Do Salafis take literal meaning of the Quran?

Society Religion & Philosophy
41

listen dude.. how dare you even said such disgusting stuff about our Lord, our Mohsin, our Khaliq, our designer, our Allah?.. Allah in your toilet?.. nauzubillah?.. is this the proper Islamic way of telling other of ur belief?..

If people like him who believe Allah has eyes,ears,legs..are not doing shirk?.. i wonder wat is the definition of 'shirk'? ..

Allah unlike humans does not have ears,eyes,legs.. He is immortal. What difference would it be between u and christians who take Jesus AS as their Lord who had eyes,ears,legs etc?.. are they not doing shirk?.. so are you.

42

Peace brother diwana

That is absolutely true! By discussing the Attributes of Allah (SWT) in too much depth we become sidetracked from the relationship that we need to develop with Him. We become too concerned about refuting people and we take away from the conscious mind the sense of true 'ibadah and turn Islam in to an intellectual chess match.

Sometimes where the mind cannot understand the words the heart can ... so in such matters where it is either difficult for us to grasp the concept we should allow our hearts to comprehend those words and leave it like that.

No one is rejecting those verses here and therefore I hope it can be reconciled that the 'Ashari, Maturidi and Athari positions are three angles which do not negate one another. Then we can move on with how we are to make spiritual use of our knowledge of Tawheed.

43

Thanks. And absolutely agree with you Psyah!

Peace.

44

As-Salamu 'Alaykum

:bism:

I’ll try m best to maintain the good adab and ikhlaq but if my response seems harsh then know by Allah that it is due to my gheerah for the correct teaching of the deen. Let’s start from repeating myself again

@Nussairee
brother, please don’t attack us with straw man or put words in our mouth. Where did I say or Ahlus Sunnah affirm that we take the Qur’an literally? This is what I said in answer to your question in the first post:

there is a different between the arabic word “dahir” and “haqiqi”. I then further clarified this:

Allah Ta’ala says in the Qur’an (interpretation of the meaning):There is nothing like unto Him and He is all Hearing, the Seeing [Surah ash-Shura:11]
Do you know of any similarity to Him? [Surah Maryam:65]
Nor is thee to Him any equivalence [Surah al-Ikhlas:4]
Why do you and everyone else keep ignoraing it and randomly attacking with straw man? Why does everyone keep ignoring my simple questions? Why did you all ignore the statment of Imam Trimidhi (rahimahullah)? Let me quote it for you again:

Why don’t you all call him a “heretic wahabi mujasmi (anthropomorphists)”? The famous statement of Imam Malik ibn Anas, Sufyahn ath-Thawri, ibn Uyainah and Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak (may Allah be pleased with them) is well known by the people of knowledge. Why do the heretics reject the statments of these Salaf Imams? Yet, they claim they’re following the Salaf!

I didn’t quote any of the Salaf and numerous other evidences 1) it would make my response lengthy 2) it is heavy stuff for all of you 3) the blind followers would reject it anyway

yes and no

1 - Yes, we interprete the Qur’an how the Salf did so
2 - No, the Salaf didn’t interprete the Qur’an dahri or majazi out of their desires; they did so because it is the appearent (dahir) meaning of the ayaat and the ahadith.

show me one text I quoted or my statement, which proves the emphasized part and says or imply that Allah Ta’ala resembles His creation. brother, did you even read what I said?

and who told you that Muslims are fighting over this issue for 1400 years? this is such trivial fiqhi issue and let’s not discuss it here

and no one can deny what He has said about Himself! No one is talking about tashbih or takeef, we negate it and nor we do taw’il and tafwid.

We’re simply discussing what Allah Ta’ala has said about Himself. How can you say that it is not part of our teachings? brother, Tawheed as-sama’ was-Sifaat is a pillar of tawheed! If you think it is trivial and useless, then you can ask Allah Ta’ala on the the day of judgement that why did He say about Himself in the Qur’an what He has said! Ask the same question to the Messenger of Allah (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) and the Salaf

this is extacly what I’ve done so far; discuss what has been told to us in the Qur’an, the Sahih Sunnah and athar of the Salaf.

Allah didn’t use those words randomly, those words are His Attributes

what you’ve concluded is kufr and blasphemy; another attack with straw man. I’ve already responded above

I’m simply trying to present the creed of Ahlus Sunnah and not forcing it upon someone.

this tells me brother, you didn’t even bother reading what I was actually saying. I was responding to other brother with a set of logical questions according to His belief.

first, I’ve already clarified the first part like 5 times. It is not my fault if you people don’t read and simply attack us with straw man. anyone who resembles to Allah Ta’ala to His creation or deny His Attributes is denying the Qur’an and the ahadith. Shirk means associating any partner in worhsip with Allah Ta’ala. It doesn’t mean what you’re trying to imply with your straw man argument.

@psyah
Jazak Allah khayr for clarifying the Athari position brother. I do agree with you that laymen shouldn’t dwell into this issue deepl without having any knowledge. However, it is important to know and affirm and believe in what Allah Ta’ala has said about Himself. If you think it is useless then you’re simply insulting the ayaat of Allah, the Sunnah of the Rasoul (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) and the jihad of the Salaf against the people of bid’ah. The Ash’ari and the Maturidi creed is clearly contradict the creed of Ahlus Sunnah, the Athari creed. How can you say that we should or can reconile between the three?

45

Re: Do Salafis take literal meaning of the Quran?

I thought you were going to refute the argument presented by Shakh Nuh Ha Meem Keller. Never mind.

46

Please explain what do you mean by Ashari, maturidi, and Athari creed, so we can continue the discussion. I have a pretty good idea what you mean, but I have a sugestion for future discussions:

Please use the simplified terms or the ones that are widely understood. When someone uses complicated and confusing terms, analogies, etc. The original discussion gets put on the back burner and the wordings distract people from the main argument.

47


respected sister, the problem is that you don't have seen anything from the Salaf yet. We'll soon see the reality of the Salaf statements quoted by Shaykh Nuh Keller, which is not an academic response, a simple distortion and misrepresentation of the facts. Why doesn Shaykh tell his readers about the history of Ash'ariyyah, which is well known? Why doesnt he tell that the Ash'aris had to hide in jungles or associate themseleves to the creed of Imam Ahlus Sunnah (Ahmad bin Hanbal - rahimahullah) to survive because the Muslims didn't accept their 'aqeedah? If there 'aqeedah was same as of the Salaf, why were the chased away by the early hanabilah? When the Ash'aris of Shaykh ul-Islam (ibn Taymiyyah - rahimahullah) were challenged to bring something from the Qur'an, the Sahih Sunnah or the athar of the Salaf, why couldn't they do it for three years and in return they used their political power to throw him in the jail? Why doesn't Shaykh Nuh tell that the current Ash'aris differe with the early Ash'aris; why doesn't he call those Ash'aris heretics etc as he does to Shaykh ul-Islam and Imam ibn Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on them)?

Why do Ash'aris believe that the Qur'an is created which is the belief of the Mu'tazilite? We all know about the history, in particular, the incident happened to Imam ahlus Sunnah! Yet, the Ash'ari say they follow the Salaf?

These are simple questions and I ask you to ponder upon them, insha'Allah.

Before I respond to, Shaykh Nuh Keller's article, some statements of the Salaf for everyone, this is just glimpse of what they have said!

Imam Al-Hafidh Nu'aym bin Hammad (d. 228 AH - radiallahu anho) said:Whoever resembles Allah with anything from His creation has disbelieved and whoever rejects what Allah described Himself with has disbelieved. Whatever Allah and His Messenger describe Allah with is not tashbeeh. [Reported by al-Lalika'i in Usool I'tiqad Ahl us-Sunnah wa'l-Jama'ah: vol. 3, p. 523 and Abu Isma'eel al-Harawi in Dhamm ul-Kalam wa Ahluhu: vol. 4, p. 263]
Imam al-Hafidh Ibn Rahawayh Ishaq (d. 238 AH - radiallahu anho) said:It is not permissible to enter into the affair of Allah as it is permissible to enter into the action of the creation based on what Allah says, "He is not questioned about what He does, but they will be questioned". And it is not permissible for anyone to imagine Allah and His Attributes and Actions as it is permissible to reflect and view the affair of creation. Allah can be described as descending in this last third of every night to the heaven of the dunya but it is not to be asked "how is His descending" because the Creator does what He wills as He wills. [Relayed by Abu Isma'eel al-Harawi in Dhamm ul-Kalam wa Ahluhu, vol. 4, p.325]
Imam Ahl us-Sunnah Ahmad bin Hanbal (d. 241 - radiallahu anho) said in Ar-Radd 'ala'l-Jahmiyyah wa'z-Zanadiqah:And he (i.e. Jahm) interpreted the Qur'an in a way other than which it is to be interpreted and he denied ahadeeth of the Messenger of Allah (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam). He also claimed that whoever describes Allah with something which Allah Himself described Himself with in His Book, or with what the Messenger of Allah narrated from Him, is a disbeliever and from the Mushabbihah (those who resemble Allah to the creation)... So we say to them: Allah is the One who arranged the affairs and He is the One who spoke to Musa, they say: "He did not speak to him and does not speak, because speech is only done with limbs and limbs are to be negated from Allah". So if an ignorant person was to hear their (Jahmi) statements he would think that they are the most fervent in glorifying Allah and the ignorant person will not realise that their words lead to misguidance and kufr and will not sense that they do not say what they do except as a false claim about Allah. [Ar-Radd 'ala'l-Jahmiyyah wa'z-Zanadiqah: p. 104]
Call these Salaf Imams, mujasmi and "wahabi heretic"! I can go on but this should be enough for those who seek truth. Last but not least;

Abu'l-Hasan al-'Ash'ari (rahimahullah), who the Ash'aris claim to be following stated:If we affirm these attributes for Allah, which the intellects, language, Qur'an and consensus indicate, it does not obligate that they are created. For that reason, it is not permissible for His Attributes what is permitted for the creation's attributes. [Abu'l-Hasan al-'Ash'ari', Risalah ila Ahl ith-Thaghar: p. 218]
He also said:Issue: it is to be said to them: "why do you reject what Allah says, 'with My hands?' [Surah Sad: 75], Two Hands and not 'two bounties'?"
If they say: "Because a hand if it is not a bounty it can be nothing but a limb."
Say to them: "Why have you judged that a hand if not a bounty can be nothing but a limb, and that we return to what we see or to what we find among us in creation?"
They say "The hand if it is not a bounty in what we see around us then it can nothing else but a limb."
Say to them: "If you have used what you see (as a proof) to judge by for Allah, then we also do not find things which are 'living' among the creation except that they have bodies, flesh and blood so do you judge Allah has having this? Exalted is He from such things. If not then you have to abandon what you say and you have nullified your own weak basis! If you affirm that unto Allah is
a 'life' not like the lives of others from the creation, then why do you reject Two Hands (of Allah) which Allah Himself informed of as being Two Hands and neither as being two bounties nor two
limbs like my hands."
Also it is to be said to them: "You do not find (among you) a wise controller except that it is a person and then you affirm that the world has a Wise Controller (Allah) who is not like people, so
here then you have again contradicted what is seen (among you) and you have nullified your own weak basis!" So do not prohibit affirming Two Hands, neither 'two bounties' nor 'two limbs', due
to that being contrary to what can be seen. [Al-'Ash'ari', al-Ibanah, p. 110]
So we ask the contemporary Ash'aris, look the Imam you suppose to follow in creed is rejecting your heretical views and you claim to be following him and the Salaf?

@sister hareem
please be patient, I'm coming there

48

Wa 'alaikumuSalam and Wa fi kum BarakAllah

It is because when I learn about the Salafis I go and sit with the Salafis and when I learn about the Sufis I go and sit with the Sufis … By Allah (SWT) no ones knows what I am (nor myself) because when I hear arguments from both sides they sound convincing, I try to put into learning about them with love for them. That is why I see a fallacy in what is said about the 'Asharis and likewise I see a fallacy about what is said about the Atharis … but what is at stake here?

Time

We have no time for these petty fights … If you think it is more important to argue with Muslims about the nature of God than it is to smile at someone or to be nice to or to build a relationship with Allah (SWT) then I cannot sit here to disagree or agree with you … Current 'aqaid is such that we have literal and esoteric … extreme literalists are anthropomorphists which I have never seen and extreme esoterics are rejectors of the Sifaat, again I have never seen them. Both parties seem to say each opposite lies in the extreme end but I feel there is a middle ground that is as yet unexplored by many.

I have genuine sentiment with the Sufis because they have never done Takfir on the Salafis … but I have seen some Salafis who do takfir on the Sufis. This may be acceptable to you but to me it is not. Though most of my friends are from the Salafis I am emotionally bonded to the Sufis and this I believe is a good position for me to remain for the time being.

49

Walekum-As-Salaam,

There are many things in Quran which no one can understand such as 'Alef Laam Meem'and no need to try to think too much in to these.

Maybe not the similar example but the essence is that not everything in Quran needs to be taken to a such level of argument/discussion. Specially if it is outside the bound of human brain thinking power. Result is waste of time and energy and absolutely no useful result in the end. I feel it is waste of time you don't then so be it.

Hence, I am taking my own medicine and will not discuss this topic with you.

Fi-Amanillah!

50

Sure I can wait to see your reply to Shakh Nuh's article. :)

51

:bism:

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;

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

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!

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.

  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.

  1. 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]
  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]

  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.

  1. 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.

52

Re: Do Salafis take literal meaning of the Quran?

@ Brother AllahkaBanda

:salam: again …

I know that I have said that the argument is not worth the effort, but I want to see whether ‘ta’wil’ has ever been done on Yadullah.

As far as I can see there is no where that the definitive identity has been established for Yadullah from scripture. It means that people must have done ta’wil at some time.

The statement that I am looking for is:

“Allah (SWT) has Hands”

the following statement does not qualify:

“The Hand of Allah is over their hands”

this does not qualify because in this sentence ‘the Hand’ is still undefined. It would require a derivation from this sentence/ayat above of deduction. That given that Allah (SWT) has said that “The Hand of Allah is over their hands” it means that Allah (SWT) has Hands. As can be seen there is some sort of deduction taking place, but no identity is being claimed.

Unless you can provide this identity for me I will have to resort to the idea that 'Asharis do ta’wil to obtain the majazi meaning and Atharis do ta’wil to obtain the maadi meaning.

53

Re: Do Salafis take literal meaning of the Quran?

So this means you're in agreement that "forget" is used with Allah metaphorically. :)

However Allah is not neglectful one, to cut down the argements I'll quote Ibn Kathir:

He said that Allah’s words mean “We will treat them as those who had forgotten them would.” What this means is that Allah deals with them as someone that has forgotten them would treat them. Hence there is no hope of getting out of hell. Because if someone has forgotten someone else, it’s not even on their minds to help them, let alone thinking about considering helping them. This is a powerful way to tell them that they will be eternally left in hell. Ibn kathir also gives a reason for why he explained it the way he did, he said, “because indeed He, the exalted, doesn’t lose anything from His knowledge, nor does He forget it.”

I am coughing like a doggie
54


"Aydina" actually means Three or more hands.

Read verse 36:71. “Can they not see how, among the things made by our hands (3 or more hands) …”

So how many hands does God have?

Timepass- December 2012
Timepass- December 2012
55

Re: Do Salafis take literal meaning of the Quran?

Additonally I believe there is a common misunderstanding between terminology of classification:

Dhahir means (apparent or evident) it does not mean Maadi (physical, real, tangible)

Sometimes the metaphoric meaning (Majazi) is more dhahir than the physical (Maadi) meaning, because to assume the physical meaning would be to contradict sense or an edict elsewhere. The reverse can be true also.

So for all of the references where the Salaf have said the "dhahir" meaning is to be taken. What do they mean by dhahir? The Maadi or the Majazi?

The opposite of Dhahir is Batin not Mutashabih which is the opposite of Muhkam. Dhahir means the obvious, Batin is unobvious, Mutashabih is an analogous explicative and Muhkam is a definite explicative.

Timepass- December 2012
56

These are the words of ibn Taymiyya.

[RIGHT]روي عن ابن عباس و طائفة المراد به الشدة أن الله يكشف عن الشدة في اللآخرة، و عن أبي سعيد و طائفة أنهم عدوها من الصفات للحديث الذي رواه أبو سعيد في الصحيحين، و لا ريب أن ظاهرالقرآن لا يدل أن هذه الصفات، فإنه قال يوم يكشف عن ساق نكرة في الإثبات لم يضفها الى الله لم يقل عن ساقه، فمع عدم التعريف لا يظهر انه من الصفات إلا بدليل آخر][/RIGHT]

“It has been narrated upon Ibn Abbas and a group that what’s meant by it [Shin] is severity * God unveils severity in the hereafter. [It has been related] upon Sa’eed and a group that they consider it from the attributes [of God] because of the hadith that Abu Sa’eed relates in Sahih Bukari and Muslim. [However,] there is no doubt that the dhair of the Qur’an doesn’t indicate that this is from the attributes. For indeed He said the day He unveils a shin, [which is] indefinite, it’s not attributed to God, He didn’t say His Shin. Hence, without it being definite, it’s doesn’t show that it’s from the attributes, except with some other evidence.”*

57

Re: Do Salafis take literal meaning of the Quran?

^ Even then if it did show something that was from God ... why should it mandate that it is part of Him?

**21:91 **And (remember) her who guarded her chastity: We breathed into her of Our spirit, and We made her and her son a sign for all peoples.

The spirit of Allah is not part of Allah (SWT), it is a created entity, obviously something belonging to Allah (SWT) does not automatically make it part of Allah (SWT).

Pakistan vs India (Pakistan's Squad Announced)
58

Re: Do Salafis take literal meaning of the Quran?

^There are some more examples of this,

Qur'an 3:72. It literally says “face of the day” to mean “the first part of the day.” We know days don’t literally have faces.

Let’s look at how ibn Qudaama teaches us how to know what literal is:

Ibn Qudaama tells us how to tell the difference between a literal use and a metaphorical one. One way to know which meaning is literal is to see what comes first to your understanding without looking at the context (قرينة). Hence you’d only look at the word itself and nothing else to get its literal meaning. So when you see the word “forget,” what meaning immediately comes to your understanding? This is without looking at the context the word is used it. For example, one can say “I’m going to forget thinking about it.” It’s nearly impossible for one to literally erase something from one’s memory, however, in this sentence it means to stop thinking about it. It is the context the word is used in that let’s us know that. Another meaning for “forget” is to behave foolishly. As in “forget yourself.” The context "forget" is used in tells us that it doesn’t mean to erase from one’s memory. The same thing goes when one says something like “long arm of the law.” It tells us that “long arm” means something else. However, if you want to know what "forget" means or "arm" means, you need to look only at the word without looking at the context it’s used in. It is by looking at the word, without its context, that its literal meaning becomes known.

59

Wa As-Salamu 'Alaykum
:bism:

@psyah
brother in nutshell this is how we understand the ayaat of the Qur’an, in this case the Sifaat of Allah Ta’ala:

  1. the Qur’an
  2. The Saheeh Sunnah
  3. sayings of the Salaf
  4. the Arabic language

this is the order we maintain in order to understand the Qur’an upon its dhahir (apparent). We don’t make the “supposedly” ta’weel (which basically is the dhahir meaning), unless there IS AN EVIDENCE for it! Again, **understanding an ayah upon its dhahir is not ta’weel of the ayah as ta’weel is to negate the dhahir. **When the Salaf said dhahir, they mean the famous apparent meaning which comes to the mind first, it could be madi or majazi. For example, as you can see, in some cases when the Salaf made the “supposdely” ta’weel, they took the dhahri majzi (for lack of better words) meaning. However, we don’t say it because it only creates confusion. So, we say they understood the ayaat upon their dhahir meaning and it is not the ta’weel of the ayah.

No one made ta’weel of the ayah: “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] because the dhahir of the ayah is that Allah Ta’ala has Two Hands. There is no OTHER interpretation possible and this what has been narrated to us in mutwatir from the Salaf.

As far the other ayah when Allah Ta’ala said “the hand of Allah is over their hands”, the dhahir meaning of the ayah is that His strength. Therefore, no ta’weel here! In fact, here it has two meanings: 1) the bay’ah 2) the strength

I hope this helps, insha’Allah

@hareem
respected sister, now do you affirm the Sifaat of Allah Ta’ala or still insist on blindly following Shaykh Nuh Keller’s deception and distortion, which has been refuted, allhamdulillah? You haven’t answered any of my questions in post # 44 and post # 47. There’s no point of running in circles or discussing an issue if our intention is not to seek the truth.

yes, it is dhahri majazi (for lack of better words) but it is not the ta’weel of the ayah as the ayah is not from the Sifaat of Allah Ta’ala! Understanding the ayah upon its dhahir is not ta’weel of the ayah and this is crux of the matter as it disproves that the Salaf didn’t make ta’weel of it. The dhahir of the ayah is that Allah Ta’ala will abandon them as I explained and so did the other scholars. I clarified the meaning of “neglecting”! The statement of Imam Ibn Kathir (rahimahullah) only refutes Shaykh Nuh Keller as he explained that the ayah is not from Sifaat of Allah Ta’ala; therefore, NO TA’WEEL as ta’weel is to negate the dhahir!

sister, please don’t repeat the same thing; this has been already answered. The word “Aydin” is not plural of “Yad (hand)” as I explained above. I quoted Shaykh ul-Muhadtheen ibn Khuzaimah (rahimahullah), Muhammad ar-Razi, the scholar of Arabic langauge, and Imam Abu’l-Hasan Ash’ari (rahimahullah), your own Imam. What have you brought forth other than the repetition of the same argument? **btw, the early Ash’aris affirmed the Two Hands for Allah Ta’ala: i.e. Imam al-Bayhaqi, al-Baqillani (may Allah have mercy on them). **

In addition, I brought forth an ayah from the Qur’an to make it clear that the word “Aydin” means power and this is the dhahir of the ayah. Moreover, the dhahir of this ayah tells us that Allah Ta’ala is referring to Himself in a majestic manner; hence, there’s no need for ta’weel.

Even if as assume it is, where did you get the idea that it means more than 3? A plural means something more than 1! No sound mind person will say that “Our hands” mean 3 or more just like no one says “We created” means Allah is 3 or more, 'aoudbillah.

and how does this differ from what I said? How does this prove Shaykh Nuh’s argument? Shaykh ul-Islam’s (rahimahullah) argument only disprove you! Here’s a summary for you:

  1. A number of sahabah thought the ayah is not from the Sifaat of Allah Ta’ala; so, they took the dhahir meaning and interpreted it. THIS IS NOT TA’WEEL as they understood the ayah upon its dhahir.

  2. A number of sahabah thought this ayah is from the Sifaat of Allah Ta’ala and they did so based on the Saheeh hadeeth found in the two saheeh*

60

AllahkaBanda Pardon my ignorance, I am just curious to know what you mean when you say "Sayings of the salafs"