Introduction to Aqeedah

The Sunnah has many meanings:


In the language:


1) To clarify

2) Way or road.

3) A normal custom

 In Islamic science it has the following meanings:

1)  In Fiqh: Something liked or if done the person is rewarded, but if left he is not punished.

2) In Usool al fiqh: One of the agreed upon portions of proof used in Islamic jurisprudence.

3) In Hadeeth: That which is connected to the Prophet in terms of his statements, actions, or things he accepted.

4) In Aqeedah: That which opposed innovation.

Al-Jama’ah:

1) Al-Ijtimaa’: The opposite of separation.

2) Al-Jama’: Name of a group of people.

3) Al-Ijma’a: Agreement upon a ruling

4) Al-Jama’at: A large number of people.

The Islamic meaning:

1) Al-Jama’ah: The companions of the Prophet Alayi Salatu wa Salam.

2) The scholars of guidance.

3) A group upon the truth, without separating.

4) The group of Muslims, the “Sawaad Al-‘Adham”.

5) The Islamic rulers and those who they place In charge of the affairs.

6) A group from amongst the people agreed upon something, like the Jama’ah of the masjid.

Ahlul Sunnah Wa Al-Jama’ah:

1) They are the companions of the Prophet (alayhi salam) and those who follow them in guidance.

2) They are Ahlul Hadeeth

3) Ahlul Athar

4) The righteous predecessors

5) The saved sect

6) The victorious group



Rules concerning the method of Ahlul Sunnah in understanding issues of Aqeedah



1) The Quran and Sunnah is the sources in which to turn back to.

2) Neglecting to enter into rhetoric or philosophy, and being sufficied with the Quran and Sunnah.

a) The salaf were careful as to only gain beneficial knowledge.

b) The Salaf forbid every type of innovation.

c) The Salaf wrote refutations against the innovators

3) The Sunnah is a proof, including reports with only one route. (Khabr Ahad)

4) Relying on the understanding of the Companions and those who followed after them.

5) Submission for that which comes from the revelations. While believing it is completely acceptable to the mind. (Al-Aql)

6) The negation of putting forward the understanding of innovators, or the mind before the texts.

7) In order to understand the texts, we must look at all the texts. Don't single one out without seeing others to explain it.

8) Understanding the Mutaashabih verses with the Muhkam verses.

Ustadh, Doctor: Sulaymaan bin Qaasim Al-Eid 

Where is Allah?

On the report of Mu'awaiya bin Al-Haakim As-Sulami that the Prophet said to Mu'aawiyas slave girl "Where is Allah?" So she said, "In the sky." The Prophet ('Alayhi Salaam) said, "Who am I?" So she said, "You are the Messenger of Allah." So the Prophet said, "Free her, for she is a believer." Reported by Muslim bin Al-Hujjaaj (Saheeh Muslim), Abu Dawood, Abu 'Abdullah Ar-Rahmaan an-Nasaa'i.

And from the most ignorant types of ignorance, the most stupid logic, and the most misguided of ways, are those who say "It is not permissible for someone to say "Where is Allah?" After it has become clear that the companion of the Islamic law (The Prophet: 'Alayhi Salatu Wa Salaam) said, "Where is Allah?"!

From the book: The Belief of the Haafidh, Abd Al-Ghani Al-Maqdisi Al-Hanbali, (Died in 600 Hijri)

Placing the hands After Ruku'

Font size  -   N   +

Fatwas of Ibn Baz Browse by Volume Number > Volume 11 > The Book of Salah: Section Two > Chapter: Description of Salah > Where should a person performing Salah place his hands after rising from Ruku` Where should a person performing Salah place his hands after rising from Ruku'?  (Part No. 11; Page No. 131) All praise be to Allah. May peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allah, his family, and Companions! Many people from here and abroad inquire about the position of placing the hands after Ruku` (bowing). Thus, I opine to give a detailed answer for this out of sincere advice for Muslims, to display the truth, clarify ambiguity, and propagate the Sunnah (whatever is reported from the Prophet). In explanation, I can say that it was authentically established in the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) that he used to place his right hand on his left forearm when he was standing in Salah (Prayer) and that he (peace be upon him) used to command Muslims to do so. It was stated by Imam Al-Bukhari (may Allah be merciful to him) in his Sahih Book of Hadith (in the chapter entitled placing the right hand upon the left one) that `Abdullah ibn Maslamahreported from Malik, from Abu Hazim that Sahl Ibn Sa`d (may Allah be pleased with him) said: The people were ordered to place the right hand on the left forearm in Salah. (Part No. 11; Page No. 132) Abu Hazim remarks: "I do not know but he attributed it i.e., the report, to the Prophet (peace be upon him)."  It is argued that this authentic Hadith declares it an act of Sunnah to place the right hand upon the left one while standing in Salah both before and after Ruku` (bowing). Sahl said that people were ordered to place the right hand on the left forearm in Salah. It is known that it is an act of Sunnah for the one who is performing Salah to place the palms on the knees when in a state of Ruku`, and to place them on the floor by his shoulders or his ears when in the state of Sujud (prostration), and to place them on both his thighs and knees while in both the states of sitting between the two prostrations and reciting Tashahhud (a recitation in the sitting position in the second/ last unit of Prayer) according to what is explained in the Sunnah of the Prophet in this regard. Thus, it is only the position of standing that is not mentioned. Accordingly, it is concluded from the report of Sahl that it is such position that is meant. Thus, it should be clear that it is an act of Sunnah for the one who is performing Salah to place his right hand over his left forearm while in the state of standing up in his Salah, whether standing both before or after performing Ruku` (bowing), because it was not reported from the Prophet (Peace be upon him) that he differentiated between them as far as we know. As for a person who differentiates between them, he has to bring evidence for this. It is authentically reported in the Hadith related by Wa'il Ibn Hujr on the authority of An-Nasa'i with an authentic chain of narrators that Whenever the Prophet (peace be upon him) stood up in Salah, he used to place his right hand on his left one. There is another narration also related by both An-Nasa'i and Abu Dawud with an authentic chain of narrators (Part No. 11; Page No. 133) on the authority of Wa'il who said: I saw the Prophet (peace be upon him) after he pronounced Takbirat-ul-Ihram (saying: "Allahu Akbar [Allah is the Greatest]" upon starting Prayer) placing his right hand over the back of his left hand, wrist and forearm. Such is an obvious and authentic explanation on the posture of the person who is performing Salah during standing up in Salah i.e., to place his right palm on the back of his left hand, wrist, and forearm. There is no difference stated between standing up before or after Ruku'. Thus, it is evident that the Hadith is applied to both cases. His authority Al-Hafizh Ibn Hajar (may Allah be merciful to him) said in his book Fath Al-Bari (a commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari) while commenting on the title of the relevant report: "His saying 'chapter on placing the right hand upon the left in Salah' refers to the position of standing up. His saying 'people were commanded' refers to that it was the Prophet (peace be upon him) who gave them orders as will be explained later. His saying: "upon his arm" did not define the specific part of the arm. The Hadith related by Wa'il and recorded by Abu Dawud and An-Nasa'i clarifies it: Then, he placed his right hand over the back of his left palm, wrist, and forearm. Ibn Khuzaymah and others ranked it as Hadith Sahih (a Hadith that has been transmitted by people known for their uprightness and exactitude; free from eccentricity and blemish). The source of this Hadith is found in Sahih Muslim without the addition. The wrist is the joint between the hand and the forearm. Another report will be cited in the last part of Salah Issues but it does not specify the parts of body whereupon the hand is placed either. Ibn Khuzaymah also related on the authority of Wa'il that the Prophet placed them on his chest whereas Al-Bazar's narration states that the Prophet placed them by his chest. Imam Ahmad stated the same thing in the Hadith related on the authority of Hulb Al-Ta'iy. (Part No. 11; Page No. 134) In Ziyadat al-Musnad (a book compiled by `Abdullah the son of Imam Ahmad), it is stated through the Hadith related by Imam `Aly that the Prophet placed them under the navel. Yet its chain of narrators is weak. There is an objection on the part of Al-Dany mentioned in Atraf Muata' Malik: "This is just a guess on the part of Abu Hazim." In reply, if Abu Hazim did not say: "I but know...", then the Hadith would be still regarded as Hadith Marfu` (a Hadith narrated from the Prophet with a connected or disconnected chain of narration), because the saying of a Companion: "We were commanded to do such-and-such", obviously refers to the person who has the authority to give orders i.e., the Prophet (peace be upon him). This is because the Companions are revealing the rulings of Shari`ah (Islamic law) and then they convey the teachings of the law-giver i.e., the Prophet. This is similar to the statement of `Aishah: "We were ordered to make up for the days of Sawm (Fast) we have missed." It means that the Prophet (peace be upon him) is the one who gave the order. It is stated by Al-Bayhaqy that there is no disagreement among narrators in this regard. And Allah knows best. Additionally, a supporting report is narrated in Sunan of Abu Dawud and An-Nasa'i and Sahih Ibn As-Sakan that could help in determining the person giving the order and the one receiving it. It is narrated that Ibn Mas`ud (may Allah be pleased with him) said: The Prophet (peace be upon him) saw me when I was placing my left hand on my right hand. He made me place the right hand on the left one. Its Isnad (chain of narrators) is good. It is argued that had the Hadith related by Abu Hazim been Marfu` (a Hadith narrated from the Prophet with a connected or disconnected chain of narration), then he would not have needed to say "I but know..." In reply, he wanted to transfer from implicit to explicit expression because without such a comment on the part of Abu Hazim, the Hadith will not be Marfu` but still has the same effect of Marfu`. Scholars state that the wisdom behind such a mode (i.e. placing one's hands in such a mode) is that it is the manner befitting the humble servant who beseeches his Lord i.e., to prevent him from being restless and bring him Khushu' (the heart being attuned to the act of worship). It seems that Al-Bukhari (may Allah be merciful to him) noticed this. Thus, he followed this chapter by a chapter on Khushu'. It was (Part No. 11; Page No. 135) said: "Heart is the place of intention and it is customary that when one wants to preserve something, one puts one's hands on it." It is stated by Ibn `Abdul-Bar: "There is no difference concerning this issue in the reports from the Prophet (peace be upon him). Moreover, it is the opinion adopted by the majority of the Sahabah (Companions of the Prophet) and the Tabi`un (Followers, the generation after the Companions of the Prophet), and is stated by Malik in Al-Muwatta'. Ibn Al-Mundhir or others only reported that from Malik. Yet, Ibn Al-Qasim related from Malik that he adopted the viewpoint of releasing one's hands. This was adopted by the majority of his followers. Another viewpoint differentiating between the obligatory and the supererogatory Salah (Prayer) is also attributed to Malik. Some of them also hated holding one's hands during Salah. It is reported by Ibn Al-Hajib that this is when one holds one's hands deliberately with the intention to relax oneself." This is a precise and concise explanation of the issue. The statement of Imam Ibn `Abdul-Bar proves that placing the right hand on the left hand during standing in Salah is the opinion adopted by the majority of scholars. There is no differentiation on the part of Ibn `Abdul-Bar (may Allah be merciful to him) between the two cases. As for what was stated by Imam Al-Muwaffaq in his book Al-Mughny, the author of al-Furu’ (i.e., Ibn Muflih, the student of Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah), as well as others on the authority of Imam Ahmad (may Allah be merciful to him) that he opines that the one who is performing Salah has the choice either to release his hands or to hold them upon standing erect after Ruku' (bowing), I know of no legal evidence supporting this. On the contrary, it is obvious through the authentic Hadiths mentioned above that it is an act of Sunnah to hold one's hands in both cases. The same applies to what was stated by some Hanafy jurists who preferred releasing one's hands during the standing posture following Ruku`. This is baseless, because this contradicts the Hadiths mentioned above. When juristic preference goes against the Hadiths, this preference will be unreliable as stated by scholars. (Part No. 11; Page No. 136) As for what was reported by Ibn `Abdul-Bar from the majority of the Maliky scholars who preferred releasing one's hands, he means by this both cases i.e., before and after Ruku` (bowing). There is no doubt that this opinion is overweighed and contradicts the authentic Hadiths and the opinion adopted by the majority of scholars as previously explained. Both the Hadiths related by Wa'il Ibn Hujr and Hulb Al-Ta'iy indicate that it is better to place one's two hands upon the chest while one is standing in Salah. Both the Hadiths were mentioned by Al-Hafizh as stated above. The two Hadiths are good and have an acceptable chain of narrators. The first i.e., that was related by Wa'il was reported by Imam Ibn Khuzaymah (may Allah be Merciful with him) who judged it to be authentic. It was also mentioned by Al-Shawkany in his book Nayl Al-Awtar. The second Hadith related by Hulb was recorded by Imam Ahmad (may Allah be merciful to him) with a Hasan Isnad (a Hadith whose Isnad contains a narrator with weak exactitude, but is free from eccentricity or blemish). It was also related by Abu Dawud (may Allah be merciful to him) on the authority of Tawus from the Prophet (peace be upon him) what matches the Hadith related by Wa'il and Hulb. Such a Hadith is Mursal (a Hadith with no Companion of the Prophet in the chain of narration) and reliable. If one said: "Abu Dawud narrated on the authority of `Aly (may Allah be pleased with him): 'It is an act of Sunnah to place the two hands under the navel during prayer,' the reply is that this is a weak Hadith as stated by Al-Hafizh Ibn Hajar in his words mentioned above (may Allah be merciful to him). The reason behind its weakness is that it is related by `Abdul-Rahman ibn Is-haq Al-Kufy, who is also called Al-Wasity. His narrations are weak and cannot be relied on according to scholars. He was judged as weak by Imam Ahmad, Abu Hatim, Ibn Ma`in, and others. The same applies to the Hadith related by Abu Hurayrah on the authority of Abu Dawud that is judged as Marfu`: The established way of folding hands is to hold one hand on the other hand below the navel. This is because its Isnad includes `Abdul-Rahman ibn Is-haq. We have just mentioned such a person and identified his condition. The following text was stated by Sheikh Abu Al-Tayyib (Part No. 11; Page No. 137) Muhammad Shamsul-Haqq in his book `Awn Al-Ma`bud Sharh Sunnan Abu Dawud said after mentioning many things in this regard: "The Hadith Mursal (a Hadith with no Companion of the Prophet in the chain of narration) related by Tawus, Hulb, and Wa'il Ibn Hujr all indicate the desirability of placing the two hands upon the chest. This is the truth. As for placing them either below or above the navel, there is no authentic Hadith reported from the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) in this regard." I adopt such opinion stated by the Shaykh (may Allah be merciful to him) regarding the mentioned Hadiths. If it is argued that the following text is stated by Shaykh Muhammad Nasir Ad-Din Al-Albany in the footnote of his book "Sifat Salat An-Naby (peace be upon him)" page (145) in the sixth edition: "I have no doubt that placing the two hands upon the chest in this standing (i.e. standing after Ruku') is a misleading Bid`ah (innovation in religion), because this was not mentioned at all in any of the Hadiths on (describing) Salah though they are numerous. Had this had any origin, it would have been reported to us even through just one means. This is supported by the fact that this was neither performed by any of the Salaf (righteous predecessors) nor was mentioned by any of the scholars of Hadith, as far as I know." In reply to what our brother scholar Shaykh Nasir Al-Din stated in the footnote of his mentioned book: First: His affirmation that placing the right hand upon the left hand when standing after Ruku' is a misleading Bid`ah is an obvious mistake that no one ever adopted among (Part No. 11; Page No. 138) the scholars, as far as we know. It is contradictory to the authentic Hadiths mentioned above. I do not have the least doubt regarding his comprehensive knowledge, virtue, and concern with the Sunnah. May Allah grant him much more knowledge and success! Yet he has committed an obvious mistake in this issue. The opinions of any scholar can be accepted or refuted as stated by Imam Malik ibn Anas (may Allah be merciful to him): "Our opinions can be accepted or refuted except for the sayings of the one who is buried in this grave." He meant the Prophet (peace be upon him). Such is the viewpoint of all scholars before and after him. Yet this neither degrades nor belittles them at all. Rather, they are entitled to have either one or two rewards. This is according to the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him) regarding the Mujtahid (jurist who practices independent reasoning): The one who is correct will receive a double blessing and the one who is wrong will receive one reward. Second: The one who thinks about the Hadiths mentioned above i.e., the Hadith related by Sahl, and that related by Wa'il ibn Hujr, and others, will realize that they indicate that it is an act of Shari`ah to place the right hand upon the left hand when standing in Salah both before and after Ruku` (bowing), because there is no details differentiating between the two states so the original case, i.e., placing the right hand upon the left hand, prevails. The commandment of placing the right hand on the left forearm during Salah was stated also in the Hadith reported by Sahl. Yet, (Part No. 11; Page No. 139) it is not explained when to do so while in Salah. If we contemplate what is related in this regard, it will be clear to us that it is an act of Sunnah to place the palms on the knees when in a state of Ruku`, to place them on the ground when in a state of Sujud (prostration), and to place them on both one's thighs and knees while in the state of sitting. Thus, it is only the posture of standing that is not mentioned. Accordingly, it is inferred from the Hadith related by Sahl that it is such posture that is meant. This is very clear. As for the Hadith related by Wa'il, there is a declaration on the part of Wa'il (may Allah be pleased with him) that he saw the Prophet (peace be upon him) holding his left hand with his right one when he was standing in Salah. It was reported by An-Nasa'i with an authentic chain of narrators. Such wording given by Wa'il implies the standing in the two positions. As for the one who differentiates between them, he is obliged to present evidence for this. We have already referred to this at the beginning of this article. Third: Scholars state that the wisdom behind placing one's right hand on his left hand is that this brings one closer to Khushu' (the heart being attuned to the act of worship) and humility and prevents him from being restless. This was discussed earlier in the opinion of Al-Hafizh Ibn Hajar. Since the one who is performing Salah should observe this meaning before and after Ruku` (bowing), it is impermissible to differentiate between the two postures except when a differentiating authentic text exists, which would be inevitably adopted. As for the saying of our brother scholar: "This was not mentioned at all in any of the Hadiths on (describing) Salah though they are numerous. Had this had any origin, it would have been reported to us even through just one means," our reply is that it should be said that the matter is not so. Rather, what indicates this was actually reported in the Hadith related by Sahl,Wa'il, and others as mentioned above. As for the one who excludes the posture of standing after Ruku' has to raise the reliable evidence in support of this exclusion. (Part No. 11; Page No. 140) As for his saying (may Allah grant him success): "This is supported by the fact that this was neither performed by any of the Salaf (righteous predecessors) nor was it mentioned by any of the scholars of Hadith, as far as I know," our reply is that such a claim is very strange, because it lacks evidence that none of the Salaf (righteous predecessors) performed it. Rather, this is the very evidence that they used to hold their hands when standing after Ruku' (bowing), because had they performed other than that, this would have been reported to us and because the Hadiths mentioned above indicate that it is an act of Shari`ah to hold one's hand when standing in Salah, whether before or after Ruku'. This is what is implicated from the title that Imam Al-Bukhari (may Allah be merciful to him) gave as we have mentioned at the beginning of this article. The speech of Al-Hafizh Ibn Hajar implies the same meaning. Had any of the Salaf (righteous predecessors) performed other than that, this would have been reported to us. Moreover, it was not reported from the Prophet (peace be upon him) that he released his hands when standing after Ruku`. Had he done so, this would have been reported to us because the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) reported from the Prophet what is less important than this regarding his sayings and actions (peace be upon him). It was discussed earlier in the opinion of Ibn `Abdul-Bar (may Allah be merciful to him) that nothing contradictory to holding the hands was reported from the Prophet (peace be upon him). Al-Hafizh affirmed such an opinion and we know of no narration proving anything else. According to what we have stated, it should be clear that what was stated by our brother Shaykh Muhammad Nasir Al-Din in this issue is a proof against him, not supporting him when pondering and considering the rules followed by scholars. May Allah forgive us and him! May He grant us all forgiveness! Perhaps, after reading what we have stated in this article, the truth will be clear to him. He could return to it, because the truth is the sought-after goal. (Part No. 11; Page No. 141) Whenever a believer finds it, he adopts it. Praise be to Allah, the Shaykh is one of those who seek the truth and exert much efforts to make it clear and call for it. An important note It should be known that the research mentioned above on holding the left hand with the right one and placing them both on the chest or any other place either before or after Ruku` (bowing), is an act of Sunnah, not obligatory according to scholars. Thus, if anyone performs Salah with his hands released and does not hold them before or after Ruku` (bowing), his Salah is valid but he left what is better to do in Salah. Thus, none of the Muslims should exploit the disagreement on this issue as well as similar issues taking them as a means to dispute, separation, and dissention. This is not permissible for Muslims even when it is stated that holding the hands is obligatory as opted for by Al-Shawkany in the book of Nayl Al-Awtar. Rather, it is obligatory for all Muslims to exert their efforts to cooperate in righteousness and piety, to explain the truth through evidence, and to be keen on achieving the purity of hearts and keeping them safe from rancor and malice. It is obligatory also to beware of what leads to separation and dissention, because Allah (Glorified be He) made it obligatory for Muslims to hold fast, all of them together, to the Rope of Allah (i.e., this Qur’an), and be not divided among themselves. Allah (Glorified be He) said: And hold fast, all of you together, to the Rope of Allâh (i.e. this Qur’ân), and be not divided among yourselves (Part No. 11; Page No. 142) The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: Three things are pleasing to Allah when you do them and three are displeasing: It pleases Him that you worship Him and do not associate anything with Him, and that you take hold of the rope of Allah altogether, and that you give good counsel to the one to whom Allah gives command over you. I came to know that hatred and dissention arise between many of my Muslim brothers in Africa and other places due to the issue of holding one's hands and releasing them during Salah. There is no doubt that this is Munkar (that which is unacceptable or disapproved of by Islamic law and Muslims of sound intellect). They should not do that. It is obligatory upon all Muslims to advice and debate with one another so as to present the proofs that enable them know the truth within the frame of mutual love, purity, and Islamic brotherhood. The Companions of the Messenger (Peace be upon him) and scholars after them (may Allah be Merciful with him) used to differ regarding secondary matters. Yet, this did entail neither separation nor dissention between them, because the aim of each one of them was to know the truth through presenting evidence. Once it became clear before them, they would unanimously agree to it. When it did not reach the knowledge of any of them, they did not accuse their brothers with going astray, abandon or desert them or refuse to offer Salah behind them due to this. Thus, it is obligatory for all Muslims to fear Allah (Glorified be He) and follow the way of the righteous predecessors preceding us who adhered to (Part No. 11; Page No. 143) the truth, religious brotherhood, and turned away from desertion and dissention over secondary matters where evidence may be ambiguous and juristic reasoning may lead to different views. May Allah with His Most Beautiful Names and Sublime Attributes increase us and all Muslims in guidance and success! May He grant us all sound understanding of Islam and support us to abide by, support, and call others to it! He is the One Capable of doing so. May Allah's Peace and Blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family, and Companions, and those who follow his guidance and honor his Sunnah until the Day of Judgment! President of the Islamic University in Al-Madinah Al-Munawwarah. `Abdul-`Aziz ibn `Abdullah ibn Baz   Back      Next     Information Cart  Fatwas of Ibn Baz  Fatwas of the Permanent Committee   Fiqhi Index of the Permanent Committee Fatwas   Print   Send To Friend   Related Links   Save   Show/Hide Part No   Show/Hide Page No

___________________________________________________________ http://www.alifta.org/Fatawa/fatawaDetails.aspx?View=Page&PageID=1776&PageNo=1&BookID=14

Prayer Beads? (Dhikr Beads)

Ash-Shaykh Dr. Abdul-'Azeez Al-Fawzaan discusses the ruling regarding using 

 

Question: Umm 'Abdir-Rahman Al-Britaaniyyah (a British woman) asks two questions. The first is the ruling regarding using al-Misbahah (Thikr beads) in order to make Thikr (words to remember Allah).

Answer: There is no problem with that. It is permissible to use them, regardless of whether that is for having them with you or actually using them for Tasbeeh (saying Subhanallah; words to glorify and remember Allah), there is no harm in that. The basic ruling regarding that is permissibility. However, what is best and what is Sunnah is to make Tasbeeh with the two hands. And also between the two hands the right hand is better for glorifying Allah than the left, but to use both hands, there's no problem with that - meaning using both hands together to make Thikr. And the Prophet (peace and blessing be upon him), as is confirmed from him in the authentic hadeeth, he used to count the the words of Tasbeeh on his hand (i.e. his fingers) - peace and blessing be upon him. So this is the Sunnah.

Then, also my brother, if you count the words of Tasbeeh on your fingers, your hand will testify for you tomorrow (i.e. on the Day of Judgment) however much Tasbeeh you did using them. So this is what is preferred and most perfect. However, if it happens to be that a person says, "By Allah, I always forget or loose count, or maybe I end up counting less than the number I want on my hands and stop before I finish. And these beads that I use have 100 beads on the string, or 300, or whatever, and I use it to count my Tasbeeh." We say the basic ruling regarding that is that it is permissible. Even though it is contrary to the Sunnah. Yes.

Every person who Innovates is not called an Innovator.

Is Everyone who does an Innovation called an Innovator?

Sheikh Bin Baaz (Allah have mercy  on him) Said:

"The origins of this, is that whoever does an act of innovation is an innovator, this is the origin. However, if the person is ignorant, and if he were to know what he is doing is an innovation he would repent, we don’t call him an innovator. If he insists upon his innovation, he is called an innovator, according to his innovation. So the person who were to celebrate the birthday of the Prophet - صلى الله عليه وسلم-  for example, he would be called an innovator until he stops and repents. Or for the one who builds shrines upon the graves, or prays to them, or builds Masajid on them. Then in this case he would be an innovator. And things like this, they are Innovations that Allah made impermissible. The Prophet - صلى الله عليه وسلم said, “Be aware of the newly invented matters, because every innovation is misguidance” and that which is similar to it in other ahadith where He - صلى الله عليه وسلم -  said “Whoever innovates into this Religion that which isn't from it, it will be rejected’, and that which is mention in the Khutbah on Friday by the Prophet - صلى الله عليه وسلم -, “As for what follows, the best speech is the speech of Allah and the best guidance is the guidance of the Prophet - صلى الله عليه وسلم -, and the worst of Affairs are the newly invented matters, every newly invented matter is an innovation, and every innovation is in the hell fire.” 

So the Muslim should follow the order of the Prophet Muhammad - صلى الله عليه وسلم -, be careful of Innovations. So the people of innovators are those who continue in innovation, (Knowing it’s an innovation) until they repent for it to Allah. So the ignorant knows, whoever seeks Allahs forgiveness, Allah will forgive him."

_________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.binbaz.org.sa/mat/10701

Is the apparent meaning of the Quran disbelief?

This is just one point of view of what the Asha'ris believe, however, I must admit that it's not like all of them will accept it (even though they won't say they reject it either), in that you will find among them each having a different belief concerning the same topic. In this case it's whether or not the apparent meaning of some of the texts of the Quran and Sunnah will lead a person to think that Allah has a body, or is in a direction, and if that happens, the need for Ta'weel (Changing the meaning to a secondary or impossible meaning) arises. 

Sharh Jawharato At-Tawheed, Burhaan Ad-Deen Ibraheem Al-Baajori, Page 129-130

"A text is something that can be used for Analogy (قياس), Deduction (استنباط), or to Form a Majority opinion (إجماع) and they are the proofs from the Quran and the Sunnah, the same whether they are absolutely clear (صريح) or apparent (ظاهر) and that which is not meant by this type of Apparent text is that which is able to be the apparent meaning (without being something that causes delusion of likening Allah to the creation), meaning that which provides a meaning that cannot be carried in any other way, so if it is as such[1] that the Apparent meaning is also the intended meaning it is not possible to change or explain it via Ta’weel."

"Delusions of likening Allah to the creation: Meaning the text would bring about some delusion of similitude because of  saying it as it truly was, according to its apparent meaning."

"The method of the Khalaf and their interpretations:

Interpret it:  Meaning to carry it upon the meaning in opposition to the apparent meaning while explaining the intended meaning of it…. The Khalaf, they Are those who came after 500 Hijri, and some say after 300 Hijri."

"The Method of the Salaf:

Relinquishing: After a general Ta’weel, that which is changing the expression from it’s apparent meaning. So after this Ta’weel, they would relinquish the intended meaning of the text that causes delusion  unto Allah, upon the way of the Salaf. They are those that came before 500 hijri, or it is said the first three generations, including the Companions (Radhi Allahu Anhum) of the Prophet (Salla Allahu 'Alayhi wa Salaam), and those that followed them for two generations, and the way of the Khalaf is smarter and more wise, because of that which is in it concerning clarification and refutations upon the innovated groups, and it is preferred, and this is why the Author of the Poem put it forward, and the way of the Salaf is safer because of that which is in it concerning safety from choosing a meaning that Allah might not have intended."

"Making sure Allahs exaltedness and integrity is in place: To ensure that Allah is given complete  exaltedness   and integrity without any blemish in that which is connected with him, while relinquishing to Allah the knowledge of the intended meaning. So that which was agreed upon by the Salaf and the Khalaf is Ta’weel in general, because the Salaf changed these texts that caused delusions of likening of Allah from it’s apparent impossible meaning. However, the Salaf and the Khalaf differed after that concerning specifying the intended meaning. "

"Ta’weel of the Attributes that cause the delusion of similitude between Allah and the Creation:

The result is that if there is something written in the Quran or Sunnah (About Allah) which would make a person feel as though it’s related to direction, bodies, a picture, or extremities, the people of the truth and other than them except the Mujassimah and Mushabihah agree on the Ta’weel (Selecting a secondary meaning) because of the obligation of exalting Allah and removing from him any defects from that which is shown through the apparent meaning of some of the texts. As for that which makes a person think of direction, it is the verse: “They fear their Lord above them, and they do what they are commanded."[1], So for this the salaf would say “Aboveness” We don’t know what it is”, and the Khalaf would say the intended meaning is Allahs superiority and majesty, meaning he is risen above in his greatness. Or like the statement of Allah: “The Most Merciful [who is] above the Throne established.”[2] So the Salaf would say “Risen, we don’t what it is” and the Khalaf would say “Istawa means conquering.”"

People are free to go check the book themselves and see if I left anything out of importance, and if so please correct me. 

In conclusion you can say that the Author is saying, that there are some texts of the Quran that if taken apparently lead to Tashbeeh (likening Allah to the creation), and since this is something that is impossible for Allah, the need for Ta'weel arises, and the Salaf actually did this Ta'weel inwardly (without informing us, and without specifying to themselves which meaning it would be, other than their negation that it could be the meaning that leads to disbelief), and the Khalaf later came and did it and told us about it. He is also saying that some verses when taken on the apparent meaning, do not lead to Tashbeeh, but rather the intended meaning is presented in the verse and that intended meaning is clear from giving Allah any type of body, form, picture, extremity, etc.

In actuality and in contrast to what he said of the Salaf, they didn't actually do ta'weel of the sifaat, neither generally or specifically. Rather they confirmed them according to the apparent meaning, without likening them to Allah, believing them to be real within the reality of themselves, while not knowing the modality and leaving the knowledge of the modality to Allah alone. While at the same time, we do not believe that in any way is the apparent meaning of the Quran something that would lead a person to the conclusion that Allah is like the creation, rather the Quran is clear in it's meaning and guidance.

And the Peace and Blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad on His Family, His Companions and All of those who follow them till the last day. 

---

[1] In that the apparent meaning is the meaning intended, rather than the meaning that is NOT intended which would cause delusion of similitude between Allah and the creation.

[1] 16:50

[2] 20:5

False Accusations Against the Hanaabilah

 I decided to write this after being falsely accused of kufr by not following Imam Ahmad in the "correct way", In which case the person posted this Article to show what Imam Ahmad "Really" believed. I realize the article is old, however, the age of it doesn't prevent people from relying on it, and even though I didn't search to find if it was ever answered, Insha'a Allah what I wrote here will benefit people in order to expose the  mistakes the Original author presented as the truth. From here on out the Color RED in Italic font will symbolize the Original Authors words.

Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

""Regarding the question of whether Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 241/855) was an anthropomorphist, this is something that has been asked since early times, particularly since someone forged an anthropormorphic tract called Kitab al-sunna [The book of the sunna] and put the name of Imam Ahmad’s son Abdullah (d. 290/903) on it.I looked this book over with our teacher in hadith, Sheikh Shu‘ayb al-Arna’ut, who had examined it one day, and said that at least 50 percent of the hadiths in it are weak or outright forgeries. He was dismayed how Muhammad al-Qahtani, the editor and commentator, could have been given a Ph.d. in Islamic faith (‘aqida) from Umm al-Qura University in Saudi Arabia for readying for publication a work as sadly wanting in authenticity as this.  Ostensibly a "hadith" work, it contains some of the most hard-core anthropomorphism found anywhere.....""

   To proclaim the work is forged simply because someone disagrees with some of the content is incorrect, as is known this work is a work of Hadith and as was often done All of the sayings were combined and kept in order to preserve them, regardless of whether or not they were Saheeh or otherwise, simply by putting the hadith in the book doesn't make the Author not the Author, nor does it make the Author an anthropomorphist (As is claimed by Al-Kawthari) 

The fact of the matter is that many scholars had thought that this work was indeed the work of the Son of Imam Ahmad, Including:

1) Abi Ya'la Al-Hanbali (Born in 381 Hijri) 

2) Al-Laalikaa'i (Died in 418 Hijri) 

3) Al-Bayhaqi (384 – 458 H)

4) Ibn Al-Jawzi ( Died in 597 Hijri) 

5) Ibn Taymiyyah (Died 728 Hijri)

6) Ibn Al-Qayyim (Died 751 Hijri) 

7) Ibn Abi Izz (Died 792 Hijri) 

8) Adh-Dhahabi (Died 748 Hijri) 

9) Al-Kitaani (Born 1274 Hijri) 

Scans of the pages related to when and where the aforementioned scholars ascribed the book to Abdullah Bin Ahmad Bin Hanbal:

__________________________________________


Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

""The real (‘aqida) of Imam Ahmad was very simple, and consisted, in the main, of accepting the words of the mutashabihat or ‘unapparent meanings’ of the Qur’an and hadith as they have come without saying how they are meant. His position is close to that of a number of other early scholars, who would not even countenance changing the Qur’anic order of the words or substituting words imagined to be synonyms. For them, the verse in Sura Taha,

"The All-merciful is ‘established’ (istawa) upon the Throne" (Qur’an 20:5)

Does not enable one to say that "Allah is ‘established’ upon Throne," or that "The All-merciful is upon the Throne" or anything else besides "The All-merciful is ‘established’ (istawa) upon the Throne." Full stop.""

This is completely incorrect from multiple angles:

1) Allah says in 17:110:

Say, "Call upon Allah or call upon the Most Merciful. Whichever [name] you call - to Him belong the best names." And do not recite [too] loudly in your prayer or [too] quietly but seek between that an [intermediate] way

2) His position isn’t close to not changing the word order in order to confirm the meaning and this can be seen in two places.

• He confirmed that Allah is everywhere with his knowledge, while still being above the throne. This does not come in that exact wording in the Quran. As seen in the following scan:

• He believed the Quran is the speech of Allah with Sound and Letters, again which didn’t come in that exact wording in the Quran. As seen in the following scan:

3) Imam Ahmad also stated that the verse “Laysa Kamithlihi Shay”-There is nothing like unto him- Was from the Mutaashaabih, does this mean there was no Apparent meaning for this verse to him, so that he would say “It has come without knowing what it means? 

As seen in the following scan:

4) Imam Ahmad also said that he takes the ahadith that are related to seeing Allah and others like them upon there Apparent meanings,

 As seen in the following scan:

 __________________________________________


Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

""It should be appreciated how far this position is from understanding the mutashabihat or ‘unapparent in meaning,’ scriptural expressions about Allah as though they were meant literally (‘ala al-dhahir). The Hanbali Imam Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Khallal (311/923), who took his fiqh from Imam Ahmad’s students, relates in his al-Sunna[The sunna] through his chain of narrators from Hanbal [ibn Ishaq al-Shaybani] (d. 273/886), the son of the brother of Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s father, that Imam Ahmad was asked about the hadiths mentioning "Allah’s descending," "seeing Allah," and "placing His foot on hell"; and the like, and he replied: "We believe in them and consider them true, without ‘how’ and without ‘meaning’ (bi la kayfa wa la ma‘na) [emphasis mine].""

 1) In terms of what is and what isn’t Mutaashabihat this has been dealt with above when Imam Ahmad said  the statement of Allah:“There is nothing unto like him (Allah)” was from them, the least that can be said concerning this issue is that since the time of the Salaf there has been different opinions about what is and what isn’t Mutashaabih of the ayat, that is why you find Ibn Abbas accusing the Khawaarij of using verses improperly and saying that were using Mutashaabih verses. 

2)    There is academic dishonesty when one presents only one version of something without at least acknowledging that other opinions are present. In fact, At-Tabari (224 – 310 AH) doesn't even make mention of this meaning for "Mutaashabihaat" in his Tafseer.

See: Tafseer At-Tabari 3:7

3) Without meaning has also been dealt with, by it being clear that Imam Ahmad as well as the Salaf have admitted that there is a meaning to the Sifaat, such as Withness “Ma’iyah” In which case they confirm that Ma’iyah (withness) means with Allahs knowledge, and He is above The Throne. Likewise, Imam Ahmad was beaten and tortured because he rightfully believed that the Qu’ran was the speech of Allah, uncreated, with sound and letters, this is what was understood from the Islamic texts, not something explicitly mentioned.  As seen in the following scan, Imam Ahmad in speaking concerning the verses pertaining to the speech of Allah he said:

"These verses are in a clear Arabic language, it doesn't require any explanation, it's clear All Praise be to Allah."

3) Alaa Dhaahirihi (Upon the Apparent Meaning) is the Madhab of Imam Ahmad, and the Madhab of the Hanaabilah in general as understood from his above text concerning the seeing of Allah, and as understood by the Sheikh Al-Hanaabilah Muwafiq –u- Deen Ibn Qudaama Al-Maqdisi (Died 620 Hijri). 

As seen in the following scan:

__________________________________________


Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

""And he said, when they asked him about Allah’s istiwa’ [translated above as established]: "He is ‘established’ upon the Throne (istawa ‘ala al-‘Arsh) how He wills and as He wills, without any limit or any description that be made by any describer (Kawthari, Daf‘ shubah al-tashbih. Cairo n.d. Reprint. Cairo: al-Maktaba al-Tawfiqiyya, 1396/1976, 28).""

 1) In order to properly represent the Aqeedah of Imam Ahmad (and the rest of the Salaf) one would have to do a comprehensive research, and be truthful in that he would provide full detail of what he found if he intends for his opinion to be made public concerning what they believed. In which case the issue of Allah having limits then this is something that the Salaf have confirmed in some of their sayings, and in fact one scholar as represented below wrote an entire book on the topic. In which case, we can’t simply accept the statement of Ibn Al-Jawzi as the be all end all of the beliefs of Imam Ahmad in this regard, especially when he himself was not Athari/Hanbali when it comes to most of the Attributes of Allah. As seen in the following scan, It’s reported that Ahmad Ibn Hanbal confirmed for Allah a “Hadd.”:

2)    As will be mentioned later, there is actually no difference between confirming limit or Sitting and confirming Rising and Descending, the Modality is still unknown, and to those who dislike to confirm the later two, the former two would be no different in that regard, to them they would both be incorrect to confirm for Allah.

3) The definition of Hadd (limit) according to the author of the above book is: The separation between the created and the Creator.

__________________________________________

Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

""Ahmad condemned those who said Allah was a "body," saying, "The names of things are taken from the Shari‘a and the Arabic language. The language’s possessors have used this word [body] for something that has height, breadth, thickness, construction, form, and composition, while Allah Most High is beyond all of that, and may not be termed a "body" because of being beyond any meaning of embodiedness [emphasis mine]. This has not been conveyed by the Shari‘a, and so is refuted" (‘Azzami, al-Barahin al-sati‘a [Cairo: Najm al-Din al-Kurdi, 1366/1947], 164).""

1) And no one from the Salafees in Aqeedah confirm for Allah a “body” in that by doing so it would seem as though they believe Allah has a body like the creation. Rather confirmation and negation are two categories.

• Absolutely: These are those Names and Attributes absolutely confirmed in Quran and Sunnah.
• Dependent on the intended meaning: If the name or attribute is something that resembles another one of his names and attribute then it may be permissible in certain circumstances. 

2)    As is Known, Imam Ahmad specifically said any and all Attributes are confirmed only from the sources, not from anything else, and likewise negation only comes from those sources as well, and this is the well know Belief of Imam Muwafiq u deen ibn Qudaama in his various books of Aqeedah. 

This is taken from the verse:

Say, "My Lord has only forbidden immoralities - what is apparent of them and what is concealed - and sin, and oppression without right, and that you associate with Allah that for which He has not sent down authority, and that you say about Allah that which you do not know."

__________________________________________

Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

""As you may know, the true architect of the Hanbali madhhab was not actually Imam Ahmad, who did not like to see any of his positions written down, but rather these were conveyed orally by various students at different times, one reason there are often a number of different narratives from him on legal questions. It is probably no exaggeration to say that the real founder of the Hanbali madhhab was the Imam and hadith master (hafiz) ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Jawzi (d. 597/1201), who recorded all the narratives from Imam Ahmad, distinguished the well-authenticated from the poorly-authenticated, and organized them into a coherent body of fiqh.""

1) I don’t know whether to laugh or cry really, for him to proclaim that the “The real founder of the Hanbali Madhab” was Imam Ibn Al-Jawzi is extremely strange, in fact the compiler of Imam Ahmads Madhab was none other than his students including, Al-Khallal  (Died in 311 Hijri) who compiled most of Imam Ahmads statements, and then Al-Khiraqi (Died in 334 Hijri) who was the first to write a Fiqh Manual, named “Mukhtasar Al-Khiraqi" who was the son of the student of Imam Ahmad, Abu 'Alee Al-Hussayn bin Abdullah al-Khiraqi (Died 299 Hijri). Ibn Badraan in his Introduction to the Hanbali Madhab, Makes it entirely clear that Khiraqis book was the book that the Madhab was pretty much built upon.

__________________________________________

Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

""Ibn al-Jawzi took the question of people associating anthropomorphism with Hanbalism so seriously that he wrote a book, Daf‘ shubah al-tashbih bi akaff al-tanzih[Rebuttal of the insinuations of anthropomorphism at the hands of transcendence] (N.d. Reprint. Cairo: al-Maktaba al-Tawfiqiyya, 1396/1976), refuting this heresy and exonerating his Imam of any association with it.""

1) We agree that Imam Ahmad was not a Mujassim, we also say that Imam Ibn Taymiyyah was not a Mujassim for understanding the creed of Imam Ahmad and the Salaf better than Imam Ibn Al-Jawzi, and while Ibn Al-Jawzi did write the above book, it was not because he himself had the absolute correct belief when it came to the attributes of Allah, because he himself did Ta’weel, the likes of which the other Hanaabilah truly despised. In fact who from the Hanaabilah have ever considered him to be relied upon in issues of Asma wa Sifaat? 

2) And while he seems to have an infatuation with Ibn Al-Jawzi little does he realize that he also was Hanbali in certain aspects of his belief, including one that the Neo-Asharis would consider Kufr and Tajseem?

As in this following scan Imam Ibn Al-Jawzi confirms That the speech of Allah is with Sound and letters, and he also confirms the permission of Asking “Where is Allah” using the hadith in Sahih Muslim of the slave girl.

3)     In this scan it shows that no Hanbali is free from the accusations of Tajseem, not even Ibn Al-Jawzi because simply confirming that the Quran is the speech of Allah with sound and letters, allows one to become a “Neo-Hanbali”. So the question arises, which one of the Hanaabilah ever said Allah doesn’t speak with sound and letters? 

__________________________________________

Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

""One of the most significant points he makes in this work is the principle that al-Idafatu la tufidu al-sifa ("an ascriptive construction (Ar. idafa, "the X of the Y") does not establish [that X is] an attribute [of Y]"). This is very interesting because the anthropomorphists of his day, as well as Ibn Taymiyya in the seventh century after the Hijra, used many ascriptive constructions (idafa) that appear in hadiths and Qur’anic verses as proof that Allah had "attributes" that bolstered their conceptions of Him""

 1) The book Ibn Al-Jawzi wrote had nothing to do with Ibn Taymiyah because he wasn’t even born yet, in fact those that Ibn Al-Jawzi did write against were not wrong because they used gave Allah attributes which he calls "Ascriptive Constructions" from the Quran and Sunnah, rather the mistake they made was that they went to extremes in confirming these Ascriptive Constructions from narrations that were weak. If an Attribute becomes an Attribute from an authentic text, and it’s an Ascriptive Construction (idhaaf) than it is an attribute, and the Salaf would have confirmed it way before Ibn Taymiyah. 

__________________________________________


Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

""To clarify with examples, you are doubtless familiar with the Qur’anic verse of the Sahaba swearing a fealty pact (bay‘a) to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), that says, "Allah’s hand is above their hands" (Qur’an 48:10). Here, Ibn al-Jawzi’s principle means that we are not entitled to affirm, on the basis of the Arabic wording of the verse alone, that "Allah has a hand" as an attribute (sifa) of His entity. It could be that this Arabic expression is simply meant to emphasize the tremendousness of the offense of breaking this pact, as some scholars state.""

 1) That’s a terrible example because hand is without a doubt an attribute of Allah, and even those who do Ta’weel of Hand to Power or Ability confirm this. Not only that, but At-Tabari confirmed this as an Attribute of Allah, without doing Ta’weel, he said:

"And the correct statement is the statement that says, that yadd (hand) for Allah (تعالي) is an attribute"

__________________________________________


Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

""There are many similar examples in the Arabic language in which an ascriptive construction (idafa) conveys something about the possessor that is not literally an attribute. For example, in Arabic, it is said of someone with considerable power and influence in society that Ba‘uhu tawil ("His fathom (the length of his outstretched arms) is long,"), in which the ascriptive construction His fathom does not prove that the individual literally "has the attribute of an fathom," but the words rather signify that he has power, and mean nothing besides. Or as Imam al-Ghazali says of the word hand:""

1) Again none of this has to do with those Ascriptive Constructions that are from authentic texts that are Attributes of Allah.

• Such as Hand, Face, etc.

2) Those that are Ascriptive constructions that Aren’t Sifaat are clarified by the Hanaabilah, Such as Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Al-Qayyim, As-Safaareeni (Died 1188 Hijri), and other than them.

• Such as House, Camel, and Book.

As shown in the following scan of the Statement of As-Safaareeni Al-Hanbali: 

__________________________________________

Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

""One should realize that hand may mean two different things. The first is the primary lexical sense; namely, the bodily member composed of flesh, bone, and nervous tissue. Now, flesh, bone, and nervous tissue make up a specific body with specific attributes; meaning, by body, something of an amount (with height, width, depth) that prevents anything else from occupying wherever it is, until it is moved from that place.""

1) If we are discussing the Aqeedah of Imam Ahmad and subsequently the Hanaabilah/Ahl Athar, we have to be fair in saying that such rhetoric was never part of their method in confirming the Attributes of Allah, rather they believed in them how they came without likening them to the creation.

One such statement he made was:

"I am not a person of Rhetoric (Kalaam), And I don't see rhetoric being anything (worthwhile), Except that which is in the Book of Allah, or in the Sayings of His Prophet, or on the Authority of the Companions of the Prophet, As for other than that, Rhetoric concerning that is not praiseworthy."

As seen in the following Scan:

__________________________________________

Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

""Or [secondly] the word may be used figuratively, in another sense with no relation to that of an body at all: as when one says, "The city is in the leader’s hands," the meaning of which is well understood, even if the leader’s hands are amputated, for example (Ghazali, Iljam al-‘awam ‘an ‘ilm al-kalam [Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-‘Arabi, 1406/1985], 55).""

There are a few things to mention here.

 1)  As the Hanaabilah we don’t deny linguistic possibilities in connection to the speech of Allah nor his Messenger.

2) A verse being metaphorical doesn’t make the Attribute in that verse also metaphorical, as was confirmed by At-Tabari in his Tafseer. 

As Allah says in 5:64

“And the Jews say, "The hand of Allah is chained." Chained are their hands, and cursed are they for what they say. Rather, both His hands are extended; He spends however He wills. And that which has been revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase many of them in transgression and disbelief.”

Here Allah says the Jews Said that His Hands were tied, but it didn’t mean actually tied rather it meant that he was not generous. So while this saying is metaphorical it doesn’t mean that the Attribute within  the verse is also metaphorical, rather the Attribute of Allah, Hands, here are not metaphorical at all, and this is the belief of Ahlul Sunnah. 

3) A word being a Metonymy (a figure of speech that replaces the name of one thing with the name of something else closely associated with it) also does not negate the fact that the original meaning is also an attribute, such as in the verse in 28:77

“And invoke not any other ilah (god) along with Allah (تعالي), La ilaha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He). Everything will perish save His Face. His is the Decision, and to Him you (all) shall be returned.”

Here Face is a Metonym for Allahs Essence, this is possible in the language and doesn’t mean that Allah doesn’t have the Attribute of Face as well, As Allah says: 13:22

"And those who remain patient, seeking their Lord's Countenance, perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and spend out of that which We have bestowed on them, secretly and openly, and defend against evil with good, for such there is a good end;"

Not only that, but the Salaf and the Athariyah in Aqeedah who followed them believed that Wajh (face, Countenance) is an attribute of Allah.

__________________________________________

Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

""Because that was the way the Arabic language was, and also to protect against the danger of anthropomorphism, many Muslim scholars were to explain certain of the mutashabihat or ‘unapparent in meaning’ expressions in Qur’anic verses and hadiths by ta’wil, or ‘figuratively.""

 1) The Hanaabilah don’t believe that the apparent meaning of the Quran leads to Anthropomorphism (Disbelief). In fact if it is as he says it is, that these verses are “Unapparent in meaning.” Then why weren’t the Salaf (including the Sahaba and the Prophet) completely clear when delivering the Message of Islam that we have no idea what these words mean in relation to Allah, rather they are without meaning to us? Or why did they (according to him) do ta'weel of some of the Attributes but not all of them?

2) The Hanaabilah don’t believe that verses of the Attributes are completely without meaning, rather the meaning (not the definition) is known, and the Modality is unknown, and this is in conformation with the statement of Imam Malik(Died 179 Hijri): 

"How did Allah make istiwa' on the throne?" Imam Malik inclined his head and was silent until the sweat of fever covered his brow, then he looked up and said: "Istiwa' is not unknown (ghayru majhul), the modality of it is inconceivable in the mind (al-kayfu minhu ghayru ma`qul); but belief in it is obligatory, and inquiring about it is a heretical innovation. You are an innovator." And he gave orders for him to be taken out."

3) The Hanaabilah (By and large) didn’t do Ta’weel.

__________________________________________


Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

""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 the former 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.""

 1) Actually the critism came before them, by one of the two most relied upon scholars in the Hanbali Madhab, Imam Mawafiq u deen Ibn Qudaama Al-Maqdisi, In which case he called Ta'weel a reprehensible Innovation in the religion:

2) We don’t agree that the Salaf did Ta’weel, rather if and when you show us an Ayah that you think was related to an Attribute of Allah, and there was Ta’weel done to it, it most likely wasn’t Ta’weel or wasn’t concerning an Attribute. 

__________________________________________

Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

""Now, it seems worthwhile in the face of such "reforms," to first ask an obvious question, namely: Is literalism really identical with pristine Islamic faith (‘aqida)?""

1) What is meant by Literalism? Because if what is meant by that is “Non Metaphorical” Then this has been the belief of the Salaf and the Khalaf who followed them in the correct creed in this regard, likewise it has been reported that this is the belief of Imam Ahmad, Where it is reported that he believed the Face of Allah to upon Non-Metaphorical:

__________________________________________

Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

""Or rather did figurative interpretation (ta’wil) exist among the salaf? We will answer this question with a few actual examples of mutashabihat or ‘unapparent in meaning’ Qur’anic verses and hadiths, and examine how the earliest scholars interpreted them:

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 (d. 310/922); 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’" [emphasis mine] (Tabari, Jami‘ al-bayan [Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, 1405/1984], 8.202). 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) (d. 68/687) as well as to Mujahid [ibn Jabr] (d. 104/722), Ibn ‘Abbas’s main student in Qur’anic exegesis""

1)   We agree that this is Ta’weel in the sense of it being Tafseer, however we don’t agree that this is the Ta’weel that is propagated by the Ashaa’irah, in which case the Attributes of Allah are changed to an impossible meaning. This is because here the Arabic word for “Forget” can linguistically mean “Leave”, even in the English language this is possible. For if a person says “Forget you!” he wouldn’t ACTUALLY forget him rather he would remove that person from his life.

2) Allah Himself negates that he forgets in the sense of not remembering or knowing when he said in 20:52:

[Moses] said, "The knowledge thereof is with my Lord in a record. My Lord neither errs nor forgets.

__________________________________________

Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

""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 (d. 68/687), Mujahid (d. 104/722), Qatada [ibn Da‘ama] (d. 118/736), Mansur [ibn Zadhan al-Thaqafi] (d. 131/749), and Sufyan al-Thawri (d. 161/778) (Jami‘ al-bayan, 27.7–8).""

The Verse is 51:47 ; 

And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander.

1) The word in the verse is “Ayyd” which depending on the spelling can either literally mean power or hands because it is from the same root word, so again this is NOT Ta’weel because the word itself means power. That’s why in the previous verse where the Jews said Allahs Hands are tied, Imam At-Tabari confirmed that Hands are an Attribute of Allah and can’t be considered power, or ability. 

__________________________________________

Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

""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 a dire matter (amr shadid) shall be disclosed [emphasis mine] [n: 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’]" (Jami‘ al-bayan, 29.38). Al-Tabari also relates from Muhammad ibn ‘Ubayd al-Muharibi (d. 245/859), who relates from Ibn al-Mubarak (d. 181/797), from Usama ibn Zayd [al-Laythi] (d. 153/770), from ‘Ikrima [ibn ‘Abdullah al-Barbari] (d. 104/723), from Ibn ‘Abbas (d. 68/687) that shin in the above verse means "a day of war and direness (harb wa shidda)" [emphasis mine] (ibid., 29.38). All of these narrators are those of the rigorously authenticated (sahih) collections except Usama ibn Zayd, whose hadiths are well authenticated (hasan).""

 1) The confirmation of shin for Allah as an Attribute does not come from this verse, because this verse does not have proof in it to make from his attributes, rather the verses apparent meaning is that it is talking about a dire matter (The last day) being revealed, and this is the linguistic meaning that doesn't need any Ta’weel to be understood by the Arabs of that time. 

2) Rather Shin as an Attribute of Allah is taken from a hadith in Saheeh Muslim Where the Prophet (Alayhi Salaatu wa Salaam) said:

  يكشف ربنا عن ساقه ، فيسجد له كل مؤمن ومؤمنة ، ويبقى من كان يسجد في الدنيا رياء وسمعة ، فيذهب ليسجد فيعود ظهره طبقا واحدا 

(Our Lord will reveal His Shin, and every believing male and female will prostrate to Him. The only people who will remain standing are those who prostrated in the worldly life only to be seen and heard (showing off). This type of person will try to prostrate at that time, but his back will made to be one stiff plate (the bone will not bend or flex).

(Just realized that NHMK put verses 32 instead of 42, updated with correct verse and Arabic)

__________________________________________

Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

""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 (hafiz) Imam al-Bayhaqi (d. 458/1066) records that [Muhammad ibn Yusuf] al-Farabri (d. 320/932) related from the hadith master Imam al-Bukhari (d. "The meaning of laughter in it is mercy" [emphasis mine] (Bayhaqi, Kitab al-asma’ wa al-sifat [1358/1939. Reprint. Beirut: Dar Ihya’ al-Turath al-‘Arabi, n.d.], 298).""

1) And without any possible bias, Imam Ibn Hajr Al-'Asqalaani in his Sharh of Saheeh Al-Bukhari, Fath Al-Baari said: "I didn't see this in the copy that came from Al-Bukaari."- Meaning the Ta'weel of Laughter to Mercy

 وقال ابن حجر العسقلاني رحمه الله - بعد ذكر قول الخطابي رحمه الله - :

( قُلْت : وَلَمْ أَرَ ذَلِكَ فِي النُّسَخ الَّتِي وَقَعَتْ لَنَا مِنْ الْبُخَارِيّ ) يعني لما يرى "تأويل البخاري رحمه الله لصفة الضحك بالرحمة"

__________________________________________


Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

"" 5. Coming. The hadith master (hafiz) Ibn Kathir (d. 774/1373) reports that Imam al-Bayhaqi (d. 458/1066) related from al-Hakim (d. 405/1014), from Abu ‘Amr ibn al-Sammak (d. 344/955), from Hanbal [ibn Ishaq al-Shaybani] (d. 273/886), the son of the brother of Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s father, that "Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 241/855) figuratively interpreted the word of Allah Most High, "as meaning ‘His recompense (thawab) shall come’" [emphasis mine]. Al-Bayhaqi said, "This chain of narrators has absolutely nothing wrong in it" (Ibn Kathir, al-Bidaya wa al-nihaya [Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyya, 1985/1405], 10.342). In other words, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, like the Companions (Sahaba) and other early Muslims mentioned above, also gave figurative interpretations (ta’wil) to scriptural expressions that might otherwise have been misinterpreted anthropomorphically, which is what neo-Salafis condemn the Ash‘ari school for doing."‘And your Lord shall come . . .’ (Qur’an 89:22),""

 1) This has been dealt with before here :

http://hanaabilah.blogspot.com/2012/06/did-imam-ahmad-do-taweel.html 

In which Ibn Rajab says: 

“It has been reported that Imam Ahmad said concerning Allahs coming, that it meant his order, however in this Hanbal was singled out as the only one with this narration, and from our companions (The Hanaabilah) are those that said, Hanbal is deluded in that which he transmitted, and he is against the famous madhab (of Imam Ahmad) that has many chains of narrator.(the one without ta'weel)"

__________________________________________

Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

""In light of the above examples, it is plain that the Ash‘ari school did not originate figurative interpretation, but rather it had been with Muslims from the beginning. And if the above figures are not the salaf or ‘early Muslims,’ who are? Ibn Taymiya (d. 728/1328) and Ibn al-Qayyim (d. 751/1350)?""

1) In light of the above examples it’s clear to see that the bigger picture is not being presented, in that those examples either:

• Weren't attributes
• Wasn't Ta'weel that is dispraised.
• Or weren't authentically attributed to the person that he attempted to attribute it to.

 __________________________________________

Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

""These do not have to be an either-or for Muslims. Jahm’s brand of Mu‘tazilism has been dead for over a thousand years, while anthropomorphic literalism is a heresy that in previous centuries was confined to a handful of sects like the Hanbalis addressed by ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Jawzi in his Daf‘ shubah al-tashbih, or like the forgers of Kitab al-sunna who ascribed it to Imam Ahmad’s son ‘Abdullah, or like the Karramiyya [the followers of Muhammad al-Karram (d. 255/869)], who believed Allah to be a corporeal entity "sitting in person on His Throne."

It is with all the greater concern that we see, in our times, pamphlets being circulated in an attempt to create acceptance for these ideas, such as The Muslim’s Belief, a English tract on Islamic faith (‘aqida) that tells Western Muslim readers:

His [Allah’s] ‘settling [istiwa’] on the Throne’ means that He is sitting in person on His Throne [emphasis mine] in a way that is becoming to His Majesty and Greatness. Nobody except He knows exactly how He is sitting (Sheikh Muhammad al-Salih al-‘Uthaymin, The Muslim’s Belief [tr. Dr. Maneh Hammad al-Juhani. Intr. Sheikh Ibn Baz. Riyad: World Assembly of Muslim Youth, 1407/1987], 11).

In previous Islamic centuries, someone who worshipped a god who ‘sits,’ moves about, and so forth, was considered to be in serious trouble in his faith (‘aqida). Listen to the words of the Imam of Ahl al-Sunna in tenets of faith and heresiology, ‘Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi (d. 429/1037):""

1) Why use the plural "Hanbalis" when he can only mention one person from among the Hanaabilah who attacked "Literalism."?

2) Some Hanaabilah were much closer to the Asha'irah than others, the likes of which may have delved into a bit of Kalaam, or may have taken some rules from the Ashaa'irah, however, that doesn't change the Madhab in whole, Especially when you have key scholars of the Madhab who made it perfectly clear that none of this should be used, rather, the original pure creed of Imam Ahmad and the Salaf should always be relied upon, and is sufficient. But again, you will very rarely find anyone completely attacking members of the Madhab the way that Ibn Al-Jawzi did.  

3)  Accusations of Tajseem have nothing to do with the word “Sitting” or "Limit" because if Sitting or Limit is authentically attributed to the Salaf, it would be no different than Rising (istawa) or Descending (nuzool), or Hands, Face, Feet, all of which are authentically attributed, and which also cause the Neo-Ashaai'rah to accuse the Salaf of being “In big trouble.” All of which when believed in with the method of the Salaf, all lead to same False Accusations of Anthropomorphism, while in reality they confirmed them how they came, without making a similitude between the Creator and the creation. So why single out Sitting? 

4) In fact sitting according to Adh-Dhahabi comes in a Saheeh saying of Umar (Radhi Allahu Anhu) in which multiple scholars of the Salaf confirmed including:

• Abu Ishaaq al-Sabi’i
• At-Thawri
• Al-‘Amash
• Israa’iil
• Abd Ar-Rahman bin Mahdi
• Abu Ahmad Az-Zubair
• Wakee’
• Ahmad Bin Hanbal

__________________________________________

Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

""Anyone who considers his Lord to resemble the form of a person—as do the Bayaniyya [the followers of Bayan ibn Sam‘an al-Tamimi (d. 119/737)], the Mughiriyya [followers of al-Mughira ibn Sa‘id al-‘Ajali (d. 119/737)], the Jawaribiyya [followers of Dawud al-Jawaribi, (d. 2nd Hijra century)], and the Hishamiyya [followers of Hisham ibn Salim al-Jawaliqi, the teacher of al-Jawaribi in anthropomorphism]—is only worshipping a person like himself. As for the permissibility of eating the meat he slaughters or of marriage with him, his ruling is that of an idol-worshipper. . . . Regarding the anthropomorphists of Khurasan, of the Karramiyya, it is obligatory to consider them unbelievers because they affirm that Allah has a physical limit and boundary from underneath, from whence He is contact with His Throne (Baghdadi, Usul al-din [Istanbul: Matba‘a al-Dawla, 1346/1929], 337).""

 1) Again, this has nothing to do with the beliefs of the Salaf, in that they did absolute affirmation of the Attributes of Allah upon their apparent meaning by relinquishing the modality to Him. We don't believe Allah resembles a person at All, Neither did Ibn Taymiyyah, nor the Hanaabilah. 

2) The true Anthropomorphisist believed that God was a Human being as he himself says as well as the Ashaa'rah say here:

__________________________________________


Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

""If anthropomorphic literalism were an acceptable Islamic school of thought, why was it counted among heresies and rejected for the first seven centuries of Islam that preceded Ibn Taymiya and his student Ibn al-Qayyim?

Anthropomorphism was not accepted, however, the creed of the Salaf has been and always will be accepted, however, since that is also not accepted in reality by the likes of the Neo-Asha’irah, they would like to pretend that it was the fault of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Al-Qayyim, when it has been the creed of the Salaf, Ahlul Hadeeth, Athariyah, And Hanaabilah before them, and just like they were called Mujassimah without actually being from them, it’s not surprise that Ibn Taymiyyah has to take the brunt of the accusations and hate, because otherwise these Jahmis would be more obvious in their hatred for the Aqeedah of the Salaf. 

To summarize: we have distinguished three ways of understanding the mutashabihat, or ‘unapparent in meaning’ verses and hadiths. The first is the way of tafwid, or ‘consigning the knowledge of what is meant to Allah,’ which was the way of Shafi‘i and many of the early Muslims; in accordance with the reading of the Qur’anic verse about the mutashabihat:

"though none knows its meaning except Allah [emphasis mine]. And those firm in knowledge say, ‘We believe in all of it. All is from our Lord’" (Qur’an 3:7);

though another possible reading of the same verse is closer to the way of ta’wil, or ‘figurative interpretation’ which, as reported above, was done by the Companion (Sahabi) Ibn ‘Abbas and many other early Muslims; namely,

"though none knows its meaning except Allah and those firm in knowledge [emphasis mine]; they say, ‘We believe in all of it. All is from our Lord’" (Qur’an 3:7)"""

To summarize we have only One correct way of understanding the Sifaat of Allah, and in this article the intent was not to do a complete assessment of that and present it  to the readers, rather the intent was to expose the wrong accusations of the writer in regard to what he thinks the Aqeedah of the Salaf was.

Including:

1) Ibn Al-Jawzi in no way represents the Hanaabilah for his Ta'weel of SOME of the Attributes of Allah.

2) One of his books accusations is completely negated by the fact that those he wrote it against did confirmation of things that were from weak narrations, the likes of which the modern day Hanaabilah don't do.

3) It is not Anthropomorphism to confirm the Attributes of Allah upon the Apparent meaning ('Alaa Dhaahihiri) Rather Anthropomorphism comes when a person says that Allah is like the creation.

4) Attributes weren't mentioned in the Tafseer of the verse of "Mutashaabihaat" in 3:7, According to the Mufassir of the Salaf Imam At-Tabari.

5) In order to truly understand Imam Ahmads Aqeedah, one has to look the books of the Salaf, and the books of the Hanaabilah, including Imam Ibn Qudaama Al-Maqdsis, Ibn Rajab, and other than them. 

6) As modern day Hanaabilah we don't simply say that just because one thing is taken from one book it means the entire book is accepted as correct, rather things are examined through the scope of Quran And Sunnah and the Way of the Salaf.

__________________________________________


Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said:

In my view, both these are Islamic, and both seem needed, though tafwid is superior where it does not lead to confusion about Allah’s transcendence beyond the attributes of created things, in accordance with the Qur’anic verse,

"There is nothing whatsoever like unto Him" (Qur’an 42:11).

As for anthropomorphism, it is clear from this verse and from the entire previous history of this Umma, that it is not an Islamic school of thought, and never has been. And Allah knows best.

Perhaps one should point out that his entire article was built upon a false premise, and in logical arguments we call that.

 1) A straw man is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

May Allah forgive all the scholars mentioned, whether they be Hanbali, or Ashari, or otherwise, Ameen.

May Allah send his Peace and Blessings upon the Prophet Muhammad, On his Family, His Companions and All those who follow them, Ameen. 

________________________________________________________________________________

• The original article written by Nuh Ha Mim Keller can be found here: http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/masudq5.htm
• Kitaab As-Sunnah: Abdullah Bin Ahmad Bin Hanbal
• Kitaab Al-‘Itiqaad Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal: Abu Al-Fadhl ‘Abd Al-Waahid Abd Al-‘Azeez Bin Haarith At-Tamimi (Died 410 Hijri)
• Ar-Rad ‘Alaa Al-Jahmiyah Wa Az-Zanaadiqa: Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal
• Usool As-Sunnah: Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
• Lum’atul ‘Itiqaad: Muwafiq Ad-Deen Bin Qudaama
• Ithbaat Al-Haddi Lillah:  Abu Muhammad Mahmood Bin Abi Al-Qaasim Ad-Dashti (Died 665 Hijri)
• Al-Madkhal Ilaa Madhab Al-Imam Ahmad: Abd Al-Qaadir Bin Badran Ad-Dimishqi (Died 1346 Hijri)
• Sayd Al-Khaatir: Ibn Al-Jawzi
• Sharh Jawhara At-Tawheed: Burhaan Ad-Deen Ibraheem Al-Baajoori (Died 1276)
• Tafseer At-Tabari: Ibn Jareer At-Tabari
• Sharh Al-Mandhooma As-Safaareeniyah: Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Saalim As-Safaareeni (Died 1188)
• Ahmad Bin Hanbal:  Abd Al-Ghani Ad-Daqr
• Tahreem An-Nadhr Fi Kutub Al-Kalaam: Ibn Qudaama
• Sharh Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: Ibn Rajab
• Kitaab Al-‘Arsh: Imam Adh-Dhahabi