The Position of the Salaf Concerning the Attributes of Allaah

Abu Sayyad · 02:53 PM

Here is a list of the quotes mentioned in two articles taken from Islaam.net (Links: 1 & 2) in which are quoted the sayings of the Salaf regarding the Attributes of Allaah. Combined here are the quotes from the two articles. For the complete articles, the links are above.

al-Awzaa’ee (d. 157) said, "I asked az-Zuhree and Makhool about the Verses pertaining to the Attributes of Allaah, so they said, ‘leave them as they are’" [‘Sharh Usul I’tiqaad’ (3/430) with a hasan isnaad]

al-Waleed bin Muslim (d.194) said, " I asked Maalik, al-Awzaa’ee, Layth bin Sa’d and Sufyaan ath-Thawree, may Allaah have mercy upon them, concerning the reports related about the Attributes, so they all said: Leave them as they are without asking how" [‘al-Asmaa was Sifaat’ (pg.453) with a hasan isnaad]

Rabee’a ar-Ra’ee (d.136) said, "al-Istawaa (Allaah Rising over His Throne) is not unknown, and how (it occurs) is not comprehensible, and from Allaah is the Message, and upon the Messenger is to convey, and upon us is to affirm." [ ibid. (pg.516). Ibn Taymiyyah said in ‘al-Hamawiyyah’ (pg.80), "al-Khallaal narrated it with an isnaad all of whom are trustworthy."]

Sufyaan bin Uyaynah said, "everything that Allaah described Himself with in His Book then it’s recitation is it’s explanation, without asking how or likening". [Related in ‘Sharh Usul I’tiqaad’ (pg.736), ‘as-Sifaat’ of ad-Daaruqutnee (pg. 61), ‘Dham at-Ta’weel’ (pg. 17 no. 22) via a number of different routes.]

It is also narrated from him about the ahaadeeth concerning the Attributes that he said, "we narrate them as they came without asking how" [as-Sifaat’ (pg. 63) of ad-Daaruqutnee, ‘at-Tamheed’ of ibn Abdul Barr (7/147) with a saheeh sanad.]

Shareek bin Abdullaah said when told that some people rejected and abused the ahaadeeth concerning the Attributes, "the ones that came with these ahaadeeth are the ones that came with the Qur’aan, and that the prayers are five, and the Hajj to the House, and the Fast of Ramadaan. And we do not know Allaah except by these ahaadeeth." [‘as-Sunnah’ (1/273) of Imaam Abdullaah bin Ahmad, ‘ash-Sharee’ah’ (pg.306) of al-Aajurree with a saheeh sanad.]

Imaam Maalik said when replying to the one who asked, ‘how did Allaah make Istawaa?’, "al-Istawaa is Known, and how is unknown, to have faith in it is obligatory, and to question it is an innovation." Then he said to the questioner, "I do not think except that you are an innovator" and he ordered him to be expelled. [‘al-Asmaa was Sifaat’ (pg.516).]

He also said, "The Most Merciful Ascended as He Himself described, and it is not to be asked ‘How’ since that is unknown." [ibid (pg.516). Ibn Hajr says in ‘Fath’ (13/406) that it’s isnaad is hasan.]

Imaam Abu Haneefah said, "He is something (shay’un) but not like other things, and the meaning of Shay’un is affirmed without affirming a body, limbs or organs. And He has no limit and no partner or opposite, and no similitude. And He has a Hand, a Face and a Self. As for what is mentioned in the Qur’aan: the Face, the Hand, the Self (Nafs) then these are His Attributes without asking how. And it is not said that His Hand is His Power (Qudra) or Favour (Ni’ma) [Alee al-Qaaree says, commenting on this statement, "i.e. by way of ta’weel which was the way of some of the khalaf in contravention to the way of the salaf."]because this contains nullification of the Attribute, and this is the saying of the People of Qadr (Jabariyyah) and the Mu’tazila. Rather His Hand is His Attribute without asking how, and His Anger (Gadb) and Pleasure (Ridaa) are two Attributes without asking How." [‘Fiqh al-Akhbar’ (pp.36-37) with it’s commentary by Mulla Alee al-Qaaree. This is a book which is attributed to Abu Haneefah, but it seems that the strongest opinion amongst the Scholars of Hadeeth is that it is not affirmed to be from him, but from one the students of his students. Allaah the Most High knows best.]

Muhammad bin al-Hasan ash-Shaybaanee said "the Legal Jurists, from the east to the west, have all agreed to have faith in the Qur’aan and the Ahaadeeth that have come via trustworthy narrators from the Messenger of Allaah (SAW) concerning the Attributes without explanation [meaning the explanation of the Jahmiyyah who innovated explanations of the Attributes in opposition to that which the Sahaabah and the Taabi’een were upon in affirming them, as stated by ibn Taymiyyah in ‘al-Hamawiyyah’ (pg. 115)] and without description and without tashbeeh. So whosoever explains anything from them has left that which the Prophet (SAW) was upon and has split off from the Jamaa’ah (for they did not deny or explain, rather they believed in what was in the Book and Sunnah and then remained silent, so the one who says the saying of Jahm has split off from the Jamaa’ah) because he described Him with descriptions that are empty." [‘Mukhtasar al-Uluw’ (no. 165), and the addition in brackets is from al-Laalikaa’ee.]

Imaam Ahmad said, "these ahaadeeth should be left as they are….we affirm them and do not make any similitude for them. This is what has been agreed upon by the scholars." [ ‘Munaaqib al-Ahmad’ (pp155-156) of ibn al-Jawzee]

Imaam ash-Shaafi’ee said, "to Allaah belong Names and Attributes that occur in His Book and His Prophet informed to the nation. It is not possible for anyone to refute/repel (radd) them. So the one who contradicts this after the evidence has been established against him then he is a kaafir, and as for before the establishment of the proof then he is excused due to ignorance, because the knowledge of that cannot be attained through the intellect. So we affirm these Attributes and we negate tashbeeh (likening Allaah to creation) as Allaah negated it by saying, ‘there is nothing like Him’" [ ‘Siyar A’laam an-Nubalaa’ (10/80). adh-Dhahabee says, ‘reported by al-Hakkaaree and others with a chain of narrators containing trustworthy narrators as in ‘Mukhtasar al-Uluw’ (pg. 177). He also said, "I say: the censure of Kalaam and it’s people is common from ash-Shaafi’ee, and he was very stringent in following the narrations in usul and the furoo"]

And he said, "the belief that I am upon, and I saw Our Companions, the Ashaabul Hadeeth - like Maalik and Sufyaan and others - to be upon is: affirming the testimony that none has the right to be worshipped except Allaah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah. And that Allaah is Over His Throne, above His Heaven (alaa Arshihi fee Samaa’ihi), He comes close to His Creation howsoever He Wills, and He Descends to the lowest heaven howsoever He Wills." [‘Awn al-Ma’bood’ (13/41), and ibn Abu Ya’la reports it in ‘Tabaqaat al-Hanaabilaa’ (1/283) with a chain of narration linked back to ash-Shaafi’ee.]

Ishaaq bin Raahawayah said, "indeed Allaah has described Himself in His Book with Attributes from which the creation is left in no need to describe Him with other than what He described Himself with. From amongst them, ‘Allaah will Come to them in the shades of clouds’ and His saying, ‘And you see the angels around the Throne, hymning the praises of their Lord’" [‘al-Arba’een fee Sifaat Allaah’ (no. 144) of adh-Dhahabee.]

Imaam at-Tirmidhee (d.279) said, "It has been stated by more than one person from the People of Knowledge about such ahaadeeth, that there is no tashbeeh to the Attributes of Allaah, and our Lord - the Blessed and Most High - Descends to the lowest heaven every night. So they say: affirm these narrations, have faith in them, do not deny them or ask how. The likes of this has been related from Maalik bin Anas, Sufyaan ath-Thawree, Ibn Uyaynah and Abdullaah bin al-Mubaarak, who all said about such ahaadeeth, ‘leave them as they are without asking how.’ Such is the saying of the People of Knowledge from Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaa’ah. However the Jahmiyyah oppose these narrations and say: this is tashbeeh! However Allaah - the Most High - has mentioned in various places in His book, the Attribute of Hand (al-Yad), Hearing (as-Sam’), Seeing (al-Basr), but the Jahmiyyah make ta’weel of these Verses, explaining in a way, other than is explained by the People of Knowledge. They say: indeed Allaah did not create Aadam with His own Hand - they say that Hand means the Power of Allaah." [ ‘Sunan at-Tirmidhee’ (3/42)]

And Abu Ja’far at-Tirmidhee (d.295), when asked as to How Allaah keeps His Attribute of being above the creation if He Descends to the Lowest Heaven in the last third of the night, replied, "The Nuzool (Descent) is understood, but the how/nature is unknown, and faith in it is obligatory, and to question about it (i.e. how) is a bid’ah." [ ‘Mukhtasar al-Uluw’ (pg. 231). Al-Albaanee declared the sanad saheeh. Abu Ja’far was from the greatest scholars of his day and died in the year 295.]

Imaam Abu al-Qaasim Sa’d bin Alee az-Zanjaanee (d.471) [He is the trustworthy Haafidh, knowledgeable of the Sunnah. His biography can be seen in ‘Tadhkira al-Huffaadh’ and others] said, "you have asked me, may Allaah help you, to explain what is correct according to me from the madhhab of the salaf and the righteous khalaf to do with the Attributes of Allaah. So I reply with the reply of the faqeeh Abu al-Abbaas Ahmad bin Umar Suraij [He is the Imaam of the Shaafi’iyyah of his time and was regarded greater then the greatest of the Companions of Shaafi’ee even al-Mazanee. (Mukhtasar al-Uluw (pg. 227))] - for he was asked about this… ‘and it is authentic from all of the People of Religion (Diyaanah) and Sunnah till this day that it is obligatory upon all Muslims to have faith in all of the verses and authentic narrations from the Messenger of Allaah (SAW) as they occur, and that inquiring about their meanings is a bid’ah [ meaning those meanings other than their obvious meanings. This is the only way to understand this statement as it is the only way in which it conforms to what ibn Suraij writes at the end of his letter.] for example His saying, ‘the Most Merciful rose over the Throne’ ….our belief to do with the mutashaabiha (allegorical) verses is to accept them and not reject them. And neither to make ta’weel of [them with a differing explanation (to the clear meaning of the verse) or ta’weel of the opponents] (? Ta’weel al-Mukhaalifeen), and neither do we take them with the tashbeeh of the anthropomorphists…and we submit to the narration and verse literally as it was revealed. And we do not say (of them) with the ta’weel of the Mu’tazila, or the Asha’riyyah, or the Jahmiyyah, or the Mulahhida, or the Mujassima, or the Mushabbiha, or the Kiraamiyyah, or the Kayfiyyah. Rather we accept them without ta’weel, and we have faith in them without likening (Him to creation). And we say faith in them is obligatory, saying as they say is the Sunnah, and seeking ta’weel of them is a bid’ah.’" [ ‘Ijtimaa Juyush al-Islaamiyyah’ (pp. 170-174) of ibn al-Qayyim. ‘Mukhtasar al-Uluw’ (pp. 226-227) of adh-Dhahabee, summarised and verified by al-Albaanee.]

Abu Ja’far ibn Abee Shaybah (d. 297) said, "then the ahaadeeth abound that He created the Throne, then He rose above it in Person, the He created the earth and the heavens…and He is Above the Throne in Person." [ ‘Kitaab al-Arsh’ (pg. 51) of ibn Abee Shaybah.]

al-Qayrawaanee (d.386) said, "...and He is over His Glorious Throne in Person and His Knowledge is in every place..." [ ‘al-Risaalah’ of al-Qayrawaanee (pg.5). He is the great Maalikee scholar credited with the title, ‘The Small Maalik’.]

Al-Haafidh adh-Dhahabee says following up a similar statement from ibn Abee Zaid (one of the Imaams of the Maalikiyyah who died in the year 389H, quoting from his ‘Risaalah’ on the Maaliki madhab),

"and the likes of this phrase (i.e. ‘in Person’) has preceded from Abu Ja’far ibn Abee Shaybah and Uthmaan bin Sa’eed ad-Daarimee, and likewise Yahya bin Ammaar, the preacher of Sijistaan, used it in his ‘Risaalah’, ….and likewise ibn Abdul Barr as will follow, and likewise the phrase of Shaykh al-Islaam Abu Ismaa’eel al-Ansaaree who said, ‘….that Allaah is above the Throne in Person’. And likewise al-Hasan al-Karjee ash-Shaafi’ee who said in this poem, ‘their belief is the Allaah is in Person over the Throne with His Knowledge of the Unseen’. And upon this poem is written, in the handwriting of al-Allaamah Taqee ad-Deen bin Salaah, ‘this is the belief of Ahlus Sunnah wal - Jamaa’ah.’ And likewise this phrase was used by Ahmad bin Thaabit at-Turkee, the haafidh. And Shaykh Abdul Qaadir al-Jeelee (or Jeelaanee), and the muftee Abd al-Azeez al-Qaheetee and a group (of scholars)… And all ibn Abee Zayd and the others meant (by this) was to distinguish between His being with us and His Being above the Throne. So He is, as He said, with us in Knowledge, and that He is over the Throne, as he notified us when He said, "the Most Merciful Rose over the Throne". And a group (jamaa’ah) of the People of Knowledge spoke the aforementioned word (in Person)……"

[ Mukhtasar al-Uluw (pg.255-256).]

al-Khattaabee (d.388) said,

"As for what you have asked me with regards to the Attributes of Allaah and that which has come in the Book and the authentic Sunnah with regards to them - then indeed the madhab of the salaf was to affirm them and take them upon their obvious and literal meanings (alaa dhaahirihaa), and to negate tashbeeh and kayfiyyah from them."

["al-Gunya an Kalaam wa Ahlihi" of al-Khattaabee as quoted in ‘Mukhtasar al-Uluw’. Al-Khattaabee was one of the Shaafi’ee Imaams of his time, author of the famous commentary to Abu Dawood, ‘Mu’aalam as-Sunan’.]

Adh-Dhahabee follows up this quote by saying,

"and likewise this agreement of the salaf was quoted by al-Haafidh Abu Bakr al-Khateeb then al-Haafidh Abu al-Qaasim at-Taimee al-Asbahaanee and others."

Abu al-Qaasim al-Asfahaanee said, "then indeed our madhhab and the madhhab of the salaf was to affirm them (the Attributes) and to take them literally, and to negate kayfiyyah and tashbeeh from them…" [‘Ijtimaa al-Juyush al-Islaamiyyah’ (pg. 77)]

Abul Qaasim al-Andulisi (d.393) said, while commenting on the hadeeth of Descent, ".... And from the right of the words of Allaah is that they be taken upon their literal meaning ('alaa haqeeqatihi) until the ummah is agreed that what is meant is the metaphorical meaning when there is no way to follow what has been revealed to us from our Lord except in this way..." [‘Ijtimaa al-Juyush al-Islaamiyyah’ (pg. ) of ibn al-Qayyim. Abu al-Qaasim was one of the Maaliki Imaams of his time.]

Yahya bin Ammaar said (d.422), "He is in Person above the Throne, and His Knowledge encompasses everything." ["Risaalah" of Yahya bin Ammaar as quoted in ‘Mukhtasar al-Uluww’ (pg. 263). He was one of the great scholars of his time from whom Shaykh al-Islaam al-Ansaaree learnt hadeeth from.]

Al-Qaadir Billaahi (d.466), Ameer al-Mu’mineen said, "and every Attribute that He described Himself by, or His Messenger described Him by is a literal Attribute not metaphorical, and the Speech of Allaah is uncreated which He revealed to His Messenger." [‘Mukhtasar al-Uluww’ (pg. 259, 263) and he quotes it also as the saying of Abu Ahmad al-Qassaab (d.400) in his work on Aqueedah, upon which the people gathered, and any person who differed with it was ordered to repent. Al-Qaadir Billaah had a well known belief which was read in Baghdaad and witnessed by it’s scholars and Imaams, and the above statement occurs in it. His rule as Khaleefah lasted 41 years and 3 months.]

Adh-Dhahabee after disagreeing with the usage of the word ‘literal’ says,

"…despite the fact that this phrase has been used by a group (of scholars), and their intention by using it was that these Attributes are taken (as they come) and they are not to be subjected to tahreef or ta’weel just as they are not to be treated as metaphors. Allaah knows best."

Qaadee Abdul Wahhab (d.422) said, "the greatest of Ahlus Sunnah, may Allaah have mercy upon them, have made it clear that Allaah rose over His Throne in person." [‘Darran Ta’aarid al-Aqal bin Naql’ (pg. 203) of ibn Taymiyyah, ‘Sharh al-Asmaa al-Husna’ (pg. 225+) of al-Qurtubi. Qaadee Abdul Wahhab was the Imaam of the Maalikees in Iraaq.]

Abu Bakr Umar at-Talmankee (d.429) said, "The Muslims of Ahlus Sunnah have agreed that the meaning of His saying, "and He is with you wheresoever you are" and the likes of this in the Qur’aan mean His Knowledge, and that Allaah is above the Heavens in Person, having risen over the Throne as He wished. And Ahlus Sunnah said about His saying, "the Most Merciful Rose over the Throne": indeed the Istawaa of Allaah upon His Throne is taken literally, not metaphorically." [‘al-Wusool ilaa Ma’rifatil Usool’ of at-Talmankee. See ‘Mukhtasar al-Uluw’ (pg. 264). At-Talmankee was one of the great Maalikee Imaams and Huffaadh of his time in Andalus.]

Abu Nasr as-Sijzee (d.444) said, "our Imaams like Sufyaan ath-Thawree, Maalik, Hammaad bin Salma, Hammaad bin Zayd, Sufyaan bin Uyayna, al-Fudail, ibn al-Mubaarak, Ahmad, and Ishaaq are agreed that Allaah (SWT) is above the Throne in Person and His knowledge is in every place, and that He descends to the lowest heaven, and that He gets Angry, and is Pleased and Speaks with what He Wishes." [ ‘al-Ibaanah’ of as-Sijzee as quoted from in ‘Mukhtasar al-Uluw’ (pg. 266).]

Adh-Dhahabee goes on to say,

"these (narrations) that he quotes from them are famous and preserved, except for the word ‘in Person’, for it is from him which he attributes to them in meaning."

Ibn Abd al-Barr (d.463) said, "Ahlus Sunnah are agreed upon affirming the Attributes that occur in the Book and Sunnah, and to take them literally not metaphorically, except that they did not inquire into the nature (kayfiyyah) of any of them. However the Jahmiyyah and the Mu’tazila and the Khawaarij all deny them, and do not take them literally claiming that whosoever affirms them has made tashbeeh, and they claim that whosoever recites them (as they are) is a Mushabbih (one who does tashbeeh)." [‘at-Tamheed’ (7/145) of ibn Abdul Barr under the hadeeth of Nuzool. See also ‘Mukhtasar al-Uluw’ (pg. 268). Ibn Abdul Barr was from the greatest of Maaliki Imaams, given the title ‘Bukhaaree of the West’. Adh-Dhahabee said, following up the above quote, "it is rare that the eyes should see the likes of him".]

Al-Qaadee Abu Ya’laa (d.458) said, "it is not permissible to refute/reject these narrations, and neither to preoccupy oneself in making ta’weel of them. But it is obligatory to take them upon their obvious and literal meanings, and that they are Attributes of Allaah, Azza wa Jall, not resembling the attributes of the creation. …And the fact that the Sahaabah and those after them took them upon their obvious meanings and did not abandon them for ta’weel indicates the invalidity of ta’weel. So if ta’weel was permissible then they would have been the first to do it, due to their being in it the removal of tashbeeh " i.e. if you take the argument of the People of Ta’weel that they do it so as to absolve Allaah of anthropomorphism.[ ‘Ibtaal at-Ta’weel’ the famous work of Abu Ya’laa refuting ta’weel. He is the famous Hanbalee Imaam, Haafidh, and Faqeeh.]

Al-Khateeb al-Baghdaadee (d.463) said, "as for the discussion concerning the Attributes then indeed the madhhab of the salaf pertaining to that which is reported in the authentic sunan, was to affirm them and leave them upon their literal meaning while negating the kayfiyyah and tashbeeh from them. And a group rejected them and nullified that which Allaah, the free from defect, had affirmed. And another group from those that affirmed them examined them and fell into a type of tashbeeh and takyeef, and the desired objective is to travel the middle path between these two matters for the religion of Allaah is between the two extremes. And the basis of this is that the discussion concerning the Attributes is a branch of the discussion concerning the Person of Allaah (dhaat) taking an identical path in both of them. So when it is known that affirming the Lord of the Universes is only affirming the existence not affirming the kayfiyyah, then likewise affirming the Attributes is affirming their existence not affirming limitation or takyeef.
So when we say: Allaah, the Exalted has a Hand, and Hearing, and Seeing, then these are Attributes that Allaah has affirmed for Himself and we do not say: the meaning of hand is Power (Qudra) and neither do we say: the meaning of Hearing and Seeing is Knowledge and neither do we say that they are limbs/organs, and neither do we liken them to the hands, hearing, and seeing that are organs. Rather we say: what is obligatory is to affirm them because they are to be stopped at (in terms of kayfiyyah) and obligatory to negate tashbeeh from them due to the saying of Allaah, ‘there is nothing like Him, He is the Seeing and the Hearing’ and His saying, ‘there is nothing like Him’"

[ ‘Mukhtasar al-Uluw’ (pg. 47+, pg. 272 for a more summarised quote) quoting from a work of al-Khateeb that is in manuscript ‘al-Kalaam alaa as-Sifaat’, see also ‘at-Tadhkira’ of adh-Dhahabee (3/1142) Al-Khateeb was the great Shaafi’ee Imaam known as the ‘Second Daaruqutnee’ and the likes of him was not seen after him in Baghdaad.]

Adh-Dhahabee follows up this quote by saying,

"and the meaning of ‘obvious and literal’ (dhaahirihaa) is that there is no hidden meaning to the words of the Book and the Sunnah other than what has been placed for it, as Maalik and others said, ‘al-Istawaa is known’. So likewise we say the same for Seeing, Hearing, Knowledge, Speech, Desire, Face etc. that these are things which are known, so they are not needing clarification or explanation, but the kayf (nature/how) of all of them is not known."

Abu al-Qaasim at-Taimee (d.535) said, "the Madhab of Maalik, ath-Thawree, al-Awzaa’ee, ash-Shaafi’ee, Hammaad bin Salma, Hammaad bin Zayd, Ahmad, Yahya bin Sa’eed al-Qattaan, Abdurrahmaan bin al-Mahdee, and Ishaaq bin Raahawaiyah was that the Attributes by which He described Himself, and His Messenger described Him with…are to be taken upon their well-known literal and obvious meanings without kayf or tashbeeh or ta’weel. Ibn Uyaynah said, ‘everything that Allaah has described Himself with, then it’s recitation is it’s tafseer (explanation).’ Meaning it is taken upon it’s obvious meaning, it is not permissible to change it to a metaphorical meaning by way of a type of ta’weel." [ ‘at-Targheeb wat-Tarheeb’ of Abu al-Qaasim, see ‘Mukhtasar al-Uluw’ (pg. 282).]

Al-Qurtobee (d.671) said, "and not a single person from the righteous salaf rejected that His Istawaa upon His Throne was literal, and He specified the Throne because it is from the greatest of His creation. And they were ignorant of the kayfiyyah of His Istawaa…and Imaam Maalik said, ‘al-Istawaa is known’ meaning in the language, ‘and the nature is not know known, and to ask about (how) is a bid’ah’" [ ‘al-Jaami lil Ahkaam al-Qur’aan’ of al-Qurtobee under the verse ‘then He rose over His Throne’, see ‘Mukhtasar al-Uluw’ (pg. 286).]

as-Saaboonee (d.448) said, "Indeed the Ashaabul Hadeeth - may Allaah protect their lives and shower mercy upon those that have died - bear witness to the tawheed of Allaah and to the Messengership and Prophethood of His Messenger (SAW). They know their Lord - Mighty and Majestic - by the Attributes which He has spoken of in His Revelation, and by what He sent down, or testified to, by His Messenger (SAW)…They affirm for Allaah - the Mighty and Majestic - what He Affirms for Himself in His Book, or upon the tongue of His Messenger (ASW). They do not believe in resembling His Attributes to the attributes of the creation. They say: indeed, He Created Aadam with His Own Hands, as He -the Most Perfect - textually stated, "O Iblees! What prevents you from prostrating to the one whom I created with My Own Hands." (38:75). So they do not distort the words from their context, by carrying the meaning of Two Hands to mean favour or Power - which is the tahreef of the Mu’tazila and the Jahmiyyah - may Allaah destroy them. They do not ask how the Attributes are, nor do they resemble them to His Creation…Allaah - the Most High - protected Ahlus Sunnah from such tahreef, takyeef and tashbeeh, and favoured them with knowledge and understanding." [ ‘Aqeedah as-Salaf Ashaabul Hadeeth’ (no.3) of as-Saaboonee.]

Ibn Qudaamah (d.620) said, "the way of the salaf is to have faith in the Names and Attributes of Allaah that He has described Himself with in His Revelation, or upon the tongue of His Messenger (SAW) without increasing nor decreasing upon it, nor exceeding the limits, nor explaining them (in the way of the Mu’tazila) nor making ta’weel of them in a way that opposes the literal meaning." [ ‘Dhamm at-Ta’weel’ (pg.11) of ibn Qudaamah al-Maqdisee,]

Shaykh Abdul Qaadir al-Jeelaanee (d.561) said, "it is essential to carry the Attribute of al-Istawaa upon it’s apparent sense - without ta’weel, and that He Ascended in Person over the Throne. Istawaa does not mean sitting or touching - as the Mujassima and Karraamiyyah say. Nor does it mean grandeur and highness - as the Ash’ariyyah say. Nor does it mean conquering and dominating as the Mu’tazila say. None of this is related in the Sharee’ah. Neither has this been related by any one of the Salaf as-Saalih and the Taabi’een. Nor from the Ashaabul Hadeeth. Rather it is related from them that they carried the meaning of Istawaa with it’s apparent meaning." [‘Gunya at-Taalibeen’ (1/50) of Abdul Qaadir al-Jeelaanee.]

The Reviver of the Sunnah, Abu Muhammad al-Baghawee said, "…The Finger is an Attribute from amongst the Attributes of Allaah, and likewise everything of this nature that occurs in the Book and Sunnah, for example the Face (Wajh), Eye (Ayn), Hand (Yad), Leg (Rijl), Coming (Ityaan and Majee), and the Descent to the Lowest Heaven, His Rising over His Throne, Laughter (Dahk), Joy (Farh)…so these and their likes are Attributes of Allaah in which it is obligatory to have faith in, and to leave them upon their literal meanings turning away from ta’weel and distancing from tashbeeh, with the belief that none of the Attributes of the Creator resemble anything from the attributes of the creation, just as His Self does not resemble the selves of the creation. Allaah said, ‘there is nothing like Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing’ And it was upon this that the salaf of this nation, and the scholars of the Sunnah were upon, they accepted them all with faith and stayed away from tamtheel and ta’weel. And they relegated the knowledge (of their kayfiyyah) to Allaah…" [‘al-Mu’jam al-Lateef’ (no.66) of adh-Dhahabee who quotes from him with his own chain of narration. See also ‘Sharh as-Sunnah’ (1/168+) of al-Baghawee.]

Imaam Abul Hasan al-Ash’aree said, "if it is asked: why do you deny that His saying, "Do they not see that We created for them what our Own Hands have created." (36:71) And His saying, "whom I created with My Own Hands" (38:75) are metaphorical? To him it is said: the ruling concerning the speech of Allaah - the Mighty and Majestic - is that it is taken upon it’s clear (dhaahir) and literal (haqeeqah) meaning. Nothing is removed from it’s Dhaahir meaning to the metaphorical one, except with a proof….Likewise the saying of Allaah - the Mighty and Majestic - : "Whom I created with My Own Hands" it’s dhaahir and haqeeqah meaning is affirming Two Hands of Allaah. So it is not permissible to alter it from the dhaahir meaning of Yadain to that which our opponents claim except with a proof….It is obligatory to affirm Two Hands for Allaah - the Most High - in it’s haqeeqah (literal) meaning, not with the meaning of two bounties (ni’matayn of Allaah)." [ ‘al-Ibaanah’ (pg. 133) of al-Ash’aree.]

adh-Dhahabee says in his ‘Arba’een fee Sifaat Allaah’,

"and it would be beyond ones ability to mention every Imaam who has words concerning the affirmation of Allaah’s Attributes, and if the opponent is not guided by those whom we mentioned saying: there is a consensus upon affirming them without ta’weel, or he does not believe him in his quote then Allaah will not guide such a person. And by Allaah there is no good in the one who rejects the likes of az-Zuhree, Makhool, al-Awzaa’ee, ath-Thawree, Layth bin Sa’d, Maalik, ibn Uyaynah, ibn al-Mubaarak, Muhammad bin al-Hasan, ash-Shaafi’ee, al-Humaidee, Abu Ubaid, Ahmad bin Hanbal, Abu Eesaa at-Tirmidhee, ibn Suraij, ibn Jareer at-Tabaree, ibn Khuzaimah, Zakariyyah as-Saajee, Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’aree, or rejects saying the likes of their saying in acknowledging the consensus on this like al-Khattaabee, Abu Bakr al-Ismaa’eelee, Abu al-Qaasim at-Tabaraanee, Abu Ahmad al-Aasaal….and Abdul Qaadir al-Jeelaanee…"

Let us carefully consider the above narrations. Ibn Taymiyyah says,

"So the saying of Rabee’ and Maalik, ‘al-Istawaa is not unknown….’ is in agreement to the saying of the others, ‘they left them as they are, without asking how’ for all they did was to negate the knowledge of the kayfiyyah, and they did not negate the actual Attribute. And if the people had believed in the mere words without understanding their meanings as was befitting to Allaah, then they would not have said, ‘the Istawaa is not unknown, and the how is not comprehensible’ and they would not have said, ‘they left them as they are without asking how’ for indeed the Istawaa in this case would not be known, rather unknown just as the huroof al-Mu’jam (like Alif Laam Meem). So there would be no need to negate the kayfiyyah to something which was not known or understood, rather it would be necessary to negate the knowledge of the kayfiyyah only when the Attribute has been affirmed (and understood)…

Also their saying, ‘they left them as they are’ necessitates that (what the Attributes) indicated would remain as it were, and they came as words indicating a meaning, so if what they indicated was also to be negated then it would have been necessary to say, "they left the words (as they are) with the belief that the meaning was not known"…"

[ ‘al-Hamawiyyah’ (pg.109)]

So upon considering the above it becomes clear that if the Salaf had not understood the meaning of the Attributes, rather relegated the meanings to Allaah and just affirmed the wording (tafweed al-ma’naa) their would have been no conceivable need to negate the How/Nature (kayfiyyah) from the Attributes! Likewise the meaning of ‘reciting them is their explanation’ is that the clear meaning of what we recite is to be taken, and there is no need to delve into ta’weel or look for hidden and metaphorical meanings etc.

This understanding has also been endorsed by the great Shaafi’ee Imaam, al-Khattaabee (d.388) when he said,

"The madhhab (way) of the scholars of the Salaf and their legal jurists was to leave the likes of these ahaadeeth (concerning the Attributes) upon their literal (dhaahir) meanings, and not to twist their meanings (laa yureeghu lahaa al-Ma’aanee) and neither to make ta’weel of them due to their knowledge that their limited knowledge was incapable of understanding them.

Az-Za’faraanee reported from us from ibn Abee Khaythama from Abd al-Wahhaab bin Najda al-Hutee from Baqya from al-Awzaa’ee who said, ‘Makhool and az-Zuhree used to say: we leave these ahaadeeth as they came.’

I say: this is from the knowledge that we have been ordered to believe in literally without attempting to uncover it’s hidden meanings, and it belongs to a host of the mutashaabiha (verses) that Allaah has mentioned in His Book, so He said,‘He is the One Who has sent to you the Book, in it are clear and unequivocal verses, and others are mutashaabiha (allegorical or open to a number of meanings)’. So from the clear and unequivocal verses arises a true understanding (of their content) and action, and from the mutashaabiha arises faith and knowledge in their literal meanings, and we leave the knowledge of it’s hidden meaning to Allaah, the Most Perfect…"

[‘Mu’aalim as-Sunan’ (4/304 - Daar al-Kutub al-Ilmee) of al-Khattaabee under the chapter, "From the chapter concerning the Seeing (of Allaah in the Hereafter)" when he discusses the hadeeth of Descent.]

Ibn Taymiyyah also says,

"…as for the third group then they are the People of Ignorance and they are many from those who ascribe themselves to the Sunnah and following the salaf. They say: the Messenger (SAW) did not understand the meanings of what Allaah revealed to Him from the verses pertaining to the Sifaat, and neither did Jibreel or the Foremost Predecessors understand them. And they said the same thing for the Ahaadeeth concerning the Attributes - that nobody knew their meaning except Allaah….so these people think that they are following the verse "and none knows their explanation except Allaah"…..but they have not distinguished between the meaning of the words and their explanation and the explanation that Allaah is Alone in knowing. And they thought that the ta’weel mentioned in this verse is the ta’weel mentioned in the words of the later generations and they erred in this...and the explanation of the Attributes whose reality Allaah is Alone in knowing is the knowledge of the kayfiyyah which is unknown to us. So (for example) the Istawaa is known, it’s meaning is understood, and explained and translated in other languages, and this is the explanation that those firmly grounded in knowledge know, but as for the kayfiyyah of the Istawaa then this is the explanation that none but Allaah, the Exalted, knows."

[ ‘al-Hamawiyyah’ (pg. 24+)]

So when we come to realise that the Salaf understood the meanings of the Attributes and affirmed them it becomes necessary to also know that they did so while negating 4 matters:

Tashbeeh (likening Allaah to His Creation) and tajseem (likening Allaah to a body)
Takyeef (enquiring into the how or nature of the Attribute)
Tahreef (distorting the meaning of the Attribute) and tagyeer (changing the meaning of the Attribute) and ta’weel (figuratively interpreting the meaning of the Attribute)
Ta’teel (denying the Attributes)

[ Consult: ‘as-Sunnah’ (1/264-307) of Imaam Abdullaah bin Ahmad bin Hanbal (d.290), ‘ash-Sharh wal Ibaanah’(pg. 187-192) of ibn Battah(d.387), ‘Aqueedah as-Salaf’ (pp. 4-7) of as-Saaboonee(d.449), ‘ar-Risaalah fee Ithbaat al-Istawaa’ of al-Juwainee(d.438 - more on this later), ‘Sharh Aqueedah at-Tahaawiyyah’ (pp. 162-366) of ibn Abee al-Izz al-Hanafee (d.792), ‘at-Tadmuriyyah’ of ibn Taymiyyah, ‘Dhamm at-Ta’weel’ of al-Maqdisee, ‘Aqaaweel ath-Thiqaat fee Ta’weel al-Asmaa was Sifaat’ of ibn Yusuf al-Karmee. ]

Abu Sayyad

Regarding Allaah's Rising Over His Throne - al-Istawaa 'ala al-'Arsh

Below is a translation of some points from 'Khalq Af'aal al-Ebaad' of Imaam Bukhaaree (RH), pp.13+, then following this are some points from al-Laalikaaee's work to do with the subject of Istiwaa (Allaah rising over His Throne)

6) Wahb bin Jareer said, 'The Jahmiyyah are heretics, they think that He has not risen over His Throne.'

13) Ibn al-Mubaarak said, 'we do nat say as the Jahmiyyah say that Allaah is on the earth, rather He has risen over His Throne.'

14) And it was said to him, 'how should we know our Lord?' He said, 'above the Heavens, over ('alaa) His Throne'

29) Sufyaan ath-Thauri was asked about the verse, "and He is with you wheresoever you are". He said, 'His Knowledge.'

64) Sadqa said, 'I heard Sulaiman at-Taimi saying, 'if I were asked, "where is Allaah?" I would say, "above (fee) the heaven". And if it said, "where was the Throne before the Heaven?" I would say, "over the water." And if it is said, "where was the Throne before the water?" I would say, "I do not know."'

And Imaam Bukhaaree said, 'and that (i.e. his answer) was because of the saying of Allaah, "and they cannot encompass anything of His Knowledge except what He wills." i.e. except what He explains.'

66) Muhammad bin Yusuf said (one of the teachers of Bukhaaree), 'the one who says that Allaah is not over ('alaa) His Throne is a kaafir. And the one who thinks that Allaah did not speak to Moses is a kaafir.'

103) Ibn Mas'ud said about His saying, "then He rose over His Throne", - 'the Throne is over the water, and Allaah is above (fawqa) the Throne, and He knows what you are upon.'

104) Qataada said about His saying, "and He is Allaah in the Heaven and in the Earth" - 'the One Who is worshipped in the heaven and in the earth.'

And now some points translated from 'Sharh Usul I'tiqaad' of al-Laalikaaee

660) Adullaah bin Abbaas said, 'Verily Allaah was above His Throne before He created anything, then He created the creation and decreed what was to exist until the Day of Judgement.' (pg.396)

662) Bashr bin Umar said, 'I heard more then one of the Mufassir say about the verse, "The Most Merciful istawaa upon the Throne" - istiwaa means rose above.' (pg.397)

665) Rabee' (one of the teachers of Maalik) was asked about the verse, "The Most Merciful rose over His Throne" - 'how did He rise?' He replied, 'al-istiwaa (rising) is known, and the how is not comprehensible, and from Allaah is the message, and upon the Messenger is the preaching, and upon us is believing.' (pg.397)

670) Maqaatil bin Huyaan said about His saying, "and there is no secret discourse of 3 people except He is the fourth, or of 5 people and He is the sixth" - 'He is above His Throne, and nothing is hidden from His knowledge.' (pg.400)

673) Imaam Ahmad was asked, 'Allaah is above the seventh heaven, above His Throne because that is from His creation, and His power and knowledge are in every place?' And he replied, 'yes, above the Throne and His knowledge is in every place.' (pg.401)

675) Imaam Ahmad was asked about the verse, "and He is with you wheresover you are", and the verse, "there is no secret discourse of 3 people except that he is the fourth.." - and he said, ' (meaning) His Knowledge, He is the Knower of the seen and the unseen, His knowledge encompasses everything, and our Lord is above the Throne without setting limits and giving description , and His Kursi is as the expanse of the heavens and the earth with His Knowledge. ' (pg.402)

Imaam Abdullaah bin Ahmad said, '....I bear witness that You are above Your Throne above the seven heavens. And this is not as the enemies of Allaah say, the heretics.' (Sharhus Sunnah of Imaam Abdullaah)

He also said, 'we know that our Lord is above the seven heavens over the Throne, and we do not say as the Jahmiyyah say that he is here,' and he pointed with his hand to the earth. (Sharhus Sunnah)

And Verily Allaah Knows Best.

(Link: 1)

**Maimunah**

jazakaAllah kahyr brother

wasalaamu aleykum

Skillganon

Names & Attributes of God
An Islamic Point of View

In Sontage, Frederick and M. Darrol Bryant, editors, God, the Contemporary Discussion. The Rose of Sharon Press Inc., New York, 1982. Updated by Dr. Idris. August 2001.

Dr. Jaafar Sheikh Idris

Prior to the modern age very few people disputed the fact that the world has a creator. This fact was for them as obvious as a logical truth or an observed phenomenon. They only differed about the nature of this creator and about the appropriate attitude people should have towards Him. But now the very existence of a creator is disputed. Why? This is not an easy question to answer. However, I tend to agree with those contemporary writers who trace the origins of modern atheism in the West to the ideas of some influential Western philosophers, some of whom were themselves believers. But these ‘believer’ argued in such a way as to make people at least doubt , if not reject, some of the facts belief in which used to be considered of the essence of being rational . Good reasons for belief in the Creator, whether they be strictly rational or otherwise, used to be related to those facts. Belief in God was based on the fact that there was something in our nature and in the nature of the world which points to a transcendent Creator whom we should worship. The claim of the new thinking was that our world is in every respect a closed system that cannot therefore point to anything outside itself. The first step toward this separation of heaven and earth was perhaps Descartes' mechanistic conception of the world in which it is claimed that it is possible to explain natural phenomena by reference to matter and motion and their laws. Hume widened the distance between heaven and earth by claiming that the causal principle by which we make such explanation of natural phenomena was nothing but observed regular succession. God cannot therefore be a cause since His creation or effect, is not observed to occur after Him. Kant took the final step by arguing that the concept of causation cannot apply to anything outside the world of our experience. This atheistic philosophy then became, as it were, the official philosophy of science. And since ordinary people, and even many scientists, do not see the distinction between the facts which science establishes and the philosophies which scientists adopt, especially when such philosophies become popular among great scientists, this atheistic philosophy was believed by the public to be the philosophy which science demands or even the philosophy whose truth it has establish.

Many believers accepted the atheistic assumptions of this philosophy but nevertheless maintained their belief in God hoping to find a place for Him in the realms which science could not yet conquer. But the atheists argued, with some strength, that since science was rapidly progressing in giving us "rational" explanations of phenomena which we used to believe to the works of God, it was only a matter of time before everything would be so explained, thus driving God completely out of our world.

The severance of the relation between God and the world was thus, on the one hand, a result of a new conception of the nature of our world. But on the other hand it led some believers to a new conception of the nature of God. God, as a result of this new thinking became more and more of an abstract idea rather than a living person. But this in its turn strengthened the atheistic trend. Who is interested in a God that is a mere idea, who has no active role to play either on the level of our intellects and behavior or on the level of nature.

But the idea that our world is a closed system, that it does not point to transcendent creatior, has received a serious blow from the big bang theory, which is being more and more accepted by scientists as the most plausible scientific cosmological theory. According to this theory our natural world had a definite beginning. And if so it would not be illegitimate to ask: Who started it? But this means that the world itself is telling us that it is not self-sufficient, i.e., it is pointing to something beyond itself. But this fact, as we said earlier, was taken for granted by early thinkers. They did not have to wait for a twentieth-century scientific theory to prove it. Almost everything around them pointed to the fact our world had a beginning, and could not therefore be self-sufficient.

I think that it will soon be obvious that those who denied the existence of the Creator cannot support their claim by any scientific facts. But mere belief in the existence of a creator is not of much consequence. We need to know who this creator is so that we can establish appropriate relations with Him, relations that would make a difference in our life.

It is to this end that thinking believers should henceforth direct their energies. We must overcome the pre Big Bang complex which induced many of us to think of God as an abstract idea, and start expounding and defending the ordinary believer’s conception of Him as a living and loving Person.[1]

I believe that there is much in the writings of early Muslim theologians, especially those of the Sunnite School, from which all those who believe in the existence of the Creator can benefit in this respect. And it is towards this end that I am writing the rest of this paper. I shall attempt to give contemporary believers an idea about the way early Muslim theologians thought about an issue in which we are still interested, namely, the nature of God and His attributes.

There were three major views concerning the nature of divine attributes among Muslims. These are the views of the mujassima or anthropomorphists, mu'attila or negators, and the muthbita or affirmers:

(a) The physicalistic or anthropomorphistic view likens God to a huge human being, and thus attributes to Him the human form of attributes like hearing, seeing, speaking, having eyes, etc. The difference between Him and ordinary human beings, according to this view, is not of kind but of degree. Only a few influential people held such a view in the history of Islam, and they were immediately condemned as idol worshippers. Since this view is no longer taken seriously by any contemporary believers, it need not detain us. The only important point to mention here, because it relates to the two following views, is the reason behind such a view, i.e., the assumption that only physical things with which we are familiar exist, and since God exists He must be physical in this sense, and his attributes cannot but take the forms of those of physical things.

(b) The negators' view assumes that all the attributes we express in the Arabic language or any other human language are attributes of physical existents. But God is not physical. When He attributes to Himself, in the Quran, things like hearing, seeing, being above His throne, having hands or eyes, etc., He is addressing us in the only language we can understand, but He is not using words describing these qualities in any real sense. What are we then to understand by such words and expressions when we use them in relation to God? Nothing, according to the extreme advocates of this view. This view, though it was not known until about the third century of Islam, soon became, especially in its milder forms, very influential and popular among many theologians and educated Muslims. It is sometimes wrongly assumed to be the only alternative to the first view.

(c) The affirmers' view says that when God describes Himself as being capable of seeing, hearing, etc., He is using these words in a real sense, because God really sees and hears. He has a real face and real hands. But since "nothing is like Him", His attributes, though real, are not like the attributes of human beings or any other created things. This is the view of the early generations of Muslims and of all the great Sunnite 'ulama' who followed in their footsteps. It is, I believe, the view of all believers in their hours of worship. But it is no longer popular among theologians and "modernist" believers. One reason for this, as I have said, is that it is confused with the anthropomorphist view, which is obviously untenable. It is this view which I am going to briefly expound and defend against the second view.

Does God exist ? The extremist advocates of the second view would refuse to answer in the affirmative, because existence in the real sense is ascribed, in their view, to natural things only. Since God is not like them we cannot even describe Him as existent. What is He then? We cannot say anything positive about Him, they say: we can only say what He is not. The affirmer says that by refusing to liken Him to any physical existent, you end up likening Him to non-existents because it is only in reference to non-existents that we cannot say anything positive.

A contemporary philosopher might think that what the negators are saying is that it is a categorical mistake to describe God as existent and therefore it would be equally wrong to describe Him as non-existent. The affirmers may respond that: we did not say that negators liken God to non-existents merely because they refused to describe Him as existent, but because of their argument for doing so, namely, that nothing positive can be said about God. Our claim is that this description applies only to non-existents. The affirmers say, more over that the claim that a category mistake is being committed must be supported by showing that the nature of the thing to which a certain attribute is wrongly applied is different in at least one relevant aspect from the things to which this attribute is rightly applied, i.e., that they belong to different categories. But to claim that two things belong to different categories you must know something positive about each one of them. If the only thing you know about one of them is that nothing which applies to anything applies to it in a real sense, you are saying that it belongs to the category of nothingness. That is why the famous Imam Ahmad said in replying to the Jahmiyyah, a very influential school of negators, that a thing which is not like anything else is not a thing at all.[i] Admittedly, there is a verse in the Qur'an which says that "Nothing is like Him".[ii] The Jahmiyyah took this to be a Qur'anic support for their negativist view, but this verse does not say that nothing which is said of other things can be said of God, in any real sense. That is why after saying that "Nothing is Like Him," it goes on to say "He is the All-Hearing, All-Seeing." All that the verse is saying is that God is not to be likened to His creation. But you do not liken Him to them by merely saying that He exists and they exist, or that He knows and some of created things know. You do so only if you take His existence to be as ephemeral and dependent as the existence of created things and that His knowledge is to be as limited as theirs.

The Affirmers' second objection to the negator's refusal to describe God as existent is that anyone who takes such a belief seriously cannot really worship God. How can a person worship, love, fear, turn for guidance to, depend on, or pray to something about which he cannot say, even to himself, that it exists? This is not to say that they do not actually worship God; many of them do, but only at the expense of their theoretical standpoint.

The third objection is that since as Muslims you read the Qur'an and believe in its divine source, what do you understand by expressions which attribute to God things like knowing, hearing, acting, creating, speaking, seeing, etc.? Some negators would say that since God is completely different from anything we know, His real attributes cannot be couched in human language because human languages are necessarily confined to things which fall within our sense experience. But since this language is the only one we understand, God is using it to give us a glimpse of something which is really beyond our comprehension. The question is how our human language can succeed in giving us even such a glimpse. If the words and expressions of our language do not apply to God in any real sense, then they cannot convey to us anything about Him. And in that case, God would be revealing to us a mere string of words which have no meaning. But no one who really believes in God would attribute to Him such a folly. On the other hand, if they do convey to us even a glimpse, there must be a relationship between them and the real attribute of God.

Other negators would acknowledge the existence of such a relation, but would say that the words are used in their metaphorical and not in their real sense. For example, when it is said in the Qur'an of God that He sees or hears, what is meant is that He knows,[iii] because seeing and hearing in their real senses apply to animals only. There are three objections to this view.

(a) It can easily be shown that to see is linguistically different from to hear, and both are different from, though related to, knowing.[iv]

(b) If it is claimed that all the words of our language are used in the metaphorical sense when they apply to God, this would lead either to an infinite regress or an impasse. If every word or expression in our language had a metaphorical sense, then once a word, say X, is used in a sacred book to describe God, we must look for its metaphorical sense, but that metaphorical sense must be expressed in yet other words whose metaphorical senses are expressed in other words and so on, ad infinitum. But if you stop the regress by giving some words their real meanings, you violate your principle.

(c) If the claim is that this applies to some and not all words and expressions describing God, then a valid argument must be given to the difference between the two. But no such argument exists. The truth is that, as Ibn Taymiyyah showed clearly in his ar-risalatu at-tadmuriyyah, whatever is said of some Divine attributes can be said of the others, as we will presently show.

This leads us to a milder version of negationism. Propounders of this milder version are ready to attribute to God things like existence, knowledge, life, power, will, seeing and hearing in their real sense, but would take as metaphorical attributes such as love, pleasure, anger and hate. The reply to a person who makes such a distinction between these two classes of attributes - affirming the former and denying the latter - is to say "there is no difference between what you affirmed and what you denied. What applies to one of them does indeed apply to the other. If you say that His will is like the will of human beings, so also would be His love and pleasure. But this is anthropomorphism. But if you say that He has a will that suits Him just as a human being has a will that suits him, it will be said to you: He also has a love that suits Him, and an anger that suits Him; and the human being has an anger that suits him."[v] "If one interprets things like love, hate and anger in an anthropmorhistic way, we say that the same can be said about will, knowledge and power."[vi]

People like Ibn Taymiyyah, the author of the above quotations, are often mistakenly described by their opponents and by some modern scholars as being literalists, or even worse, anthropomorhists. Those who say this assume that the only alternative to negationism or allegoricalism is literalism or anthropomorphism. But it is clear from Ibn Taymiyyah's statement that when he affirms that God loves or hates in a real sense and not in a metaphorical sense, he is not, thereby, likening Him to human beings. He rejects the view that language cannot be used in a real sense except when it applies to created things. He thinks that some descriptive words have general meanings which as abstract meanings do not apply to anything in particular, whether it be human or divine. But when they are used to describe a particular, then they describe something which is peculiar to the particular in question.[vii] For example, if we describe two persons, X and Y, as "learned", the connotation of "learned" when it applies to X is not the same as its connotation when it applies to Y. Does this mean that all words are equivocal? No, by no means. Ibn Taymiyyah thinks that though the referents are different, the word has an abstract meaning that is common to both referents. This, he thinks, applies even in the case of God. When we describe Him as loving, for example, we are not likening Him to Human beings, i.e., we are not saying that he loves in the same way as humans love. It is wrong, he insists, to think that the real meanings of such words are their meanings when they apply to human beings. Descriptive words, as such, are neutral. They take their specific forms according to the particulars which they describe. And just as there are differences between particular created things, there are differences - and greater ones - between God and the world of created things.

How do we know about the attributes of God? According to the school of Ahl as-Sunnah, also called the "people of affirmation," some of the Divine attributes can be known by reason alone, though most of them are known by revelation also. Other attributes of God are not known except through the Divine revelation to God's chosen Prophets or Messengers. Those which can be known by reason alone may be divided into three categories: God's attributes as existent, His attributes as a living being, and His attributes as a creator and the object of our worship.

It is of paramount importance to see the difference between the attributes of something as an existent and its attributes under other descriptions or headings. Failure to see this has led both believers and atheists into confusion about their conceptions of God. The mistake starts when either the theist or the atheist assumes that all the attributes of the physical are limited to its attributes under this physical description. Once this mistake is committed, it is easy to argue from it that since God is not physical, nothing which is said of physical things can be said of Him in any real sense. Thus, Lenin, seeing that the progress of science was creating havoc for the materialists' conception of matter, thought of defining the latter in a way which no scientific discovery could render obsolete. He came to the conclusion that the material was anything that existed objectively, i.e., outside our mind.[viii] But, this is not a definition of the material; it is a necessary condition of every existent. If communists took Lenin's definition seriously, the difference between them and the believers would be only verbal, i.e., whether it is proper to say of God that He is material or not. But they do not take their own view seriously. In fact, they insist on having their cake and eating it. Thus, if you tell them that you are ready to say that God is material according to their definition of this word, because you believe that He exists objectively, they would react by asking you to show Him to them, thus reverting back to an earlier definition of the material.

Because material things exist objectively, and God is not material, then His existence must be only subjective. It seems that Lenin argued in this way. Some theistic theologians argued in a manner that is rather similar to this. In their attempt to exalt God above all material things, they ended up depriving Him of the very necessary attributes of the existent thus making Him a mere word that designates nothing. The Ahl as-Sunnah were very much against this trend, and they dubbed the people who followed it mu'attila, i.e., negators. In contrast the Ahl as-Sunnah called themselves the people of ithbat, i.e., affirmation. The negators talk of God only in negative terms: All they say about God is that He does not have the attributes that material things have. The affirmers, on the other hand, believe that the basic attributes of God are positive ones. The negative attributes which God is said not to have are only the negations of these positive attributes and what is logically implied by these negatations. They think that as a Creator, God must exist and exist objectively. To exist objectively God must have all the attributes of objective existents. God must therefore be somewhere and cannot thus be everywhere. Why not? Because to be everywhere is to fail to be distinguished from other existents and thus not to have a special identity. To believe that He is everywhere leads, moreover, to yet other absurdities. If God was everywhere before He created some things, then where did He create them? To say that He created them inside Himself is absurd. To say that He created them outside Himself contradicts the statement that He is everywhere. To say that God shrank to leave some space for them is absurd. At least it contradicts the assumption that He is infinite. It also leads to the absurdity that whenever anything passes out of existence God extends Himself to fill the empty space.

Where is God then? The Ahl as-Sunnah do not hesitate to answer that He is above His throne in heaven. Does this mean that He is limited? If by this is meant His person, then the answer is yes. But although His person is confined to a particular "region", His power, knowledge and other attributes are not so limited. God is in heaven, but His power and knowledge are everywhere. He cannot in this sense, therefore, he said to be limited.

The negators believe that God cannot at all be known by the five senses because they thought that to be thus known is to be physical. The affirmers agreed that He cannot be observed by us while we are in this world. But this is not because it is in His nature not to be observed; it is rather because of our own present nature. There are verses in the Qur'an and the authentic sayings of the Prophet Muhammad which affirm that believers shall behold God in the Hereafter. In fact, beholding Him would be their greatest joy. They would be able to behold Him because their nature would be different from what it is now.

The affirmers do not depend on this religious argument alone. They also believe that it is a contradiction in terms to say that something exists objectively and yet cannot in principle be observed. It is only non-existents which cannot in principle be observed, or as al-Darimi says, "a thing which cannot be observed, yudrak, by any of the senses, is nothing."[ix] As an existent, then, God must exist outside our minds, i.e. He cannot be a mere idea or an abstract concept. Secondly, He must have some defining qualities.[x] Thirdly, He must exist in a "place", that is distinct from places occupied by other existents.[xi] Otherwise, He would be one with them and hence could not be anything in His own right. Fourthly, He must be in principle observable.

God is not only an existent. He is a Living existent. And as a Living existent He must have the attributes of willing, knowing, seeing, hearing, etc. In short, God must have all the attributes which living things necessarily have as living things, and not because of their materiality or animality.

But God is the Creator of everything. As such He must be eternal and hence self-sufficient, unique and perfect. All the other attributes that He has must be seen in the light of these basic attributes. Thus if we say that He knows, His knowledge must be different from that of any of His creatures in that it must be knowledge which is not preceded by ignorance and thus acquired through the senses or any other means. And so on. The same must be said of all the other attributes. That is why it is one of the pillars of the Muslim faith to believe that God is unique in His person as well as in His attributes. Just as none of His creation resembles Him, so none of their attributes resemble His attributes. And so while we know the meanings of the divine attributes, we do not know their modality or the form which they take when they apply to His unique person.

Some of the attributes of God we cannot know except through His own words revealed to chosen prophets. In Islam these words are confined to the Qur'an and the Sunnah, the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad. These sources attribute to God things like being above His Throne, having hands, smiling, etc.. The negators take all these attributes to be metaphorical, but the Ahl as-Sunnah's position is to affirm about God whatever He affirms about Himself in the Qur'an or through His prophet without tashbih, i.e., likening Him to created things, or ta'til, i.e., explaining away His attributes as metaphorical. We understand them, affirmers say, in the light of the principle stated in the verse "Nothing is like Him, the All-hearing, the All-seeing."[xii]

Let me end this paper by quoting some famous Qur'anic verses about God's attributes which every practicing Muslim knows by heart and repeats on many occasions as an expression of his devotion to God:

Say: He is God, one God the Everlasting Refuge, Who has not begotten, and has not been begotten, and equal to Him is not any one.[xiii]

God, there is no God but He, the Living, the Everlasting, slumber seizes Him not, neither sleep; to Him belongs all that is in the Heavens and the earth. Who is there that shall intercede with Him save by His leave? He knows what lies before them and what lies after them, and they comprehend not anything of His knowledge save such as He wills. His throne comprises the heavens and the earth; the preserving of them oppresses Him not; He is the All-High, the All-Glorious.[xiv]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] By person I do not of course mean that God is a human or like a human person. Person is used here in the general sense of an actual existent with definite characteristics in contradistiction to an abstract idea. Allah is described in some ahadith of the Prophet as being that and as having a shakhs (personality).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[i] Imam Ahamd, ar-rad ‘ala-az-zanadigati wa-ljahmiyyah, p.68.

[ii] The Qur’an ayah (verse) 11: Surah (Chapter) 42.

[iii] See Ibn Qurtayba, Kitab al-ikhtilaf fi’l-lafaz ar-rad ‘ala’-ljahmiyya Wa-l-mushabbiha, in the collection, Aqa’id as-salaf, ed. Ali Sami Nashshar and ‘Ammar Jam’I Talibi (Alexandria, 1971), p.233.

[iv] Ibid. p. 233.

[v] Ibn Taymiyyah, op. cit., p. 21.

[vi] Ibid., p. 22.

[vii] Ibid., p. 80.

[viii] V.I. Lenin, Materialism and Empiro-Criticism (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publ. House, n.d.), pp. 269-70.

[ix] Abu Sa’id Ad-Darimi, Kitab al-rad ‘ala-l-jahmiyyah, Aqa’idus-Salaf and Kitab ar-radi-l-Imami-d-Darimi, ‘Uthman Ibn Sa’id ala-l-marisil-‘anid, p. 570.

[x] Ibid., p.508.

[xi] Ibid., p. 249.

[xii] The Qur’an ayah 11: Surah 42.

[xiii] Chapter CXII of the Qur’an, trans. Arthur J. Arberry, The Qur’an Interpreted (Oxford Univ. Press, 1964), p. 667.

[xiv] Ibid., trans. Verse 255, chapter 11, p.37.

ref: http://www.jaafaridris.com/English/Books/Attributes.htm

	(#2 (permalink))
Abu Sayyad Back! Status: Offline Posts: 6,272 Reputation: 32302 Rep Power: 66 Join Date: Mar 2005 Gender: Way of Life: Muslim	Re: The Position of the Salaf Concerning the Attributes of Allaah - 02-23-2007 Regarding Allaah's Rising Over His Throne - al-Istawaa 'ala al-'Arsh Below is a translation of some points from 'Khalq Af'aal al-Ebaad' of Imaam Bukhaaree (RH), pp.13+, then following this are some points from al-Laalikaaee's work to do with the subject of Istiwaa (Allaah rising over His Throne) 6) Wahb bin Jareer said, 'The Jahmiyyah are heretics, they think that He has not risen over His Throne.' 13) Ibn al-Mubaarak said, 'we do nat say as the Jahmiyyah say that Allaah is on the earth, rather He has risen over His Throne.' 14) And it was said to him, 'how should we know our Lord?' He said, 'above the Heavens, over ('alaa) His Throne' 29) Sufyaan ath-Thauri was asked about the verse, "and He is with you wheresoever you are". He said, 'His Knowledge.' 64) Sadqa said, 'I heard Sulaiman at-Taimi saying, 'if I were asked, "where is Allaah?" I would say, "above (fee) the heaven". And if it said, "where was the Throne before the Heaven?" I would say, "over the water." And if it is said, "where was the Throne before the water?" I would say, "I do not know."' And Imaam Bukhaaree said, 'and that (i.e. his answer) was because of the saying of Allaah, "and they cannot encompass anything of His Knowledge except what He wills." i.e. except what He explains.' 66) Muhammad bin Yusuf said (one of the teachers of Bukhaaree), 'the one who says that Allaah is not over ('alaa) His Throne is a kaafir. And the one who thinks that Allaah did not speak to Moses is a kaafir.' 103) Ibn Mas'ud said about His saying, "then He rose over His Throne", - 'the Throne is over the water, and Allaah is above (fawqa) the Throne, and He knows what you are upon.' 104) Qataada said about His saying, "and He is Allaah in the Heaven and in the Earth" - 'the One Who is worshipped in the heaven and in the earth.' And now some points translated from 'Sharh Usul I'tiqaad' of al-Laalikaaee 660) Adullaah bin Abbaas said, 'Verily Allaah was above His Throne before He created anything, then He created the creation and decreed what was to exist until the Day of Judgement.' (pg.396) 662) Bashr bin Umar said, 'I heard more then one of the Mufassir say about the verse, "The Most Merciful istawaa upon the Throne" - istiwaa means rose above.' (pg.397) 665) Rabee' (one of the teachers of Maalik) was asked about the verse, "The Most Merciful rose over His Throne" - 'how did He rise?' He replied, 'al-istiwaa (rising) is known, and the how is not comprehensible, and from Allaah is the message, and upon the Messenger is the preaching, and upon us is believing.' (pg.397) 670) Maqaatil bin Huyaan said about His saying, "and there is no secret discourse of 3 people except He is the fourth, or of 5 people and He is the sixth" - 'He is above His Throne, and nothing is hidden from His knowledge.' (pg.400) 673) Imaam Ahmad was asked, 'Allaah is above the seventh heaven, above His Throne because that is from His creation, and His power and knowledge are in every place?' And he replied, 'yes, above the Throne and His knowledge is in every place.' (pg.401) 675) Imaam Ahmad was asked about the verse, "and He is with you wheresover you are", and the verse, "there is no secret discourse of 3 people except that he is the fourth.." - and he said, ' (meaning) His Knowledge, He is the Knower of the seen and the unseen, His knowledge encompasses everything, and our Lord is above the Throne without setting limits and giving description , and His Kursi is as the expanse of the heavens and the earth with His Knowledge. ' (pg.402) Imaam Abdullaah bin Ahmad said, '....I bear witness that You are above Your Throne above the seven heavens. And this is not as the enemies of Allaah say, the heretics.' (Sharhus Sunnah of Imaam Abdullaah) He also said, 'we know that our Lord is above the seven heavens over the Throne, and we do not say as the Jahmiyyah say that he is here,' and he pointed with his hand to the earth. (Sharhus Sunnah) And Verily Allaah Knows Best. (Link: 1) __________________ ...بَلْ أَتَيْنَاهُم بِالْحَقِّ وَإِنَّهُمْ لَكَاذِبُونَ • مَا اتَّخَذَ اللَّهُ مِن وَلَدٍ وَمَا كَانَ مَعَهُ مِنْ إِلَهٍ Rather, We have brought them the truth, and indeed they are liars. Allah has not taken any son, nor has there ever been with Him any deity. [al-Muminoon: 90-91] O Allah, Lord of Jibril, Mika'il and Israfil, Creator of the heavens and the earth, Knower of the unseen and the seen, You will judge between Your servants concerning that wherein they differ. Guide me with regard to that wherein there is dispute concerning the truth by Your leave, for You guide whomsoever You will to the straight path. Oh Allah, I seek refuge in You lest I misguide others, or I am misguided by others, lest I cause others to err or I am caused to err, lest I abuse others or be abused, and lest I behave foolishly or meet with the foolishness of others.

	(#3 (permalink))
Maimunah a.k.a ruwaydah Status: Offline Posts: 2,146 Reputation: 6680 Rep Power: 24 Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: eerrmmmm hmmm Gender: Way of Life: Muslim	Re: The Position of the Salaf Concerning the Attributes of Allaah - 02-26-2007 jazakaAllah kahyr brother wasalaamu aleykum __________________ وَمَنْ أَعْرَضَ عَن ذِكْرِي فَإِنَّ لَهُ مَعِيشَةً ضَنكاً وَنَحْشُرُهُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ أَعْمَى() قَالَ رَبِّ لِمَ حَشَرْتَنِي أَعْمَى وَقَدْ كُنتُ بَصِير)( قَالَ كَذَلِكَ أَتَتْكَ آيَاتُنَا فَنَسِيتَهَا وَكَذَلِكَ الْيَوْمَ تُنسَى