'The Creed Of The Four Imaams Is A Single Creed...'

MinAhlilHadeeth

MinAhlilHadeeth

IB Legend
Messages
7,888
Reaction score
790
Gender
Female
Religion
Islam
The Creed Of The Four Imaams Is A Single Creed In All Foundational Matters Of The Religion,
With The Exception of Eemaan​

The creed of the four imaams – Aboo Haneefah (d.150H), Maalik (d.179H), ash-Shaafi’ee (d.204H) and Ahmad (d.241H) – is what the Book and the Sunnah speak of, and what the Companions and those who followed them in righteousness were upon. And there is no disagreement between these imaams – all praise is due to Allaah – in the fundamental matters of belief, [1] rather they are in agreement concerning the Attributes of the Lord; and that faith (eemaan) is undoubtedly an affirmation of the heart and the tongue. Furthermore, they refuted the people of theological rhetoric, like the Jahmiyyah [2] and others who were affected by Greek philosophy and other schools of rhetoric. [3]

Shaykhul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728H) said:

However, from the Mercy of Allaah to His servants is that He gave them imaams who spoke truthfully to the Ummah, like the four imaams and others, who used to refute the statements of the people of theological rhetoric, like the Jahmiyyah. They refuted their positions on the Qur’aan, eemaan, and the Attributes of the Lord. And they were in agreement about what the Salaf were upon; that Allaah will be seen in the Hereafter, and that the Qur’aan is the word of Allaah, not a created thing, and that faith is undoubtedly affirmation of the heart and the tongue. [4]

And he said:

Verily all of the famous imaams affirmed the Attributes of Allaah the Exalted, and they said that the Qur’aan was the Word of Allaah, it was not created, and they said that Allaah will be seen in the Hereafter. This is the way of the Companions and those who followed them in goodness, from the family of the Prophet and the rest, and this is the way of the imaams of the people, like Maalik Ibn Anas (d.179H), ath-Thawree (d.161H), Layth Ibn Sa’d (d.175H), al-Awzaa’ee (d.157H), Aboo Haneefah, ash-Shaafi’ee, and Ahmad. [5]

Shaykhul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah was asked about the creed of ash-Shafi’ee, so he said:

The creed of ash-Shaafi’ee – may Allaah be pleased with him – and the creed of the Salaf of the Ummah, like Maalik, ath-Thawree, al-Awzaa’ee, Ibnul-Mubaarak (d.181H), Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and Ishaaq Ibn Raahawayh (d.238H) is the creed of the scholars whom they followed like Fudhayl Ibn ‘Iyaadh (d.187H), Aboo Sulaymaan ad-Daaraanee, Sahl Ibn Sa’d at-Tustaree (d.283H), and others. There was no disagreement between these imaams and their likes over the principles of the Religion, and likewise Aboo Haneefah – may Allaah have mercy upon him. The (same) creed is authentically relayed from him in Tawheed, Qadar (Divine Pre-Decree), and the likes. He is in agreement with the creed of those imaams: what the Companions and those who followed them in goodness were upon, and that is what the Book and the Sunnah speak of.[6]

This is also what ‘Allaamah Siddeeq Hasan Khaan chose when he said:

So our way is the way of the Salaf, which is affirmation (ithbaat) without tashbeeh (claiming that Allaah’s Attributes resemble those of the creation); tanzeeh (glorification) without ta’teel (denying the attribute). It is the way of the imaams of Islaam, like Maalik, ash-Shafi’ee, ath-Thawree, Ibnul-Mubaarak, Imaam Ahmad, and others. There is no disagreement between these imaams in the foundation of the religion.[7] Such is the case with Aboo Haneefah – may Allaah have Mercy on him – because the creed that is authentically reported from him is in agreement with the creed of these imaams, and it is that which the Book and the Sunnah speak of.[8]

Taken from the book; ‘The creed of the Four Imaams’, by Dr. Muhammad al-Khumayyis – Troid publications.

Footnotes:

[1] Translator: Imaam Ibn Abil-‘Izz al-Hanafee (d.729H) – may Allaah have Mercy on him – said:
Knowledge of the fundamentals of the Religion is the most noble branch of knowledge, since the excellence of a certain type of knowledge depends upon what it is concerned with, and this is the greatest fiqh (understanding), which is why Imaam Aboo Haneefah (d.150H) – may Allaah have mercy on him – called that which he compiled concerning Usoolud-Deen, ‘al-Fiqhul-Akbar’ (the greatest fiqh). The need of the servants for this knowledge is greater than every other need; and it is the most necessary of all things for them, since there is no life for the hearts, nor any delight, nor any tranquility, except through knowing their Lord, the One to be worshipped, their Creator – with His Names, His Attributes and His Actions, and that He – along with all that – is more beloved to the person than anything else. So mans striving is with regards to everything that will draw him nearer to Allaah, to the exclusion of the creation.

However, it is impossible for the minds to come to know and understand all that in detail, so the Most Merciful, the Most Majestic – from His Mercy, sent Messengers to teach that and call to it; and to give god news to those who accept their call and to warn those who reject it. The key to their call and the essence of their message was the servant’s drawing closer to Allaah – the Most Perfect – through His Names, Attributes and Actions, since all that the Messengers were ordered with is built upon this. This then is followed by two great principles:

Firstly: Knowing the path that leads to Him and that is the Sharee’ah which comprises His orders and prohibitions.

Secondly: That those following the path know what lies in store for them, which is endless bliss.

So the people who know God best are the ones who best follow the way to Him; and know best what lies at the end of the way.” (Sharhul-‘Aqeedatit-Tahaawiyyah, p.69)

[2] Translator: The Jahmiyyah are the followers of Jahm Ibn Safwaan, who unleashed upon this Ummah, the horrific innovation of ta’teel (denial of Allaah’s Attributes) either directly, or by twisting the meaning of Hand of Allaah to mean: His Power or generosity. They also deny that Allaah is above the creation, above His Throne, as well as holding the belief that Paradise and Hellfire are not everlasting. Refer to ar-Radd ‘alal Jahmiyyah by Imaam Ahmad and also ad-Daarimee and al-Ibaanah (p.141) of Abul-Hasan al-Ash’aree. It is also noteworthy to Siyar A’laamin-Nubalaa (11/169-171) of ath-Thahabee.

[3] Translator: Imaam ash-Shaafi’ee (d.204H) said, “My ruling regarding the people of theological rhetoric is that they should be beaten with palm leaves and shoes and be paraded amongst the kinsfolk and the tribes with it being announced, ‘This is the reward of the one who abandons the Book and the Sunnah and turns to theological rhetoric.” Refer to Sharhul-‘Aqeedatit-Tahaawiyyah of Ibn Abil-‘Izz, (p. 75). Refer to Sharhus-Sunnah (1/218) of Imaam al-Baghawee.

[4] Kitaabul-Eemaan (p. 350-351) with the commentary of Muhammad al-Harraas

[5] Minhaajus-Sunnah (2/106) of Ibn Taymiyyah

[6] Majmoo’ul-Fataawee (5/256)

[7] Translator: The significance of the creed of the four imaams being one single creed is only realized fully when one sees that Allaah has commanded us to be upon one path.

[8] Qutfuth-Thamar (p. 47-48) of Siddeeq Hasan Khaan
 
AsalamuAlaykum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh,

jazakillahu Khair,

That was :D

Be good sis :p
 
The original poster seems to be under the impression that allah has literally 2 hands and other body parts. To that I answer that none of the 4 fuqaha agreed with the mutazalites on allah's kalam, they did not debate between allah's hands and feet,etc. That debate is the present debate between "salafi" and between the majority of sunnis. For us to say that allah has 2 "hands" is to say that allah is made up of parts and thus likens him to his creation. What is going on is an incorrect literal ijtihad of some ayaats which is leading to contradictions between ijma'a (concensus). For example here is a tafsir of an ayaat from 2 scholars of ahlus sunnah wa jama3.

And the heaven, We built it with might (Our hands), and indeed We are powerful (one says āda’l-rajulu or ya’īdu, to mean, ‘he is strong’; and awsa‘a’l-rajulu, to mean, ‘he has become capable [dhū sa‘a] and strong’). Jalalayn.

(We have built) created (the heaven with might, and We it is who make the vast extent (thereof)) as We will; it is also said that this means: we expand the provision thereof.
Tafsir Ibn Abbas R.A.
 
Narrated 'Aisha (Radi-Allahu 'anha):

(the mother of the faithful believers) I said, "O Allah's Apostle! We
consider Jihad as the best deed." The Prophet (Sallallahu 'Alaihi Wa
Sallam) said, "The best Jihad (for women) is Hajj Mabrur. "

Bukhari Vol. 2 : No. 595
 
Ibn-Ahmed Herz said:
The original poster seems to be under the impression that allah has literally 2 hands and other body parts. To that I answer that none of the 4 fuqaha agreed with the mutazalites on allah's kalam, they did not debate between allah's hands and feet,etc.
Click to expand...

asalamu alaikum warahmatullah

None of the four fuqaha who literally affirmed hands for Allah did not consider the affirmation of the Attributes of Allah as "affirming body parts". Likewise when todays people who are labelled as "salafi" or who call themselves as such affirm what is to be affirmed based on what the pious ancestors affirmed


That debate is the present debate between "salafi" and between the majority of sunnis
Click to expand...

this is an oxymoron. salafis don;t refute salafis or sunnis don;t refute sunnis.

If your talking about todays situation where people who are called "salafis" or any other name to imply degradation, and the talking points raised by these people in contradistinction to the alternative group which is known as ahlul-kalaam, and they are what many people call today as ash'aris and or maturidis, then this statement makes much more sense.

For us to say that allah has 2 "hands" is to say that allah is made up of parts and thus likens him to his creation
Click to expand...

This was the fundamentals that came with kalam theology that helped formulate Ash'ari dogma.

According to the people of Islam and the Sunnah, What Allah reveals of Himself does not in any way imply explicitly nor implicitly to tashbeeh.

However, contrary to the people of Islam and the Sunnah was the opinion laid down by the Ash'aris who opined that believing in the Qur'an as is would necessitate kufr because the texts openly reveals tashbeeh of Allah and it has to be re-interpreted according to the Aristotelian dialectic (that makes the basis of Ash'ari theology).

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


If the Divine Texts of the Book and Sunnah are not a source of guidance in fundamentals of creed yet rational proofs are, then why did Allah send us Prophets or reveal Books?!

He goes on to comment on this passage in Sharh Umm al-Barahin (pp. 317-318),

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

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

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

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

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

So this is what we have here. The reason why the groups of kalaam like the Ash'aris perceive everything that the people of Islam say as "anthropomorphic" is because they themselves have viewed what Allah has revealed is in its own merit, anthropomorphic. This then implicitly reveals that when Allah revealed the Qur'an, He revealed kufr and tashbeeh as opposed to guidance.
Moreover, the statement of the Ash'ari mutakalim, as-Sanusi, as we can easily see and understand from his language, is that people who merely believe the Qur'an as is, are guilty of kufr, and that the only way to escape this kufr is to understand the Qur'an from the route of what he calls "rational proofs", which in reality is Aristotelian dialectic.


What is going on is an incorrect literal ijtihad of some ayaats which is leading to contradictions between ijma'a (concensus). For example here is a tafsir of an ayaat from 2 scholars of ahlus sunnah wa jama3.
Click to expand...

there is no ijtihaad in Aqeedah. Aqeedah or Islamic doctrine, anything with the ghayb is based on its own nature being tawqeefiyyah i.e. revealed in nature, and not tawfeeqiyyah i.e. arrived at by our own self.

And the heaven, We built it with might (Our hands), and indeed We are powerful (one says āda’l-rajulu or ya’īdu, to mean, ‘he is strong’; and awsa‘a’l-rajulu, to mean, ‘he has become capable [dhū sa‘a] and strong’). Jalalayn.

(We have built) created (the heaven with might, and We it is who make the vast extent (thereof)) as We will; it is also said that this means: we expand the provision thereof.
Tafsir Ibn Abbas R.A.
Click to expand...

Because the people of Islam and the Sunnah believe in their book and the reports upon their "dhawaahir" meaning, then it becomes a must to slightly explain the term "dhawaahir" so that people do not make mistakes such as this.

the term "dhaahir" (dhawaahir in plural form) is to be translated in the english language as "apparent/obvious" and many people commonly mistake it for "literal".

Ibn Qudama al-Hanbali says in Dham al-Ta’wil:

فإن قيل فقد تأولتم آيات وأخبارا فقلتم في قوله تعالى ( وهو معكم أين ما كنتم ) أي بالعلم ونحو هذا من الآيات والأخبار فيلزمكم ما لزمنا
قلنا نحن لم نتأول شيئا وحمل هذه اللفظات على هذه المعاني ليس بتأويل لأن التأويل صرف اللفظ عن ظاهره وهذه المعاني هي الظاهر من هذه الألفاظ بدليل أنه المتبادر إلى الأفهام منها وظاهر اللفظ هو ما يسبق إلى الفهم منه حقيقة كان أو مجازا

‘If it is said: ‘You made ta’wil of verses and reports, for instance, you said with respect to Allah’s statement: ‘He is with you wherever you are’, meaning: with His knowledge, and the like of these verses and reports, and therefore, your arguments are as much applicable to you as us.
We say: We did not make ta’wil of anything, for to hold such texts in these meanings is not at all ta’wil, because ta’wil is to change the meaning of a word from its dhahir, and what we say here is the dhahir of the wording, that is, what comes first to the mind from that text, irrespective of whether it is haqiqa or majaz.’

Imaam adh-Dhahabi says in al-‘Uluw:
“The latter ones from the speculative theologians (ahl al-nadhar) invented a new belief, I do not know of anyone preceding them in that. They said: ‘These attributes are passed on as they have come and not interpreted (la tu’awwal), while believing that the apparent meaning is not intended (dhahiruha ghayr murad).’

This follows that the apparent meaning (dhahir) could mean two things:

First; that it has no interpretation (ta’wil) except the meaning of the text (dilalat al-khitab), as the Salaf said: ‘The rising (al-Istiwa) is known’, or as Sufyan and others said: ‘Its recitation is in fact its interpretation (tafseer)’ – meaning, it is obvious and clear in the language, such that one should not opt for interpretation (ta’wil) or distortion (tahrif). This is the Madhab of the Salaf, while they all agree that they do not resemble the attributes of human beings in any way. For the Bari has no likeness, neither in His essence, nor in His attributes.

Second; that the literal meaning (dhahir) is what comes to imagination from the attribute, just like an image that is formed in one’s mind of a human attribute. This is certainly not intended, for Allah is single and self-sufficient who has no likeness. Even if He has multiple attributes, they all are true, however, they have no resemblance or likeness”

These two statements are mountainess in the implication of their speech.
According to Ahlu-Sunnah, the meaning of dhaahir is what is most obvious of the meaning of any phrase or construction of words i.e. what comes first to mind. This is essential to understand because in this definition, this can include a literal interpretation OR a metaphorical interpretation.

So what this means is that we, as the people of the sunnah believe that some ayaah by its apparent meaning reveals a metaphorical meaning as the most obvious meaning of the ayaah.

Thus, when people quote an ayaah like for example

"nay, both of His Hands are Outstretched"

Then the obviously apparent meaning of this ayaah as understood by those who are charged with "anthropomorphism" is that it means with regards to His unlimited bounty and it has nothing to do with His Actual Hands

Likewise, another ayaah for example
"And His Hands are over their hands"

this was revealed when the companions took the covenant and oath to the Messenger of Allah alaihi salatu salam. The apparent and obvious meaning by those who are carged with "anthropomorphism" is that it pertains to Allah's being united with them and not that He actual put His Hands literally above their hands.

So this should kill the idea that the people of the Sunnah are "literalists" as is the charge by the ash'aris against them.

However, the verse that you quoted does not even pertain to the Sifaat.

And the heaven, We built it with might (Our hands), and indeed We are powerful (one says āda’l-rajulu or ya’īdu, to mean, ‘he is strong’; and awsa‘a’l-rajulu, to mean, ‘he has become capable [dhū sa‘a] and strong’). Jalalayn.

Let us look at what is being stated in Arabic
وَالسَّمَاءَ بَنَيْنَاهَا بِأَيْدٍ وَإِنَّا لَمُوسِعُونَ

The basic root of the term used by allah is "bil-Aydin" i.e. "with power"

from "aada, yu'aadu, aydin

Shaykh Yusuf Muhammad Siddique said,
"and the ta'weel of one who says: 'What is intended by Yad is power is not correct since it is not correct for the saying of Allaah: '....to one who I created with My Two Hands...' to mean: 'with My Power' when Hand has been mentioned in the dual. And if that had been correct then Iblees would have said: 'and You created me also with Your Power, so he (Adam) has no superiority over me in that.' However, Iblees, along with his disbelief, is more knowledgeable of his Lord than the Jahmiyyah."
[Source: 'Daqaa'iq Aqeedah inda A'immatul Arba'ah' (pg. 11-12)]

What everyone must realize is that the Mu'tazila used the very same verse above as a proof for ta'weel, saying, "'the sky we built with Aydin'. Al-Aydee means power (quwwa), and hence it is necessary that the meaning of 'My Two Hands' be: My Two Powers"

Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'aree replied to this ta'weel saying,
"it is said to them that this ta'weel is wrong (faasid) from many perspectives the last of which is that 'al-Aydee' is not the plural of yad (hand) because the plural of yad which is used to mean ni'ma (favour) is 'Ayaadee' and all that Allaah said was 'to the one who I created with My Two Hands (bi yaday)' so it is false that the meaning of His saying, 'with My Two Hands' be the meaning of His saying, 'we built it with Power'."
[Source: al-Ibaanah' (pg.134)]

On this tangent, I have to end with the statement of Imaam of the Imaams, Ibn Khuzayma who said

"‘Some of the Jahmites claimed the meaning of the saying: ‘Allah Created Adam with His Two Hands’, i.e. with His power. Hence, they claimed that al-Yad (hand) refers to al-Quwwah (power), and this is also from changing (the wording/meanings). This is also ignorance of the Arabic language. For power is called ‘al-Ayd’ in the language of the Arabs, and not ‘al-Yad’ (a hand). Therefore, the one who cannot differentiate between ‘al-Yad’ and ‘al-Ayd’, he is more in need of education and enrollment in a school, than seeking leadership or a theological debate!’
[Source: Kitaabu-Tawheed page 87]

So we need to be careful and be weary of whom we seek information of Islamic doctrine from because the Qur'an and the Sunnah is to be viewed as the best of this nation have viewed of it and not as the disciples of Aristotle have viewed the Qur'an and Sunnah, wa billaahi tawfeeq

Asalamu alaikum
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top