My Blog

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Lie from Pseudo-Hanbalis: ‘Hanabilah don’t negate Jism’

Posted by muhammedm on November 22, 2009

أبدأُ بالحمدِ مُصَلِّياً على مُحمَّدٍ خَيِر نبيْ أُرســـــِلا

Sadly, there are amongts us who claim to be Hanbali (Athari) in ‘Aqidah, but in reality they lie against the Hanabilah. This is an attempt to clarify a statement from a pseduo-Hanbali Salafi regarding his statement, “Clearly, the Hanaabilah are not Mujassimah as they do not affirm (or negate) ‘Jism’ for Allah” from the islamicawakening forum. Though i’ve cut down on roaming the web, i thought i’d look up some of the sayings of Hanabilah regarding this issue. I ask Allah ta’ala for reward by this attempt by showing the truth regarding our noble scholars.

1 a- Imam al-Bayhaqi narrates in Manaqib Imam Ahmed (Merits of Imam Ahmed) with his chain on the authority of Abil Fadl, that he said, “Ahmed censured the one who attributed Jism (to Allah ta’ala). And said, “Names are taken from the Shariah and lugha, and the scholars of Lugha have coined this word for the one who has length, width…”

1 b- Imam Dhahabi in Siyar, vol 4 page 356 quotes Hafidh Abul Qasim AbdurRahman bin Abi ‘Abdillah Muhammed bin Ishaq bin Muhammed bin Yahya bin Mandah al-Asfahani (b. 381 Hijri) as saying, “I hold fast to the Book and the Sunnah, and I’m innocent of ascribing any likeness, positing similarity, equalness, limbs, body, or tool to Allah ta’ala, and from every ascription towards me or claim that I say any of the above things, or have said them or hold them to be true or consider them or describe Him with it.”

2- Ibn Hamdan in his Nihayatul Mubtadi’in narrates on the authority of Imam Ahmed ‘takfir on the one who holds Allah ta’ala to be Jism, but not like other Jism’.

3- Ar-Rahibani in his Daqaiq Ulun Nuha says, “the shahadah isn’t accepted from one who believes in the creation of the Quran, or negates the beautific vision, or Rafd, or someone who has the belief of Jahm bin Safwan and others like it (such as one who believes in tajsim and what the Khawarij, Qadariya and others like them believe).

4- ‘Allama Buhuti says the same in his Kashshaf al-Qina’.

5- Ibn Abi Ya’ala says in Tabaqat al-Hanabilah, “al-Walid as-Sa’id said, “whoever believes that Allah ta’ala is a jism and gives him the true nature of Jism such as composition and movement, then he is a kafir, because he doesn’t know Allah ta’ala, because it is impossible for him to be described with these Sifat, and if he doesn’t know Allah ta’ala, it follows that he is a kafir.”

6- In al-‘Itiqad, Ibn Abi Ya’ala said, “if someone believes in these sifat and others like it, which have come down in authentic narrations, as resemblance to Jism, composition, length then he’s a Kafir.”

7- Ibn Taymiyya says in Majmu’ al-Fatawa, “Majority of Ahlus Sunnah from our companions and others do takfir of Mushabiha and Mujasimah.”

8- Hafidh ibn Rajab in his commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari, “Abu Dawud at-Tayalisi said, “Sufyan ath-thawri, Shu’bah, Hammad bin Zayd, Hammad bin Salmah, Shurayk, Abu ‘Awana would negate jism, nor would they do tashbih…”

9- ‘Allama Mari’ in Aqawil said, “Exalted is He from that (Tajsim and Tashbih).

Source: http://aslein.net/showthread.php?t=10656
http://aslein.net/showthread.php?t=10581
Aqawil At-thiqat li Mari’, page 134

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Lie from Pseudo-Hanbalis: ‘Hanabilah don’t negate Jism’”

  1. alboriqee said

    we negate jism if it implies human or creational likeness. However, linguistically, the term jism doesn’t or I should say, isnt, restricted to a “body”

    there are three lexical aspects to al-jism which was clarified here
    “jismiyya’ in the language of the theologians is understood in three distinctual aspects

    1. jismul-jawaarih (form of limbs)
    2. jism aqsaamu (form of parts)
    3. al-Qaa’im bi nafsihi (established by Himself alluding to existentialism)

    both jismul-jawaarih and jismul-aqsaamu are both meanings that concur to the aqida of tashbeeh whereas the third does not and this was stated by IT himself which I will quote here for you now.

    In Bayaan Talbis al-Jahmiyyah he says

    “And those who say that He is a jism are of two types. the first: and this is the saying of their scholars, ‘He is a jism (form) but not like the created forms’, just as it is said an essence (dhaat) unlike other essences, and characterized by attributes but unlike other characterizations, established by Himself but not like other things that establish and maintain itself, an entity (shai) but not like other entities”.
    So these (those who use jism with these meanings) are saying “He is as His reality is without resembling other than Him from any aspect whatsoever.However, this is an affirmation that He has an “extent” by which He is distinguished from, just as when we say (He is) characterized by Attributes,’ this is an affirmation of the reality of being on account of which something is distinguished (from other than it) and this is from among the requisites of every existing thing.”

    as for al-jism as al-qaa’im bi nafsi

    stated in Manhaj as-Sunnah

    “And whoever says ‘He is a jism’ then this is well known from the karamiyyah and other than them from amongst those who say ‘He is a jism’. Then that is to be explained to mean that He exists or that He is established by Himself (al-qaa’im bi nafsihi) NOT THAT HE IS COMPOSITE (jismul-aqsaamuhu). And the people are agreed upon the fact that whoever says “He is a jism” and intends THIS PARTICULAR MEANING (the meaning of al-qaa’im bi nafsihi), then he is correct in the meaning and whoever declared such a one to have erred only did so on account of the wording used (and not the meaning applied)”

    asalamu alaikum

    • muhammedm said

      Wa ‘alaykumus Salam

      So you’re saying when someone says jism, historically and today, it doesn’t mean being made up of parts? Have you looked at the commentaries of the mutakallimun and their definition that they use? Such as Mulla ‘Ali Qari, Maydani, Qadi Shaybani and others. Is it wrong to negate what they negated?

      Why do the salafi scholars feel the need then to say that it’s wrong to negate jism? Why did they comment on the Hanabilah that I quoted and write statments such as “it is wrong to negate things such as this or this is from the mubtadi’ mutakallimun”?

      Lastly, can you reference the statement of karramiya statement that they meant by jism ‘qaim bi Nafs’, as it seems IT is defending them.

      Wa Salama

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: