-
It seems that every fifteen minutes another textual tampering or distortion of meaning is born at the hands of a certain sect, and to refute them is like trying to reason with Gog and Magog. However, the following reply is not addressed to them.
This is without doubt a forged report as indicated by Imam al-Bayhaqi himself when he cited it in Manaaqib al-Shafiʿi.
The above is cut-and-paste and a lie against the great Ashʿari Maliki Imam al-Qurtubi. The authentic position of al-Qurtubi from his Tafsir is thus:
1. The original quote from al-Qurtubi in al-Dhahabi's ʿUluw [full edition, 600 pages edited by Hasan al-Saqqaf] here states (p. 574): "for its reality cannot be known." This is also what is found in al-Qurtubi's Tafsir. This tampering is one among many examples of the mendacity of al-Albani and his followers! The reason for this particular tahrif is that when the Salafiyya were faced with the reality of Tafwid (committal) among the Salaf, they invented the subdivision of Tafwid al-Kayfiyya ('committal of modality'!) so as to deny that the Salaf actually practiced Tafwid al-Maʿna ('committal of meaning'!) which is pure and unadulterated nullification (taʿteel). So when proof to actual committal of meaning comes up, they deny it or manipulate it, as in this case.
2. Al-Qurtubi stated verbatim: "Istiwa' is one of the Attributes of acts (min sifat al-afʿal) according to the majority of the explanations." Al-Qurtubi, Tafsir (18:281). This is is the exact same position of Imam Abu al-Hasan al-Ashʿari RadyAllahu ʿanh and the position of the entirety of the Ashʿari School. There is no disagreement over the fact that istiwa' is real. Anyone that denies it is a kafir since it is in the Qur'an. What is rejected is vulgar, meddlesome, ignorant literalism and the attribution of istiwa' to Allah SWT as an attribute of the Essence as if the Throne existed without beginning, like the Essence!
3. The continuation of al-Qurtubi's words quoted in Mukhtasar al-ʿUluw (p. 286) states: "And He mentioned His Throne specifically because it is the greatest of His creations. However, they actually did not know the modality or howness of his Istiwa' for its haqiqa cannot be known." This shows that al-Qurtubi understood the modality of istiwa' to be the same as the actuality of istiwa'. Why do the Hashwiyya (gross anthropomorphists) not mention this when they cite from Mukhtasar al-ʿUluw?
4. Then al-Qurtubi continues, in his Tafsir (al-Aʿraf 54): "I SAY: the ʿUluw [exaltation] of Allah Most High and His irtifaʿ [elevation] are an expression of the ʿuluw of His Majesty, Attributes, and Dominion. Meaning: There is nothing above Him whatsoever in the sense of Majesty and its qualities, nor with Him as a partner. Rather, He is the Most High in absolute and unconditional terms - exalted is He!" Why do the Hashwiyya not mention this when they cite from Tafsir al-Qurtubi?
5. To cite Imam al-Qurtubi in support of literalism and anthropomorphism in the Attributes is the height of ignorance and impertinence, as his strong Ashʿari position is clear as the sun in his book on the Names and Attributes of Allah SWT titled al-Asna fi Sharh al-Asma', in print in two volumes. But it is the historical proof against the Mujassima of Ahl al-Bidʿa that just as their predecessors lied, they have no choice but to lie also. The examples of Tahreef and distortion in their books today are simply beyond count. See the introduction and appendices to our translation of Sayyid Yusuf al-Rifaʿi's Nasiha to the Ulema of Najd for many examples of such tampering and misreprentations of the Ulema of Islam and their books. (Forthcoming at the Islamic Supreme Council of America publications insha Allah.)
Yet another example of manipulation: What Imam al-Baghawi said is that "they relegated their knowledge to Allah." He never said "They relegated the knowledge (of their kayfiyyah) to Allah."
As for Shaykh Shuʿayb, whoever said he is a "Salafi"? Rather, most of his marginal comments on the hadiths of the Attributes in his editions of the Musnad of Imam Ahmad, Sahih Ibn Hibban, Sharh al-Sunna of al-Baghawi, and Riyad al-Salihin of al-Nawawi, show clearly that he follows the Ashʿari position. Now watch them turn against him just like the Yahud, after first praising him, turned against ʿAbd Allah ibn Salam when they learnt he was now a Muslim.
[for an updated version see below 
]
Someone wrote:
Mawduʿ and a lie in its attribution to the Imam. Al-Dhahabi himself states [Mukhtasar p. 136 #118; al-ʿUluw p. 391 #327] that everything above was reported from the Imam by Abu Mutiʿ al-Hakam ibn ʿAbd Allah al-Balkhi who is DISCARDED as a narrator according to Imam Ahmad, Ibn ʿAdi, Abu Dawud, a liar according to Abu Hatim, and a forger according to al-Dhahabi himself as reported by Ibn Hajar in Lisan al-Mizan (2:407)!
Even so, the text mentioned by the Hanafi authorities is: "Whoever says, 'I do not know whether my Lord is in the heaven or on earth' is a disbeliever and, similarly, whoever says, 'He is on the Throne and I do not know whether the Throne is in the heaven or on earth ' is a disbeliever."
As to its meaning: al-Bayadi said in Ishaaraat al-Maraam: "This is because he implies that the Creator has a direction and a boundary, and anything that possesses direction and boundary is necessarily created. So this statement explicitly attributes imperfection to Allah Most High. The believer in [divine] corporeality and direction is someone who denies the existence of anything other than objects that can be pointed to with the senses. They deny the Essence of the Deity that is transcendent beyond that. This makes them positively guilty of disbelief." As quoted in al-Kawthari, "Khuturat al-Qawl bi al-Jiha" ("The Gravity of the Doctrine That Attributes Direction [to Allah Most High]") in his _Maqalat_ (p. 368-369).
Imam Abu Mansur al-Maturidi states something similar in Sharh al-Fiqh al-Akbar, and others.
From Mutarrif ibn 'Abd Allāh - al-Bukhārī's shaykh - and Habib ibn Abī Habib
on the h.adīth of descent ("Our blessed Lord descends in the lat third of
the night"): "It is our Blessed and Exalted Lord's command which descends every pre-dawn (kullu sahar) 1 ; as for Him, He is eternally the same, He
does not move or go to and fro."2 Ibn Rushd in Sharh. al-'Utbiyya - a
commentary on an early work of Mālikī jurisprudence by Muh.hammad ibn Ah.mad
ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz al-'Utbī al-Qurt.ubī (d. 254) - stated that Mālik's
position is: "The Throne is not Allāh's location of settledness (mawdi'
istiqrār Allāh)."3 The report attributing to Imām Mālik the words: "Allāh is
in the heaven and His knowledge is in every place" is a condemned (munkar),
anomalous (shādhdh) report of questionable authenticity narrated through
Ah.mad ibn H.anbal from Surayj ibn al-Nu'mān al-Lu'lu'i 4 from 'Abd Allāh ibn
Nāfi' al-Sa'igh from Mālik.5 Imām Ah.mad himself declared 'Abd Allāh ibn
Nāfi' al-Sa'igh weak (da'īf), Abū Zur'a frowned at his name and declared him
"condemned" (munkar), al-Bukhārī questioned his memorization,
and Ibn 'Adi
stated that he transmitted oddities (gharā'ib) from Mālik.6
The report is
made further dubious by the fact that Mālik was well-known to condemn any
statements about the Essence and Attributes of Allāh Most High other than
sound reports, particularly statements that suggest anthropomorphism.8
Al-Awzā'ī said: "Whoever holds on to the rare and unusual positions of the
scholars has left Islām."9
NOTES
1 The bracketed words are only in the wording cited by al-Qādī 'Iyād in his Tartīb al-Madārik (2:44).
2 Narrated from Mutarrif by Ibn 'Abd al-Barr in al-Tamhīd (7:143) with a weak
chain because of Jāmi' ibn Sawada as per al-Dāraqut.nī in Ibn H.ajar's Lisān
(2:93). Also narrated from Salih ibn Ayyūb from Habib ibn Abī Habib - who is
very weak - by al-Dhahabī in Syar A'lām al-Nubalā' (8:418). The latter
reported in his Mīzān (1:452) from Ibn 'Adi's Kamil (2"818) the opinion that
all of Ibn Abī Habib's narrations are forged but this is an extreme
statement in light of three factors: (a) Ibn 'Abd al-Barr in al-Tamhīd
(24:177) mentioned Habib as merely weak, adding: "His reports from Mālik are
full of mistakes and condemned matters"; (b) Salih ibn Ayyūb said: "I
mentioned this report to Yah.yā ibn Bukayr and he said: "Excellent, by
Allāh! and I did not hear it from Mālik." Narrated by al-Dhahabī who
describes Ibn Bukayr in Tadhkirat al-H.uffāz. (2:420) as "the muh.addith of
Egypt, the Imām and trustworthy h.adīth Master... one of the vessels of
knowledge together with truthfulness and complete reliability... Where is
the like of Ibn Bukayr in his leadership in the Religion, his insight in
fatwā, and the abundance of his learning?" (c) Ibn 'Abd al-Barr in al-Tamhīd
(7:143) also narrates this report from Habib, then goes on to narrate it
from Mutarrif, adding: "It is possible that the matter be as Mālik said, and
Allāh knows best." It is established that Jāmi' did narrate from Mutarrif,
as stated by al-Mizzī in Tahdhīb al-Kamāl (28:71).
3 As quoted in Fath. al-Bārī (1959 ed. 7:124 #3592).
4 Misspelt Shurayh in al-Saqqāf's edition of al-'Uluw (p. 396 #340) and
al-Mahdī's edition of al-Shari'a (p. 293 #663-664). Shurayh ibn al-Nu'mān
al-Sa'idi al-Kūfī is a Tābi'ī who died before al-Sa'igh was born.
5 In Ibn 'Abd al-Barr's al-Intiqa' (p. 71), al-Dhahabī's Mukhtasar al-'Uluw
(p. 247), and al-Ajurrī's al-Shari'a (p. 293 #663-664).
6 Al-Dhahabī, Mīzān (2:513-514 #4647); al-'Uqayli, al-Du'afa' (2:311), Ibn
'Adi, al-Kamil (4:242 #1070=4:1556); Abū Hatim, al-Jarh wa al-Ta'dil
(5:183); Ibn H.ajar, Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb (6:46-47 #99). Dr. Nur al-Dīn 'Itr,
however, states in his margins on al-Dhahabī's al-Mughnī fī al-Du'afa'
(1:513 #3396) that al-Sa'igh is very reliable when narrating from Mālik and
that Ibn H.ajar declared him trustworthy (thiqa) in al-Taqrīb. Yet, the
latter grading was downgraded to "truthful" (sadūq) by al-Arna'ūt and Ma'rūf
in al-Tahrir (2:277 #3659). Al-Albānī in his notes in Mukhtasar al-'Uluw (p.
140) criticized al-Kawthari for citing al-Sa'igh as weak in his introduction
to al-Bayhaqī's al-Asmā' wa al-Sifat (p. 0), but he himself cites him as
weak in al-Silsila al-Da'ifa (2:231-232) as pointed out by Shaykh H.asan
al-Saqqāf in his edition of al-'Uluw (p. 397 n. 708)!
7 In Ibn 'Abd al-Barr, al-Intiqa' (p. 71 n. 3 and p. 73).
8 For example, Mālik said: "Allāh is neither ascribed a limit nor likened
with anything" (lā yuhaddad wa lā yushabbah). Ibn al-'Arabi, Ahkam al-Qur'ān
(4:1740).
9 Cited by al-Dhahabī, Siyar A'lām al-Nubalā' (1997 ed. 7:99).
I have this edition in front of me and the title is incorrectly reported. The actual title is: Mukhtasar al-ʿUluw i.e. the abridgment - in 300 pages - edited by the chief innovator of our time, Nasir Albani. The complete edition is not that of Albani but that of Hasan al-Saqqaf - in over 600 pages - which I also have.
Now, if it was a "most excellent work" then why did al-Dhahabi disclaim it later in his adult career (he wrote the book as a young man)? He wrote on its manuscript with his own hand, "I have realized it [this book] contains baseless narrations and statements by many people that spoke loosely, and so I neither subscribe to those expressions nor follow those people in them - may Allah forgive them - nor do I consider them binding upon me as long as I live, and this is my firm conviction, and I know that Allah - there is nothing whatsoever like Him." As reported by the Hadith Master Ibn Nasir al-Din al-Dimashqi in his handwriting on the front page of the original manuscript of al-ʿUluw.
I have that book also and al-Qurtubi in it makes abundantly clear that he is against the position of the anthropomorphists!
The continuation of al-Qurtubi's words quoted in Mukhtasar al-ʿUluw (p. 286) states:
"And He mentioned His Throne specifically because it is the greatest of His creations. However, they actually did not know the modality or howness of his Istiwa' for the reality of its modality cannot be known."
NOTE: The original in al-Dhahabi's ʿUluw [full edition, 600 pages edited by Hasan al-Saqqaf] here states (p. 574): "for its reality cannot be known." This is also what is found in al-Qurtubi's Tafsir. This tampering is one among many examples of the mendacity of al-Albani and his followers! The reason for this particular tahrif is that when the Salafiyya were faced with the reality of Tafwid among the Salaf, they invented the subdivision of Tafwid al-Kayfiyya so as to deny that the Salaf actually practiced Tafwid al-Maʿna. So when proof to the latter comes up, they deny it or manipulate it, as in this case.
THEN al-Qurtubi continues, in his Tafsir: "I SAY: the ʿUluw [exaltation] of Allah Most High and His irtifaʿ [elevation] are an expression of the ʿuluw of His Majesty, Attributes, and Dominion. Meaning: There is nothing above Him whatsoever in the sense of Majesty and its qualities, nor with Him as a partner. Rather, He is the Most High in absolute and unconditional terms - exalted is He!"
See the introduction and appendices to our translation of Sayyid Yusuf al-Rifaʿi's Nasiha to the Ulema of Najd for many more examples of their tampering and misreprentations of the Ulema of Islam and their books.
As for the Ghunya: it is not an integrally preserved text and the copies we have today are corrupt. As for the book Ijtimaʿ al-Juyush al-Islamiyya it is crammed with forgeries - like al-Sunna by ʿAbd Allah ibn Ahmad - and Ibn al-Qayyim is a notorious Mujassim.
In conclusion:
Those who call themselves Salafiyyah do not mind lying about the Ulema they quote; make up their own definitions of tafwid and ta'wil; and generally have no idea of the accurate positions of the Salaf and the latter are innocent of them. Allah is our refuge from their bidʿa and dalala. And Allah knows best.
Hajj Gibril
GF Haddad ©
[March 10, 2001]
Refutation of the "Salafi" refutation of the Encyclopedia of Islamic Doctrine
Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim
Quotations from troid.org site as of March 2003.
See also the chapter "More tamperings of Salafis"
above and 
Ibn Taymiyya, a Survey.
(1) "Salafi" refutation of Imam Ahmad's Ta'wil.... [Interpretation of the "coming of Allah" as the coming of his order (amr) or that of his reward (thawab).] (Ibn Hazm, al-Fisal (2:173). Al-Kawthari in his edition of al-Bayhaqis al-Asma wal-Sifat (p. 448 cf. p. 292) states that Abu Yala also narrates it from Ahmad. See also Ibn al-Jawzis Daf Shubah al-Tashbih (Saqqaf ed. p. 110 and 141).
Look at the ignorance of those people who take bladders for lanterns. Abu ʿAmr ibn al-Sammak is one of the great Hadith Masters, the Shaykh of al-Hakim and al-Daraqutni over whom there is no doubt. Al-Dhahabi called him "the Shaykh, the Imam, the abundant Muhaddith, the truthful, the Musnid of Iraq, ʿUthman ibn Ahmad ibn ʿAbd Allah..." (Siyar) and he mentions him in Tadhkirat al-Huffaz also.
The one referred to in Talkhis al-Mustadrak is a different person. How ignorant to confuse the two! Here is the chain in question: Haddathana Ibn al-Sammak, haddathana Muhammad ibn ʿIsa al-Mada'ini, haddathana Shuʿayb ibn Harb, haddathana jaarun lana yukanna Aba ʿAmr = one of our neighbors called Abu ʿAmr narrated to us. The latter is the unknown, not Ibn al-Sammak.
The above is false on many levels. First, the narration from Ahmad under discussion is his ta'wil of the "coming" and "arrival" - maji' and ityan - of Allah Most High in the Qur'anic verses to that effect, NOT the hadith of Nuzul.
Second, Abu Yaʿla is considered unreliable by the Hanbalis themselves in matters of ʿAqida and he is notorious for being a Mujassim; as is Ibn al-Qayyim without doubt, not to mention the centuries between him and Imam Ahmad in the first place - where are their isnads to begin?!
Third, the book named al-Sunna and attributed to ʿAbd Allah ibn Ahmad contains things like "Is istiwa' any other than sitting??" and contains MOSTLY FORGERIES according to Shaykh Shuʿayb al-Arna'ut.
Fourth, a few lines below these people adduce that same man's - Ibn al-Qayyim - claim that Hanbal ibn Ishaq is supposedly unreliable in relating matters from Ahmad. Consider how they produce him when it suits them and reject him when it suits them!
Note that the above is a purely conjectural argument because he is unable to weaken the report outwardly. So he resorts to zann i.e. "He couldn't have said so." It is typical of Ibn Taymiyya to use grand terms such as the attribution of tawatur and so forth to defend his views. The fact is, he is notorious for his unreliable manner in quoting the Salaf.
For example, in Majmuʿ al-Fatawa (4:319) you find:
"The view that the Prophets were protected from the major sins
but not from the minor sins is that of the majority of the
Ulema of Islam and all the groups. It is even the view of
most of the people of Kalam; as mentioned by Abu al-Hasan al-
Amidi, this is the view of most of the Ashʿaris. It is also
the view of most of the people of Tafsir and Hadith and the
Fuqaha'. In fact, nothing was reported from the Salaf, the
Imams, the Companions, the Tabiʿin, and their successors
except what conforms to this view...."
The above is a thoroughly inaccurate statement. Qadi ʿIyad in al-Shifa' said that the Jumhur of the Fuqaha' from the schools of Malik, al-Shafiʿi, and Abu Hanifa, agree that the Prophets are protected from all minor sins because one is required to follow them in the minutest matters. It is even reported from Malik that this is obligatory to believe.
As for the report from al-Amidi it is inaccurate. He actually said in al-Ihkam (1:171) that all but the Khawarij concur Prophets are protected from the minor sins if the latter bear on their character. If, however, it comes to a rare word spoken out of anger, then the majority of the Ashʿaris and Muʿtazilis allow it. So the issue is not by any means as clearcut as the words attributed to Ibn Taymiyya would lead one to believe. Ibn Taymiyya often relies on tahweel - verbal intimidation - with phrases such as "the Book, the Sunna, the Companions, the Tabiʿin, their successors, and the Imams all support what I am saying." This impressed the public in his time as it continues to do in ours and there is no power save by Allah.
This is among the typical high-handed statements of Ibn al-Qayyim and his teacher. Ibn Abi Yaʿla in Tabaqat al-Hanabila narrated that al-Khallal - the principal compiler of the early Hanbali Madhhab - said of Hanbal that his narrations from Ahmad were so good that "I might compare them to those of al- Athram in excellence, thoroughness, and perfection"! It is no use to attempt taʿtil of his reliability. More importantly, note that the positions of Imam Ahmad in ʿAqida are one thing and those held by later Hanbalis are another! Even in his own lifetime, Imam Ahmad had a problem with some of his students in their attributing to him things he never said. I have discussed this in some detail in my new book _The Four Imams and Their Schools_, please look it up.
with the meaning: His command descends. This report (from Maalik) has two chains of narration; the first: from Habeeb his scribe, and this Habeeb is not the actual Habeeb, rather he is a liar (kadhdhaab) and a forger (waddaa) by unanimous agreement of all the Ahl ul-Jarh wat-Tadeel and not a single one of the scholars depended upon him in his narration and in the isnaad. The second, in which there is an unknown person (majhool) whose condition is not known. Therefore, amongst his companions are some who affirm this narration and amongst them are those who do not because the most famous of his companions have not narrated anything like this from him." (ibn al-Qayyim, Mukhtasar us-Sawaaiq al-Mursalah, 2/260- 261)
The above is more of the same unreliability in reporting in addition to a mindless mistake in translation. What one of the Ulema said is: This Habeeb is no habeeb i.e. he is not lovely as his name claims - etc. - not "this Habeeb is not the actual Habeeb"!!
To address Ibn al-Qayyim's argument: first, we are not discussing interpolations in Malik's discourse - a claim which also requires proof - but a narration authentically related from Imam Ahmad and verified by the Huffaz. It is useless to discuss other matters rather than focussing on this chain: it is either false or true.
Second, Ibn al-Qayyim has not gotten all the facts about the narration he brought up from Imam Malik. If he had, he would have seen that it supports the opposite of what he is trying to claim. Namely, that the SECOND narration from Malik to that effect is from Mutarrif ibn ʿAbd Allah, one of al-Bukhari's authorities, a most reliable companion of Malik and most definitely one of his most famous ones. Nor does his chain contain any unknown narrator. I refer to it again further below.
Third, the bases of Ibn al-Qayyim's argument is that the Malik report is definitely inauthentic, which is not at all the position of the Hadith Masters - namely, Salih ibn Ayyub, Yahya ibn Bukayr, Qadi ʿIyad, and Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr! ʿIyad even questions the weakening of Ibn Abi Habib as exaggerated. In all, it is evident that Ibn al-Qayyim is swayed by his bias in ʿaqida, which clouds his judgment.
Yet another irrelevancy. The above refers to another verse and has nothing to with the discussion at hand. Further, the chains from Qatada are very weak because of Ibn Humayd who was accused of lying while the report from al-Dahhak refers to the *vision* of Allah together with the vision of Hellfire, not their *being* side by side - subhan Allah! Even supposing the above were authentic, we can mention far many more reports from the Salaf confirming the view of Imam Ahmad's ta'wil.
The Tābiʿī Abū al-ʿAliya (d. 90) and al-Rabīʿ (d. 139) said of 2:210: "It
means the angels come in the clouds. It is confirmed by His saying: {A day
when the heaven with the clouds will be rent asunder and the angels will be
sent down, a great descent} (25:25)."1
Al-Bayhaqī said: "[Abū al-ʿAliya's] commentary rightly establishes that the
clouds are a place and vehicle only for the angels, whereas there is neither
place nor vehicle for Allāh Almighty."2
Al-Ashʿarī said that Allāh Almighty on the Day of Judgment shall bring about a certain act (fīʿl) which He named "coming" and "arrival."3
Al-Qurtubī reiterated al-Ashʿarī's explanation and said: "It is based on the
lexical meaning of ityān, which is to proceed to do something (al-qasd ilā
al-shay'). The meaning of the verse is thus: Wait they for naught else than
that Allāh should cause to pass a certain act with some of His creatures
whereby He shall proceed to requite them and judge them, just as He brought
to be a certain act which He called ʿdescent' and another which He called
ʿestablishment.'"4
The grammarian al-Akhfash (d. 210) said that {that Allāh should come}
(2:210) is not understood literally concerning Allāh, but means that His
order (amr) should come.5
The grammarian al-Zajjāj (d. ~310) said: "It means the promised reckoning
and punishment shall come to them in the form of a cloud, as in His saying:
{Allāh visited them from a place whereof they recked not} (59:2), that is:
by abasing them."6
Al-Fakhr al-Rāzī reiterated Ahmad's interpretation of verse 2:210: "It means
that His order should come unto them, as proved by His saying: {Await they
aught save that the angels should come unto them or your Lord's command
should come to pass?} (16:33). The two verses relate a single event, and one
explains the other."7
Al-Rāzī further said that the saying of Allāh {Wait they} (2:210, 16:33) is
referring to the Jews: "His saying: {O you who believe! Come, all of you,
into submission} (2:208) was revealed only concerning the Jews.8 Then His
saying {And if you slide back after the clear proofs have come unto you}
(2:209) addresses the Jews, and therefore His saying {Wait they} is
referring to them.9 The meaning is: "They shall not accept your Religion
except if Allāh comes to them in the shadows of the clouds so that they can
see Him distinctly, for the Jews were anthropomorphists (mushabbiha). They
considered it possible for Allāh to come and go, and they said that He
manifested Himself to Mūsā - upon him peace - on the Mount in the shadows
of the clouds. So they asked for something similar in the time of Muh.ammad
ﷺ upon him blessings and peace."10
Concerning the h.adīth: "On the Day of Resurrection, Allāh shall come to the
people in the form (s.ūra) that is familiar to them" 11 Imām al-Bayhaqī said:
This can be interpreted to mean that He shall come to them in the Attribute (s.ifa) that is familiar to them... What confirms this interpretation is the Prophet's saying ﷺ upon him blessings and peace - in the narration of ʿAt.ā' ibn Yasār from Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī: "Then Allāh will come to them in a form lower [or more suitable] (adnā) than the one wherein they had seen Him," 12
Similarly, Imām Abū Sulaymān al-Khat.t.ābī said:
The meaning of 'Allāh shall come to the people etc.' is He shall lift the veil for them so that they shall see Him with the eyes (h.attā yarawnahu ʿiyānan) just as they used to know Him in the world through proofs (kamā kānū ʿarafūhu fīl-dunyā istidlālan). And the sight of Him after they used not to see Him, is equivalent to the coming of someone never seen heretofore.14
Similarly Sult.ān al-ʿUlamā':
His coming (majī'uhu) is a figure of speech (majāz) for His being present (h.ud.ūr) and His appearing for the eyes to see following invisibility, as in the verse {And your Lord shall arrive with angels, rank on rank} (89:22).15
Similarly Shaykh al-Islām:
Know that there are two positions among the people of learning on the narrations and verses of the Divine Attributes. The first one - and this is the school of the majority of the Salaf or rather all of them - states that one does not address their meaning but says: We are obliged to believe in them and we hold, concerning them, whatever befits the majesty of Allāh Most High and His magnificence, at the same time categorically believing that Allāh Most High - {Nothing whatsoever is like unto Him} (42:11) and that He is declared transcendent (munazzah) beyond corporeality (al-tajsīm), displacement (al-intiqāl), dimensionality (al-tah.ayyuz) in any given direction (jiha), and all the rest of the attributes of creatures. And this position is that of a group of the scholars of kalām and a group of their verifying scholars have preferred it. And it is the safest position (wa-huwa al-aslam).
The second position - and it is that of most of the mutakallimūn - is that such texts be interpreted (tata'awwal) according to what befits them in their respective contexts, and that this is permissible only to those who are qualified to interpret them. Namely, one thoroughly versed in the language of the Arabs, the principles of jurisprudence, and the branches of the Law, with mastery in learning. According to this position one says, about the words "Then Allāh shall come to them": the "coming" (al-ityān) is an expression for their seeing Him. For custom dictates that whoever is absent from someone else cannot be seen by the latter except by coming to him. So the "coming" and "arrival" (majī') here express the vision metaphorically (majāzan). It was also said that the "coming" is an act among the acts of Allāh Most High which He named "coming." It was also said that by the coming of Allāh is meant that one of the angels of Allāh comes to them. Al-Qād.ī ʿIyād. said: "This latter meaning is the most correct for the h.adīth in my view."16
The above suffices to refute any claim of a supposed consensus of the Salaf
(as claimed by a modern Wahhabi) whereby they did not interpret the "coming"
of Allāh Most High as His order.17
NOTES
11 Narrated from Abū al-ʿAliya [al-Riyāh.ī the student of Ibn ʿAbbās] by
al-Bayhaqī in al-Asmā' (Kawtharī ed. p. 448; H.āshidī ed. 2:370 943)
through al-H.ākim with a chain containing Abū Jaʿfar al-Rāzī (ʿIsā ibn Abī
ʿIsā Māhān) whom al-Khat.īb and Ibn H.ajar declared "truthful but poor in
memorizing" - although considered trustworthy (thiqa) by Ibn al-Madīnī, Ibn
Maʿīn, Abū H.ātim, and al-D.iyā' al-Maqdisī - and by al-T.abarī, Ibn Abī
H.ātim, al-Qurt.ubī, and al-Suyūt.ī in their Tafsīr (verse 2:210), also by
Abū ʿUbayd ibn Sallām and Ibn al-Mundhir as stated in al-Suyūt.ī's al-Durr
al-Manthūr.
2 Al-Bayhaqī, Al-Asmā' wal-S.ifāt (Kawtharī ed. p. 448; H.āshidī ed. 2:370).
3 Ibid. (Kawtharī ed. p. 448; H.āshidī ed. 2:371).
44 Al-Qurt.ubī, Tafsīr (verse 2:210).
5 As cited by al-Qurt.ubī in his Tafsīr (verse 2:210).
6 Ibid.
7 As cited by al-Kawtharī, Al-Asmā' wal-S.ifāt (Kawtharī ed. p. 447).
8 As established in al-Wāh.idī's Asbāb al-Nuzūl and al-Suyūt.ī's Asbāb
al-Nuzūl.
9 This is also the position of Ibn Kathīr, al-Qurt.ubī, and others on verse
2:210.
10 As cited by al-Kawtharī, Al-Asmā' wal-S.ifāt (Kawtharī ed. p. 448).
11 Narrated in a long h.adīth from Abū Hurayra and Abū Saʿīd by al-Bukhārī
and Muslim.
12 Narrated by al-Bukhārī.
13 Al-Asmā' wal-S.ifāt (Kawtharī ed. p. 296; H.āshidī ed. 2:70).
14 In Ibn al-Jawzī, Dafʿ Shubah al-Tashbīh (1998 al-Kawtharī repr. p. 35).
15 Ibn ʿAbd al-Salām, al-Ishāra ilā al-Ijāz (p. 106-107).
16 Al-Nawawī, Sharh. S.ah.īh. Muslim (Turāth ed. 3:19).
17 "To explain these verses as a reference to the coming or arrival of the
order of Allāh is unsound because it contravenes the literal meaning (z.āhir
al-lafz.) of the verse and the consensus of the salaf, and there is no proof
for it." Muh.ammad ibn S.ālih. al-ʿUthaymīn, Commentary on Ibn Taymiyya's
ʿAqīda Wāsit.iyya (Cairo: Maktabat al-ʿIlm, p. 23). In reality, such
interpretation is in strict conformity with the principles of Qur'anic
commentary nor is there any consensus to its contrary, as shown by the above
quotes. As for its proof, it is given in the verse (16:33) adduced by Imām
Ah.mad.
The phrase "as he wills" in no way contradicts the ta'wil reported from Imam Ahmad.
Can they read?? They are attributing to Ibn Hajar what in fact is his quotation of al-Amidi, one of the famous mutakallimun of the Khalaf, in a long passage in which al-Amidi begins by quoting the positions of those who support the way of the Khalaf as wiser and explaining what they mean - namely, that it is more complex and detailed for persuading atheists or skeptics - then he moves to the contra argument and says: Others said that one who takes the path of the Khalaf cannot be sure..." There is no doubt that al-Amidi supports qualified ta'wil.
Note that the Juwayni in question here is not Imam al-
Haramayn - Abu al-Maʿali - but his father Abu Muhammad.
More importantly, the above epistle is SPURIOUS. Even
if it were authentic, his own son followed the Ashʿariyya
and so did the latter's student, Hujjat al-Islam al-Ghazzali.
As for the "Salafis'" reference to Fath al-Bari 13:350 to
show that Imam Ibn al-Juwayni - Imam al-Haramayn - abandoned
ʿIlm al-Kalam and the way of the Ashʿariyya, it is another
falsehood built on a deliberate misrepresentation of Ibn al-
Juwayni's words. What Ibn Hajar said is that he embarked on
the perilous seas of Kalam i.e. he over-specialized in it,
and this is why he recommended to others not to follow his
path. Al-Shafiʿi disrecommended kalam to al-Muzani on the
very same grounds: "You are in Taran" i.e. a whirlpool in
the Black Sea. This does not mean that their involvement in
Kalam was not necessary. Rather, it was both necessary and
useful since it is by such involvement that they defeated
the heretics of their time.
However, the exact words of Ibn al-Juwayni do not even
mention kalam but sound more like a Sufi search for
the simplest direct taste (dhawq) of faith:
Ibn al-Samʿani in Dhayl Tarikh Baghdad narrated from Abu
Jaʿfar Muhammad ibn Abi ʿAli al-Hamadhani that Imam al-
Haramayn said:
"I read fifty thousand times fifty thousand [folios]. Then I left behind the people of Islam and their Islam of outward sciences in those books. I took to the vast sea and probed what Muslims deem prohibited to probe. I did all this in the pursuit of truth. I used, in bygone times, to flee from imitation. Now I have returned from all this to the word of truth: 'Cling to the faith of old women' (ʿalaykum bi-din al-ʿaja'iz). If Allah does not catch me with His immense kindness so that I shall die with the faith of old women and my final end be sealed with the uprightness of the People of Truth and the pure declaration: la ilaha illallah - then woe to al-Juwayni's son!"
"Ashʿaris have two well-known positions regarding the affirmation of the Attributes and whether they are let pass according to their literal meaning but in confirmity with Transcendence, or whether they should be interpreted. The first position is that which is traced back to the Salaf and forms the Imam's choice in al-Risala al-Nizamiyya as well as in other passages of his kalam works. So his 'return' means a return from interpretation (al-ta'wil) to committal (al-tafwid). Neither the latter nor the former are condemned for it is a question of ijtihad. I mean the question of interpreting on the one hand or committing together with Transcendence. The great problem and terrible disaster consists in letting them pass according to literal meaning while believing that the latter is the actual meaning and that it is not impossible for it to apply to the Creator. And that is the creed of the idol-worshipping anthropomorphists. {Those in whose hearts is doubt} (3:7), their doubt impels them to pursue that which is allegorical {seeking to cause dissension}. Allah's curses be upon them uninterruptedly! How bold they are in committing lies, and how little is their understanding of realities!"
The above is definitely not al-Ashʿari's original text.
Ibn ʿAsakir's citation of the same passage in Tabyin
Kadhib al-Muftari (p. 158-159) states: "[Our position is]
that He has an eye (ʿaynan) without saying how." A
recent edition of the Ibana by Bashshar ʿUyun (p. 44)
consequently amended its own tradition to follow the text
cited by Ibn ʿAsakir since the evidence of the Qur'an and
the Sunna mentions {My Eye (ʿayni)} (20:39) in the singular
and {Our Eyes} (52:48, 54:14) in the plural but never two
eyes in the dual. Accordingly Ibn Hazm said:
"Saying: 'He has two eyes' is null and void and part of the belief of the anthropomorphists... Allah I said 'eye' (ʿayn) and 'eyes' (aʿyunin)... so it is not permissible for anyone to describe Him as possessing 'two eyes' because no text has reached us to that effect." Al-Fisal fil-Milal (2:166).
Further down, in all versions of the Ibana, the text states:
"Allah Most High said that He possesses a face and an eye
which is neither given modality nor defined"!
Al-Ashʿari also said, in two editions of the Ibana (Dr.
Fawqiyya Husayn Mahmud's 1977 edition and Abbas Sabbagh's 1994 edition):
"And [we believe] that { He established Himself over the Throne } in the sense that He said and the meaning that He wills in a way that transcends touch, settlement, fixity, immanence, and displacement. The Throne does not carry Him, rather the Throne and its carriers are carried by the subtleness of His power, subdued under His grip. He is above the Throne and the Heavens and above everything to the limits of the earth with an aboveness which does not bring Him nearer to the Throne and the Heavens, just as it does not make Him further from the earth. Rather, He is Highly Exalted above the Throne and the Heavens, just as He is Highly Exalted above the earth. Yet He is near to every entity and is {nearer to [the worshipper] than his jugular vein} and He witnesses everything."
This hadith has been graded Hasan by Ibn Hajar (Fath al-Bari, 13/373).
More precisely, he ﷺ upon him peace - "placed his thumb on his ear and his index finger on his eye." You will find this hadith explained by our Sunni Imams - Ibn Hibban and al-Bayhaqi with further comments by al- ʿIzz Ibn ʿAbd al-Salam - in the PDF file "The 'Hand' of Allah Most High" available at http://www.aqsaonline.co.uk/
It is evident that al-Buti has a mixed opinion of the man as is clear from his suspecting Ibn Taymiyya of following Aristotelian causality and his accusing him of over-involvement in philosophy and kalam cf. al-Buti, al-Salafiyya (p. 164-175).
Such defense was probably because he was a loyal young student of Ibn Taymiyya and probably thought that he deserved better consideration for his learning. A close examination of Ibn Kathir's Tafsir and his other works shows that he shared none of the anthropomorphist errors of the Hamawiyya and Wasitiyya but steered clear of them.
This is narrated marfuʿ from the Prophet ﷺ upon him peace - by Sufyan al-Thawri in his Tafsir with a sound chain according to Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Bari (1959 ed. 8:199) and al-Tabarani in al-Sunna. It is narrated mawquf at Ibn ʿAbbas by al-Tabari with three sound chains in his Tafsir (3:9-11) and others. Al-Tabari chooses it as the most correct explanation: "The external wording of the Qur'an indicates the correctness of the report from Ibn ʿAbbas that it [the kursi] is His ʿilm and the original sense of al-kursi is al-ʿilm." Also narrated in "suspended" form (muʿallaq) by al- Bukhari in his Sahih from Saʿid ibn Jubayr (Book of Tafsir, chapter on the saying of Allah Most High: {And if you go in fear, then (pray) standing or on horseback} (2:239). Its chains are documented by Ibn Hajar in Taghliq al-Taʿliq (2/4:185-186) where he shows that Sufyan al-Thawri, ʿAbd al-Rahman ibn Mahdi, and Wakiʿ narrated it marfuʿ from the Prophet ﷺ upon him peace - although in the Fath he declares the mawquf version from Ibn ʿAbbas more likely. This report was never declared weak by Ibn Kathir nor by Ibn Hajar, the author of al-Taqrib. Yes, al-Dhahabi tends to weaken its chain in Mizan al-Iʿtidal because, like Ibn Kathir, he prefers the "footstool" version. The report from Ibn ʿAbbas is also found in ʿAbd Allah ibn Ahmad's book al-Sunna (2:501). They rely on it when it is convenient to them then they disregard it when it is invonvenient to them. Imam al-Bayhaqi in al-Asma' wal-Sifat (2:272), like the rest of the Salaf already mentioned, gives precedence to Ibn ʿAbbas's authentic explanation of the Kursi as "His Knowledge."
And this is a flagrant example of their perverse tampering of the books of Islam as Imam al-Baghawi never said anything close to their words "They relegated the knowledge of the 'how' (of the Attributes) to Allah" but what he said is "wa-wakalu al-ʿilma fiha ila Allah" - meaning, "they RELEGATED ALL KNOWLEDGE PERTAINING TO THEM [THE ATTRIBUTES] TO ALLAH." {Qaatalahum Allah anna yu'fakun.}
It is narrated by al-Bayhaqi in al-Asma' wal-Sifat (Kawthari ed. p. 408=Hashidi ed. 2:304 #865 isnad layyin) with a weak chain containing Muhammad ibn Kathir al- Missisi who is daʿif cf. al-Arna'ut, Tahrir Taqrib al- Tahdhib (3:310) while Muhammad ibn ʿAli al-Jawhari is unknown. Yet Ibn Hajar grades its chain "good" (isnad jayyid) in the Fath (13:406) while others go to rather typical excess such as Ibn Taymiyya who claimed the chain was sahih in his Fatwa Hamawiyya and Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyya (2:38) as did Ibn al-Qayyim in his Ijtimaʿ al-Juyush al-Islamiyya (p. 69) while in al-Sawaʿiq (2:211) he claims, "Its narrators are all trustworthy Imams"! As for al-Dhahabi his case is the strangest of the four as he declares the chain sound in Tadhkirat al-Huffaz (1:181-182) although he himself states of al-Missisi in the Siyar (Fikr ed. 9:113): "His narrations can be written but, as for providing any proof, they are not up to it."
From Mutarrif ibn 'Abd Allāh - al-Bukhārī's shaykh - and Habib ibn Abī Habib
on the h.adīth of descent ("Our blessed Lord descends in the lat third of
the night"): "It is our Blessed and Exalted Lord's command which descends every pre-dawn (kullu sahar) 1 ; as for Him, He is eternally the same, He
does not move or go to and fro."2 Ibn Rushd in Sharh. al-'Utbiyya - a
commentary on an early work of Mālikī jurisprudence by Muh.hammad ibn Ah.mad
ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz al-'Utbī al-Qurt.ubī (d. 254) - stated that Mālik's
position is: "The Throne is not Allāh's location of settledness (mawdi'
istiqrār Allāh)."3 The report attributing to Imām Mālik the words: "Allāh is
in the heaven and His knowledge is in every place" is a condemned (munkar),
anomalous (shādhdh) report of questionable authenticity narrated through
Ah.mad ibn H.anbal from Surayj ibn al-Nu'mān al-Lu'lu'i 4 from 'Abd Allāh ibn
Nāfi' al-Sa'igh from Mālik.5 Imām Ah.mad himself declared 'Abd Allāh ibn
Nāfi' al-Sa'igh weak (da'īf), Abū Zur'a frowned at his name and declared him
"condemned" (munkar), al-Bukhārī questioned his memorization, and Ibn 'Adi
stated that he transmitted oddities (gharā'ib) from Mālik.6 As for the
content of the report, Shaykh 'Abd al-Fattah Abū Ghudda noted in his
commentary on Ibn 'Abd al-Barr's al-Intiqa' that it is contradicted by what
is firmly established in mass-transmitted narrations from Mālik and by
al-Sa'igh's other report from Mālik omitting the above words.7 The report is
made further dubious by the fact that Mālik was well-known to condemn any
statements about the Essence and Attributes of Allāh Most High other than
sound reports, particularly statements that suggest anthropomorphism.8
Al-Awzā'ī said: "Whoever holds on to the rare and unusual positions of the
scholars has left Islām."9
NOTES
1 The bracketed words are only in the wording cited by al-Qādī 'Iyād in his Tartīb al-Madārik (2:44).
2 Narrated from Mutarrif by Ibn 'Abd al-Barr in al-Tamhīd (7:143) with a weak
chain because of Jāmi' ibn Sawada as per al-Dāraqut.nī in Ibn H.ajar's Lisān
(2:93). Also narrated from Salih ibn Ayyūb from Habib ibn Abī Habib - who is
very weak - by al-Dhahabī in Syar A'lām al-Nubalā' (8:418). The latter
reported in his Mīzān (1:452) from Ibn 'Adi's Kamil (2"818) the opinion that
all of Ibn Abī Habib's narrations are forged but this is an extreme
statement in light of three factors: (a) Ibn 'Abd al-Barr in al-Tamhīd
(24:177) mentioned Habib as merely weak, adding: "His reports from Mālik are
full of mistakes and condemned matters"; (b) Salih ibn Ayyūb said: "I
mentioned this report to Yah.yā ibn Bukayr and he said: "Excellent, by
Allāh! and I did not hear it from Mālik." Narrated by al-Dhahabī who
describes Ibn Bukayr in Tadhkirat al-H.uffāz. (2:420) as "the muh.addith of
Egypt, the Imām and trustworthy h.adīth Master... one of the vessels of
knowledge together with truthfulness and complete reliability... Where is
the like of Ibn Bukayr in his leadership in the Religion, his insight in
fatwā, and the abundance of his learning?" (c) Ibn 'Abd al-Barr in al-Tamhīd
(7:143) also narrates this report from Habib, then goes on to narrate it
from Mutarrif, adding: "It is possible that the matter be as Mālik said, and
Allāh knows best." It is established that Jāmi' did narrate from Mutarrif,
as stated by al-Mizzī in Tahdhīb al-Kamāl (28:71).
3 As quoted in Fath. al-Bārī (1959 ed. 7:124 #3592).
4 Misspelt Shurayh in al-Saqqāf's edition of al-'Uluw (p. 396 #340) and
al-Mahdī's edition of al-Shari'a (p. 293 #663-664). Shurayh ibn al-Nu'mān
al-Sa'idi al-Kūfī is a Tābi'ī who died before al-Sa'igh was born.
5 In Ibn 'Abd al-Barr's al-Intiqa' (p. 71), al-Dhahabī's Mukhtasar al-'Uluw
(p. 247), and al-Ajurrī's al-Shari'a (p. 293 #663-664).
6 Al-Dhahabī, Mīzān (2:513-514 #4647); al-'Uqayli, al-Du'afa' (2:311), Ibn
'Adi, al-Kamil (4:242 #1070=4:1556); Abū Hatim, al-Jarh wa al-Ta'dil
(5:183); Ibn H.ajar, Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb (6:46-47 #99). Dr. Nur al-Dīn 'Itr,
however, states in his margins on al-Dhahabī's al-Mughnī fī al-Du'afa'
(1:513 #3396) that al-Sa'igh is very reliable when narrating from Mālik and
that Ibn H.ajar declared him trustworthy (thiqa) in al-Taqrīb. Yet, the
latter grading was downgraded to "truthful" (sadūq) by al-Arna'ūt and Ma'rūf
in al-Tahrir (2:277 #3659). Al-Albānī in his notes in Mukhtasar al-'Uluw (p.
140) criticized al-Kawthari for citing al-Sa'igh as weak in his introduction
to al-Bayhaqī's al-Asmā' wa al-Sifat (p. 0), but he himself cites him as
weak in al-Silsila al-Da'ifa (2:231-232) as pointed out by Shaykh H.asan
al-Saqqāf in his edition of al-'Uluw (p. 397 n. 708)!
7 In Ibn 'Abd al-Barr, al-Intiqa' (p. 71 n. 3 and p. 73).
8 For example, Mālik said: "Allāh is neither ascribed a limit nor likened
with anything" (lā yuhaddad wa lā yushabbah). Ibn al-'Arabi, Ahkam al-Qur'ān
(4:1740).
9 Cited by al-Dhahabī, Siyar A'lām al-Nubalā' (1997 ed. 7:99).
[from above]
Imam al-Bayhaqi said in al-Asma' wal-Sifat (Kawthari ed. p. 426-427; Hashidi ed. 2:334-336):
Al-Kawthari pointed out that nowhere in the Qur'an and Sunna are the terms "in the seventh heaven" applied to Allah Most High nor the term "on His Throne" other than exactly as the verse of istiwa' said and that that report from Ibn al-Mubarak is therefore munkar regardless of its chain.
May Allah ever curse the liars and the people of taʿteel and tahreef. The above excerpt deliberately cuts out the core of Ibn Hajar's words in which he identifies the culprits that are meant. Namely: "It is established from Malik that in the time of the Prophet, upon him peace, and that of Abu Bakr and ʿUmar, there was nothing of these idle lusts - *meaning the innovations of the Khawarij, Rawafid, and Qadariyya*." This is the passage that was suppressed from the above excerpt, in place of the ellipsis.
As Imam Muhammad Abu Zahra said in his book on Abu Hanifa (p.133): "Whenever you hear Abu Yusuf or Muhammad [ibn al- Hasan] or al-Shafiʿi or Ibn Hanbal and others [among the early Imams] revile the science of kalam and those who take knowledge by following the methods of the mutakallimun, know that they only meant by their criticism the Muʿtazila and the methodology of the Muʿtazila." In fact, beginning with Sayyiduna ʿAli and through the time of the four Imams, Ahl al-Sunna did involve themselves in kalam to the extent that they refuted the innovators, just as we now wade through those time-consuming proofs against illiterate promoters of Salafitic kalam to stem somewhat the tide of moneyed misguidance now flooding the Muslim world.
Ibn Khuwayz Mindaad died in 390. He is NOT a companion of Imam Malik but came 200 years and seven biographical layers later. When he says "Maalik said..." he is not a reliable source unless he is confirmed independently. This, even if he produced his chain to Malik's supposed statement; what then if he does not even have a chain! Ibn Khuwayz Mindaad's reports from Maalik "contain anomalies" and he "contradicts the Madhhab in both Fiqh and Usul nor do the [Maliki] experts rely on his positions" according to al-Qadi ʿIyad (d. 544) in Tartib al-Madaarik (Moroccan ed. 7:77-78). ʿIyad also said: "He was not insightful in his positions nor strong in fiqh. Abu al-Walid al-Baji said of him: I never heard him mentioned once by the Ulema of Iraq." ʿIyad also exposes Ibn Khuwayz Mindaad as an extremist in his anti-kalam stance: "He alienated the Mutakallimin of Ahl al-Sunna and ruled that all of them were among the people of vain lusts (ahwa') concerning whom Malik said his famous statement on [avoiding] their marriage, [rejecting] their witness and leadership, and alienating them." Ibn Farhun (d. 799) cites all of the above in al-Deebaaj al-Mudhahhab (#491). Imam Malik meant the Muʿtazilis and their sub-sects by consensus in the statement in question, as is made clear (among other sources) by Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr himself in his report from the same Ibn Khuwayz Mindaad in the previous page cf. Jaamiʿ Bayaan al-ʿIlm wa Fadlih (1994 Saudi ed. 2:942-943 #1800). It is known that Imam Malik never retained any Muʿtazilis, Qadaris, or Khawaarij in his Muwatta' as narrators, while the Two Shaykhs (al-Bukhari and Muslim) and their students such as Imam al-Tirmidhi did narrate from Qadaris and even Jahmis. See on this the relevant chapter in al-Suyuti's Tadrib al-Raawi. Clearly, the misguided view Ibn Khuwayz Mindaad expressed in including the Ashʿaris among the people of innovation was rejected by his own School and is not considered in the least valid by the major Maliki Huffaz and Fuqaha' such as Qaadi ʿIyaad, al-Maazari, Abu Bakr ibn al-ʿArabi, Abul-Walid al-Baaji, al-Qurtubi, and others - all thorough Ashʿaris.
The passage in question in al-Tawbikh (p. 56-57 of the Dar al-Kitab al-ʿArabi ed.) is about criticism by Ibn al-Subki of his teacher al-Dhahabi, not Ibn Taymiyya. It is inside a series of excerpts from Ibn al-Subki's Tabaqat. Al-Sakhawi considers that Ibn al-Subki exaggerated in his criticism of al-Dhahabi and cites al-ʿIzz al-Kinani's violent comments to show the counter-effect of those exaggerations. This never means that he approved of - even less endorsed - al-Kinani's comments! Ibn al-Subki may have gone too far against al-Dhahabi, but he is unanimously respected, especially in the Shafiʿi madhhab. To call him ignorant or a muʿattil is itself a mark of ignorance and disrespect that does not speak well for the accuser. Similarly, al-Sakhawi does not approve of all of Ibn al-Subki's criticism of al-Dhahabi or the excessive, sweeping barb against the Hanbalis ("Did any Hanbali ever merit to raise his head?...") at which al-Kinani rightly took offence, but al-Sakhawi did approve of some of it as he states further down (p. 76): "He [Ibn al-Subki] went too far in his anti-Hanbali fanaticism as I showed before... although I do not exonerate al-Dhahabi from some of the charges he brought against him." Al-Sakhawi probably quotes Ibn al-Subki as a historian more than anyone else in al-Tawbikh - a book written in praise of history and historians. WAllahu aʿlam. Was-Salam,
Hajj Gibril
See also:
- "Salafi" Tampering of Tafsir Ruh al-Maʿani
- Another example of tahrif is this misconstructed sentence in AL-Bukhari in Khan's translation.
External Sites:
- Intellectual Deceit: Tampering with Islamic Manuscripts at Institutes in Saudi Arabia, M. Monawwar Ateeq
- The False Attribution of Sharh al-Sunna to the
Hanbali Outlaw Al-Barbahari
GF Haddad
Related texts
Ibn Taymiyya, a Survey
New Kharijism Sh G F Haddad
Advice To Our Brothers The Scholars of Najd
