Which schools of Aqeedah do you subscribe too?
- Thread starter Garaad Awal
- Start date
Keep it a boqol
VIP
Imam Abu Haneefah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: Allah has a Hand, a Countenance and an Essence as He, may He be exalted, mentioned in the Qur’an. Whatever Allah, may He be exalted, has mentioned in the Qur’an of His having a Countenance, Hand and Essence, these are attributes of His which we affirm without discussing how. It cannot be said that His Hand is His power or blessings, because that is denying the attribute, and is the view of the Qadaris and Mu‘tazilah. Rather His hand is a divine attribute, and we do not discuss how it is; His wrath and His pleasure are divine attributes, and we do not discuss how they are.Shamsi
Even abu hanfia may allah have mercy on him wants nothing to do with your deviant beliefs. He affirmed for what allah has told us and he didn’t look at it metaphorically as the asharis and maturidis claim
Garaad Awal
Former African
As for the issue of the statement in Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar abour he hand, face, and self and them being attributes, we must consider two things in particular:
1. Imam at-Tahaawi (rahimahullah) makes no mention of hands, a face, or a self in his ‘aqeedah. And his book has been accepted as the one represents the ‘aqeedah of Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmatullah alayh) and his two companions, Imam Abu Yusuf and Imam Muhammad al-Shaybani (rahimahumullah).
2 – Secondly, we must understand any comment made in Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar – as in other works – according to the context.
According to Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar, Allah has two general classifications of attributes known as ‘Attributes of the Essence’ and ‘Attributes of Action.’
Attributes of the Essence are the essential qualities of His being.
As for attributes of action, they are things that happen outside of His being. And since He is the one responsible for those occurrences, they are attributed to Him and called ‘Attributes of Action.’
Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmatullah alayh) explains this in his book when he says:
“He doesn’t resemble anything of His creation, and nothing of His creation resembles Him. He has always and will always exist with His names and his attributes of the (divine) essence and those atteibutes of action.
As for those of the essence, they are, life, power, knowledge, speech, hearing, seeing and will.
And as for those of action they are: creating, providing, producing, originating, manufacturing and other attributes of action.”
So the attributes of Allah’s divine essence are seven:
1. Life
2. Power
3. Knowledge
4. Speech
5. Hearing
6. Seeing
7. Will
As for the attributes of action, he states things like:
– Creating
– Providing
– Producing
– Originating
– Manufacturing
– And other attributes of action.
Then, Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmatullah alayh) says:
“He has always and will always exist with His names and attributes. He has not acquired any new name or attribute.”
At any rate, notice how Imam Abu Hanifa (rahimahullah) doesn’t make mention of the hand, face and self until he enumerates the attributes of the essence. And, so that the readers can see, here is the complete text prior to the mention of the hand, face and self:
“He doesn’t resemble anything of His creation, and nothing of His creation resembles Him. He has always and will always exist with His name and His attributes of the divine essence and those (attributes) of action.
He is a thing, not like other things. And the point of saying ‘thing’ is to confirm His existence while not being a divisible body, an indivisible body, and not an accident of a body.
He has no boundary. He has no opposite. He has no rival. And He has no equal.
Then he finally says,
“He has a hand, a face and a self. So what is He, High is He, mentions in the Qur’an of the mention of the face, hand and self, they are all Attributes of His with no modality (or description).
It is not said that His hand is His power or His blessing, since such would be a nullification of the attribute. And such is the statement of the People of Qadar and I’tizaal.
Rather, His Hand is His attribute with no modality (or description). And His anger and His satisfaction are two of His attributes with no modality (or description).
So what are we to understand from all of this? How do we reconcile between Imam Abu Hanifa’s (rahimahullah) saying after mentioning the seven attributes of the essence:
“He has always and will always exist with His names and attributes. He has not acquired any new name or attribute.”
And between his saying,
“He has a hand, a face and a self. So what is He, High is He, mentions in the Qur’an of the mention of the face, hand and self, they are all Attributes of His with no modality (or description).”
The best way to reconcile between the two is to say that ‘hand, face and self’ are reference to either one of Allah’s true attributes of the essence as stated in the first clause by Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmatullah alayh). Or they are references to one of His attributes of action [9].
One cannot deny that by such words being annexed to Allah’s name or pronoun in the Qur’an, they are being ‘attributed’ to Him directly even if calling them ‘attributes’ doesn’t coincide with the original linguistic definition of what an attribute is.
So calling them attributes will be a metaphorical application as opposed to a literal application. And if it is a metaphorical application, it would have to be accepted that such named ‘attributes’ are metaphorical ‘attributes.’ So the hand, face and self would have to a metaphorical ‘hand, face and self,’ which are references to one of Allah’s true attributes, since there is nothing like unto Him. And ‘hand’ in its original linguistic understanding applies to only created beings.
Abdur-Rahman Ibn Al-Jawzi (rahimahullah) says while mentioning the mistakes of some Hanbali scholars in the area of scriptural interpretation of the problematic verses of the Qur’an:
“And those writers who I have mentioned have erred in seven areas. The first of them is that they called the ‘reports’ as ‘attributes.’ When they are annexations/possessive forms. And not every possessive form is an attribute. For Allah, High is He, has said: (And I have blown into him from my spirit) [Al-Hijr: 29]. And Allah doesn’t have an attribute inown as a ‘spirit.’ So those who have called ‘the possessive form’ (idaafa) ‘an attribute’ are guilty of innovation.”
Garaad Awal
Former African
The linguist, Thalab says in Taj al-‘Aroos,
“A na’t is a descrition given to a specific part of the body like the word lame (a’raj). A ‘sifa’ attribute is for non-specificity ‘umoom’, like the word magnificient (‘azeem) and generous (kareem). So Allah is described with a ‘sifa’. But He is not described with a ‘na’t’
What this would mean is that the word ‘sifa’ (attribute) is being used metaphorically to mean ‘na’t’, which is another word for ‘attribute’ or ‘trait.’ The difference is that a na’t’ describes a specific part of the body, like ‘lame’ or ‘blind.’
For this reason, Imam Bukhari (rahmatullah alayh) uses the word ‘nu’oot’ (plural of na’t’) instead of ‘sifaat’ (plural of ‘sifa’) to refer to those reports that make mention of Allah’s anger, laughter, foot, hand and face even though He isn’t a body and doesn’t have a body.
This would have to be the accepted interpretation. Otherwise, we must accept that Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmatullah alayh) contradicts himself by first limiting the attributes of the essence to the 7 mentioned above, and then later adding Allah’s face, hand and self.
Another important question is, ‘Why doesn’t Imam Abu Hanifa (rahimahullah) add to what he considered attributes ‘the shin, the side, the eyes, the foot and the spirit?’
This is important because Allah annexes His name or personal pronoun to each of these things in the Qur’an or the Messenger does so in the hadith. So if I am to accept that Allah has a face, hand and a self, simply because He annexes such things to His name or pronoun. I should also accept that He has eyes, a spirit, a foot, a side, a shin, a she-camel, a house and any other thing that He has attached His name or pronoun to.
And if the Salafis agree with Imam Abu Hanifa’s (rahimahullah) creed, they should only accept as attributes those things that Imam Abu Hanifa declared to be attributes. This would mean that Salafis have to stop saying that Allah has a foot, a shin, a side and eyes.
But we know that they won’t do that, because Salafis are very selective about what they want to accept from the Salaf and what they don’t want to accept, all the while claiming that their ‘aqeeda is the ‘aqeeda of the Salaf.
If they use Imam Abu Hanifa (rahimahullah)’s words about the face, hand and self as being proof that they follow the manhaj and understand of the Salaf, they should only say what the Salaf said and stop adding to their words.
So to accept that these are the words of Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmatullah alayh), we’d either have to accept the first interpretation or we’d have to accept the second, which would mean that he is in contradiction with his self.
And if that is so, we’d have to accept that Imam Abu Hanifa may not have been an authority on this subject.
As for referring to these problematic verses and hadiths as “Attributes Verses” (Aayaat al-Sifaat) or ‘Reports of Attributes’ (Akhbaar as-Sifaat), this was the specific terminology that scholars used to refer to them even though they didn’t actually mean that such ascriptions mentioned in the scripture were attributes of Allah. Imam Ibn al-Jawzi’s words above clarify the error of this sort of designation. So hopefully that should resolve any confusion about the issue.
“A na’t is a descrition given to a specific part of the body like the word lame (a’raj). A ‘sifa’ attribute is for non-specificity ‘umoom’, like the word magnificient (‘azeem) and generous (kareem). So Allah is described with a ‘sifa’. But He is not described with a ‘na’t’
What this would mean is that the word ‘sifa’ (attribute) is being used metaphorically to mean ‘na’t’, which is another word for ‘attribute’ or ‘trait.’ The difference is that a na’t’ describes a specific part of the body, like ‘lame’ or ‘blind.’
For this reason, Imam Bukhari (rahmatullah alayh) uses the word ‘nu’oot’ (plural of na’t’) instead of ‘sifaat’ (plural of ‘sifa’) to refer to those reports that make mention of Allah’s anger, laughter, foot, hand and face even though He isn’t a body and doesn’t have a body.
This would have to be the accepted interpretation. Otherwise, we must accept that Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmatullah alayh) contradicts himself by first limiting the attributes of the essence to the 7 mentioned above, and then later adding Allah’s face, hand and self.
Another important question is, ‘Why doesn’t Imam Abu Hanifa (rahimahullah) add to what he considered attributes ‘the shin, the side, the eyes, the foot and the spirit?’
This is important because Allah annexes His name or personal pronoun to each of these things in the Qur’an or the Messenger does so in the hadith. So if I am to accept that Allah has a face, hand and a self, simply because He annexes such things to His name or pronoun. I should also accept that He has eyes, a spirit, a foot, a side, a shin, a she-camel, a house and any other thing that He has attached His name or pronoun to.
And if the Salafis agree with Imam Abu Hanifa’s (rahimahullah) creed, they should only accept as attributes those things that Imam Abu Hanifa declared to be attributes. This would mean that Salafis have to stop saying that Allah has a foot, a shin, a side and eyes.
But we know that they won’t do that, because Salafis are very selective about what they want to accept from the Salaf and what they don’t want to accept, all the while claiming that their ‘aqeeda is the ‘aqeeda of the Salaf.
If they use Imam Abu Hanifa (rahimahullah)’s words about the face, hand and self as being proof that they follow the manhaj and understand of the Salaf, they should only say what the Salaf said and stop adding to their words.
So to accept that these are the words of Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmatullah alayh), we’d either have to accept the first interpretation or we’d have to accept the second, which would mean that he is in contradiction with his self.
And if that is so, we’d have to accept that Imam Abu Hanifa may not have been an authority on this subject.
As for referring to these problematic verses and hadiths as “Attributes Verses” (Aayaat al-Sifaat) or ‘Reports of Attributes’ (Akhbaar as-Sifaat), this was the specific terminology that scholars used to refer to them even though they didn’t actually mean that such ascriptions mentioned in the scripture were attributes of Allah. Imam Ibn al-Jawzi’s words above clarify the error of this sort of designation. So hopefully that should resolve any confusion about the issue.
Riftvalley
VIP
Keep it a boqol
VIP
i agree the quran is uncreated. It’s the maturidis and some Ashari that make claims it created
Suldaaanka
لاسعانودي | بدوي
You are acting as if Ash’ari/Maturidis in the past didn’t promote their creed via poltics and what not. After all those in positions of power within states like the Ottoman Empire, Mughal Empire and Mamluk Sultanate ascribed to those schools thus attempting to force it upon the local population.
The first Tafsir of the Qur'an was written by Abu Jaafar al-Tabari, born in 839 AD. In his book Tafsir al-Tabari, he made an unprecedented effort, as he is the first one to organize the various stages of interpretation as per the abundant explanatory material of his time. That’s how he established a method followed by those who came after him.
This is what he wrote:
And the sky We built with hands; verily We outspread [it]" (Qur'an 51:47),
al-Tabari ascribes the figurative explanation (ta’wil) of with hands as meaning "with power (bi quwwa)" through five chains of transmission to Ibn ‘Abbas, who died 68 years after the Hijra, Mujahid who died 104 years after the Hijra, Qatada [ibn Da‘ama] who died 118 years after the Hijra, Mansur [ibn Zadhan al-Thaqafi] who died 131 years after the Hijra, and Sufyan al-Thawri who died 161 years after the Hijra (Jami‘ al-bayan, 27.7–8).
2. Shin. Of the Qur'anic verse, "On a day when shin shall be exposed, they shall be ordered to prostrate, but be unable" (Qur'an 68:42),
al-Tabari says, "A number of the exegetes of the Companions (Sahaba) and their students (tabi‘in) held that it [a day when shin shall be exposed] means that a dire matter (amrun shadid) shall be disclosed" (Jami‘ al-bayan, 29.38)—the shin’s association with direness being that it was customary for Arab warriors fighting in the desert to ready themselves to move fast and hard through the sand in the thick of the fight by lifting the hems of their garments above the shin. This was apparently lost upon later anthropomorphists, who said the verse proved ‘Allah has a shin,’ or, according to others, ‘two shins, since one would be unbecoming.’ Al-Tabari also relates from Muhammad ibn ‘Ubayd al-Muharibi, who relates from Ibn al-Mubarak, from Usama ibn Zayd, from ‘Ikrima, from Ibn ‘Abbas that shin in the above verse means "a day of war and direness (harbin wa shidda)" (ibid., 29.38). All of these narrators are those of the sahih or rigorously authenticated collections except Usama ibn Zayd, whose hadiths are hasan or ‘well authenticated.’
The Hanbalites of his time, persecuted and were violent towards him. They believed that Allah and the Prophet (saw) will sit together on his throne, which he refuted. He studied all the madhab of his time, including the Dhahiri madhab with the founder, and was on his way to study under Ahmed ibn Hanbal before he died. Later, he founded his own madhab. He didn't consider Hanbali as a real madhab, nor gave any weight to Ahmed ibn Hanbal outside of hadith. The Hanbalites would gather and trap him into his house, stoning and trying to destroy it. The Baghdad chief of police organised a debate between Tabari and the students of Ahmed ibn Hanbal, however on the day they didn't show up and instead went and stoned his house. They were only capable of violence.
May Allah have mercy upon him.
This is what he wrote:
And the sky We built with hands; verily We outspread [it]" (Qur'an 51:47),
al-Tabari ascribes the figurative explanation (ta’wil) of with hands as meaning "with power (bi quwwa)" through five chains of transmission to Ibn ‘Abbas, who died 68 years after the Hijra, Mujahid who died 104 years after the Hijra, Qatada [ibn Da‘ama] who died 118 years after the Hijra, Mansur [ibn Zadhan al-Thaqafi] who died 131 years after the Hijra, and Sufyan al-Thawri who died 161 years after the Hijra (Jami‘ al-bayan, 27.7–8).
2. Shin. Of the Qur'anic verse, "On a day when shin shall be exposed, they shall be ordered to prostrate, but be unable" (Qur'an 68:42),
al-Tabari says, "A number of the exegetes of the Companions (Sahaba) and their students (tabi‘in) held that it [a day when shin shall be exposed] means that a dire matter (amrun shadid) shall be disclosed" (Jami‘ al-bayan, 29.38)—the shin’s association with direness being that it was customary for Arab warriors fighting in the desert to ready themselves to move fast and hard through the sand in the thick of the fight by lifting the hems of their garments above the shin. This was apparently lost upon later anthropomorphists, who said the verse proved ‘Allah has a shin,’ or, according to others, ‘two shins, since one would be unbecoming.’ Al-Tabari also relates from Muhammad ibn ‘Ubayd al-Muharibi, who relates from Ibn al-Mubarak, from Usama ibn Zayd, from ‘Ikrima, from Ibn ‘Abbas that shin in the above verse means "a day of war and direness (harbin wa shidda)" (ibid., 29.38). All of these narrators are those of the sahih or rigorously authenticated collections except Usama ibn Zayd, whose hadiths are hasan or ‘well authenticated.’
The Hanbalites of his time, persecuted and were violent towards him. They believed that Allah and the Prophet (saw) will sit together on his throne, which he refuted. He studied all the madhab of his time, including the Dhahiri madhab with the founder, and was on his way to study under Ahmed ibn Hanbal before he died. Later, he founded his own madhab. He didn't consider Hanbali as a real madhab, nor gave any weight to Ahmed ibn Hanbal outside of hadith. The Hanbalites would gather and trap him into his house, stoning and trying to destroy it. The Baghdad chief of police organised a debate between Tabari and the students of Ahmed ibn Hanbal, however on the day they didn't show up and instead went and stoned his house. They were only capable of violence.
May Allah have mercy upon him.
Last edited:
Ashari and Maturidi believe what Abu Hanifa said.
Garaad Awal
Former African
Wahabi, all you have is memes.
Do you believe you worship the same God as Salafis? That God is a curly haired beardless man that walks, sits on the back of mosquitoes, that will share the space of a throne with the Prophet, with a body, that can relocate on a rope?
Ibn Taymiyyah:
We conclude that it was eyesight as it is in the Sahih narration from Qutada from Ikrama from Ibn Abbas said that the Prophet said: 'I saw my God in image of beardless (man), with long curly hair in a green garden'
Bayan Talbis Al-Jahmiyah Volume 7, Page 290
The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) says that people will be constantly thrown into Hell but it will go on asking if there are some more. Thus, Allah the Lord of Might “WILL PUT HIS FOOT IN IT” and in one narrative it has occoured that “HE WILL PUT HIS STEP IN IT” and Hell get contracted and say, ‘Enough, enough.’ (Al-Bukhari 6/353)
Ibn Taymiyyah:
The Hadith afffirms that Allah possesses “FEET AND STEPS” and this attribute is exactly like other attributes. This will be proved worthy of the Grandeur of Allah. The rationale behind putting “THE STEP INTO HELL” is that Allah has promised that He will fill up Hell. [Sharh al-Aqidat-il-Wastiyah, Page No. 136, Published by Dar us Salaam, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia]
Ibn Taymiyyah:
If He (God) wants, He can sit on a mosquito’s back.
Bayan Talbis al-Jahamia Volume 1 page 568:
Ibn Taymiyyah:
The reliable and acceptable scholars narrated that, God shall make Muhammad the messenger of Allah sit next to Him [swt] on the throne.
Majmo’a al-Fatawa, Volume 4 page 374:
Ibn Taymiyyah:
“There is nothing in the book, Sunnah, nor in the statements of the Salaf, or Imams of the nation that He (Allah) is not a body and His features are not a body.”
Bayan Talbis al-Jahamia, Volume 1 page 101:
Ibn Taymiyyah:
”Allah is able to relocate from here to there through rope”
Majmo’a al-Fatawa, Volume 2 page 76:
Ibn Taymiyyah:
We conclude that it was eyesight as it is in the Sahih narration from Qutada from Ikrama from Ibn Abbas said that the Prophet said: 'I saw my God in image of beardless (man), with long curly hair in a green garden'
Bayan Talbis Al-Jahmiyah Volume 7, Page 290
The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) says that people will be constantly thrown into Hell but it will go on asking if there are some more. Thus, Allah the Lord of Might “WILL PUT HIS FOOT IN IT” and in one narrative it has occoured that “HE WILL PUT HIS STEP IN IT” and Hell get contracted and say, ‘Enough, enough.’ (Al-Bukhari 6/353)
Ibn Taymiyyah:
The Hadith afffirms that Allah possesses “FEET AND STEPS” and this attribute is exactly like other attributes. This will be proved worthy of the Grandeur of Allah. The rationale behind putting “THE STEP INTO HELL” is that Allah has promised that He will fill up Hell. [Sharh al-Aqidat-il-Wastiyah, Page No. 136, Published by Dar us Salaam, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia]
Ibn Taymiyyah:
If He (God) wants, He can sit on a mosquito’s back.
Bayan Talbis al-Jahamia Volume 1 page 568:
Ibn Taymiyyah:
The reliable and acceptable scholars narrated that, God shall make Muhammad the messenger of Allah sit next to Him [swt] on the throne.
Majmo’a al-Fatawa, Volume 4 page 374:
Ibn Taymiyyah:
“There is nothing in the book, Sunnah, nor in the statements of the Salaf, or Imams of the nation that He (Allah) is not a body and His features are not a body.”
Bayan Talbis al-Jahamia, Volume 1 page 101:
Ibn Taymiyyah:
”Allah is able to relocate from here to there through rope”
Majmo’a al-Fatawa, Volume 2 page 76:
Last edited:
We don't believe Allah can be hit by a bucket lowered by rope like you guys do.
Ibn Taymiyyah:
I love Ibn Taymiyyah for being so clear. That if you don't believe a bucket lowered by rope can hit Allah, then you are a Jahmiyy innovator i.e Ashari.
Bro I may not be well-versed in the deen, but could you clarify what 'the Quran is not created' means? Does it imply that every Surah and Ayah existed before creation, given the Quran's connection to historical events?
Why you lying on the shaykh?? the hadith is weak as he said and explanation of that hadith where he mentions the jahmiyya he's criticizing their way of interpretation in religious texts
