> Sunni Response Refuting Shaykh Nuh Keller: Did Salaf Practice Ta'weel?

[salman]

:

A Sunni response and refutation to Shaykh Nuh Keller's article that the Salaf practiced ta'weel of Allah's Attributes (Sifat). This is a quick and concise respond to his false claims and distortion of actual text. This is an advance topic and not recommended for every layman; hence, I recommend that those who don't have a good understanding of Ahlus Sunnah's stance regarding understanding the Sifat of Allah, please refer to following articles to get the basic knowledge:

Fundamentals of the 'Aqeedah (Creed) of the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama'ah
'Aqeedah of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah

A detailed refutation and a Sunni response to Shaykh Nuh Keller's article can be found here by brother Abu Rumaysah. I was talking to some brothers in another forum about this issue and a sister pasted Shaykh's article. I responded to his points with my notes and I'm sharing it here for the beneficial of fellow believers.

1 - Introduction
2 - Sunni Response to Attack against Ahlus Sunnah, Shaykh ul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah and Imam ibn Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on them)
3 - Did 'Abdullah ibn Abass (radiallahu anho - May Allah be pleased with him) made ta'weel of the word "Forgetting"?
4 - Did 'Abdullah ibn Abass (radiallahu anho) made ta'weel of the word "Hands"?
5 - Did 'Abdullah ibn Abass (radiallahu anho) made ta'weel of the word "Shin"?
6 - Did Imam al-Bukhari (radiallahu anho) made ta'weel of Allah's Attribute of Laughter?
7 - Did Imam Ahlus Sunnah (Ahmad bin Hanbal - radiallahu anho) made ta'weel of Allah's Attribute of Coming?

[salman]

Introduction

Indeed, all praise is due to Allah, we praise Him, we seek His aid, and we ask for His forgiveness. We seek refuge in Allah from the evil of our actions and from the evil consequence of our actions. Whomever Allah guides, there is none to misguide and whoever Allah misguides there is none to guide. I bear witness that there is no god worthy of worship except Allah and I bear witness that Muhammad (sal-allahu ‘alayhi wa salam) is the servant and messenger of Allah. I remind myself and fellow believers in Islam to “fear Allah as He should be feared and do not die except as Muslims (in submission to Him)” [Surah al-‘Imran:102 – interpretation of the meaning] and hold tight to the Qur’an and the Sunnah of Allah’s Rasoul (sal-allahu ‘alayhi wa salam) and the Salaf (may Allah be pleased with them)

Shaykh Nuh Keller argues that the modern Sunnis (Salafis/Wahabis/neo-Hanablis) take the Qur'an literally; hence, they affirm Hands etc for Allah Ta'ala and resembles Him to His creation, while the Salaf practiced ta'weel. His argument is lie and straw man attack against Ahlus Sunnah. We'll soon insha'Allah see. The Ash'ari scholars don't tell their followers about the truth and misguide them by distorting the actual text of the Qur'an, the Saheeh Sunnah or the athar of the Salaf. The history speaks for itself as Ash'aris have failed to provide any evidence to prove their heretical creed ('aqeedah). The challange of Shaykh ul-Islam (ibn Taymiyyah - rahimahullah) still stands till today: bring one statement from the Salaf to prove your 'aqeedah, meaning the Salaf practises ta'weel! The Ash'aris CANNOT answer this challenge because there's NOT A SINGLE evidence in their favour. All they do is attack Ahlus Sunnah with straw man or same old arguments, which have been refuted 100s of times in the past.

Prequisites:

Dhahir - the apparent meaning which comes to the mind first
Majazi - a metaphorical interpretation of the actual meaning
Haqiqi - the literal meaning
Ta’weel – interpreting an actual meaning into something different (majazi)

Allah Ta'ala says in the Qur'an (interpretation of the meaning):

There is nothing like unto Him and He is all Hearing, the Seeing [Surah ash-Shura:11]
Do you know of any similarity to Him? [Surah Maryam:65]
Nor is thee to Him any equivalence [Surah al-Ikhlas:4]

Ahlus Sunnah affirm and believe in what Allah Ta'ala has said about Himself in the Qur'an, what His Prophet, Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam - peace and blessings be upon him), said about Him and how the Salaf (May Allah be pleased with them) understood His Sifat without taw'il (interpreting their meanings into different), tashbih (giving resemblance or similarity in any specific creatures), ta'til (completely ignoring or denying them), tafweed (tawfid - to relegate the meanings) and takeef (takif - asking how)

The Salaf understood the ayat of the Qur'an upon its dhahir meaning, which could be Majazi or Haqiqi.

let’s have a look what Shaykh Nuh Keller said, continuing...

[salman]

Sunni Response to Attack against Ahlus Sunnah, Shaykh ul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah and Imam ibn Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on them)

This naturally drew the criticism of neo-Hanbalis, at their forefront Ibn Taymiya and Ibn al-Qayyim, as it still does of today’s "reformers" of Islam, who echo these two’s arguments that figurative interpretation (ta’wil) was a reprehensible departure (bid‘a) by Ash‘aris and others from the way of the early Muslims (salaf); and who call for a "return to the sunna," that is, to anthropomorphic literalism. Now, the obvious question in the face of such "reforms" is whether literalism is really identical with pristine Islamic faith (‘aqida). Or rather did figurative interpretation (ta’wil) exist among the salaf? We will answer this question with actual examples of mutashabihat or ‘unapparent in meaning’ Qur'anic verses and hadiths, and examine how the earliest scholars interpreted them:

Shaykh Nuh, fear Allah Ta’ala and I remind you that on the day of judgment you’ll have to answer for what you said. You and those who say this, is attributing lie to those two Shayuookh (may Allah have mercy on them). They said nothing but what has been narrated to us from the Salaf. They were not the first one who understood the ayaat and the ahadeeth upon their dhahir meaning.

Imam Al-Hafidh Nu'aym bin Hammad (d. 228 AH - radiallahu anho) said:

Whoever resembles Allah with anything from His creation has disbelieved and whoever rejects what Allah described Himself with has disbelieved. Whatever Allah and His Messenger describe Allah with is not tashbeeh. [Reported by al-Lalika'i in Usool I'tiqad Ahl us-Sunnah wa'l-Jama'ah: vol. 3, p. 523 and Abu Isma'eel al-Harawi in Dhamm ul-Kalam wa Ahluhu: vol. 4, p. 263]

Imam al-Hafidh Ibn Rahawayh Ishaq (d. 238 AH - radiallahu anho) said:

It is not permissible to enter into the affair of Allah as it is permissible to enter into the action of the creation based on what Allah says, “He is not questioned about what He does, but they will be questioned”. And it is not permissible for anyone to imagine Allah and His Attributes and Actions as it is permissible to reflect and view the affair of creation. Allah can be described as descending in this last third of every night to the heaven of the dunya but it is not to be asked "how is His descending" because the Creator does what He wills as He wills. [Relayed by Abu Isma'eel al-Harawi in Dhamm ul-Kalam wa Ahluhu, vol. 4, p.325]

Imam Ahl us-Sunnah Ahmad bin Hanbal (d. 241 - radiallahu anho) said in Ar-Radd 'ala'l-Jahmiyyah wa'z-Zanadiqah:

And he (i.e. Jahm) interpreted the Qur'an in a way other than which it is to be interpreted and he denied ahadeeth of the Messenger of Allah (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam). He also claimed that whoever describes Allah with something which Allah Himself described Himself with in His Book, or with what the Messenger of Allah narrated from Him, is a disbeliever and from the Mushabbihah (those who resemble Allah to the creation)... So we say to them: Allah is the One who arranged the affairs and He is the One who spoke to Musa, they say: "He did not speak to him and does not speak, because speech is only done with limbs and limbs are to be negated from Allah". So if an ignorant person was to hear their (Jahmi) statements he would think that they are the most fervent in glorifying Allah and the ignorant person will not realise that their words lead to misguidance and kufr and will not sense that they do not say what they do except as a false claim about Allah. [Ar-Radd 'ala'l-Jahmiyyah wa'z-Zanadiqah: p. 104]

Imam Trimdhi (rahimahullah) said in his Sunan (1/128-129):

It has been stated by more than one person from the People of Knowledge about such ahaadeeth, that there is no tashbeeh (resemblance) to the Attributes of Allah, and our Lord - the Blessed and Most High - descends to the lowest heaven every night. So they say: "Affirm these narrations, have Imaan (faith) in them, do not deny them, nor ask how." The likes of this has been related from Malik ibn Anas, Sufyan ath-Thawri, Ibn Uyainah and Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak, who all said about such ahaadeeth: "Leave them as they are, without asking how." Such is the saying of the People of Knowledge from the Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah. However, the Jahmiyyah oppose these narrations and say: This is tashbeeh! However, Allah the Most High, has mentioned in various places in His Book, the Attribute of al-Yad (Hand), as-Sama' (Hearing), and al-Basr (Seeing) - but the Jahmiyyah make ta'weel of these ayaat, explaining them in a way, other than how they are explained by the People of Knowledge. They say: Indeed, Allah did not create Aadam with His own Hand - they say that Hand means the Power of Allah.

Call these Salaf Imams, mujasmi and “wahabi heretic”! I can go on but this should be enough for those who seek truth. Last but not least;

Abu'l-Hasan al-Ash’ari (rahimahullah), who the Ash’aris claim to be following stated:

If we affirm these attributes for Allah, which the intellects, language, Qur’an and consensus indicate, it does not obligate that they are created. For that reason, it is not permissible for His Attributes what is permitted for the creation’s attributes. [Abu’l-Hasan al-Ash’ari, Risalah ila Ahl ith-Thaghar: p. 218]

So we tell the contemporary Ash’aris, the Imam you suppose to follow in creed is rejecting your heretical views and you claim to be following him and the Salaf!

Abu’l-Qasim al-Taymi al-Isfahani (d. 535 AH - rahimahullah) was asked about the Attributes of Allah Ta’ala and he said:

The Madhhab of Malik, al-Thawri, al-Awza’i, al-Shafi’i, Hammad b. Salamah, Hammad b. Zayd, Ahmad, Yahya b. Sa’id al-Qattan, Abd al-Rahman b. Mahdi and Ishaq b. Rahawayh is that the Attributes of Allah, the ones by which he described His Self and by which His Messenger described Him with from the Hearing, the Seeing, the Face, the Two Hands and the rest of His descriptions, than they are to be taken upon their well known and famous apparent meanings (‘ala dhahiriha al-ma’ruf al-mashhur), without suggesting an how-ness for them and without Tashbih and Ta’wil. Ibn ‘Uyayna said: Everything by which Allah described Himself with then its recitation is its explanation (tafsir). [Abu’l-Qasim says then commenting upon Ibn ‘Uyayna’s saying] That is according to its apparent sense: it is not allowed to carry her to a figurative meaning (majaz) from the sorts of interpretation (ta’wil). [al-Dhahabi in al-‘Uluww, see its Mukhtasar p.282]

Imam al-Dhahabi (rahimahullah) said:

If Ta’wil is allowed, the Salaf would have been the first ones to resort to it, especially in order to negate anthropomorphism, as claimed by those who believe that the dhahir of these texts that suit Allah’s existence is anthropomorphism. However, to the contrary, when al-Jahm b. Safwan appeared on the scene – and he is the first to make ta’wil – the Imams contemporary to him declared him a heretic, such as Sufyan bin ‘Uyayna, al-Fudhayl bin ‘Ayadh, Ibn al-Mubarak, Abu Yusuf, Muhammad bin al-Hasan, ‘Abd al-Rahman bin Mahdi, al-Shafi’i, Ahmad, Ishaq, and countless others whom only Allah knows. There were those from them who declared him a disbeliever, as there were those who allowed for him to be killed

continuing...

[salman]

Did 'Abdullah ibn Abass (radiallahu anho) made ta'weel of the word "Forgetting"?

1. Forgetting. We have mentioned above the Qur'anic verse, "Today We forget you as you have forgotten this day of yours" (Qur'an 45:34), which the early Muslims used to interpret figuratively, as reported by a scholar who was himself an early Muslim (salafi) and indeed, the sheikh of the early Muslims in Qur'anic exegesis, the hadith master (hafiz) Ibn Jarir al-Tabari who died 310 years after the Hijra, and who explains the above verse as meaning: "‘This day, Resurrection Day, We shall forget them,’ so as to say, ‘We shall abandon them to their punishment.’" Now, this is precisely ta’wil, or interpretation in other than the verse’s ostensive sense. Al-Tabari ascribes this interpretation, through his chains of transmission, to the Companion (Sahabi) Ibn ‘Abbas (Allah be well pleased with him) as well as to Mujahid, Ibn ‘Abbas’s main student in Qur'anic exegesis (Jami‘ al-bayan, 8.202).

Shaykh Nuh Keller, does the Arabic word for “Forget” here means erasing something from memory?

1) This ayah is not from one of the Sifaat (attributes) of Allah, how can then one claim that the Salaf made ta’weel of the dhahir meaning of the ayah?

2) The Arabic word “nasnsakum” comes from the root verb “nasiya, yansaa”, which can mean “to neglect or deliberately leave and abandon”. So, the word here doesn’t mean to erase something from memory. The disbelievers did not forget Allah Ta’ala because they erased him from their memories. They simply abandoned their duty towards Him; similarly, He too would abandon them that day. This is the dhahir that comes to our minds! Hence, the meaning of the ayah is, “Today we abandon them as they have abandoned this Day of theirs”. This is the dhahir meaning of the ayah as it was interpreted by the Salaf!

[salman]

Did 'Abdullah ibn Abass (radiallahu anho) made ta'weel of the word "Hands"?

2. Hands. In the verse, "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). I mention these dates to show just how early they were.

again, Shaykh Nuh, you’re playing with Arabic words and misguiding ignorant masses!

Again, the ayah is not about the Attribute of Allah Ta’ala because the Arabic word used here is “aydin” which is not plural of the word “yad (hand)”. This has been well sated in the Arabic dictionaries i.e al-Lisan. The Arabic word “aydin” has the root word “quwwa (power)” and it is the verbal noun for the verb “aada (strengthened)”; therefore it is completely different from the word “yad”. Another ayah which clarifies the meaning of “Aydin” is: “Remember our servant, Dawud, the one with Aydin”; Aydin here, linguistically refers to power and not hands. If it literally meant “hands”, the ayah would be read as, “Remember our servant, Dawud, the one with hands”, which sounds strange to say the least! In addition, Imam Ibn Khuzaimah (d. 311 AH - rahimahullah) in his book al-Tawhid, p.86:

And some of Jahmiyah claimed that the meaning of his saying “Allah created Adam with His (two) hand” is “His power”, so he claimed that “the yad” means power, and this is from changing (words) also, and it is ignorance of the Arabic language , and power is called in the Arab’s language “Al-ayd” not “al-yad” ….. Allah has informed us that he created the heaven (As-sama’) with (Ayd) power, and (al-yad) the hand and (al-yadan) the two hands are different than (al-ayd) power; for if Allah created Adam with ayd like he created the heaven, without favouring the creation of Adam with His (two) hands He (Allah) wouldn’t have said to Iblees: (Allah) said: “O Iblis (Satan)! What prevents you from prostrating yourself to one whom I have created with Both My Hands”[Surah Sa'd:75 – interpretation of the meaning], and there is no doubt that Allah Azza wa Jal has created Iblees (Allah’s curse be upon him) also with His power.

Muhammad ar-Razi said in Mukhtasar as-Sihah under the root “yad”:

I said: His (Allah) saying: (Bi-aydin) meaning with power, and it is the root Aada ya’idu aydan if he became strong; and it is not the plural of yad/hand, for it to be mentioned here (under the root word yad) , its place is in the section of the letter dal. and al Azhari mentioned this ayah under the word al Ayd meaning the root. And I do not know any of the Imams of the Arabic language or tafsir who had the same opinion of al Jawhari that it is the plural of yad - hand.

Imam Abu’l-Hasan al-Ash’ari (rahimahullah), their supposdely Imam, replied to this ta’weel saying:

It is said to them that this ta'weel is wrong (faasid) from many perspectives the last of which is that “al-Aydi” is not the plural of yad (hand) because the plural of yad which is used to mean ni’ma (favour) is “Ayaadi” and all that Allaah said was “to the one who I created with My Two Hands (bi yaday)” so it is false that the meaning of His saying, “with My Two Hands” be the meaning of His saying, “we built it with Power” [al-Ibaanah: p.134]

Therefore, the Salaf didn’t make ta’weel of this ayah as explaining the word “aydin” to mean power is not ta’weel; it is affirming and believing in the dhahir meaning of the word.

[salman]

Did 'Abdullah ibn Abass (radiallahu anho) made ta'weel of the word "Shin"?

3. 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.’

1) Imam ibn Jarir al-Tabari (rahimahullah) reports number of narrations about this ayah from different routes from ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas (radiallahu anho). Shaykh Saleem Hilali says regarding these narrations:

Summarising what has been reported from ibn ‘Abbas (radiallahu anho) on this issue: with this you will know, O beloved (reader) - may you learn the good - that the chains of narration that are reported from ibn Abbaas to do with his explanation of His saying, “the Day when the Shin will be exposed” cannot be used to establish a proof, because they are all da’eef.

So if it is said: can they be considered under the definition of hasan li ghayrihi (i.e. hasan due supporting each other) I say (in reply): indeed the weakness of them is such that they cannot support one another...Some of them are severely weak and cannot be used to support rather they make the matter worse. For example:

the route of Usama bin Zayd from Ikrimah from him (ibn Abbaas), and it is no. 1
the route of the Uofiyyeen and it is no. 2
the 'masaa'il' of Naafi bin al-Azraq, and it is no. 8

Some of them have a single deficiency, and that is inqitaa (missing links in the chain), so when this is the case then they do not support or strengthen others, and they are:

the route of Alee bin Abee Talha from him and it is no.3
the route of Ibraaheem an-Nakha'i from him and it is no.6
the route of Dahhaak bin Mazaahim al-Hilaalee and it is no.7

Some of them cannot support others because they do not have the same meaning:

So in some of them he says, “distress and severity”
in some of them he says, “the matter will be exposed and the actions will be shown”
in some he says, “a severe matter”
in some he says, “the Day of Judgement and the Hour due to it's severity”

... And due to this we are certain that the narration is not authentic to ibn Abbas (radiallahu anho) [al-Manhal ar-Raqraaq: p.30]

2) Even if we assume that the narrations are saheeh then it still doesn’t prove your point Shaykh that the Sahabah made ta’weel of this ayah. The Sahabah differed whether this ayah is from among the Sifaat of Allah Ta’ala; this has been authentically reported by the early scholars i.e. Imam ibn Mandah (rahimahullah) in his Radd ala al-Jahmiyyah: p.37. So, one group among the Sahabah, including ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas (radiallahu anho), didn’t think that this ayah is from among the Sifaat of Allah; so they interpreted the word “Saq” upon its dhahir meaning, according to the Arabic language, as “intensity”. The other group, including Abu Sa’eed al-Khudree and ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood (may Allah be pleased with them), thought this ayah was from among the Sifaat of Allah Ta’ala.

The important thing to note is that the dispute is not whether the Attribute is to be affirmed or not, rather the difference is over whether the ayah is from the ayaat speaking about Allah Ta’ala’s Attributes. There is no doubt that they ayah apparently is not discussing the Attributes of Allah Ta’ala because the word “Saq (Shin)” appears in the indefinite form (nakira) and Allah Ta’ala did not apply it to Himself. So, the ayah does not say “His Shin (Saqahu)” and was not relayed with the idafa construct; hence, the ayah is not referring to the Attribute of Allah Ta’ala. As a result, ‘Abdullah Ibn ’Abbas (radiallahu anho) did not include the ayah pertaining to Allah’s Attributes. Those who did deem the ayah as relating to Allah’s Attributes, did so due to the hadeeth which is in the two Saheehs, not based on the apparentness of the ayah. Therefore, there was no ta’weel made in this case by Sahabah.

3) The attribute of “Saq (Shin)” has been relayed to us and affirmed in the Saheeh Sunnah:

From Abu Sa’eed (radiallahu anho) who said; I heard the Prophet (sal-allahu ‘alayhi wa salam) say “Our Lord uncovers His Shin, and every believer, male and female, will prostrate to Him and there will remain those who used to prostrate before Him just for showing off and for gaining good reputation (in this world)...” [Saheeh Bukhari and Muslim]

[salman]

Did Imam al-Bukhari (radiallahu anho) made ta'weel of Allah's Attribute of Laughter?

4. Laughter. Of the hadith related in Sahih al-Bukhari from Abu Hurayra that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, Allah Most High laughs about two men, one of whom kills the other, but both of whom enter paradise: the one fights in the path of Allah and is killed, and afterwards Allah forgives the killer, and then he fights in the path of Allah and is martyred, the hadith master al-Bayhaqi records that the scribe of Bukhari [Muhammad ibn Yusuf] al-Farabri related that Imam al-Bukhari said, "The meaning of laughter in it is mercy" (Kitab al-asma’ wa al-sifat, 298).

1) This narration has been falsely attributed to Sunni Imam and Muhadith, al-Bukhari (radiallahu anho). This was narrated by Imam Bayhaqi (rahimahullah) in his book without any isnaad. How can we trust it if there’s no isnaad; the statement of Imam ‘Abdullah ibn Mubarak (radiallahu anho) is well known:

The isnaad is from the Deen, were it not for the isnaad, whosoever willed could say whatever he wished.

Imam ibn Hajr as-Saqalni (rahimahullah) says in his Fath ul-Bari regarding this supposdely ta’weel of Imam al-Bukhari (radiallahu anho):

I say: I did not see this within the copy of al-Bukhari which we have in our possession [Fath ul-Bari: vol.8, p.501]

2) This is contrary to what is well known from the creed of Imam al-Bukhari (radiallahu anho), his works and his shayuookh. Interesting thing to note is that Imam al-Bukhari (radiallahu anho) mentioned this hadith in two places in his saheeh but no where he mentioned this ta’weel. In addition, Imam al-Dhahabi (rahimahulllah) quotes Abu Ubaid al-Qasim bin Sallam (d.224 AH) who said regarding the Laughter of Allah:

These are authentic ahaadeeth, the Ashaabul Hadeeth and the Legal jurists have conveyed them, some from others, and they are the truth in which there is no doubt according to us. But if it was said, “how does He Laugh?” We say: we do not explain this, and we have not heard anyone explain it. [Siyar A’lam Al-Nubala: vol.10, p.505]

[salman]

Did Imam Ahlus Sunnah (Ahmad bin Hanbal - radiallahu anho) made ta'weel of Allah's Attribute of Coming?

5. Coming. The hadith master (hafiz) Ibn Kathir reports that Imam al-Bayhaqi related from al-Hakim from Abu ‘Amr ibn al-Sammak, from Hanbal, the son of the brother of Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s father, that Ahmad ibn Hanbal figuratively interpreted the word of Allah Most High,"And your Lord shall come . . ." (Qur'an 89:22), as meaning "His recompense (thawab) shall come."

Al-Bayhaqi said, "This chain of narrators has absolutely nothing wrong in it" (al-Bidaya wa al-nihaya,10.342).

1) This narration has been only narrated by Hanbal and the hanabilah are very cautious to take anything from Hanabl on the issues of fiqh when he is the only one narrating it. So, how about the issues of ‘aqeedah? In addition, the hanabilah say that Hanbal errored while narrating this as his contemporary (‘Abdulluh bin Ahmad, Salih bin Ahmad, al-Marwadhi and others – may Allah be pleased with them) narrated the same discussion differently. In fact, Hanbal also narrates several times from Imam Ahmad (radiallahu anho) literally affirming Allah’s descent. Also, this report is no where to be found in the book of Imam Ahmad (radiallahu anho): ar-Radd ‘ala’l-Jahmiyyah wa’z-Zanadiqah. Moreover, the isnaad includes Abu Amr ibn Samak who is unknown as stated by Imam al-Dhahabi in his Talkhees (vol.1 p.539). Therefore, one can say that the isnaad is problematic.

2) This narration by Hanbal contradicts the well known stance of Imam Ahmad (radiallahu anho), which has been reported in mutwatir, let’s have a look at few of them, taken from Ibtal ut-Ta’weelat of Qadi Abu Ya’ala (rahimahullah);

Hanbal bin Ishaq (rahimahullah) said:

I said to Abu ‘Abdullah, “Allah descends to the heaven of the dunya?” He [Imam Ahmad – radiallahu anho] said, “Yes”. I said, “Descends with His Knowledge or what?” He said to me, “Be quiet with this!” And he became very angered and said, “What is with you and this? Leave the hadeeth as they have arrived without asking how.”

He again said:

I asked Abu ’Abdulluh about the ahadeeth which have been relayed about Allah descends the heaven of the dunya, about Allah being seen, placing His Foot down and the likes of these ahadeeth. Abu ’Abdulluh said: “We believe in these ahadeeth, trust them and we do not reject them at all. We know that what has come from the Messenger of Allah is the truth if the chains of transmission are authentic. We do not reject what Allah has said and we do not describe him with more than what He has described Himself with with no limits. There is nothing like unto Him and He is the All-Hearing, All-Seeing.”

Al-Qadi Abu Ya’ala said (rahimahullah):

Yusuf bin Musa said to Abu ’Abdullah: “Allah descends to the heaven of the dunya how He wills without describing it?” Imam Ahmad said: “Yes.”

He again said:

Ahmad said in his Risalah to Musaddad that Allah, Mighty and Majestic, descends every night to the heavens of the dunya and the Throne does not encompass Him.

So, Qadi Abu Ya’ala (rahimahullah) explained this by saying:

Ahmad clearly highlighted that the Throne does not encompass Him, and this is the saying with us in regards to Allah saying, And your Lord has come and the angels... [Surah al-Fajr:22 – interpretation of the meaning] . The intent of this is in regards to Allah’s Essence will come and not in the sense of moving.

The statement of Imam Ahmad (radiallahu anho) shows that Allah’s Nazool is apparent not His Command or Dominion descending. In addition, it is well known that who doesn’t believe in Allah being above His throne, doesn’t believe in Allah’s Nazool; hence, it shows the narration from Hanbal is errored.

3) Some of the hanablis affirm the narration and say that Imam Ahmad (radiallahu anho) said this while refuting the Jahmiyyah and Mu’tazilite about the Qur’an being created. The Jahmiyyah made the ta’weel of Allah’s coming as being His Command. For the Qur’an as being Speech of Allah and created, they say that coming is only for creation and coming of al-Baqarah and al-Imran (on the day of judgment) indicate that Qur’an, the Speech of Allah Ta’ala, is created. Therefore, according to them whatever is described as coming is created. Hence, Imam Ahmad (radiallahu anho) replied to them using their belief by saying that coming of those two Surahs (on the day of judgement) doesn’t prove that the Qur’an is created because you can believe that the reward of reciting them will come as you have claimed by taking His coming as being the coming of His Command and Power.

Imam ibn Rajab al-Hanbali (rahimahullah) have explained this further in his Fath ul-Bari (note the same name as Imam ibn Hajr as-Saqalani’s book – rahimahullah) and the English translation of this passage can be found here

With this, I would like to conclude my response to Shaykh Nuh’s article, rest of his article is trivial as it is typical bashing of Ash’aris. May Allah Ta’ala make us follow the correct path, ameen.

Wallahu A’lam

[salamfromrom]

Salam

The important thing to note is that the dispute is not whether the Attribute is to be affirmed or not, rather the difference is over whether the ayah is from the ayaat speaking about Allah Ta’ala’s Attributes. There is no doubt that they ayah apparently is not discussing the Attributes of Allah Ta’ala because the word “Saq (Shin)” appears in the indefinite form (nakira) and Allah Ta’ala did not apply it to Himself. So, the ayah does not say “His Shin (Saqahu)” and was not relayed with the idafa construct; hence, the ayah is not referring to the Attribute of Allah Ta’ala. As a result, ‘Abdullah Ibn ’Abbas (radiallahu anho) did not include the ayah pertaining to Allah’s Attributes. Those who did deem the ayah as relating to Allah’s Attributes, did so due to the hadeeth which is in the two Saheehs, not based on the apparentness of the ayah. Therefore, there was no ta’weel made in this case by Sahabah.

3) The attribute of “Saq (Shin)” has been relayed to us and affirmed in the Saheeh Sunnah:

From Abu Sa’eed (radiallahu anho) who said; I heard the Prophet (sal-allahu ‘alayhi wa salam) say “Our Lord uncovers His Shin, and every believer, male and female, will prostrate to Him and there will remain those who used to prostrate before Him just for showing off and for gaining good reputation (in this world)...” [Saheeh Bukhari and Muslim]

Brother, please enlighten me if you may, so does Allah(swt) have a shin or not? And how are we to interpret this?

[salamfromrom]

Salam

I found this which may be of interest in the clarification on this issue.

• About
• 100
• 101
• 102
• 201
• 202
• Texts

The ‘Shin’ and ‘Face’ of Allah(swt)

Posted on August 22, 2006. Filed under: 202 - Advanced Asma wa Sifaat |
Important Principle
al-Mudaf (construct state) is of two main types:

1. al-Mudaf depicting possession
2. al-Mudaf not depicting possession

The first type, includes examples such as: Kalam Allah, ‘Ilm Allah, Qudrat Allah (Allah’s Speech, Allah’s knowledge and Allah’s power)
The second type, includes examples such as: Ka’bat Allah, Naaqat Allah (Allah’s Ka’bah, or Allah’s she-camel)
This shows that not everything that is attributed to Allah in Idafa is necessarily His Attribute, for we all know that Ka’ba and the she-camel is NOT Allah’s Attributes.
So how do we know whether the Mudaf such as Kalam, Ka’ba, ‘Ilm, Naaqah, etc, is actually Allah’s Attribute or not?
We only know this by knowing the meaning of the Mudaf.
Hence, because we know the meaning of Kalam, and know also that it does not exist independently, the fact that it is an Attribute to Allah makes Kalam Allah’s Attribute.
On the other hand, because we know the meaning of Ka’bah, and therefore we know that it exists independently, we know that Ka’bah is NOT Allah’s Attribute.
Face
Now bearing this principle in mind, one can only Attribute a Wajh to Allah, if he knows what Wajh means. If he does not know what Wajh means, then he has no authority to attribute it to Allah, for Wajh Allah could easily be the second type of mudaf, like Kab’at Allah.
No scholars can attribute a Wajh to Allah, if they do not know what Wajh means.
Wajh could mean face, as it could also mean a direction.
The scholars could only attribute a Wajh to Allah, if wajh means ‘face’.
They cannot attribute a ‘wajh’ to Allah if it means direction.
Therefore, if the scholars affirm wajh as Allah’s Attribute, they have no choice but to believe that Wajh means a face, and this is what they believed.
A good way of looking at this is to say,

Whosoever held a similitude for Allah from His creation has committed disbelief [kufr], whosoever disputes what Allah has attributed for Himself has committed disbelief [kufr], there is absolutely no similitude [tash'bih] in what Allah taala has described Himself or His messenger; so, whosoever affirms [the attributes] for Allah ta`ala [just] as they have been mentioned in the [qur'anic] verses, and in the authentic reports - that is befitting the Majesty of Allah ta’ala and negates all flaws from Allah ta’ala has truly struck the path of guidance.

But what the mainstream Ash’aris say is quite different. They insist on negating the literal meaning. They say: Yes, Allah has attributed something called ‘wajh’ to himself, but what this means we do not exactly know, although we are certain that it does not refer to wajh literally.
Shin
Ash’aris will argue this point by trying to say,

Let us now take what you say is an attribute of Allah - Shin.
The literal meaning of Shin in the language is:
“The front part of the leg below the knee and above the ankle.”
Now how can you say that by applying a “literal meaning” one does not contradict the “without modality and definition” principle that you claim to be upon?

This is incorrect.
Shin is in and of itself the literal meaning, otherwise, Shin itself will be meaningless.
If in Arabic someone says: inkasarat saaquhu, it literally means: His shin broke. i.e. Shin is the literal meaning itself.
The same statement could be made in relation to a Jinn, i.e. ‘his shin broke’, but is their shin like ours, composed of blood, flesh and bones, between the knee and foot? Allah knows best. However, the meaning of Shin is known.
When they say: ‘The front part of the leg below the knee and above the ankle’, is the Hadd - or the definition of Shin with respect to human beings, something which Ahlus Sunnah does not affirm.
Rather, we constantly state that our affirmation of Allah’s Attributes like Face and Hands is the affirmation of existence (wujud), and not affirmation of any definition (tahdid). Just as we literally believe that Allah exists, without giving his existence any definition. Hence, Allah’s Hands are no different to His existence.
It shuold be pointed out though, that the reason why the latter Ash’aris negated Wajh, ‘Ayn, etc and made ta’wil thereof, is due to Kalami principles that negating composition, divisiblity and multiplicity of eternal.
A Maturidi scholar (Zabidi al-Hanafi, d.~1200AH) mentioned,

Your saying, ‘we take it by its literal meaning, and it is incomprehensible’ is contradictory in itself. If you take by its literal meaning, then ‘as-saq’ mentioned in Suratal-Qalam (ayah 42), is a ’shin’ which is a part made up of flesh, bones, muscle, and nerves. If you take by that the literal meaning, then you have committed blasphemy, and if you deny it, then how do you claim to take by the literal meaning?

The great Shafi’i traditionist al-Khattabi (d. 388AH) said about the texts pertaining to Allah’s Shin,

This Hadeeth is one where our scholars dreaded saying something, so they passed it on in accordance with the literal meaning of the wording (fa ajrawhu ‘ala dhahiri lafdhihi). They did not explore the depths of its meaning, in accordance with their Madhab of ceasing to give tafseer to anything the essence of which is not encompassed with knowledge (al-Asma wal-Sifat, al-Bayhaqi)

Again, to emphasize, the proper principle is to accept the literal meaning (dhahir) and to negate the modality (kayf). Source: The ‘Shin’ and ‘Face’ of Allah(swt) � Aqeedah


Salam

---------- Post added at 05:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:40 AM ----------

And from Islamqa:

1 – Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
Accountability ends when one enters the abode of recompense, be it Paradise or Hell, or but when people are resurrected they may be tested as they are tested in al-barzakh. It will be said to one of them: Who is your Lord? What is your religion? Who is your Prophet? Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “(Remember) the Day when the Shin shall be laid bare (i.e. the Day of Resurrection) and they shall be called to prostrate themselves (to Allaah), but they (hypocrites) shall not be able to do so” [al-Qalam 68:42]. And it is proven in the books of Saheeh in more than one hadeeth that Allaah will appear to His slaves in the place of standing when it is said: “‘Let every people follow that which they used to worship.’ So the mushrikeen will follow their gods and the believers will be left. Then the Lord will appear to them in a form other than that which they know, and they will not recognize Him, then He will appear to them in the form that they know, and the believers will prostrate to Him but the backs of the hypocrites will remain like the horns of cattle; they will want to prostrate but they will not be able to. Then he quoted the verse (interpretation of the meaning): “(Remember) the Day when the Shin shall be laid bare (i.e. the Day of Resurrection) and they shall be called to prostrate themselves (to Allaah), but they (hypocrites) shall not be able to do so” [al-Qalam 68:42].

So as best as I can understand, the Shin can refer to 2 things:

1 - The Shin of the people on the Day of Judgement
2 - The Shin of Allah(swt) when he appears in some form (so maybe He
will have a shin like us?)

What do you brothers think?

Peace