My Blog

Just another weblog

Archive for the ‘'Aqidah’ Category

Imam Ibn ul Hajj Al-Maliki As-Sufi al-Ashari

Posted by muhammedm on June 24, 2012

As-Salamu ‘Alaykum, أبدأُ بالحمدِ مُصَلِّياً على مُحمَّدٍ خَيِر نبيْ أُرســـــِلا

This is a continuation proving the ascription of scholars to a particular school of theology. The following are words of Imam Ibn ul Hajj, the student of the famous Ashari Sufi who needs no introduction in the scholarly scholar Ibn Abi Jamrah, Allah ta’ala have mercy on him. The following words in regards to the Ayat of Sifat indicate his preferred school of Aqidah, namely the Ashari School.

The Imam, on pg. 32 of the 2nd volume of al-Madkhal, under the chapter heading of “Words regarding verses and narrations those that have difficult apparent (Thahir – wording)” states: “He shouldn’t have with him books that are read and it contains difficult narrations for the listener in regards to the apparent wording, and at the same time there is no one to clarify the rulings and meaning, and clear the difficult passages, and even if there is somone who can clarrify the difficult wording then it a must that his voice encompass everyone that is in the gathering just like the voice of the recitor of Quran which encompasses it’s listeners, because if he doesn’t raise it then most likely there will be some who will leave (the gathering) and will carry with them doubts in regards to creed. Imam Malik was asked regarding the narration of the funeral of Sayyidina Sa’ad bin Mu’adh in regards to the throne shaking, and in regards to the narration “Allah ta’ala created Adam in his Surah” and regarding “the Saaq”, so he said (Imam Malik) “They should not be narrated nor should that which an individual wants to be narrated while knowing it is (a cause for) confusion. Ibn al-Qasim said, “it is not proper for the one who fears Allah ta’ala to narrate narrations similar to this, it was said to him, what about the hadith of “Indeed Allah ta’ala laughs” then he didn’t consider it from it and allowed it (the narration thereof).” After Ibn Rush narrates the complete narrations he says, “Imam Malik prohibited from narrating these two narrations and the narration of Allah ta’ala creating Adam in His Surah and those similar to it because their apparent wording necessitates resemblence (tashbih). If a narration is authentic regarding it, then it is (permitted) to interpret upon that which would negate resemblence to Allah ta’ala with any of His creation, as is done with that which has come in the Quran, the apparent of which necessitates resemblences and they are plenty, such as “al-Ityan (the Coming), al-Maji’ (Coming).” (And that) leaves two possibilities (in terms of solutions), one of which is the meaning of His words, “… Allah ta’ala will come” meaning (the coming) of His punishment and revenge if He is rejected”..”The second possibility the meaning would be appearance (Ath-Thuhur) for there is no difference between the Dunya (this world) and the Afterlife in relation to Him, Glory be to Him, for the veil is to us (from Him), for when He unveils the curtain (Hijab) from us, He will appear to us without limit (Hadd) and modality (Takyif) of form and howness, Glory be to Him… Imam Ibn ul-Hajj ends the discussion with saying “and if that is like that (the different possibilites of interpretations), then the matter is divided into three types, (the first one) and it is the best rather it is that which should not be turned away from, it is returning to the words of Imam Malik: not to narrate these narrations from fear upon the weak for some fitnah entering their beliefs, then how can that be done to the Laymen and the women, for the predominant nature is that they enter (the masjid) while believing and leave while being Maftun (subject to confusion)”

Translated with ommited portions.

The above clearly indicates the position of Imam Ibnul Hajj in regards the verses and narrations on the Sifat of Allah ta’ala. His agreement and position is taken from the early Maliki scholars including Imam Ibn al-Qasim and Imam Malik himself. It is only proper that Imam Malik’s words be interpreted and expanded from those who are experts in his thought, and Imam Ibn Rush and Imam Ibnul Hajj are two of those personalities. The above words of Imam Ibnul Hajj leaves no doubt as to his ascription to the Ashari school as the above is in line with the predominant Ashari position.

The link to the work:

Ma’ Salam


Posted in 'Aqidah, Miscellaneous, Scholars | Leave a Comment »

The Mufassir JalaludDin al-Mahalli an Ashari

Posted by muhammedm on March 27, 2012

As-Salamu ‘Alaykum

One of the many Tafasir that has gained prominence amongst ulema is Tafsir al-Jalalyn. This work was authored by Imam Mahalli then completed by Imam Suyuti. Besides Imam Mahalli’s work on Tafsir, his other works on Usul al-Fiqh have gained prominance as well. His commentary on Waraqat is taught by many scholars including the Hanbali scholars Shaykh Namla whose lectures on the work are online. Another work of his is his commentary on the wonderful work on Usul al-Fiqh by Imam Subki entitled Jam’ ul Jawami’, a work that has received careful attention by scholars of all schools as their commentaries show. Imam al-Mahalli has authored a commentary on this wonderful work entitled “al-Badr ut-Tali’ fi Hal Jam’ ul Jawami'”, which can be read online. In this work, Imam Subki towards the end of his work writes about Usul ud Din or Principles of religion (Articles of Faith). Towards the end of the section on Aqidah, Imam Subki writes, “(we believe) Abu al-Hasan al-Ashari to be the Imam of Sunnah given precedence” Imam Mahalli writes the following, giving tacit approval of Imam Subki’s words by writing the following (in brackets are Imam Subki’s words):
“(And) we believe (Abu al-Hasan) ‘Ali bin Isma’il (al-Ashari) and he’s from the progeny of Abu Musa al-Ashari the Companion of the Prophet. (Leader in/of the Sunnah) meaning the theological path trodden (given precedence) in it above others such as Abi Mansur al-Maturidi. One should not give ear to those who speak in regards to him (negatively) for he is free from it.”

To Allah ta’ala belongs all praise.

More to follow in regards to other scholars who were affiliated with the Ashari school.

Posted in 'Aqidah, Miscellaneous, Scholars | Leave a Comment »

Imam Abu Ishaq Shirazi an Ashari

Posted by muhammedm on December 27, 2011

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious Most Merciful.

There are several ways to know an individual’s affiliation with a particular theological school. Few of those ways can be differed upon while others everyone has to accept. One can gauge an individual’s affiliation through their works, testimony of contemporaries, testimonies of historians, dealings with different individuals of a particular group and testimonies of opponents. Imam Shirazi, a great Usuli and Faqih of the Shafi’I school, is an individual whom the Ashariah take pride in. There are many proofs for him to be rightly attributed to the Asharis as opposed to the Hanbali or the so called Hanbali school of today, the Salafis. Several proofs are given below with the different methods of ascription.

Testimony of Ashari scholars

Several scholars have ascribed Imam Shirazi to the Ashari School, from them Hafidh Ibn ‘Asakir, Imam Subki and Abu Ja’far Sharif al-Hanbali (refer below).

Historical events
Hafidh Ibn Kathir in his Bidaya wa an-Nihaya writes on pg. 1845 of pdf, “turmoil broke out in Shawwal between the Hanabilah and Ashariah because of Ibn al-Qushayri when he entered Baghdad and taught in Madrasa an-Nidhamiya. He took to censuring Hanabilah and attributing corporeality to them, and Abu Sa’id Sufi aided him and Shaykh Abu Ishaq Shirazi leaned towards him…The Khalifah gathered Shirazi, Sharif, and Abi Nasr bin al-Qurayshi in front of the Wazir. The Wazir turned towards Sharif and paid tribute in his words and actions, and Shaykh Shirazi stood up and said, “I was the one whom you knew when I was a young man and this is my book on Usul in which I say “this is opposed to the Ashairah” then he kissed Abi Ja’far’s head. Abu Ja’far said to him, “you’re saying the truth except that when you were a poor (chad) you didn’t make evident what was in you, but when helpers, the leader and Khawaja Buzurk, meaning Nidhamiya al-Mulk, came you showed what was hidden in yourself”. Refer to Al-Muntazim of Ibn al-Jawzi year 469 Hijri.
The actions and words of Abu Ja’far indicate that Shirazi agreed with the Ashariah even though his works might indicate otherwise.

Hafidh Ibn Kathir writes in Tabaqat as-Shafi’yah, pg. 430, “He studied Usul al-Kalam from Abi Hazim al-Qazwini student of Qadi Baqqallani”
Hafidh Ibn Kathir writes in Tabaqat as-Shafi’yah, pg.439, “Ibn ‘Asakir writes in his Tabaqat Ashab As-Ashairah in the end of his work, “Tabyin Kidhb al-Muftari ‘ala Abi al-Hasan al-Ashari, states, “I saw in the handwriting of some of the truthful, “What is the opinion of the great jurist scholars regarding a group who gather to curse the Asharis and pass verdicts of kufr on them, what should be their consequence? Give us a verdict. A group answered, “ the Ashairah are the people of Sunnah, who stood up to refute the innovators such as the Qadariyya, Rafidah, and others. So whoever reviles them reviles Ahlus Sunnah, and it is incumbent upon those who are over lookers of the matters of Muslim to discipline them such that it prevents others (from cursing). Ibrahim bin ‘Ali al-Fayrazabadi wrote, “I say, “as for the way of Shaykh Abul Hasan ‘Ali bin Isma’il al-Ashari in regards to the Attributes after he left the Mu’tazilities, rather after he entered Baghdad and took from the Ashab al-Hadith such as Zakariyya As-Saji and others for it is the most correct of paths and way because it affirms the Sifat of ‘Aqliyya and al-Jabarriya, none of it is denied or done takyif upon, and this is the path of the Salaf and the Imams of Ahlus Sunnah. May Allah ta’ala raise us in their ranks and cause us to die following them and loving them for He is the Hearer of supplications, the Generous the Bountiful. And upon this mode and manner did the Imams from the companions of Al-Ashari such as Abi ‘Abdillah bin Mujahid, Qadi Abi Bakr al-Baqqallani and their likes followed, May Allah ta’ala have mercy on them.

Testimony of Salafi works

The link below states that the reason for the spread of the Ashari school was because of the assistance and spreading of the Madhab due to the Fuqaha of the Maliki and Shafi’I school, scholars such as Shirazi, Juwayni, Ghazzali, etc.

Imams Contemporaries and acquaintances
A question must be asked if Imam Shirazi was opposed to the Ashari school, rather the claim put forward by Ibn Abdil Hadi in his refutation on Ibn Asakir that he would distance and oppose the Asharis all together, why did Imam Shirazi keep the company of well known and outspoken Asharis such as Imam al-Juwayni and Ibn al-Qushayri? Why did he praise and encourage seeking knowledge from Imam al-Juwayni? All of the above proofs leave no doubt that Imam Shirazi was an Ashari and not a Salafi!

To Allah ta’ala belongs all praise.

Posted in 'Aqidah, Scholars | Leave a Comment »

Relationship of the Ashari Maliki Qadi Baqillani and Imam Daraqutni

Posted by muhammedm on October 31, 2011


“Abul Walid al-Baji writes in his work entitled “Ikhtisar firaq al-Fuqaha” under the section on Qadi ibn Baqillani, “Shaykh Abu Dharr (Narrator of Sahih Bukhari) informed me, and he used to lean towards his madhab (being Ashari’), so I asked him, “Where did you get this from?” He said, “I was walking in Baghdad with Hafidh Daraqutni and we met Abu Bakr bin at-Tayyib (Qadi Baqillani), Shaykh Abul Hasan (Imam Daraqutni) hugged him and kissed his face and his two eyes. When we left him (Qadi), I said to him, “who is this whom I have seen you do something to whom I have never seen done towards, while you are the Imam of your time?” He (Imam Daraqutni) said, “He is the Imam of the Muslims, who defends the Din, He is Qadi Abu Bakr Muhammed bin At-Tayyib”. Abu Dhar continues and says, “from that time, I have frequented him (Qadi) with my father. Every land that I entered such as Khurasan and others, no one would be singled out from the Ahlus Sunnah except that the person was on his Madhab and methodology.”
Imam Dhahabi continues and says, “…in his work on defense of Imam Ashari he (Qadi) Says, “we have elucidated our religion and the creed of Ahlu Sunnah that the Attributes are to be passed on as they have come without modality, limitations, type, or image.” I (Imam Dhahabi) say, “this methodology is that of the Salaf, and this is what Abul Hasan (Imam Ashari) and his companions were upon which is acceptance of the text of the Book and Sunnah, and this was held by Ibn Baqillani, Ibn Fawrak, and the elders until the time of Abil Ma’ali, then the time of Shaykh Abi Hamid; then differences occured, we seek Allah ta’ala forgiveness.”
Siyar al-‘Alam an-Nubala Pg. 197 Under the section on Abu Dhar al-Hirawi.

There are few things that this narration and event clarifies and shows; one of them is the fabrication or fantasy that Qadi used to be afraid of coming out in public, as the report from Kurji indicates. The text quoted by Imam Dhahabi is clear that Qadi is not only walking in public without fear, he’s being given the utmost respect by the Imam of hadith in his time, Imam Daraqutni, this is excluding the fact that Qadi was a Qadi which means he was in front of the public during the duration of his tenure. Another lie that is spread is that the madhab of Imam Ashari spread in the time of Ibn Turmut, but as the quote of Abu Dhar, the Ashari narrator of Sahih Bukhari, indicates, that anywhere he would go, Asharis were the ones that were considered to be defenders of Ahlu Sunnah. The text also shows Imam Dhahabi’s full acceptance of Qadi’s, and consequently the early Asharis, methodology as he says that the salaf were upon that methodology. The last indication from the quote is that there were no differences between Imam Daraqutni and Qadi in Aqida, for had there been, Imam Daraqutni mustn’t have shown the respect that he showed towards Qadi, for it is forbidden to praise let alone kiss the cheek and eyes of an innovator, and Qadi was far from being an innovator, as these great scholars themselves held Qadi to be a defender of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah.

To Allah ta’ala belongs all praise.

Posted in 'Aqidah, Scholars | 2 Comments »

‘Aqidah Gems from Imam Tabari’s works!

Posted by muhammedm on December 29, 2010

أبدأُ بالحمدِ مُصَلِّياً على مُحمَّدٍ خَيِر نبيْ أُرســـــِلا

The following are few quotes from Imam Tabari regarding the issue of Huduth and Kalam. Another post will be devoted to the statement “the Quran is Hadith or Muhdath!”

-Imam Tabari says in his Muqaddimah to his Tarikh, “That (essence) which is not devoid of al-Hadath (accidents) there is no doubt that it is Muhdath (has a beginning).”
A jahil has said that this statement is that of Ahlul Bida’ Mutakallimin, and has stated that the scholars of Ahlus Sunnah have obtained this statement not because it is rationally correct but from Jahm intending thereby that Maturidis and Asharis are descendents of Jahm! What ignorance!

-Imam Tabari says in Tabsir, “He’s the speaker (al-Mutakallim) upon whom silence is not allowed (i.e. It is negated).” The salafi editor of this work writes this position is similar to “what the Asharis say regarding Kalam Nafsi” and continues and rejects Imam Tabaris words saying, “It is not allowed to negate silence (sukut).” Then continues to put his own spin on Imam Tabaris words!

-He says in another place, “There is consensus of the people of Tawhid from the Ahlul Qiblah upon the incorrectness or falacy of qualifying Allah ta’ala with Harakat (movement) and Sukun (stillness).”

-He says in his tafsir, “Indeed Allah ta’ala negated regarding Himself through it (the following): change (Taghayur), movement (tanaqqul) from one place to another, occurrence of change which occurs in humans and other creation,”

-Imam Tabari says in At-Tabsir fi Ma’alim ad-Din, “And whoever rejects what we said regarding it, it will be said to him, “tell us about the speech which you described that the Eternal is Mutakallim, did He created it in His Essence or created it in something else or subsists in His essence? “If he believes that He created it in His Essence then he has necessitated that His Essence is a locus for creation, and this is Kufr according to everyone.”

Ma’ Salamah

Correction: The quote of Intiqal from place to place is attributed to “Others” by Imam Tabari, I translated what the Nokhbah site had quoted, though I should’ve checked the original source.

Posted in 'Aqidah | 3 Comments »

Psuedo-hanbalis rant on taqlid in Usul

Posted by muhammedm on December 23, 2010

أبدأُ بالحمدِ مُصَلِّياً على مُحمَّدٍ خَيِر نبيْ أُرســـــِلا

One of the fitan of our times is the distortion of information. Anyone who reads the material of some of these people who place themselves as flagbearers of the truth can see the hypocrisy and ignorance embedded in their writing, mostly due to hatred for one group or another. With the object of destroying the Ahlus Sunnah Kalam schools, this individual, unknowingly, contradicted the school that he claims to be with, the same was done by the scholar that his likes reference frequently. The mas’alah in this particular post is regarding the first thing that is wajib on a person. The individual said, “This obligation of ‘not being a Muqallid in Aqeedah’ has everything to do with Ilm al-Kalam principle of ‘the first obligation of a human’ – which according to them is to do ‘Nathar’ or ‘to look into the world to find out via Aql that Allah exists – both layman and scholar are the same in this’.” Now I’ll present the views of the true Hanbali scholars who spent their lives learning and teaching the Athari creed, unlike the individual who made the remark.

-‘Allamah as-Saffarini al-Khalwati in his Mandhuma writes, “the first wajib on the slave is ma’rifah (knowledge) of God with certainty.”

– Shaykh ‘AbdulBaqi al-Muwahabi al-Hanbali writes, “The knowledge (ma’rifah) of Allah ta’ala is wajib according to the law, from that which has come from the law is an-Nadhar (reflecting) in the existance and that which exists upon every able responsible person, and it is the first Wajib from Allah ta’ala.” Pg 29 al-‘Ayn wal Athar

– ‘Allamah as-Saffarini writes in his commentary, “Our Ulema (the Hanabilah) and others prohibit taqlid in the knowledge (ma’rifa) of Allah ta’ala, in Tawhid, Risalah, and likewise in the five pillars and those similar to it which are known through tawatur and are famous according to Imam Ahmed and most (of the scholars). Abu al-Khattab has mentioned that the opinion is according to the ‘Aama (most or general) of the scholars, and others have mentioned that it’s the opinion of the majority as is stated in Sharh Tahrir. And al-Halwani and others from our companions (Hanabilah) have stated that it’s prohibited to do taqlid in Usul al-Din.” Page 220.

– This opinion is also held by Imam Ibn Hamdan al-Hanbali, Qadi Abu Ya’la and others from the Hanabilah.

– Imam Saffarini also says, “yes his state is that which can decrease (when doing taqlid), and sometimes the individual (who does taqlid) is mutazalzil al-Iman (his faith is shaky), so the truth is that he is sinful for leaving contemplation (an-Nathar) even though he has iman.

So where does this psuedo-hanbali come from criticizing the ‘Ashariah and the Maturidis. Even though some have said taqlid is not allowed at all, this is a minority opinion in all of the three schools, but the Rajih opinion is Iman of a Muqallid is Sahih. For a detailed discussion refer to ‘Allama Saffarini’s discussion in his Lawami’ and Nihayatul Mubtadi’in of Ibn Hamdan for the proofs.

Ma’ Salamah

Posted in 'Aqidah | Leave a Comment »

The ‘Ulema on Imam Ibn Kullab

Posted by muhammedm on December 19, 2010

أبدأُ بالحمدِ مُصَلِّياً على مُحمَّدٍ خَيِر نبيْ أُرســـــِلا

– Imam At-Taj as-Subki says in his Tabaqat, “and Ibn Kullab in any case is from the Ahlus Sunnah… the father of Imam Razi, Diyaud Din al-Khatib, mentioned Ibn Sa’id (ibn Kullab) in the end of his book ‘Ghayatul Maram fi ‘Ilm al-Kalam’ that from the scholastic theologians of Ahlus Sunnah in the days of al-Ma’mun was ‘Abdullah bin Sa’id at-Taymi who destroyed the Mu’tazilites in the gatherings of al-Ma’mun…”
– Ibn ‘Asakir in Tibyan writes regarding Ibn Abi Zayd’s, known as the Little Malik, epistle to a Ibn Isma’il al-Baghdadi al-Mu’tazili, “and you’ve attributed Ibn Kullab to Bida’, and then you didn’t mention anything that would be known as bida’ such that it be called bida’. And what has reached us is that he was a follower of Sunnah and took to refuting the Jahimites and others from the people of bida’h.”
– Ibn Qadi Shuhbah writes in his Tabaqat, “He was from the great scholastic theologians and from the Ahlus Sunnah, his path and that of Al-Harith al-Muhasibi, Imam Ashari’ followed.”
– Jamal ud Din al-Isnawi in Tabaqat as-Shafi’iyah writes, “He was from the great scholastic theologians and from the Ahlus Sunnah…. Al-‘Ibadi mentions him in the Tabaqah (rank in regards to level of students) of Abi Bakr As-Sayrifi that he said, “He is from our companions the Mutakallimin”.
– Imam Dhahabi in Siyar writes, “The man is closest of the scholastics theologians to the Sunnah rather he’s from their Munatharihim”. Shaykh Shu’ayb al-Arnaout writes under Imam Dhahabi’s comments, “He was an Imam of the people of Sunnah in his time and was their source. Imam al-Haramayn described him in al-Irshad as him being from “our companions”.”
– ‘Allamah Ibn Khuldun writes, “until Shaykh Abul Hasan al-Ashari came on the scene… he was on the path of ‘Abdillah bin Sa’id bin Kullab and Abi al-‘Abbas al-Qalanisi and al-Harith al-Muhasibi from the followers of Salaf and on the path of Sunnah.”
– ‘Allamah Bayadi writes, “And Imam Abu Muhammed ‘Abdullah bin Sa’id al-Qattan preceded Imam Ashari in defending the madhab of Ahlus Sunnah.”
– After Hafidh quotes Ibn Nadim’s words wherein he says Ibn Kullab is from the Hashawiya, “he means by it that he’s upon the way of the Salaf in leaving ta’wil of the Ayat and Ahadith related to the Sifat, and they are called al-Mufawwidah.”
– Hafidh says in al-Fath, “Imam Bukhari in what he narrates from the difficult tafsir he relates from the people of that fann (science) such as Abi ‘Ubaydah, An-Nadr bin Shumayl, al-Fara’ and others, as for juristic issues most of them from Shafi’, Abi ‘Ubayd and their likes, and issues of Kalam then most of them from Al-Karabisi, Ibn Kullab and their likes.”

As for Imam Ahmed’s censure of Karabisi, Ibn Kullab, al-Muhasibi was because of their delving into Kalam issue not because of their position. The Hanbalis took Imam Ahmed’s statement to another level such that they went against many of the Imams. Imam Bukhari himself says in Khalq, “as for what the two groups who ascribe to the Madhab of Imam Ahmed and each calling itself to it, for the narrations are not established, and sometimes they don’t understand the subtleness of his (Imam Ahmed’s) madhab, but what is well known from Ahmed and the people of knowledge is ‘the Kalam of Allah ta’ala is ghayr makhluq and whatever else besides it is makhluq, and they disliked delving into it and poking in matters that are difficult. And they avoided the people of Kalam and those who delved and argued except in matters that knowledge has been given and the Prophet’s explications.”

Imam Ahmed said, “whoever says the Quran is created is a Jahimi, and whoever says the Quran is the Kalam of Allah ta’ala but doesn’t say it’s ghayr mukhluq is Waqifi, and whoever says Lafhdi (my lafhd) of the Quran is makhluq is a Mubtadi’.” From the Imams who were explicit in their statements regarding the lafdh issue were Imam Bukhari, Imam Muslim, Imam Tabari, al-Karabisi and others. And the Hanbalis censured those who were explicit in their statements and went against Imam Ahmed’s statements, and from those who were attacked by the Hanbalis were Al-Karabisi, Imam Tabari, and others.

The Ibanah is also on the tariq of Ibn Kullab as the Imams have stated, yet some of the Hanabilah in the time of Imam Ashari didn’t accept his work. Refer to Siyar, Lisan al-Mizan and others. This is another proof that Imam Ibn Kullab was from the followers of the salaf as everyone agrees that Imam Ashari’s madhab was explicated in Ibanah which was written after Imam Ashari left the Mu’tazili madhab.

So we ask todays so-called Hanbalis who use Imam Ahmed’s statement without context, who was correct Imam Ahmed or Imam Muslim, Imam Bukhari and others who were explicit in the lafdh issue? We also ask the reader to see the descrepency in the description of Ibn Kullab by the above scholars and todays’ so called Hanbalis wherien they insult Ibn Kullab and deem him to be a mubtadi’!

Ma’ Salamah

Posted in 'Aqidah, Scholars | 13 Comments »

‘Allama As-Saffarini al-Hanbali al-Khalwati al-Athari’s: Proponent of Tafwid

Posted by muhammedm on July 6, 2010

أبدأُ بالحمدِ مُصَلِّياً على مُحمَّدٍ خَيِر نبيْ أُرســـــِلا

Before going into the discussion, I’ve given a snippet of ‘Allama Saffarini’s connection to tassawuf and Mutakallim scholars, and the response of the salafi editor.

One of his main teacher and his shaykh in Tassawwuf:
On Page 167 he praises Abdul Ghani an-Nabulusi in over six lines, and the Muhaqqiq (the salafi editor), as usual, has problems with him. He studied Thulathiyat, Tafsir Baydawi and books on tassawwuf.

Regarding his shaykh in tasawwuf in the Khalwati path, he says, “from the greatest of my shuyukh, and highest in rank and most well known is the Sayyid al-‘Arif, al-Mutamakkin, al-Awwah al-Muhaqqiq as-Shaykh al-murabi al-Musallik, al-Humam as-Sayyid Mustafa bin as-Sayyid Kamal ud Din al-Bakri al-Khalwati, the Wonder of his time, The Unique of time and age…I read a number of his works with him, from them: on Mi’raj, al-Mawlid, al-Wird which is read in the morning time, it’s commentary both al-Kabir and as-Saghir, and other poetry and prose works, which will lenghten the description, and he gave me Ijazah in all of it, and in the Khalwati Tariqa, and permisiion to give Ijazah to whom I see fit, Allah ta’ala have mercy on him and be pleased with him..” (Muhaqqiq has a problem with Tariqas and Saffarini’s taking the Tariqa).

Transmition of Imam Sha’rani’s work:
On Page 151 he says, “we narrate the works of al-‘Allama as-Sufi as-Shaykh Abdul Wahhab as-Sha’rani such as ‘al-‘Uhud al-Kubra, ‘Uhud al-mashayikh as-Sughra… and others” (The muhaqqiq goes on to say Sha’rani was a bad sufi, and other usual nonsense). On page 172, Saffarini says, “the knower of Allah ta’ala, Ocean of vas knowledge and outward states as-Shaykh AbdulWahhab bin Ahmed as-Sha’arini”.

Transmision of Qasidah Burda
On page 153 he says, “we narrate ‘Burdatul Busuri’, and the rest of his works of prose and poetry with the aforementioned chain on the authority of al-Kamal bin Hamza al-Husayni…” (The salafi Muhaqqiq says “the people of knowledge who are well-grounded don’t agree with some of the overstepping of boundries in the Burdah”).

Misc matters where Saffarini differs with salafis: the place where the Prophet’s noble body contains is better than the ‘Arsh and Kursi, as held by Ibn ‘Aqil, Muhammed bin Zayn as-Shafi’i, Page 204. Page 224, Saffarini does tawassul through the Prophet. Page 222, Saffarini mentions poetry that describes the Prophet as ghawth al-Barriyya. Page 309, does tawassul.

Saffarini believes Ayat of Sifat are from Mutashabihat, taken from Sharh al-‘Aqidah as-Saffariniya entitled al-Kawakib ad-Durriya by Shaykh Muhammed AbdulAziz Mani’:

“Whatever has come in the Ayat or is authenticially reported in narrations, from trustworthy narrators in ahadith and athar which give an impression of tashbih, then it is from the Mutashabih which no one knows except Allah ta’ala“. Page 42 The Salafi commentary says regarding the last statement, “to say that the meanings of the names of Allah ta’ala and His attributes are from the Mutashabih or are the Mutashabih is completely incorrect, and it hasn’t come from any of the Salaf.”

On Page 44, Saffarini says, “the Madhab of the Salaf is to not delve in it, and to keep silent regarding it, and to relegate (Tafwid) it’s knowledge to Allah ta’ala“. To this the Salafi commentator (Shaykh Ibn Mani’) says, “What he ascribed to the Salaf that their madhab was Tafwid is not correct.”

Then as-Saffarini quotes Sayyidina Ibn ‘Abbas as saying, “this is from the hidden which shouldn’t be interpreted” and likewise other Sahaba and Tabi’in said it.” Another Commentator (Ibn Sahman) says regarding the mistake ‘Allama as-Saffarini supposidly made, “Know O my brother, that this statement that Saffarini ascribed to sayyidina Ibn Abbas and others of the Sahaba, if it’s authentic, the meaning isn’t what Saffarini claims that the text of the Book and Sunnah which contain the Names of Allah ta’ala and His attributes which give the impression of Tashbih thus making it included amongts the Mutashabih which only Allah ta’ala knows, and is from those we can’t understand it’s meaning nor can it be interpreted. And this discussion has preceded in the discussion on Tafwid.”

‘Allama as-Saffarini devotes many pages on Sifat being from the Mutashabih in his commentary on the poetry, the same opinion held by ‘Allama Ibn Qudama al-Hanbali.

Note: The Thabat of as-Saffarini, the commentary by Shaykh Mani’, and his own commentary are available online.

Wa ‘alaykumus Salam

Posted in 'Aqidah | Leave a Comment »

‘Allama Ibn Qudama al-Hanbali a Mufawwid

Posted by muhammedm on July 5, 2010

A – ‘Allama Ibn Qudama considers the Ayat of Attributes to be from the Mutashabihat, as is stated in Rawdatun Nadhir. After stating this position, he says the correct stoppage in the ayah that talks about Muhkamat and Mutashabihat is “No one knows it’s interpretation except Allah ta’ala. Those grounded in knowledge say we believe in it…” The point where Ibn Qudama considers the correct stopping point is after except Allah ta’ala, meaning He’s the only one that knows the Mutashabihat, and no one else. And Ibn Qudama has stated that from the Mutashabihat is the Ayat on Sifat, thus concluding that the knowledge of Sifat is only known to Allah ta’ala, just like the Huruf al-Muqat’at. It’s clear from his statement his position on it. This is the position of Tafwid al-Ma’ana, as propounded by the Ash’irah and Maturidiya and in opposition to todays salafi scholars whom I will quote regarding their statements on the Mutashabihat.

B – Another indication of tafwid al-Ma’ana is Ibn Qudama’s statement in Lum’atul Itiqad, wherein he states, “What is difficult from those (ayat of Sifat) affirmation of it’s wording is necessary, and to leave delving into it’s meaning, and we leave it’s knowledge to the one who Spoke it (Allah ta’ala), we place it’s responsibiltiy on the one who transmited it, following the path of those grounded in knowledge, about whom Allah ta’ala praised in His Clear Book by His statement, “and Those firmly grounded in knowledge say we believe in it, all of it is from our Lord.”
C – It’s clear from his statement where he says we affirm the wording, yet we relegate the meaning to Allah ta’ala. Ibn Qudama goes on to say Allah ta’ala censures those who seek the interpretation of the Mutashabih (the ayat of sifat amongst them), “He said regarding the censure of those who seek interpretation of the Mutashabih of Quran, “As for those who have deviancy in thier hearts because of which they go after the Mutashabih, intending to spread fitnah and seeking it’s interpreation, and no one knows it’s interpretation except Allah ta’ala. Ayah” Clearly the intent of Ibn Qudama is to drive home the point that only Allah alone knows the Mutashabihat, and the Ayat of Sifat are from the Mutashabihat according to Ibn Qudama. And thus we don’t know it’s interpreations.

D – Another passage he states after the hadith “Allah ta’ala will be seen on the day of judgement”, “and similar to these ahadith, we believe in them, and affirm them, without modality and meaning, and we don’t reject any of it…’ Again Ibn Qudama is driving home the point that the meaning as well as the modality is unknown. The rules of arabic grammar state that when Waw is used, as it’s used in Ibn Qudama’s words, the default meaning of it is dissimilarity between the thing before and after the particle waw. So, Kayf and Ma’ana are two different things, not same, as some of tried to distort.

In response to these passages, it’s interesting to note what salafi scholars have said, and their criticism of Ibn Qudama.

Shaykh Salih’s criticism of Ibn Qudama:
Shaykh Salih Fawzan says regarding point B mentioned above, “this sentence isn’t accepted from the Shaykh (ibn Qudama), Allah ta’ala have mercy on him, it’s as if he’s dividing the texts of the Attributes into two kinds, one kind the meaning and interpreation is apparent, and this we believe in, as well as it’s meaning and interpretation, and the second kind, the meaning isn’t apparent to us, and this we relegate to Allah ta’ala, and this is wrong. Because meaning is known of all of the text of the Names and Attributes. Nothing from them is obscure or from the Mutashabihat, so the text of Names and Attributes aren’t from the Mutashabih nor do they enter into the category of Mutashabih, as Ibn Taymiyya explained…”

On Page 75 Shaykh Muni’ says, “What is correct is that the Ayat of Sifat aren’t from the Mutashabihat.”

Disparity regarding Ibn Qudama’s quote of Imam Ahmed’s words: “Without Modality and Meaning”:
Shaykh Fawzan says regarding “without Meaning”: “the meaning that the innovators have given, and that is ta’wil”, while Shaykh Muni’ says, “it means the essence, we don’t delve into the essence of the attribute.”

Shaykh Fawzan answering question regarding Sifat from Mutashabih, pg 296;
Q – “Is it true that Ibn Qudama in Rawdatun Nadhir mentioned the Ayat of Sifat in the Mutashabih, and are his words there the same as here (in Luma’)?
A – The correct and considered opinion is his words here, however he divided the Sifat into two categories, clear and obscure/difficult, and this wrong. All of the Attributes are clear, nothing from it is difficult. As for what’ in the Rawdah, he agreed with the later Usulis such as the Asharis and others, and it’s said that rawdah is taken from Mustasfah of Imam Ghazali, and Imam Ghazzali is Ashari’, it’s possible that he missed this note (him being an Ashari’?).

Shaykh Muhammed bin Ibrahim Aal as-Shaykh says regarding Ibn Qudama:,
“As for what he mentioned in al-Luma’, it’s in agreement with the Madhab of Mufawwidah (relegating it’s meaning to Allah ta’ala), and this is from the worst of Madhahib, and the author is an Imam in regards to the Sunnah, and he’s the most distant of people from the Mufawwidah madhab and other innovative groups. And Allah ta’ala knows best.”

Shaykh ‘Afifi affirming Ibn Qudama to be a Mufawwid –

An objection is raised regarding Ibn Qudama’s statements above and his other statements regarding leaving it upon the dhahir (the apparent). The only way to reconcile this contradition, as it’s well known Ibn Qudama considers the Ayat of Sifat to be from the Mutashabih and only Allah knows their meaning, is that the position of Ibn Qudama is to leave the words alone. Not to give explantion of it (it’s meaning) nor it’s interpreation that would take away the apparent meaning, such as Qudrah for Yad. So ibn Qudama’s position is we leave Yad alone without saying it means such as such, and also we leave it’s interpreation being Qudrah, as that would nullify the Sifah.

As for those who say, we know the meaning of Yad for humans, as well as for Allah ta’ala. I ask, the meaning for yad for humans is a limb consisting of flesh and bone, what is the meaning, if you say you know it, of Yadullah?

Another posting will be done regarding Salafis opinion on the Mutashabih and the Hanbali scholars, as well as the argument why would Allah ta’ala reveal something of which we don’t understand, InshAllah.

Works cited:
Sharh Luma’atul Itiqad by Shaykh Salih Fawzan
Sharh Luma’tul Itiqad by Muhammed bin Ahmed al-Muni’
Sharh Luma’tul Itiqad by Shaykh Uthaymin

Wa ‘alaykumus Salam

Posted in 'Aqidah | 5 Comments »

Julus on Kursi, Imam Dhahabi on Kitab as-Sunnah, Imam Ahmed, Waki’ Narration…

Posted by muhammedm on May 20, 2010

أبدأُ بالحمدِ مُصَلِّياً على مُحمَّدٍ خَيِر نبيْ أُرســـــِلا

The narration of contention is: “My father (Imam Ahmed) narrated to me, Waki’ narrated it to us, the hadith of Israi’l on the authority of Abi Ishaq on the authority of ‘Abdullah bin Khalifah on the authority of ‘Umar (Allah ta’ala be pleased with him), he said, “When the Lord sat on the Kursi” a man shook (when he heard this) in the presence of Waki’, to which Waki’ got angry and said, “we were in the presence of al-‘Amash, Sufyan who would narrate these Ahadith and wouldn’t reject it”.
وبه قال عبدالله: حدثني أبي ثنا وكيع بحديث إسرائيل عن أبي إسحاق عن عبدالله بن خليفة عن عمر: «إذا جلس الرب عز وجل على الكرسي» فاقشعر رجل سَمَّاهُ أبي عند وكيعٍ فغضب وكيعٌ وقال: أدركنا الأعمش وسفيان يُحَدِّثُونَ بهذه الأحاديث لاينكرونها

Imam Dhahabi on fabrications in the name of Imam Ahmed –
(1) “…Ahmed bin Ja’far al-Istakhri narrated to us that Abu ‘Abdillah Ahmed bin Hanbal said…And Allah, indeed, spoke to Musa from His mouth and other detestable things which, By Allah, he (Imam Ahmed) didn’t say, May the curse of Allah ta’ala be upon the fabricator…” Page 877 Siyar, Imam Dhahabi.

(2) “The isnad of this Risalah is (clear) as the sun, so look at this enlightened soul, not like the Risalah of al-Istakhri nor the “Radd ‘ala al-Jahamiyya” fabricated upon Imam Ahmed, for the man was rightoues and God-fearing, he wouldn’t utter such things. And maybe he said it…” Page 871 Siyar, Imam Dhahabi.

It’s well known some salafis are known to go beyond their limits, everything they see they take literally, and affirm literally. I’ve posted on the topic of Istiqrar before, now they, some of them, have started defending Julus and have started attributing them to the noble Salaf as their tafsir for Istiwa’. It’s enough of a refutation that the Muhaqiq Hanabilah didn’t hold this position nor did the earlier commentators on the verse of istiwa’ state Julus being one of them, especially someone the likes of Imam Tabari. The narration that they use is mentioned in Kitab as-Sunnah or Radd ‘ala al-Jahamiyya as Imam Dhahabi refers to it, since the first chapter in Kitab as-Sunnah deals with Jahimites. The same book has the narration of the mouth as stated above(1). Imam Dhahabi refers to Kitab as-Sunnah as Radd ‘ala al-Jahamiyya, and his opinion of the work is clear from his above statement(2). The isnad of the work (Kitab as-Sunnah) has at least one or two individuals whom we have no information about. This would makes sense, especially due to some of the reports mentioned in the work, which the likes of Imam Ahmed or his son would never say, as the first quote of Imam Dhahabi testifies to(1).

Regarding the narration that salafis have started to propagate regarding Istiwa’ as Julus, the narration is mentioned in Kitab as-Sunnah, in al-Uluw of Imam Dhahabi, Siyar (not exactly) and one of Abu Hatim’s work (don’t know which one). Any reliance on Kitab as-Sunnah should be deemed unreliable, not only due to the isnad of the work, but because of the rarity of the narration. The narration that they quote is “When Allah ta’ala sits on a kursi…” Through this narration, they have said istiwa means Julus. We say, is Istiwa on Kursi or ‘Arsh? As they are two different. And if you say this, then that means you believe in Istiwa on ‘Arsh and Julus on Kursi, something that any clear minded individual would deny. As a result they say, some scholars such as Imam Hasan al-Basri say ‘Arsh and the Kursi are same, we say we have clear cut narration by Sufyan and Waki’ (the so called narrators of the julus narration) that explicitly states they are two different things, and the narration is mentioned in Ibn Kathir’s tafsir, and it is, “Waki’ narrated in his tafsir, Sufyan narrated to us on the authority of ‘Ammar Ad-Dhahabi, on the authority of Muslim al-Bittin, on the authority of Sa’id bin Jubayr on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas, he said, “the Kursi is the place of the two feet, and the ‘Arsh no one can assess it’s value”.

It’s also interesting that Imam Dhahabi didn’t mention Julus in the narration he narrated in Siyar, but it’s mentioned in al-Uluw. Imam Dhahabi disavowwed that work, as Shaykh Haddad mentions. I don’t know how Shaykh Albani could authenticate this narration, except only if it’s mentioned in Abu Hatim’s work, but I couldn’t find which work of his mentions it. Regarding the narration itself, there are many problems with the matan and Isnad as Imam Ibn Kathir mentions. As a sidepoint, Ibn Kathir doesn’t even mention the first part of the narration but is replaced by another wording thus deeming it to have issues in the matn. And whoever wants to read up on that can read the tafsir on Ayatul Kursi. Even Qahtani in his tahqiq of Kitab as-Sunnah says the narration is weak, Suffice it to say that Julus can’t be a tafsir for Istiwa’ as our salafi brethen would like us to believe otherwise the creed would be the following: Istiwa on ‘Arsh and Julus on Kursi.

Statements of Hanabilah negating Julus (from Nihayatul Mubtadi’in li Ibn Hamdan page 35):
1 – Ibn ‘Aqil said, “(He’s) upon the ‘Arsh, not like sitting (Jalis) on a chair nor riding on an animal”
2 – Qadi said, “He’s not sitting (Qu’ud) nor touching”.
3 – Abu Ahmed Rizqullah bin ‘AbdilWahhab at-Tamimi Shaykh bin said, “nor do we say He’s with His essance sitting on the Throne, or standing, or lying, or sleeing, or touching…”

Conclusion: The narration of Julus can’t be relied upon, since it’s not authentic and can’t be the tafsir for istiwa as some salafis are obsessed with by their defense.

Ibn Kathir’s discussion on the narration:

Shaykh Haddad’s discussion on al-Uluw:

Salafis affirming Istiwa’ is Julus not on Arsh but on Kursi – “Juloos is an interpretation of Istiwaa that is found in the Salaf.” –

Qahtani’s tahqiq on Kitab as-Sunnah – It would’ve been better also for Qahtani to mention the many differences in the Matn and Sanad.

Shaykh Nuh on Kitab as-Sunnah –

Wa ‘alaykumus Salam

Posted in 'Aqidah | Leave a Comment »