: “Whoever denies that it has always existed believes it is created!” This issue spread throughout the town, and Mansur al-Tusi (the Mu’tazilite) and a group of his companions went to Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Ishaq and informed him about it. Mansur said: “Didn’t I tell the Shaykh that these people hold the belief of the Kullabiyya, and this is their doctrine?” Abu Bakr then gathered his companions and said: “Have I not forbidden you multiple times from engaging in kalam?” He did not say more than this on that day. It was reported that he later confronted his companions and wrote a refutation against them. They, in turn, accused him of holding the Jahmi belief that the Quran is created, while he accused them of being Kullabiyya.’[13]

Ibn Khuzaymah attributed them to the Kullabiyya, while they accused Ibn Khuzaymah of holding Jahm’s view, thinking that speaking by will implies that the Quran is created. They fell into the same terminological confusion that some contemporaries fall into when they attribute to Ibn Taymiyyah the belief that the Quran was created.

Al-Bayhaqi Narrates the Dispute:

Al-Bayhaqi said:

أخبرنا أبو عبد الله الحافظ، قال: سمعت أبا عبد الله محمد بن العباس الضبي يقول: سمعت أبا الفضل البطاييني، ونحن بالري يقول-وكان أبو الفضل يحجب بين يدي أبي بكر محمد بن إسحاق بن خزيمة إذا ركب- قال: خرج أبو بكر محمد بن إسحاق يومًا قرب العصر من منزله فتبعته وأنا لا أدري مقصده، إلى أن بلغ باب معمر، فدخل دار أبي عبد الرحمن ثم خرج وهو منقسم القلب، فلما بلغ المربعة الصغيرة وقرب من خان مكي وقف، وقال لمنصور الصيدلاني: تعال، فعدا إليه منصور، فلما وقف بين يديه قال له: ما صنعتك؟ قال: أنا عطار قال: تحسن صنعة الأساكفة ؟ قال: لا، قال: تحسن صنعة النجارين؟ قال لا، فقال لنا إذا كان العطار لا يحسن غير ما هو فيه، فما تنكرون على فقيه راوي حديث أنه لا يحسن الكلام، وقد قال لي مؤدبي –يعني المزني- غير مرة: كان الشافعي رضي الله عنه ينهانا عن الكلام. قلت: أبو عبد الرحمن هذا كان معتزليًا ألقى في سمع الشيخ شيئًا من بدعته وصور له أصحابه، يريد أبا علي محمد بن عبد الوهاب الثقفي، وأبا بكر بن إسحاق الصبغي، وأبا محمد بن يحيى بن منصور القاضي، وأبا بكر بن أبي عثمان الحيري رحمهم الله أجمعين، أنهم يزعمون أن الله تعالى لا يتكلم بعدما تكلم في الأزل، حتى خرج عليهم وطالت خصومتهم، وتكلم بما يوهم القول بحدوث الكلام، مع اعتقاده قدمه

“Abu Abdullah al-Hafiz informed us, saying: ‘I heard Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn al-Abbas al-Dhabbi say: I heard Abu al-Fadl al-Batayini say, while we were in Rayy—Abu al-Fadl used to accompany Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Khuzaymah when he rode. He said: One day, Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Ishaq left his house in the afternoon, and I followed him without knowing his destination until he reached Ma’mar’s gate. He entered Abu Abd al-Rahman’s house and then came out with a divided heart. When he reached the small square and approached Khan Maki, he stopped and called Mansur, the pharmacist, who ran to him. When Mansur stood before him, he asked: What is your profession? Mansur replied: I am a pharmacist. Ibn Khuzaymah asked: Do you know the craft of cobbling? Mansur replied: No. Then he asked: Do you know the craft of carpentry? Mansur again replied: No. Ibn Khuzaymah then asked us: If a pharmacist does not know anything other than his own profession, why do you criticize a jurist and hadith narrator for not knowing kalam? My teacher—meaning al-Muzani—repeatedly told me that al-Shafi’i, may Allah be pleased with him, forbade us from engaging in kalam.’

I said: This Abu Abd al-Rahman was a Mu’tazilite who whispered some of his innovations into the Sheikh’s ear and depicted his companions—referring to Abu Ali Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab al-Thaqafi, Abu Bakr ibn Ishaq al-Sibghi, Abu Muhammad ibn Yahya ibn Mansur al-Qadi, and Abu Bakr ibn Abi Uthman al-Hayri, may Allah have mercy on them all—as claiming that Allah, the Exalted, does not speak after having spoken in eternity. This led to a prolonged dispute, during which Ibn Khuzaymah spoke in a manner that suggested belief in the temporal nature of speech, although he believed in its eternity.”[14]

Discussion of Al-Bayhaqi’s Account:

The aspect of the controversy involves two main points:

First: What Al-Bayhaqi mentioned about Ibn Khuzaymah’s retraction and repentance.

Second: What has been narrated about his agreement with the document written by his students.

First: Al-Bayhaqi’s Mention of Ibn Khuzaymah Returning to the Methodology of the Salaf:

Al-Hafiz Al-Bayhaqi, may Allah have mercy on him, said at the end of the chapter on the difference between recitation and the recited in his book, Al-Asma wal-Sifat, p. 259:

أخبرنا أبو عبد الله الحافظ، قال: سمعت أبا الحسن علي بن أحمد الزاهد البوشنجي يقول: دخلت على عبد الرحمن بن أبي حاتم الرازي بالري فأخبرته بما جرى بنيسابور بين أبي بكر بن خزيمة وبين أصحابه، فقال: ما لأبي بكر والكلام ؟ إنما الأولى بنا وبه أن لا نتكلم فيما لم نتعلمه. فخرجت من عنده حتى دخلت على أبي العباس القلانسي فقال: كان بعض القدرية من المتكلمين وقع إلى محمد بن إسحاق فوقع لكلامه عنده قبول. ثم خرجت إلى بغداد فلم أدع بها فقيها ولا متكلما إلا عرضت عليه تلك المسائل، فما منهم أحد إلا وهو يتابع أبا العباس القلانسي على مقالته، ويغتم لأبي بكر محمد بن إسحاق فيما أظهره. قلت (أي البيهقي): القصة فيه طويلة، وقد رجع محمد بن إسحاق إلى طريقة السلف وتلهف على ما قال، والله أعلم

“Abu Abdullah Al-Hafiz informed us, saying: I heard Abu al-Hasan Ali ibn Ahmad al-Zahid al-Bushinji say: I visited Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Hatim al-Razi in Rayy and informed him of what transpired in Nishapur between Abu Bakr ibn Khuzaymah and his companions. He said: What business does Abu Bakr have with kalam? It is more appropriate for him and us not to speak on matters we have not learned. I left him and went to Abu al-Abbas al-Qalanisi, who said: Some Qadari Mutakallimun approached Muhammad ibn Ishaq, and his speech was accepted by him. Then I went to Baghdad and did not leave any jurist or Mutakallim there without presenting these issues to them. All of them agreed with Abu al-Abbas al-Qalanisi’s statement and lamented what Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Ishaq had expressed. I (i.e., Al-Bayhaqi) said: The story is lengthy, and Muhammad ibn Ishaq returned to the way of the Salaf and regretted what he had said. Allah knows best.”[15]

Al-Bayhaqi’s statement, may Allah have mercy on him, is a personal opinion and should not be considered definitive evidence in this matter. This is because Al-Bayhaqi, may Allah have mercy on him, followed the early Ash’ari (Kullabi) approach and supported Ibn Kullab, aligning with Ibn Khuzaymah’s students in denying the divine volitional attributes of Allah. Hence, his statement should not be considered conclusive since he represents the opposing side in the debate with Ibn Khuzaymah.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said:

حتى صار بعده علماء نيسابور وغيرهم حزبين؛ فالحاكم أبو عبد الله وأبو عبد الرحمن السلمي وأبو عثمان النيسابوري وغيرهم معه [ يعني مع ابن خزيمة في تجدد الفعل الاختياري]، وكذلك يحيى بن عمار السجستاني وأبو عبد الله بن منده وأبو نصر السجزي وشيخ الإسلام أبو إسماعيل الأنصاري وأبو القاسم سعد بن علي الزنجاني وغيرهم معه، وأما أبو ذر الهروي وأبو بكر البيهقي وطائفة أخرى: فهم مع ابن كلاب

“After him, the scholars of Nishapur and others became divided into two groups: Al-Hakim Abu Abdullah, Abu Abd al-Rahman al-Sulami, Abu Uthman al-Nisaburi, and others sided with Ibn Khuzaymah on the issue of divine volitional attributes. Similarly, Yahya ibn Ammar al-Sijistani, Abu Abdullah ibn Mandah, Abu Nasr al-Sijzi, Shaykh al-Islam Abu Ismail al-Ansari, Abu Qasim Sa’d ibn Ali al-Zanjani, and others were with him. On the other hand, Abu Dharr al-Harawi, Abu Bakr al-Bayhaqi, and a group of others sided with Ibn Kullab.”[16]

Thus, Al-Bayhaqi was a party in the dispute.

Regarding what he mentioned about Ibn Abi Hatim al-Razi—if accurate—on refraining from disputing with innovators and engaging in kalami, this is indeed what Ibn Khuzaymah initially practiced. Al-Hakim al-Nisaburi reported:

فجمع أبو بكر –ابن خزيمة- أصحابه وقال: ألم أنهكم غير مرة عن الخوض في الكلام!، ولم يزدهم على هذا في ذلك اليوم

“Abu Bakr then gathered his companions and said: “Have I not forbidden you multiple times from engaging in kalam?” He did not say more than this on that day.”[17]

Secondly: The Report of His Alleged Approval of the Document Written by His Students:

Al-Bayhaqi was mistaken in believing that Ibn Khuzaymah had renounced his stance on voluntary actions, assuming that he agreed with the beliefs of his students. This misconception arose from a narration by Al-Hakim, who said:

سمعت أبا بكر أحمد بن إسحاق يقول: لما وقع من أمرنا ما وقع، وجد أبو عبد الرحمن ومنصور الطوسي الفرصة في تقرير مذهبهم، واغتنم أبو القاسم، وأبو بكر بن علي، والبردعي السعي في فساد الحال، انتصب أبو عمرو الحيري للتوسط فيما بين الجماعة، وقرر لأبي بكر بن خزيمة اعترافنا له بالتقدم، وبين له غرض المخالفين في فساد الحال، إلى أن وافقه على أن نجتمع عنده، فدخلت أنا، وأبو علي، وأبو بكر بن أبي عثمان، فقال له أبو علي الثقفي: ما الذي أنكرت أيها الأستاذ من مذاهبنا حتى نرجع عنه؟ قال: ميلكم إلى مذهب الكلابية، فقد كان أحمد بن حنبل من أشد الناس على عبد الله بن سعيد بن كلاب، وعلى أصحابه مثل الحارث وغيره. حتى طال الخطاب بينه وبين أبي علي في هذا الباب، فقلت: قد جمعت أنا أصول مذاهبنا في طبق، فأخرجت إليه الطبق، فأخذه وما زال يتأمله وينظر فيه، ثم قال: لست أرى هاهنا شيئا لا أقول به. فسألته أن يكتب عليه خطه أن ذلك مذهبه، فكتب آخر تلك الأحرف، فقلت لأبي عمرو الحيري: احتفظ أنت بهذا الخط حتى ينقطع الكلام، ولا يتهم واحد منا بالزيادة فيه. ثم تفرقنا، فما كان بأسرع من أن قصده أبو فلان وفلان وقالا: إن الأستاذ لم يتأمل ما كتب في ذلك الخط، وقد غدروا بك وغيروا صورة الحال. فقبل منهم، فبعث إلى أبي عمرو الحيري لاسترجاع خطه منه، فامتنع عليه أبو عمرو، ولم يرده حتى مات ابن خزيمة، وقد أوصيت أن يدفن معي، فأحاجه بين يدي الله تعالى فيه وهو: القرآن كلام الله تعالى، وصفة من صفات ذاته، ليس شئ من كلامه مخلوق، ولا مفعول، ولا محدث، فمن زعم أن شيئا منه مخلوق أو محدث، أو زعم أن الكلام من صفة الفعل، فهو جهمي ضال مبتدع، وأقول: لم يزل الله متكلما، والكلام له صفة ذات، ومن زعم أن الله لم يتكلم إلا مرة، ولم يتكلم إلا ما تكلم به، ثم انقضى كلامه، كفر بالله، وأنه ينزل تعالى إلى سماء الدنيا فيقول: ” هل من داع فأجيبه “. فمن زعم أن علمه تنزل أوامره، ضل، ويكلم عباده بلا كيف (الرحمن على العرش استوى) [طه: 5] لا كما قالت الجهمية: إنه على الملك احتوى، ولا استولى. وإن الله يخاطب عباده عودا وبدءا، ويعيد عليهم قصصه وأمره ونهيه، ومن زعم غير ذلك، فهو ضال مبتدع. وساق سائر الاعتقاد

“I heard Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn Ishaq say: When the incident happened among us, Abu Abd al-Rahman and Mansur al-Tusi saw an opportunity to present their madhab. Abu al-Qasim, Abu Bakr ibn Ali, and Al-Bardai took advantage to worsen the situation. Abu Amr al-Hiri intervened to mediate between the groups and confirmed our acknowledgment of his precedence to Abu Bakr ibn Khuzaymah. He clarified the opponents’ intentions to spoil the situation until we agreed to meet with him. I, Abu Ali, and Abu Bakr ibn Abi Uthman entered. Abu Ali al-Thaqafi asked him: ‘What do you reject from our madhabs so we may abandon it?’ He replied: ‘Your inclination towards the Kullabiya madhab. Ahmad ibn Hanbal was one of the fiercest opponents of Abdullah ibn Sa’id ibn Kullab and his followers like Al-Harith.’ The discussion between him and Abu Ali on this matter continued for a long time. I said: ‘I have compiled the principles of our madhab in a document.’ I presented it to him, and he kept examining it until he said: ‘I see nothing here that I do not also affirm.’ I then asked him to write his endorsement on it, which he did at the end of the document. I told Abu Amr al-Hiri: ‘Keep this document safe so that it may end any disputes, and no one can accuse us of adding to it.’ We then dispersed. It wasn’t long before some individuals approached him, saying: ‘The teacher did not fully examine what he endorsed in that document, and they have deceived you by altering the situation.’ He accepted their words and sent for Abu Amr al-Hiri to retrieve his endorsement, but Abu Amr refused and did not return it until Ibn Khuzaymah died. I have instructed that it be buried with me so that I may present it before Allah. The document states:

The Qur’an is the speech of Allah, an attribute from among His attributes. None of His speech is created, an effect, or something that came into existence. Whoever claims that any part of it is created or came into existence or that speech is an attribute of action is a deviant Jahmi innovator. I affirm that Allah has always been speaking, and speech is an attribute of His essence. Whoever claims that Allah spoke only once and never speaks again has disbelieved in Allah. Allah descends to the nearest heaven and says, ‘Is there anyone who calls upon Me so that I may answer him?’ Whoever claims that His knowledge descends or His commands descend is misguided. He speaks to His servants without ‘how.’ The Most Merciful established Himself over the Throne (20:5), not as the Jahmiyyah say that He encompassed the Throne or took control of it. Allah speaks to His servants repeatedly, reiterating His stories, commands, and prohibitions. Whoever claims otherwise is a misguided innovator.

The rest of the creed follows.”[18]

The argument is that in the previous text it is mentioned that speech is not an attribute of action, and Ibn Khuzaymah's endorsed his students' beliefs with his signature. The document states:

القرآن كلام الله تعالى، وصفة من صفات ذاته، ليس شيء من كلامه مخلوقًا، ولا مفعولًا، ولا محدَثًا، فمن زعم أن شيئًا منه مخلوق أو محدث، أو زعم أن الكلام من صفة الفعل، فهو جهمي ضال مبتدع، وأقول: لم يزل الله متكلمًا، والكلام له صفة ذات، ومن زعم أن الله لم يتكلم إلا مرة، ولم يتكلم إلا ما تكلم به، ثم انقضى كلامه – كفر بالله

“The Qur’an is the speech of Allah, an attribute from among His attributes. None of His speech is created, an effect, or something that came into existence. Whoever claims that any part of it is created or came into existence or that speech is an attribute of action is a deviant Jahmi innovator. I affirm that Allah has always been speaking, and speech is an attribute of His essence. Whoever claims that Allah spoke only once and never speaks again has disbelieved in Allah.”[19]

The response to this claim can be addressed from several angles:

First Point:

The students did not write this document to gain his agreement but rather to show their repentance and alignment with him, seeking his approval and forgiveness. The narrative clarifies that they approached him in repentance, showing agreement with him to win back his favor. How, then, can the repentant become the one in the right, and the one in the right become the repentant? It is incorrect to say that Ibn Khuzaymah recanted and repented; the opposite occurred.

Second Point:

The claim of Ibn Khuzaymah’s agreement cannot be accepted from al-Bayhaqi, as Ibn Khuzaymah explicitly stated that they lied about him after they wrote the document. Al-Hakim al-Nishapuri narrated:

سمعت أبا سعد عبد الرحمن بن أحمد المقرئ، سمعت ابن خزيمة يقول: القرآن كلام الله ووحيه وتنزيله غير مخلوق، ومن قال: شيء منه مخلوق. أو يقول: إن القرآن محدث، فهو جهمي، ومن نظر في كتبي، بان له أن الكلابية -لعنهم الله- كذبة فيما يحكون عني بما هو خلاف أصلي وديانتي، قد عرف أهل الشرق والغرب أنه لم يصنف أحد في التوحيد والقدر وأصول العلم مثل تصنيفي، وقد صح عندي أن هؤلاء -الثقفي، والصبغي، ويحيى بن منصور- كذبة، قد كذبوا علي في حياتي، فمحرم على كل مقتبس علم أن يقبل منهم شيئًا يحكونه عني، وابن أبي عثمان أكذبهم عندي، وأقْوَلُهم عليَّ ما لم أقله

“I heard Abu Saad Abdul Rahman bin Ahmad al-Muqri say that he heard Ibn Khuzaymah say: ‘The Qur’an is the speech of Allah, and His revelation, uncreated. Whoever says that any part of it is created or says that the Qur’an is something that came into existence is a Jahmi. Anyone who reads my books will find that the Kalabis—may Allah curse them—lied about me by attributing to me things contrary to my fundamental beliefs and religion. People of the East and the West know that no one has written about Tawheed, Qadar, and the principles of knowledge as I have. It has been proven to me that these individuals—al-Thaqafi, al-Sabghi, and Yahya bin Mansur—are liars who have falsely attributed things to me in my lifetime. It is forbidden for anyone seeking knowledge to accept anything they attribute to me. Among them, Ibn Abi Uthman is the greatest liar, attributing to me what I did not say.’”[20]

Al-Dhahabi commented after mentioning this statement:

ما هؤلاء بكذبة، بل أئمة أثبات، وإنما الشيخ تكلم على حسب ما نقل له عنهم فقبح الله من ينقل البهتان، ومن يمشي بالنميمة

“These are not liars; rather, they are reliable Imams. The Sheikh only spoke based on what was reported to him about them. May Allah curse those who spread falsehood and those who engage in slanderous gossip.”[21]

The point is that Ibn Khuzaymah denied the things they attributed to him. Even if they were trustworthy—as al-Dhahabi stated—what they reported cannot be correctly attributed to him. Ibn Khuzaymah is the only one who has the right to determine what is accurately conveyed from him. A trustworthy and just person might misunderstand their teacher’s words, which is plausible due to the similarity of terminologies in those times.

Third Point:

According to their own account, Ibn Khuzaymah requested the return of the document, but they refused!

Al-Subghi said:

: «فما كان بأسرع من أن قصده أبو فلان وفلان وقالا: إن الأستاذ لم يتأمل ما كتب في ذلك الخط، وقد غدروا بك وغيروا صورة الحال. فبعث -يعني ابن خزيمة- إلى أبي عمرو الحيري لاسترجاع خطه منه، فامتنع عليه أبو عمرو، ولم يرده حتى مات ابن خزيمة، وقد أوصيت أن يدفن معي، فأحاجه بين يدي الله تعالى

“It wasn’t long before some individuals approached him, saying: ‘The teacher did not fully examine what he endorsed in that document, and they have deceived you by altering the situation.’ He accepted their words and sent for Abu Amr al-Hiri to retrieve his endorsement, but Abu Amr refused and did not return it until Ibn Khuzaymah died. I have instructed that it be buried with me so I may present it before Allah.”[22]

The student’s statement about his teacher, “so I may present it before Allah,” raises significant questions. The refusal to return the document, even if he signed it, is neither justified nor understood. A scholar might feel the need to re-examine the content of a document to make further clarifications or to add restrictions, which warrants the document’s retrieval for reconsideration.

Fourth Point:

Even if we assume that Ibn Khuzaymah agreed with this statement—which he did not, as his students admitted—the term “attributes of action” first appeared as a kalami term among the scholars of kalam, referring to a created and separate entity. The Mu’tazilites then used this term in their writings. From this perspective, some hadith scholars stated that the attributes of action are inherent, as Al-Darimi and others mentioned, meaning they are not separate and created.[23]

The evidence for this is Al-Subghi’s statement: “or that speech is an attribute of action is a deviant Jahmi.” If he meant that Allah speaks by His will, it would have been more appropriate to say, “Then he is an anthropomorphist.” Reflect on this!

Fifth Point:

His students accused him of believing in the created nature of the Quran, similar to the belief of Jahm. If he did not affirm the divine volitional attribute of Speech, such an accusation would not make sense.

In summary:

- What Al-Bayhaqi mentioned about Ibn Khuzaymah’s retraction was specifically concerning the issue of temporal occurrences, not a general retraction from affirming attributes, as some contemporary Ash’arites insinuate.

- Al-Bayhaqi was mistaken in thinking that it was Ibn Khuzaymah who retracted. In fact, it was his students who showed agreement with him and repented from their previous stance.

- The leading scholars of Hadith, such as Al-Hakim Al-Nishapuri, Imam Al-Harawi, Al-Sijzi, Ibn Mandah, Yahya bin Ammar, and others, supported Ibn Khuzaymah. Therefore, Al-Bayhaqi’s words, coming from a differing viewpoint, should not be given precedence over their statements.

May Allah’s blessings be upon Muhammad, his family, and his companions.

Recommended Reading:

Allah's Divine Attributes Discourse - Islamic Discourse

---

[1] Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyyah (3/118); Tadhkirat al-Ḥuffāẓ (723)

[2] Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyyah (3/118); Tadhkirat al-Ḥuffāẓ (728)

[3] Ṭabaqāt al-Ḥuffāẓ (729)

[4] Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyyah (3/112)

[5] Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ (9/554)

[6] Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ (9/554)

[7] al-Asmāʾ wa-l-Ṣifāt (p. 269)

[8] al-Asmāʾ wa-l-Ṣifāt (p. 341)

[9] Tadhkirat al-Ḥuffāẓ by al-Dhahabī (1/211), Darʾ Taʿāruḍ al-ʿAql wa-l-Naql (1/276)

[10] Tadhkirat al-Ḥuffāẓ by al-Dhahabī (1/211)

[11] Quoted by Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah in Darʾ al-Taʿāruḍ and Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā (6/179)

[12] Darʾ Taʿāruḍ al-ʿAql wa-l-Naql (1/244-245)

[13] Darʾ Taʿāruḍ al-ʿAql wa-l-Naql (1/276), quoting Tārīkh Naysābūr by al-Ḥākim, which remains lost to this day

[14] al-Asmāʾ wa-l-Ṣifāt (p. 341)

[15] al-Asmāʾ wa-l-Ṣifāt (p. 269)

[16] Darʾ al-Taʿāruḍ (2/9-10)

[17] Darʾ Taʿāruḍ al-ʿAql wa-l-Naql (1/276)

[18] Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ (14/381), Tadhkirat al-Ḥuffāẓ (1/211)

[19] Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ (14/381), Tadhkirat al-Ḥuffāẓ (1/211)

[20] Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ by al-Dhahabī (14/380), with the commentary: “These are not liars, but trustworthy Imams. The Shaykh spoke according to what was reported to him about them. May Allah curse those who transmit falsehood and those who spread gossip.”

[21] Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ (14/380)

[22] Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ (14/381), Tadhkirat al-Ḥuffāẓ (1/211)

[23] This issue has been discussed in terminologies. It is published on the Salaf Center website.