26 Comments

Beneficial....

The Aqeedah of Imam al-Tabari رضي الله عنه

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BikMYQ1ettY

Expand full comment

Assalamu 'alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh

Shaykh, what are your thoughts on Imam al-Tabari negation silence from Allah?

Expand full comment

negating*

Expand full comment

wswrwb,

Please don't call me Shaykh.

I understand it the way Shaykh Maher explained it as السكوت المطلق. I wouldn't go far as providing a 'Taymiyyan' like response that he means that Allah is constantly speaking. And it most certainly is not an allusion to kalam nafsi either as explained here https://al-maktaba.org/book/31616/32444.

Expand full comment

As-Salāmu ʿAlaykum wa-Raḥmatullahi wa-Barakātuh:

You mentioned: He also uses a synonym for Allah’s descent (يهبط) rather than the standard wording of the hadith (ينزل), which again demonstrates he knows the meaning he is alluding to.

But there is a ḥadīth that has the wording: (يهبط):

قال فيصل الجاسم في الأشاعرة في ميزان أهل السنة ص519-521

لفظ الهبوط

عن عبد الله بن مسعود - رضي الله عنه - عن النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - قال: (إذا كان ثلث الليل الباقي يهبط الله عز وجل إلى السماء الدنيا ثم تفتح أبواب السماء ثم يبسط يده فيقول: هل من سائل يعطى سؤله؟ فلا يزال كذلك حتى يطلع الفجر)

رواه أحمد (١/ ٣٨٨) وأبو يعلى (٩/ ٢١٩) والدارمي في الرد على الجهمية (ص٧٧) وابن خزيمة في التوحيد (ص١٣٤) والآجري في الشريعة (ص٣٢٥) وابن بطة في الإبانة (٣/ ٢٠٨) والدارقطني في النزول (ص٦٩) وقال الهيثمي في مجمع الزوائد (١٠/ ١٥٣): (رواه أحمد وأبو يعلى ورجالهما رجال الصحيح). وصححه الألباني في إرواء الغليل (٢/ ١٩٩). وصححه شعيب الأرناؤوط في تخريج المسند لشعيب (3673)

وعن أبي هريرة - رضي الله عنه - قال: قال رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم -: (إذا ذهب ثلث الليل الأول هبط الله إلى السماء الدنيا، فلا يزال بها حتى يطلع الفجر، يقول: قائل ألا من داع فيستجاب له، ألا من مريض يستشفي فيشفى، ألا من مذنب يستغفر فيغفر له)

رواه أحمد (١/ ١٢٠) وأبو محمد الدارمي في سننه (١/ ٤١٤) وعثمان الدارمي في الرد على الجهمية (ص٧٤،٧٨) والنسائي في الكبرى (٦/ ١٢٥) وأبو يعلى (١١/ ٤٤٧) والآجري في الشريعة (ص٣٢٣) والدارقطني في النزول (ص١٣٣ - ١٣٨) وابن المظفر في غرائب مالك (ص١٣٣) والبيهقي في السنن الكبرى (٦/ ١٢٥).

التصريح بأنه تعالى هو السائل لا غيره

عن رفاعة بن عرابة الجهني - رضي الله عنه - قال: قال رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم -: (إذا مضى من اليل نصفه، أو ثلثاه، هبط الله إلى السماء الدنيا، ثم يقول: لا أسأل عن عبادي غيري، من ذا الذي يستغفرني أغفر له، من ذا الذي يدعوني استجب له، من ذا الذي يسألني أعطيه، حتى يطلع الفجر)

رواه أحمد (٤/ ١٦) والطيالسي (ص١٨٢) والنسائي في الكبرى (٦/ ١٢٢) والدارمي في سننه (١/ ٤١٣) وابن ماجه (١/ ٤٣٥) وابن خزيمة في التوحيد (ص١٣٢) وأبو عوانة في مسنده (٢/ ٢٨٩) والطبراني في الكبير (٥/ ٤٩) وابن بطة في الإبانة (٣/ ٢١٤ - ٢١٥) والآجري في الشريعة (ص٣٢٥) والدارقطني في النزول (١٦٨ - ١٧٥) وابن حبان في صحيحه (١/ ٢١٧) واللالكائي (٣/ ٤٤١) والصابوني في عقيدة السلف (ص٥٨) وأبو إسماعيل الهروي في الأربعين في دلائل التوحيد (ص٨٠).

التصريح بالصعود بعد الهبوط

عن الأغر أبي مسلم قال: أشهد على أبي سعيد وأبي هريرة رضي الله عنهما: يشهدان لي على رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم - أنه قال: (إذا ذهب ثلث الليل الأوسط، هبط الرب تعالى إلى السماء الدنيا، فيقول: هل من داع؟ هل من سائل؟ هل من مستغفر؟ هل من تائب؟ حتى يطلع الفجر، ثم يصعد إلى السماء)

رواه بهذا اللفظ: أبو عوانة في مسنده (٢/ ٢٨٨) والدارقطني في الرؤية (ص١٤٩) وقال بعده: (زاد فيه يونس بن أبي إسحاق زيادة حسنة) أي: ثم يصعد إلى السماء. والحديث رواه مسلم (٧٥٨).

Expand full comment

Yes, but you'll be very hard pressed to find Tabari using the narrations with this wording. The standard and most accepted wording is ينزل. Also, هبوط linguistically won't work for purposes of ta'weel like نزل.

An Ashari author who tries to bring Tabari to his side was even puzzled by this...

ويفهم من كلام الطبري- الذي سقناه آنفًا – أنه يثبت لله ـ تعالى ـ صفة هي النزول، وأنه يثبتها على حقيقتها بل إنه صرح بمعنى هذه الصفة فقال: " إنه يهبط في كل ليلة إلى السماء الدنيا " وهذا تصرف من الطبري ليس له عليه مستند فيما ندري لاسيما أن لفظ الحديث الصحيح ينزل ربنا إلى السماء الدنيا، لا يهبط،

Again, the idea here is to look at these arguments collectively and also see how he interlinked descent with "coming" and so on.

Expand full comment

(ب) وإن زعم أنه بها مصدقٌ، قيل له: فما أنكرت من الخبر الذي روي عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: ((أنه يهبط إلى السماء الدنيا فينزل إليها)) ؟

[Tabṣīr fī Maʿālim al-Dīn Pg. 143 of Ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī]

Expand full comment

I'm aware of that and another place. That's why I said "very hard pressed," as 99.9% of the time he uses the narrations with the standard wording, yet very frequently uses the word يهبط.

But my question to you is: how do you know that at-Tabari over here is citing a hadeeth, rather than describing it with his own words? Did the editor put it in brackets, or did at-Tabari in the original manuscript (if we have the original manuscript)? Can you give the source of this hadeeth?

Expand full comment

You said with regards to hawadith:

'Some intended it to refer to creation, while others used it more broadly to refer to temporal origination without creation necessarily. Thus, at-Tabari’s statement would have to be understood in line with his other statements, and it has already been demonstrated in this article that he opposed divine timelessness'

Where's you're proof he was referring to hawadith with regards to temporal origination without creation?

Expand full comment

I think the opposite, I think he was denying hawadith with regards to creation only. It's clear to me that he did not adopt divine timelessness.

Expand full comment

With regards to him denying divine timelessness you mean because you believe he affirmed hawadith with regards to temporal origination?

Expand full comment

I don't like to use the word "hawadith" as an affirmation, but essentially, yes, I believe he believed that Allah acted successively in a temporal sense.

As discussed in the article, he believed Allah would will more than once. That alone suffices in demonstrating he did not affirm divine timelessness. That is something the Mutakallimun would deny, hence why they affirm a single pre-eternal will for all effects today.

Expand full comment

Well, he didn't actually believe Allah would 'will' more than once. Nowhere in his tafsir of 'kun faya kun' does he mention the Taymiyyan belief of two types of wills. If you read carefully he simply says Allah's iradah doesnt lag or go after the murad which is what the Asharis say and he says that Allah's command ('Be') is linked to creation and everything in general, so this doesn't prove he denies divine timelessness.

Furthermore, he says in Tabsir fi Ma'alim Addin page 149:

وأنه لا محدثٌ إلا مصنوعٌ مخلوقٌ

So he affirms EVERY muhdath is makhluq and in page 202:

فإن زعم خلقه في ذاته، فقد أوجب أن تكون ذاته محلاً للخلق، وذلك عند الجميع كفرٌ

Concerning the speech of Allah, Tabari says if someone claims the speech of Allah is created in His essence, then he has claimed the essence of Allah is subject to creation and this is kufr by consensus. Remember he has already said EVERY muhdath is makhluq, so Tabari is also saying whoever claims (hadath) occurences take place in Allah's essence is kaafir by consensus - and this is the Taymiyyan belief.

Also he says in page 149:

وكذلك من زعم أن فعله محدثٌ، وأنه غير مخلوقٍ، فمثله لا شك أنه أولى باسم الكفر من الزاعم أنه لم يزل عالماً لا علم له

This is in regards to some of the mutazila who believed that man himself can do occurent actions, but they're not created because they were trying to reconcile free will with Qadr. So they claimed the action was muhdath, but ghayr makhluq and Tabari says there's no such thing as it's a ridiculous statement to make because he knows and states EVERY muhdath is makhluq. And he does takfir of these mutazila because the ilzam of their statement is that man actually creates his actions outside of the domain of Allah and this is clear kufr. The reason I bring this statement is because by extension it relates to the Taymiyyan belief of Allah's actions also being muhdath and ghayr makhluq - which Tabari has made clear that there's no such thing.

In his Tarikh, Tabari has so many amazing statements related to time and how it is created by Allah and so on:

فلم يزده خلقه إياهم- إذ خلقهم- في سلطانه على ما لم يزل قبل خلقه إياهم مثقال ذرة، ولا هو إن أفناهم واعدمهم ينقصه افناؤه إياهم ميزان شعره، لأنه لا تغيره الأحوال، ولا يدخله الملال، ولا ينقص سلطانه الأيام والليال، لأنه خالق الدهور والأزمان

Notice also that he negates Allah changing and creating creation didn't affect Him nor does annihilating everything as Allah is eternal, qadim and perfect with His essence and attributes.

Also

وإذا كان الأمر فيما في العالم من شيء كذلك، وكان حكم ما لم يشاهد وما هو من جنس ما شاهدنا في معنى جسم أو قائم بجسم، وكان ما لم يخل من الحدث لا شك أنه محدث بتأليف مؤلف له إن كان مجتمعا

So he makes it clear whatever isn't devoid of occurences (hawadith), is itself originated

So we can see Tabari is actually manifestly against Taymiyyan creed and it is unbecoming of you to ascribe to him belief(s) that he himself made takfir of and views as absolutely heretical. I could go through everything that Maher Ameer brought in those articles regarding Tabari's views on the sifaat, but this should suffice to show just how salafis/taymiyyans ascribe to imams beliefs they don't hold. It is a trend amongst salafis to take certain statements of scholars and impute upon it their own corrupted understanding without reading carefully and understanding the overall picture. Even a munazzih like Tabari who proclaimed the transcendence of Allah is being misconstrued and dragged into the corrupted Taymiyyan quagmire

Expand full comment

Regarding kun fa ya kun, even Ibn Attiyyah understood at-Tabari to be implying that...

والأمر واحد الأمور، وليس هنا بمصدر أمر يأمر، ويكون رفع على الاستئناف، قال سيبويه: «معناه فهو يكون»، قال غيره: «يكون» عطف على «يقول»، واختاره الطبري وقرره، وهو خطأ من جهة المعنى، لأنه يقتضي أن القول مع التكوين والوجود، وتكلم أبو علي الفارسي في هذه المسألة بما هو فاسد من جملة الاعتزال لا من جهة العربية.

You’re just cherry picking statements and trying to read back kalami theology into at-Tabari’s words (Hanbalis would have had a field day with him if that were the case) and are just assuming that at-Tabari’s use of words identically resembles yours. I already clarified the different usages of muhdath in the past and how we need to be cautious.

We do not disagree with at-Tabari’s argument against the Mu’tazilites, for human beings are created and their actions will correspond to the same created essence and be considered created themselves. A very Hanbali line of argumentation, as I showed in my Hanbali article (footnote 49 onward).

You can’t deal with all the points in Maher’s article. You’re just employing the same old worn out tactic of trying to refute a little in order to give the impression to the gullible that you’re capable of refuting the whole. I’m used to these tactics and don’t take people who adopt them seriously (in terms of both sincerity and capacity).

Of course physical time (time related to the changes in the physical universe) is created, but there is also the concept of metaphysical time involving Allah’s actions. This is why at-Tabari could even utter a phrase such as قبل خلقه, which would be nonsensical if there is no time before creation.

Salam.

Expand full comment

No actually I would be able to take apart Maher's articles because Ive seen what he has to say. And no I didn't cherry pick. Rather, I gave categorical statements of his and you seem to ignore he says EVERY muhdath is makhluq and he doesn't make a batil distinguishment and I would have a field day bringing more aqwal from the salaf on this issues and Ibn Taymiyyahs heresy. Moreover you just glossed more of his clear statements in his Tarikh. And Tabari uttering 'qabla khalqih' doesn't even support you. It seems you don't understand how a perfectly unchanging being (Allah) can do actions which occur one after the other with regards to the creation without Himself changing. These simple shubha that are easily answerable lead to Ibn Taymiyyah concocting his odd metaphysics and beliefs. Salam

Expand full comment

Appreciate this Brother Bassam. With this and your previous post, you have equated the Salafiyyah Methodology with the Athari Creed. Methodologies generally branch from the Aqaid but you have compared a Manhaj with an Aqaid. What is the reasoning behind this?

JazakAllah Khayr.

Expand full comment

The Salafi creed is the Athari creed. They are used interchangeably. Sometimes I like to use "Salafi creed" to be more explicit, since Hanbali mufawwidha have hijacked the Athari label, and I wish to avoid confusion.

Expand full comment

I was actually going to message you on FB but your page is down. Hope everything is well.

Anyways, is there a difference between the Salafi Manhaj and Salafi Aqeedah?

Expand full comment

Manhaj means methodology. It's "how" we approach the study of our deen, practice it, deal with others, etc. Aqeedah involves the actual contents of what you believe in terms of creed.

Expand full comment