Do Salafis take literal meaning of the Quran?

[AllahkaBanda]

Indeed, all praise is due to Allah, we praise Him, we seek His aid, and we ask for His forgiveness. We seek refuge in Allah from the evil of our actions and from the evil consequence of our actions. Whomever Allah guides, there is none to misguide and whoever Allah misguides there is none to guide. I bear witness that there is no god worthy of worship except Allah and I bear witness that Muhammad (sal-allahu ‘alayhi wa salam) is the servant and messenger of Allah. I remind myself and fellow belivers in Islam to “fear Allah as He should be feared and do not die except as Muslims (in submission to Him)” [Surah al-‘Imran:102 – interpretation of the meaning] and hold tight to the Qur’an and the Sunnah of Allah’s Rasoul (sal-allahu ‘alayhi wa salam) and the Salaf (may Allah be pleased with them)

let’s have a look what Shaykh Nuh Keller said and this could be a long response;

@hareem01

This naturally drew the criticism of neo-Hanbalis, at their forefront Ibn Taymiya and Ibn al-Qayyim, as it still does of today’s “reformers” of Islam, who echo these two’s arguments that figurative interpretation (ta’wil) was a reprehensible departure (bid‘a) by Ash‘aris and others from the way of the early Muslims (salaf); and who call for a “return to the sunna,” that is, to anthropomorphic literalism. Now, the obvious question in the face of such “reforms” is whether literalism is really identical with pristine Islamic faith (‘aqida). Or rather did figurative interpretation (ta’wil) exist among the salaf? We will answer this question with actual examples of mutashabihat or ‘unapparent in meaning’ Qur’anic verses and hadiths, and examine how the earliest scholars interpreted them:

Shaykh Nuh, fear Allah Ta’ala and I remind you that on the day of judgement you’ll have to answer for what you said. You and those who say this is attributing lie to those two Shayuookh (may Allah have mercy on them). They said nothing but what has been narrated to us from the Salaf. They were not the first one who understood the ayaat and the ahadeeth upon their dhahir meaning. I’ve already posted the narrations from the Salaf affirming this in post # 44 and post # 47.

Abu’l-Qasim al-Taymi al-Isfahani (d. 535 AH - rahimahullah) was asked about the Attributes of Allah, the Exalted. So this Shafi’ite Imam answered as follows: The Madhhab of Malik, al-Thawri, al-Awza’i, al-Shafi’i, Hammad b. Salamah, Hammad b. Zayd, Ahmad, Yahya b. Sa’id al-Qattan, Abd al-Rahman b. Mahdi and Ishaq b. Rahawayh is that the Attributes of Allah, the ones by which he described His Self and by which His Messenger described Him with from the Hearing, the Seeing, the Face, the Two Hands and the rest of His descriptions, than they are to be taken upon their well known and famous apparent meanings (‘ala dhahiriha al-ma’ruf al-mashhur), without suggesting an how-ness for them and without Tashbih and Ta’wil. Ibn ‘Uyayna said: Everything by which Allah described Himself with then its recitation is its explanation (tafsir). [Abu’l-Qasim says then commenting upon Ibn ‘Uyayna’s saying] That is according to its apparent sense: it is not allowed to carry her to a figurative meaning (majaz) from the sorts of interpretation (ta’wil). [al-Dhahabi in al-‘Uluww, see its Mukhtasar p.282]Imam al-Dhabhi (rahimahullah) said: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 bin ‘Uyayna, al-Fudhayl bin ‘Ayadh, Ibn al-Mubarak, Abu Yusuf, Muhammad bin al-Hasan, ‘Abd al-Rahman bin 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

@hareem01

1. Forgetting. We have mentioned above the Qur’anic verse, “Today We forget you as you have forgotten this day of yours” (Qur’an 45:34), which the early Muslims used to interpret figuratively, as reported by a scholar who was himself an early Muslim (salafi) and indeed, the sheikh of the early Muslims in Qur’anic exegesis, the hadith master (hafiz) Ibn Jarir al-Tabari who died 310 years after the Hijra, and who explains the above verse as meaning: “‘This day, Resurrection Day, We shall forget them,’ so as to say, ‘We shall abandon them to their punishment.’” Now, this is precisely ta’wil, or interpretation in other than the verse’s ostensive sense. Al-Tabari ascribes this interpretation, through his chains of transmission, to the Companion (Sahabi) Ibn ‘Abbas (Allah be well pleased with him) as well as to Mujahid, Ibn ‘Abbas’s main student in Qur’anic exegesis (Jami‘ al-bayan, 8.202).

Shaykh Nuh Keller, does the Arabic word for “Forget” here means erasing something from memory?

1. This ayah is not from one of the Sifaat (attributes) of Allah, how can then one claim that the Salaf made ta’weel of the dhahir meaning of the ayah?

2. The arabic word “nasnsakum” comes from the root verb “nasiya, yansaa”, which can mean “to neglect or deliberately leave and abandon”. So, the word here doesn’t mean to erase something from memory. The disbelievers did not forget Allah Ta’ala 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! Hence, the meaning of the ayah is, “Today we abandon them as they have abandoned this Day of theirs”. This is the dhahir meaning of the ayah as it was interpreted by the Salaf!

@hareem01

2. Hands. In the verse, “And the sky We built with hands; verily We outspread [it]” (Qur’an 51:47),

al-Tabari ascribes the figurative explanation (ta’wil) of with hands as meaning “with power (bi quwwa)” through five chains of transmission to Ibn ‘Abbas, who died 68 years after the Hijra, Mujahid who died 104 years after the Hijra, Qatada [ibn Da‘ama] who died 118 years after the Hijra, Mansur [ibn Zadhan al-Thaqafi] who died 131 years after the Hijra, and Sufyan al-Thawri who died 161 years after the Hijra (Jami‘ al-bayan, 27.7–8). I mention these dates to show just how early they were.

again, Shaykh Nuh, you’re playing with Arabic words and misguiding ignorant masses

Again, the ayah is not about the attribute of Allah Ta’ala because the arabic word used here is “aydin” which is not plural of the word “yad (hand)”. This has been well sated in the Arabic dictionaries i.e al-Lisan. The Arabic word “aydin” has the root word “quwwa (power)” and it is the verbal noun for the verb “aada (strengthened)”; therefore it is completely different from the word “yad”. Another ayah which clarifies the meaning of “Aydin” is: “Remember our servant, Dawud, the one with Aydin”; Aydin here, linguistically refers to power and not hands. If it literally meant “hands”, the ayah would be read as, “Remember our servant, Dawud, the one with hands”, which sounds strange to say the least! In addition, Imam Ibn Khuzaimah (d. 311 AH - rahimahullah) in his book al-Tawhid, p.86 said: And some of Jahmiyah claimed that the meaning of his saying “Allah created Adam with His (two) hand” is “His power”, so he claimed that “the yad” means power, and this is from changing (words) also, and **it is ignorance of the Arabic language , and power is called in the Arab’s language “Al-ayd” not “al-yad” **….. **Allah has informed us that he created **the heaven (As-sama’) with (Ayd) power, and (al-yad) the hand and (al-yadan) the two hands are different than (al-ayd) power; **for if Allah created Adam with ayd like he created the heaven, without favouring the creation of Adam with His (two) hands He (Allah) wouldn’t have said to Iblees: (Allah) said: “O Iblis (Satan)! What prevents you from prostrating yourself to one whom I have created with Both My Hands”**Surah Sa’d:75 – interpretation of the meaning], and there is no doubt that Allah Azza wa Jal has created Iblees (Allah’s curse be upon him) also with His power.
Muhammad ar-Razi said in Mukhtasar as-Sihah under the root “yad”:I said: His (Allah) saying: (Bi-aydin) meaning with power, and it is the root Aada ya’idu aydan if he became strong; and it is not the plural of yad/hand, for it to be mentioned here (under the root word yad) , its place is in the section of the letter dal. and al Azhari mentioned this ayah under the word al Ayd meaning the root. And I do not know any of the Imams of the Arabic language or tafsir who had the same opinion of al Jawhari that it is the plural of yad - hand.
Imam Abu’l-Hasan al-Ash’ari (rahimahullah), their supposdely Imam, replied to this ta’weel saying: It is said to them that this ta’weel is wrong (faasid) from many perspectives the last of which is that “al-Aydi” is not the plural of yad (hand) because the plural of yad which is used to mean ni’ma (favour) is “Ayaadi” and all that Allaah said was “to the one who I created with My Two Hands (bi yaday)” so it is false that the meaning of His saying, “with My Two Hands” be the meaning of His saying, “we built it with Power” [al-Ibaanah: p.134]
Therefore, the Salaf didn’t make ta’weel of this ayah as explaining the word “aydin” to mean power is not ta’weel, it is confirming the dhahir and haqiqi meaning of the word.

@hareem01

3. Shin. Of the Qur’anic verse, “On a day when shin shall be exposed, they shall be ordered to prostrate, but be unable” (Qur’an 68:42),

al-Tabari says, "A number of the exegetes of the Companions (Sahaba) and their students (tabi‘in) held that it a day when shin shall be exposed] means that a dire matter (amrun shadid) shall be disclosed" (Jami‘ al-bayan, 29.38)—the shin’s association with direness being that it was customary for Arab warriors fighting in the desert to ready themselves to move fast and hard through the sand in the thick of the fight by lifting the hems of their garments above the shin. This was apparently lost upon later anthropomorphists, who said the verse proved ‘Allah has a shin,’ or, according to others, ‘two shins, since one would be unbecoming.’ Al-Tabari also relates from Muhammad ibn ‘Ubayd al-Muharibi, who relates from Ibn al-Mubarak, from Usama ibn Zayd, from ‘Ikrima, from Ibn ‘Abbas that shin in the above verse means “a day of war and direness (harbin wa shidda)” (ibid., 29.38). All of these narrators are those of the sahih or rigorously authenticated collections except Usama ibn Zayd, whose hadiths are hasan or ‘well authenticated.’

1. Imam ibn Jarir al-Tabari (rahimahullah) reports number of narrations about this ayah from different routes from ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas (radiallahu anho). Shaykh Saleem Hilali says regarding these narrations: Summarising what has been reported from ibn ‘Abbas (radiallahu anho) on this issue: with this you will know, O beloved (reader) - may you learn the good - that the chains of narration that are reported from ibn Abbaas to do with his explanation of His saying, “the Day when the Shin will be exposed” cannot be used to establish a proof, because they are all da’eef.

So if it is said: can they be considered under the definition of hasan li ghayrihi (i.e. hasan due supporting each other) I say (in reply): indeed the weakness of them is such that they cannot support one another…Some of them are severely weak and cannot be used to support rather they make the matter worse. For example:[INDENT] the route of Usama bin Zayd from Ikrimah from him (ibn Abbaas), and it is no. 1
the route of the Uofiyyeen and it is no. 2
the ‘masaa’il’ of Naafi bin al-Azraq, and it is no. 8
Some of them have a single deficiency, and that is inqitaa (missing links in the chain), so when this is the case then they do not support or strengthen others, and they are: the route of Alee bin Abee Talha from him and it is no.3
the route of Ibraaheem an-Nakha’i from him and it is no.6
the route of Dahhaak bin Mazaahim al-Hilaalee and it is no.7
Some of them cannot support others because they do not have the same meaning: So in some of them he says, “distress and severity”
in some of them he says, “the matter will be exposed and the actions will be shown”
in some he says, “a severe matter”
in some he says, “the Day of Judgement and the Hour due to it’s severity”
… And due to this we are certain that the narration is not authentic to ibn Abbas (radiallahu anho) [al-Manhal ar-Raqraaq: p.30]
[/INDENT]2) Even if we assume that the narrations are saheeh then it still doesn’t prove your point Shaykh that the Sahabah made ta’weel of this ayah. The Sahabah differed whether this ayah is from among the Sifaat of Allah Ta’ala; this has been authentically reported by the early scholars i.e. Imam ibn Mandah (rahimahullah) in his Radd ala al-Jahmiyyah: p.37. So, one group among the Sahabah, including ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas (radiallahu anho), didn’t think that this ayah is from among the Sifaat of Allah; so they interpreted the word “Saq” upon its dhahir meaning, according to the Arabic language, as “intensity”. The other group, including Abu Sa’eed al-Khudree and ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood (may Allah be pleased with them), thought this ayah was from among the Sifaat of Allah Ta’ala.

The important thing to note is that the dispute is not whether the Attribute is to be affirmed or not, rather the difference is over whether the ayah is from the verses speaking about Allah’s Attributes. There is no doubt that they ayah apparently is not discussing the Attributes of Allah because the word “Saq (Shin)” appears in the indefinite form (nakira) and Allah did not apply it to Himself. So, the ayah does not say “His Shin” (Saqahu) and was not relayed with the idafa construct; hence, they ayah is not referring to the Attribute of Allah. As a result ‘Abdullah Ibn ’Abbas (radiallahu anho) did not include the ayah as being a verse which relates to Allah’s Attributes. Those who did deem the ayah as relating to Allah’s Attributes, did so due to the hadeeth which is in the two Saheehs, not based on the apparentness of the ayah. Therefore, there was no ta’weel made in this case by Sahabah.

3. The attribute of “Saq (Shin)” has been relayed to us and affirmed in the Saheeh Sunnah: From Abu Sa’eed (radiallahu anho) who said; I heard the Prophet (sal-allahu ‘alayhi wa salam) say “Our Lord uncovers His Shin, and every believer, male and female, will prostrate to Him and there will remain those who used to prostrate before Him just for showing off and for gaining good reputation (in this world)…” [Saheeh Bukhari and Muslim]

@hareem01

4. Laughter. Of the hadith related in Sahih al-Bukhari from Abu Hurayra that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, Allah Most High laughs about two men, one of whom kills the other, but both of whom enter paradise: the one fights in the path of Allah and is killed, and afterwards Allah forgives the killer, and then he fights in the path of Allah and is martyred, the hadith master al-Bayhaqi records that the scribe of Bukhari [Muhammad ibn Yusuf] al-Farabri related that Imam al-Bukhari said, “The meaning of laughter in it is mercy” (Kitab al-asma’ wa al-sifat, 298).

1. This narration has been falsely attributed to Sunni Imam and Muhadith, al-Bukhari (radiallahu anho). This was narrated by Imam Bayhaqi (rahimahullah) in his book without any isnaad. How can we trust it if there’s no isnaad; the statement of Imam ‘Abdullah ibn Mubarak (radiallahu anho) is well known:The isnaad is from the Deen, were it not for the isnaad, whosoever willed could say whatever he wished.Imam ibn Hajr as-Saqalni (rahimahullah) says in his Fath ul-Bari regarding this supposdely ta’weel of Imam al-Bukhari (radiallahu anho): I say: **I did not see this within the copy of al-Bukhari which we have in our possession **[Fath ul-Bari: vol.8, p.501]
2. This is contrary to what is well known from the creed of Imam al-Bukhari (radiallahu anho), his works and his shayuookh. Interesting thing to note is that Imam al-Bukhari (radiallahu anho) mentioned this hadith in two places in his saheeh but no where he mentioned this ta’weel. In addition, Imam al-Dhahabee (rahimahulllah) quotes Abu Ubaid al-Qasim bin Sallam (d.224 AH) who said regarding the Laughter of Allah: These are authentic ahadeeth, the Ashaabul Hadeeth and the Legal jurists have conveyed them, some from others, and they are the truth in which there is no doubt according to us. But if it was said, “how does He Laugh?” We say: we do not explain this, and we have not heard anyone explain it. [Siyar A’lam Al-Nubala: vol.10, p.505]

@hareem01

5. Coming. The hadith master (hafiz) Ibn Kathir reports that Imam al-Bayhaqi related from al-Hakim from Abu ‘Amr ibn al-Sammak, from Hanbal, the son of the brother of Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s father, that Ahmad ibn Hanbal figuratively interpreted the word of Allah Most High,“And your Lord shall come . . .” (Qur’an 89:22), as meaning “His recompense (thawab) shall come.”

Al-Bayhaqi said, “This chain of narrators has absolutely nothing wrong in it” (al-Bidaya wa al-nihaya,10.342).

1. This narration has been only narrated by Hanbal and the hanabilah are very cautious to take anything from Hanabl on the issues of fiqh when he is the only one narrating it. So, how about the issues of ‘aqeedah? In addition, the hanabilah say that Hanbal errored while narrating this as his contemporary (‘Abdulluh bin Ahmad, Salih bin Ahmad, al-Marwadhi and others – may Allah be pleased with them) narrated the same discussion differently. In fact, Hanbal also narrates several times from Imam Ahmad (radiallahu anho) literally affirming Allah’s descent. Also, this report is no where to be found in the book of Imam Ahmad (radiallahu aho): ar-Radd ‘ala’l-Jahmiyyah wa’z-Zanadiqah. Moreover, the isnaad includes Abu Amr ibn Samak who is unknown as stated by Imam al-Dhahabee in his Talkhees (vol.1 p.539). Therefore, one can say that the isnaad is problemtic.

2. This narration by Hanbal contradtics the well known stance of Imam Ahmad (radiallahu anho), which has been reported in mutwatir, let’s have a look at few of them, taken from Ibtal ut-Ta’weelat of Qadi Abu Ya’ala (rahimahullah);

Hanbal bin Ishaq (rahimahullah) said: I said to Abu ‘Abdullah, “Allah descends to the heaven of the dunya?” He [Imam Ahmad – radiallahu anho] said, “Yes”. I said, “Descends with His Knowledge or what?” He said to me, “Be quiet with this!” And he became very angered and said, “What is with you and this? Leave the hadeeth as they have arrived without asking how.”
He again said: I asked Abu ’Abdulluh about the ahadeeth which have been relayed about Allah descends the heaven of the dunya, about Allah being seen, placing His Foot down and the likes of these ahadeeth. Abu ’Abdulluh said: “We believe in these ahadeeth, trust them and we do not reject them at all. We know that what has come from the Messenger of Allah is the truth if the chains of transmission are authentic. We do not reject what Allah has said and we do not describe him with more than what He has described Himself with with no limits. There is nothing like unto Him and He is the All-Hearing, All-Seeing.”
Al-Qadi Abu Ya’la said (rahimahullah): Yusuf bin Musa said to Abu ’Abdullah: “Allah descends to the heaven of the dunya how He wills without describing it?” Imam Ahmad said: “Yes.”
He again said: Ahmad said in his Risalah to Musaddad that Allah, Mighty and Majestic, descends every night to the heavens of the dunya and the Throne does not encompass Him.
So, Qadi Abu Ya’ala (rahimahullah) explained this by saying: Ahmad clearly highlighted that the Throne does not encompass Him, and this is the saying with us in regards to Allah saying, And your Lord has come and the angels… [Surah al-Fajr:22 – interpretation of the meaning] . The intent of this is in regards to Allah’s Essence will come and not in the sense of moving.
The statement of Imam Ahmad (radiallahu anho) shows that Allah’s Nazool is appearent not His Command or Dominin descedning. In addition, it is well known that who doesn’t believe in Allah being above His throne, doesn’t believe in Allah’s Nazool; hence, it shows the narration from Hanbal is errored.

3. Some of the hanablis affirm this narration and say that Imam Ahmad (radiallahu anho) said this while refuting the Jahmiyyah and Mu’tazilite about the Qur’en being created. The Jahmiyyah made the ta’weel of Allah’s coming as being His Command. For the Qur’an as being Speech of Allah and created, they say that coming is only for creation and coming of al-Baqarah and al-Imran (on the day of judgment) indicate that Qur’an, the Speech of Allah Ta’ala, is created. Therefore, according to them whatever is described as coming is created. Hence, Imam Ahmad (radiallahu anho) replied to them using their belief by saying that coming of those two Surahs (on the day of judgement) doesn’t prove that the Qur’an is created beasue you can believe that the reward of reciting them will come as you have claimed by taking His coming as being the coming of His Command and Power.

Imam ibn Rajab al-Hanbali (rahimahullah) have explained this further in his Fath ul-Bari (note the same name as Imam ibn Hajr as-Saqalani’s book – rahimahullah) and the English translation of this pessage can be found here

With this, I would like to conclude my response to Shaykh Nuh’s article, rest of his article is trivial as it is typical bashing of Ash’aris. May Allah Ta’ala make us follow the correct path, ameen.

brother Nussairee, you’ll have to wait for one more day before i respond to your long post. However, I’ve already covered most of it and I hope you would read my posts sincerely.