Ibn ‘Abd Al-Barr’s (d. 463 A.H.) Aqeedah on Allah’s Attributes
Below is a translation of Ustadh Baraa’ Yaseen’s article, Munāqashat Da‘wā Ta’aththur al-Ḥāfiẓ Abī ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-Barr bil-Kullābiyyah wal-Ash‘ariyyah
One of the approaches employed by contemporary advocates of Ash’arism to absolve themselves from the accusation of innovation is to attribute the Ash’ari creed to a number of revered imams who hold an esteemed position within the Ummah and are widely accepted by Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah, even if this is done at the expense of scholarly rigor in accurately ascribing beliefs to these figures. Among the imams they associate with a rejection of anthropomorphism—according to their claim and standard—and an alignment with Ash’arism or an influence from the Kullabis is the prominent scholar Abu’ Umar Yusuf Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr al-Qurtubi. This article will examine the claim that the Kullabis and Ash’arism influenced Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr.
Clarification of the Issue:
The opponent argues: “Being influenced by the Kullabis and Ash’arism is broader than merely identifying a person as Ash’ari or Kullabi. The existence of a broader influence does not necessarily imply the presence of a more specific one. If some Ash’aris criticize someone, or if that person criticizes the Ash’aris, this does not negate the possibility that they were influenced by some of their beliefs if there is evidence to support this.”
This point is uncontroversial.
The influence of the Kullabis on certain Hanbali groups is well-established. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah mentions in several places the influence of Al-Qadi Abu Ya'la by the Kullabis, who were the Shaykhs of the Ash'aris. For instance, he states:
سلك طريقة ابن كلاب هذه أبو الحسن بن سالم وأتباعه السالمية، والقاضي أبو يعلى وأتباعه: كابن عقيل وأبي الحسن بن الزاغوني، وهي طريقة أبي المعالي الجويني وأبي الوليد الباجي والقاضي أبي بكر بن العربي وغيرهم
“This path of Ibn Kullab was followed by Abu al-Hasan ibn Salim and his followers, the Salimiyyah, Al-Qadi Abu Ya’la, and his followers like Ibn ‘Aqil and Abu al-Hasan ibn al-Zaghuni. This was also the path of Abu al-Ma’ali al-Juwayni, Abu al-Walid al-Baji, Al-Qadi Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi, and others.”[1]
Nonetheless, Al-Qadi Abu Ya’la was critical of the Ash’aris and distanced himself from them. Ibn ‘Abd al-Hadi, in mentioning those who opposed the Ash’aris, says:
ومنهم الإمام الكبير الجليل عالم وقته المحدّث الأصولي أبو يعلى بن الفرّاء، صاحب التصانيف، وجامع مذهب أحمد، كان مجانبًا لهم، رادًّا عليهم، وله معهم وقائع وأمور
“Among them was the great imam, the distinguished scholar of his time, the hadith expert and theologian Abu Ya’la ibn al-Farra’, the author of many works and the compiler of Ahmad’s school. He opposed the Ash’aris, refuting them, and had numerous confrontations with them.”[2]
Taking a stance against the Ash’aris, as Al-Qadi Abu Ya’la and other Hanbalis did, does not necessarily mean they did not influence them. There is no contradiction between these two aspects, and holding a position against them does not negate the possibility of influence.
Similarly, al-Juwayni and his followers were influenced by the Mu'tazilites. Ibn Taymiyyah even remarked about al-Juwayni:
غَيّر مذهب الأشعري في كثير من القواعد، ومال إلى قول المعتزلة، فإنه كان كثير المطالعة لكتب أبي هاشم بن الجبّائي، وكان قليل المعرفة بمعاني الكتاب والسنة وكلام السلف والأئمة، مع براعته وذكائه في فنّه
“He altered the Ash’ari school in many principles and leaned towards the views of the Mu’tazilites, as he was an avid reader of the works of Abu Hashim ibn al-Jubba’i. However, he had little knowledge of the meanings of the Qur’an and Sunnah and the teachings of the Salaf and the Imams, despite his brilliance and sharpness in his field.”[3]
Yet, despite this influence, they took a strong stance against the Mu’tazilites, as can be seen in al-Juwayni’s statements regarding the Mu’tazilites on the issue of seeing Allah, in his responses to the questions of ‘Abd al-Haqq al-Siqilli, and in his comments on al-Asamm in “Al-Ghayathi.”[4]
We do not dispute that if the Kullabis indeed influenced Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, this does not necessarily mean that he was a Kullabi or an Ash’ari. However, it is worth noting that some Ash’aris have directly attributed him to the Ash’ari school, such as Ibn al-Subki, who corrected Ibn ‘Asakir on this matter.[5]
We also point out that our study does not aim to discuss other Maliki scholars of the Maghreb like al-Baji, Ibn Abi Zayd, Abu’ Amr al-Dani, and others, as the focus is not on the broader influence of the Kullabis’s creeds on the scholars of the Maghreb.
The Statements of Ash’ari Scholars on Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr’s Divergence from Their Beliefs:
Ibn Jahbal and al-Sanusi explicitly mentioned that Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr held views that differed from Ash’ari creeds. Ibn Jahbal, in his treatise refuting the “Hamawiyyah,” states:
وأما ما حكاه عن أبي عمر بن عبد البر فقد علم الخاص والعام مذهبَ الرجل، ومخالفةَ الناس له، ونكير المالكية عليه أولًا وآخرًا مشهور، ومخالفته لإمام المغرب أبي الوليد الباجي معروفة، حتى إن فضلاء المغرب يقولون: لم يكن أحد بالمغرب يرى هذه المقالة غيره، وغير ابن أبي زيد، على أن العلماء منهم من قد اعتذر عن ابن أبي زيد بما هو موجود في كلام القاضي الأجل أبي محمد عبد الوهاب البغدادي المالكي رحمه الله
“As for what he [Ibn Taymiyyah] attributed to Abu’ Umar Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, it is well known, both to the learned and the common people, that the man’s views were widely opposed and rejected by others. The criticisms of the Malikis against him, both early and late, are well documented, and his opposition to the prominent scholar of the Maghreb, Abu al-Walid al-Baji, is well known. The scholars of the Maghreb even say that no one in the region held this view except him and Ibn Abi Zayd, although some scholars have excused Ibn Abi Zayd, as can be seen in the words of the distinguished judge Abu Muhammad’ Abd al-Wahhab al-Baghdadi al-Maliki, may Allah have mercy on him.”[6]
Similarly, Shaykh al-Sanusi states:
وما يوجد في بعض التآليف من تلطيخ الشيخ ابن أبي زيد وأبي عمر ابن عبد البر وبعض السلف به -يعني القول بالجهة- ففاسد لا يلتفت إليه
“What is found in some writings from blemishes and stains from Shaykh Ibn Abi Zayd, Abu’ Umar Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, and some of the Salaf of holding the belief in affirming a direction for Allah, is baseless and should be disregarded.”[7]
These two passages indicate that Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr’s beliefs were not endorsed by these two scholars, who are unequivocally associated with the Ash’ari school. Indeed, al-Sanusi’s writings are considered a cornerstone for later Ash’aris, as is well known.
Al-Yafi'i remarked:
إنه قد اشتهر عن الشيخ الإمام الشهير العارف الكبير سيدي عبد القادر الجيلاني رضي الله عنه أنه كان معتقدًا للجهة في حقه تعالى، وقد استُغرِب هذا منه، وعدّ شاذًّا في ذلك عن أئمة المشرق، كما عدّ الإمام ابن عبد البر رحمه الله شاذًّا في ذلك عن أئمة المغرب
“It is well-known that the eminent Shaykh, the famous scholar, and great mystic, Sayyidi’ Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani, may Allah be pleased with him, held the belief in affirming a direction for Allah. This was surprising, as it was considered an anomaly compared to the views of the Imams of the East, just as Imam Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, may Allah have mercy on him, was considered an anomaly compared to the Imams of the Maghreb.”[8]
Before them all, Ibn al-Jawzi—known for his inclination towards the method of ta’wil—criticized Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr for his beliefs, stating:
ولقد عجبتُ لرجل أندلسي يقال له: ابن عبد البر، صنف كتاب التمهيد، فذكر فيه حديث النزول إلى السماء الدنيا، فقال: هذا يدل على أن الله تعالى على العرش؛ لأنه لولا ذلك، لما كان لقوله: (ينزل) معنى. وهذا كلام جاهل بمعرفة الله عز وجل؛ لأن هذا استسلف من حسّه ما يعرفه من نزول الأجسام، فقاس صفة الحقّ عليه، فأين هؤلاء واتِّباع الأثر؟! ولقد تكلّموا بأقبح ما يتكلّم به المتأولون، ثم عابوا المتكلمين
“I was astonished by a man from Andalusia named Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, who authored the book “Al-Tamhid.” In it, he mentioned the hadith of Allah’s descent to the lowest heaven and said: ‘This indicates that Allah is above the Throne; for otherwise, the statement ‘He descends’ would have no meaning.’ This is the speech of one ignorant of the knowledge of Allah, the Almighty, for he has drawn from his sensory perception, understanding descent in terms of physical bodies, and has thus compared the attributes of the Creator to creation. How distant are these people from following the authentic tradition! They have spoken worse than those who practice ta’wil and then criticized the Mutakallimun.”[9]
As for al-Kawthari, he addressed Ibn 'Abd al-Barr’s theological stance in his footnotes on al-Subki’s "Al-Sayf al-Saqil,” stating:
وأما ما وقع في كلام ابن أبي زيد وابن عبد البر مما يوهم ذلك فمؤوَّل عند محقّقي المالكية، ولو كان ابن عبد البر لم يكتفِ بالطلمنكي في أصول الدين ورحل إلى الشرق كالباجي لم يقع في كلامه ما يوهم
"As for what appears in the writings of Ibn Abi Zayd and Ibn 'Abd al-Barr that may suggest such a view, it is made ta’wil of by the leading scholars of the Maliki school. Had Ibn 'Abd al-Barr not confined himself to learning from al-Talamanki in matters of creed and had he traveled to the East like al-Baji, such statements would not have appeared in his writings."[10]
وهذا النصّ إضافةً إلى كونه يدلّ على ما تقدّم من عدم الرضا عن اعتقاد ابن عبد البر، فهو صريح في أن ابن عبد البر ليس له أيّ سندٍ في العقائد عن الكلابية، حيث اكتفى بالحافظ الطَّلَمَنكِي في أصول الدين، ولم يتلقّ ذلك عن واحد منهم، فظهر فسادُ مقارنته بالقاضي أبي يعلى الذي درس على ابن اللبان الذي كان من تلامذة القاضي أبي بكر ابن الطيب
This passage, in addition to indicating the aforementioned dissatisfaction with Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr’s beliefs, clearly suggests that Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr did not have any direct connection to the Kullabis in matters of creed. He relied solely on al-Hafiz al-Talamanki in aqeedah and did not receive instruction from any Kullabis scholars. This undermines the comparison with Al-Qadi Abu Ya’la, who studied under Ibn al-Labban, a student of Al-Qadi Abu Bakr al-Baqillani.[11]
Ibn 'Abd al-Hadi, in mentioning those who opposed the Ash'aris, said:
ومنهم أبو عمر الطَّلَمَنكِي الحافظ صاحب التصانيف، كان سيفًا عليهم وعلى غيرهم
“Among them was Abu’ Umar al-Talamanki, the hadith scholar and author of several works, who was a sharp opponent of the Ash’aris and others.”[12]
An Approach Among Some Contemporary Ash’aris Regarding Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr’s Beliefs:
Since contemporary Ash’ari activism has increasingly focused on criticizing Ahl al-Sunnah, one of their proponents has accused Ahl al-Sunnah of selectively quoting Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr to suit their desires. He stated this after quoting a passage from Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr on the issue of divine movement:
وهذا ما لا يروق للمقتبسين من كلام ابن عبد البر ما يوافق أهواءَهم
“This is something that does not appeal to those who cherry-pick from Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr’s statements what aligns with their whims.”[13]
This refers specifically to Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr’s affirmation of Allah’s uluww.
He overlooked that it was al-Sanusi—whose work this individual is editing—who understood from Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr’s words an affirmation of Allah’s elevation. Had al-Sanusi not understood it this way, he would not have labeled Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr’s statement as a blemish or stain. Thus, this individual’s critique is actually a critique of al-Sanusi, not just those he accuses of anthropomorphism.
Ibn Taymiyyah's Interpretation of Ibn 'Abd al-Barr's Use of the Term "Movement":
The passage cited by this individual concerning the issue of movement includes a statement by Ibn 'Abd al-Barr:
وليس مجيئه عزّ وجلّ حركة ولا زوالًا ولا انتقالًا؛ لأن ذلك إنما يكون إذا كان الجائي جسمًا أو جوهرًا، فلما ثبت أنه ليس بجسم ولا جوهر لم يجب أن يكون مجيئه حركة ولا نقلة، ولو اعتبرت ذلك بقولهم: جاءت فلانًا قيامتُه، وجاءه الموت، وجاءه المرض، وشبه ذلك مما هو موجود نازل به، ولا مجيء؛ لبان لك
“His coming, exalted be He, is not a movement, change, or transfer; for these occur only if the one coming is a body or substance. Since it is established that He is neither a body nor a substance, His coming is not to be understood as movement or transfer. If you consider similar expressions like ‘his resurrection came to him,’ ‘death came to him,’ 'illness came to him,’ and the like, which describe events occurring to someone without any physical coming, the matter becomes clear.”[14]
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah explained Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr’s negation of movement as a denial of the term itself without implying the denial of Allah’s volitionary attributes. He says:
وقال عثمان بن سعيد وغيره: إن الحركة من لوازم الحياة، فكلّ حي متحرك، وجعلوا نفي هذا من أقوال الجهمية نفاة الصفات الذين اتفق السلف والأئمة على تضليلهم وتبديعهم. وطائفة أخرى من السلفية كـنعيم بن حماد الخزاعي والبخاري صاحب "الصحيح" وأبي بكر بن خزيمة، وغيرهم كـأبي عمر بن عبد البر وأمثاله: يثبتون المعنى الذي يثبته هؤلاء، ويُسمُّونَ ذلك فعلًا ونحوه، ومن هؤلاء من يمتنع عن إطلاق لفظ الحركة لكونه غير مأثور
“Uthman ibn Sa’id and others stated that movement is inherent to life and that every living being is characterized by movement. They regarded the denial of this as a view of the Jahmiyyah, who deny Allah’s attributes and are unanimously condemned as misguided and heretical by the Salaf and the Imams. Another group of Salafis, such as Nu’aym ibn Hammad al-Khuza’i, al-Bukhari, the author of “Al-Sahih,” Abu Bakr ibn Khuzaymah, and others like Abu’ Umar ibn ‘Abd al-Barr and his peers, affirm the meaning implied by movement but refer to it as action or similar terms. Some refrain from using the term ‘movement’ because it is not transmitted in the traditional sources.”[15]
He also stated:
وكثير من أهل الحديث والسنة يقول: المعنى صحيح، لكن لا يُطلَق هذا اللفظ لعدم مجيء الأثر به، كما ذكر ذلك أبو عمر ابن عبد البر وغيره في كلامهم على حديث النزول
"Many of the scholars of hadith and the Sunnah say that while the meaning is correct, this term should not be used because it is not supported by any transmitted evidence, as mentioned by Abu 'Umar Ibn 'Abd al-Barr and others in their discussions on the hadith of descent."[16]
Ibn Taymiyyah’s interpretation is further supported by what Ibn 'Abd al-Barr said just before the previously cited statement:
ولكنَّا نقُول: استوى مِن لا مكان إلى مكان، ولا نقول: انتقل، وإن كان المعنى في ذلك واحدًا، ألا ترى أنا نقول: له عرش، ولا نقول: له سرير، ومعناهما واحد؟ ونقول: هو الحكيم، ولا نقول: هو العاقل؟ ونقول: خليل إبراهيم، ولا نقول: صديق إبراهيم؟ وإن كان المعنى في ذلك كُلِّه واحدًا، لا نُسمِّيه ولا نصِفُه ولا نطلق عليه إلا ما سمَّى به نفسه، على ما تقدّم ذكرنا له من وصفه لنفسه، لا شريك له، ولا ندفع ما وصف به نفسه، لأنه دفعٌ للقرآن
“But we say: He established Himself without being in a place and then was in a place, but we do not say He moved, even though the meaning is the same. Do you not see that we say He has a Throne, but we do not say He has a ‘bed,’ even though their meanings are the same? We say He is wise, but we do not say He is rational. We say Ibrahim is His close friend (khalil), but we do not say Ibrahim is His companion (siddiq), even though the meanings are the same. We do not describe or label Him except with what He has named Himself, according to what we have already mentioned of His self-description. He has no partner, and we do not reject what He has described Himself with, for that would be a rejection of the Qur’an.”[17]
The divergence of Imam Abu 'Umar Ibn 'Abd al-Barr from the Ash'aris is also evident in what he quoted from Ibn Khuwayz Mindad, the Maliki scholar, who said:
وقال في كتاب الشهادات في تأويل قول مالك: لا تجوز شهادة أهل البدع وأهل الأهواء، قال: أهل الأهواء عند مالك وسائر أصحابنا هم أهل الكلام، فكل متكلم فهو من أهل الأهواء والبدع أشعريًّا كان أو غير أشعري، ولا تقبل له شهادة في الإسلام، ويهجر ويؤدب على بدعته، فإن تمادى عليها استتيب منها
“In his book on testimonies, in interpreting Malik’s statement that the testimony of people of innovation and desires is not permissible, he said: ‘The people of desires, according to Malik and all our scholars, are the people of kalam. Every Mutakallim is among the people of desires and innovations, whether he is an Ash’ari or not, and his testimony is not accepted in Islam. He is to be shunned and disciplined for his innovation, and if he persists in it, he should be asked to repent.’”
Ibn 'Abd al-Barr then commented:
ليس في الاعتقاد كلِّه في صفاتِ الله وأسمائه إلا ما جاء منصوصًا في كتاب الله أو صحّ عن رسول صلى الله عليه وسلم أو أجمعت عليه الأمة، وما جاء من أخبار الآحاد في ذلك كلّه أو نحوه يسلَّم له ولا يناظر فيه
“In all matters of belief regarding the attributes and names of Allah, there is nothing except what is explicitly mentioned in the Book of Allah, or authentically reported from the Messenger (peace be upon him), or agreed upon by the Ummah. As for reports from ahad narrations in such matters or the like, they are to be accepted without debate.”[18]
Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr does not endorse the arguments of the mutakallimun for proving Allah’s existence, which leads to the denial of volitional attributes. This further supports the validity of Ibn Taymiyyah’s interpretation, as he clarified that he does not dispute the meaning affirmed by Imam’ Uthman ibn Sa’id al-Darimi and other scholars. He said, may Allah have mercy on him:
«إنه من نظر إلى إسلام أبي بكر وعمر وعثمان وعلي وطلحة وسعد وعبد الرحمن وسائر المهاجرين والأنصار وجميع الوفود الذين دخلوا في دين الله أفواجا، علم أن الله عز وجل لم يعرفه واحد منهم إلا بتصديق النبيين بأعلام النبوة ودلائل الرسالة، لا من قبل حركة، ولا من باب الكل والبعض، ولا من باب كان ويكون، ولو كان النظر في الحركة والسكون عليهم واجبًا، وفي الجسم ونفيه، والتشبيه ونفيه لازمًا، ما أضاعوه، ولو أضاعوا الواجب ما نطق القرآن بتزكيتهم وتقديمهم، ولا أطنب في مدحهم وتعظيمهم، ولو كان ذلك من عملهم مشهورًا أو من أخلاقهم معروفًا لاستفاض عنهم، ولشهروا به كما شهروا بالقرآن والروايات
“If one considers the Islam of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, ‘Ali, Talha, Sa’d, ‘Abd al-Rahman, and the rest of the Muhajirun and Ansar, as well as all the delegations who entered into Islam in groups, it becomes clear that none of them knew Allah except by affirming the Prophets through the signs of prophethood and the evidences of the message—not through discussions of movement, nor through the concepts of totality and parts, nor through the notions of past and future. Had it been obligatory for them to engage in such discussions about movement and stillness, or the body and its negation, or the affirmation and negation of resemblance, they would not have neglected it. And if they had neglected an obligation, the Qur’an would not have praised and preferred them, nor would it have extolled and honored them. Had such discussions been their practice or known attributes, it would have been widely reported from them, and they would have been renowned for it just as they were for the Qur’an and narrations.”[19]
If we acknowledge that Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr’s views align with the principles of Ahl al-Sunnah and that he diverges from the Ash’aris and Kullabis while rejecting their arguments—which they inherited from the Mu’tazilites—in establishing the existence of God, then what is the problem with Ibn Taymiyyah’s interpretation of Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr’s statements? Moreover, what issue could the opponent have with the idea that when one denies motion and other ambiguous terms, the denial might be of the term rather than the concept? There is no problem with this; rather, the issue lies in interpreting Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr’s words on affirming Allah’s transcendence and attributes in a manner consistent with Ash’ari beliefs, which is a much stronger objection.
In sum:
قد ابتُلِينا بأقوال باطلة تُنسَبُ لأئمة السنة، والله تعالى يعلم هل صدرت منهم أم لا، وعلى تقدير صدورها فعلى أي وجهٍ صدرت منه، وهو سبحانه حسيب من ينقل مثل هذه الأقوال الفاسدة على وجهٍ يتراخى في بيان فسادها أو دفعها عمن لا تليق به إن أمكنه ذلك
“We have been afflicted with false statements attributed to the Imams of the Sunnah, and Allah knows whether they truly uttered them. And if they did, in what context did they make such statements? Indeed, Allah holds accountable those who transmit such corrupt statements without clarifying their falsehood or defending those who are wrongly associated with them, if they can do so.”[20]
The opponent, in explaining his objection to Shaykh al-Islām's interpretation, presented a flawed argument, stating:
فالكلابية قد يطلقون ألفاظ الصفات الفعلية كالاستواء والمجيء والنزول مع تأويلهم لها بأفعال منفصلة، والذات الإلهية بحالها لم يحصل لها تغير
“The Kullabis may use terms for volitional attributes such as istiwa’ and descent while interpreting them as separate [from God’s essence] actions, asserting that the divine essence remains unchanged.”[21]
The response is that you must prove that Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr interprets volitional attributes as separate actions by citing his explicit statements and texts. It is not valid to impose the Kullabi approach onto Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr’s words simply because of what is known or familiar about Kullabi practices in this matter. The point of contention is whether Kullabis influenced him; thus, assuming this influence without evidence is circular reasoning. Moreover, Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr’s explicit texts contradict the interpretation you attributed to him!
As for the opponent’s statement, “The divine essence remains unchanged,” the response is that none of the opponents of the Kullabis among the Salaf and the Imams explicitly state that the divine essence is not unchanged or that it changed with istiwa’, descent, or coming. Therefore, it is not accurate to describe the beliefs of those who oppose the Kullabis and Ash’aris using such expressions. This kind of wording implies that these non-scriptural terms are a condition for those affirming the attributes, which is a baseless claim.
The Texts of Al-Hafidh Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr on Affirmation:
Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, may Allah have mercy on him, said:
والذي عليه جماعة أهل السنة والجماعة أنه لم يزل بصفاته وأسمائه، ليس لأوليته ابتداء، ولا لآخريَّتِه انقضاء، هو على العرش استوى
"The consensus of Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama'ah is that He has always been with His attributes and names. His eternality has no beginning, and His finality has no end. He made istiwa’ on the Throne."[22]
After mentioning the hadith of descent, he said:
وفي هذا الحديث دليل على أن الله عز وجل في السماء على العرش من فوق سبع سماوات، وعلمُه في كل مكان، كما قالت الجماعة أهل السنة أهل الفقه والأثر، وحجتهم ظواهر القرآن في قوله: {ٱلرَّحمَٰنُ عَلَى ٱلعَرشِ ٱستَوَىٰ} [طه: 5]، كما قال: {لِتَستَوُوا عَلَىٰ ظُهُورِهِ} [الزخرف: 13]، وقوله: {وَٱستَوَتْ عَلَى ٱلجُودِيِّ} [هود: 44]، و{ٱستَوَيتَ أَنتَ وَمَن مَّعَكَ عَلَى ٱلفُلْكِ} [المؤمنون: 28]، وقال الله عز وجل: {ثُمَّ ٱستَوَىٰ عَلَى ٱلعَرش مَا لَكُم مِّن دُونِهِۦ مِن وَلِيٍّ} [السجدة: 4]، وقال: {ثُمَّ ٱستَوَىٰ إِلَى ٱلسَّمَاءِ وَهِيَ دُخَانٌ} [فصلت: 11]
فأوردتهم ماء بفيفاء قفرة وقد حلق النجم اليماني فاستوى
وقال عز وجل: {ءَأَمِنتُم مَّن فِي السَّمَاءِ} [الملك: 16] على السماء، كما قال: {فِي جُذُوعِ النَّخْلِ} [طه: 71] أي: عليها، وقال: {يُدَبِّرُ الأَمْرَ مِنَ السَّمَاءِ إِلَى الأَرْضِ ثُمَّ يَعْرُجُ إِلَيْهِ} [السجدة: 5]، وقال: {ذِي المَعَارِجِ} [المعارج: 3] والعروج: الصعود
وهذه الآيات كلها واضحات في إبطال قول المعتزلة، وقد أوضحنا فسادَ ما ادَّعوه من المجاز فيها في “التمهيد”، وذكرنا الحُجَّة عليهم بما حضَرَنا من الأثر من وجوه النظر هناك بباب فيه كتاب مفرد، والحمد لله
ومُحالٌ أن يكون من قال عن الله ما هو في كتابه منصوص مُشبِّهًا إذا لم يكيّف شيئًا، وأقرَّ أنَّهُ ليس كمثله شيء
“This hadith is evidence that Allah, the Mighty, and Majestic, is in the heaven, above the Throne, over the seven heavens, while His knowledge is everywhere. This is the position of the group of Ahl al-Sunnah, the people of jurisprudence and tradition. Their proof is the apparent meaning of the Qur’an, such as His statement: {The Most Merciful is established above the Throne} [Taha: 5], just as He said: {That you may settle yourselves upon their backs} [Al-Zukhruf: 13], and His statement: {And it [the ship] settled on Mount Judi} [Hud: 44], and {When you and those with you are settled on the Ark} [Al-Mu’minun: 28]. And Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, said: {Then He rose over the Throne. You have no protector or intercessor besides Him} [Al-Sajdah: 4], and He said: {Then He rose towards the heaven when it was smoke} [Fussilat: 11].
As in the couplet:
‘I brought them to water in a desolate wasteland, and the Yemeni star rose high and settled.’
And the Mighty and Majestic said: {Do you feel secure that He who is in the heaven} [Al-Mulk: 16], meaning above the heaven, as He said: {On the trunks of palm trees} [Taha: 71], meaning: on them. And He said: {He manages the affair from the heaven to the earth, then it will ascend to Him} [Al-Sajdah: 5], and He said: {Owner of the ascending steps} [Al-Ma’arij: 3]. And al-‘urūj (ascension) means rising.
All these passages are very clear in debunking the Mu’tazilite stance. Their claim of ta’wil of these verses has been refuted in “Al-Tamhid,” where we presented the evidence against them based on the available traditions and rational arguments in a dedicated section of the book, and all praise is due to Allah.
It is impossible to accuse someone of anthropomorphism simply for stating what is explicitly mentioned in the Book of Allah, as long as they do not attribute a specific modality and affirm that “there is nothing like Him.”[23]
Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr’s statements here clearly affirm the attributes without any form of ta’wil, neither by claiming that istiwa’ means dominion nor by attributing it to separate actions. He did not say that istiwa’ means an action God created in the Throne, but rather, he cited verses that indicate the opposite, such as: “That you may settle yourselves upon their backs” [Al-Zukhruf: 13], “And it [the ship] settled on Mount Judi” [Hud: 44], and “When you and those with you are settled on the Ark” [Al-Mu’minun: 28]. Here, istiwa’ refers to actions inherent to the agents themselves, not something separate from them.
Had Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr not affirmed the common factor, as indicated by his reasoning with these verses, Ibn al-Jawzi would not have vehemently criticized him and accused him of anthropomorphism, as previously mentioned in his own words.
Ibn 'Abd al-Barr, in rejecting the ta’wil of istiwa', states:
وإنما يُوجَّهُ كلام الله عز وجل إلى الأشهر والأظهر من وجوهه، ما لم يمنع من ذلك ما يجب له التسليم، ولو ساغ ادّعاء المجاز لكل مدّع ما ثبت شيء من العبارات، وجل الله عز وجل عن أن يخاطب إلا بما تفهمه العرب في معهود مخاطباتها، مما يصح معناه عند السامعين. والاستواء معلوم في اللغة ومفهوم، وهو: العلو والارتفاع على الشيء، والاستقرار والتمكن فيه. قال أبو عبيدة في قوله تعالى: {اسْتَوَى} قال: علا. قال: وتقول العرب: استويت فوق الدابة، واستويت فوق البيت. وقال غيره: استوى، أي: انتهى شبابه واستقرّ، فلم يكن في شبابه مزيد
قال أبو عمر: الاستواء: الاستقرار في العلو، وبهذا خاطبنا الله عز وجل، وقال: {لِتَسْتَوُوا عَلَى ظُهُورِهِ ثُمَّ تَذْكُرُوا نِعْمَةَ رَبِّكُمْ إِذَا اسْتَوَيْتُمْ عَلَيْهِ} [الزخرف: 13]، وقال: {وَاسْتَوَتْ عَلَى الجُودِيَّ} [هود: 44]، وقال: {فَإِذَا اسْتَوَيْتَ أَنتَ وَمَن مَّعَكَ عَلَى الفُلْكِ} [المؤمنون: 28]، وقال الشاعر
فأوردتهم ماء بفيفاء قفرة وقد حلق النجم اليماني فاستوى
“The words of Allah, the Almighty, should be understood according to the most common and apparent meanings unless something necessitates accepting an alternative interpretation. If the claim of metaphorical interpretation were allowed for anyone who wished to assert it, no statement would retain its intended meaning. Allah, the Almighty, is far above addressing us in a manner that the Arabs do not understand in their customary language, where the meaning is clear to the listeners. Istiwa’ in the language is well-known and understood; it means elevation and rising above something, as well as stability and establishment in it. Abu ‘Ubaydah, in explaining the verse {istawa}, said: ‘It means rose above.’ He also mentioned that the Arabs say: ‘I rose above the animal’ and ‘I rose above the house.’ Another scholar said: ‘Istawa means that one’s youth has reached its peak and stabilized, so there is no increase in it.’
Abu ‘Umar (Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr) said: Istiwa means stability at the highest point, and it is in this sense that Allah, the Almighty, addressed us. He said: {That you may settle yourselves upon their backs, then remember the favor of your Lord when you have settled upon them} [Al-Zukhruf: 13], and He said: {And it [the ship] settled on Mount Judi} [Hud: 44], and He said: {When you and those with you are settled on the Ark} [Al-Mu’minun: 28]. The poet said:
'I brought them to water in a desolate wasteland, and the Yemeni star rose high and settled.'"[24]
He (Ibn 'Abd al-Barr) also said:
وأما قوله صلى الله عليه وسلم في هذا الحديث: «ينزل ربنا تبارك وتعالى إلى سماء الدنيا» فقد أكثر الناس التنازع فيه، والذي عليه جمهور أئمة أهل السنة أنهم يقولون: ينزل كما قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، ويصدّقون بهذا الحديث، ولا يُكيِّفُون، والقول في كيفية النزول كالقول في كيفية الاستواء والمجيء، والحجة في ذلك واحدة
“As for the statement of the Prophet ﷺ in this hadith, ‘Our Lord, Blessed and Exalted, descends to the lowest heaven,’ many people have disputed over it. However, the majority of the leading scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah affirm that He descends as the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, and they believe in this hadith without ascribing any modality to it. Discussing the how of the descent is like discussing the how of the istiwa’ and coming, and the argument for all of these is the same.”[25]
It is also reported by al-Kawsaj that he asked Imam Ahmad:
ينزل ربنا تبارك وتعالى كل ليلة حين يبقى ثلث الليل الآخر إلى السماء الدنيا» أليس تقول بهذه الأحاديث؟ و«يرى أهل الجنة ربهم»، وبحديث: «لا تقبحوا الوجوه؛ فإن الله خلق آدم على صورته»، و«اشتكت النار إلى ربها»، «حتى يضع الله فيها قدمه»، وأن موسى عليه السلام لطم ملك الموت صلوات الله عليه؟ قال أحمد: كل هذا صحيح. وقال إسحاق: كل هذا صحيح، ولا يدعه إلا مبتدع أو ضعيف الرأي
“Our Lord, Blessed, and Exalted, descends every night when the last third of the night remains to the lowest heaven—do you not affirm these hadiths? And the hadith: ‘The people of Paradise will see their Lord,’ and the hadith: ‘Do not disgrace the faces, for Allah created Adam in His image,’ and the hadith: ‘The Fire complained to its Lord,’ ‘until Allah places His foot in it,’ and that Musa, peace be upon him, struck the Angel of Death?” Ahmad responded: “All of this is authentic.” Ishaq said: “All of this is authentic, and only an innovator or one of weak judgment would reject it.”[26]
This explicitly affirms Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr’s belief in the attribute of descent without any ta’wil.
The opponent cited two passages from Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr’s writings on the attribute of descent, claiming that they indicate his influence by the Kullabis.
The first passage is where Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr says:
وقد روى محمد بن علي البجلي -وكان من ثقات المسلمين بالقيروان- قال: حدثنا جامع بن سوادة بمصر، قال: حدثنا مطرف، عن مالك بن أنس أنه سئل عن الحديث: «إن الله ينزل في الليل إلى سماء الدنيا»، فقال مالك: يتنزل أمره. وقد يحتمل أن يكون كما قال مالك رحمه الله على معنى أنه تتنزل رحمته وقضاؤه بالعفو والاستجابة، وذلك من أمره، أي: أكثر ما يكون ذلك في ذلك الوقت، والله أعلم
“Muhammad ibn ‘Ali al-Bajali, who was among the trustworthy Muslims of Qayrawan, narrated to us that Jami’ ibn Sawadah in Egypt said: Mutarrif narrated from Malik ibn Anas that he was asked about the hadith, ‘Indeed, Allah descends at night to the lowest heaven.’ Malik replied: ‘His command descends.’ It could be that, as Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, said, it means that His mercy and decree of pardon and acceptance descend, which are part of His command. That is, this occurs more frequently during that time. And Allah knows best.”[27]
The response to this is that if making ta’wil of descent, as reported from Imam Malik is evidence of influence by the Kullabis, then it would be Imam Malik himself who is the Kullabi, not merely Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr. Such a claim would be in clear contradiction to historical facts.
Ibn Taymiyyah said:
وجواب هذه الرواية المنقولة عن مالك كجواب الرواية المنقولة عن الإمام أحمد في مثل ذلك، فإنه نقل عنه يومَ مناظرته للجهمية أمام الخليفة أنه قال في قوله: {هَلْ يَنظُرُونَ إِلَّا أَن يَّأْتِيَهُمُ اللهُ} [البقرة: 210] أنه أمره. فقيل: الراوي غلط عليه، وقيل: إنه قاله على سبيل الإلزام لهم لما احتجوا بمجيء القرآن على أنه مخلوق، فقال لهم: إنما مجيء ثوابه كما قلتم في قوله: {وَجَاءَ رَبُّكَ} [الفجر: 22]: إنه أمره. وقيل: بل هذه رواية عنه أنه يتأول صفات المجيء والإتيان والنزول ونحو ذلك بمعنى القصد، ولا يتأول غيرها. وبعضهم جعلها رواية مخرجة عنه في بعض أحاديث الصفات التي يجب تأويلها عند هذا القائل، وهو ابن عقيل، فالكلام في المنقول عن مالك وأحمد سواء
“The response to this narration attributed to Malik is the same as the response to the narration attributed to Imam Ahmad in a similar context. It was reported that during his debate with the Jahmiyyah before the Caliph, he said regarding the verse: {Are they waiting for anything other than that Allah should come to them} [Al-Baqarah: 210], that it means ‘His command.’ It was said that the narrator made a mistake, and it was also said that Ahmad said this to challenge them, as they argued that the coming of the Qur’an implied it was created. So, he responded by saying: ‘The coming of its reward, just as you say in the verse {And your Lord comes} [Al-Fajr: 22], that it means His command.’ It was also said that this is a narration where Ahmad made ta’wil of attributes like coming, arriving, and descending as meaning intent without making ta’wil of other attributes. Some have treated this as a ta’wil attributed to him for certain hadiths about attributes that, according to this view, require ta’wil—such as the view of Ibn ‘Aqil. Thus, the discussion regarding what is narrated from Malik and Ahmad is the same.”[28]
So, should it be said that the Kullabis also influenced Imam Ahmad?!
Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr mentioned Malik’s ta’wil of descent in “Al-Istidhkar,” considering it a hypothetical assumption of the narration’s authenticity. He said:
ولو صح ما روي في ذلك عن مالك كان معناه أن الأغلب
“If what is narrated from Malik about this is authentic, then its meaning would be that the predominant...”[29]
He then mentioned something similar to what he wrote in “Al-Tamhid.”
This suggests he did not consider it authentic, and “Al-Istidhkar” was written after “Al-Tamhid.”[30]
As for the second point, it concerns Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr’s commentary on what was narrated from Nu‘aym ibn Hammad: “He descends in His essence while on His Throne.” Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said:
ليس هذا بشيء عند أهل الفهم من أهل السنة؛ لأن هذا كيفية، وهم يفزعون منها؛ لأنها لا تصلح إلا فيما يحاط به عيانًا، وقد جل الله وتعالى عن ذلك، وما غاب عن العيون فلا يصفه ذوو العقول إلا بخبر، ولا خبر في صفات الله إلا ما وصف نفسه به في كتابه، أو على لسان رسوله صلى الله عليه وسلم، فلا نتعدى ذلك إلى تشبيه أو قياس أو تمثيل أو تنظير، فإنه ليس كمثله شيء، وهو السميع البصير
“This is not accepted by those with understanding among Ahl al-Sunnah because this involves ascribing a modality (kayfiyyah), which they reject, as it only applies to something that can be physically encompassed and observed. Allah, Exalted and Glorified, is far above that. What is beyond the reach of sight can only be described by people of intellect based on transmitted reports, and there is no report regarding the attributes of Allah except what He has described Himself with in His Book or what His Messenger ﷺ has conveyed. We do not go beyond that to likeness, analogy, or comparison, for there is nothing like Him, and He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing.”[31]
The response to this is that the reasoning Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr provided in rejecting that narration does not contradict the principles of Ahl al-Sunnah. It is not based on the unique principles of the Kullabis or the Ash’aris that differ from the principles of the Ahl al-Hadith. As Ibn al-Qayyim, may Allah have mercy on him, said:
واختلف أهل السنة في نزول الربّ تبارك وتعالى على ثلاثة أقوال:
أحدها: أنه ينزل بذاته، وهو قول الإمام أبي القاسم التيمي، وهو من أجل الشافعية، له التصانيف المشهورة كالحجة في بيان المحجة، وكتاب الترغيب والترهيب وغيرهما، وهو متفق على إمامته وجلالته، قال شيخنا: وهذا قول طوائف من أهل الحديث والسنة والصوفية والمتكلمين، وروي في ذلك حديث مرفوع لا يثبت رفعه. قال أبو موسى المديني: إسناده مدخول وفيه يقال: وعلى بعضهم مطعن لا تقوم بمثله الحجة، ولا يجوز نسبة قوله إلى رسوله صلى الله عليه وسلم، وإن كنا نعتقد صحته إلا أن يرد بإسناد صحيح
وقالت طائفة منهم: لا ينزل بذاته
وقالت فرقة أخرى: نقول: ينزل، ولا نقول: بذاته، ولا بغير ذاته، بل نطلق اللفظ كما أطلقه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ونسكت عما سكت عنه
“The scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah differed regarding the descent of the Lord, Blessed, and Exalted, into three views:
One of the views is that He descends in His essence. This was the opinion of Imam Abu al-Qasim al-Taymi, a prominent Shafi’i scholar known for his well-known works such as “Al-Hujjah fi Bayan al-Mahajjah” and “Kitab al-Targhibwal-Tarhib” among others. His leadership and authority are widely recognized. Our Shaykh said this is the view of various groups among the Ahl al-Hadith, Ahl al-Sunnah, Sufis, and theologians. A hadith is also narrated about this, but its chain of transmission does not establish its authenticity. Abu Musa al-Madini said: “Its chain is questionable, and it is said that there is criticism of one of its narrators, which makes it insufficient as evidence, and it is not permissible to attribute this statement to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, even if we believe it to be correct unless an authentic chain supports it.
Another group said: He does not descend in His essence.
A third group said: We affirm that He descends, but we do not say whether it is in His essence or not; rather, we use the term exactly as the Messenger of Allah ﷺ used it and remain silent on what he did not specify.[32]
Thus, Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr’s stance in rejecting this phrase is one of the views held by Ahl al-Sunnah on the matter. He did not adopt a view exclusively associated with the Kullabis or the Ash’aris, distinct from the broader Ahl al-Sunnah.
As for the reasoning he presented in “Al-Istidhkar,” where he stated,
لأنه -تعالى ذكره- ليس بمحل للحركات، ولا فيه شيء من علامات المخلوقات
“for He—exalted be His mention—is not subject to motions, nor does He possess any of the attributes of created beings.”[33]
This negation has a valid interpretation. It is not necessary to interpret his words according to the views of the Kullabis and Ash’aris, who deny the volitional attributes of Allah. Ibn al-Qayyim said:
فإنَّ الانتقالَ يُرَاد به انتقالُ الجسم والعرض من مكانٍ هو مُحتاجٌ إليه إلى مكانٍ آخرَ يحتاج إليه، وهو يمتنع إثباتُه للرب تعالى، وكذلك الحركة إذا أريد بها هذا المعنى امتنع إثباتُهَا لله تعالى
“Transition can refer to the movement of a body or an accident from one place, which it needs, to another place, which it also needs. This is impossible to attribute to the Lord, the Exalted. Similarly, if motion is understood in this way, it is impossible to attribute it to Allah.”[34]
In summary, all the evidence the opponent has cited to claim that the Kullabis influenced Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr does not substantiate such a claim. It cannot be used to challenge Ibn Taymiyyah’s interpretation of Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr’s denial of motion. We have presented statements from Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr that demonstrate his distance from the methods of the Mutakallimun in affirming the existence of Allah and his opposition to the Ash’aris.
Furthermore, the claim that the Kullabis influenced Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr lacks any historical basis that would prove his direct reception of their teachings, as even noted by al-Kawthari. Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr’s affirmations contradict both the paths of ta’wil and tafwid. For this reason, we find that Ibn Jahbal, al-Sanusi, and al-Yafi’i accused his views of being deviant, corrupt, and anomalous!
May the peace and blessings of Allah be upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family, and his companions.
Recommended Reading:
Allah's Divine Attributes Discourse
[1] Majmūʿ al-Fatāwa (12/367-368)
[2] Jamʿ al-Juyūsh wal-Dasākir (p. 369)
[3] Bayān Talbīs al-Jahmiyyah (5/507-508)
[4] Al-Ghayāthī (p. 22-23), Although in Nihāyat al-Maṭlab (18/19), he based his position of not declaring the Ahl al-Ahwā’ (People of Desires), including the Mu’tazilah, as disbelievers on the principle of his Imam, al-Shafi’i, who accepted the testimony of the Ahl al-Ahwā’, this does not negate the fundamental severity of his stance against the Mu’tazilah, which has been established in other parts of his writings, as I previously mentioned.
[5] Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyyah (3/372)
[6] Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyyah, for Ibn al-Subkī (9/78)
[7] Sharḥ al-ʿAqīdah al-Wasaṭiyyah (p. 246)
[8] Nashr al-Maḥāsin al-Ghāliyah fī Faḍāʾil Mashāyikh al-Ṣūfiyyah, just as in Tanzīh Dhawī al-Wilāyah wal-ʿIrfān (p. 309-310).
[9] Ṣayd al-Khāṭir (p. 136)
[10] Al-Sayf al-Ṣaqīl fī al-Radd ʿalā Ibn Zafīl (p. 101)
[11] Ibn ʿAsākir mentioned this in Tabyiīn Kidhb al-Muftarī (p. 492)
[12] Jamʿ al-Juyūsh wal-Dasākir (p. 366)
[13] Footnote in Taḥqīq Sharḥ al-ʿAqīdah al-Wasaṭiyyah, (p. 247)
[14] Sharḥ al-ʿAqīdah al-Wasaṭiyyah (p. 246)
[15] Darʾ Taʿāruḍ al-ʿAql wal-Naql (2/7-8)
[16] Sharḥ Ḥadīth al-Nuzūl (p. 188)
[17] Al-Tamhīd (5/147)
[18] Jāmiʿ Bayān al-ʿIlm wa Faḍlihi (2/942)
[19] Al-Tamhīd (5/165-166)
[20] Sharḥ al-Kubra lil-Sanusī (p. 450)
[21] See a telegram group called العلوم العقلية
[22] Jāmiʿ Bayān al-ʿIlm wa Faḍlihi (1/56)
[23] Al-Istidhkār (2/527)
[24] Al-Tamhīd (5/142)
[25] Al-Tamhīd (5/155)
[26] Al-Tamhīd (5/160). And the issue is discussed in Masāʾil Isḥāq ibn Manṣūr al-Kawsaj (3332)
[27] Al-Tamhīd (5/155)
[28] Jāmiʿ al-Masāʾil (8/195), The debate is discussed in al-Aghāliṭ fī al-Marāsim al-Sulṭāniyyah (2/1057). And see the article: Mā qīla fī Taʾwīl al-Imām Mālik li-Ḥadīth al-Nuzūl .. Shubhah wa Radd on the link https://salafcenter.org/2702
[29] Al-Istidhkār (2/529)
[30] See: ʿAqīdat al-Imām Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr fī al-Tawḥīd wal-Īmān: ʿArḍan wa Dirāsah (p. 352)
[31] Al-Tamhīd (5/156)
[32] Mukhtaṣar al-Ṣawāʿiq al-Mursalah (p. 469). Also see: Sharḥ Ḥadīth al-Nuzūl (p. 196-197).
[33] Al-Istidhkār (2/530)
[34] Mukhtaṣar al-Ṣawāʿiq al-Mursalah (p. 473)