This cleared a lot of my confusion. May Allah reward you for spending so much time and effort performing such an extensive research, and summarizing it in a concise yet detailed manner.
Salaam, Amazing article, May Allah immensely reward you for your efforts. I've sent a email with my questions but here they are in case you don't see it:
1. In al-Sullam al-Munawraq it says Rasm occurs with the Jins and the Khassah (both of which are amongst the 5 universals or kulliyat), could you provide a demonstrative example of how we would use this framework to affirm attributes of Allah?
Assalamualaikum brother. I am from Bangladesh here in my country majority scholars follow Hanafi madhab and Maturidi doctrine in aqeedah. I want to learn Athari/Hanbali aqeedah because I found that it is the real and safe aqeedah of salaf. But there is no reliable source in Bangladesh from where I can learn Athari aqeedah. Can you please suggest me any Sheikh who teaches Athari creed in English for beginners in online or any reliable online platform which has Athari aqeedah course? I have been researching about Athari creed for almost 1 year and looking for institutions from where I can do courses but didn't find any reliable institute. I am getting some books but I am confused. Please please guide me.
Brother I have checked them out but didn't find any specific Athari aqeedah course. Can you please suggest me some English Athari aqeedah books? Please I really need it.
What about this book " Islamic Beliefs: A Brief Introduction to the Aqeedah of Ahl as-Sunnah wal-Jamâ‘ah - Abdullah Bin Abdul Hamid Al Athari " ? Is this book on athari aqeedah?
Assalamu 'alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh. Do you believe one should differentiate between volitional attributes and attributes of action? Some may argue that some of Allah's Knowledge (for example, Allah knowing that X is true even though He could have willed - and, as a result, known - it not to be true) is "volitional" but not an "action." Would this substantiate for one to distinguish between al-sifat al-ikhtiyariyyah and al-sifat al-fi'liyyah, or would you say these are synonymous?
One question though, is there any particular reason you didn't include Ibn al Jawzi in the paper? Shouldn't he be considered a prime example of kalam influenced Hanbalis?
As I mentioned in the article, I didn't include everyone (that includes the Tamimis) and for me, Ibnul Jawzi was clearly Ashari-inclined and that's not greatly disputed even with the Hanbali mufawwidah. When I wrote this article, I had the Hanbali mufawwidah in mind mostly, and I wished to mention scholars whose stances I felt needed to be focused on more with that objective in mind.
Salam. I'm not sure if my understanding of the Salafi understanding of Allah's speech is correct. Can you correct me if I am wrong? As I understand it, Salafi's believe that Allah's attribute of Speech (not His Power or Will) originated the Qur'an, which is specifically the sounds and letters, in the Essence of Allah. Because this is within Allah, it is therefore uncreated. This uncreated speech (which is not the attribute of Speech itself) then exited Allah into a lower heaven and was then carried by Jibril into our heaven to the Prophet saws who then heard it. Is that correct? I want to state clearly that my intention here is to understand what exactly the position because I am confused as to what Salafi brothers are trying to say on this topic.
I have seen in your article that you mentioned Ibn Khuzaymah's stance on Allāh's Speech, but I also encountered another quote which it seems Al-Bayhaqī used to argue that he repented or backtracked from his previous view. Is there a way to reconcile this?
القرآن كلام الله وصفة من صفات ذاته ليس شئ من كلامه مخلوقا ولا محدثا فمن زعم ان شيئا منه مخلوق أو محدث *أو زعم ان الكلام من صفة الفعل* فهو جهمى ضال مبتدع
I also have a question regarding what Ibn Hamid said:
وقال أبو عبد الله بن حامد في أصوله: ومما يجب الإيمان به والتصديق أن الله يتكلم، وأن كلامه قديم وأنه لم يزل متكلمًا في كل أوقاته بذلك موصوفًا، وكلامه قديم غير محدث، كالعلم والقدرة، *وقد يجىء على المذهب* أن يكون الكلام صفة متكلم لم يزل موصوفًا بذلك، ومتكلمًا كلما شاء وإذا شاء، ولا نقول: إنه ساكت في حال ومتكلم في حال، من حين حدوث الكلام.
Would his saying "وقد يجىء على المذهب" indicate that he is only speaking about another opinion in the madhab although he himself does not adopt it?
Possibly. I'll need to go back and re-read everything, but if you read my section on Ibn Hamid, you'll see he affirms harakah (footnote 104) and al-Qadi Abu Ya'la cites him as pretty much also affirming volitional attributes (footnotes 108). Perhaps one could argue that Qadi came after Ibn Hamid's death and relayed his final opinion. Allahu 'Alam. But what's pretty clear, even according to the Ibn Hamid statement you provided, that affirmation of volitiional attributes was at least an acceptable position in the Hanbali school (regardless of Ibn Hamid's personal position), and this debunks the claim that Ibn Taymiyyah came later on and invented something new in the madhab.
Here is a line from p.32 … ‘’but he (Imam Ahmad) also clearly affirmed their *temporality*, which entails that Imam Ahmad also affirmed volitional attributes for Allah’’.
You’ve used the word temporal few times in this paper. Is it meant to be synonymous with simply god acting as he wills or does it denote time? So that god acts in time.
It denotes that Allah acts *when* He wills, which entails that He acts over periods of time. Tensed verbs are constantly ascribed to Allah in the Qu'rana and Sunnah, and in the absence of a clear scriptural prooftext demonstrating otherwise, or a truly *definitive* rational argument demonstrating that this is unbefitting of God, we take scripture at face value and permit Allah to speak and express Himself as He wishes with the understanding that it is literally true.
Your argument is indirectly asserting that since god acts this must be in time, sequential. Which is clearly a category error. That’s a rational refutation. Additionally this assumption could only come about due to imposing on god our worldly phenomenal experience which is in moments and time.
As for textual evidence there’s a Hadith by Ibn Abbas ra which states that the Quran was revealed as a *whole* to the lowest heaven and as events unfolded was brought to habib Allah. Which eliminates any ideas that gods acts require moment, time.
Finally Ibn Taymiyya explains how time is created. That’s right *created*.
As for myself I believe god can act how he wills. Since god is in another category of existence doesn’t require moments, sequence or time. Remember you’re making the claim “periods of time’’ which requires you to produce evidence from the Salaf.
I made no such rational deduction. I made it very clear that we go with the apparent reading of the Qur'an and Sunnah which states that Allah acts in the past, present, and future. That Allah literally spoke to Prophets at points in time. That Allah *will* get angry on the Day of Judgment in a manner He never got angry before. And the dozens, if not hundreds, of scriptural prooftexts asserting the same.
In the absence of any reason to not take these upon their apparent reading, we simply take them upon their apparent reading. Can philosophical arguments further bolster our stance? Sure, but they most certainly aren't the basis of our stance. Scripture is.
The hadith of Ibn Abbass says nothing about Allah being timeless. As for your argument that it proves that Allah "does not require time," well, as I said, we don't base our argument on rational grounds that Allah "requires time," but on the apparent reading of the Qur'an and Sunnah.
Plus, I can play devil's advocate and poke holes in your argument rationally, but I prefer to stick to scriptural arguments and the undertanding of the Salaf first and foremost.
I wrote an entire article. Read it carefully and consider the points and realize that I have the precedent of the mainstream scholarship of the past on my side. If you disagree, feel free to offer a comprehensive critique.
If you could present one Hanbali Imam who inserted gods acts implies “over periods of time’’ would be much appreciated. Since you have mainstream scholarship on your side one quote should be a breeze.
Here is a clear cut verse you can take it literally physically however you like:
Adam, if you're demanding a quote that identically uses the phrase "over periods of time," then I'm sure you know you're not being sensible making such constricting demands. If you mean that this is the clear intended meaning the scholar has in mind, then there are plenty in the article.
As for your "clear cut" verse, I'm sorry, but generic ayat you could conveniently use as a plug in is hardly a convincing attempt. Could be equally used against attributes such as Knowledge, Speech, etc.
Anyways, I appreciate your willingness to go through the paper carefully. Do bear in mind that it has very specific objectives in mind and has absolutely no intention of addressing philosophical objections. It's main intent is to demonstrate that Ibn Taymiyyah's views on attributes have the dominant precedent of Hanbali theology at his backing. Any other concerns are beyond the scope of the paper, but do feel free to email me about those. As for concerns directly related to the paper, you may continue to comment here if you prefer. Enjoy.
Do you think tafwid al ma'na means not ascribing an attribute altogether? If you do then this is not correct. Tafwid does not necessitate negation of an attribute. For example, observe the creed of Hafiz Ismaili mentioned below.
Start quote:
Similarly the Wahhabi editor of “I’itiqad A’immat Al-Hadith“, a book attributed to Al-Hafidh Abu Bakr Al-Isma’ili (d. 371 H.) objected to the following statement:
ولا يعتقد فيه الأعضاء، والجوارح، ولا الطول والعرض، والغلظ، والدقة، ونحو هذا مما يكون مثله في الخلق، وأنه ليس كمثله شيء تبارك وجه ربنا ذو الجلال والإكرام.
“We do not believe that He (Allah swt) is composed of parts or limbs, nor do we believe that He is attributed with length or width..”
In his explanatory footnote the editor said, as translated Here and posted on the ‘Salafi’ Multaqa Ahl al-Hadeeth forums here:
These terms are not from among the known terms to Ahlus-Sunnah wal- Jamaa`ah from among the Salaf (pious predecessors) of this nation, rather, it is from the innovated terms of the heretics, and expressing the truth with the Islaamic terms is the path of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa`ah. So it is not needed for the seeker of the truth to pay attention to these types of terms and reliance upon them, and the Imaam, may Allaah have mercy upon him, the author, was not free from using these words. Indeed Allaah (), is attributed with the complete attributes and is described with the exalted descriptions. So regardless of the matter, the falsehood is rejected from the one who says it, regardless of whom it may be.
Note: In the introduction to the translation the editor of this text is mentioned to be the contemporary Pseudo-Salafi theologian ‘Shaykh’ Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Rahman Al-Khumayyis. And Allah knows best.
If a person affirms attribute of Yadayn as Hafiz Ismaili does, the Sunnis have no issue and some of them do it like it that as well. As we see Salafis do not do this.
Also, if connotative meaning of Yad for example is as you write "An eternal attribute subsisting in the essence of Allah that performs functions such as grasping, seizing, creating, etc., which scriptural texts allude to." then this is also not necessarily an issue. The problem is with the context surrounding this description. As I showed in the quote, the Salafi has an issue with negating filthy things like limbs from Allah. They may give a token negation of human limbs for example, but they are ultimately affirming limbs when they discuss *attributes* like Yadayn and Aynayn. The famous example I was taught when learning aqidah from Salafis was that when you look at a clock you see that it has a hand but you don’t say that a clock resembles a human or that a human resembles a clock. The analogies they always gave me clearly implies that Allah's Yadayn are some kind of physical object and scholars of the Sunnah never believed this and in fact negated it in one or way or another.
Okay. Thank you. Regarding the distinction between denotative and connotative meaning how do you understand this distinction with the attribute of "coming"? Ibn Abdul Barr said regarding this attribute.
Start Quote
“His ‘coming’ is neither a movement nor a disappearance nor a displacement, for all this is only valid for a body or substance. As it is established that He is neither a body nor a substance then it follows that His coming is not to be understood as a movement or displacement. And if you contemplate on this by taking into account expressions such as “so and so’s time has come,” or “death has come to him” or “disease came to him” and so on which occurs to man without their having to ‘come’ in a literal sense, then you will understand. “
If they all affirmed connotative meaning, what would be the connotative meaning of "coming" or "nuzul"? Getting closer? But in what sense? He clearly believes its not physical movement and that's the whole issue! Connotative affirmation of meaning seems to just add a step to the tafwid they are making, at least for some.
Even Ibn Taymiyyah and most Salafis deny movement as they consider it part of the modality, while some of the Hanbalis deemed it to be a necessary intrinsic part of the meaning.
Connotatively, in this case, "coming" or "descent" would entail an action that Allah takes resulting in His Essence being present (likely to be seen as Imam Ahmad argued) at a particular point.
Is the *only possible way* for Allah to come or descend from the highest point to the lowest point through entering the space time continuum? I fail to see how this is the case. Allah سبحانه وتعالى Himself in the Qur’an says that He will eventually fold the heavens and earth (39:67). This means what? Well, clearly it entails that God is in full control of the space time continuum. If you google about whether the space time continuum could be sliced, broken, or folded (yup folded, just as the Qur’an says) you’ll see that it’s a question which is seriously entertained. Even scientists themselves are trying to do so in their lab experiments.
So, technically speaking, is it conceptually possible for Allah to fold and slice up the space between the highest and lowest points of heaven (something we still have no definitive understanding of) and shift from these points in a manner which does not compel Him to enter into (and thus, "move through") space? Sure! Why not?! What’s intrinsically impossible about that?
I AM NOT SAYING THAT THIS IS THE “MODALITY” of Allah’s coming and descent. Please, nobody misquote me. The Mutakallimun are the ones who said that literal Nuzul MUST entail that God mixes with the creation, and it only takes offering one conceptual possibility demonstrating otherwise in order to neutralize their argument.
As for "hands," we don't affirm organs. As for those examples you hear, even classical scholars such as adh-Dhahabi and others give them. The only point being made is that "hand" attains the nature of what it is ascribed to. So if God is immaterial and indivisible, then so is His hand.
In the connotative meaning you gave, coming and descent are basically the same thing. Do you believe the particular points are different though?
You said “and shift from these points in a manner which does not compel Him to enter into (and thus, "move through") space? Sure! Why not?! What’s intrinsically impossible about that?”
What you just described sounds *exactly* like an entity moving through space, but with different words. Nuzul or coming could be literal in the sense of being an attribute with the negations that Ibn Abdul Barr and others mention. I don’t think someone could object if it affirmed in that way. Do you believe moving through space is intrinsically impossible?
Regarding hands and Allah being immaterial and indivisible, do you find yourself agreeing more with Hafiz Ismailli or Al Khumayyis seeing as how you negate organs? Is Allah being material intrinsically impossible?
In the same article I cited, a quote from Ibn Baz is given where he says, “Then As-Sabuni -May Allah guide him- mentioned declaring Allah transcendent beyond possessing body (al-jism), pupils (al-hadaqa), auditory meatus (al-simakh), tongue (al-lisan), and larynx (al-hanjara); [End of Sabuni’s words- beginning of Ibn Baz’s words] and this is not the position of Ahl al-Sunna but rather that of the scholars of condemned kalam and their contrivance , for Ahl As-sunnah do not negate something about Allah except what He negates about Hisself”
Would you agree with As Sabuni or Ibn Baz? Or do you disagree with both in some ways?
Regarding the examples, when you look at the wider context, it is not as you say. For example, Salafi’s will say that if there is a characteristic of completeness in a human being, then Allah will deserve it even more. So they will take the hadith which mentions that Allah will put his “Foot” over the hellfire, then say that if a human has one foot then this will be considered a deficiency in a human being so Allah must have two “Feet”. It’s clear that Allah's Perfection is based on what human’s view as perfection in terms of their bodies. I have also seen some say that Allah Sees with His Eyes and Hears with His Ears (I don’t have a video for this one but there were some Salafis saying it online, this may or may not an official position). How are they not talking about limbs at this point?
Yes, there's a difference with descent, as it entails a shift from a higher point to a lower.
As I proposed, God may shift from point to point by folding up space and not going through it. I'd like to see why that possibility should be definitively negated.
Many Salafis are against denying things for Allah that He did not deny for Himself when it's not an undeniable inherent deficiency. As for jism, it could have at least four different meanings. One of the meanings (i.e. as the Karamiyyah defined as self-subsisting), is actually correct. That's why Salafis don't like to negate terms when they are prone to being defined correctly.
Not sure I came across the "two foot" deduction before. Sounds odd.
And yes, regarding hands and God being material, we deny that God could be divisible and have His attributes be open to detachment.
Anyways, I would appreciate it if you stick to one point at a time please. Feel free to email me even, as I feel your questions are beginning to step outside the scope of the paper.
Yesterday, I've become aware that a particular critic of mine, notorious for nitpicking and an obstinate lack of intellectual generosity, claims that Ibn Taymiyyah would reject my suggested idea that Allah could descend to the first heaven without traversing the first six heavens, possibly folding them instead (much like He would in the end times), citing his remarks:
I’m already well aware of Ibn Taymiyyah discussing this point elsewhere, but with greater elaboration when he states:
فهذا خلاف ما تخيلوه، فإنهم لا يمكنهم أن يتخيلوا نازلًا كنزول العباد، من يكون نازلا على سماء هؤلاء ثلث ليلهم، وهو - أيضًا - في تلك الساعة نازلًا على سماء آخرين، مع أنه يجب أن يتقدم على أولئك أو يتأخر عنهم، أو يزيد أو يقصر.
وحكى عن بعض الجهال أنه قيل له: فالسموات كيف حالها عند نزوله؟ قال: يرفعها، ثم يضعها، وهو قادر على ذلك. فهؤلاء الذين يتخيلون ما وصف رسول الله ﷺ به ربه أنه مثل صفات أجسامهم، كلهم ضالون، ثم يصيرون قسمين:
قسم علموا أن ذلك باطل، وظنوا أن هذا ظاهر النص ومدلوله، وأنه لا يفهم منه معنى إلا ذلك، فصاروا: إما أن يتأولوه تأويلًا يحرفون به الكلم عن مواضعه. وإما أن يقولوا: لا يفهم منه شيء، ويزعمون أن هذا مذهب السلف.
ويقولون: إن قوله: ﴿وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إِلاَّ اللهُ﴾ [آل عمران: ٧] يدل على أن معنى المتشابه لا يعلمه إلا الله، والحديث منه متشابه - كما في القرآن - وهذا من متشابه الحديث، فيلزمهم أن يكون الرسول الذي تكلم بحديث النزول لم يَدْرِ هو ما يقول، ولا ما عنى بكلامه - وهو المتكلم به ابتداء. فهل يجوز لعاقل أن يظن هذا بأحد من عقلاء بنى آدم؟ ! فضلًا عن الأنبياء! فضلا عن أفضل الأولين والآخرين، وأعلم الخلق، وأفصح الخلق، وأنصح الخلق للخلق ﷺ؟ ! وهم مع ذلك يدعون أنهم أهل السنة، وإن هذا القول الذي يصفون به الرسول وأمته هو قول أهل السنة.
ولا ريب أنهم لم يتصوروا حقيقة ما قالوه ولوازمه. ولو تصوروا ذلك لعلموا أنه يلزمهم ما هو من أقبح أقوال الكفار في الأنبياء، وهم لا يرتضون مقالة من ينتقص النبي ﷺ، ولو تنقصه أحد لاستحلوا قتله. وهم مصيبون في استحلال قتل من يقدح في الأنبياء ﵈، وقولهم يتضمن أعظم القَدْح؛ لكن لم يعرفوا ذلك. ولازم القول ليس بقول، فإنهم لو عرفوا أن هذا يلزمهم ما التزموه.
وقسم ثان، من الممثلين لله بخلقه، لما رأوا أن قول هؤلاء منكر، وأن قول الرسول ﷺ حق، قالوا مثل تلك الجهالات: من أنه تصير فوقه سماء وتحته سماء، أو أن السموات ترتفع ثم تعود، ونحو ذلك مما يظهر بطلانه لمن له أدنى عقل ولُبٍّ.
It's evident that Ibn Taymiyyah perceives the proposal of this possibility as originating from those who anthropomorphize Allah, assuming He is limited like humans and therefore must physically detach the heavens for His descent. Ibn Taymiyyah's critique is more about the underlying assumptions fueling this view rather than the view itself, as there's nothing inherently unreasonable about Allah exerting His will in such a manner over the heavens. I mean, even Ibn Taymiyyah himself said:
And of course, I, Bassam, adopt no such blameworthy presuppositions. I simply presented this as a theoretical possibility to challenge the Mutakallimeen's assertion that Allah cannot descend to the first heaven without spatial penetration. My intention was to challenge their argument, not adopt the proposed possibility myself, a point I made explicitly clear.
Now, suppose Ibn Taymiyyah inherently opposes this proposal. Let's assume that's the case. Is the critic insinuating that I must accept every nuanced and minor stance he takes? (I’m on public record as describing Ibn Taymiyyah’s stance on hellfire as “invalid,” and that doesn’t change the fact that he remains my favorite scholar). Instead of focusing on Ibn Taymiyyah's views, why doesn’t the critic engage with the actual argument itself?
This was an incredible article. May Allah reward Ustadh Bassam.
This cleared a lot of my confusion. May Allah reward you for spending so much time and effort performing such an extensive research, and summarizing it in a concise yet detailed manner.
Salaam, Amazing article, May Allah immensely reward you for your efforts. I've sent a email with my questions but here they are in case you don't see it:
1. In al-Sullam al-Munawraq it says Rasm occurs with the Jins and the Khassah (both of which are amongst the 5 universals or kulliyat), could you provide a demonstrative example of how we would use this framework to affirm attributes of Allah?
2. What attributes come under 'Rasm Naqis'?
Assalamualaikum brother. I am from Bangladesh here in my country majority scholars follow Hanafi madhab and Maturidi doctrine in aqeedah. I want to learn Athari/Hanbali aqeedah because I found that it is the real and safe aqeedah of salaf. But there is no reliable source in Bangladesh from where I can learn Athari aqeedah. Can you please suggest me any Sheikh who teaches Athari creed in English for beginners in online or any reliable online platform which has Athari aqeedah course? I have been researching about Athari creed for almost 1 year and looking for institutions from where I can do courses but didn't find any reliable institute. I am getting some books but I am confused. Please please guide me.
wa alaykum assalam,
Try the Zidni Institute. Or Knowledge International University. Or Shaykh al-Kettani's Ibn Abdul Barr Academy. etc.
Brother I have checked them out but didn't find any specific Athari aqeedah course. Can you please suggest me some English Athari aqeedah books? Please I really need it.
Dr. Umar Al-Ashqar’s aqeedah book series.
What about this book " Islamic Beliefs: A Brief Introduction to the Aqeedah of Ahl as-Sunnah wal-Jamâ‘ah - Abdullah Bin Abdul Hamid Al Athari " ? Is this book on athari aqeedah?
I’m not familiar with it akhi; I mainly read Arabic works.
Assalamu 'alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh. Do you believe one should differentiate between volitional attributes and attributes of action? Some may argue that some of Allah's Knowledge (for example, Allah knowing that X is true even though He could have willed - and, as a result, known - it not to be true) is "volitional" but not an "action." Would this substantiate for one to distinguish between al-sifat al-ikhtiyariyyah and al-sifat al-fi'liyyah, or would you say these are synonymous?
Assalamu 'alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh
What are your thoughts on whether Imam Ibn Qudamah affirmed volitional attributes?
Great article Brother Bassam. BarakAllahu feek.
One question though, is there any particular reason you didn't include Ibn al Jawzi in the paper? Shouldn't he be considered a prime example of kalam influenced Hanbalis?
wa feek.
As I mentioned in the article, I didn't include everyone (that includes the Tamimis) and for me, Ibnul Jawzi was clearly Ashari-inclined and that's not greatly disputed even with the Hanbali mufawwidah. When I wrote this article, I had the Hanbali mufawwidah in mind mostly, and I wished to mention scholars whose stances I felt needed to be focused on more with that objective in mind.
JazakAllahu khairan for the reply brother. I understand.
Some brothers I working on translating the article into Bengali and publishing it. I might have a few more questions about some of the aqwal.
I believe someone already translated it to Bengali.
I think we're talking about the same translation. It's been translated but still in the process of being edited.
Salam. I'm not sure if my understanding of the Salafi understanding of Allah's speech is correct. Can you correct me if I am wrong? As I understand it, Salafi's believe that Allah's attribute of Speech (not His Power or Will) originated the Qur'an, which is specifically the sounds and letters, in the Essence of Allah. Because this is within Allah, it is therefore uncreated. This uncreated speech (which is not the attribute of Speech itself) then exited Allah into a lower heaven and was then carried by Jibril into our heaven to the Prophet saws who then heard it. Is that correct? I want to state clearly that my intention here is to understand what exactly the position because I am confused as to what Salafi brothers are trying to say on this topic.
Assalāmu ʿalaykum ustādh
I have seen in your article that you mentioned Ibn Khuzaymah's stance on Allāh's Speech, but I also encountered another quote which it seems Al-Bayhaqī used to argue that he repented or backtracked from his previous view. Is there a way to reconcile this?
القرآن كلام الله وصفة من صفات ذاته ليس شئ من كلامه مخلوقا ولا محدثا فمن زعم ان شيئا منه مخلوق أو محدث *أو زعم ان الكلام من صفة الفعل* فهو جهمى ضال مبتدع
wswrwb,
See Alaa' Hasan Ismail's book, دراسة الصفات الإلهية في الأروقة الحنبلية, pages 180-182 where he provides a nice five-point response addressing this.
Salam.
Also see this https://t.me/nassermuteb/626. Related to Ibn Khuzaymah.
Jazak Allahu khayran for the response
I also have a question regarding what Ibn Hamid said:
وقال أبو عبد الله بن حامد في أصوله: ومما يجب الإيمان به والتصديق أن الله يتكلم، وأن كلامه قديم وأنه لم يزل متكلمًا في كل أوقاته بذلك موصوفًا، وكلامه قديم غير محدث، كالعلم والقدرة، *وقد يجىء على المذهب* أن يكون الكلام صفة متكلم لم يزل موصوفًا بذلك، ومتكلمًا كلما شاء وإذا شاء، ولا نقول: إنه ساكت في حال ومتكلم في حال، من حين حدوث الكلام.
Would his saying "وقد يجىء على المذهب" indicate that he is only speaking about another opinion in the madhab although he himself does not adopt it?
Possibly. I'll need to go back and re-read everything, but if you read my section on Ibn Hamid, you'll see he affirms harakah (footnote 104) and al-Qadi Abu Ya'la cites him as pretty much also affirming volitional attributes (footnotes 108). Perhaps one could argue that Qadi came after Ibn Hamid's death and relayed his final opinion. Allahu 'Alam. But what's pretty clear, even according to the Ibn Hamid statement you provided, that affirmation of volitiional attributes was at least an acceptable position in the Hanbali school (regardless of Ibn Hamid's personal position), and this debunks the claim that Ibn Taymiyyah came later on and invented something new in the madhab.
Salams Bassam, we need some clarification.
Here is a line from p.32 … ‘’but he (Imam Ahmad) also clearly affirmed their *temporality*, which entails that Imam Ahmad also affirmed volitional attributes for Allah’’.
You’ve used the word temporal few times in this paper. Is it meant to be synonymous with simply god acting as he wills or does it denote time? So that god acts in time.
wa alaykum assalam,
It denotes that Allah acts *when* He wills, which entails that He acts over periods of time. Tensed verbs are constantly ascribed to Allah in the Qu'rana and Sunnah, and in the absence of a clear scriptural prooftext demonstrating otherwise, or a truly *definitive* rational argument demonstrating that this is unbefitting of God, we take scripture at face value and permit Allah to speak and express Himself as He wishes with the understanding that it is literally true.
Your argument is indirectly asserting that since god acts this must be in time, sequential. Which is clearly a category error. That’s a rational refutation. Additionally this assumption could only come about due to imposing on god our worldly phenomenal experience which is in moments and time.
As for textual evidence there’s a Hadith by Ibn Abbas ra which states that the Quran was revealed as a *whole* to the lowest heaven and as events unfolded was brought to habib Allah. Which eliminates any ideas that gods acts require moment, time.
Finally Ibn Taymiyya explains how time is created. That’s right *created*.
As for myself I believe god can act how he wills. Since god is in another category of existence doesn’t require moments, sequence or time. Remember you’re making the claim “periods of time’’ which requires you to produce evidence from the Salaf.
Appreciate your quick response brother.
I made no such rational deduction. I made it very clear that we go with the apparent reading of the Qur'an and Sunnah which states that Allah acts in the past, present, and future. That Allah literally spoke to Prophets at points in time. That Allah *will* get angry on the Day of Judgment in a manner He never got angry before. And the dozens, if not hundreds, of scriptural prooftexts asserting the same.
In the absence of any reason to not take these upon their apparent reading, we simply take them upon their apparent reading. Can philosophical arguments further bolster our stance? Sure, but they most certainly aren't the basis of our stance. Scripture is.
The hadith of Ibn Abbass says nothing about Allah being timeless. As for your argument that it proves that Allah "does not require time," well, as I said, we don't base our argument on rational grounds that Allah "requires time," but on the apparent reading of the Qur'an and Sunnah.
Plus, I can play devil's advocate and poke holes in your argument rationally, but I prefer to stick to scriptural arguments and the undertanding of the Salaf first and foremost.
I wrote an entire article. Read it carefully and consider the points and realize that I have the precedent of the mainstream scholarship of the past on my side. If you disagree, feel free to offer a comprehensive critique.
Will definitely go through the paper carefully.
If you could present one Hanbali Imam who inserted gods acts implies “over periods of time’’ would be much appreciated. Since you have mainstream scholarship on your side one quote should be a breeze.
Here is a clear cut verse you can take it literally physically however you like:
فلَا تَضْرِبُوا۟ لِلَّهِ ٱلْأَمْثَالَ ۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ يَعْلَمُ وَأَنتُمْ لَا تَعْلَمُونَ
Adam, if you're demanding a quote that identically uses the phrase "over periods of time," then I'm sure you know you're not being sensible making such constricting demands. If you mean that this is the clear intended meaning the scholar has in mind, then there are plenty in the article.
As for your "clear cut" verse, I'm sorry, but generic ayat you could conveniently use as a plug in is hardly a convincing attempt. Could be equally used against attributes such as Knowledge, Speech, etc.
Anyways, I appreciate your willingness to go through the paper carefully. Do bear in mind that it has very specific objectives in mind and has absolutely no intention of addressing philosophical objections. It's main intent is to demonstrate that Ibn Taymiyyah's views on attributes have the dominant precedent of Hanbali theology at his backing. Any other concerns are beyond the scope of the paper, but do feel free to email me about those. As for concerns directly related to the paper, you may continue to comment here if you prefer. Enjoy.
Salam.
Do you think tafwid al ma'na means not ascribing an attribute altogether? If you do then this is not correct. Tafwid does not necessitate negation of an attribute. For example, observe the creed of Hafiz Ismaili mentioned below.
Start quote:
Similarly the Wahhabi editor of “I’itiqad A’immat Al-Hadith“, a book attributed to Al-Hafidh Abu Bakr Al-Isma’ili (d. 371 H.) objected to the following statement:
ولا يعتقد فيه الأعضاء، والجوارح، ولا الطول والعرض، والغلظ، والدقة، ونحو هذا مما يكون مثله في الخلق، وأنه ليس كمثله شيء تبارك وجه ربنا ذو الجلال والإكرام.
“We do not believe that He (Allah swt) is composed of parts or limbs, nor do we believe that He is attributed with length or width..”
In his explanatory footnote the editor said, as translated Here and posted on the ‘Salafi’ Multaqa Ahl al-Hadeeth forums here:
These terms are not from among the known terms to Ahlus-Sunnah wal- Jamaa`ah from among the Salaf (pious predecessors) of this nation, rather, it is from the innovated terms of the heretics, and expressing the truth with the Islaamic terms is the path of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa`ah. So it is not needed for the seeker of the truth to pay attention to these types of terms and reliance upon them, and the Imaam, may Allaah have mercy upon him, the author, was not free from using these words. Indeed Allaah (), is attributed with the complete attributes and is described with the exalted descriptions. So regardless of the matter, the falsehood is rejected from the one who says it, regardless of whom it may be.
Note: In the introduction to the translation the editor of this text is mentioned to be the contemporary Pseudo-Salafi theologian ‘Shaykh’ Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Rahman Al-Khumayyis. And Allah knows best.
End Quote
Link for references: https://wahhabisrefuted.wordpress.com/2015/07/18/pseudo-salafis-object-to-muslims-declaring-allah-subhanahu-wa-taala-transcendent-beyond-possessing-body-parts-and-limbs/
If a person affirms attribute of Yadayn as Hafiz Ismaili does, the Sunnis have no issue and some of them do it like it that as well. As we see Salafis do not do this.
I already said what tafweedh Al-ma’na means in footnote 2. You should consider reading it first before commenting.
Also, if connotative meaning of Yad for example is as you write "An eternal attribute subsisting in the essence of Allah that performs functions such as grasping, seizing, creating, etc., which scriptural texts allude to." then this is also not necessarily an issue. The problem is with the context surrounding this description. As I showed in the quote, the Salafi has an issue with negating filthy things like limbs from Allah. They may give a token negation of human limbs for example, but they are ultimately affirming limbs when they discuss *attributes* like Yadayn and Aynayn. The famous example I was taught when learning aqidah from Salafis was that when you look at a clock you see that it has a hand but you don’t say that a clock resembles a human or that a human resembles a clock. The analogies they always gave me clearly implies that Allah's Yadayn are some kind of physical object and scholars of the Sunnah never believed this and in fact negated it in one or way or another.
Okay. Thank you. Regarding the distinction between denotative and connotative meaning how do you understand this distinction with the attribute of "coming"? Ibn Abdul Barr said regarding this attribute.
Start Quote
“His ‘coming’ is neither a movement nor a disappearance nor a displacement, for all this is only valid for a body or substance. As it is established that He is neither a body nor a substance then it follows that His coming is not to be understood as a movement or displacement. And if you contemplate on this by taking into account expressions such as “so and so’s time has come,” or “death has come to him” or “disease came to him” and so on which occurs to man without their having to ‘come’ in a literal sense, then you will understand. “
End Quote
Link for reference: https://wahhabisrefuted.wordpress.com/2016/03/28/issues-related-to-the-aqidah-of-imam-ibn-abdal-barr/
He gives Al-Tamhîd (7/137).
If they all affirmed connotative meaning, what would be the connotative meaning of "coming" or "nuzul"? Getting closer? But in what sense? He clearly believes its not physical movement and that's the whole issue! Connotative affirmation of meaning seems to just add a step to the tafwid they are making, at least for some.
Even Ibn Taymiyyah and most Salafis deny movement as they consider it part of the modality, while some of the Hanbalis deemed it to be a necessary intrinsic part of the meaning.
Connotatively, in this case, "coming" or "descent" would entail an action that Allah takes resulting in His Essence being present (likely to be seen as Imam Ahmad argued) at a particular point.
Is the *only possible way* for Allah to come or descend from the highest point to the lowest point through entering the space time continuum? I fail to see how this is the case. Allah سبحانه وتعالى Himself in the Qur’an says that He will eventually fold the heavens and earth (39:67). This means what? Well, clearly it entails that God is in full control of the space time continuum. If you google about whether the space time continuum could be sliced, broken, or folded (yup folded, just as the Qur’an says) you’ll see that it’s a question which is seriously entertained. Even scientists themselves are trying to do so in their lab experiments.
So, technically speaking, is it conceptually possible for Allah to fold and slice up the space between the highest and lowest points of heaven (something we still have no definitive understanding of) and shift from these points in a manner which does not compel Him to enter into (and thus, "move through") space? Sure! Why not?! What’s intrinsically impossible about that?
I AM NOT SAYING THAT THIS IS THE “MODALITY” of Allah’s coming and descent. Please, nobody misquote me. The Mutakallimun are the ones who said that literal Nuzul MUST entail that God mixes with the creation, and it only takes offering one conceptual possibility demonstrating otherwise in order to neutralize their argument.
As for "hands," we don't affirm organs. As for those examples you hear, even classical scholars such as adh-Dhahabi and others give them. The only point being made is that "hand" attains the nature of what it is ascribed to. So if God is immaterial and indivisible, then so is His hand.
In the connotative meaning you gave, coming and descent are basically the same thing. Do you believe the particular points are different though?
You said “and shift from these points in a manner which does not compel Him to enter into (and thus, "move through") space? Sure! Why not?! What’s intrinsically impossible about that?”
What you just described sounds *exactly* like an entity moving through space, but with different words. Nuzul or coming could be literal in the sense of being an attribute with the negations that Ibn Abdul Barr and others mention. I don’t think someone could object if it affirmed in that way. Do you believe moving through space is intrinsically impossible?
Regarding hands and Allah being immaterial and indivisible, do you find yourself agreeing more with Hafiz Ismailli or Al Khumayyis seeing as how you negate organs? Is Allah being material intrinsically impossible?
In the same article I cited, a quote from Ibn Baz is given where he says, “Then As-Sabuni -May Allah guide him- mentioned declaring Allah transcendent beyond possessing body (al-jism), pupils (al-hadaqa), auditory meatus (al-simakh), tongue (al-lisan), and larynx (al-hanjara); [End of Sabuni’s words- beginning of Ibn Baz’s words] and this is not the position of Ahl al-Sunna but rather that of the scholars of condemned kalam and their contrivance , for Ahl As-sunnah do not negate something about Allah except what He negates about Hisself”
Would you agree with As Sabuni or Ibn Baz? Or do you disagree with both in some ways?
Regarding the examples, when you look at the wider context, it is not as you say. For example, Salafi’s will say that if there is a characteristic of completeness in a human being, then Allah will deserve it even more. So they will take the hadith which mentions that Allah will put his “Foot” over the hellfire, then say that if a human has one foot then this will be considered a deficiency in a human being so Allah must have two “Feet”. It’s clear that Allah's Perfection is based on what human’s view as perfection in terms of their bodies. I have also seen some say that Allah Sees with His Eyes and Hears with His Ears (I don’t have a video for this one but there were some Salafis saying it online, this may or may not an official position). How are they not talking about limbs at this point?
Yes, there's a difference with descent, as it entails a shift from a higher point to a lower.
As I proposed, God may shift from point to point by folding up space and not going through it. I'd like to see why that possibility should be definitively negated.
Many Salafis are against denying things for Allah that He did not deny for Himself when it's not an undeniable inherent deficiency. As for jism, it could have at least four different meanings. One of the meanings (i.e. as the Karamiyyah defined as self-subsisting), is actually correct. That's why Salafis don't like to negate terms when they are prone to being defined correctly.
Not sure I came across the "two foot" deduction before. Sounds odd.
And yes, regarding hands and God being material, we deny that God could be divisible and have His attributes be open to detachment.
Anyways, I would appreciate it if you stick to one point at a time please. Feel free to email me even, as I feel your questions are beginning to step outside the scope of the paper.
Salam.
Yesterday, I've become aware that a particular critic of mine, notorious for nitpicking and an obstinate lack of intellectual generosity, claims that Ibn Taymiyyah would reject my suggested idea that Allah could descend to the first heaven without traversing the first six heavens, possibly folding them instead (much like He would in the end times), citing his remarks:
وَأَمَّا مَنْ يَتَوَهَّمُ أَنَّ السَّمَوَاتِ تَنْفَرِجُ ثُمَّ تَلْتَحِمُ فَهَذَا مِنْ أَعْظَمِ الْجَهْلِ
I’m already well aware of Ibn Taymiyyah discussing this point elsewhere, but with greater elaboration when he states:
فهذا خلاف ما تخيلوه، فإنهم لا يمكنهم أن يتخيلوا نازلًا كنزول العباد، من يكون نازلا على سماء هؤلاء ثلث ليلهم، وهو - أيضًا - في تلك الساعة نازلًا على سماء آخرين، مع أنه يجب أن يتقدم على أولئك أو يتأخر عنهم، أو يزيد أو يقصر.
وحكى عن بعض الجهال أنه قيل له: فالسموات كيف حالها عند نزوله؟ قال: يرفعها، ثم يضعها، وهو قادر على ذلك. فهؤلاء الذين يتخيلون ما وصف رسول الله ﷺ به ربه أنه مثل صفات أجسامهم، كلهم ضالون، ثم يصيرون قسمين:
قسم علموا أن ذلك باطل، وظنوا أن هذا ظاهر النص ومدلوله، وأنه لا يفهم منه معنى إلا ذلك، فصاروا: إما أن يتأولوه تأويلًا يحرفون به الكلم عن مواضعه. وإما أن يقولوا: لا يفهم منه شيء، ويزعمون أن هذا مذهب السلف.
ويقولون: إن قوله: ﴿وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إِلاَّ اللهُ﴾ [آل عمران: ٧] يدل على أن معنى المتشابه لا يعلمه إلا الله، والحديث منه متشابه - كما في القرآن - وهذا من متشابه الحديث، فيلزمهم أن يكون الرسول الذي تكلم بحديث النزول لم يَدْرِ هو ما يقول، ولا ما عنى بكلامه - وهو المتكلم به ابتداء. فهل يجوز لعاقل أن يظن هذا بأحد من عقلاء بنى آدم؟ ! فضلًا عن الأنبياء! فضلا عن أفضل الأولين والآخرين، وأعلم الخلق، وأفصح الخلق، وأنصح الخلق للخلق ﷺ؟ ! وهم مع ذلك يدعون أنهم أهل السنة، وإن هذا القول الذي يصفون به الرسول وأمته هو قول أهل السنة.
ولا ريب أنهم لم يتصوروا حقيقة ما قالوه ولوازمه. ولو تصوروا ذلك لعلموا أنه يلزمهم ما هو من أقبح أقوال الكفار في الأنبياء، وهم لا يرتضون مقالة من ينتقص النبي ﷺ، ولو تنقصه أحد لاستحلوا قتله. وهم مصيبون في استحلال قتل من يقدح في الأنبياء ﵈، وقولهم يتضمن أعظم القَدْح؛ لكن لم يعرفوا ذلك. ولازم القول ليس بقول، فإنهم لو عرفوا أن هذا يلزمهم ما التزموه.
وقسم ثان، من الممثلين لله بخلقه، لما رأوا أن قول هؤلاء منكر، وأن قول الرسول ﷺ حق، قالوا مثل تلك الجهالات: من أنه تصير فوقه سماء وتحته سماء، أو أن السموات ترتفع ثم تعود، ونحو ذلك مما يظهر بطلانه لمن له أدنى عقل ولُبٍّ.
It's evident that Ibn Taymiyyah perceives the proposal of this possibility as originating from those who anthropomorphize Allah, assuming He is limited like humans and therefore must physically detach the heavens for His descent. Ibn Taymiyyah's critique is more about the underlying assumptions fueling this view rather than the view itself, as there's nothing inherently unreasonable about Allah exerting His will in such a manner over the heavens. I mean, even Ibn Taymiyyah himself said:
فَإِن السَّمَوَات وَإِن طويت وَكَانَت كَالْمهْلِ واستحالت عَن صورتهَا فَإِن ذَلِك لَا يُوجب عدمهَا وفسادها بل أَصْلهَا بَاقٍ بتحويلها من حَال إِلَى حَال كَمَا قَالَ تَعَالَى ﴿يَوْم تبدل الأَرْض غير الأَرْض وَالسَّمَاوَات﴾ وَإِذا بدلت فَإِنَّهُ لَا يزَال سَمَاء دائمة وَأَرْض دائمة وَالله أعلم
And of course, I, Bassam, adopt no such blameworthy presuppositions. I simply presented this as a theoretical possibility to challenge the Mutakallimeen's assertion that Allah cannot descend to the first heaven without spatial penetration. My intention was to challenge their argument, not adopt the proposed possibility myself, a point I made explicitly clear.
Now, suppose Ibn Taymiyyah inherently opposes this proposal. Let's assume that's the case. Is the critic insinuating that I must accept every nuanced and minor stance he takes? (I’m on public record as describing Ibn Taymiyyah’s stance on hellfire as “invalid,” and that doesn’t change the fact that he remains my favorite scholar). Instead of focusing on Ibn Taymiyyah's views, why doesn’t the critic engage with the actual argument itself?
The desperation of some critics is telling.