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