Ibn ‘Abbas has categorized Tafsir in respect to people’s knowledge of it, and it is possible to deduce what is obligatory for the individual from this categorization (to be mentioned shortly).

Categories of Tafsir

Explanation of the Qur’an, i.e. Tafsir, can be categorized in different ways, and each categorization is based on a different perspective, each perspective accounting for a different aspect of Tafsir.

It is possible, in light of these various perspectives, to make the following categorizations:

1^st in respect to people’s knowledge of it;

2^nd in respect to the manners of deducing it;

3^rd in respect to the methods;

4^th in respect to the tendencies of the exegetes.

These are some perspectives, and there are other perspectives in light of which Tafsir can be categorized, such as wording and meaning – as shall be mentioned – or time and place, etc.

(1) People’s Knowledge of Tafsir

It was divided into four categories by the erudite scholar of this Ummah Ibn Abbas:

A) Tafsir that is known to the Arabs from their knowledge of their language;

B) Tafsir which no one can be excused for being ignorant of it;

C) Tafsir that is known to the scholars;

D) Tafsir only Allah knows, and whoever claims to know it is lying.

Explanation of these four categories:

That which the Arabs know from their knowledge of their language

This category encompasses the words of the Qur’an and its styles of address, and that is because it was sent down in their language and their manners of speaking.

These words and expressions are well known to them, even though individuals amongst them might be unfamiliar with certain words and expressions, because they had not heard it or because it was not customarily used in the dialect of his tribe, just as ibn ‘Abbas was unaware of the meaning of certain vocabulary, like the word ‘Fatir’ and others. This is why you find in the explanations of the Salaf linguistic explanations of the meaning of al-Samad, al-Kufu’, al-Falaq, al-Ghasiq, etc.

Given that its expressions were in accordance with their way of speaking, they did not have difficulty in understanding what was meant by them. For example, they would understand from the verse {Taste! Indeed you are mighty, noble} [44:49], that this address is intended to express scorn and sarcasm , even though such words are normally employed in praise. However, the context indicates that its meaning is scorn.

Knowledge of this category is a communal obligation (fard kifayah), as it is not obligatory for every Muslim to know all the linguistic meanings or styles of expression mentioned in the Qur’an. In some cases, it might rise to the level of being obligatory if fulfillment of some obligation is dependent upon this knowledge.

Tafsir which no one can be excused for being ignorant of it

This includes the commands to fulfill obligations and the prohibitions against unlawful matters and the fundamentals of morals and creed.

Take, for example, the verse: {Establish the prayer and give charity} [2:110] and His: {Pilgrimage to the House is due to Allah from mankind, whoever (of them) is able to make a way towards it} [3:97], and: {Fasting is prescribed upon you, just as it was prescribed upon those before you} [2:182]. No one can be excused for being ignorant of these sorts of passages when he recites the Qur’an.

It also includes the commands to honesty, trustworthiness, the prohibition on lying and deception, or committing lewdness, and other commands and prohibitions on matters of character. It includes matters of beliefs, like the verse: {So know there is no god but Allah} [47:19], and His saying: {And We have not sent a Messenger before you except We revealed to him that there is no god but Me, so worship Me} [21:25], and other commands and prohibitions concerning Tawhid. All of this enters into that category of Tafsir that is obligatory for every Muslim to learn.

Tafsir only the Scholars know

This category includes the meaning of that which is unclear to common people, as well as the rulings and fine points that can be derived from it. This category falls under the communal obligations.

What is not known except to Allah, and whoever claims to know it is lying-

The includes the real nature of matters of the Unseen and the time of their occurrence. Thus the reality or exact nature of the Beast (al-Dabbah) which shall emerge in the last days is not known except by Allah, and the time of its emergence is not known except by Allah. The same is true for the rest of the Unseen matters.

This category is not obligatory on anyone. Rather, whoever undertakes to explain it, he is guilty of sin and lying against Allah, having claimed knowledge of that which only Allah knows, Glorified is He.

(2) Manners of deducing it

From this perspective, Tafsir can be divided into two categories:

1) Tafsir that is based on reports, and it is known as Tafsir bil-Ma’thur.

2) Tafsir that is based on ijtihad, and it is known as Tafsir bil-Ra’i.

(3) Technique

From the point of view of technique, Tafsir can be divided into 4 categories:

1) Analytical Tafsir (al-Tafsir al-Tahlili)

2) General Tafsir (al-Tafsir al-Ijmali)

3) Comparative Tafsir (al-Tafsir al-Muqaran)

4) Thematic Tafsir (al-Tafsir al-Mawdu’i)

Analytical Tafsir

This category is typical in most commentaries. With this technique, the exegete resorts to detailed analysis of the Ayah. He explains the reason for its revelation, explains any obscure words, the grammar of difficult passages, its overall meaning…etc. Examples of this type include the commentaries of Ibn Atiyyah, al-Alusi, ash-Shawkani and others.

General Tafsir

The exegete seeks to clarify the general meaning of the Ayat without dealing with the details, like grammatical declension, definitions, rhetorical study, deduction of lessons, and other issues. Examples of this type include the commentaries of ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Nasir al-Sa’di, Tafsir al-Makki al-Nasiri, Tafsir al-Maraghi, and also in the commentary of Abu Bakr al-Jaza’iri under the heading “General Explanation” (al-Tafsir al-Ijmali).

Comparative Tafsir

The exegete will examine two differing opinions about the interpretation of a passage and compare between the two, giving his own conclusion as to which view he thinks is strongest. Examples of this type are Tafsir at-Tabari and others who mention the different opinions of the exegetes, providing their own conclusions as to what is the strongest interpretation.

A contemporary example is the Tafsir that Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Aqil al-Zahiri is giving on the radio under the title Tafsir at-Tafasir.

Thematic Tafsir

This technique relies upon studying the wording, or sentence structure, or a theme in the Qur’an, and its categories are:

A) A study of a subject as it is dealt with throughout the Qur’an, such as the subject “Descriptions of the Slaves of the Merciful in the Qur’an.”

B) A study of a subject as it is dealt with in a particular Surah, such as the subject “Social Ethics in Surah al-Hujurat”.

C) The commentator studies the usage of a Qur’anic word or phrase, explaining its meanings in the Qur’an, such as the word ‘al-Ummah’ in the Qur’an, or the phrase ‘Those in whose their hearts is a Disease’ in the Qur’an.

* This categorization into Analytical, General, Comparative, and Thematic Tafsir is a categorization of methods, not necessarily of the commentaries themselves. It is not necessary that every commentary is devoted to a particular method. Al-Tabari’s commentary, for example, employs the analytical, general and comparative techniques.

(4) Tendencies of the commentators

Every exegete has particularly tendencies or focuses that will characterize his commentary and distinguish it from other works.

These tendencies in Tafsir are the result of different factors. If we consider the exegetes’ tendencies as a result of their theological school, we have, for example:

A) Salafi- Tafsir at-Tabari, Ibn Kathir, and al-Shinqiti

B) Mu’tazili- Tafsir az-Zamakhshari

C) Ash’ari- Tafsir ar-Razi

Also, some of them are characterized by the particular science that predominates that Tafsir. Some examples are:

A) The book Ma’ani al-Qur’an by al-Fara’ and Majaz al-Qur’an by Abu Ubaydah, which are examples of a linguistic tendency.

B) The book I’rab al-Qur’an by an-Nahhas, al-Bahr al-Muhit by Abu Hayyan, and ad-Durr ul-Masun by as-Samin al-Halabi, which are examples of a grammatical tendency.

C) The book al-Kashaf by az-Zamakhshari and at-Tahrir wat-Tanwir by at-Tahir bin Ashur, which have a focus on rhetoric (balaghah)

Other examples are mentioned in the books written on ‘Ulum al-Qur’an or tendencies of the exegetes. See, for example, al-Tafsir wal-Mufassirun by Muhammad al-Dhahabi.

The terms Usul al-Tafsir and ‘Ulum al-Qur’an are often used interchangeably. However, it is more correct to regard Usul al-Tafsir as a subset of ‘Ulum al-Qur’an. This is because not all sciences related to the Qur’an play a role in explaining its meanings. An example of this is the counting of the verses. The different classical authorities of Qur’anic recitation had different methods of counting the verses of each Surah. These differences in the counting of the verses have no impact on the Tafsir of the Qur’an even though they fall under ‘Ulum al-Qur’an.

The first known work on this subject is Muqaddima Fi Usul al-Tafsir by Sh. al-Islam ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728H). Some other works on this subject include:

• Al-Fawz al-Kabir by al-Dehlawi (d. 1176H)
• Usul al-Tafsir by ibn ‘Uthaymin

• Usul al-Tafsir wa Qawa’iduh by Khalid al-‘Akk

• Buhuth Fi Usul al-Tafsir by Lutfi al-Sabbagh
• Dirasat Fi Usul al-Tafsir by Muhsin ‘Abd al-Hamid
• Usul al-Tafsir wa Manahijuh by Dr. Fahd al-Rumi
• Fusul Fi Usul al-Tafsir by Dr. Musa’id al-Tayyar; this series of articles is largely based on the latter work by Dr. al-Tayyar

Some exegetes have also dealt with some of the topics of this discipline in the introductions to their commentaries on the Qur’an. Take, for example:

• Ibn Kathir, his introduction is largely taken from ibn Taymiyyah’s Muqaddima
• Al-Mawardi, in his introduction to al-Nukat wal-‘Uyun
• Ibn Juzayy, in the introduction to his Tafsir
• Al-Raghib al-Asfahani, in the introduction to Jami’ al-Tafasir
• Al-Qasimi, in the introduction to his Tafsir
• The introduction to al-Tahir b. ‘Ashur’s al-Tahrir wal-Tanwir

As mentioned, Usul al-Tafsir is a subset of ‘Ulum al-Qur’an and consequently, the books of ‘Ulum al-Qur’an also deal with many important topics of Usul al-Tafsir. Therefore, the important books of ‘Ulum al-Qur’an such as al-Burhan by al-Zarkashi (d. 794H) and al-Itqan by al-Suyuti (d. 911H), amongst others, are important references for Usul al-Tafsir.

To understand the principles of Tafsir, it is also very useful to study the works of Tafsir, particularly those written by the masters of the field who take great care to analyze and debate the different opinions. Some such works are the following:

• Tafsir al-Tabari
• Tafsir ibn ‘Atiyyah
• ‘Adwa’ al-Bayan by al-Shinqiti
• Tafsir al-Tahir b. ‘Ashur

I thought to mention some of Muhammad Zâhid al-Kawthari’s infamous sayings so that people may realize to what kind of a man others ally themselves with in terms of friendship, association, appreciation or even recommendation.

I will make use of the Index entitled, ‘Index of Insults of al-Kawthari, and his Lies, and his Contradictions, and his Game-playing, and his Jahmite Doctrines, and his Grave-worshipping Superstitions’, starting from page 582 untill page 636, containing an incredible number of 328 items or indications of irreligion, from the book ‘The Maturidiyyah and their Position concerning the Tawhid of Names & Attributes’.

The following facts - selected from the 328 items - are worth to mention as a warning, advise and remembrance for those who are sincere in learning the truth about this man.

I skip items no.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 which are all despicable, mention the content of no.6: Takfir of Imam Abdallah b. Ahmad b. Hanbal.

Items no.7 and 8 are attacks and condemnation of the beliefs of Imam al-Bukhari and Imam Abu dawud.

Item no.9 is also a Takfir of an Imam: al-Darimi.

Item no.10 and 11 are vilifying the Huffâdh Ibn Abi Hatim and al-Daraqutni, calling the latter a Fâsiq, Mâriq and a possessor of Khirâfât!

Let me skip the Takfir of Imam al-A’imma Ibn Khuzaymah from item no.12 and his vilification of Ibn Mandah and al-Ajurri, two major Huffâdh, in the subsequent items and go for no.17: his vilification of Imam al-Lalika’i’s creed and book on ‘Aqidah.

Item no.18, i.e. his outburst against one of the greatest Huffâdh al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, we leave the pleasure of exposing his vile attacks against him for another such as - and I quote (sorry Abu Zubair, could not resist revealing this one):

“..abandoner of Prayer, drinker of alcohol, a practioner of homosexuality..”

and I leave the rest for you.

Item no.19 wherein he - may Allah give him his due! - brings Imam al-Shâfi’i to task, questioning his knowledge, his genealogy (!) and his high status.

Item no.20 is accusing the student of Imam al-Shafi’i, the Hafidh al-Humaydi, of fabricating and expressing major lies.

Let me skip what he said about Ibn Hibbân, Ibn Abi Shaybah, the teacher of al-Ash’ari who is Imam Zakariya al-Sâji, Abu ‘Awanah, al-Fazari, ‘Ali b. al-Madini etc. etc. etc. untill we reach item no.31 wherein he says that Abu Bakr al-Khallal, the codifier of the Hanbali Madhhab, is misguided.

Item no.35 and 36 are vilifications of Abu Nu’aym al-Isbahani and Abu Bakr al-Bayhaqi, having skipped no.33 wherein mention is that the man lied more then once about Abu’l-Shaykh al-Isfahani and no.34 wherein is stated that he lied once about al-Hakim al-Nisaburi.

Item no.37 is an insult against al-Barbahari.

And the most apparent - and famous - is item no.38 and that is about Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah - and I semi-quote:

Takfir of Ibn Taymiyyah - Accusing him of Kufr and Ilhâd - Criticism of Islam - Hypocrisy - Zandaqah - Wickedness - Declaring him Misguided and Misguiding others and some in transcription so you might feel them coming better: al-mâriq al-khabîth, al-kadhâb al-asharr al-affâk al-muftari, al-mubtadi’ al-jâhil al-miskîn - and the most ‘beatiful’ is - wârith al-sâbi’iyyah wa-min a’zam al-zâ’ighin, by which I end it.

Item no.39 is about - well you can guess - Ibn al-Qayyim. And in another book by Shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd therein was mentioned many of the man’s insult and declarations of hypocrisy, unbelief, heresy etc. and I urge any interesting reader to find out that book. I will skip this item - and it is probably more despicable than the previous - wa-Allahu Musta’an!

Item no.42 is about his insults and vilification of Shah Wali Allah al-Dihlawi, while no.43 is - and this is a good one, one for the Daily Sun - his - I quote:

“..judgement of the Imam al-Shawkani of being a Jew who hide [his Islam] among the Muslims so to blacken their religion..”

Item no.48 is about his attack on Sa’id b. Abi Hilal whom I like to mention because of a small paper I’m trying to finish concering the Attribute of Shin, a narrator who is Thiqat.

Item no.52 is about Anas b. Malik, may Allah be pleased with him as the Prophet was pleased with him as a servant and Companion! And his attack of this noble Companion is by now well-known. No.53, 54 and 55 are also about his ‘descretion’ when it comes to the Companions - the best of generations ever brought into this world.

In item no.55 it is said - for example - that he doubted the Islam of the father of ‘Imrân b. Husayn, a noble Companion.. just to remember!

Item no.58, 59 and those thereafte are also interesting, but I shall mention them - may Allah wish it! - in a later bio of this man. Sufficient is to mention no.62 which concerns his defense and apology for Ibn Sina (a Hanafite, just like him and thousands of Mu’tazilites, Batinites and other irreligous people) who is known as a great Mulhid and Zindiq - even the uneducated know that. But alas!

Item no.70 is a very funny: magnifying al-Hasan b. Ziyad al-Lu’lu’i who has been declared a Kadhâb and giving him preference above his contemporary the Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal..

Item no.71 is about Ibn al-Thalji - and I posses al-Kawthari’s shameless book concerning him and others - the well-known Kadhab who would invent anthropomorphic narrations and ascribe them to prominent Imams to incriminate them; and then this al-Kawthari applauds for this man!

Item no.77 is very interesting cause it speaks about al-Kawthari’s rejection and condemnation of authors and their books. One of al-Kawthari’s principles is that any book bearing a title which reads something like ‘al-Tawhid’, ‘al-Uluww’, ‘al-Sifat’, ‘al-Sunnah’, al-Shariah’ etc. all these books are compilations of Tasjim (corporealism) and Tashbih (anthropomorphism).

Item no.89 is about Ibn Khuzaymah’s book Kitab al-Tawhid called by him: Kitab al-Shirk and Wathaniyyah (paganism).

Item no.90 is Abdallah b. Ahmad’s K. al-Sunnah: Kitab of Unbelief and Paganism. Something similar is said about al-Darimi’s book in no.91.

Interesting for those doubters is item no.93: al-Sifat of al-Daraqutni (which the man never rejects) is from the books of the Mujassimah. And the list continues.

Item no.101 is al-Shari’ah by al-Ajurri the Imam: from the books of Tasjim.

Item no.115 can also be send straight to the Daily Sun: alleging that the famous booklet of Ibn Taymiyyah in defense of the Four Imams called ‘Raf al-Malam’ has been authored by him as a protection, i.e. hypocritically.

Items no.122 till 139 are about Jahmite or Jahmite-like books which al-Kawthari praises and recommends. But no need to mention these shamefull facts.

Item no.169 is his claim that it is impermissible to ask ‘Where is Allah?’, at the same time attacking the famous narration which proves otherwise. Beside having opposed the Prophet’s tacit approval of the question and the questioner, what will he do with Ibn Kullâb’s condemnation of those who forbid this Sunnah?

Item no.204 wherein is mention that al-Ash’ari is actually a Hanafite according to him.

Item no.205 wherein is mention of one of his many clear lies: that a certain Zâfil is the grandfather of Ibn al-Qayyim! My God, this man should have been head of the Daily Sun redaction!

Item no.210 concerns his claims about the Ibanah, i.e. that it has been tampered or concoted and wherein I know not a single one before him who said something likewise (except maybe one). See also no.239 and no.284.

Item no.215: his other clear lie by saying that the phrase ‘His Shin’ with the predicate ‘his’ can nowhere to be found in any Hadith (!), not an authentic one (!!!) nor an inauthentic one (!!!!!!)..

Item no.244, 245 and 246 are about his lies on Ibn Hajar, al-Hafidh.

Item no.248 - and I hope for this that he truelly receives what is due to him in the grave, before being brought on the plain of Resurrection wherein his victim will receive his good share whatever has been left of it given to previous Imams - and that is: accusing the student of Ibn Taymiyyah of having added and changed (!) in the Qur’an (!!!) and Sunnah.. wa-Allahu Musta’an.

In any case, they hold that believing in the apparent meanings of such texts is a cause of deviation, in fact, of kufr.

The famous 9th-century Ash’arite theologian, al-Sanusi, states in his Umm al-Barahin that the Usool of Kufr are six. The sixth one he lists is “Adhering to the apparent meanings (zawahir) of the Book and the Sunnah alone in fundamentals of creed without comparing them with rational proofs and definitive shar’i principles.”

If the Divine Texts of the Book and Sunnah are not a source of guidance in fundamentals of creed but rational proofs are, then why did Allah send us Prophets or reveal Books?! He goes on to comment on this passage in Sharh Umm al-Barahin (pp. 317-318),

“Adhering to the apparent meanings of the Book and the Sunnah alone in the fundamentals of creed without evidence from reason is the cause (asl) of the deviation of the Hashawiyya (i.e. the Salaf and their followers). Thus, they espoused tashbih, tajsim, and jiha (direction; he means by that that they affirmed Allah’s Istiwa’ over His Throne), based on the verses ‘over the Throne He ascended’ [Ta-Ha:5], ‘Do you feel secure from He who is in heaven?’ [al-Mulk:16], ‘to that which I created with My Own Two Hands’ [Saad:75] and the like.”

Al-Sawi states similar in his commentary on al-Jalalayn (3/9), “… adhering to the apparent meanings of the Book and the Sunnah is from the Usool of Kufr.”

Al-Sanusi also states in Sharh al-Kubra, “As for those who claim that the path from the beginning to know the truth is the Book and the Sunnah and all else is prohibited, then the response is that their authority is only known by way of rational consideration. Also, they contain many apparent meanings (zawahir) which if one were to believe them, he would be guilty of disbelief - according to some - and innovation.”

The commentator states (p. 82), “Zawahir, meaning, issues which by their apparent meaning lead to corrupt beliefs, such as ‘the Most Merciful over the Throne ascended’ [Ta-Ha:5], ‘Allah’s Hand is over their hands’ [al-Fath:10]…”

This notion that the Divine Texts are misleading contradicts the Qur’an’s description of itself as “clear”, “explained in detail”, “guidance”, “healing”, “clarification”, and so forth as has been explained here.

What follows is a look at some of the texts that Ash’aris find problematic:

Verses and Traditions that appear blasphemous to Ash’ari heretics

Dialogue with an Ash’ari

‘Blasphemy’ #1: God is the light of the heavens and the earth

“God is the light of the heavens and earth.”
We don’t literally believe that God is the light of the heavens and the earth. We also know, if this phrase is metaphorical, it can no longer be taken literally. Abd-Allah ibn Abbas said that this verse means God is the Guider of the people of the Heavens and the Earth. Hence, since we know it’s metaphorical, we know that we can’t take it literally anymore.

This is blasphemous according to your Jahmi beliefs, but it is contrary to al-Ash’ari’s belief in Maqalat al-Islamiyyin as also confirmed by al-Qurtubi. Al-Ash’ari clearly states that Allah is light, but not like any other light, just as He has a face not like any other face, etc.

This is not only due to the verse, but also many other ahadeeth where clear reference is made to Allah’s light. From such ahadeeth is the Prophet seeking refuge from the light of Allah’s face.

‘Blasphemy’ #2: God is with us

“Do not worry, God is with Us” (9:40) meaning with His help. We don’t say that God is both literally with us and that his Help is with us.

The dhahir of ‘God is with us’ is that He is with us with His help, aid and knowledge. No one understands from this that God is sitting next to you.

Just as your Arab friend might write to you via email: ‘Go and take on these Wahhabis, comrade! I am with you!’ The first meaning that comes to your mind is that he is with you with help and support. Unless you begin to think: ‘Really?! Are you really with me? Where? In my pocket?!’

Also, see here.

‘Blasphemy’ #3: God’s coming

Abd-Allah ibn Abbas and Imam Hasan al-Basri said that “God’s coming” means “His command and Judgment is coming.”

And where is the isnad? Is it authentic? Do you even care or are you throwing at me whatever you can get your hands on?

In fact, I challenge you to quote to me one scholar from the Salaf who said that Allah cannot move, come, descend, etc, because he is beyond all the hawadith, which is the attribute of all created things. I challenge you to quote to me one scholar from the Salaf that Allah will not come, and that the texts are not to be understood as they appear!

The hadith master Ali ibn al-Qataan (?? ??????) informs us in his book (??????? ?? ????? ???????) that there is consensus that the “coming” of God and His angels is for punishment and reward, hence He forgives from the believers who He wills and punish from them who He wills, and His “coming” isn’t by movement nor change of locality. This scholar passed away 628 and was of the greatest scholars of hadith during his time. He was a scholar’s scholar and author of the famous book????? ? ???????

The quote from Ibn al-Qattan does not mean anything, nor does the fact that he is a muhaddith. Al-Bayhaqi was also a muhaddith and an Ash’ari.

As for his claim about Ijma’ over negation of movement or change, then that is negating by many of the Salaf (including Imam Ahmad) censuring the one who negates such, and even some going to the lengths of affirming movement for Allah, as Ibn Rajab states towards the end of his published Fath al-Bari.

And of course, the claim that Imam Ahmad made ta’wil has been dealt with again and again, such as here, and here.

‘Blasphemy’ #4: Nowhere is there a secret counsel between three persons but He is the fourth of them

“There is no secret conversation between three people where He is not the fourth, nor five where he is not the sixth, nor between less or more then that without him being with them, wherever they may be” (58:8) This means God is with us with His knowledge. We don’t say that God is both literally with us and His knowledge with us.

The dhahir of this is that He IS with us with knowledge, and not that he is standing next to us listening carefully to what is being said, quite like ‘God is with us’. What matters is what first comes to the mind, and this is the dhahir that we affirm.

‘Blasphemy’ #5: Build the ark under our eyes

“Build the ark under our [watchful] eyes.” The word “eyes” is in the plural case, which literally means three or more eyes. Ibn Abbas said it means under God’s vision, Muqaatil said it means with our knowledge, and on an opinion it means with our protection.

Yes, because being watched under one’s eyes means under observation and knowledge. It does not mean that Allah does not have eyes.

This is why you cannot bring to us ONE QUOTE from the Salaf (and this another challenge to you), where they explicitly state that Allah is not a substance, nor an accident, nor a body, and is not divisible, and therefore, He cannot move, nor have a face, nor eyes, nor hands, etc… NOT ONE QUOTE from the Salaf. Because your Salaf are none other than Ja’d b. Dirham and Jahm b. Safwan, tracing their lineage back to Aristotle.

‘Blasphemy’ #6: Lest any soul should say: Alas, my grief that I was unmindful of Allah’s side (i.e. His right), and I was indeed among the scoffers!

“in God’s side” is used metaphorically. Ibn Abbas said it means what is lost from God’s reward, Muqaatil said it means what’s neglected from making zikr of Allah, Mugaahid and Sadi said it means what’s neglected from the commands of God, while Hasan al-Basari said it means what’s neglected from obeying God. This verse could be translated as “Woe is to me for having neglected what is due to God.”

The vast majority of the scholars from the Salaf did not understand this verse to be pertaining to Allah’s Attributes, which is the correct opinion, as al-Imam al-Darimi states in his rebuttal of one of your ancestors, al-Marrisi.

This is because a person cannot do wrong in Allah’s Attribute. One can only do wrong with respect to Allah’s right, and this is what is meant by Janb here, and surely, this is the first thing that comes to mind.

‘Blasphemy’ #7: God laughs

Imam Bukari said that God’s laughter means His mercy.

Firstly, you must prove that al-Bukhari said it.

Al-Bayhaqi suggests that al-bukhari says that Allah laughing refers to His mercy. Ibn Hajar says in response in his Fath that he did not find this comment from al-Bukhari in ANY of the manuscripts he had in his possession.

Ibn Hajar had a huge library in his possession, and in fact, he was made incharge of one of the biggest libraries of his time. He would also take great care in referring to the various manuscripts when compiling works on different topics.

Also, see here.

‘Blasphemy’ #8: They fear their Lord from above them

And then you say:

“God is all-powerful over His slaves…” (6:18). This verse is simaliar to another verse.
“[Pharaoh] replied, ‘We shall kill their sons and spare their daughters: We are over them, powerful.’”

You are proving that you are a Jahmi Mu’tazili, even according to al-Ash’ari who you claim to follow.

This is what al-Ash’ari says in his maqalat about al-Jubbai al-Mu’tazili:
???? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ??????? ??? ????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ???????? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?? ????? ??????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????

“He claimed that God may not be described being literally above His servants. If such were to be found in the texts pertaining to God’s attributes, then that is to be regarded as a metaphor”

And this is what you, too, believe.

Furthermore, the verse:
?????? ???? ?? ?????

“They fear their Lord from above them”

The ‘min’ here cancels out ANY possibility of ta’wil.

Besides, the proofs for Allah’s literal elevation above His creation are too numerous to be denied by a simple re-interpretation of just one verse. If you really want to take that route, then go ahead and get busy with interpreting the following:

1) “Then He rose over the throne” – as it occurs in many places in the Quran

2) “Do you feel secure from the one who is in the heavens” in two places

3) “To Him do ascend the good words and the good deeds”

4) “He plans the affairs from the heaven to the earth, then it will ascend to Him”

5) “The angels and the spirit ascend to Him”

6) “When Allah said: Isa, I will take you back and raise you up to Me”

7) “Rather, Allah raised him up to Him”

8 ) “(The Pharaoh said) O Haman! Build me a lofty palace, that I may attain the ways and means- The ways and means of (reaching) the heavens, and that I may mount up to the god of Moses: But as far as I am concerned, I think (Moses) is a liar!” Meaning: I believe Musa is lying when he tells me that there is a God in the heavens.

9) al-Bukhari’s narration that Zaynab used to say to the other wives of the Prophet: “You were married off by your families. I was married of by Allah from above the seven heavens”

10) Muslim’s famous narration about the Prophet asking the slave girl: Where is Allah? To which the slave girl responds: In the heavens. In response to this the Prophet says: Free her, for she is a believer. A Muslim slave girl puts you, the intellectual carrots, to shame!

11) The ascent of the Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam – to the heavens, famously known as al-Isra wal-Mi’raj. Where did he go, if not UP TO THE HEAVENS?

12) The fact that Allah descends in the last third of the night to forgive, as explicitly mentioned in the ahadeeth.

13) The fact that the angels and His revelation, descend from Him. ‘We have sent down…’ is an often ‘blasphemous’ occurrence in the Quran.

14) The Hadeeth of Ibn Mas’ud about the day of judgement when Allah will gather the creation and everyone will be looking UP towards the heavens, waiting for Allah’s judgement. Al-Dhahabi declared it Hasan.

15) ‘Umar said: the order comes from here – pointing to the sky (sahih)

16) Ibn Mas’ud said: The Throne is above water, and Allah is above the throne. Nothing is hidden to him from your actions (Sahih)

17) ‘Aisha said: Allah knows, from above the Throne, that I did not like the killing of ‘Uthman. (Sahih)

18) Ibn ‘Abbas said: Allah was above His Throne before He had created anything (Sahih). He also said to ‘Aisha: Allah, from above the seven heavens, revealed the fact about your innocence. (Sahih)

19) Masruq would say whenever he related a hadeeth from ‘Aisha: I was informed by the truthful woman, beloved to Allah, the one who was declared innocent from above the seven heavens. (Sahih)

20) al-Dhahhak said: Allah is above His throne, whilst His knowledge is with them wherever they may be. (Sahih)

And I can go on and on, but the 20 quotes I have listed, from the Quran, the Sunna and the Athar should be enough to keep you busy with their ta’wil for a year to come.

Unless, Allah decides to be merciful with you and open up your eyes to the fact that you are on a deen contrary to the deen depicted and explicitly stated above in our religious texts.

‘Blasphemy’ #9: Then God ascended to the heavens…

“Then God turned towards the sky and fashioned them into seven heavens.”
Imam Tabari says commenting on this verse:

The original meaning of God’s words “then He Istiwa” is to be high and above.

How strange, there are people who negate the meaning that’s understood from the Arabic language in the interpretation of God’s word “then He istiwa to the sky,” which means to be high and above. They flee from this meaning, claiming that the understood meaning would mean that God was under the heavens; hence they interpret it with an unfamiliar reprehensible meaning. On top of all of that, they’re not saved from what they’re running away from! For it is said to them, you’ve claimed the meaning of istiwa is “to turn to,” was God’s back towards the heavens such that He turned to it? If they claim it’s not “to turn to” meaning “to face” but rather “to design,” it is said for them, just like this say: the “highness” is that of a King and Sultaan, not that of movement nor change of locality.

Firstly, this is a clear example to all the readers of distortion of the texts and of the religion. It can only imagined that such would result from a diseased heart.

From what you quoted, Ibn Jarir clearly states:
?????? ??????? ???? ???? ?? ?????:”?? ????? ??? ?????? ????????”? ??? ????? ??????

“The most befitting/appropriate/suitable/preferred of all the (aforementioned) meanings with respect to Allah’s saying: ‘He then rose to the heavens’ and then He made them…’, meaning He rose (‘ala) and ascended (irtafa’a) over them”.

‘Ala and Irtafa’a literally means to rise over something.

You distorted al-Tabari’s words and translated them as following:

“The original meaning of God’s words “then He Istiwa” is to be high and above”

Secondly, don’t you realise that al-Tabari is actually refuting your own ta’wilat in his brilliant statement above. By quoting al-Tabari while not knowing what he is saying you shot yourself in the foot!

Thirdly, al-Tabari by saying: ‘not that of movement nor change of locality’, is refuting those who state that rising to the heavens necessitates movement, because as he argues, iqbal – to turn to – also necessitates movement. Otherwise, he has already made his position crystal clear, that the most appropriate of all interpretations is to say that God literally rose and ascended to the heavens!

Besides, Al-Tabari is the LAST person you want to quote in defence of ta’wil, for his views are more than explicit as can be found in his works.

Further proof of al-Tabari’s belief that Allah is in the heavens is when he explains the meaning of 40:36-37: “Meaning: That perhaps I (pharaoh) may reach the gates of heavens, the gates that would allow me to see the God of Moses; for I believe Moses to be a liar with respect to what he says and claims; that he has a Lord in the heavens who sent him” 24/64

Look for a heretic to defend your heresies. You won’t find support for your heresies in Sunni literature, like that of al-Tabari.

‘Blasphemy’ #10: For his Lord is between him and the Qibla…

Ibn Hajar said in Al-Fath:
Commenting on the hadith that says “God is between you and your qibla” (????? ??????? ???????? ???????? ???????????), i.e. in front of you, ibn Hajar says that this is a refutation on those who claim that God is upon the thrown literally (????? ??????? ????? ???? ?????? ??????? ????? ???????? ?????????).

We say in refutation of Ibn Hajar’s aforementioned claim:

Firstly, this could only be a refutation of those who believe God is by Himself upon the Throne, if Ibn Hajar and you think that God is by Himself between the person and the Qibla, in a horizontal line as it were. But since I know that neither you, nor Ibn Hajar believe that to begin with, how can that, then, be a refutation of those who believe that God by Himself is upon the Throne?

Secondly, the dhahir of the hadeeth does not even dictate what you and Ibn Hajar have understood from it. Rather, it is possible for something to be in front of a person and above, both at the same time. The moon is a good example where if a person faces the moon and addresses it with some words, we would say that the person is actually facing the moon, while the moon still remains above him. If this is possible between two creations, then even more so with the creator.
‘Blasphemy’ #11: He is a God in the heavens and God on the earth.

?????? ??????? ??? ?????????? ?????? ????? ????????? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ??????????

“He is one that is in the Skies, God, and in the Earth, God.”
We do believe that God is in the Earth, Skies, and above the Thrown at the same time? Here is a better translation: “It is He, who is God in the heavens and God in the Earth. (43:84)” Some have taken this to mean that God is the one that is worshiped in the skies and earth, not that Allah is literally in the skies and earth!

Blame your own ignorance, shallow understanding and a diseased heart for such absurd understanding.

We literally believe that Allah is al-Ilah – the one who is worshiped – in the heavens and the earth, and this is the dhahir of the Quran.

Or would you now disagree and say contrary to the dhahir of the Quran, that Allah is neither worshipped in the heavens nor the earth?!

?????? ??????? ??? ????????????? ????? ?????????

“He is God in the Skies and in the Earth [6:3].” This is another verse that says God is in the heavens and in the earth. Just think about God being in the skies. How many skies is God in? Is He in all seven, or just three skies, or some other number? These verses would have God in several places at once. Would we say God’s beautiful body separates such that we can say He is in all those places at once? Perhaps it can be said He is in all those places without saying “How.” Hence one could say God is in at least 3 skies, the earth, above creation, and in front of a person when they pray, without going into how!

Idiots should speak for themselves.

Allah is a derivative of the word ilah – the one who is worshiped, and the meaning of this verse as exactly the same as above. I.e. the dhahir of this verse is that He is Allah – the one who deserves our worship in the heavens and the earth.

Christians should learn from us! They can say God is one and three at the same time without saying “how.” The “how” we make tafweed to God but we affirm the literal meaning!

No. You learnt this rhetoric from the Christians, as Imam Ahmad said; Zanadiqat al-Nasara – a heretical group amongst the Christians, and he is obviously referring to Hellenistic Christianity.

You did not invent the philosophy of substances, bodies and accidents. You borrowed it in bulk from Zanadiqat al-Nasara. You are not clever enough to be original in any of this nonsense.

‘Blasphemy’ #12: The black stone is God’s right hand on earth…

There is a hadith that says al-Hagir al-Aswad is God’s right hand on earth (????? ???? ???? ??? ?????). Ibn Atheer (??? ????) said that when a king shakes a person’s hand, that person in turn will kiss the King’s hand (??????? ?? ???? ??????). The black stone is treated on earth as the king’s hand is treated, hence it is kissed. This is what is said in Fath al-Bari also. We can all agree that the black stone isn’t literally God’s right hand.

The Hadeeth is your own refutation because you fail to understand the apparent meaning of the hadeeth (rather the athar of Ibn ‘Abbas).

“The Black Stone is God’s right hand on this earth. Whoever shakes it or kisses it, it is as if he shook or kissed God’s right hand”

Firstly: The dhahir of the athar does not just say: ‘Allah’s right hand’, rather it restricts it by saying: ‘Allah’s right hand on earth’, by which we know that this is NOT Allah’s attribute.

Secondly, the dhahir of the athar clearly shows that the stone is NOT Allah’s attribute, since it states: ‘Whoever shakes or kisses it, it is as if he shook or kissed God’s right hand”’. ‘it is as if’ means, in actual fact he is NOT shaking or kissing Allah’s hands… but this is the closest one can get. This is called tashbeeh in ‘ilm al-bayan, and as it is well known, al-mushabbah is NOT al-mushabbah bihi. If I say, if you go to Scotland, it is as if you are in Paradise, everyone knows that Scotland is NOT paradise, due to the phrase ‘as if’.

‘Blasphemy’ #13: Both of His hands are on the right…

We also have another hadith that says that both God’s hands are right (???? ???? ????). Do we mean by this that God has two right hands and no left hand? Or do we as that God as two right hands, but we don’t limit God to only two hands? Again we see ibn Atheer telling us a metaphorical meaning for God’s two right hands. Two rights hand is simply a metaphor for perfect. The left hand is seen as deficient; Allah uses two right hands as an allusion to His perfection.

There are two sets of reports about this issue, and hence the difference of opinion amongst the scholars as to whether Allah has a left or are both of Allah’s hands His right.

Those of the scholars who believed that Allah also has a left relied on narrations stating that Allah will grab the earth by his left hand and will say: ‘I am the king! Where are the tyrants now?!’ These scholars include al-Darimi, al-Qadhi Abu Ya’la and others. In order to reconcile these narrations with the other set of narrations mentioning two right hands for Allah, they concluded that the two right hands were only mentioned in order to negate deficiency from Allah, for the left hand is usually seen to be deficient.

The other group of scholars considered the narrations with ‘the left hand’ mentioned therein to be weak, and therefore supported other narrations that emphasise that both of Allah’s hands are on his right, and that Allah has no left hand. This group of scholars include the two Shafi’i Imams, one Sunni and the other Ash’ari; Ibn Khuzayma in his Tawheed and al-Bayhaqi in his al-Asma wal-Sifat.

Whatever the case, the Sunnis and the early Ash’aris, including al-Baqillani, Ibn Furak, al-Bayhaqi and others, all affirmed two hands for Allah. Whether they are both right, or if He has a left, is a matter of dispute.

‘Blasphemy’ #14: Until I become his hand with which he strikes…

As we know, there is another hadith that says that a person does voluntary acts worship until God becomes his eyes that he sees with, etc. We know it’s metaphorical, therefore it doesn’t mean a person continuously does voluntary acts of worship until he literally becomes God.

And how ironic is it that you believe in this hadeeth ‘literally’ when you’re in your Sufi mode in order to support Wahdat al-Wujud and al-Hulul wal-Ittihad!

Yet, the dhahir of the hadeeth isn’t even what you think! The Hadeeth clearly states the following:
???? ????? ??????? ???? ???????? ???????

“If he were to ask me, I will grant him. If he were to seek refuge in me, I would grant him refuge”

The dhahir of this clearly shows that the person does NOT become God, for if he did, he wouldn’t be able to ask himself for refuge!

This is why we have often repeated that all praise due to Allah, there is NOTHING in our religious texts the dhahir of which is Kufr! It is utterly absurd for a believer to think that the religious texts of his OWN religion, apparently, call him to disbelieve in his own religion! Who would say this except a dumb hypocrite?

‘Blasphemy’ #15: Today We forget you…

There are verses that speak of God “forgetting.”

1. “Indeed we have forgotten you [32:14]”
2. “Today we forget you [45:34]”
3. “God has forgotten them [9:67]”

Do we say God’s forgetting is literal, but unlike our forgetting, however we make tafweed of the “how” to Allah?

Look, dear Ash’ari friend, just forget about this whole discussion. This is all way over you, and besides, we have responded to it all, anyway.

And in case you didn’t notice the usage of the word ‘forget’ above, it doesn’t mean to erase something from your useless memory. It means to simply leave the issue alone, don’t worry about it, and simply neglect it. And this is also its dhahir in the Arabic language.

The disbelievers did not forget Allah because they erased him from their memories. They were simply negligent of their duty towards Him, and likewise, He too would neglect them that day. This is the dhahir that comes to our minds!

If the dhahir that comes to your mind is other than that then blame yourself for being dimwitted, but don’t abuse the Quran to justify your being dimwitted.

‘Blasphemy’ #16: No person is more jealous than God…

Taking a look at another hadith that says “no person is more jealous then God” (?? ??? ???? ?? ????). We don’t believe God is a person, do we?

Shakhs in Arabic (as in fact even ‘person’ in English) does not only refer to a human being, but it may also refer to any other genre of being that has a real existence. The word refers to the actual being of anything that may exist.

On this basis, ‘there is no person more jealous than God’, actually means that there is no real being more jealous than God, which is also supported by another version: ‘there is nothing more jealous than God’. Based on this many scholars believed that God could be referred to as Shakhs or a person, amongst them al-Bukhari when he called the chapter in his Sahih: ‘Chapter on the Prophet’s saying: There is no person more jealous than God’. Al-Qawariri used to say about this hadeeth: ‘There is no hadeeth more troubling for the Jahmis than this hadeeth’, and how true he was, looking at you.

Also, in the hadeeth of Laqit b. ‘Amir that we would all see Allah, yet everyone of us being on our own, he asked the Prophet: ‘How is that possible when we would all fill this earth, while He is one person (shakhs wahid), as He looks at us and we look at Him?’, and the Prophet did not correct Him for calling Allah a person, or a Shakhs.

Nor do we believe God literally gets jealous. Ibn Daqeeq al-Eid said, commenting on this hadith:
????? ????? ?????? ??????? : ??????????????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ???? ??????????? ???????? ???????? ? ??????????? ?????? ????????? ????????????? ???????? ???? ???????? ????????????? ??????? ???? ???????? ?????????? ???????????? ????? ?????? ????????? ???????????????? ? ?????????? ???? ?????????? ??????????? ??? ?????? ????????.

“People that aren’t anthropomorphists either don’t interpret it or make ta’weel. The latter interpret it as protectiveness … hence this expression is metaphorical.” (al-Fath)

The response is that we affirm what Allah’s messenger affirmed, that Allah is more jealous than he is and any of his companions. He is jealous that His limits be over-stepped, just as we believe that He is pleased and He becomes angry.

I don’t think we need Fath al-Bari to negate God being a person. However, anyone that’s interested can open up al-Fath and see what’s in there. Perhaps it can be posted here.

Why refer to Fath al-Bari of Ibn Hajar if you are trying to convince us of Ash’ari beliefs? Not to mention that he is often contradictory because he was not a genuine Ash’ari, although he was influenced by them.

It is like me quoting from Majmu’ al-fatawa of Ibn Taymiyya. Would you accept me citing your opponent as if his words are proof?

‘Blasphemy’ #17: I became sick and you didn’t visit me…

There is another hadith, which I’m sure more people know:
???????? ?????? ?????????…
????? ??? ????? ?????? ????????? ???????? ????? ?????????????…
????? ???????? ????? ??????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ????? ???????? ??????? ???? ???????? ????????????? ????????

God: I became sick and you didn’t visit me!
Slave: How can I visit you, and you’re the Lord of the Universe!
God: Don’t you know, my slave, so-and-so, got sick, if you visited him, you would have found Me with him.

The dhahir of this hadeeth is NOT that God became sick. The hadeeth clearly explains itself, “did you not know that so-and-so servant of mine became sick, and you didn’t visit him?’. Hence, it doesn’t even require ta’wil, because dhahir does not even suggest that God himself became sick. Remember that dhahir is determined by the entire context.

Also, it is not as you absurdly claim that God is teaching us the art of ta’wil! The servant already knew that God is not saying that He is sick, which is why he asked further as to what God exactly means by him not visiting God? Because as the hadeeth states, even the man did not understand what you understood to be the dhahir. And if God really taught you the art of ta’wil, as you claim, then all heretics have been taught the art of ta’wil, including the Mu’tazila when the make ta’wil of Allah’s vision, the scales, the bridge, etc, and the Batinis when they make ta’wil of Allah’s Laws, Paradise and Hell, etc.

On page 7 of ??????? ??? ??????? we see Imam Al-Izz ibn abd al-Salaam tells us that the Muslim didn’t understand what was meant. The Muslim knew that the dhair was not meant so asked “How can I visit you” i.e. what does it mean to visit you. Imam Al-Izz said that the Muslim didn’t understand the eclipse in the statement. What God meant was “My slave got sick and you didn’t visit him.”

Again, al-’Izz b. ‘Abd al-Salam is no authority for us on these matters.

Anyhow, contrary to what al-‘Izz states, the man knew that ‘I became sick’ is NOT the dhahir, rather it needs to be placed in a context in order for it to have a dhahir, and hence, he asked God for more in order to understand the dhahir.

Anyone that believes that the Muslim
1. literally believed God got sick
2. and was affirming the meaning by using “how”
3. while affirming the meaning was only asking about the “how-ness” of the visiting
This person is too gross of an anthropomorphist to reason with.

Speak for yourself, as you are the only one here who believes that the dhahir of the hadeeth is that God became sick!

Ibn Daqeeq al-Eid informs us that there are two ways to look at this. First, that it’s true upon what God means. And the people that make ta’weel, if it’s not far-fetched, it’s accepted, else we go back to belief in it, not knowing what it means, while negating the literal meaning.

In response to Ibn Daqiq we would say: Who decides whether or not ta’wil is far-fetched?! If you be honest to yourselves, you would realise that a ta’wil being far-fetched is only relative, for the earlier Ash’aris like al-Baqillani to al-Bayhaqi regarded the ta’wil of two hands to be far-fetched and refuted the Mu’tazila and other Jahmis for making ta’wil. Yet, the latter Ash’aris, such as al-Juwayni, al-Razi and al-Iji thought the ta’wil of Allah’s hands is not at all far-fetched, but rather very appropriate. And this is within ONE madhab – your own Ash’ari madhab. Yet if you look beyond, you will find the Mu’tazila making ta’wil of Allah’s hearing and seeing, which you think is far-fetched. But someone like al-Zamakhshari , being a first-class linguist can easily defend his case in Kashaf that the Mu’tazili ta’wilat are NOT far-fetched. After all, it is the Mu’tazila who are experts on ta’wilat. You plagiarised from their works bits that agreed with your theology word-by-word!

Let’s end this discourse with a pivotal quote by al-Imam al-Dhahabi:

“If Ta’wil is allowed, the Salaf would have been the first ones to resort to it, especially in order to negate anthropomorphism, as claimed by those who believe that the dhahir of these texts that suit Allah’s existence is anthropomorphism. However, to the contrary, when al-Jahm b. Safwan appeared on the scene – and he is the first to make ta’wil – the Imams contemporary to him declared him a heretic, such as Sufyan b. ‘Uyayna, al-Fudhayl b. ‘Ayadh, Ibn al-Mubarak, Abu Yusuf, Muhammad b. al-Hasan, ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Mahdi, al-Shafi’i, Ahmad, Ishaq, and countless others whom only Allah knows. There were those from them who declared him a disbeliever, as there were those who allowed for him to be killed”.

Ibn Kathir said in al-Bidayah:
“Some jurists were jealous of Ibn Taymiyyah because he had contacts in the Government, and because he single-handedly took care of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil, and because people listened to what he had to say, and because they loved him, and because of the great number of his followers, and because he stood for the truth, and because of his knowledge and action.

In Damascus, a lot of tension arose due to the absence of the vice Head of State [who was in Egypt at the time]. The [Ash'ari] judge in Damascus ordered for some disciples of Ibn Taymiyyah to be punished.

In the same period, it so happened that al-Mizzi read a chapter refuting the Jahmiyyah from al-Bukhari’s Khalq Af’aal al-Ibaad under the Nasr Dome [in the Umayyad Mosque]… Some [Ash'ari] jurists who were present there became angry and complained to the Shafi’i [Ash'ari] judge, Ibn Sasraa (??? ????) who was an enemy of his. Al-Mizzi was therefore jailed.

News reached Ibn Taymiyyah and he was saddened. He went to jail and had him taken out. He then went to the palace and found the judge there. They argued over al-Mizzi, so Ibn Sasraa took an oath that he would return al-Mizzi to jail or else he would step down as judge. [News reached Egypt], and the deputy Head of State had him re-imprisoned to keep the [Ash'ari] judge happy, but had al-Mizzi jailed nearby him in the city of Cusae [Asyut, Egypt]. Then the Deputy Head released him.

When the Deputy Head returned, Ibn Taymiyyah told him what had happened to him and his disciples in his absence. The Deputy Head was deeply saddened and announced in Damascus that nobody should debate in theology, and whoever does so would have his wealth seized, his blood shed and his house and shop razed to the ground. The situation therefore cooled down…”

Ibn Hajar said in al-Durar al-Kaaminah:
“On 12 Rajab, al-Mizzi read a chapter from al-Bukhari’s Khalq Af’aal al-Ibaad in the Umayyad Mosque. Some Shafi’is [i.e. Ash'aris] heard him and became vexed. They remarked: “We are the ones being targeted by this”. They took him to court by a Shafi’i [Ash'ari] judge and he ordered for him to be jailed. News reached Ibn Taymiyyah, so he proceeded to the prison and had him released with his own hands… ”

“Al-Mizzi started to read out al-Bukhari’s Khalq Af’aal al-Ibaad, in which there is a chapter in refutation of the Jahmis. Some people [Ash'aris] became angry and remarked: “We are the ones being targeted here”. News reached the Shafi’i [Ash'ari] judge that very day and he ordered for him to be incarcerated. Ibn Taymiyyah went to get him released, but the deputy Head of State had him returned to prison. Later on, al-Mizzi was released…”

Another scholar, al-Hafidh Ibn ‘l-Sharaa’ihi, Abu Muhammad Abdullah bin Ibrahim bin Khalil al-Zabeedi al-Dimashqi al-Shafi`i, was also subject to a similar situation. Al-Sakhawi said in al-Daw’ al-Laami’:

“… he was tested due to his reading out of al-Bukhari’s Khalq Af’aal al-Ibaad…”

Oh yes, dear Muqallids of al-Razi.

Yahya bin Sallaam, al-Haarith al-Muhaasibi, UbS al-Daarimi, Ibn Jareer al-Tabari, Abul Hasan al-Ash’ari, Ibn Khuzaymah, Ibn Battah, Abu al-Layth as-Samarqandi, Abu Uthman as-Sabooni, Ibn Abdil Barr, Abul Qasim Ismail al-Isfahaani, Ibn Qudaamah, al-Dhahabi, Ibn Abil Izz, al-Mar’i were all as stupid as Pharoah.

Congratulations. The whole Ummah except you guys are deviants. At least al-Razi did say one good thing - that he categorised most of the Ummah as misguided because everyone thinks that Allah is up above.

Ibn Hanbal, Ahmad b. Muhammad al-Shaybani (d.241)

‘Aqidah, in Tabaqat al-Hanabilah p.24ff (edition of Muhammad H. al-Fiqi, Cairo 1952 in two volumes)
‘Aqidah, idem. p.130ff
‘Aqidah, idem. p.241ff
‘Aqidah, idem. p.311ff
‘Aqidah, idem. p.329ff
‘Aqidah, idem. p.341ff
Al-Radd ‘ala’l-Zanadiqa wa’l-Jahmiyyah, ed. Muhammad Fihr Shaqafa, Hama 1368/1967.

see: http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open….t=12&book=1133
see: http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open.php?cat=10&book=825
see: http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open.php?cat=10&book=569
see: http://www.siratemustaqeem.com/phpBB…pic.php?t=3040

‘Aqidah, transmitted by al-Khallal, see Tabaqat al-Hanabilah ed. Fiqi, added at the end on p.292-308.

al-Risalah, send to Musaddad b. Musarhad, in Manaqib al-Imam Ahmad by Ibn al-Jawziy, see above links and: http://www.al-eman.com/Islamlib/view…=252&CID=97#s3

Abu ‘Ubayd, al-Qasim b. Sallam al-Harawi (d.224/838) [Hanbali-type]

Kitab al-Iman wa-Ma’alimih wa-Sunanihi wa’s-stikmalihi wa-darajatih, ed. Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani, Damascus 1965.

see: http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open….t=10&book=1072

Ibn Abi Shaybah, Abu Bakr Abdallah b. Muhammad b. Abi Shaybah (d. 225) [Hanbali-type]

Kitab al-Iman, ed. Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani, Damascus 1965.

see: http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open….t=10&book=1073

Ahmad b. Nasr al-Khuza’i (d.231) [Hanbali]

al-I’tisam bi’l-Kitab wa’l-Sunnah

al-’Adani, Abu Abdallah Muhammad b. Yahya b. Abi ‘Umar (d.243) [Hanbali-type]

al-Iman, ed. Hamad b. Hamdi al-Harbi, Kuwayt.

see: http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open….t=10&book=1891

Al-Bukhari, Muhammad b. Isma’il al-Ju’fi [Hanbali-type]

Khalq Af’al al-‘Ibad wa’l-Radd ‘ala’l-Jahmiyyah wa-Ashab al-Ta’til, published by Mu’assat al-Risalah, Beirut 1404/1984; also published in Hayderabad and Alexandria.

see: http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open.php?cat=10&book=301

Abu Hatim al-Razi & Abu Zur’ah al-Razi (d.277 and 264) [Hanbali]

Asl al-’Itiqad, ed. independantly but also within the Sharh Usul al-I’tiqad by al-Lalika’i

see: http://yahoo.groups.com/group/radd_ashariyyah or http://www.siratemustaqeem.com/phpBB/viewforum.php?f=16

Abu Dawud al-Sidjistani, Sulayman b. al-Ash’ath (d.275) [Hanbali]

Kitab al-Sunan, which contains: Kitab al-Sunnah, Radd ‘ala’l-Jahmiyyah etc.; published continually, for example by: Dar al-Da’wa, India 1401.
Masa’il Abu Dawud, a collection of questions/answers to Ahmad b. Hanbal by this close disciple of his, ed.

see: http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open.php?cat=8&book=61

Harb al-Kirmani [Hanbali]

Masa’il Harb al-Kirmani, a collection of questions/answers to Ahmad b. Hanbal by another close disciple of the Imam, ed.

Ishaq b. Ibrahim al-Kawsaj [Hanbali]

Masa’il Ahmad b. Hanbal wa-Ishaq b. Rahawayh, a collection alike by another disciple, ed.

Al-Darimi, ‘Uthman b. Sa’id (d.282) [Hanbali-type]

Radd al-Imam al-Darimi ‘Uthman b. Sa’id ‘ala Bishr al-Marisi al-‘Anid, ed. Muhammad Hamid al-Fiqi, Cairo 1358 H; also published in 1971 in Alexandria.
Al-Radd ‘ala’l-Jahmiyyah, ed. Gösta Vitestam, Lund/Leiden 1960; edited also by Zuhayr al-Shawish and publsihed by al-Maktaba al-Islami, Beirut 1402.

see: http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open….t=10&book=1460

Ibrahim al-Harbi, Abu Ishaq Ibrahim b. Ishaq b. Ibrahim (d.285) [Hanbali]

Risalah fi anna al-Qur’an ghayr Makhluq, ed.
Risalat Ahmad b. Hanbal ila al-Mutawakkil fi Mas’alah Khalq al-Qur’an, ed.

see: http://www.alashrafia.com/risala_quran.pdf

Abu Bakr al-Marwazi, Ahmad b. ‘Ali b. Sa’id (d.292) [Hanbali]

al-Sunnah, ed.

Abdallah b. Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Hanbal [Hanbali]

Kitab al-Sunnah, published by al-Matba’a al-Salafiyyah, Makkah 1349.

see: http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open….t=10&book=1430

Ibn Abi Shaybah, Muhammad b. ‘Uthman b. Muhammad b. Abi Shaybah (d.297) [Hanbali-type]

Kitab al-’Arsh, ed.

see: http://www.alsunnah.com/BookTabweeb.aspx?RootID=256123

al-Nasa’i, Abu Abd al-Rahman Ahmad b. Shu’ayb (d.303) [Hanbali-type]

al-Sunan al-Kubra (which contains: Kitab al-Nu’uth al-Asma wa’l-Sifat, published also seperately); the Sunan has been published Dar al-Kutub al-’Ilmiyyah in 1411, edited by Abd al-Ghaffar al-Bundari and Sayyid Kasrawi Hasan.

see: http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open.php?cat=8&book=1850

Al-Tabari, Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Jarir b. Yazid (d.310/923) [Hanbali-type]

Al-I’tiqad, lithographe edition from beirut, 1311/1893 = Sarih al-Sunnah, Tripoli (Libanon) 1991 (also in al-Lalika’I, Sarh Usu al-I’tiqad).
al-Tabsira fi Ma’alim al-Din, ed. ‘Ali Abd al-’Aziz Shibl, Riyad.

see: http://www.siratemustaqeem.com/phpBB…pic.php?t=2981
see: http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open….t=10&book=1045

Ibn Khuzaymah, Abu Bakr Muhammad b. Ishaq al-Sulami al-Naysaburi (d.311/924) [Hanbali-type]

Kitab al-Tawhid wa-Ithbat Sifat al-Rabb, ed. Abd al-Aziz Ibrahim al-Shawan, Riyad 1408/1988.

see: http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open.php?cat=10&book=299

al-Khallal, Abu Bakr Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Harun (d.311) [Hanbali]

Kitab al-Sunnah (part of al-Jami’, the greatest collection of Imam Ahmad’s Fatwa’s on Creed, Jurisprudence, Commentary, Tradition etc. ), ed. by D. ‘Atiyyah al-Zahrani and published by Dar al-Ra’ya for the first time in 1410.

see: http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open….t=10&book=1682

Abu Bakr b. Abi Dawud, Abdallah b. Sulayman b. al-Ash’ath al-Sijistani (d.316) [Hanbali]

al-Qasidah al-Ha’iyah fi’l-Sunnah, ed.

see: http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open.php?cat=10&book=390

Al-Ash’ari, Abu’l-Hasan ‘Ali b. Isma’il (d.324) [Hanbali]

Al-Ibana ‘an Usul al-Diyanah, ed. Fawqiyyah H. Mahmud, Cairo..
Maqalat al-Islamiyyin wa-Ikhtilaf al-Musallin, ed. H. Ritter, 2 volumes, Istanbul 1929-1933.

see: http://www.siratemustaqeem.com/phpBB…pic.php?t=2915

Al-Ajurri, Abu Bakr Muhammad b. al-Husayn (d.360) [Hanbali]

Al-Shari’ah, ed. Muhammad Hamid al-Fiqi, Beirut 1403/1983.

see: http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open.php?cat=10&book=296

Abu’l-Shaykh al-Isfahani, Abu Muhammad b. Abdallah b. Muhammad b. Ja’far b. Hayyan al-Ansari (d.369) [Hanbali]

al-’Azamah, ed. al-Mubarak Furi, Dar al-’Asimah, Riyad 1408.

see: http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open….t=10&book=1824

Abu Bakr al-Isma’ili, Ahmad b. Ibrahim b. Isma’il (d.371) [Hanbali-type]

I’tiqad A’immat al-Hadith, ed. Muhammad al-Khumayyis, Riyad 1412.

see: http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open.php?cat=10&book=530

al-Daraqutni, Abu’l-Hasan ‘Ali b. ‘Umar b. Ahmad b. Mahdi al-Baghdadi (d.385) [Hanbali-type]

Kitab al-Sifat, ed. Abdallah al-Ghunayman, Maktaba al-Dar’, Madinah 1402.
Kitab al-Nuzul
Kitab al-Ru’ya

see: http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open….t=10&book=1823

Ibn Batta, Abu Abdallah ‘Ubaydallah b. Muhammad b. Hamdan al-‘Ukbari (d.387/997) [Hanbali]

Al-Ibana al-Kubra ‘an Shari’at al-Firaq al-najiya wa-Mujanabat al-Firaq al-Madmuma, ed. Rida Na’san Mu’ti, ‘Uthman Abdallah Adam al-Atyubi, Yusuf b. Abdallah b. Yusuf al-Wabil and al-Walid M. Nabih b. Sayf al-Nasr, Riyad 1408/1988-1418/1997.

Kitab Sarh wa’l-Ibana ‘ala Usul al-Sunnah wa’l-Diyana, ed. and translated by H. Laoust, as: La Profession de foi d’Ibn Batta, Damascus 1958; also edited by Dr. Rida Na’san and published in 1404 in Makka by Maktaba al-Faysaliyyah.

see: http://www.alsunnah.com/BookTabweeb.aspx?RootID=511816
see: http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open….t=10&book=1015

Ibn Manda, Muhammad b. Ishaq b. Muhammad b. Yahya al-Isfahani (d.395) [Hanbali]

Al-Radd ‘ala’l-Jahmiyyah, ed. ‘Ali b. Muhammad Nasir al-Faqihi, Madinah 1982.
Kitab al-Tawhid, ed. Muhammad Hasan Muhammad Hasan Ism’ail al-Shafi’i, better known as: Muhammad Faris, published by Dar al-Kutub al-’Ilmiyyah, Beirut 2001.

Kitab al-Iman, ed.

see: http://www.alsunnah.com/BookTabweeb.aspx?RootID=516433
see: http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open.php?cat=10&book=956

Abu’l-Fadl ‘Abd al-Wahid b. Abd al-’Aziz b. al-Harith al-Tamimi (d.410) [Hanbali]

Kitab I’tiqad al-Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal, ed. Abu Mus’ab Tal’at b. Fuad al-Hulwani, Riyad 2002.

Al-Lalika’I, Abu’l-Qasim Hibat Allah b. al-Hasan b. Mansur al-Tabari al-Razi (d.418/1027) [Hanbali-type]

Sarh Usul al-I’tiqad Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jama’ah, ed. Ali b. Sa’d b. Hamdan al-Ghamiri, Riyad 1418/1997.

see: http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open….t=10&book=1014

Abu ‘Uthman al-Sabuni, Ism’ail b. abd al-Rahman (d.449) [Hanbali-type]

‘Aqidat al-Salaf wa-Ashab al-Hadith, ed. Badr al-Badr.

see: http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open….t=10&book=1631

Abu Ya’la Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-Farra’, al-Qadi (d.458/1066) [Hanbali]

Kitab al-Mu’tamad fi Usul al-Din, ed. Wadi’ Zaydan Haddad, Beirut 1974.
Ibtal al-Ta’wilat li-Akhbar al-Sifat, ed.
Kitab al-Riwayatayn wa’l-Wajhayn, ed. Sa’ud b. Abd al-’Aziz al-Khalaf, Madinah 1999/1419.
Masa’il al-Iman, ms and I believe also ed.

Abu ‘Ali b. al-Banna, al-Hasan b. Ahmad b. Abdallah b. al-Banna’ al-Baghdadi (d.471) [Hanbali]

al-Mukhtar fi al-Sunnah, ed.

Al-Ansari al-Harawi, Abu Isma’il Abdallah b. Muhammad b. ‘Ali (d.481) [Hanbali]

Damm al-Kalam wa-Ahlih, ed. Samih Dugaim, Beirut 1994.
Kitab al-Arba’in fi Dala’il al-Tawhid, ed. ‘Ali b. Muhammad b. Nasir al-Fuqayhi, Madinah 1404/1984.

Ibn ‘Aqil, Abu’l-Wafa ‘Ali b. ‘Aqil b. Muhammad (d.513) [Hanbali]

Rasa’il fi’l-Qur’an wa-Ithbat al-Harf wa’l-Sawt Raddan ‘ala al-Ash’ariyyah, ed. by G. Makdisi in Bulletin d’Etudes Orientale: work is also known as: al-Radd ‘ala’l-Asha’irah al-’Uzzal wa-Ithbat al-Harf wa’l-Sawt fi Kalam al-Kabir al-Muta’al.

Abu’l-Qasim al-Taymi, Isma’il b. Muhammad al-Isfahani (d.535) [Hanbali-type]

al-Hujjah fi Bayan al-Mahajjah wa-Sharh ‘Aidah Ahl al-Sunnah, ed.

Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani, Abu Muhammad Abd al-Qadir b. Musa al-Baghdadi al-Sufi (d.561) [Hanbali]

al-Ghunya fi Talibi Tariq al-Haqq, ed.

Abd al-Ghani al-Maqdisi, Taqi al-Din b. Abd al-Wahid (d.600) [Hanbali]

al-Iqtisad fi’l-I’tiqad, ed.

see: http://s3.invisionfree.com/sunnipres…p?showtopic=21

Ibn Qudamah al-Maqdisi, Muwaffaq al-Din Abu Muhammad (d.620) [Hanbali]

Kitab al-Burhan fi Bayan Haqiqat al-Qur’an, ms Manisa (Turkey) and Leiden (Netherlands), edited by H. Daiber in Israel Oriental Studies volume 14; also known as al-Burhan fi’l-Qur’an and al-Burhan fi Mas’alat al-Qur’an.
Tahrim al-Nazar fi Kutub Ahl al-Kalam, ed. George Makdisi, London 1962 (is also published as Radd ‘ala Ibn ‘Aqil)
Damm al-Ta’wil, ed. Badr al-Badr
Ithbat Sifat al-Rabb, ed. Badr al-Badr, published by Dar al-Salafiyyah, Kuwayt 1406.
Lum’at al-I’tiqad, ed. Badr al-Badr
‘Aqidah, ms
Munazarah ma’a ba’d al-Ash’ari, ms

see: http://www.siratemustaqeem.com/phpBB…pic.php?t=3023
see: http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open….t=10&book=1288
see: http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open….t=10&book=1897

Diya’ al-Din al-Maqdisi, Muhammad b. Abd al-Wahid b. Ahmad al-Jamma’ili (d.682) [Hanbali]

Ikhtisas al-Qur’an bi-’Audihi ila’l-Rahim al-Rahman, ms Chester Beatty Library

Ibn Taymiyyah, Taqi al-Din Ahmad b. Abd al-Halim (d.728) [Hanbali]

Minhaj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah fi Naqd al-Kalam al-Shi’ah wa’l-Qadariyah, ed. Muhammad Rashad Salim, 9 volumes, Cairo 1986-1989.
Muwafaqat Sahih al-Manqul li-Sarih al-Ma’qul, ed. Muhammad Muhyi al-Din Abd al-Hamid and Muhammad Hamid al-Fiqi, two volumes, Cairo 1369/1950-1370/1951.
‘Aqidat al-Hamawiyyah, ed. Muhammad Abd al-Razzaq Hamza.

Al-Dhahabi, Shams al-Din Muhammad b. Ahmad (d.748) [Hanbali-type]

al-Arba’in fi Usul al-Din, ed. Abd al-Qadir al-Sufi, Madinah 1413.
Al-‘Uluww li’l-‘Ali al-Ghaffar fi Sahih al-Akhbar wa-Saqimiha, ed. Abd al-Rahman Muhammad ‘Uthman, Cairo 1388/1968.

see: http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open….t=10&book=1896

Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah (d.753) [Hanbali]

Ijtima’ al-Juyush al-Islamiya ‘ala Ghazw al-Mu’attilah wa’l-Jahmiyyah, ed. Zakariya ‘Ali Yusuf, Cairo n.d.; also published by Dar al-Kutub al-’Arabi, Beirut 1408.
Qasida al-Nuniyyah, ed.
Mukhtasar Sawa’iq al-Mursala, ed.

see: http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open.php?cat=26&book=719

Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali, Zayn al-Din Abu’l-Faraj Abd al-Rahman b. Ahmad (d.795) [Hanbali]

Fadl ‘Ilm al-Salaf ‘ala ‘Ilm al-Khalaf, ed.
Fath al-Bari = Sarh al-Bukhari, ed.
al-Tawhid, ed.

see: http://www.saaid.net/book/open.php?cat=3&book=673
see: http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open.php?cat=10&book=806

For a valuable list of literature on creeds in chronological order with publishing details for some, see: http://sunnipress.com/txt/aqida.htm

]]> http://saheefah.org/2010/02/03/the-creed-of-imam-ahmad-and-his-early-followers/feed/ http://saheefah.org/2008/12/05/ibn-rajab-comments-on-imam-ahmads-supposed-tawil-of-allahs-coming/ http://saheefah.org/2008/12/05/ibn-rajab-comments-on-imam-ahmads-supposed-tawil-of-allahs-coming/#comments Fri, 05 Dec 2008 08:57:45 +0000 Abu Bakr http://saheefah.org/2008/12/05/ibn-rajab-comments-on-imam-ahmads-supposed-tawil-of-allahs-coming/

The Qur’an has given indication of the same meaning as this hadith in a number of places, such as the verse: “Do they wait except that Allah should come to them in the shade of clouds along with the angels.” [2:210] And: “Do they wait except that the angels should come to them or your Lord should come or some of the signs of your Lord should come.” [6:158] And: “And your Lord shall come with the angels, rank upon rank.” [89:22]

The Companions and the Successors did not make ta’wil of any of that or remove it from its indicated meaning. In fact, it is reported from them that they affirmed them, believed in them, and passed them on as they are. It has been reported that Imam Ahmad commented, “It is the Coming of His Command,” but only Hanbal [ibn Ishaq] reports this from him.

Some of our companions (i.e. the Hanbalis) say, “Hanbal [ibn Ishaq] erred in what he reported, and it contradicts his well-knownmadhhab which is extensively reported (mutawatir) from him.” What’s more, al-Khallal and his companion used to not accept the lone narrations of Hanbal from Ahmad as (a legitimate) riwaya. 

Some of the later scholars amongst them said, “It is a riwaya from him making ta’wil of everything that is like “coming” (al-maji’ wal-ityan) and the like.” 

Others said, “He only said that as an argument against them who disputed him concerning the Qur’an. They used the coming of the Qur’an  (on the Day of Judgment) as an evidence that it is created. Therefore he said, ‘it is only its reward that comes,’ as with the verse, ‘and your Lord shall come,’ meaning: as you yourselves say about Allah’s Coming that it is the Coming of His Command. This is the clearest way of dealing with this narration. 

Our Companions are of three groups in this issue: Some of them affirm “coming” (al-maji wal-ityan) and they explicitly affirm what they necessitate in created beings. They may even attribute that to Ahmad from routes that do not have authentic chains.

Some of them make ta’wil of it that it refers to the Coming of His Command.

There are still others who affirm it from Ahmad and pass it on as is without offering an exegesis for it. He will say, “It is a coming (maji wa ityan) that befits Allah’s Majesty and Greatness, Sanctified is He.

This is what is authentic from Ahmad, and those before him from the Salaf. It is also the view of Ishaq and the other Imams. 

Furthermore, the Salaf used to attribute the practice of making ta’wil of these verses and authentichadiths to the Jahmiyyah, because Jahm and his disciples were the first ones to be well known for saying that Allah is absolved of the meanings indicated by these texts based on evidences from the intellects (of men) which they referred to as decisive evidences (adillah qat’iyyah). These they deemed to bemuhkamaat, while they deemed the words of the Book and the Sunnah to be mutashabihat. Consequently, they subjected their contents to those fancies (of theirs). They accepted what they claim their evidences affirmed while they rejected what they claim their evidences negate. Then the remaining groups of Ahl al-Kalam, the Mu’tazilah and others, agreed with them in that.

They claimed that the apparent meanings of the Qur’an and the Sunnah are Tashbih, Tajsim, and misguidance (dhalaal). From this, they derived names for those who believe in what Allah revealed to His Messenger for which Allah has revealed no authority. In fact, they are lies fabricated against Allah by which they drive people away from having faith in Allah and His Messenger.

 They claimed that what has been mentioned of that in the Book and the Sunnah - as plentiful and widespread as (such texts) are - are just examples of approximate, allegorical speech (al-tawassu’ wal-tajawwuz). They are to be understood according to farfetched metaphorical explanations. This is one of the gravest forms of attack on the precise, pureShari’ah. It is similar to the Batiniyyah’s interpretations of the texts concerning unseen matters such as Resurrection, Paradise, Hellfire as being allegorical and metaphorical rather than literal. They also interpret the texts of commands and prohibitions in a similar manner, and all of this constitutes renegading from the religion of Islam. 

The scholars of the Salaf al-Salih and the Imams of Islam such as al-Shafi’i, Ahmad, and others only prohibited al-Kalam and warned against it out of fear of falling into the likes of this. Furthermore, if these Imams had realized that understanding these texts according to their apparent meaning constitutes kufr, it would have been obligatory upon them to clarify that and warn the Ummah, as that is a necessary part of sincerity (nasiha) to the Muslims. Does it make sense that they would sincerely advise the Ummah concerning the laws governing deeds and yet neglect to sincerely advise them concerning fundamental beliefs. This is the worst sort of falsehood.

Also, see here. 

[Aal ‘Imraan 3:7]

What is meant is that the Qur’aan contains verses that are entirely clear and verses that are not entirely clear. The entirely clear verses (muhkam) are those which are clear and concerning which there is no confusion; this applies to most of the verses of the Qur’aan. These verses are the “foundations of the Book”. As for the verses which are not entirely clear (mutashaabih) these are verses which may not be clear to some people, in exclusion to others. The scholars know them but the ignorant do not, and there are some which only Allaah knows.

Those who follow the truth refer the verses which are not entirely clear to the verses which are entirely clear, whereas those who follow deviation follow the verses which are not entirely clear, and they use the verses which are not entirely clear to contradict the verses which are entirely clear, for the purpose of creating confusion, distorting and misleading.

Ibn Katheer (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in his Tafseer (2/6): Allaah tells us that in the Qur’aan there are verses which are entirely clear, which are the foundation of the Book, i.e., they are clear in meaning, with no confusion for anyone; and there are other verses which are not entirely clear as to what they mean for many or some people. The one who refers that which is unclear to him to that which is clear, and uses the clear verses to understand what is not clear to him, will be guided. But the one who does the opposite will be misguided. Hence Allaah says: “It is He Who has sent down to you (Muhammad) the Book (this Qur’aan). In it are Verses that are entirely clear, they are the foundations of the Book” i.e., they are the root to which reference should be made in the event of confusion; “and others not entirely clear” i.e., they could be interpreted in accordance with those that are entirely clear or they could be interpreted in some other way, based on the wording and the way they are written, not according to the meaning.

“So as for those in whose hearts there is a deviation”, i.e., misguidance, and ignoring the truth in favour of falsehood, “they follow that which is not entirely clear thereof” i.e., they interpret that which is not entirely clear in such a way that allows them to distort it to suit their corrupt aims, because the wording could be interpreted in the way they want. But in the case of the verses which are entirely clear, they have no chance of doing that, so that is clear proof against them. Hence Allaah says: “seeking Al-Fitnah (polytheism and trials)” i.e., to misguide their followers and give them the impression that they are using evidence from the Qur’aan to support their bid’ah (innovation). This is evidence against them, not for them. It is similar to when the Christians argue that the Qur’aan says that ‘Eesa (Jesus) is a Spirit from God and His Word that He bestowed upon Maryam (Mary), but they ignore the verses in which Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“He [‘Eesa (Jesus)] was not more than a slave. We granted Our Favour to him …”

[al-Zukhruf 43:59]

“Verily, the likeness of ‘Eesa (Jesus) before Allaah is the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust, then (He) said to him: ‘Be!’ - and he was”

[Aal ‘Imraan 3:59]

– and other clear verses which unambiguously show that he was one of the creatures created by Allaah, and a slave of Allaah, and one of the Messengers of Allaah.

And the words “and seeking for its hidden meanings” mean, they distort it as they wish.

End quote.

Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

Allaah, may He be blessed and exalted, has divided the Holy Qur’aan into two categories: the verses which are entirely clear and those which are not entirely clear. What is meant by those which are entirely clear is that the meaning is clear and obvious to everyone, like the heavens and earth, stars, mountains, trees, animals and so on. This is entirely clear because there is no ambiguity in its meaning. The verses which are not entirely clear are those of which the meaning is ambiguous or unknown to most people, and is known only to those who are well-versed in knowledge, such as some verses which are general in meaning and do not give details, but they are explained in detail in the Sunnah. An example is the verse in which Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And perform As-Salaah [prayer]”

[al-Baqarah 2:43].

How prayer is to be performed is not known from this verse; all that is known from it is that it is obligatory to perform prayer. But how that is to be done is known from other evidence. The wisdom behind the fact that the Qur’aan was revealed with verses of these two types is that this is a test, because those in whose hearts is deviation will follow that which is not entirely clear and will thus remain confused. But those who are well-versed in knowledge believe in all of it, both that which is not entirely clear and that which is entirely clear; they know that it is from Allaah and that there is no contradiction in it. An example of verses that are not entirely clear are the verses in which Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“There will then be (left) no Fitnah (excuses or statements or arguments) for them but to say: ‘By Allaah, our Lord, we were not those who joined others in worship with Allaah’”

[al-An'aam 6:23].

“On that day those who disbelieved and disobeyed the Messenger (Muhammad) will wish that they were buried in the earth, but they will never be able to hide a single fact from Allaah”

[al-Nisa' 4:42]

Someone may come along and say that they contradict one another. How can they say “By Allaah, our Lord, we were not those who joined others in worship with Allaah”, then it is said of them that “they will never be able to hide a single fact from Allaah”? They quote the verses against one another in order to confuse people. But those who are well-versed in knowledge say: It is all from Allaah and there is no contradiction in the words of Allaah. They said: The Day of Resurrection will be as long as fifty thousand years, and things will change throughout that Day. The first verse is applicable to one stage and the second verse is applicable to another.

End quote from Fataawa Noor ‘ala al-Darb.

And he also said: As for the people of misguidance and deviance, they followed the verses which are not entirely clear and made them a cause to create doubt and suspicion, so they were misguided and misguided others. They imagined, on the basis of verses that are not entirely clear, something that is not befitting to Allaah or His Book or His Messenger.

An example of the first is the verses in which Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “Verily, We give life to the dead” [Yaa-Seen 36:12] and “Verily, We, it is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e. the Qur’aan) and surely, We will guard it (from corruption)” [al-Hijr 15:9] - and other verses in which Allaah attributes something to Himself using the plural pronoun (We). The Christians followed that which is not entirely clear and claimed a plurality of gods, saying that Allaah is the third of three, and they ignored that which is entirely clear and indicates that Allaah is One.

But those who are well-versed in knowledge interpreted the plural pronoun as being in terms of respect for the numerous attributes of Allaah and their greatness. They referred the verses that are not entirely clear to that which is entirely clear (interpretation of the meaning): “And your Ilaah (God) is One Ilaah (God - Allaah), Laa Ilaaha illa Huwa (there is none who has the right to be worshipped but He)” [al-Baqarah 2:163]. So they say to the Christians: The claim you make is because of the confusion that you have, so Allaah has deemed you to be kaafirs (disbelievers) and has rejected your claim when you said that. Listen to the verse in which Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “Surely, disbelievers are those who said: “Allaah is the third of the three (in a Trinity).” But there is no Ilaah (god) (none who has the right to be worshipped) but One Ilaah (God -Allaah)” [al-Maa'idah 5:73] i.e., they disbelieved when they said that God is the third of three.

An example of the second is the verses in which Allaah says to His Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) (interpretation of the meaning):

“Verily, you (O Muhammad) guide not whom you like”

[al-Qasas 28:56].

And

“And verily, you (O Muhammad) are indeed guiding (mankind) to the Straight Path (i.e. Allaah’s religion of Islamic Monotheism)”

[al-Shoora 42:52].

In these two verses there is an imagined contradiction, so the one who has deviation in his heart may think that they contradict one another, because in the first verse there is a negation and in the second there is an affirmation. So he thinks that there is a contradiction in the Qur’aan.

But those who are well-versed in knowledge say that there is no contradiction between these two verses, because what is meant by guidance in the first verse is guidance by means of divine help or inspiration, which no one has control over except Allaah alone; neither the Messenger nor anyone else has any power over that. And what is meant by guidance in the second verse is guidance on the basis of evidence and proof, which may come from Allaah or from others, so it may come from the Messengers and their heirs, meaning the sincere scholars.

End quote from Majmoo’ Fataawa al-Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (4/186).

These are all examples of relative ambiguity which some people may not be able to understand, but those who are well-versed in knowledge understand it. As for the verses which are not entirely clear and which no one knows except Allaah, these have to do with matters such as the essence and nature of Allaah’s attributes, or the essence of what is with Allaah of the delight of the people of Paradise and the torment for those who disobey Him. All of that is known to no one except Allaah.

Secondly:

Whoever is confused about any of the verses which are not entirely clear should try to understand it in the light of that which is entirely clear, if he is a scholar who is able to use evidence in order to reach conclusions. Otherwise he should ask the scholars, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“So ask of those who know the Scripture, if you know not”

[al-Nahl 16:43].

Whatever the case, let him say (interpretation of the meaning): “We believe in it; the whole of it (clear and unclear Verses) are from our Lord”

[Aal ‘Imraan 3:7].

Some of the heretics and deviants, in the past and in modern times, tried to seek out everything in the Qur’aan and Sunnah that is not entirely clear (al-mutashaabih), for the purpose of creating confusion and doubt.. But the scholars rose to this challenge and wrote beneficial books which refute these doubts. An example of that is the book which was written by Ibn Qutaybah (may Allaah have mercy on him), entitled Ta’weel Mukhtalif al-Hadeeth; and the book by Shaykh al-Ameen al-Shanqeeti (may Allaah have mercy on him) entitled Daf’ Eehaam al-Idtiraab ‘an Aayi’l-Kitaab.

Praise be to Allaah, there is no contradiction between the verses of the Qur’aan, or between the Sunnah and the Qur’aan, because it is all from Allaah, and Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Do they not then consider the Qur’aan carefully? Had it been from other than Allaah, they would surely, have found therein many a contradiction”

[al-Nisa' 4:82].

We ask Allaah to guide us and you and to grant us all beneficial knowledge and enable us all to do righteous deeds.

And Allaah knows best.

(Islam Q&A)

Question 3:

Is it true that asking about attributes like Life, Power, Anger, and Pleasure is an inarticulate issue, in the sense that a person is not capable of making the meanings of these specific Attributes clear? If so, then is the same thing true for the Hand, the Shin, and especially Laughing since a person can make the meanings of these Attributes clear?

Answer:
Asking about these attributes is in two ways. The first way of asking is to ask about their real nature and their howness. This type of question is the one about which Imam Malik said: “Asking about it is a bid’a”, because these are questions that no one has any way to answer.

The second way of asking is to ask about their meaning. Because of their clear meanings, no one asks about these attributes except someone who is false and obstinate. For example, if someone was to ask about water, the sun, or humans. We don’t say that it’s impossible to clearly describe these words. In fact, all of these words can be explained by their synonyms, by mentioning their antonyms, by mentioning their effects and what occurs because of them. The purpose is to understand the aim [of those words] and to get close to it.

There is no doubt that among named items are intangible concepts which the mind perceives, and there are tangible ones which the sensory organs are aware of. It’s well known that the tangible objects are clearer than the intangible concepts, even though there are some concepts which are easier to understand than tangible objects.

==============================

Question 6:
Is it correct to refer to language books which would contain the complete meaning of an attribute? For example, Mu’jam Maqaayees al Lugha by Ibn Faaris rahimahullah? It is mentioned in his text that the root meaning of laughing is “proof of exhaling and bulging”. So do we say that this is the meaning which is affirmed and understood? If so, why did the Bedouin say “We will not lack good from a lord that laughs”.

Answer:
What Ibn Faaris has mentioned as the complete meaning of laughing, is incorrect. It is not right to say that Allah’s laughing means inhaling, and in fact “inhaling” does not explain “laughing”. This is Ibn Faaris’ attempt, and it is obvious that he said that because of the way a person laughs. So this explanation is closest to what the created beings do. As for the Laughing of the Lord, Allah is the Most Knowledgeable of its true nature. There is evidence that it includes Mercy and Pleasure, as in the hadith: “Allah laughs at two men, one of whom kills the other…”, and the hadith “so He shades and Laughs, and knows that your happiness is near”. For this reason, the Bedouin said: “We will not lack good from a lord that laughs”.

==============================

Question 12:
What is the correct answer to someone who says about the Laughing of our Lord:
We don’t know “laughing” except for what we see people doing, and this is what “laughing” means. So either you are making a similarity between Allah and humans, or you are simply making “laughing” an attribute [ie, without any meaning]
And they say that we don’t know anything about Allah’s laughter except that it means the intention of mercy and doing good, just like the Bedouin said: “We will not lack good from a lord that laughs”

Answer:
The point that has been brought up in this question is the same suspicion that everyone has who denies the reality of attributes of action, like Loving, Pleasure, Anger, Happiness, and Laughter In fact, it is the same suspicion that everyone has who denies Allah’s Attributes or some of [His attributes].  And that is that they don’t know anything about these attributes except what they have seen or what they know from themselves. So according to them, affirming these attributes is making similitude of Allah to the creation. So they escaped from that by denying the reality of the attributes to Allah. They considered that anything which is affirmed to Allah that could be affirmed to the creation must be denied.

Then they went into two understandings with regards to the texts that prove the affirmation of these attributes to Allah:
Either by tafweedh and tajheel [ignorance], that there is no way to understand their meanings, or by making ta’weel and turning away from the obvious and clear meaning.

The Jahmiyya and Mu’tazila expelled [the meanings] from all the attributes. The Ashaira and those close to them differentiated between attributes which have no differentiation. So it became necessary for them to contradict affirmation, denial, and ta’weel, just like contradiction became necessary for the Jahmiyya and Mu’tazila. Shaikhul Islam Ibn Taymiyya said: “Every one of the deniers of the attributes mentioned by the Messenger SAWS, denied the attribute fleeing from danger, and ended up affirming something similar to what he was fleeing from”.

So it should be said to the one who asked this question: You have to say this same statement with regards to all of Allah’s attributes of Action, and also His attributes of Self. It’s not sufficient to make this statement only for His Laughter and Happiness.
Ahlus Sunnah, walhamdulillah, believe in all that Allah and His Messenger have informed about Him, and they believe Him to be far above anything similar to His creation. They do not speak about the howness of His attributes, but they make tafweedh of the howness by saying: None knows His howness except Him.

No one knows the howness of His attributes except Him, just like Imam Malik and others said: Istiwaa is known, but the howness is unknown.

This statement of Imam Malik is the methodology to be used for all of the attributes. So it would be said: Descending is known, but the howness is unknown. Anger is known, but the howness is unknown. Happiness is known, but the howness is unknown. Laughter is known, but the howness is unknown. Happiness is the opposite of sadness, and laughter is the opposite of crying, as Allah said: “And that He it is who maketh laugh, and maketh weep” [53:43] So Allah described happiness opposed to sadness, and laughter opposed to crying. His Happiness is connected to His Love and ta’ajub [amazement], as in the hadith “Allah is more happy by one of his slaves’ repentance than…” and the hadith “Allah Laughs at two men, one who kills the other…”

(original article)