Response to Seventeen "Claims" Against Tafwidh al-Ma'na
In the name of Allāh, The Most Beneficent, The Most MercifulThe following is a response to a document of seventeen alleged proofs that has been circulated recently, wherein it is claimed that the Pious Predecessors (al-Salaf al-Sālihīn) did not believe in tafwīdh al-ma’na i.e. to consign the meaning of the ambiguous attributes of Allāh, to Allāh Himself. The proofs presented within that document have been reproduced hereunder, followed by their appropriate responses.
Response:
The haqīqah in both contexts, are not in regards to literal meaning, rather, in regards to haqīqah in terms of reality i.e. accepting these sifāt as realities rather than allegories. The statement of Imām al-Tabari, if read completely, is clear in enumeration of this fact. In the very statement that is claimed to be a proof, from al-Ta’bīr fi Ma'ālim al-Dīn, the following is stated:
فنثبت كل هذه المعاني التي ذكرنا أنها جاءت بها الأخبار ، والكتاب والتنزيل ، على ما يعقل من حقيقة الإثبات
Imām al-Tabari states that we accept all the attributes as they came (just as the Ashā'irah say) and he said it is taken “āla' mā yu'qal” which means "upon what is rationally reasonable" not that we take the literal meaning which has been suggested. Imām al-Tabari then says "haqīqat al-ithbāt" which means a "reality of affirmation" i.e. to affirm these characteristics as a reality (as opposed to metaphorical), not "in its literal affirmation" as has been claimed.
If it is claimed that Imām al-Tabari believes in a literal affirmation of the sifāt, then it begs the question as to why he had betrayed this alleged position when authoring his tafsīr, as he has, in numerous places, gone against accepting the literal meaning of Allāh’s sifāt. For example, in explanation of Allāh's Istiwa and 'Uluww he has written:
1. "He is above His creations with His power." (Vol. 3, under Ayat al-Kursi)
2. "Allah is above His creation with His Kingdom and Power, not the elevation of movement." (Vol. 1, Surah al-Baqarah, Ayah 29)
3. "He is above them with His power and they are below Allah with less power." (Vol. 5, Surah al-An'am, Ayah 18)
Although there are much more, the above three quotes are sufficient to prove that Imām al-Tabari, in his al-Ta’bīr fi Ma'ālim al-Dīn, did not intend acceptance of a literal meaning.
In regards to the statement of Imām ibn 'Abd al-Barr al-Māliki, then this is the same matter once again. What has been stated in his al-Tamhīd:
وحملها على الحقيقة لا على المجاز
Means that the sifāt are taken as real qualities and not metaphorical. This fact has also been conceded to by “salafis” themselves, see in the link below wherein the above statement of Imām ibn 'Abd al-Barr has clearly been translated as;
“…understanding them ‘alal-haqeeqah (in a real sense)…”
The statement of Imām al-Tabari which was mentioned earlier, has also been stated to be of the same meaning, see link below:
www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showthread.php?t=16252There are many examples within al-Tamhīd of Imām ibn 'Abd al-Barr itself, which clearly repudiate the claim that the Imām ascribed to the view that the sifāt are taken upon their literal meanings (see [7:143, 7:148, 18:345] and in his al-Istidhkār [8:153].
Response:
Firstly, in regards to the claim made upon Abul Qāsim (not Abdul Qasim) al-Asbahāni, reference is given to Imām al-Dhahabi’s Kitāb al-'Uluww where he quotes Abul-Qāsim al-Asbahāni as saying that the sifāt of Allāh are taken upon the dhāhir (apparent) however, this would mean apparent wording and not meaning as Imām al-Dhahabi himself believes as he too, opined to the position of tafwīd al-ma’na, see link below:
ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/444/contrasting-dhahabis-creed-fidh-taymiyyahIn order to prove that Abul Qāsim al-Asbahāni intended the dhāhir ma’na (apparent meaning) and not the dhāhir lafdh (apparent words), a separate statement of Imām Abu Uthmān al-Sābūni is given. How this has any bearing on what Abul Qāsim al-Asbahāni has stated, leaves one in bemusement. Nonetheless, the author wants to bring our attention to a particular highlighted portion of Imām Abu Uthmān al-Sābūni’s statement:
ولا إزالة للفظ الخبرعما تعرفه العرب وتضعه عليه، بتأويل منكرمستنكر
Which simply means to not change the words of the Qur’ān and sunnah from what their Arabic definitions are by way of applying incorrect figurative explanations to them. It doesn’t say anything about taking these words upon their outward meanings, rather it is just a censure of particular rejected figurative explanations (not figurative explanations categorically), any claim to the contrary is mere conjecture. This is very clearly proven by what the Imām says next;
ويكلون علمه إلى الله - وتعالى-، ويقرون بأن تأويله لا يعلمه إلا الله، كما أخبر الله عن الراسخين في العلم أنهم يقولونه في قوله-وتعالى-: وَالرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ يَقُولُونَ آمَنَّا بِهِ كُلٌّ مِنْ عِنْدِ رَبِّنَا وَمَا يَذَّكَّرُ إِلَّا أُولُو الْأَلْبَابِ
“Consign its complete knowledge to Allāh - Most High – and admit that its meaning is not known except by Allāh, just as Allāh has informed regarding those who are firm in knowledge, about whom Allāh says: ‘But those firm in knowledge say, "We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord." And no one will be reminded except those of understanding.” (Surah al-Imran, verse 7)
How can the Imām mean that the outward meaning is to be taken when he very clearly says that none knows the meaning except Allāh? What should also be noted is that the Imām was in fact an Ash’ari as mentioned by Imām Ibn Asākir in his Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari.
Response:
There is no evidence by way of quotes or examples to prove this. Nonetheless, it does not make sense to say that criticizing someone for saying something incorrect is definitive proof that they knew the correct answer. Many times, one does not know the answer to something themselves but knows well enough when somebody is even further from what is correct. Criticism of a false meaning, unless an alternative meaning is given, is simply evidence that knowing the meaning is not intended.
Response:
Here is what they have quoted from Imām Sufyan ibn 'Uyaynah:
هذه الأحاديث التي جاءت عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في الصفات والنزول والرؤية حق نؤمن بها ولا نفسرها إلا ما فسر لنا من فوق
“These ahadith which have come from the messenger of Allāh, upon him be peace, in the sifāt, namely the nuzūl (descent) and ru’ya (beatific vision) are true, we believe in them and do not explain them except by what has been explained to us from above.”
Here Imām Sufyan ibn 'Uyaynah is very clearly stating that these sifāt are to be taken without explanation i.e. meaning, this is clear tafwīdh al-ma’na! Especially since he states that we do not take meaning for them except by what has been explained to us from above i.e. from Allāh, so if Allāh has not explained categorically for us what these sifāt mean then how can we affirm a meaning for them?
Furthermore, we have a statement from Imām Sufyan ibn 'Uyaynah further corroborating the fact that we do not know the meanings of these sifāt:
كل ما وصف الله من نفسه في كتابه فتفسيره تلاوته والسكوت عليه
“All that Allāh has attributed to Himself in His book, then its explanation is its recitation and silence upon it.” (al-I’tiqad of Imām al-Bayhaqi)
And a much clearer statement from him:
أَخْبَرَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ رِزْقِ اللَّهِ، قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ عُثْمَانَ، قَالَ: نَا عِيسَى بْنُ مُوسَى بْنِ إِسْحَاقَ الْأَنْصَارِيُّ، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ أَبِي يَقُولُ: سَمِعْتُ سُفْيَانَ بْنَ عُيَيْنَةَ، يَقُولُ: «كُلُّ شَيْءٍ وَصَفَ اللَّهُ بِهِ نَفْسَهُ فِي الْقُرْآنِ فَقِرَاءَتُهُ تَفْسِيرُهُ , لَا كَيْفَ وَلَا مِثْلَ
“Everything that Allāh has attributed Himself with in the Qur’ān, its reading is its explanation, without modality or likeness.” (Sharh Usūl al-I’tiqad of Imām al-Lalaka’i)
As for the statement of Imām al-Tirmidhī, the portion which attention is being drawn to, is the following:
فتأولت الجهمية هذه الآيات ففسروها على غير ما فسر أهل العلم وقالوا إن الله لم يخلق آدم بيده وقالوا إن معنى اليد ههنا القوة
“The Jahmiyyah interpreted these ayāt and explained them in a way that the people of knowledge had not, they said; ‘Indeed Allāh did not create Adam with His hand.’ And they said; ‘Indeed the meaning of Hand is power.’”
Here Imām al-Tirmidhī is stating that the Jahmiyyah explained the sifāt in a manner that had no precedence among the people of knowledge, he is not in any way attempting to assert that there is another correct meaning among the people of knowledge, had there been one, the Imām would have given it. What further corroborates this fact, are several statements from him wherein he professes the madhab of tafwīdh al-ma’na:
After hadīth 3557 in his Jā’mi’, Imām al-Tirmidhi states:
والمذهب في هذا عند أهل العلم من الأئمة مثل سفيان الثوري، ومالك بن أنس، وابن المبارك، وابن عيينة، ووكيع وغيرهم أنهم رووا هذه الأشياء، ثم قالوا: تروى هذه الأحاديث ونؤمن بها، ولا يقال: كيف؟ وهذا الذي اختاره أهل الحديث أن يرووا هذه الأشياء كما جاءت ويؤمن بها ولا تفسر ولا تتوهم ولا يقال: كيف، وهذا أمر أهل العلم الذي اختاروه وذهبوا إليه
“The methodology in this [i.e that particular hadith regarding the sifāt], according to the people of knowledge such as the Imāms; Sufyān al-Thawri, Mālik ibn Anas, ibn al-Mubārak, ibn 'Uyaynah, Wāki’ and other than them, is that they would narrate these things and then say: “We narrate these ahadīth and we believe in them without asking ‘how?’ This is the preferred method of the people of hadith in that they would narrate these things as they came and believe in them without explanation or contemplation and they would not ask ‘how?’, this is the directive of the people of knowledge which they have chosen and have gone towards.”
The above is a clear proof that the position of the Salaf was that they would not attempt to assert or even contemplate the meanings rather, they would accept the ahadīth as they came.
In another place, under hadīth 3045, he states:
وهذا حديث قد روته الأئمة، نؤمن به كما جاء من غير أن يفسر أو يتوهم، هكذا قال غير واحد من الأئمة: الثوري، ومالك بن أنس، وابن عيينة، وابن المبارك أنه تروى هذه الأشياء ويؤمن بها ولا يقال كيف
“This hadīth, whenever it is narrated by the Imāms, we believe in them as they have come without explanation or contemplation and this has been said by more than one of the Imāms; al-Thawri, Mālik ibn Anas, ibn 'Uyaynah and ibn al-Mubārak that they would narrate these things, take belief in them and not ask ‘how?’”
This, once again, is a clear proof of Imām al-Tirmidhī professing the method of tafwīdh al-ma’na, ascribing it to the Salaf and the people of knowledge. What is to be noted especially in both quotes is that modality is negated, contrary to the claims of those who object to tafwīdh al-ma’na.
Response:
Once again, there is no citation to an example or evidence for the above claim but it is easily answered nonetheless. The Salaf saying “Allāh mustawi” is simply the ismu al-fa’il of the verb istiwa, which simply means that Allāh is the ‘doer’ of istiwa i.e. that He did istiwa over The Throne which nobody denies. Simply saying that Allāh has done something which He has affirmed for Himself does not now indicate that we know the meaning of that quality. Also, if we are to take this claim as it is presented, as in the claim that the Salaf changed parts of Allāh’s speech, then is this not tahrīf (distortion)? How can it then be claimed that this is proof of knowing it’s meaning? As for the claim that the scholars of kalām said that stating the sifāt in the paradigm of describing Allāh as the past tense doer (ismu al-fa’il) opposes tafwīdh al-ma’na then why haven’t any examples been quoted?
As for what the “salafi” claim is regarding the meaning of istiwa, this seems to have been avoided. Some from among their figureheads have bravely asserted that the meaning is in fact sitting and settling! See the video “Salafi Belief in Istiwa Exposed” by Shaykh Mohammad Yasir al-Hanafi here:
Response:
What is the evidence that the word istiwa is synonymous to fawq (above)? There is not a dictionary on this earth that defines istiwa as being fawq (above), julūs and qu’ūd (sitting). The word fawq has occurred in the Qur’ān in a completely different understanding. For example, Allāh says:
وَهُوَ ٱلۡقَاهِرُ فَوۡقَ عِبَادِهِۦۖ
“And He (Allāh) is the subjugator over His servants…” (al-An’ām, verse 61)
The understanding of fawq (above) has not come in any way synonymous to istiwa. See Tafsīr al-Tabari where Imām al-Tabari has explained the meaning here to be Allāh being dominant over His servants with His Power.
As for the phrase “in His essence” is not found in any Qur’ānic ayāt or hadīth, how is it then that this phrase is accepted when its users are those who claim strict adherence to the Qur’ān and hadīth without addition or subtraction? Also, many of the statements attributed to the Salaf wherein this phrase is used, are in reality spurious! The phrase was denounced by Imām ibn al-Jawzi in his al-Bāz (pg.53), al-Dhahabi in his Siyar [19/607] stating that it disturbs the soul and ibn Hajar who after quoting the hadith إِنَّ رَبَّهُ بَيْنَهُ وَبَيْنَ الْقِبْلَةِ “Indeed your Lord is between you and your qiblah.” States: فِيهِ الرَّدّ عَلَى مَنْ زَعَمَ أَنَّهُ عَلَى الْعَرْش بِذَاتِهِ “In it is a refutation of the one who claims that He is above The Throne with His Essence.” [Fath al-Bāri, 1/508].
The reality is that this phrase “bi dhatihi” i.e. in His Essence, highlights the confusion of the claimant and his ilk as Allāh’s dhāt and His sifāt are separate, if Allāh’s istiwa’ is with His dhāt then that would mean the istiwa’ is not a sifah. If one accepts that it is a sifah, then there is no need to mention dhāt at all.
Response:
This claim, without evidence once again, is in fact a slander upon the Salaf. Such actions were in fact rebuked and warned against with severe consequences from the Salaf;
قال ابن وهب : سمعت مالكا يقول : من قرأ " يد الله " وأشار إلى يده ، وقرأ عين الله ، وأشار إلى ذلك العضو منه يقطع تغليظا عليه في تقديس الله تعالى وتنزيهه عما أشبه إليه ، وشبهه بنفسه ، فتعدم [ نفسه و ] جارحته التي شبهها بالله ، وهذه غاية في التوحيد لم يسبق إليها مالكا موحد
The above was translated by GF Haddad as follows:
Ibn Wahab says: "I heard Malik [ibn Anas] say: 'Whoever recites (the Hand of Allāh) (3:73, 5:64, 48:10, 57:29) and indicates his hand, or recites (the Eye of Allāh) (cf. 20:39, 11:37, 23:27, 52:48, 54:14) and indicates that organ of his: let it be cut off to discipline him concerning the Sacredness and Transcendence beyond what he has compared Him to, and above his own comparison to Him. Both his life and the limb he compared to Allâh are cut off." [Ibn al-`Arabi al-Maliki, Ahkam al-Qur'an (4:1740)]
A similar report in al-Shahrastani's al-Milal wa’l-Nihal (1:119):
و كانوا يحترزون عن التشبيه الي غاية ان قالوا: من حرك يده عند قرائة قوله تعالى: (خَلَقْتُ بِيَدَىَّ) او اشار باصبعيه عند رواية (قلب المؤمن بين اصبعين من اصابع الرحمن) وجب قطع يده و قلع اصبعيه
The above was translated by an online forum user as follows:
“They (Some of the Salaf) would avoid anthropomorphism (tashbih) to such an extent that they said that if one was to move his hand while reciting Allāh Ta'āla's word: 'I have made with My own hands' or make a gesture with his two fingers while narrating the hadith: 'The heart of a believer lies between two fingers from the fingers of the Merciful one' it will be necessary to cut his hand off and remove his fingers.”
The origins of the above are attributed to Imām Ahmad:
بلغني أن أحمد بن حنبل قرأ عليه رجل : "وما قدروا الله حق قدره والأرض جميعاً قبضته يوم القيامة والسموات مطويات بيمينه" قال : ثم أومأ بيده
فقال له أحمد : قطعها الله قطعها الله قطعها الله / ثم حرد وقام
“…It has reached me that a man read to Ahmad bin Hanbal ‘They have not appraised Allāh with true appraisal, while the earth will be [within] his grip on the Day of Resurrection, and the Heavens will be folded in His right hand’ [al-Qur’ān, al-Zumar, verse 67]
Then he said: Then he gestured with his hand
So [Imām] Ahmad said to him: ‘May Allāh cut it, may Allāh cut it, may Allāh cut it.’ Then he left the gathering.” (Sharh Usūl al-I’tiqad of Imām al-Lalaka’i)
Response:
This statement, and the evidences given along with it are actually evidences for the use of ta’wīl (figurative interpretations) as they are valid interpretations among what is/was commonly understood within the Arabic language. Many of these figurative interpretations have also been ascribed to a vast number of Imāms from the Salaf. Several quotes wherein the interpretation of sifāt have been understood according to the usage of the Arabic language can be found in the dedicated chapter of the book Ahl al-Sunnah al-Ashā’irah by Shaykh Hamad al-Sinān and Shaykh Fawzi al-Anjari, this has also been translated into English with the name “Ahl al-Sunna The Ash’aris” which is available to buy online.
Note: It may be asked, “If the position of the Salaf was tafwīdh al-ma’na (consigning the meanings to Allāh) as none knows the meaning except Allāh, then why has the position of ta’wīl (figurative interpretation) been made valid too?”
The answer is that the primary position is tafwīdh al-ma’na and this is the best position however, in certain circumstances, in order to repel the doubts of the people of deviation, the later scholars (khalaf) and some from the Salaf adopted the position of giving figurative interpretations in order to dispel doubts. However, these figurative interpretations were never claimed to be definitive or absolute (qat’i) meanings, rather they were mentioned as possible or speculative (dhanni) meanings and the position of tafwīdh was always encouraged where it could be.
Response:
This is a regurgitation of proof 7 and its answer is the same.
Response:
No evidence or citation again. As for saying that Allāh speaks with a sound that can be heard, then this necessitates that contingent qualities subsist within the Essence of Allāh as sound is a creation and therefore, such a statement is blameworthy. It has only been said by those who went into extremes in affirmation of Allāh’s eternal speech. For more detail on this, read the article “The Kalām (Speech) Of Allāh Ta’ālā” by Mufti Zameelur Rahman which can be found in the link below:
ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/26/kal-speech-all-taResponse:
Where is the evidence for such claims? Where have the Salaf discussed whether Allāh leaves His Throne when descending? In fact, it would appear that these discussions were those evidences which were presented to prove that Allāh is not literally above The Throne since descent would necessitate Allāh no longer being over The Throne! It would also necessitate movement for Allāh which is a quality of contingent and composite beings that are subject to space and time, Allāh is far beyond what is being claimed! Such discussions would also come under kayfiyyah (modality) and this has itself been rejected by the claimant. Imām ibn 'Abd al-Barr, who was quoted earlier in order to support the claim of taking the sifāt upon their literal meanings, says in response to those who claim that Allāh’s descent is literal:
"And a group ascribed to the Sunna said that He, the Exalted, descends with His Essence! This statement is rejected, because He, Exalted is His mention, is not a locus for movement and He has nothing from the signs (characteristics) of the creation." [Al-Istidhkār: 8/153]
He also said:
“This is rejected [laysa bī shay’in] according to the people of understanding among Ahl al-Sunna because it is a modality [kayfiyya], and they flee from that because it is only suitable for something that is directly encompassed, and Allāh, the Exalted, is transcendent above that.” [Al-Tamhīd: 7/143]
Imām ibn Rajab even states that Imām ibn Abd al-Barr has, along with some other Imāms, opined to the view of ta'wīl (allegorical interpretation) of Allāh's descent:
"A part of Ahl al-Hadith had inclined towards [ta’wīl] regarding the hadīth of descent, specifically, among them: ibn Qutaybah, al-Khattābi, and ibn 'Abd al-Barr; it has been advanced on authority of [Imām] Malik, and there is dispute regarding its authenticity on his authority; a party among our companions, of those who inclined towards the discussion, adopted it..." [ibn Rajab in Fath al-Bari 9/279]
Response:
This very quote is in fact a refutation of their claim and a proof for tafwīdh al-ma’na as the Imām states:
ويوقن بقلبه أن ما وصف به نفسه في القرآن إنما هي صفاته ,ولا يعقل نبي مرسل ولا ملك مقرب تلك الصفات إلا بالأسماء التي عرفهم الرب تبارك وتعالى
“He accepts with his heart, that which Allāh attributed Himself with in the Qur’ān, indeed these are His attributes. These attributes, cannot be conceived by a messenger that is sent or an angel that is close, except through the names that Allāh made known them.” (al-Sunnah of Abu Shaykh al-Asbahani)
This is clearly stating that the attributes of Allāh cannot even be understood, all that can be understood from them are the names in themselves i.e. recognition of these qualities is only by the names, that they are only known as qualities because they have been informed of as such. The portion that states “la ya’qil” which means to not understand, comprehend or conceive something, is a clear repudiation of the claim that the meaning is known.
Furthermore, the Imām states:
وإنما يلزم المسلم أن يثبت معرفة صفات الله بالاتباع والاستسلام كما جاء
“Indeed it becomes necessary for the Muslim that he affirms recognition of the attributes of Allāh, (i.e. to accept that these attributes exist) with compliance and submissiveness as they have come.”
The portion that states compliance and submissiveness as they have come, is a clear enough proof that we accept them without looking into their meanings.
Response:
This is a very common claim which will be placed under scrutiny. Affirmation of the outward meanings of many attributes will necessitate limbs and parts for Allāh, such as an outward affirmation in meaning for “yad”, would necessitate a hand. The claimant above alleges that affirmation of limbs and body parts only constitutes anthropomorphism when one makes a comparison to the hand of creation. However, we will see from the statements of some of the Salaf that even affirmation of such body parts alone, even without comparison to the creation, was rejected.
Imām Abū Hanīfah stated:
وهو شيء لا كالأشياء ومعنى الشيء الثابت بلا جسم ولا جوهر ولا عرض ولا حد له ولا ضد له ولا ند له ولا مثل له
“He (Allāh) is an entity unlike entities, the meaning of entity is affirmation without a body, substance, no limit, no opposite, no equal and no peer…” (al-Fiqh al-Akbar)
It is mentioned from him elsewhere:
وصفه كما وصف نفسه أحد صمد، لم يلد، ولم يولد يكن له كفواً أحد، حيٌّ قيوم، قادر، سميع بصير، عالم، يد الله فوق أيديهم ليست كأيدي خلقه وليست جارحة...
“He is attributed with just as He has attributed unto Himself, alone, eternal, He is not begotten and neither does he beget and there is none like unto Him, Ever-Living, Ever-Lasting, All Powerful, Hearing and Seeing, All Knowledgeable, Allāh’s Hand is over their hands, not like the hands of His creation and not a limb…” (Sharh al-Muyassar alā’l Fiqhayn al-Asghar wa’l Akbar, 1/159)
Imām Shafi’i states:
واعلموا أن خالق العالم واحد لا شريك له، فرد لا ثاني له الوحدانية في صفاته أنه يستحيل عليه التجزئة والتبعض...واعلموا أن الحد والنهاية لا يجوز على الله تعلى، ومعنى الحد طرف الشيء ونهايته
“Know that Allāh is the Creator of the universe, alone with no partner, individual and no second, alone in His attributes that are impossible to be divisible or to be separable…and know that a limit and end is not possible upon Allāh - Most High - and the meaning of limit is the boundary of a thing and its ending.” [al-Fiqh al-Akbar of Imām al-Shafi’i (disputed in attribution to the Imām but said to be very strongly linked (jayyid jiddan) to him by Hāji Khalifa in Kashf al-Zunūn)
He says in the same book:
واعلموا أن الباري تعلى ليس بجوهر ولا عرض...ومحال أن جسماً؛ لأن الجسم هو المجتمع المؤلف...والباري سبحانه ليس بذي أجزاء وأبعاض، بل هو واحد أحد
“Know that The Creator - Most High - is not attributed with atoms or accidents…it is inconceivable that He be a body; because the body is assembled by an organizer…and The Creator, Glory be to Him, is not One of parts or separate components, rather He is One Alone.”
Furthermore, Imām Ahmad says as mentioned by Imām Abū al-Fadhl Abd al-Wāhid al-Tamīmī in his book “Beliefs of the Honorable Imām, Abu Abdillah Ahmad bin Hanbal”:
قال الإمام أبو الفضل عبد الواحد التميمي (ت ٤١٠) في كتابه "اعتقاد الإمام المبجل أبي عبد الله أحمد بن حنبل: وأنكر من يقول بالجسم، وقال إن الأسماء مأخوذة بالشريعة واللغة، وأهل اللغة وضعوا هذا الاسم على كل ذي طول وعرض وسمك وتركيب وصورة وتأليف، والله تعلي خارج عن ذالك كله، فلم يجز أن يسمى جسماً؛ لخروجه عن معنى الجسمية، ولم يجىء في الشرعية ذلك، فبطل
“He would dislike the one who would speak [of Allāh] with a body, and he said, ‘Indeed the names [of Allāh] are that which are obtained by the Shari’ah and language, and the people of language have established this word [i.e jism] upon all of that which is measured, transient, with depth, order, image and composition and Allāh is far removed from all of these things. It is not permitted to attribute Him with being a body; for He is beyond the meanings of bodies and it is not found within the Shari’ah, rather it is false.’”
It has also been mentioned:
قال التميمي: جملة اعتقاد أحمد في الذي كان يذهب إليه، أن الله واحد لا من عدد، لا يجوز عليه التجزؤ ولا القسمة، وهو واحد من كل جهة
[Imām] al-Tamīmī said: “The net result of the beliefs of Imām Ahmad in that which relates back to him, is that Allāh is One without being counted, it is not possible for Him to be separated or in parts, He is One from every perspective.” (I’tiqad Ahmad)
And a very powerful and relevant statement:
ومن شبه بخلقه فقد كفر. نص عليه أحمد، وكذا من جسم، أو قال: إنه جسم لا كالأجسام
“The one who likens Allāh to His creation, then they have committed disbelief. This has been related from Ahmad, as well as [attributing Allāh] with a body, or he who says: ‘Indeed He is a body unlike bodies.’” (Nihayat al-Mubtadi’īn of Ibn Hamdan al-Hanbali)
Response:
A poor argument, one does not need to know the definitive meaning of a thing to state its opposite as long as a general understanding is there, particularly in the example of Harb al-Kirmani (not Karmi) which is given wherein he is mentioning those qualities which are a sifāt al-kāmila, i.e. those qualities which do not give any impression of deficiency such as limbs, limits and contingency. These qualities which he mentions, such as hearing and sight etc. are those that are taken in generality as they are necessary qualities for Allāh. You do not find in Harb al-Kirmani’s quote, antonyms for the sifāt al-khabariyya such as yad, sāq and wajh etc. because even the generality of these qualities are not understood and tafwīdh in this category of qualities, is done completely, as opposed to partially in the former category.
Response:
Firstly, it should be Ihsā (إحصاء) and not “Ahsaa” as mentioned above.
The sifāt in question here, are just as those mentioned in the previous response; they are those attributes in which there is no impression of deficiency for Allāh and the meanings of these are taken in generality, they are not those qualities (sifāt al-khabariyyah) which necessitate deficiencies for Allāh if taken on the literal meaning and we do not do tafwīdh al-ma’na in any of these names. Refer to the response to the previous claim. Two things should also be noted:
1. The quote of Abu Umar al-Talmanki which was given, mentions “meanings of the names” in generality, these could mean knowing the general meanings of the 99 names of Allāh. There is no direct evidence that the meanings of each specific quality are known.
2. The benefit of knowing the 99 names of Allāh, and understanding the general meanings, have been understood to be for the purpose of calling upon Him with these names. For example, one says “Ya Rahmān” or “Ya Karīm” knowing that Allāh is merciful and bountiful but, nobody calls upon Allāh saying “Ya yad” or “Ya wajh” as this does not make sense.
Response:
The Salaf were accused, by the Mu’tazilites and the Jahmiyyah, of anthropomorphism, simply for their affirmation of the sifāt alone. The reason for this is due to them believing that the sifāt were merely metaphorical (majāz) as opposed to real (haqīqī) and this is what was meant by Imām al-Tabari and Imām ibn 'Abd al-Barr as mentioned in response to the first proof above.
Imām al-Shahrastāni writes regarding the Mu’tazilites:
ونفي التشبيه عنه من كل وجه...وأوجبوا تأويل الآيات التتشابهة فيها. وسموا هذا النمط: توحيداً
“They negated anthropomorphism for Him from every perspective…and they necessitated the figurative meaning for the ambiguous verses within that and named this methodology tawhid.” (al-Milal wa’l Nihal, pg. 74)
He writes regarding the Jahmiyyah:
قوله: لا يجوز أن يوصف الباري تعالى بصفة يوصف بها خلقه؛ لأن ذلك يقضي تشبيهاً؛ فنفى كونه حياً،عالماً، وأثبت كونه قادراً، فاعلاً، خالقاً، لأنه لا يوصف شيء من خلقه بالقدرة، والفعل، والخلق
They say: “It is not permitted to attribute the Lord - Most High - with qualities that His creations are attributed with because that necessitates anthropomorphism; so we negate that He be Living, Knowledgeable and we affirm that He be Powerful, Acting and Creating because He does not attribute anything from His creation with power, action or creating.” (Ibid, pg. 104)
We see from the above two descriptions that these two groups, considered the mere affirmation of the sifāt as necessitating deficiencies for Allāh and whomsoever affirmed qualities which they considered to be likening Allāh to His creation, were considered anthropomorphists, even if they consigned the meaning to Allāh.