Recent Posts

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:
This verse, which is the foundation for Sunnī doctrine concerning the oneness and uniqueness of Allāh (subhānuhū wa ta‘ālā), expressly negates any and all similarity between Creator and creation. There are a few points to note about the verse:

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:
3. The word mithl (likeness) is the broadest term of equation. It incorporates similarity in every possible dimension, whether in appearance, qualities or actions. Other words of equation, like shakl, nidd and musāwī are narrower than mithl. Hence, this entails a negation of similarity in all respects, as it means, “no thing is as His likeness in any respect.”

Imām al-Rāghib al-Asbahānī said in Mufradāt al-Qur’ān:

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:
Furthermore, if any aspect or quality of temporality were to exist in the necessary and beginingless existence of Allāh (subhānuhū wa ta‘ālā), the same laws that apply to temporal entities would apply to Him. For temporal entities, their being and attributes are only possible, whereas for Allah they are necessary. And it is not possible for something to be possible and necessary simultaneously.

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):
Here, Imām al-Tahāwī is clear that it is not the wording or outward expressions that matter, but the meaning and substance. If any actual or ontological reality of a created being is believed to exist in Allāh, that is comparing Him to creation and is disbelief.

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:
The commentators of Jawharat al-Tawhīd and other ‘aqīdah texts explain that oneness in essence means: Allāh has only one being and there is nothing else akin to His being; oneness in attributes means: He has only one of each attribute, like power, knowledge, hearing, seeing and will, and no other being has an attribute akin to it in any way; and oneness in actions means: He alone is the true active agent in the created realm, bringing things into being from nonbeing and taking things out of existence after existence, and no other being has any real action.

Hāfiz Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalānī (d. 852 H) states in Fath al-Bārī on the meaning of Tawhīd according to Ahlus Sunnah:

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:
This is applicable to many other attributes, like mercy, love, anger, pleasure and so on. The famous early Ash‘arī scholar, Abū Bakr ibn Fūrak (d. 406 H)[10], said about the mercy of Allāh as it comes in one particular hadīth:
In other words, when we describe attributes like hearing, seeing, power, knowledge, will, life, mercy, love, anger, pleasure and so on, we are not describing them as they subsist in the essence of Allāh, as that can never be comprehended. Rather, we describe their connections, relations, outcomes and so on. However, this does not mean we negate that they have a beginningless, unchanging and intangible reality in the essence of Allāh as the Mu‘tazilah do.

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:
The first view, known as tafwīd (consignment), is the preferred methodology, related from the earlier Salaf, as will be shown below.

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:
Then he says:
He then says:
Al-Bayhaqī quotes this statement of al-Khattabi in his al-Asmā’ wa l-Sifāt (2:192-3).

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:
By the statement “we let it proceed on its outward,” al-Khattābī means leave it as it has come in the narrations without delving into its interpretation or meaning. He negates “modality” or kayf, which is to negate, as a starting principle, the literal meanings of these attributes, as Allāh is free of these meanings. As he says elsewhere in the same book:

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:
This is authentic from Imām Mālik. It has also been reported by Abū Nu‘aym in Hilyat al-Awliyā’, al-Bayhaqī in al-Asmā’ wa l-Sifāt, al-Lālakā’ī in Sharh Usūl I‘tiqād Ahl al-Sunnah, Qādī ‘Iyād in Tartīb al-Madārik and others. By, “istiwā’ is known” and “belief in it is necessary,” Imām Mālik conveys the truth of what the Qur’ān says. In other words, the Qur’ān certainly affirms the istiwā’ of Allāh and we confirm the reality of istiwā’ as the Qur’ān intends it. What is the reality of that istiwā’? Imām Mālik says: “Asking about it is innovation!” Moreover, Imām Mālik says there is something positive we can say about the istiwā’, which is: kayf is incomprehensible for it. Kayf means “how”. How is an istiwā’, how is a hand, how is an eye? An istiwā’ may be quick, slow, from a short distance, a long distance and so on. A hand can be big or small, an eye can be round or thin, blue or brown, and so on. These all fall under kayf. This kayf is incomprehensible for Allāh, as Allāh is free of all these physical qualities of creation. In another version, Imām Mālik said: “Kayf is removed (marfū‘) from Allāh.” (See below for reference and authentication) As in, kayf does not pertain to or relate to Allāh. Hence, the literal meanings of these words are not what is meant. In fact, the literal meaning which incorporates, by necessity, some of what falls under kayf, is explicitly negated. Instead, istiwā’ is affirmed for Allāh with a meaning that is known to Him, and which to ask about is innovation. This, in a nutshell, is the methodology of the Salaf: a) to negate bodily attributes, b) to affirm the sifāt khabariyya with a meaning known to Allāh and c) to admit ignorance of that meaning.

Imām al-Bayhaqī transmits this position from the early scholars, declaring it the correct methodology. He says:
In another version of the statement from Imām Mālik which al-Bayhaqī narrates with a chain graded excellent (jayyid) by Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalānī, he says:
In al-Asmā’ wa l-Sifāt, Imām al-Bayhaqī shows the Salaf would negate physical descriptions, while affirming what has been transmitted of the sifāt khabariyyah. He says:
The report to Abū Dāwūd al-Tayālisī (133 – 204 H)[23] is sound.[24] The position of these great imāms of the atbā‘ al-tābi‘īn (third generation of Muslims) is that whatever has been transmitted in authentic reports are accepted as they were intended without taking any physical meanings from them like limit and kayf.

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:
In other words, convey them, read them and believe in them as they were intended, but while holding firmly that kayf is negated.

Imām al-Bayhaqī also related from Sufyān ibn ‘Uyaynah with an authentic chain[27]:
In the same report from his al-Asmā’ wa l-Sifāt, there is the addition:
In the same report from Sharh Usūl I‘tiqād Ahl al-Sunnah, al-Lālakā’ī (d. 418) narrates it as follows:
This is a reference to the sifāt khabariyyah like ascension, hand, eye and so on, the literal meaning of which is specific to created beings. Hence, the intent of these attributes as they appear in the revealed sources is consigned to Allāh. Other attributes like knowledge, power, hearing, seeing, mercy, self-subsistence, oneness etc. can be explained and expanded upon, in terms of their connections and in terms of what they negate, as explained earlier. Thus, Imām al-Bayhaqī explained Ibn ‘Uyaynah’s words as follows:
After mentioning the report in al-Asmā’ wa l-Sifāt, he says:
However, it is possible that even these attributes like yad and ‘ayn are understood relationally, in terms of what they connect to, while their reality as they subsist in Allāh’s essence is understood to be unfathomable. Thus, al-Bayhaqī said after this:
Imām al-Tahāwī said in his famous text on ‘aqīdah encapsulating the beliefs transmitted from Imām Abū Hanīfah and his two students:
Here kayfiyyah is categorically negated for the vision of Allāh in Paradise. Kayfiyyah with regards to vision refers to distance, opposition, direction and so on, which are necessary concomitants of vision in the phenomenal world. However, the vision of Allāh in the afterlife will be without these modalities that we are accustomed to. It will be a beholding of Allāh with the eyes bestowed to true believers after resurrection.

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:
Imām al-Tahāwī did not merely say that we are not permitted to say that He does not have these attributes. Rather, he categorically states that Allāh is far-removed from them due to His absolute transcendence. Similarly, Hāfiz Abū Bakr al-Ismā‘īlī (277 – 371 H)[36] narrated from the imāms of hadīth that Allāh is free of limbs and a physical body:
Describing the vision of Allāh, he says:
The Salaf would often say Allāh is “above the creation” (fawq al-khalq) or above the Throne (fawq al-‘arsh) which is the highest point of creation. The reason for this statement was to refute the Jahmī belief that Allāh dwells within creation. Hence, this is not a positive description of Allāh, but a way of expressing the negative detail of Allāh not being within His creation, but being far removed and different from creation. This is why the Salaf would also say He is “bā’in” (separate) from His creation. This also is not a physical “separation”, but a way of expressing that the creation does not contain the Creator. Abū Sulaymān al-Khattābī said:
Ibn Hamdān al-Hanbalī (603 – 695 H)[40] said:
The above encapsulates the belief of the Salaf. Hence, the Salaf, unlike the present-day “Salafīs” who claim to follow the Salaf, would explicitly negate boundaries, parts, limbs, directions, physicality and kayfiyyāt in general for Allāh (subhānahū wa ta‘ālā).


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:
The above is the clear view of Ahlus Sunnah as transmitted from the Salaf and the imāms of ‘aqīdah, and subsequently from the Ash‘arī and Māturīdī theologians, as well as major Hanbalī authorities like Abu l-Fadl al-Tamīmī (342 – 410 H)[44][45], Ibn ‘Aqīl (431 – 513 H)[46][47], Ibn al-Jawzī (510 – 597 H)[48] and Ibn Hamdān (603 – 695 H)[49][50].


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:
He also said:
Clarifying further, he said:
It is clear from these statements that he believes the “attributes” of hand, face, eye and so on are physical parts but with distinctive features that put them apart from creation. This becomes more apparent from many of his other statements. What the contemporary Salafiyyah do not realise, however, is that by affirming a likeness in the base meaning of the attributes of Creator and creation, they are affirming a general resemblance between the two, and by negating similarity in kayfiyyāt (physical descriptions), they are negating similarity in only minor details. Hence, what they affirm in resemblance is far greater than what they negate.

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):
Hāfiz Ibn Hajar said in Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb:
Hāfiz Ibn Hajar also quotes him saying:
Hence, the Salaf did not turn a blind eye to the anthropomorphism that found its way into some groups of Muslims.

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]


[3]


[4]


[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]


[7]


[8]


[9]


[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]


[12]


[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]


[15]


[16]


[17]


[18]


[19]


[20]


[21]


[22]


[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]


[27] As stated by the editor

[28]


[29]


[30]


[31]


[32]


[33]


[34]


[35]


[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]


[38]


[39]


[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]


[42]


[43]


[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]


[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]


[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]


[51]


[52]


[53]


[54]


[55]


[56]


[57]


[58]


[59]


[60]


[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

The following is an Urdu article entitled Dr Akram Nadwi ke Afkar wa Nazriyyat authored by Shaykh 'Abdullah Kawthar (Jami'ah 'A'ishah, Jhelum).Read/Download Here:

First read this and this.

How Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Quotes the Passage

The statement from Ḥifẓ al-Īmān (written in: 1901) for which Aḥmad Riḍā Khān (1856 – 1921) declared Maulānā Ashraf ‘Alī Thānawī (1863 – 1943) a Kāfir is as follows:
A transliteration of the original Urdu is as follows:
Aḥmad Riḍā Khān isolates this statement even though the latter sentence does not end there. The sentence continues:
See how Aḥmad Riḍā Khān quoted the passage in his Urdu book Tamhīd e Īmān (written in: 1908):


He quotes the isolated statement above, without completing the sentence, and then says:
He continues to say – as imitated by many insolent Barelwīs today – that one should ask these “swearers” if they can say to their teachers:

Aḥmad Riḍā Khān makes the same allegation in the Arabic al-Mustanad al-Mu‘tamad (p229) (written in: 1902):


He asserts Maulānā Ashraf ‘Alī Thānawī said:

This is then reproduced in Ḥusām al-Ḥaramayn, p62-3 (written in: 1906). He concludes:
[Note: For a full, faithful Arabic translation, see here.]


The Correct Meaning of the Passage

Recall the original passage:
Aḥmad Riḍā Khān’s allegation hinges on the word “such” (eysā). According to him, the phrase “such knowledge of ghayb” in this passage refers to the knowledge that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) actually possessed of the ghayb. In other words, Aḥmad Riḍā Khān interpreted the passage to mean (na‘ūdhu billāh):
It is this interpretation (if it can be called this), about which Maulānā Ashraf ‘Alī Thānawī would later say in Basṭ al-Banān:

In fact what the word “such knowledge of ghayb” means is: “partial knowledge of ghayb”, irrespective of quantity or quality, irrespective of the actual amount or the actual kind. In other words, Maulānā Ashraf ‘Alī Thānawī said: Partial knowledge of unseen is not specific to the Prophet Muḥammad (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam); partial knowledge of unseen is also found in Zayd, ‘Amr, child and madman, animals and beasts.

If we give Aḥmad Riḍā Khān the benefit of the doubt and say the phrase “such knowledge of ghayb” can mean what he said, then there are two possible meanings of the phrase “such knowledge of ghayb”. It can mean either:

1. The knowledge actually possessed by the Prophet Muḥammad (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam). This is the meaning Aḥmad Riḍā Khān took.

2. Partial knowledge of ghayb – irrespective of the actual amount or actual kind.

According to the first meaning, it is of course an insult, and is kufr, as Maulānā Ashraf ‘Alī Thānawī himself said in Basṭ al-Banān.

According to the second meaning it is not kufr.


Aḥmad Riḍā Khān’s Deception

Even with a cursory reading of the whole passage from Ḥifẓ al-Īmān, one will not understand the meaning of kufr (i.e. the first meaning) that Aḥmad Riḍā Khān imputed to the author of Ḥifẓ al-Īmān. Only if someone was desperately trying to find kufr and blasphemy in the work would he interpret it so.

But, more importantly, just by completing the sentence that Aḥmad Riḍā Khān himself quoted, one can see that Aḥmad Riḍā Khān’s interpretation is not possible and only the second meaning can be meant. The complete sentence, recall, is:
This crucial concluding part of the sentence, Aḥmad Riḍā Khān omitted in presenting the so-called “blasphemous passage”.

Why did he omit it? Because it leaves no room for doubt that Maulānā Ashraf ‘Alī Thānawī’s intent by “such knowledge of ghayb” is: partial knowledge of ghayb irrespective of the actual quantity or quality. If his intent was the actual knowledge possessed by the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) then he should have said: “since each individual knows precisely what the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) knows”, but of course this is not what he said nor what he meant. Hence, this is clear deception on the part of Aḥmad Riḍā Khān.

In fact, regarding the knowledge actually possessed by the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam), Maulānā Ashraf ‘Alī Thānawī says shortly after in Ḥifẓ al-Īmān itself:
Someone who believes this, how can he possibly believe that children, madmen and animals possess equal knowledge?

---

Maulānā Ashraf ‘Alī Thānawī’s Explanation in Basṭ al-Banān

Note: Maulānā Ashraf ‘Alī Thānawī’s response to the allegation in Basṭ al-Banān (written in: 1911) makes the very same point/s as above. See in particular the following passage:

---

Taken from HERE