Post by StudentOfTheDeen on Jun 5, 2022 14:09:13 GMT
The Divine Attributes:
Ahlus Sunnah vs. Mujassimah
By Mufti Zameelur Rahman
The Belief of Ahlus Sunnah wa l-Jamā‘ah
In the view of Ahlus Sunnah wa l-Jamā‘ah, Allāh (subhānuhū wa ta‘ālā) is totally unlike His creation. There is nothing in His essence (dhāt), attributes (sifāt) or actions (af‘āl) that resembles in any way anything found in creation. This is the clear position of Ahlus Sunnah, and is the decisive and definitive verdict given by the Qur’ān, Sunnah, sayings of the Salaf and the Ahlus Sunnah who followed.
Allāh (subhānuhū wa ta‘ālā) says in the Qur’ān:
ليس كمثله شيء
“No thing is as His likeness.” (42:11)
1. The form of the sentence is “nafy (negation) in the context of nakirah (an indefinite noun).” Shay’ (thing) is an indefinite noun and it has been negated using the word laysa. It is an established principle of Nahw (Arabic grammar) that a nafy in the context of nakirah connotes total negation. In other words, the form of the sentence grammatically entails that there is absolutely nothing whatsoever that resembles Allāh (subhānuhū wa ta‘ālā).
2. The terms used for resemblance in this verse are two: one particle (harf), ka (like), and one noun (ism), mithl (likeness). This compounding of terms used for resemblance negates the minutest possible similarity. For instance, if one were to say, “Zayd is not a lion” (laysa Zaydun asadan), this would negate only a gross resemblance. If one were to say, “Zayd is not like a lion” (laysa Zaydun ka asadin), this would negate similarity with a lion to a greater degree. And if one were to say, “Zayd is not as the likeness of a lion,” (laysa Zaydun ka mithli asadin) it would be to negate any similarity between Zayd and a lion.
Imām al-Bayhaqī (384 – 458 H)[1] said:
“When Allāh intended to negate tashbīh (making a resemblance between Allāh and His creation) in the most emphatic way that a negation can [possibly] be made, He put together in our recitation the particles of similitude (i.e. ka) with the noun of resemblance (i.e. mithl), so that the negation is emphasised to the utmost.” (Al-Asmā’ wa l-Sifāt, 2:34)[2]
Imām al-Rāghib al-Asbahānī said in Mufradāt al-Qur’ān:
“Mithl is an expression about resemblance with something in any property from its properties, whatever property it may be. It is broader than other words designated for resemblance. That is, nidd is said about something that shares in essence only, shibh is said about something that shares in quality only, musāwī is said about something that shares in quantity only, shakl is said about something that shares in measure and distance only. Mithl is broader than all of that. This is why when Allāh (Exalted is He) wished to negate tashbīh from every dimension, He mentioned this specifically, so He said: laysa ka mithlihī shay’.” (al-Mufradāt, p. 597)[3]
Hence, the verse is absolutely categorical in its indication that Allāh (subhānuhū wa ta‘ālā) is totally unlike His creation.
As for rational proof, if we were to assert that there was any similarity between Allāh and His creation, it would entail that the beginningless entity, Allāh, has within Him some attributes of temporal or originated entities. This would entail that the beginningless is originated, at least in some aspects, and that is absurd, as “beginningless” is the opposite of “originated” and they cannot come together. Imām al-Bayhaqī expressed this in the following words:
“Further, it is known that the Creator of creation does not resemble anything of the creation, because if He resembled any originated thing in any way, He would resemble it in origination from that aspect, and it is impossible for the beginningless to be temporal, or beginningless from one angle and temporal from another.” (al-I‘tiqād wa l-Hidāyah ilā Sabīl al-Rashād, p. 37)[4]
As for the recorded view of the Salaf, Imām Abū Ja‘far al-Tahāwī (239 – 321 H)[5] transmitted from the founders of the Hanafī school, Imām Abū Hanīfah (80 – 150 H), Imām Abū Yūsuf (113 – 182 H) and Imām Muhammad al-Shaybānī (132 – 189 H):
“Whoever describes Allāh with a meaning (or property) from the meanings (or properties) of man, he has disbelieved.”[6]
As for the later Ahlus Sunnah, the books of ‘aqīdah have clearly incorporated this fundamental doctrine into the very foundation of Islāmic belief, Tawhīd. In defining Tawhīd, Shaykh Burhān al-Dīn Ibrāhīm al-Laqānī al-Mālikī (d. 1041 H) and many others said:
“It is to single out the Deity for worship, along with believing in His oneness, in essence, attributes and actions.” (Hidāyat al-Murīd li Jawharat al-Tawhīd, 1:83)[7]
Hāfiz Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalānī (d. 852 H) states in Fath al-Bārī on the meaning of Tawhīd according to Ahlus Sunnah:
“As for the Ahlus Sunnah, they explain Tawhīd as negating similarity [with Allāh] and [negating] nullification [of His attributes]. Thus, al-Junayd [al-Baghdādī] said in that which Abu l-Qāsim al-Qushayrī related: ‘Tawhīd is to single out the Beginningless from the temporal.’” (Fath al-Bārī, 13:421)[8]
The Attributes of Allāh
Once the above has been settled, the question arises: what of the established attributes and names of Allāh which have counterparts within creation, like knowledge, hearing, seeing, life, speech, power, will and so on? Do they not suggest that there is indeed some degree of similarity between Creator and creation?
In answer to this, it must firstly be understood that true similarity or resemblance between two entities occurs only in their actual external realities, meaning, in things that have actual existence or an ontological reality in the beings of those entities. Based on this, the following aspects will not be considered true resemblance as they do not entail any similarity in the external realities of the entities:
1. The consequences or relations of attributes. For example, the consequence of “hearing” is to perceive sounds. However, this is not the reality of hearing as it subsists in the being of the entity that hears. The reality of hearing as we know it is “to perceive sounds with the two ears.” This reality is restricted to creation. As for the reality of the hearing of Allāh, there is absolutely no similarity of it with creation, and we are not aware of it. We do know the consequence of it, however, which is “to perceive sounds.” This degree of similarity in the consequences of the attributes entails no similarity in the actual realities of the entities themselves. In other words, by stating that sounds are not hidden to Allāh, or that they are disclosed to Him by virtue of a particular attribute He possesses called sam‘, says nothing about a description of the external reality of this attribute in the being of Allāh. Similarly, Allāh’s attributes of knowledge, power, seeing, will and life are understood according to the dictates or relations of these attributes and not on how they subsist in the being of Allāh. These attributes according to the Ahlus Sunnah (as opposed to the Mu‘tazilah and Jahmiyyah) do enjoy a real, unchanging and non-temporal ontological existence within the essence of Allāh. That reality however is beyond the human mind and is absolutely incomprehensible, as Imām al-Tahāwī mentioned in his ‘Aqīdah:
“Imaginations do not reach Him, comprehensions do not grasp Him.”[9]
“The mercy itself [as it subsists in the essence of Allāh] may not retreat or proceed with a limit or end, because it is, according to us, an attribute from the attributes of His essence that He has borne in eternity. What is intended here is an indication to the mercy which you attain from Allāh, because that which comes about from something and is connected to it is often given its name, just as something that appears from the power of Allāh (Glorified is He) from His actions is called ‘the power of Allāh.’ The meaning of this is that it came about from His power. Similarly, that which appears from one with pre-eternal mercy may be called mercy by way of flexibility in speech.” (Mushkil al-Hadīth, p. 112)[11]
This also applies to divine actions. If we say a worldly ruler “honours” or “debases” one of his subjects, the reality of this action would be to, for example, write a decree and send it to a governor to exalt or lessen his rank. The consequence of this action is for the subject to have a higher or lower position. When we say Allāh “honours” or He “debases,” the reality of this action bears absolutely no resemblance to the reality of the action of man. However, its relation, in terms of the effect the action produces, may bear some resemblance. This is not similarity in the external realities of these attributes but in a relational or consequential property.
Another example is “existence” itself. Existence is a relational attribute that merely conveys the reality that there is an entity that enjoys an ontological presence outside of the human mind. It does not say anything descriptive about the reality itself.
2. The absence of attributes. For example, if we say, “angels do not sleep,” and we say, “Allāh does not sleep,” this is a resemblance in the absence of attributes, and not a resemblance in any true reality that subsists in either of them. Hence, this is not an actual resemblance. When we say Allāh is self-subsisting, dissimilar to creation, one, transcendent, beginningless, without end and so on, we are not affirming any positive external realities subsisting in Allāh’s being. Rather, we are saying what He is not. Hence, there is no question of anthropomorphism or regarding Allāh similar to His creation in this.
Thus, the divine attributes in the Qur’ān and Sunnah which outwardly and nominally bear resemblance with creation do not give the indication of any real similarity. The similarity is only in consequences and connections or in the absence of something, which does not represent any external reality of the beings themselves. This is how many names and attributes of Allāh can easily be understood. Hence, these attributes are readily affirmed and one will notice that these are the more frequently mentioned attributes of Allāh in the Qur’ān and Sunnah e.g. the oneness of Allāh, His absolute power, hearing, seeing, knowledge, life, mercy, love, generosity, transcendence, self-subsistence and so on.
The Sifāt Khabariyyah
However, there are certain attributes and actions known as sifāt khabariyyah (characteristics which outwardly suggest physical/bodily parts), like hand, foot, eye, laughter, and ascension (istiwā’), for which even a relational meaning or negative meaning is often difficult to decipher. For these, two views have emerged from the early scholars:
1. One is the way of the Salaf, which is to consign their realities to Allāh, while having surety that the literal meaning is not intended, e.g. eye is not a physical organ of sight.
2. The second is to interpret them according to the context in where they appear, which is the methodology of many of the later scholars.
On the first view, these ascriptions are affirmed as actual intangible attributes in the being of Allāh just like power and will, or as attributes of action like honouring and debasing, but like other attributes that are affirmed, their reality is consigned to the knowledge of Allāh. However, their connections and relations may be described, expanded upon and comprehended. On the second view, these “attributes” or ascriptions do not have any reality in the essence of Allāh but are reducible to other attributes or to particular aspects of other attributes, like will, power and knowledge.
Imām al-Bayhaqī (384 – 458 H) explicitly mentions these two methodologies of the early scholars in his work on Islāmic beliefs called al-I‘tiqād wa l-Hidāyah ilā Sabīl al-Rashād. He says:
“[Some] amongst them accepted it, believed in it and did not interpret it but consigned its knowledge to Allāh, while negating kayfiyyah (modality) and similarity [with creation] from Him. [Some] amongst them accepted it, believed in it and interpreted it in a manner whose usage is valid linguistically, and does not contradict the oneness [of Allāh]. We have mentioned these two approaches in the book Kitāb al-Asmā’ wa l-Sifāt.” (al-I‘tiqād wa l-Hidāyah ilā Sabīl al-Rashād, p. 120)[12]
The second methodology was that of many of the later scholars. For example, the great commentator of hadīth from the fourth Hijrī century, Abū Sulaymān al-Khattābī (319 – 388 H)[13], says under the commentary of a hadīth from Sahīh al-Bukhārī which ascribes a “foot” to Allāh:
“Abū ‘Ubayd [al-Qāsim ibn Sallām (d. 224 H)] – who was one of the imāms from the people of knowledge – would say: We narrate these hadīths and we do not search for meanings for them.”[14]
“We are more worthy of not advancing into that which those with more knowledge and more senior in era and age retreated from.”[15]
“However, the time that which we are in, its people have evolved into two camps: the denier of what has been narrated of these hadīths entirely and a belier of them completely and in this is [entailed] accusing the scholars who narrated these hadīths of lying, while they are the imāms of religion, the transmitters of the sunnahs and the intermediaries between us and the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace); and the second group accept the narration of them, adopting a path in actualising the outward of them which almost leads them to tashbīh. We are averse to both approaches, and we are not pleased with either of them as a methodology. Thus, it is necessary for us to search – with respect to the hadīths that have been transmitted when authentic in terms of transmission and chain – for an interpretation that emerges on the basis of the principles of the foundations of religion and the views of the scholars, and we do not nullify their narration completely when their routes are accepted and their transmitters righteous.” (A‘lām al-Hadīth, p. 1907)[16]
Hence, al-Khattābī accepts figuratively interpreting the sifāt khabariyyah mentioned in the hadīths, but only in the context in which he was living, where people were adopting a path of affirmation which took them close to anthropomorphism. In the same passage, he offers an interpretation of the “foot” of Allāh as that which Allāh has sent forth into the fire.
However, al-Khattābī says he only takes this approach with attributes that appear infrequently in some hadīths. With regards to frequently mentioned sifāt khabariyyah, he adopts the approach of tafwīd. He says:
“If it is said: Why do you not interpret hand and face in this manner of interpretation, and consider these terms metaphors likewise? It will be said: These attributes are mentioned in the Book of Allāh (Exalted is He) with their names, and they are attributes of praise, and the default is that every attribute mentioned in the Book and are authentic by reports of continuous transmission or narrated through the route of solitary reporters but has a basis in the Book or emerges from some of its principles, then we profess it and we let it proceed on its outward, without giving it a modality. And that which does not have any mention in the Book, nor a basis in continuous transmission and has no connection to the principles of the Book, and were we to let it proceed on its outward, it would lead [some people] to tashbīh, we will interpret it with a meaning which the speech accommodates and by which the meaning of tashbīh will be eliminated. This is the difference between what has been transmitted of the mention of foot, leg and shin [on the one hand] and hand, face and eye [on the other].” (A‘lām al-Hadīth, 1911)[17]
“The meaning of yad (hand) according to us is not a physical appendage [as is its literal meaning]. Rather, it is an attribute brought forth by restraint [at the text]. Thus, we let it proceed as it has come, and we do not give it a modality, and we hold back to where the Book and the authentically transmitted reports kept us. This is the way of Ahlus Sunnah wa l-Jamā‘ah.” (A‘lām al-Hadīth, p 2347)[18]
The Position of the Salaf: Negating Physical Descriptions of Allāh
It is famously transmitted from the imām of the people of Madīnah, Mālik ibn Anas (93 – 179 H), that he was asked about the istiwā’ (ascension) of Allāh as mentioned in the Qur’ān (20:5 and other verses). Imām Mālik replied, as reported by al-Bayhaqī with his chain:
“The istiwā’ is known, kayf is incomprehensible, belief in it is necessary and asking about it is innovation.” (al-I‘tiqād wa l-Hidāyah ilā Sabīl al-Rashād, p. 119)[19]
Imām al-Bayhaqī transmits this position from the early scholars, declaring it the correct methodology. He says:
“Further, the correct methodology in all this is sufficing with what brings with it restraint [at the text], without giving it a modality. This is what the earlier ones from our scholars adopted as well as those who followed them from the later ones, and they said: The istiwā’ on the throne has been stated in the Book in various verses and have been transmitted in the reports.” (al-I‘tiqād wa l-Hidāyah ilā Sabīl al-Rashād, p. 118)[20]
“The Most Merciful ascended the Throne as He described Himself. It is not said ‘how?’ and ‘how’ is removed from Him.” (Al-Asmā’ wa l-Sifāt, 2:304-5)[21]
“We have related [the position of] leaving discussion on the likes of this from the early ones of our companions. This is along with their belief in the negation of limit, tashbīh and tamthīl from Allāh, Glorified and Exalted is He. Faqīh Abū Bakr Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn al-Hārith al-Asbahānī reported to us: Abū Muhammad ibn Hayyān reported to us: Ishāq ibn Ahmad al-Fārisī narrated to us: Hafs ibn ‘Umar al-Mahraqānī narrated to us: Abū Dāwūd [al-Tayālisī] narrated to us: He said: ‘Sufyān al-Thawrī (97 – 161 H), Shu‘bah (82 – 160 H), Hammād ibn Zayd (98 – 179 H), Hammād ibn Salamah (91 – 167 H), Sharīk (95 – 177 H) and [al-Waddāh ibn ‘Abdillāh] Abū ‘Awānah (c. 95 – 176 H) would not ascribe a limit, nor make resemblance nor similarity. They narrate the hadīth without saying kayf. When asked, they would answer with narration.’ Abū Dāwūd said: ‘This is our view.’ I say: And our elders remained on this.” (al-Asmā’ wa l-Sifāt 2:334)[22]
This was the way of all the major scholars of the Salaf. Imām al-Bayhaqī related with a sound chain[25] from al-Walīd ibn Muslim:
“Al-Awzā‘ī, Mālik, Sufyān al-Thawrī and al-Layth ibn Sa‘d were asked about these hadīths [on the sifāt khabariyyah], and they said: ‘Let them pass as they have come without kayfiyyah.’” (al-I‘tiqād wa l-Hidāyah ilā Sabīl al-Rashād, p. 123)[26]
Imām al-Bayhaqī also related from Sufyān ibn ‘Uyaynah with an authentic chain[27]:
“All that Allāh has described of Himself, its interpretation is its recitation and silence over it.”(al-I‘tiqād wa l-Hidāyah ilā Sabīl al-Rashād, p. 123)[28]
“No one may explain it, neither in Arabic nor in Fārsī.” (al-Asmā’ wal-Sifāt, 2:117)[29]
“Everything Allāh has described Himself with in the Qur’ān, its recitation is its explanation. There is no kayf and no likeness.” (Sharh Usūl I‘tiqād Ahl al-Sunnah, p. 431)[30]
“He only intended thereby – and Allāh knows best – that which the explanation of which leads to ascribing kayf. And ascribing kayf necessitates considering Him like His creation in the qualities of temporality.” (al-I‘tiqād wa l-Hidāyah ilā Sabīl al-Rashād, p. 123)[31]
“I say: And he only intended – and Allāh knows best – the sifāt khabariyyah.” (al-Asmā’ wa l-Sifāt, 2:159)[32]
“Some of the people of insight amongst them adopted the view that by the right hand is meant the hand, and the hand of Allāh (Exalted is He) is an expression about an attribute that is not a physical appendage. Thus, wherever it is mentioned in the Book and the authentic Sunnah, the intent of its mention is its connection to what came about in that which is mentioned along with it, of folding up and grasping, contracting and spreading out, eliminating and accepting, spending and other than that; a connection of an intrinsic attribute with its consequence without direct physical contact or mutual touching. There is no tashbīh in this at all.” (Al-Asmā’ wa l-Sifāt, 2:159)[33]
“The vision [of Allāh] is true for the inhabitants of Paradise, without encompassing, nor kayfiyyah.”[34]
The mujassimah (corporealists) and crypto-mujassimah refuse to make the explicit negations of kayf and physical descriptions for Allāh in the way the Salaf did. Imām al-Tahāwī narrates from the imāms of the Hanafī school:
“Our Lord bears the attributes of oneness and holds the characteristics of singularity. Not one of creation is in His meaning. He is transcendent beyond limits and boundaries, parts, limbs and instruments.”[35]
“Limbs and appendages, nor length and breadth, thickness and thinness and the like of this, of which the equivalent is found in creation, are not believed about Him. And that there is nothing as His likeness.” (I‘tiqād A’immat al-Hadīth, p 36)[37]
“And that is without belief in corporealism with respect to Allāh – Great and Glorious is He – nor assigning limits. But they will see Him – Great and Glorious is He – with their eyes just as He pleases, without kayf.” (I‘tiqād A’immat al-Hadīth, p. 43)[38]
“The meaning of the statement of the Muslims that Allāh is over the throne is not that He is touching it or settled on it or bounded by one of its directions, but that He is different/separate from all His creation.” (A‘lām al-Hadīth, p. 1474)[39]
“He is separate from His creation. Allāh is above the throne, without [physical] limitation. [Physical] limitation is of the throne and all that is beneath it. And Allāh is above that with no place and no limit. [This is] because He existed when there was no place, and then He created place, and He is as He was before He created place.”[41]
Allāh is Unchanging and Timeless
Moreover, if Allāh possesses kayfiyyāt like movement, physical descent and ascent, laughter, emotions and so on, it would entail changing from one state to another which is a feature of temporal things and not of the beginningless unchanging Creator.[42] This has also been expressed by one of the imāms of the Salaf. Abu l-Shaykh relates in his ‘Azamah with an authentic chain from Imām ‘Abd al-‘Azīz ibn al-Mājishūn (d 164 H), a narrator of hadīth found in the six collections and a prominent jurist of Madīnah, that he said:
“…He is the Last that will not end and the First that will not perish, the beginningless (qadīm) Who has no beginning. He did not come into being as [other] things came into being. He was not small and then became large, nor was He weak and then became strong, nor deficient and then became complete, nor ignorant and then He knew. He was always strong, lofty, great and transcendent. The blink of an eye did not pass but He was Allāh, without ceasing to be Rabb. He will remain so unceasingly in what has passed and likewise in what remains to come. And thus He is now. He did not gain new knowledge after not having known, nor strength after a strength that was not in Him. He did not alternate from one state to another state with increase or decrease, because there remains no [aspect] of sovereignty and magnitude but He occupies it. He will never increase beyond something that He was upon…”[43]
The Beliefs of the Mujassimah
On the other hand, there was a small group historically, and a sizeable group in recent times, of a people who believe that the sifāt khabariyyah must be accepted literally. They believe that Allāh is literally in the upward direction, with physical parts like a face, two hands, fingers, shape, two eyes and so on. They believe He moves up and down. This is the position of tashbīh and tajsīm. While Ahlus Sunnah deny completely any and all resemblance between Allāh and creation in their descriptive and ontological realities, some modern “Salafī” authors do not shy away from saying they accept a degree of resemblance between Allāh and His creation. For example, one of the leaders of the contemporary Salafī movement, Ibn ‘Uthaymīn, said:
“To negate tashbīh completely between the attributes of Creator and of creation is not correct because there are no two established attributes except they have commonality in the basic meaning, and this commonality is a kind of similarity.” (Fatāwā Ibn ‘Uthaymīn, 1:181)[51]
“If you ask: what is the shape which Allāh has that Ādam was upon? We say: Allāh has a face, eye, hand and leg, but it is not necessary that these things are equivalent to man’s. Thus, there is a degree of similarity but it is not by way of equivalence.” (Sharh ‘Aqīdat al-Wasatiyyah, p. 110)[52]
“The one who believes that the attributes of the Creator are equivalent to the attributes of creation is misguided. That is, the attributes of the Creator are not equal to the attributes of creation by the clear text of the Qur’ān… And it is not necessary from the equivalence of two entities in name or attribute that they are equal in reality. This is a known principle. Does man not have a face and a camel a face? They are common in name but do not conform in reality. The camel has a hand and the ant a hand – are the two hands equal? The answer is no. Then, why do you not say that Allāh has a face that is not equivalent to the faces of creation and Allāh has a hand that is not equivalent to the hands of creation? Allāh (Exalted is He) said: ‘And they esteem not Allah as He has the right to be esteemed, when the whole earth is His handful on the Day of Resurrection, and the heavens are rolled in His right hand.’ (39:67) Is there a hand from the hands of creation that is like this hand? No….This is why it is never permissible for you to imagine how a quality from the qualities of Allāh is or that you believe that the attributes of Allāh are the same as the attributes of creation.” (Fatāwā Ibn ‘Uthaymīn, 1:177)[53]
This belief has its roots in an early time. Muqātil ibn Sulaymān an early mufassir from the atbā‘ al-tābi‘īn overemphasised the attributes of Allāh in opposition to the Jahmiyyah who negated it, resulting in affirming a similarity between Allāh and His creation, as al-Khatīb al-Baghdādī narrated with an authentic chain from Imām Abū Hanīfah (80 – 150 H):
“Two groups of the worst of people are from Khurāsān: the Jahmiyyah and the Mushabbihah” or he said, “Muqātiliyyah.” (Tarikh Baghdad 15:514)[54]
“Muhammad ibn Samā‘ah (130 – 233 H) narrated from Abū Yūsuf from Abū Hanīfah that he said: ‘Jahm went overboard in negation until he said: He [i.e. Allah] is nothing, and Muqātil went overboard in affirmation until He deemed Allah to be like His creation.’”[55]
“Two repulsive opinions came to us from the east: Jahm the negator [of Allah's attributes] and Muqātil, the anthropomorphist.”[56]
The belief-system of tashbīh, though in existence before, was popularised and defended fiercely by the Damascene Hanbalī scholar, Ahmad ibn ‘Abd al-Halīm Ibn Taymiyyah (661 – 728 H), an undisputed authority of the contemporary Salafiyyah. He, for example, explicitly supported the notion that the attributes of Allāh, including the sifāt khabariyyah like eye, hand, face, descent and ascension, must be understood by analogising them to creation.[57] He supported the idea that these attributes have a meaning that is shared between creation and Creator.[58] He differentiates between “intangible” attributes like knowledge and power and “tangible” attributes like hand and face for Allāh.[59] He defended the view that Allāh has boundaries from all six physical directions, up, down, left, right, front and back,[60] leaving no room for doubt that he believed in a physical body for Allāh. His claim to avoiding tashbīh, tajsīm and tamthīl, however, is on the grounds that Allāh is not exactly like His creation. He is vastly bigger, with unknown dimensions, and He is indivisible as His parts cannot be separated one from the other, and He doesn’t have a digestive system, nor are His limbs made of blood and flesh like human beings. Instead, His features that have a counterpart in creation only bear a generic resemblance with those of creatures, while their physical descriptions and modalities (kayfiyyāt) are vastly different.
Conclusion
Hence, while this group with Ibn Taymiyyah at its head, affirm kayfiyyāt (physical descriptions) for Allāh while negating knowledge of them, the Salaf and Ahlus Sunnah negate the very existence of kayfiyyāt for Allāh. These innovated ascriptions of physical parts to Allāh, delving into the ambiguous attributes of Allāh by designating their literal meanings as their intent, and affirming a basic meaning or ontological reality of these attributes that are similar to the qualities of creation, are extreme violations of core Islāmic beliefs on the oneness of Allāh and His absolute dissimilarity to creation.
[1] His full name is Abū Bakr Ahmad ibn al-Husayn ibn ‘Alī. He was born in Sha‘bān of the year 384 H in Khusrawjird in present-day Īrān. This is where he grew up. He first began studying under scholars in 399 H, and travelled throughout the Muslim world taking from the learned men of the various towns of Khurāsān, ‘Irāq and Hijāz. He took fiqh from Nāsir al-‘Umarī al-Marwazī (d. 444) and hadīth from many hadith-authorities including Hāfiz Abū ‘Abdillāh al-Hākim, author of the Mustadrak. He was pious and scrupulous and took little from the dunyā. In terms of his academic persuasion, he was a vocal defender of the Shāfi‘ī legal school, and was greatly inclined to hadīth preservation and criticism. Hence, these are the two primary fields for which he is known, though he has contributions in aqīdah, history and other subjects. Imām al-Haramayn al-Juwaynī said: “There is no Shāfi‘ī but al-Shāfi‘ī holds a favour over him, besides Ahmad al-Bayhaqī, for verily he holds a favour over al-Shāfi‘ī due to his writings in support of his madhhab and his views.” Imām al-Bayhaqī passed away in the year 458 H in Naysābūr and was buried in his hometown of Bayhaq. Some of the works he left behind are: al-Sunan al-Kabīr a very comprehensive collection of hadīths pertaining to juristic rulings, Ma‘rifat al-Sunan wa l-Āthār on the hadīths narrated by Imām al-Shāfi‘ī, al-Mabsūt on the rulings of al-Shāfi‘ī, al-Asmā wa l-Sifāt a unique work on the names and attributes of Allāh, al-I‘tiqād, Dalā’il al-Nubuwwah, Shu‘ab al-Īmān, Manāqib al-Shāfi‘ī, al-Da‘awāt al-Kabīr, al-Madkhal ilā Kitāb al-Sunan, al-Khilāfiyyāt, al-Ba‘th wa l-Nushūr, al-Zuhd and al-Ādāb.
[2]
لما أراد الله سبحانه أن ينفي التشبيه على آكد ما يكون النفي، جمع في قراءتنا بين حروف التشبيه واسم التشبيه حتى يكون النفي مؤكدا على المبالغة (مكتبة السوادي للتوزيع، ج٢ ص٣٤)
[3]
[المثل] عبارة عن المشابة لغيره في معنى من المعاني، أي معنى كان، وهو أعم الألفاظ الموضوعة للمشابة، وذلك أن الند يقال فيما يشارك فى الجوهر فقط، والشبه يقال فيما يشارك فى الكيفية فقط، والمساوي يقال فيما يشارك فى الكمية فقط، والشكل يقال فيما يشاركه فى القدر والمساحة فقط، والمثل أعم من جميع ذلك، ولهذا لما أراد الله تعالى نفي التشبيه من كل وجه خصه بالذكر فقال: ليس كمثله شيء (المفردات في غريب القرآن، مكتبة نزار مصطفى الباز، ص٥٩٧)
[4]
ثم يعلم أن صانع العالم لا يشبه شيئا من العالم لأنه لو أشبه شيئا من المحدثات بجهة من الجهات لأشبهه فى الحدوث من تلك الجهة، ومحال أن يكون القديم محدثا أو يكون قديما من جهة حديثا من جهة (الإعتقاد والهداية إلى سبيل الرشاد، دار الفضيلة، ص٣٧)
[5] His full name is Abū Ja‘far Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Salāmah ibn Salamah al-Azdī al-Hajrī. He was born in Egypt in the year 239 H. His mother was a student of Imām al-Shāfi‘ī and the sister of Imām Ismā‘īl ibn Yahyā al-Muzanī (d. 264 H) the famous companion of Imām al-Shāfi‘ī (150 – 204 H). In his childhood he studied with his father, mother and maternal uncle, Ismā‘īl ibn Yahyā al-Muzanī, under whom he studied fiqh and hadīth and heard the Mukhtasar. He memorised the Qur’ān under Yahyā ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Amrūs at the masjid of ‘Amr ibn al-‘Ās. He also took hadīth from the senior hadīth authorities of that time like Yūnus ibn ‘Abd al-A‘lā (d. 264 H), Hārūn ibn Sa‘īd al-Aylī (d. 254 H), Muhammad ibn ‘Abdillāh ibn ‘Abd al-Hakam (d. 268 H) and Bahr ibn Nasr (d. 267 H). He shared some teachers with the authors of the six books of hadīth, and he narrated from Imām al-Nasā’ī (d. 303 H), his contemporary, when he settled in Egypt. At about the age of 20, he left the madhhab of Imām al-Shāfi‘ī for the madhhab of Imām Abū Hanīfah because he found his uncle al-Muzanī frequently looking in the books of the Hanafīs, and as a result of the influence of the Hanafī judges in Egypt over him, namely: Bakkār ibn Qutaybah (182 – 270 H) and Ahmad ibn Abī ‘Imrān (d. 280). In his late twenties, he visited Shām and benefitted from its scholars including the Hanafī Qādī, Abū Khāzim (d. 292 H). He learnt the recitation of ‘Āsim word for word from Rawh ibn al-Faraj (d. 282), an eminent Mālikī jurist, who narrated from Yahyā ibn Sulaymān from Abū Bakr ibn ‘Ayyāsh (Shu‘bah) from ‘Āsim, the imām of recitation.
Imām al-Tahāwī was a mujtahid jurist, an unparalleled authority in the Hanafī madhhab, knowledgeable of Qur’ān, its different readings, derived rulings, its meanings and language; a hāfiz and transmitter of hadīth, narrator-critic, and one of the most well-versed in the disagreements of the earlier jurists. He is the author of many works including Sharh Ma‘ānī al-Āthār, Sharh Mushkil al-Āthār and Sunan al-Shāfi‘ī on hadīth, Ahkām al-Qur’ān on rulings derived from the Qur’ān, Ikhtilāf al-Fuqahā’ on the disagreements between earlier jurists, Kitāb al-Shurūt on a particular subject of jurisprudence related to conditions, contracts and agreements, Mukhtasar a condensed compilation of the rulings of the Hanafī madhhab, al-Radd ‘ala l-Karābīsī on hadīth-transmitters who practise tadlīs, al-‘Aqīdah a famous short text on the creed of Ahlus Sunnah and al-Taswiyah bayna Haddathanā wa Akhbaranā on a particular issue with regards to terminology used in hadīth transmission. He died in 321 H. Hāfiz Ibn ‘Adī and Hāfiz al-Tabrānī are counted amongst his many students.
[6]
من وصف الله بمعنى من معاني البشر فقد كفر (العقيدة الطحاوية)
[7]
هو إفراد المعبود بالعبادة مع اعتقاد وحدته ذاتا وصفاتا وأفعالا (هداية المريد لجوهرة التوحيد، دار البصائر، ج١ ص٨٣)
[8]
وأما أهل السنة ففسروا التوحيد بنفي التشبيه والتعطيل، ومن ثم قال الجنيد فيما حكاه أبو القاسم القشيري: التوحيد إفراد القديم من المحدث، وقال أبو القاسم التميمي في كتاب الحجة: التوحيد مصدر وحد يوحد، ومعنى وحدت الله: اعتقدته منفردا بذاته وصفاته لا نظير له ولا شبيه (فتح الباري، دار السلام ج١٣ ص٤٢١)
[9]
لا تبلغه الأوهام، ولا تدركه الأفهام (العقيدة الطحاوية)
[10] Abū Bakr Muhammad ibn al-Hasan ibn Fūrak was a pious, ascetic and learned scholar born around the year 330 H. He resided in ‘Irāq where he studied the theological school of al-Ash‘arī under one of Imām Abu l-Hasan al-Ash‘arī’s (260 – 324 H) foremost disciples, Abu l-Hasan al-Bāhilī. He was sent to teach in Naysābūr at the Khānqāh of Abu l-Hasan al-Būshanjī (d. 348 H), where according to Hāfiz Abū ‘Abdillāh al-Hākim (d. 405 H), “Allāh revived through him various shades of knowledge in our land when he settled there, and his blessing became apparent to many students of fiqh and they graduated under him.” He heard hadīth from the hadīth transmitter (musnid) of Asfahān, ‘Abdullāh ibn Ja‘far ibn Ahmad ibn Fāris (248 – 346 H) from whom he took the entire Musnad al-Tayālisī via the chain of Yūnus ibn Habīb al-‘Ijlī (d. 267 H) from the author, Abū Dāwūd al-Tayālisī (133 – 204 H). He also heard hadīth from Qādī Abū Bakr Ahmad ibn Mahmūd ibn Kharzād (d. 356 H), one of the teachers of al-Dāraqutnī mentioned in his Sunan. His most famous student, Imām al-Bayhaqī, narrates many hadīths from him in his works, including al-Sunan al-Kubrā, Ma‘rifat al-Sunan wa l-Āthār and Shu‘ab al-Īmān, mostly from his transmission of Musnad al-Tayālisī. Abū Bakr ibn Fūrak was a prolific author, his works on beliefs, juristic theory and the commentary of the Qur’ān having reached almost one hundred. The famous Sūfī, Abu l-Qāsim al-Qushayrī, was also amongst his students. He suffered trials as a result of refuting the followers of Abū ‘Abdillāh ibn Karrām (d. 255) who believed that Allāh is a physical body. They invented lies about his beliefs, until eventually he was poisoned and died a martyr in the year 406 H. His body was carried to Naysābūr and he was buried in Hīrah. It is said that supplications made at his grave are readily accepted.
[11]
نفس الرحمة لا يصح فيها تأخر وتقدم بحد ونهاية، لأجل أنها عندنا صفة من صفات ذاته لم يزل بها موصوفا، وإنما أراد ههنا ما هو دلالة على الرحمة التي تناله من قبل الله جل ذكره، لأن الكائن عن الشيء والمتعلق به قد يسمى باسمه، كما يقال لما يظهر عن قدرة الله سبحانه من أفعاله إنها قدرة الله وتحقيق ذلك أنه هو الكائن عن قدرته، كذلك ما يبدو من النعم عن سابق الرحمة قد يسمى رحمة على التوسع فى الكلام (مشكل الحديث، المعهد الفرنسي، ص١١٢)
[12]
منهم من قبله وآمن به ولم يؤوله، ووكل علمه إلى الله، ونفى الكيفية والتشبيه عنه
ومنهم من قبله وآمن به وحمله على وجه يصح استعماله فى اللغة، ولا يناقض التوحيد، وقد ذكرنا هاتين الطريقتين في كتاب الأسماء والصفات فى المسائل التي تكلموا فيها من هذا الباب (الإعتقاد والهداية إلى سبيل الرشاد، ص١٢٠)
ومنهم من قبله وآمن به وحمله على وجه يصح استعماله فى اللغة، ولا يناقض التوحيد، وقد ذكرنا هاتين الطريقتين في كتاب الأسماء والصفات فى المسائل التي تكلموا فيها من هذا الباب (الإعتقاد والهداية إلى سبيل الرشاد، ص١٢٠)
[13] His full name is Abū Sulaymān Hamd (or Ahmad) ibn Muhammad ibn Ibrāhīm al-Khattābī. He was born in the year 319 H in the city of Bust (in present-day Afghānistān). He travelled to ‘Irāq, receiving knowledge from the scholars of Baghdād and Basrah, and he visited Hijāz, and settled in Makkah for some time, before returning to Khurāsān and settling in Naysābūr and finally in his hometown of Bust. He studied fiqh from the great Shāfi‘ī imām, Abū Bakr al-Qaffāl (291 – 336 H), who is said to have studied Kalām directly under Imām Abu l-Hasan al-Ash‘arī. He also studied fiqh under Ibn Abī Hurayrah (d. 345 H), another major Shāfi‘ī jurist in those regions. He took hadīth in Makkah from Abū Sa‘īd ibn al-A‘rābī (246 – 340 H), a Sūfī muhaddith, and transmitter of Sunan Abī Dāwūd directly from Imām Abū Dāwūd; and in Basrah from Abū Bakr ibn Dāsah (d. 346 H), another transmitter of the Sunan from Imām Abū Dāwūd; and in Naysābūr from Abu l-‘Abbās ibn al-Asamm (247 – 346 H), one of the famous teachers of al-Hākim. He was known for his knowledge, piety, abstention, scrupulousness, poetry, prose, teaching and writing. Abu l-Muzaffar ibn al-Sam‘ānī (426 – 489 H), a major Shāfi‘ī scholar of Usūl, said in Qawāti‘ al-Adillah: “He held a great position in knowledge, and he is an imām from the imāms of Sunnah, suitable to be followed.” He authored Ma‘ālim al-Sunan a commentary on Sunan Abī Dāwūd, Gharīb al-Hadīth on the uncommon words found in hadīth, A‘lām al-Hadīth a commentary on Sahīh al-Bukhārī which he wrote after Ma‘ālim, Islāh Ghalat al-Muhaddithīn in which he mentioned about 150 hadīths which many muhaddithīn narrated incorrectly and other works. He died in Rabī‘ al Thānī of the year 388 H in his hometown of Bust. Imām al-Hākim, author of the Mustadrak, and Imām Abū Dharr al-Harawī, transmitter of Sahīh al-Bukhārī, were amongst his many students.
[14]
وكان أبو عبيد وهو أحد أئمة أهل العلم يقول: نحن نروي هذه الأحاديث ولا نريغ لها المعاني (أعلام الحديث، مركز إحياء التراث الإسلامي، ص١٩٠٧)
[15]
ونحن أحرياء بأن لا نتقدم فيما تأخر عنه من هو أكثر علما وأقدم زمانا وسنا (المصدر السابق)
[16]
ولكن الزمان الذي نحن فيه قد صار أهله حزبين: منكر لما يروى من نوع هذه الأحاديث رأسا ومكذب به أصلا وفي ذلك تكذيب العلماء الذين رووا هذه الأحاديت وهم أئمة الدين ونقلة السنن والواسطة بيننا وبين رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، والطائفة الأخرى مسلمة للرواية فيها ذاهبة في تحقيق الظاهر منها مذهبا يكاد يفضي بهم إلى القول بالتشبيه ونحن نرغب عن الأمرين معا، ولا نرضى بواحد منهما مذهبا، فيحق علينا أن نطلب لما يرد من الأحاديث إذا صحت من طريق النقل والسند تأويلا يخرج على معاني أصول الدين ومذاهب العلما ولا نبطل الرواية فيها أصلا إذا كانت طرقها مرضية ونقلتها عدولا (المصدر السابق)
[17]
فإن قيل: فهلا تأولت اليد والوجه على هذا النوع من التأويل وجعلت الأسماء فيها أمثالا كذلك؟ قيل: إن هذه الصفات المذكورة في كتاب الله عز وجل بأسمائها وهي صفات مدح والأصل أن كل صفة جاء بها الكتاب أو صحت بأخبار التواتر أو رويت من طريق الآحاد وكان لها أصل فى الكتاب، أو خرجت على بعض معانيه، فإنا نقول بها ونجريها على ظاهرها من غير تكييف. وما لم يكن له منها فى الكتاب ذكر ولا فى التواتر أصل ولا له بمعاني الكتاب تعلق، وكان مجيئه من طريق الآحاد وأفضى بنا القول إذا أجريناه على ظاهره إلى التشبيه فإنا نتأوله على معنى يحتمله الكلام، ويزول معه معنى التشبيه وهذا هو الفرق بين ما جاء من ذكر القدم والرجل والساق وبين اليد والوجه والعين وبالله العصمة (أعلام الحديث، ص١٩١١)
[18]
وليس معنى اليد عندنا الجارحة، إنما هو صفة جاء بها التوقيف، فنحن نطلقها على ما جاءت ولا يكيفها وننتهي إلى حيث انتهى بنا الكتاب واأخبار المأثورة الصحيحة، وهو مذهب أهل السنة والجماعة (أعلام الحديث، ص٢٣٤٧)
[19]
الإستواء غير مجهول، والكيف غير معقول، والإيمان به واجب، والسؤال عنه بدعة (الإعتقاد والهداية إلى سبيل الرشاد، ص١١٩)
[20]
ثم المذهب الصحيح في جميع ذلك الإقتصار على ما ورد به التوقيف دون التكييف، وإلى هذا ذهب المتقدمون من أصحابنا ومن تبعهم من المتأخرين، وقالوا: الإستواء على العرش قد نطق به الكتاب في غير آية ووردت به الأخبار (المصدر السابق، ص١١٨)
[21]
الرحمن على العرش استوى كما وصف نفسه، ولا يقال كيف وكيف عنه مرفوع (الأسماء والصفات، ج٢ ص٣٠٤-٥)
[22]
وحكينا عن المتقدمين من أصحابنا ترك الكلام في أمثال ذلك، هذا مع اعتقادهم نفي الحد والتشبيه والتمثيل عن الله سبحانه وتعالى. أخبرنا الفقيه أبو بكر أحمد بن محمد بن الحارث الأصبهاني: أنا أبو محمد بن حيان: ثنا إسحاق بن أحمد الفارسي: ثنا حفص بن عمر المهرقاني: ثنا أبو داود قال: كان سفيان الثوري وشعبة وحماد بن زيد وحماد بن سلمة وشريك وأبو عوانة لا يحدون ولا يشبهون ولا يمثلون، يروون الحديث لا يقولون كيف، وإذا سئلوا أجابوا بالأثر. قال أبو داود: وهو قولنا. قلت: وعلى هذا مضى أكابرنا
[23] He is Sulaymān ibn Dāwūd ibn al-Jārūd, known as Abū Dāwūd al-Tayālisī, born in the year 133 probably in Basrah. He began listening to hadīth at a very young age, having heard from Hishām al-Dastawā’ī (d. 152 H) and many others in Basrah. He travelled to Baghdād in his twenties and heard from the muhaddithīn there. He also travelled to Kūfāh and heard from Sufyān al-Thawrī, Isrā’īl ibn Yūnus and others. He travelled to Madīnah and heard from Imām Mālik and others. He devoted himself to the collection and preservation of hadith. He said of himself that he wrote from one thousand teachers. He narrated one hundred thousand hadīths in Khurāsān from his memory. His most famous teacher and the one from whom he narrated most frequently is Shu‘bah ibn al-Hajjāj (82 – 160 H). He also accompanied Hammād ibn Salamah (d. 167 H). His narrations are found in all six collections of hadīth besides Sahīh al-Bukhārī, and he is regarded as a leading transmitter of hadīth. He is the author of a well-known Musnad collection. Imām Ahmad ibn Hanbal (164 – 241 H) is counted amongst his many students.
[24] All the narrators in the chain have been graded trustworthy by the scholars of narrator-criticism besides the third century transmitter, Abū Ya‘qūb Ishāq ibn Ahmad ibn Zayrak al-Yazdī al-Asbahānī al-Fārisī, author of a Musnad (al-Ikmāl, 1:456, al-Ansāb, Maktabah Ibn Taymiyyah, 12:399). A number of hadīth scholars took from him, including: Abū Bakr Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-‘Anbarī (d. 324 H), Hāfiz Abu l-Shaykh (d. 369 H) who narrates from him frequently in his ‘Azamah and other works, Abū Ja‘far Ahmad ibn Ya‘qūb al-Asfahānī and Mansūr ibn Muhammad al-Asbahānī. Al-Dhahabī includes a brief biography of him in Tārīkh al-Islām (Dār al-Gharb al-Islāmī, 7:142). Ibn Hajar includes him in Hady al-Sārī amongst the contemporaries of Imām al-Bukhārī who narrated from him. Hāfiz al-Mizzī refers to those Ishāq ibn Ahmad narrated from in several places of his Tahdhīb al-Kamāl. He is an example of mastūr (one who is known and apparently a person of integrity, while there is no praise or criticism of his strength in transmission). On accepting the narration of a mastūr, al-Nawawī says: “It appears the practice (of the scholars of hadīth) is on this in many books of hadīths…” And al-Nawawī said this is the correct view in his Sharh al-Muhadhdhab (Tadrīb al-Rāwī, Dār Ibn al-Jawzī, 1:479) Ibn al-Salāh also felt this is the correct view. Ibn Hajar said: “When there is no criticism or praise of a narrator whose grading is unknown, and when both his teacher and the narrator from him are trustworthy, and he did not produce any outright rejected hadīth, he is trustworthy according to him [i.e. Hāfiz Ibn Hibbān].” This is the case here, as Hafs ibn ‘Umar al-Mahraqānī, Ishāq’s teacher, is trustworthy according to al-Dhahabī and Maslamah ibn Qāsim, while Abu l-Shaykh the narrator from him is an imām who is undoubtedly trustworthy as stated by Ibn al-‘Imād, al-Dhahabī, al-Sam‘ānī and others. Hence, according to this understanding, the narration is sound.
[25] As stated by the editor
[26]
سئل الأوزاعي ومالك وسفيان الثوري والليث بن سعد عن هذه الأحاديت فقالو: أمروها كما جاءت بلا كيفية (الإعتقاد والهداية إلى سبيل الرشاد، ص١٢٣)
[27] As stated by the editor
[28]
كل ما وصف الله من نفسه فتفسيره تلاوته والسكوت عليه (المصدر السابق)
[29]
ليس لأحد أن يفسره بالعربية ولا بالفارسية (الأسماء والصفات، ج٢ ص١١٧)
[30]
كل شيء وصف الله به نفسه فى القرآن فقراءته تفسير لا كيف ولا مثل (شرح أصول اعتقاد أهل السنة، ص٤٣١)
[31]
وإنما أراد به والله أعلم فيما تفسيره يؤدي إلى التكييف يتكييفه يقتضي تشبيها له بخلقه في أوصاف الحدث (الإعتقاد والهداية إلى سبيل الرشاد، ص١٢٣)
[32]
وإنما أراد والله أعلم الأوصاف الخبرية (الأسماء والصفات، ج٢ ص١٥٩)
[33]
وذهب بعض أهل النظر منهم إلى أن اليمين يراد به اليد والكف عبارة عن اليد واليد لله تعالى صفة بلا جارحة، فكل موضع ذكرت فيه من كتاب وسنة صحيحة فالمراد بذكرها تعلقها بالكائن المذكور معها، من الطي والأخذ، والقبض والبسط، والمسح والقبول والإنفاق وغير ذلك تعلق الصفة الذاتية بمقتضاها من غير مباشرة ولا مماسة وليس في ذلك تشبيه بحال (المصدر السابق)
[34]
والرؤية حق لأهل الجنة بغير إحاطة ولا كيفية (العقيدة الطحاوية)
[35]
فإن ربنا جل وعلا موصوف بصفات الوحدانية منعوت بنعوت الفردانية، ليس في معناه أحد من البرية، تعالى عن الحدود والغايات، والأركان والأعضاء والأدوات (العقيدة الطحاوية)
[36] Hāfiz Ahmad ibn Ibrāhīm ibn Ismā‘īl ibn al-‘Abbās Abū Bakr al-Ismā‘īlī was born in 277 and began writing hadīth as a child. He took hadīth from many hadīth authorities including Abū Ya‘lā al-Mawsilī (210 – 303 H), author of the Musnad, and Ibn Khuzaymah (223 – 311 H), author of the Sahīh. He travelled throughout Khurāsān, ‘Irāq and Hijāz in search of hadīth. He compiled a number of works which bear testimony to his mastery in hadīth and fiqh, the most famous of them being his Mustakhraj on the Sahīh of Imām al-Bukhārī. He was an unparalleled hāfiz of his time. Al-Hākim and Abū Bakr al-Barqānī are amongst his famous students. Al-Hākim said: “Al-Ismā‘īlī was unique in his era, the shaykh of the muhaddithīn and jurists, and the most prominent of them in leadership, honour and generosity, and there is no disagreement amongst the scholars of the two groups and the intelligent of them about [the stature of] Abū Bakr.” He died in the year 371 H.
[37]
ولا يعتقد فيه الأعضاء والجوارح، ولا الطول والعرض والغلظ والدقة ونحو هذا مما يكون مثله فى الخلق، وأنه ليس كمثله شيء (اعتقاد أئمة أهل الحديث، دار الفتح، ص٣٦)
[38]
وذلك من غير اعتقاد التجسيم فى الله عز وجل ولا التحديد له ولكن يرونه عز وجل بأعينهم على ما يشاء هو بلا كيف (المصدر السابق، ص٤٣)
[39]
وليس معنى قول المسلمين إن الله على العرش هو أنه مماس له أو متمكن في أو متحيز في جهة من جهاته، لكنه بائن من جميع خلقه (أعلام الحديث، ص١٤٧٤)
[40] He is Ahmad ibn Hamdān ibn Shabīb al-Nimarī an inhabitant of Cairo. He was born in the year 603 in Syria and his most senior teacher was ‘Abd al-Qāhir al-Rahāwī (d. 612). He also studied under al-Fakhr Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 622) and al-Hasan ibn Ahmad al-Awqī. Amongst his many students were the famous al-Mizzī, al-Birzālī, Ibn Sayyid al-Nās and al-Dimyātī. He taught and issued fatwā and worked as Qādī in Cairo. Amongst his works are al-Ri‘āyat al-Sughrā and al-Ri‘āyat al-Kubrā on Hanbalī fiqh, Sifat al-Muftī wa l-Mustaftī on the principles of issuing fatwā, al-Wāfī on juristic theory and Nihāyat al-Mubtadi’īn on the fundamentals of religion. He died in the year 695 H. Ibn Rajab al-Hanbalī said of him: “He excelled in fiqh. Knowledge of the [Hanbalī] madhhab, its intricacies and its subtleties, reached their peak in him. He was knowledgeable of the two foundational sciences (usūl al-fiqh and usūl al-dīn) as well as disagreement and literature. He compiled many works.” Al-Dhahabī referred to him as “the shaykh of the Hanbalīs.”
[41]
هو بائن من خلقه، الله على العرش لا بتحديد وإنما التحديد للعرش وما دونه، والله فوق ذلك لا مكان ولا حد، لأنه كان ولا مكان ثم خلق المكان وهو كما كان قبل خلق المكان (نهاية المبتدئين، مكتبة الرشد، ص٣٠-٣١)
[42]
نقل الحافظ الذهبي بإسناده عن فقيه المدينة عبد العزيز ابن الماجشون: وإنما يقال: كيف؟ لمن لم يكن مرة ثم كان. أما من لا يحول ولم يزل، وليس له مثل فإنه لا يعلم كيف هو (أي حقيقته) إلا هو (سير أعلام النبلاء، مؤسسة الرسالة، ج٧ ص٣١٢)
[43]
إعلم أن الله تعالى أولا لم يزل أولا...وهو الآخر الذي لا يفنى والأول الذي لا يبيد، القديم الذي لا بداية له، لم يحدث كما حدثت الأشياء، لم يكن صغيرا فكبر ولا ضعيفا فقوي ولا ناقصا فتم ولا جاهلا فعلم، لم يزل قويا عاليا كبيرا متعاليا، لم تأت طرفة عين قط إلا وهو الله لم يزل ربا، ولا يزال أبدا كذلك فيما كان وكذلك فيما بقي يكون، وكذلك هو الآن لم يستحدث علما بعد أن لم يكن يعلم، ولا قوة بعد قوة لم تكن فيه، ولم يتغير عن حال إلى حال بزيادة ولا نقصان لأنه لم يبق من الملك والعظمة شيء إلا وهو فيه، ولن يزيد أبدا عن شيء كان عليه...(العظمة، دار العاصمة، ص٣٨٧)
[44] He was a leading Hanbalī jurist of his time, Abu l-Fadl ‘Abd al-Wāhid ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz al-Tamīmī al-Baghdādī, born in Baghdād in the year 342 H. He narrated from his father, ‘Abd al-‘Azīz ibn al-Hārith al-Tamīmī (317 – 371 H), Ahmad ibn Kāmil al-Qādī, ‘Abdullāh ibn Ishāq al-Khurāsānī and others. Al-Khatīb al-Baghdādī narrated from him and included a biography of him in his Tārīkh (12:265), referring to him as “reliable” (sadūq). His nephew Rizqullāh al-Tamīmī and others also narrated from him. He remained in Baghdād for a time, teaching, lecturing and issuing fatwā, and eventually settled in Khurāsān. He was a friend of Qādī Abū Bakr Ibn al-Bāqillānī, the great Ash‘arī Mālikī theologian and judge. He died in 410 H and was buried next to Imām Ahmad ibn Hanbal.
[45]
قال أبو الفضل التميمي: وليس معنى وجه معنى جسم عنده ولا صورة ولا تخطيط، ومن قال ذلك فقد ابتدع...إن لله تعالى يدين وهما صفة في ذاته ليستا بجارحتين ولا بمركبتين ولا جسم ولا جنس من الأجسام ولا من جنس المحدود والتركيب والأبعاض والجوارح، ولا يقاس على ذلك...فامتدح الله بأنه على العرش استوى أي عليه علا ولا يجوز أن يقال: استوى بمماسة ولا بملاقاة، تعالى الله عن ذلك علوا كبيرا، والله تعالى لم يلحقه تغير ولا تبدل ولا يلحقه الحدود قبل خلق العرش ولا بعد خلق العرش...وأنكر على من يقول بالجسم وقال: إن الأسماء مأخوذة بالشريعة واللغة وأهل اللغة وضعوا هذا الاسم على كل ذي طول وعرض وسمك وتركيب مصورة وتأليف، والله تعالى خارج عن ذلك كله، فلم يجز أن يسمى جسما لخروجه عن معنى الجسمية (إعتقاد الإمام المبجل، دار الكتب العلمية)
[46] His full name is Abu l-Wafā’ ‘Alī ibn ‘Aqīl ibn Ahmad. He was born in Baghdād in the year 431 H and also died in Baghdād in the year 513 H. He is widely recognised as one of the foremost intellectuals in Islāmic history. He was a polymath, excelling in many sciences including Qur’ānic recitation, Nahw and literature, Tasawwuf, poetry, inheritance laws, oration, juristic theory (usūl al-fiqh), jurisprudence – which he studied under Qādī Abū Ya‘lā –, debate and polemics and theology. He enjoyed the company of many prominent teachers, including al-Khatīb al-Baghdādī. He was appointed to issue fatwā at a young age in the year 458 H. He initially had some inclination to the Mu‘tazilah but in the year 465 openly declared his departure from them. He had interactions with Imām al-Haramayn, al-Ghazālī and Ilkiyā al-Harrāsī. He left behind many works, the most famous of them the encyclopaedic al-Funūn.
[47]
قال ابن عقيل: الصورة على الحقيقة تقع على التخاطيط والأشكال وذلك من صفات الأجسام، والذي صرفنا عن كونه جسما من الأدلة القطعية قوله تعالى: ليس كمثله شيء، ومن الأدلة العقلية أنه لو كان جسما كانت صورته عرضا ولو كان حامل الأعراض جاز عليه ما يجوز على الأجسام وافتقر إلى صانع (دفع شبه التشبيه، المكتبة الأزهرية، ص٣٦)
قال ابن عقيل: تعالى الله أن يكون له صفة تشغل الأمكنة، وليس الحق تعالى بذي أجزاء وأبعاض فيعالج بها (المصدر السابق، ص٤٣)
[48] He is Jamāl al-Dīn Abu l-Faraj ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn ‘Alī ibn Muhammad Ibn al-Jawzī, a descendent of Abū Bakr (may Allāh be pleased with him), born in the year 510 H in Baghdād. He was a man of great piety, knowledge and influence. He was a leading Hanbalī jurist, having studied fiqh under Abu l-Hasan Ibn al-Zāghūnī. Al-Dhahabī said of him: “He had a share of every science.” He died in the year 597 H, leaving behind a huge legacy in books and commentaries.
[49] See: footnote 37 for his biography
[50]
الله تعالى ليس بجوهر ولا عرض ولا جسم ولا تحله الحوادث ولا يحل في حادث ولا ينحصر فيه بل هو بائن من خلقه، الله على العرش لا بتحديد وإنما التحديد للعرش وما دونه، والله فوق ذلك لا مكان ولا حد، لأنه كان ولا مكان ثم خلق المكان وهو كما كان قبل خلق المكان...ونجزم بأنه سبحانه وتعالى فى السماء وأنه يستوي على العرش بلا كيف بل على ما يليق به في ذلك كله ولا نتأول ذلك ولا نفسر ولا نكيفه ولا نتوهمه ولا نعنيه ولا نعطله ولا نكذبه بل نكل علمه إلى الله تعالى، ونجزم بنفي التشبيه والتجسيم (نهاية المبتدئين، مكتبة الرشد، ص٣٠-٣١)
ولا يقال في صفاته: تحت ولا فوق ولا قدام ولا خلف ولا كيفية، فلا يقال: ما هو ولا من أي شيء هو ولا أي شيء هو ولا متى كان ولا لما كان (المصدر السابق، ص٣٤)
[51]
نفي التشبيه على الإطلاق بين صفات الخالق وصفات المخلوق لا يصح لأنه ما من صفتين ثانتتين إلا وبينهما اشتراك في أصل المعنى، وهذا الإشتراك نوع من المشابهة (مجموع فتاوى ورسائل فضيلة الشيخ محمد بن صالح العثيمين، ج١ ص١٨١)
[52]
فإذا قلت: ما هي الصورة التي تكون لله يكون آدم عليها؟ قلنا: إن الله عز وجل له وجه وله عين وله يد وله رجل عز وجل، لكن لا يلزم من أن تكون هذه الأشياء مماثلة للإنسان، فهناك شيء من الشبه، لكنه ليس على سبيل المماثلة (شرح العقيدة الوسطية، دار ابن الجوزي ص١١٠)
[53]
الذي يعتقد أن صفات الخالق مثل صفات المخلوق ضال، ذلك أن صفات الخالق لا تماثل صفات المخلوقين بنص القرآن...ولا يلزم من تماثل الشيئين فى الاسم أو الصفة أن يتماثلا فى الحقيقة، هذه قاعدة معلومة. أليس للآدمي وجه وللبعير وجه؟ اتفقا فى الاسم لكن لم يتفقا فى الحقيقة. وللجمل يد وللذرة يد، فهل اليدان متماثلان؟ الجواب: لا. إذن لماذا لا تقول لله عز وجل وجه لا يماثل أوجه المخلوقين ولله يد ولا تماثل أيدى المخلوقين؟ قال الله تعالى: وما قدروا الله حق قدره، والأرض جميعا قبضته يوم القيامة والسماوات مطويات بيمينه...هل هناك يد من أيدى المخلوقين تكون كهذ اليد؟ لا...ولذلك لا يجوز أبدا أن تتخيل كيفية صفة من صفات الله أو أن تظن أن صفات الله كمثل صفات المخلوق (مجموع فتاوى ورسائل فضيلة الشيخ محمد بن صالح العثيمين، ج١ ص١٨١)
[54]
صنفان من شر الناس بخراسان: الجهمية والمشبهة وربما قال: والمقاتلية (تاريخ مدينة السلام، دار الغرب الإسلامي، ج١٥ ص٥١٤)
[55]
وقال محمد بن سماعة عن أبي يوسف عن أبي حنيفة: أفرط جهم فى النفي حتى قال إنه ليس بشيء وأفرط مقاتل فى الإثبات حتى جعل الله تعالى مثل خلقه (تهذيب التهذيب، مجلس دائرة المعارف، ج١٠ ص٢٨١)
[56]
وقال إسحاق بن إبراهيم: قال أبو حنيفة: أتانا من المشرق رأيان خبيثان: جهم معطل ومقاتل مشبه (المصدر السابق)
[57]
والإخبار عن الغائب لا يفهم إن لم يعبر عنه بالأسماء المعلومة معانيها فى الشاهد، ويعلم بها ما فى الغائب بواسطة العلم بما فى الشاهد، مع العلم بالفارق المميز، وأن ما أخبر الله به من الغيب أعظم مما يعلم فى الشاهد (رسالة التدمرية، ص٩٧)
[58]
فمن أثبت لله سبحانه وتعالى أمرا من الصفات فإنما أثبته بعد أن فهم نظير ذلك من الموجودات، وأثبت به القدر المطلق مع وصفه له بخاصة تمتنع فيها الشركة (بيان تلبيس الجهمية، مجمع الملك فهد، ج٤ ص١١١)
ولا بد من هذا في جميع أسماء الله وصفاته، يفهم منها ما دل عليه الإسم بالمواطأة والإتفاق، وما دل عليه بالإضافة والإختصاص المانعة من مشاركة المخلوق للخالق في شيء من خصائصه سبحانه وتعالى (رسالة التدمرية، ص٢٢)
يلزم وجود موجود فى الخارج يشترك فيه الرب والعبد، وأن يكون ذلك الموجود بعينه فى العبد والرب، بل: وفي كل موجود، ولا بد أن يكون للرب ما يميزه عن المخلوق، فيكون فيه جزءان: أحدهما لكل مخلوق وهو القدر المشترك بينه وبين سائر
الموجودات، والثاني: يختص به وهو المميز له عن سائر الموجودات (شرح حديث النزول، دار العاصمة، ص٨٠)
[59]
هذه صفات (أي اليد والوجه ونحوهما) قائمة بنفسها كما هي قائمة بنفسها فى الشاهد، كما أن العلم والقدرة قائم بغيره فى الغائب والشاهد لكن لا تقبل التفريق والإنفصال، كما أن علمه وقدرته لا تقبل الزوال عن ذاته، وإن كان المخلوق يمكن مفارقة ما هو قائم به وما هو منه يمكن مفارقة بعض ذلك بعضا، فجواز ذلك على المخلوق لا يقتضي جوازه على الخالق، وقد علم أن الخالق ليس مماثلا للمخلوق، وأن هذه الصفات وإن كانت أعيانا فليست لحما ولا عصبا ولا دما ولا نحو ذلك ولا هي من جنس شيء من المخلوقات (بيان تلبيس الجهمية، ج١ ص٣٥٦)
وبيان هذا أن صفاتنا منها ما هي أعيان وأجسام، وهي أبعاض لنا، كالوجه واليد، ومنها ما هي معان وأعراض، وهي قائمة بنا، كالسمع والبصر والكلام والعلم والقدرة. ثم إن من المعلوم أن الرب لما وصف نفسه بأنه حي عليم قدير لم يقل المسلمون إن ظاهر هذا غير مراد لأن مفهوم ذلك في حقه مثل مفهومه في حقنا، فكذلك لما وصف نفسه بأنه خلق آدم بيديه لم يوجب ذلك أن يكون ظاهره غير مراد لأن مفهوم ذلك في حقه كمفهومه في حقنا (رسالة التدمرية، ٧٧-٨)
[60]
فقال (أبو يعلى) هنا: ويجب أن يحمل اختلاف كلام أحمد في إثبات الحد على اختلاف الحالين، فالموضع الذي قال إنه على العرش بحد معناه أن ما حاذى العرش من ذاته فهو حد له وجهة له، والموضع الذي قال هو على العرش بغير حد معناه ما عدا الجهة المحاذية للعرش وهي الفوق والخلف والأمام والميمنة والميسرة...قلت: هذا الذي ذكره في تفسير كلام أحمد ليس بصواب، بل كلام أحمد كما قال أولا حيث نفاه نفى تحديد الحاد له وعلمه بحده وحيث أثبته أثبته في نفسه...وأما ما ذكره القاضي من إثبات الحد من ناحية العرش فقط فهذا قد اختلف فيه كلامه، وهو قول طائفة من أهل السنة، والجمهور على خلافه وهو الصواب (بيان تلبيس الجهمية، ج٣ ص٧٣٥-٧)
[61] Acknowledgements: This article is based on an online work of ‘Uthmān Muhammad al-Nāblusī titled: al-Sifāt al-‘Ilāhiyyah bayna Ahl al-Tanzīh wa Ahl al-Tashbīh
Taken from HERE
Download article as PDF