THE␣ CONCEPT␣OF␣ ␣OF␣A␣ SALAF␣␣AND␣A␣KHALAF

THE␣ CONCEPT␣OF␣ ␣OF␣A␣  SALAF␣␣AND␣A␣KHALAF␣

Here we␣shall␣endeavour␣to␣explain␣the␣concept␣of␣the␣salaf␣ and␣ the␣khalaf␣according␣our␣scholars␣who␣ are␣well-considered,␣and␣ according␣to␣the␣Wahhābīs␣and␣others␣who␣are␣in␣agreement␣with␣
them.␣We␣ shall␣ explain␣ the␣ universal␣ foundations␣ upon␣ which␣ these␣ concepts␣ are␣ based.␣ They␣ shall␣ serve␣ as␣ foundational␣ principles␣for␣studying␣the␣effect␣of␣the␣Wahhābīs␣and␣those␣who␣follow␣Ibn␣Taymiyya.␣␣

The␣Concept␣of␣ of␣  a␣Salaf␣␣and␣a␣Khalaf␣␣according␣ ␣to␣our␣ Scholars

As␣is␣well-known␣to␣you the␣esteemed␣attendees␣ and␣ scholars,␣within␣our␣scholarly␣heritage␣there␣ is␣a␣concept␣of␣a␣ salaf␣ and␣a␣ khalaf.␣This␣concept␣is␣only␣temporal␣in␣nature,␣and␣it␣is␣not␣ a␣concept␣ that␣ marks␣a␣separate␣reality␣between␣those␣ present␣ in␣early␣times␣ and␣those␣who␣came␣later,␣in␣the␣sense␣that␣ those␣ who␣ are␣ not␣ from␣ the␣ Salaf␣ are␣ despised␣ and␣ those␣ who␣ are␣ from␣ the␣ Salaf␣ are␣ praised␣ unrestrictedly.␣ ␣

When␣the␣verifying␣scholars␣of␣Ahl␣al-Sunna␣would␣speak␣ about␣the␣ terms␣“salaf”␣and␣“khalaf”,␣they␣ primarily␣meant␣their␣ respective␣ time␣periods.␣And␣when␣they␣would␣praise␣the␣Salaf,␣they␣would␣intend␣ those␣among␣them␣who␣were␣known␣to␣be␣from␣Ahl␣al-Sunna;␣who␣ were␣for␣the␣most␣part␣identified␣with␣ the␣first␣three␣generations.␣ ␣␣␣␣␣␣␣

It␣is␣no␣secret␣to␣the␣esteemed␣scholars␣that␣based␣on␣this␣definition,␣many␣of␣the␣sects␣we␣mentioned␣were␣ present␣during␣the␣time␣ of␣the␣ Salaf,␣such␣as␣the␣Qadirites␣who␣appeared␣in␣the␣ time␣of␣the␣ Companions␣ and␣Followers,␣the␣extreme␣Shiites,␣and␣many␣sects␣ among␣the␣anthropomorphists␣who␣appeared␣in␣the␣ early␣history␣of␣ Islam.␣It␣is␣impossible␣to␣say␣that␣all␣of␣these␣sects␣were␣ praiseworthy␣ and␣good␣merely␣ because␣they␣existed␣–␣without␣any␣choice␣of␣their␣ own␣–␣in␣an␣early␣time␣period.␣ ␣␣␣␣␣␣␣

Due␣to␣the␣depth␣of␣knowledge␣our␣scholars␣possessed,␣they␣would␣ distinguish␣between␣the␣Salaf␣who␣ were␣from␣the␣people␣of␣the␣truth,␣and␣the␣Salaf␣who␣proclaimed␣their␣differences␣with␣the␣former.␣The␣ scholar’s␣praise␣for␣the␣Salaf␣is␣incontrovertibly␣reserved␣for␣the␣Salaf␣
who␣were␣from␣Ahl␣al-Sunna␣wa␣al Jamā‘a;␣not␣for␣others,␣even␣if␣they␣ were␣from␣the␣Salaf␣temporally.␣ ␣␣␣␣␣␣␣

In␣light␣of␣this␣definition,␣the␣scholars␣called␣those␣who␣came␣ after␣ these␣generations␣the␣“khalaf”,␣and␣ with␣that␣in␣mind,␣the␣terms␣salaf␣ and␣khalaf␣were␣originated.␣Considering␣this,␣some␣of␣Ahl␣al-Sunna␣are␣ among␣the␣Salaf␣and␣some␣are␣among␣the␣Khalaf.␣The␣verifying␣ scholars␣distinguished␣between␣the␣Salaf␣ and␣Khalaf␣in␣a␣general␣ sense␣insofar␣as␣methodology␣is␣concerned;␣the␣distinction␣is␣not␣ between␣truth␣on␣ one␣side␣and␣falsehood␣on␣the␣other.␣In␣other␣words,␣most␣of␣the␣Salaf␣took␣to␣dealing␣with␣the␣issues␣and␣ pursuing␣ the␣ sciences␣ in␣ a␣ general␣ sense␣ (barring␣ some␣ issues␣ and␣ circumstances).␣ This␣ was␣ the␣ predominant␣situation␣during␣ their␣ time,␣but␣it␣was␣not␣universal.␣

Conversely,␣the␣Khalaf␣pursued␣these␣ sciences␣and␣dealt␣with␣these␣ issues␣in␣a␣detailed␣fashion␣and␣with␣scholarly␣verification␣and␣investigation.␣ They␣eschewed␣generalities.␣Having␣said␣that,␣this␣is␣not␣a␣ universal␣judgement␣of␣them␣in␣the␣sense␣that␣ no␣one␣among␣them␣ took␣an␣alternative␣route.␣This␣was␣the␣predominant␣situation␣ during␣their␣time.␣ ␣␣␣␣␣␣␣

These␣facts␣serve␣as␣the␣basis␣for␣the␣scholars’␣statement␣about␣
figurative␣interpretation␣[ta’wīl]␣and␣noncommittal␣[tafwī]␣and␣realising␣the␣doctrine␣of␣Divine␣transcendence␣that:␣“The␣way␣of␣the␣Salaf␣was␣ non-committal␣–␣although␣some␣of␣them␣ engaged␣in␣figurative␣ interpretation␣–␣and␣the␣way␣of␣the␣latterday␣scholars␣is␣figurative␣interpretation␣–␣although␣some␣of␣them␣take␣a␣position␣of␣non-committal.”␣Both␣ the␣position␣of␣figurative␣interpretation␣and␣non-committal␣are␣ well-considered␣and␣relied␣upon␣by␣Ahl␣ al-Sunna,␣past␣and␣present.␣Both␣positions␣lead␣to␣the␣doctrine␣of␣Divine␣transcendence,␣which␣ is␣the␣ doctrine␣of␣the␣people␣of␣truth.␣ ␣␣␣␣␣␣␣

Consequently,␣ according␣ to␣ our␣ scholars,␣ both␣ the␣ Salaf␣ and␣ the␣ Khalaf␣ are␣ from␣ Ahl␣ al-Sunna,␣ and␣ neither␣ group␣ is␣ opposed␣ to␣ it␣ [the␣ way␣ of␣ Ahl␣ al-Sunna]␣ or␣ deviated.␣ We␣ believe␣ in␣ the␣continued␣ connection␣of␣truth␣between␣the␣scholars␣of␣the␣Salaf␣and␣the␣Khalaf␣
from␣the␣Ash‘arīs␣and␣Māturīdīs:␣ they␣are␣united␣upon␣one␣creed␣ and␣ never␣has␣there␣appeared␣a␣time␣in␣which␣there␣was␣mutual␣boycott␣or␣ disunity␣between␣them.␣ ␣ ␣␣ ␣

The␣Concept␣of␣␣a␣Salaf␣␣and␣a␣Khalaf␣␣according␣to␣our␣ Opponents 

We␣mentioned␣that␣the␣basis␣for␣our␣understanding␣lies␣in␣the␣natural␣progression␣of␣time␣and␣the␣ continuous␣development␣of␣the␣sciences␣ and␣the␣respective␣generalities␣and␣details␣between␣the␣two␣eras.␣ By␣ opponents,␣ we␣ primarily␣ mean␣ the␣ Wahhābis:␣ those␣ who␣ follow␣ Shaykh␣ Muhammad␣ b.␣ ‘Abd␣ alWahhāb,␣and␣by␣extension the␣ secularists␣ (as␣we␣shall␣ soon␣explain).␣ ␣␣␣␣␣␣␣

Let␣us␣now␣take␣a␣moment␣to␣focus␣on␣Wahhābīte␣thought,␣or␣Taymite␣ thought␣(i.e.␣the␣followers␣of␣Ibn␣ Taymiyya)␣as␣I␣sometimes␣like␣ to␣ call␣it.␣Their␣view-point␣can␣be␣summed␣up␣in␣the␣following:␣the␣Salaf␣ were␣upon␣the␣true␣creed␣and␣their␣affair␣remained␣for␣a␣while.␣Afterwards␣their␣occurred␣a␣disconnection␣ and␣ the␣ innovators␣ from␣other␣sects␣ became␣dominant,␣and␣that␣has␣continued␣ unabated␣till␣today␣–␣ barring␣of␣course,␣the␣specific␣time␣periods␣ in␣ which␣certain␣callers␣to␣their␣doctrine␣appeared.␣The␣most␣ important␣ of␣these␣callers,␣according␣to␣the␣Wahhābīs,␣are␣Ibn␣Taymiyya␣and␣ his␣student␣Ibn␣Qayyim␣alJawzīyya,␣both␣of␣whom␣appeared␣in␣ the␣ eighth␣century␣Hijra.␣ ␣␣␣␣␣␣␣

Were␣you␣to␣ask␣the␣Wahhābīs␣and␣the␣modern-day␣Salafis␣about␣a␣ fully␣connected␣chain␣of␣scholars␣ spread␣across␣the␣world␣who␣ were␣ known␣by␣the␣common␣people␣for␣their␣teaching␣of␣the␣religion␣(which␣ is␣only␣fitting␣for␣the␣people␣of␣truth␣whom␣the␣Messenger␣of␣Allah␣␣described␣as␣being␣victorious␣and␣ upon␣the␣truth,␣unharmed␣by␣those␣who␣ oppose␣them,␣until␣the␣affair␣of␣Allah␣[the␣Last␣Hour]␣arrives),␣ they␣ would␣not␣be␣able␣to␣produce␣a␣single␣one,␣and␣they␣would␣only␣ be␣ able␣to␣name␣individuals␣from␣the␣ eighth␣century,␣individuals␣in␣the␣ ninth␣century,␣and␣some␣individuals␣in␣the␣fourth␣century,␣and␣so␣on.␣ They␣will␣never␣be␣able␣to␣provide␣proof␣for␣a␣continued␣connection␣ through␣the␣times␣and␣places␣in␣ which␣the␣Islamic␣nation␣has␣spread.␣ ␣␣␣␣␣␣␣
The␣most␣they␣will␣mention␣to␣you␣are␣disconnected␣and␣disparate␣individuals␣ in␣ separate␣ times␣ and␣ places;␣and␣this␣in␣my␣view␣is␣one␣ of␣the␣biggest␣proofs␣demonstrating␣the␣falsehood␣of␣their␣ideas,␣beliefs,␣and␣rulings␣in␣which␣they␣oppose␣Ahl␣al-Sunna␣wa␣al-Jamā‘a.␣Because␣of␣this␣fact,␣they␣employ␣various␣ stratagems␣in␣order␣to␣ somehow␣prove␣that␣some␣Ash‘arī␣scholars␣were␣in␣fact␣from␣their␣own,␣arguing␣ that␣they␣were␣scholars␣of␣adīth␣or␣Qur’ānic␣exegetes,␣such␣as␣Imām␣Ibn␣ajar␣al-‘Asqalānī,␣Imām␣alNawawī,␣al-Bayhaqī,␣and␣Ibn␣‘Asākir.␣After␣some␣time,␣when␣they␣discover␣that␣ these␣ scholars␣were␣in␣ explicit␣ agreement␣ with␣ the␣ doctrine␣ of␣ the␣ Ash‘arīs,␣ they␣ retract␣ their␣ statement␣ and␣ declare␣ their␣ innocence␣ from␣ them,␣ or␣ perhaps␣ some␣ Wahhābīs␣ suffice␣ by␣ saying␣ that␣ these␣ scholars␣ “were␣ in␣ agreement␣with␣the␣Ash‘arīs␣in␣certain␣ issues␣only,␣and␣not␣in␣the␣fundamentals␣of␣their␣doctrine”.␣ ␣␣␣␣␣␣␣

These␣are␣mere␣claims␣for␣ which␣they␣will␣ never␣find␣ any␣ evidence.The␣ Wahhābīs␣reason␣that␣these␣ scholars␣were␣in␣agreement␣with␣ the␣Ash‘arīs␣because␣the␣Ash‘arīs␣were␣the␣majority,␣and␣thus,␣they␣ were␣ influenced␣ not␣ because␣ of␣ their␣ [the␣ Ash‘arī’s]␣ doctrine,␣ but␣ because␣ of␣their␣close␣ companionship␣to␣ them.␣ They␣ are␣ seemingly␣ unaware␣ that␣ this␣ theory␣ of␣ individual␣ scholars␣ becoming␣ affected␣ and␣ influenced␣by␣doctrines,␣if␣affirmed is␣an␣insult␣to␣these␣ very␣ scholars.␣ ␣␣␣␣␣␣␣

It␣is␣clear␣to␣us␣now␣that␣the␣reality␣of␣the␣Wahhābī␣school␣is␣the␣belief␣that␣the␣people␣of␣this␣time␣and␣ those␣before␣them␣are␣ disconnected␣ from␣the␣creed␣of␣the␣Salaf.␣This␣is␣why␣they␣do␣not␣rely␣upon␣the␣ opinions␣and␣views␣of␣many␣scholars␣or␣hold␣them␣in␣a␣position␣of␣esteem␣unless␣they␣are␣from␣their␣own␣ ranks.␣ ␣ ␣␣ ␣

The␣Effect␣of␣this␣ upon␣the␣Secularists ␣

This␣ understanding␣ that␣ is␣ deeply␣ embedded␣ in␣ the␣ minds␣ of␣ the␣ Wahhābīs␣ and␣ modern-day␣ Salafis␣has␣proven␣to␣be␣the␣greatest␣ cause␣disconnecting␣the␣present␣day␣Umma␣from␣its␣past.␣It␣is␣no␣ secret␣that␣this␣mental␣separation␣weakens␣the␣Umma␣both␣in␣ideas␣and␣beliefs,␣and␣leaves␣them␣to␣fall␣ victim␣to␣attacks␣from␣those␣who␣ oppose␣them␣in␣the␣fundamentals␣of␣the␣religion.␣It␣is␣also␣no␣secret␣ that␣ if␣this␣disconnection␣is␣true,␣it␣will␣serve␣as␣the␣greatest␣opening,␣allowing␣the␣secularists␣to␣find␣fault␣with␣the␣fundamentals␣of␣the␣
religion.␣ ␣␣␣␣␣␣␣

This␣has␣in␣fact␣occurred;␣there␣are␣groups␣of␣secularists␣ who␣find␣ fault␣with␣the␣fundamentals␣of␣the␣ religion␣and␣who␣do␣not␣ attest␣ to␣the␣fundamentals␣of␣Ahl␣al-Sunna␣wa␣al-Jamā‘a.␣Most␣of␣their␣ objections␣ stem␣from␣this␣point␣of␣view;␣a␣refusal␣to␣submit␣to␣the␣ understandings␣and␣rulings␣issued␣by␣the␣scholars␣ over␣successive␣ generations,␣whether␣concerning␣issues␣of␣creed,␣issues␣of␣ jurisprudence,␣or␣other␣issues.␣ They␣claim␣that␣these␣opinions␣are␣ merely␣the␣opinions␣of␣other␣humans␣and␣that␣they␣are␣not␣obliged␣to␣ hold␣fast␣to␣them,␣rather;␣they␣claim␣that␣they␣must␣go␣back␣ to␣the␣ original␣sources␣and␣commit␣to␣a␣rereading␣of␣the␣religious␣texts␣and␣reach␣new␣conclusions␣that␣are␣suitable␣for␣this␣day␣and␣age.␣ ␣

The␣secularists␣have␣adopted␣the␣fundamental␣premise␣of␣the␣
Wahhābīs␣and␣added␣to␣it␣by␣going␣well␣ beyond␣the␣Salaf.␣They␣claim␣ to␣refer␣back␣to␣the␣Book␣and␣the␣Sunna␣directly,␣resulting␣in␣what␣is␣ today␣ called␣a␣“modern␣reading␣of␣our␣heritage”,␣a␣“modern␣reading␣of␣ the␣Qur’ān”,␣or␣a␣“modern␣reading␣of␣ our␣history”:␣these␣things␣are␣ nothing␣more␣than␣gross␣distortions,␣reminding␣us␣of␣the␣distortions␣ of␣the␣ Qarmatites␣and␣Batinites␣of␣old!␣ ␣ ␣ ␣␣ ␣ ␣ 

STATEMENTS␣FROM␣THE␣CALLERS␣OF MODERN-DAY␣SALAFISM␣

Here we␣shall␣reproduce␣statements␣from␣some␣of␣the␣pillars␣of␣
modern-day␣Salafism␣and␣those␣who␣laid␣ down␣its␣ ground␣work.␣These␣statements␣are␣reproduced␣as␣examples␣only;␣it␣is␣ not␣ our␣ intention␣ to␣ discuss␣the␣history␣of␣this␣movement.␣We␣shall␣ endeavour␣to␣explain␣some␣of␣them␣in␣a␣manner␣that␣is␣ fitting.␣ ␣ ␣ ␣␣

INTRODUCTION: MODERN␣ SALAFISM␣ &␣␣ITS EFFECT␣␣ON␣␣MUSLIM␣ DISUNITY

MODERN␣ SALAFISM␣ &␣␣ITS EFFECT␣␣ON␣␣MUSLIM␣ DISUNITY

PAPER␣SUBMITTED␣TO␣THE CONFERENCE␣OF␣THE INTERNATIONAL␣ISLAMIC␣  UNIVERSITY␣OF␣ MALAYSIA ␣

SA‘ĪD␣‘ABD␣␣AL-LATIF␣FOUDAH␣␣␣␣

Released␣by␣www.marifah.net ␣1430␣H␣␣␣␣

INTRODUCTION

As␣a␣term,␣the␣“Islamic␣nation”␣includes␣within␣it␣every␣ individual␣ who␣affiliates␣his␣or␣herself␣with␣ Islam,␣so␣long␣as␣he␣or␣she␣has␣not␣ left␣it␣by␣believing␣that␣which␣necessitates␣disbelief:␣and␣provided␣that␣ he␣or␣she␣believes␣in␣that␣which␣is␣known␣by␣necessity␣to␣be␣from␣the␣
religion,␣whether␣it␣is␣from␣the␣issues␣ of␣doctrine,␣such␣as␣faith␣in␣ Allah’s␣existence␣and␣that␣He␣is␣All-Powerful,␣belief␣in␣the␣ Prophethood␣ of␣ our␣Master␣Muhammad␣␣and␣that␣he␣is␣ the␣seal␣of␣ all␣the␣Prophets␣ and␣Messengers␣and␣that␣his␣Sacred␣ Law␣abrogates␣ all␣previous␣ revealed␣laws␣(whether␣or␣not␣it␣is␣submitted␣that␣they␣are␣altered␣or␣not),␣or␣ from␣the␣issues␣of␣action,␣such␣prayer,␣Zakāt,␣fasting,␣Hajj,␣and␣other␣ practical␣rulings␣in␣the␣Sacred␣Law␣ that␣are␣affirmed␣ and␣that␣do␣not␣ accept␣independent␣scholarly␣judgement␣[ijtihād].␣ ␣␣␣␣␣␣␣

It␣ is␣ well-known␣ that␣ some␣ doctrinal␣ positions␣ are␣ self-evident␣ and␣ that␣ whoever␣ opposes␣ them␣ has␣ disbelieved,␣whereas␣other␣ doctrinal␣positions␣are␣unequivocal␣but␣not␣self-evident,␣in␣which␣the␣ one␣who␣ opposes␣ them␣ is␣ declared␣ an␣ innovator␣ (and␣ some␣ might␣ impute␣ him␣ with␣ disbelief),␣ and␣ yet␣ other␣ doctrinal␣positions␣are␣ speculative␣and␣not␣self-evident,␣in␣which␣case␣the␣one␣who␣ opposes␣ them␣is␣not␣ declared␣an␣innovator.␣ ␣␣␣␣␣␣␣

In␣the␣Hadīth␣narration␣it␣is␣mentioned␣that␣this␣Islamic␣nation␣shall␣
split␣into␣seventy-three␣sects.␣Now,␣I␣ know␣that␣many␣people␣disagree␣ regarding␣the␣authenticity␣of␣this␣Hadīth’s␣chain␣of␣narration,␣however␣ we␣also␣know␣that␣the␣number␣mentioned␣is␣not␣necessarily␣exact␣–␣
meaning,␣it␣is␣not␣explicit␣that␣the␣ number␣of␣sects␣will␣grow␣until␣ they␣reach␣that␣exact␣number,␣although␣it␣would␣not␣be␣problematic␣ if␣they␣ did␣reach␣that␣number.␣ ␣␣␣␣␣␣␣

Some␣people␣have␣adopted␣the␣viewpoint␣that␣disagreement␣is␣
intrinsically␣harmful␣and␣that␣it␣leads␣to␣ decline.␣If␣it␣is␣said␣that␣ the␣Islamic␣nation,␣the␣nation␣of␣the␣Prophet␣,␣will␣split␣into␣more␣sects␣ than␣the␣ sects␣of␣the␣Jews␣and␣Christians,␣it␣is␣questioned␣that␣how␣ can␣it␣be␣said␣that␣this␣nation␣is␣preferred␣over␣ other␣nations?␣ ␣␣␣␣␣␣␣

At␣first␣glance,␣this␣might␣seem␣like␣a␣good␣question,␣however;␣we␣do␣ not␣submit␣that␣disagreement␣is␣ completely␣blameworthy␣or␣ that␣ differing␣entails␣that␣the␣status␣of␣this␣nation␣will␣decline␣vis-à-vis␣other␣ nations.␣Although␣we␣might␣submit␣that␣some␣ forms␣of␣ disagreement␣ do␣in␣fact␣lead␣to␣disunity,␣we␣do␣not␣ submit␣that␣every␣ form␣of␣ disagreement␣leads␣to␣this␣so-called␣decline;␣even␣though␣we␣ believe␣ that␣this␣ nation␣will␣split␣or␣has␣split␣into␣ more␣sects␣than␣the␣ sects␣ of␣the␣Jews␣and␣the␣Christians,␣still␣this␣splitting␣ that␣will␣or␣has␣ taken␣ place␣within␣the␣nation␣of␣the␣Prophet␣␣does␣not␣imply␣–␣in␣general␣–␣that␣its␣state␣ has␣diminished,␣because␣the␣group␣of␣the␣people␣ of␣truth:␣Ahl␣al-Sunna␣wa␣al-Jamā‘a,␣has␣historically␣ been␣and␣ continues␣to␣be␣ the␣overwhelming␣majority,␣and␣the␣number␣of␣ practicing␣scholars␣ among␣them␣ are␣more␣numerous␣than␣the␣ scholars␣from␣all␣the␣ other␣sects␣combined.␣␣ ␣␣␣␣␣␣␣

That␣is␣not␣the␣case␣with␣the␣sectarian␣divisions␣among␣the␣Jews␣and␣Christians.␣Their␣sects␣were␣like␣or␣ equal␣in␣number,␣which␣in␣turn␣ entailed␣their␣weakness␣as␣nations.␣With␣the␣Islamic␣nation␣this␣ is␣ not␣the␣ case.␣ Because␣ Ahl␣ al-Sunna␣ wa␣ al-Jamā‘a␣ are␣ greater␣ in␣ number␣ and␣ because␣ they␣ have␣ historically␣ possessed␣more␣ scholars␣in␣various␣places,␣the␣presence␣of␣other␣sects␣has␣not␣ affected␣them␣as␣much␣as␣it␣ has␣the␣other␣nations.␣The␣negative␣ effects␣ that␣sectarianism␣has␣had␣on␣other␣nations␣have␣not␣affected␣ the␣ Islamic␣nation␣in␣the␣same␣way.␣No␣matter␣how␣much␣the␣ opponents␣ object␣to␣this␣Hadīth,␣and␣no␣ matter␣how␣many␣doubts␣are␣ raised␣about␣ its␣chain␣of␣narration,␣present␣day␣reality␣confirms␣that␣ this␣ nation␣has␣ in␣fact␣differed.␣It␣is␣of␣no␣benefit␣to␣say␣–␣after␣this␣ differing␣has␣already␣ occurred␣–␣that␣the␣ Hadīth␣ in␣ question␣ cannot␣ be␣ relied␣ upon␣ because␣ it␣ is␣ weak␣ or␣ because␣ its␣ chain␣ of␣ narration␣ has␣ problems.␣Both␣present␣day␣reality␣and␣sense␣perception␣ confirm␣a␣large␣portion␣ of␣the␣meaning␣in␣this␣ Hadīth.␣ ␣␣␣␣␣␣␣

From␣all␣of␣that,␣ we␣ conclude␣ that␣ sectarian␣division␣ is␣ a␣ reality␣ in␣ this␣ nation␣ and␣ that␣ we␣ have␣ our␣ differences␣just␣like␣other␣nations.␣According␣to␣the␣scholars␣of␣Islam␣and␣many␣thinkers␣in␣this␣field,␣what␣ is␣ important␣ is␣ the␣ relationship␣ between␣ coexistence␣ and␣ cooperation␣ among␣ the␣ Muslims,␣ and␣ the␣ presence␣of␣these␣ disagreements.␣ ␣␣␣␣␣␣␣

Although␣I␣shall␣address␣this␣at␣the␣conclusion␣of␣my␣talk,␣I␣would␣like␣ to␣bring␣it␣to␣your␣attention␣here␣as␣ well,␣as␣it␣is␣important␣in␣relation␣ to␣the␣main␣subject.␣It␣is␣not␣hidden␣to␣you␣all␣that␣disagreements␣have␣ occurred␣ever␣since␣the␣first␣generations,␣i.e.␣the␣generation␣of␣the␣ Companions␣and␣the␣Followers.␣The␣ Khawārij,␣the␣early␣Shiites,␣the␣first␣Qadirites,␣and␣others,␣all␣manifested␣in␣the␣Islamic␣ nation␣ during␣the␣ first␣generations␣that␣were␣described␣with␣goodness.␣Nay;␣many␣of␣the␣sects␣that␣were␣present␣in␣that␣time␣ are␣no␣longer␣ existent␣ in␣our␣time␣or␣the␣time␣before␣us.␣This␣proves␣that␣there␣is␣ no␣inherent␣ link␣between␣ sectarian␣ differences␣ and␣decline.␣ How␣ can␣this␣ be␣ asserted␣ when␣the␣ Prophet␣ ␣bore␣witness␣to␣the␣ goodness␣of␣the␣ early␣ generations?␣

All␣of␣the␣aforementioned␣sects␣became␣sects␣because␣they␣split␣from␣
Ahl␣al-Sunna␣wa␣al-Jamā‘a␣–␣the␣ people␣of␣the␣truth.␣Differences␣ occurred␣because␣they␣opposed␣the␣people␣of␣the␣truth,␣which␣is␣why␣ each␣ sect␣was␣distinguished␣from␣Ahl␣al-Sunna␣by␣specific␣ideas␣and␣ fundamentals.␣Ahl␣al-Sunna␣remained,␣ distinguished␣by␣their␣ general␣ affiliation␣to␣Islam,␣and␣its␣scholars␣saw␣no␣pressing␣ need␣to␣announce␣ their␣ distinction␣from␣others␣or␣vice␣versa,␣until␣tens␣of␣years␣later␣ when␣the␣opponents␣gained␣in␣strength␣and␣ proclaimed␣their␣differences␣ with␣Ahl␣al-Sunna:␣going␣to␣extremes␣and␣ claiming␣that␣they␣were␣in␣ fact␣the␣ people␣of␣the␣Sunna␣to␣the␣ exclusion␣of␣everyone␣else.␣When␣ Ahl␣al-Sunna␣wa␣al-Jamā‘a␣ observed␣this␣ behaviour␣from␣their␣ opponents,␣the␣scholars␣and␣ verifiers␣among␣them␣went␣out␣ of␣their␣way␣ to␣write␣ books␣and␣ distinguish␣between␣truth␣and␣falsehood.␣Perhaps␣ that␣was␣one␣of␣ the␣greatest␣causes␣allowing␣ for␣ the␣ Mu‘tazilite,␣ the␣ Shiite,␣ the␣ Kharijite,␣ and␣ the␣ Qadirite␣ to␣ be␣ distinguished␣ with␣ unique␣ signs,␣ whereas␣one␣who␣is␣not␣a␣part␣of␣those␣sects␣is␣ considered␣to␣be␣upon␣the␣default␣foundation␣of␣old,␣ namely␣the␣ foundation␣of␣Ahl␣al-Sunna␣wa␣al-Jamā‘a.␣ ␣ ␣␣ ␣

IMAM AL-BAYHAQI: ON ALLAH’S ATTRIBUTES

al-Bayhaqi_Allah’s Attributes
Posted on May 2, 2011 by DAR AL-NICOSIA / دار نيـقـوسـيــا

IMAM AL-BAYHAQI: ON ALLAH’S ATTRIBUTES

Imam al-Bayhaqi mentions in the Section of his book al-I`tiqad wa’l-Hidayah ila Sabil al-Rashad:[i]

باب بيان صفة الذات وصفة الفعل:

قال الله جل ثناؤه هو الله الذي لا إله إلا هو عالم الغيب والشهادة هو الرحمن الرحيم هو الله الذي لا لإله إلا هو الملك القدوس السلام المؤمن المهيمن العزيز الجبار المتكبر سبحان الله عما يشركون هو الله الخالق البارئ المصور له الأسماء الحسنى يسبح له ما في السماوات والأرض وهو العزيز الحكيم فأشار في هذه الآيات إلى فصل أسماء الذات من أسماء الفعل على ما نبينه إلى سائر ما ذكر في كتابه من أسماء الذات وأسماء الفعل. 

فلله عز اسمه أسماء وصفات وأسماؤه صفاته وصفاته أوصافه وهي على قسمين أحدهما صفات ذات والآخر صفات فعل… 

1 – فصفات ذاته ما يستحقه فيما لم يزل ولا يزال وهو على قسمين أحدهما عقلي والآخر سمعي . فالعقلي ما كان طريق إثباته أدلة العقول مع ورود السمع به وهو على قسمين (1 : أحدهما ما يدل خبر المخبر به عنه ووصف الواصف له به على ذاته كوصف الواصف له بأنه شيء ذات موجود قديم إله ملك قدوس جليل عظيم متكبر والاسم والمسمى في هذا القسم واحد  .2( والثاني ما يدل خبر المخبر به عنه ووصف الواصف له به على صفات زائدات على ذاته قائمات به وهو كوصف الواصف له بأنه حي عالم قادر مريد سميع بصير متكلم باق فدلت هذه الأوصاف على صفات زائدة على ذاته قائمة به كحياته وعلمه وقدرته وإرادته وسمعه وبصره وكلامه وبقائه والاسم في هذا القسم صفة قائمة بالمسمى لا يقال أنها هي المسمى ولا أنها غير المسمى   

وأما السمعي فهو ما كان طريق إثباته الكتاب والسنة فقط كالوجه واليدين والعين وهذه أيضا صفات قائمة بذاته لا يقال فيها إنها هي المسمى ولا غير المسمى ولا يجوز تكييفها فالوجه له صفة وليست بصورة واليدان له صفتان وليستا الجارحتين والعين له صفة وليست بحدقة وطريق إثباتها له صفات ذات ورود خبر الصادق به… 

2 – وأما صفات فعله فهي تسميات مشتقة من أفعاله ورد السمع بها مستحقة له فيما لا يزال دون الأزل لأن الأفعال التي اشتقت منها لم تكن في الأزل وهو كوصف الواصف له بأنه خالق رازق محيي مميت منعم مفضل فالتسمية في هذا القسم إن كانت من الله عز جل فهي صفة قائمة بذاته وهو كلامه لا يقال إنها المسمى ولا غير المسمى وإن كانت التسمية من المخلوق فهي فيها غير المسمى…

Translation:

 “Chapter on the Exposition of the Essential and Active Attributes:
Allah says (may His praise be exalted!):
(He is Allah besides whom there is no other deity except He; Knower of the Unseen, The Most Compassionate and Most Merciful; He is Allah besides whom there is no deity except He; The Sovereign Lord, The Holy, al-Salam; The Guardian of Faith, The Protector, the Mighty, The compeller, The Majestic, Glory be to Allah of what they ascribe to him. He is Allah, The Creator, The Maker, The Giver of Form who has the Most beautiful Names; All things in the heavens and the earth glorify him; He is The Mighty and The Most Wise…).

[ii] Allah has indicated in this verse the difference between His ‘Essential’ and ‘Active’ attributes based on what we will explain regarding the rest of the Attributes that were mentioned in His Book of His Essential Names and Active names. Allah has (may His Name be exalted) Names (al-asma’) and Attributes (al-sifat). His Names are His Attributes and His Attributes are His ascriptions [or qualities = awasaf] and they divide into two types: the Essential Attributes (sifat al-dhat) and the Active Attributes (sifat al-fi`l).

1. [The first]: [Allah’s] Essential Attributes are what are necessary For Him and they have no beginning or end and they divide into two:[iii] rational (`aqliyy) and textual (sam`iy).

As for the rational, its mode of affirmation is by rational [analysis] that arises from a textual [evidence for it] which [further] divides into two types:

[a] the first is the indication of the predicate of that which is predicated of something or the qualification of that which is qualified by something upon the Essence [of Allah] like the qualification of the one possessing the qualification as a Being who is a ‘Thing’, ‘Essence’ ‘Existent’, ‘Eternal’, ‘Deity’, ‘Sovereign Lord’, ‘Holy’, ‘Exalted’, ‘Great’, ‘Majestic, etc. In this type, the name and the named are the same.

[b] The second [type of rational evidence] is the indication of the predicate of that which is predicated of something or the qualification of that which is qualified by something upon the attributes additional to those of [Allah’s] Essence although eternal with [the Essence] like the qualification of the one possessing the qualification as a Being who is ‘Living’, ‘Knowing’, ‘Powerful’, ‘Willing’, ‘Hearing’, ‘Seeing’, ‘Speaker’ and ‘Everlasting’, etc. These qualities [further] indicate additional attributes to those of the Essence but eternal with it such as ‘Life’, ‘Knowledge, ‘Power’, ‘Will’, ‘Hearing’, ‘Sight’, ‘Speech’, ‘Everlastingness’, etc. The name in this type is an [additional] attribute to but co-existent with the named and is neither fully identical to the named nor utterly distinct from it.

As for the textual, it is that which is affirmed[iv] by the Book and the Sunnah only such as ‘Face’, ‘Hands’, ‘Eye’, etc. These are attributes co-existent with the Essence. It cannot be said of them that they are fully identical to the named nor utterly distinct from it. They cannot be ascribed with a modality (takyif). [Allah] has a ‘Face’ which is his attribute but is not a form; He has ‘Hands’ which are his attributes but are not limbs; He has an ‘Eye’ which is his attribute but is not a [physical] eye, etc. The ways these [attributes] are established are through the existence of true narrations (khabr al-sadiq bihi).

2. The Active Attributes are so called because they are derived from [Allah’s] activity which the text affirms as being necessary of Him and they never cease but are not pre-eternal existent in that the actions derived from [these attributes] where not eternally pre-existence such as the qualification of the one possessing the qualification as a Being who is ‘Creator’, ‘Giver of Sustenance’, ‘Giver of life’, ‘Giver of death’, ‘Giver of blessings’ and ‘Bestower of bounty’, etc. If the designations (al-tasmiyyah) in this type are established from Allah (Mighty and Exalted is He!), then they are attributes eternal with His Essence and they are His speech and it cannot be said that they are fully identical to the named nor utterly distinct from it. However, if the designations are from creations, then they are not in this case identical to the named…

Notes:

Attributes of Allah_some notes

Beware of the following:

1.The attributes discussion is highly technical.
2. It can be very difficult and often confusing (which does not mean it is irrelevant or meaningless).
3. It is a specialist topic requiring deep thought and reflection (there are no ‘crash courses’!)

Avoid it if it confusing but any doubts must be tackled.
 
Historically, there have been two broad classifications by Muslim historiographers regarding Allah’s attributes and this has remained ever since.

Those who deny Allah His attributes as He mentioned them
(= mu`attilah). = Mu`tazilites.[v]
Those who affirm them as they are (sifatiyyah or ahl ithabt al-sifat).[vi] = Ash`arites, Maturidites and Hanbalites and some of the Mutakallimun.
 Attributes:[vii]

7 attributes are necessary for Allah (which He cannot lack). They are called the sifat al-ma`ani:[viii]

Ability/qudrah
will/iradah
Life/hayat
Knowledge/`ilm
Hearing/sam`
Seeing/basar
Speech/kalam
Enduringness/baqa’ (= Imam al-Ash`ari’s additional attribute not taken by later Ash`arites but mentioned by al-Bayhaqi).[ix]
Acting/fi`l (is added by the eastern/central Asian Hanafite Maturidites not added by the Ash`arites).[x]
 = SIFAH: attributes/quality?

These are real and exist in Allah.[xi]
They are not mere words (qawl).
They are distinguished from the 7 below.
 Ghazzali later argued that:

Attributes are not the Essence of Allah (i.e. sifat is ‘≠’ dhat).
Attributes are distinguishable from the Essence (za’idah `ala al-dhat).
Attributes subsist in the Essence of Allah (qa’imah bi dhatih).
Attributes are Pre-eternal (qadimah).[xii]
 
There are 7 additional attributes/attributions (which Allah cannot lack either) and are the derived active participle forms of the above 7. They are called the sifat al-ma`nawiyyah:[xiii]

Being Powerful/al-Qadir.
Being Willing/al-Murid.
Being Alive/al-Hayy.
Being Knowledgeable/al-`Aleem.
Being All-Hearing/al-Sami`.
Being All-Seeing/al-Basir
Being a Speaker/al-Mutakallim.
 = WASF: attributions/qualifications?

Active attributes of Allah (sifat al-af`al), such as:

Creating (khalq),
Bringing to Life (ihya’),
Sustaining (razq),
Bringing to Death (imata).
 
According to al-Bayhaqi:

They are not pre-eternal (min al-azl).
But they endure and are everlasting (la yazalu).
They are attributes described about Allah from His actions.
These actions are mentioned in the textual/revelatory sources.
 Mu`tazilites say: God has attributes that are ‘essential’ (sifat al-dhatiyyah/sifat al-nafs)[xiv] and ‘active’ (sifat al-fi`liyyah).

Different views exist within the Mu`tazilite camp. There is not an absolute uniform position.

Their analysis is rooted in language and grammar (al-lughah wa ’l-nahw) and often not philosophical categories and definitions.
Mu`tazilite thought has strong overlaps (and hence confusion for modern students) with Ash`arite and Maturidite theological positions; all three camps being on the same spectrum but within different degrees of the spectrum.

Mu`tazilites were concerned with the utter unity of Allah’s being and hence abhorred any distinctions.[xv]
One Mu`tazilite view = Allah knows by an ‘act of knowing that is He’, sees by an ‘act of seeing that is He’, etc. Allah is = to all His attributes and hence no distinction between Essence and attribute or existence.[xvi]

Another view of the Mu`tazilite = Allah is from eternity knowing, living, powerful, hearing, seeing, eternal by Himself (bi-nafsihi).
For the Mu`tazilites the attributes are only words (aqwal) or ‘designations’ by which we qualify or talk about Allah (al-asma’ wa ’l-sifat hiya al-aqwal).

They saw no distinction between what the Ash`arites and Maturidites call ma`ani and ma`nawiyah.[xvii]
Therefore, the Mu`tazilites are seen as ‘those who divest Allah of His attributes’ as well as ‘rejecters of sifat al-ma`ani and sifat al-ma`nawiyyah.’
 

*Peace and Blessings be upon our Master Muhammad, his family and all his Companions. Amin.* 

[i] See al-Imam al-Hafiz al-Bayhaqi al-Shafi`i al-Ash`ari, al-I`tiqad wa’l-Hidayah ila Sabil al-Rashad, pp.71-72 (= 1st edn. Beirut: Dar al-Afaq al-Jadidah, 1401 A.H.).

[ii] See Q. 59:23.

[iii] Meaning there two modes or ways of identifying and knowing them.

[iv] Ithbatuhu (‘its affirmation’ or ‘is established by’).

[v] Because they actually deny the reality/descriptions of Allah’s ‘hands’, ‘eyes’, etc. Cf. Imam Ahmad’s refutation of Jahm b. Sawan in al-Radd `ala al-Zanadiqa, pp.67-68 and Seale, Muslim Theology, 61. One must take heed and not fall into the unfortunate divisive misunderstanding that the Asha`irah and Maturidiyyah are those who deny Allah His attributes and hence are not of the Ahl al-Sunnah wa ’l-Jama`ah. This indeed would be a serious and gross misunderstanding. May Allah protect us from that!

[vi] See al-Sharahstani, al-Milal wa’l-Nihal, 1:308 and al-Baghdadi, al-Farq bayn al-Firaq, p.300.

[vii] In Ash`arite theology the relation between wasf, sifah and mawsuf need to be understood clarified and has semantic correlation.

Sifah = def. that property F which is predicated of some being S such that F allows for S to acquire or obtain an additional derivative qualification from F. Cf. al-Baqillani, Kitab al-Tamhid, p.213 §359. Thus:

Allah has the attribute (sifah) of Knowledge,
This Attribute allows for an additional qualification (wasf) to come out from it which is ‘knowing’ (`aleem) hence Allah is also `aleem.
 [viii] So called because they involve ‘thought qualities/ideas/attributes’, i.e. properties that relate to volition, thinking and non-active attributes, i.e. they do not denote attributes related to creating, doing, etc and are not separable from the essence of Allah as such.

[ix] See Ibn Furak, Mujarrad Maqalat al-Ash`ari, pp.43 and 237.

[x] This is the attribute of takwin (or ‘bringing into being’). It is considered by the Maturidites to be an eternal attribute of God subsisting in His Essence. See al-Maturidi, Kitab al-Tawhid, pp.78–82. Cf. also Fiqh al-Akbar II of Abu Hanifah as cited by A. J. Wensinck in his The Muslim Creed, p.188 and H. Daiber, The Islamic concept of belief in the 4th/10th Century, p.15 (English) and pp.138-148 (Arabic text).

[xi] Cf. al-Baqillani, Kitab al-Tamhid, p.214, §362.

[xii] See al-Ghazzali, al-Iqtisdad fi’l-I`tiqad, pp.60-72.

[xiii] So called because they are derived from the sifat al-ma`ani and hence are qualities/attributes derived (technical term called nisba) from the thought-attributes/ideas/qualities.

[xiv] See al-Shahrastani, al-Milal wa’l-Nihal, 1:273 and J. Peters, God’s Created Speech, 252–3.

[xv] R. Frank, Divine Attributes, p.459.

[xvi] See al-Ash`ari, Maqalat al–Islamiyyin, p.165 and Frank, Divine Attributes, p.453.

[xvii] See al-Baqillani, Kitab al-Tamhid, p.217, §367.

Who is Hārith Al-Muhāsibī?

Who is Hārith Al-Muhāsibī?

Abdullah ibn Hamid Ali
Lamppost Productions

Imam Al-Hārith ibn Asad Al-Muhāsibī was born in the city of Basrah and lived and died in the city of Baghdad in the year 243 after the Hijrah. He was one of the Pious Predecessors (Salaf) of this Ummah and a contemporary of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal. He was called ‘Al-Muhāsibī’ due to his constant reckoning of himself, taken from the word ‘Muhāsib’ that means ‘One who takes account of something.’

Imam Al-Muhāsibī was most famous for his purity of faith and righteousness. And he is an example of a true Sūfī as understood in its true and original meaning, not as understood by many today as being one who worships dead people, or whirls in circles for hours on.

He was a scholar in all of the traditional Islamic Sciences: Aqīdah, Fiqh, and Tasawwuf (i.e. Iman, Islam, and Ihsān), and he excelled at each one of them. He is believed to have met and studied with Imam Shāfi’ī and followed his madhhab (School of Law).
Imam Al-Muhāsibī – despite enjoying such prestige – wasn’t free of opposition from certain scholars of his time due to the fact that he took an approach that was different from many of the scholars of his age.

The second and third centuries of Islamic History was the era of hadīth documentation and the development of the hadīth sciences. So most of the major scholars of the time were focused on the preservation of hadīth and distinguishing fabricated and weak reports from those that were sound.

Imam Al-Muhāsibī on the other hand, was inspired to focus on the purification of the heart and understanding the human psyche. So he would question his students about their thoughts and inclinations, try to understand them and how to cure those that were mischievous, and then he would write books inspired only by spiritual intuitiveness as opposed to what came in the form of scripture.

For this reason, some of the scholars of his time severely criticized him, and cautioned people against reading his books. For instance, when Abu Zur’ah Al-Rāzī was asked about him and his books, he said:

 “Beware of these books…Innovations and deviances. Be obliged by what is transmitted. For verily, you’ll find in it what will avail you from these books.” It was then said to him, “But there is useful consideration (‘ibrah) in these books.” He replied, “Whoever doesn’t have useful consideration in the Book of Allah, then he has no useful consideration in these (books). Has it reached you that Mālik[1], Thaurī[2], Auzā’ī[3], or any of the Imams wrote books about insidious notions (khatarāt) and mischievous whisperings (wasāwis) and these things? These are people who have gone against the People of Knowledge. They come to us sometimes with Al-Muhāsibī, other times with ‘Abdur-Rahīm Ad-Dayabalī, and other times with Hātim Al-Asamm.” Then he said, “How quick are people to innovations!”[4]

Anyone who is acquainted with the writings of Imam Al-Muhāsibī will quickly realize that these comments made by Imam Abu Zur’ah are unjustified and clearly shows the intolerance of those traditionally termed as Ahlul-Hadīth for anyone who took an approach different from theirs.

If there is any bid’ah (innovation) that Al-Muhāsibī is guilty of it is merely that he didn’t take the same approach as that of those like Abu Zur’ah, while it escaped the Imam (Abu Zur’ah) that his approach was also a bid’ah, since it was something that neither the Prophet nor his companions embarked upon. So not every bid’ah is blameworthy.

As for Imam Ahmad’s contention with Al-Muhāsibī, it isn’t totally clear except that scholars have given a few different reasons. Some say that Imam Ahmad criticized Al-Muhāsibī because of the books that he wrote in refutation of some deviant sects of Islam like the deniers of the divine decree (Qadarīyah). The problem was that in his books he would thoroughly explain or at least mention some of the arguments posed by the deviant groups. So he forbade people to read Al-Muhasibī’s, so they wouldn’t be exposed to the deviant doctrines.

Some say that Imam Ahmad took issue with Al-Muhāsibī’s statement that Allah speaks without words or sound. Ahmad’s view was that such additions shouldn’t be made. Rather, one should limit one’s self to saying that Allah speaks and has the attribute of speech, since the Salaf didn’t go into detail about such matters. Al-Muhāsibī’s position on the other hand was the natural result of his debates with deviant sects who equated Allah’s speech to the speech of his creatures by saying that it is with letters and sound. And Allah says, ((There is nothing like unto Him)). So in defense of orthodox doctrine he indulged in such matters. So it was merely a difference in approach that resulted from the urgency of the situation.

Another version has it that Imam Ahmad merely forbade people from reading Al-Muhāsibī’s books, because he knew that most people could not walk the steep path that he was on as Imam Al-Khatīb Al-Baghdādī reported with a sound chain that Imam Ahmad heard the words of Al-Muhāsibī during a lecture he gave to some of his students, and Ahmad said to one of his companions,

“I’ve never heard about the realities (of things) the like of this man. My opinion is that you shouldn’t accompany them.”

Ibn Hajar says,

“He only forbade him from accompanying them due to his knowledge that he was below their state. For verily, he was in a straitened state that every one cannot pursue. And it is feared that the one who pursues it will not give it its due.”[5]

But whatever the reason Imam Ahmad may have objected to the writings and approach of Al-Muhāsibī, from one Salaf to another, each was entitled to his own opinion, especially since the days of revelation had already passed. Only Allah can settle the dispute between the two of them.

For this reason, Imam Tāj al-Dīn Ibn Al-Subkī says after commenting on what happened between these two great scholars,

“It is proper for you – O ye seeking direction – to travel the path of discipline with the past Imams, and not look at the comments of some of them about others unless he brings clear proof. Then if you are able to give an interpretation and entertain a good opinion, then obligingly do so! Otherwise, ignore what happened between them. For verily, you haven’t been created for this. So be preoccupied with what concerns you, and leave off what does not concern you. And the seeker of knowledge remains noble in my eye until he indulges in what has happened between the Past Predecessors, and he judges in favor of some of them over others.

So beware! Then beware to turn your attention to what unexpectedly happened between Abu Hanīfah and Sufyān Al-Thaurī, between Mālik and Ibn Abī Dhi’b, between Ahmad ibn Sālih and Al-Nasā’ī, between Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Al-Hārith Al-Muhāsibī, etc. until the time of ‘Izz al-Dīn ibn ‘Abd al-Salām and Sheikh Taqī al-Dīn Ibn Al-Salāh! For if you become preoccupied with that, I fear your destruction. The men are distinguished Imams. And there are ways of construing their words. Perhaps, some of them weren’t understood. So we have no right but to be pleased with them and to keep silent about them as is done regarding what happened between the Companions (Sahābah) – may Allah be pleased with them.” [6]

——————————————————————————–

[1] He is Mālik ibn Anas ibn Mālik Abū ‘Āmir ibn ‘Amr Al-Aşbahī Abū ‘Abdillah, the Medinite Jurisprudent, and the Imam of Dār Al-Hijrah, The chief of the specialists. Imām Bukhārī said: “The soundest of all chains is: Mālik from Nāfi’ from Ibn ‘Umar.” He died in the year 179 a.h. And he was born in the year 93 a.h. Al-Wāqidī said: “He attained 90 years.” [Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb: (2/6685)]

[2] He is Sufyān ibn Sa’īd ibn Masrūq Al-Thaurī, one of the distinguished Imams in Islamic history. He died in the year 261 a.h. [Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb: 1/216]

[3] His name is ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn ‘Amr ibn Abī ‘Amr, the jurist and Imam who died in the year 257.

[4] Abū Zur’ah is ‘Ubaidullah ibn ‘Abd al-Karīm ibn Yazīd ibn Farrūkh Al-Makhzūmī, one of the great Imams and a prolific hadīth retainer (hāfiz). He died in the year 264 a.h. [Tahdhīb Al-Tahdhīb: 5/394]

[5] Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb: 6/107.

[6] Tabaqāt al-Shāfi’īyah: 2/39.

Imām Al-Karābīsī

Imām Al-Karābīsī
by Dr. GF Haddad

Al-H.usayn ibn ‘Alī ibn Yazīd, Abū ‘Alī al-Karābīsī رحمه الله  (d. 245 or 248) the trustworthy h.adīth Master, a scholar of H.anafī then Shāfi‘ī fiqh and kalām, “one of the oceans of the Science” accord­ing to al-Dhahabī, he was one of al-Shāfi‘ī’s major disciples in Iraq whom al-S.ayrafī rec­ommended, together with Abū Thawr, to his stu­dents. He also took h.adīth from ‘Alī ibn al-Madīnī, al-Shādhakūnī, and others.

Al-Karābīsī is related to say:

“When a Scholar of h.adīth narrates a report, both outward and inner knowledge of this report become obliga­tory, just as dictated by mass-narrated reports.”

At the same time, he held that

“The slip of one scho­lar of knowledge demolishes Islām, whereas the slips of a thousand ignoramuses do not.”

Accordingly he was strict in his refusal of any ruling at variance with the letter of the Law in patent legal matters, such as the ac­ceptance of the testimony of a single witness provided he swears an oath.[1]

Al-Karābīsī was taken to task severely by Abū Thawr, Muh.ammad ibn ‘Aqīl al-Firyābī, H.ubaysh, and Ah.mad for his book Kitāb al-Mudallisīn in which he unwit­tingly provided arguments for the enemies of the Sunna, such as the disparagement of al-A‘mash.[2] This book was refuted by Imām al-T.ah.āwī in a five-volume work, unfortunately lost.

Al-Karābīsī narrated that al-Shāfi‘ī said:

“After the Prophet [sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam] people were in difficulty and did not find anyone under the sky better than Abū Bakr. Thus they used him as the one who carried the responsibil­ity of the people.”

When he heard that Imām Ah.mad had declared as an inno­vation his statement that the pronunciation of the Qur’ān was created, al-Karābīsī said:

“Pronunciation means other than the thing pronounced”

(talaffuz.uka ya‘nī ghayra al-malfūz.). Then he said of Ah.mad:

“What shall we do with this boy? If we say ‘created’ he says bid‘a, and if we say ‘not created’ he says bid‘a!”

The H.anbalīs were angered and declared him un­acceptable as a nar­rator. Al-Dhahabī commented:

“There is no doubt that what al-Karābīsī in­novated and explained in the question of the pronunciation is the truth. But Imām Ah.mad refused it in order to pre­clude the extension of the ques­tion to the Qur’ān itself, since one cannot distinguish the pro­nun­ciation from the pro­nounced – which is the Speech of Allāh I – except in the
mind.”[3]

Similarly, Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr stated that al-Karabīsī was only
stating the position of most of his generation over the issue of pronunciation, such as Ibn Kullāb, Abū Thawr, and Dāwūd al-
Z.āhirī (as well as al-Bukhārī and Muslim).[4]

[1]For example, Mu‘āwiya’s acceptance of Umm Salama’s single testimony on behalf of her cousin, or Zurāra’s of Abū Miljaz’s single testimony, or Shurayh.’s of Abū Qays’s single testimony.

[2]See Ibn Rajab at the very end of his book Sharh. ‘Ilal al-Tirmidhī (2:806-807).

[3]Cf. Siyar (10:81-82 §1988) and T.abaqāt al-Shāfi‘iyya al-Kubrā (2:117-126 §25).

[4]Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, al-Intiqā’ (p. 165).

IMAM ABDULLAH IBN KULLAB

TENTANG IMAM ABDULLAH IBN KULLAB

Berkata Imam Tajuddin as Subki dalam kitab ath Thoaqotus Syafiiyyah al Kubro (2/300):

( وابن كلاّب على كل حال من أهل السنة . . . . ورأيت الإمام ضياء الدين الخطيب والد الإمام فخر الدين الرازي قد ذكر عبدالله بن سعيد في آخر كتابه "غاية المرام في علم الكلام " فقال : ومن متكلمي أهل السنة في أيام المأمون عبدالله بن سعيد التميمي الذي دمّر المعتزلة في مجلس المأمون وفضحهم ببيانه ) اهـ.

“Dan Ibnu Kullab adalah pengikut ahlus sunnah … dan aku melihat Imam Dliyauddin al Khothib ayah Imam Fakhruddin ar Rozi menyebut Ibnu Kullab di akhir kitabnya Ghoyatul Marom fi Ilmil Kalam, dan dia berkata : Dan termasuk ahli ilmu kalam Ahlus Sunnah di masa al Ma’mun adalah Abdullah Ibnu Said at Tamimy yang menghancurkan argumentasi Mu’tazilah di majlis al Ma’mun.”

Berkata Ibnu Qodli Syuhbah dalam kitab Thobaqotus Syafiiyyah
(1/78) :

( كان من كبار المتكلمين ومن أهل السنة ، وبطريقته وطريقة الحارث المحاسبي اقتدى أبو الحسن الأشعري ) اهـ.

“Ibnu Kullab termasuk pembesar ahli ilmu kalam dari ahlus sunnah. Imam al Asy’ari mengikuti metodenya dan metode al Harits al Muhasiby.”

Berkata al Imam adz Dzahabi dalam Siyar A’lamin Nubala (11/175)

( والرجل أقرب المتكلمين إلى السنة ، بل هو في مناظريهم ) اهـ.

“Laki-laki ini (Ibnu Kullab) adalah ahli ilmu kalam yang paling dekat dengan sunnah”.

Syaikh Syuaib al Arnauth mengomentari ucapan adz Dzahabi ini dengan berkata :

( كان إمام أهل السنة في عصره ، وإليه مرجعها ، وقد وصفه إمام الحرمين في كتابه " الإرشاد " بأنه من أصحابنا ) اهـ.

“Ibnu Kullab adalah imam dan rujukan ahlus sunnah di masanya.”
Berkata Ibnu Kholdun dalam kitab al Muqoddimahnya yang termasyhur (h. 853) :

( إلى أن ظهر الشيخ أبو الحسن الأشعري . . . . وكان على رأي عبدالله بن سعيد بن كلاّب وأبي العباس القلانسي والحارث المحاسبي من أتباع السلف وعلى طريقة السنة ) اهـ.

“Sampai muncul Syaikh Abul Hasan al Asy’ari … dan dia mengikuti pendapat Abdullah bin Said bin Kullab, Abul Abbas al Qolanisi dan al Harits al Muhasibi dari pengikut salaf yang menempuh jalan sunnah”.
Berkata al Hafidh Ibnu Hajar al Asqolany dalam Lisanul Mizan (3/291) setelah menukil ucapan Ibnun Nadim bahwa Ibnu Kullab termasuk al Hasyawiyyah :

يريد من يكون على طريق السلف في ترك التأويل للآيات والأحاديث المتعلقة بالصفات ، ويقال لهم المفوضة ) اهـ.

Maksud Ibnun Nadim adalah bahwa Ibnu Kullab mengikuti jalan salaf dalam meninggalkan ta’wil terhadap ayat dan hadits sifat. Mereka ini yang disebut al mufawwidloh (memasrahkan makna kepada Allah).

Bahkan Imam al Bukhori sendiri mengikuti jalan Ibnu Kullab. Berkata al Hafidh Ibnu Hajar dalam Fathul Bary (1/293)

( البخاري في جميع ما يورده من تفسير الغريب إنما ينقله عن أهل ذلك الفن كأبي عبيدة والنضر بن شميل والفراء وغيرهم , وأما المباحث الفقهية فغالبها مستمدة له من الشافعي وأبي عبيـد وأمثالهـما , وأما المسائـل الكلامية فأكثرها من الكرابيـسي وابن كُـلاَّب ونحـوهما ) اهـ .

Imam Bukhori dalam menafsirkan kata-kata yang ghorib (asing) menukil dari ahli bidang ini seperti Abu Ubaidah, Nadlr ibn Syumail, al Farro’ dan lainnya. Dalam pembahasan fiqh beliau mengambil dari asy Syafii, Abu Ubaid dan lainnya. Adapun dalam masalah ilmu kalam maka kebanyakan mengambil dari al Karobisi, Ibn Kullab dan lainnya.
Lalu, mengapa timbul tuduhan Ibnu Kullab bukan ahlus sunnah ?
Sumbernya adalah perbedaan pendapat beliau dengan Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal dalam masalah kholqul qur’an yang akhirnya membuat pengikut Imam Hanbali bermusuhan dengan beliau.

Berkata al Hafidh Ibnu Abdil Barr al Maliki dalam kitab al Intiqo’ (hal. 165) :

( وكانت بينه ـ يعني الكرابيسي ـ وبين أحمد بن حنبل صداقة وكيدة , فلمّا خالفه في القرآن عادت تلك الصداقة عداوة , فكان كلُّ واحد منهما يطعن على صاحبه , وذلك أن أحمد كان يقول : من قال القرآن مخلوق فهو جهمي , ومن قال القرآن كلام الله ولا يقول غير مخلوق ولا مخلوق فهو واقفي , ومن قال لفظي بالقرآن مخلوق فهو مبتدع . وكان الكرابيسي وعبدالله بن كلاّب وأبو ثور وداود بن علي وطبقاتهم يقولون : إن القرآن الذي تكلم الله به صفة من صفاته لا يجوز عليه الخلق , وإن تلاوة التالي وكلامه بالقرآن كسب له وفعل له وذلك مخلوق وإنه حكاية عن كلام الله . . . وهجرت الحنبلية أصحاب أحمد بن حنبل حسيناً الكرابيسي وبدّعوه وطعنوا عليه وعلى كل من قال بقوله في ذلك ) اهـ .

“Antara al Karobisi dan Imam Hanbali ada persahabatan yang kuat, sampai timbul perbedaan antara keduanya dalam masalah kholqul qur’an maka keduanya kemudian bermusuhan. Yang satu mencela yang lain.

Ini karena Imam Ahmad berkata : barangsiapa mengatakan al Qur’an adalah makhluq maka ia pengikut Jahmiyyah. Barangsiapa mengatakan al Qur’an tak bisa disebut makhluq atau bukan makhluq maka ia waqify (tak punya pendapat jelas). Barangsiapa yang mengatakan bahwa al Qur’an yang kuucapkan adalah makhluq maka dia ahli bid’ah.

Sementara al Karobisy, Ibnu Kullab, Abu Tsaur dan Daud bin Ali mengatakan : al Qur’an yang merupakan kalamulLoh dan salah satu sifatNya tak boleh disebut makhluq. Sesungguhnya bacaan pembaca al Qur’an adalah makhluq, dan menceritakan isi kalamulLoh tersebut.
Maka pengikut Imam Hanbali lalu memusuhi dan mencela Husain al Karobisy dan yang mengikuti pendapatnya.”

Al Imam adz Dzahabi menjelaskan bahwa pendapat al Karobisi dalam hal ini adalah yang benar. Adapun Imam Ahmad memilih pendapat yang berbeda karena alas an saddudz dzariah (menutup jalan kejelekan) agar orang tak mendiskusikan hal ini (Siyar A’lamin Nubala’ 12/82).

( ولا ريب أن ما ابتدعه الكرابيسي وحرره في مسألة اللفظ وأنه مخلوق هو حق ، لكن أباه الإمام أحمد لئلا يُتذرع به إلى القول بخلق القرآن فسدّ الباب ) اهـ.

Sebagai catatan kelompok wahhabi paling dekat dengan Hanabilah di antara 4 madzhab fiqh terbesar yang ada. Jadi bisa dipahami kalau mereka tak menyukai Ibnu Kullab dan yang lainnya. Padahal masalah ini sebenarnya perbedaan ringan dan enteng. Hal yang sama pernah terjadi pada Imam al Bukhori dengan guru beliau adz Dzuhaly, dan juga Imam ath Thobary dengan pengikut Hanbali.

Kesimpulannya : Imam Ibnu Kullab adalah imam ahlus sunnah di masanya, dan Imam al Asy’ari (dan sebelumnya Imam al Bukhory) mengikuti metodenya.

WalLohu a’lam

Diposkan oleh Firman Wahyudi anag TI di 22.23

Imam Ibn Kullab – Sunni Theologian From the Salaf

The Ash'aris
Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama'a 

Posted by: Admin | July 2, 2011

Imam Ibn Kullab – Sunni Theologian From the Salaf

Imam Ibn Kullab

His name:

He is Abu Muhammad Abdallah b. Sa’id b. Muhammad b. Kullab al-Qattan al-Tamimi al-Basri, known as Abdallah b. Sa’id b. Kullab or simply Ibn Kullab.

His Life:

He was one of the major sunni theologians from the era of the salaf. He belonged to the generation of al-Harith al-Muhasibi, Ahmad b. Hanbal and Ishaq b. Rahawayh. His precise year of birth is unknown, but he lived in the period of al-Ma’mun’s Khilafah. He successfully debated and wrote against the Mu’tazilah, the Jahmiyyah and others.

His Books:

He has a number of works that are documented such as Kitab al-Sifat, Khalq Af’al and al-Radd ‘ala al-Mu’tazilah. These books are lost, however remnants of them can be found in other works such as al-Maqalat of Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’ari and in the works of Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim. He was also quoted by the early Ash’ari Scholars such as Ibn Furak (d. 406H), and some of his works such as Kitab al-Sifat are mentioned by Ibn an-Nadim (d. 385H) in his ‘Fihrist’ (Catalogue), who referred to him as “From amongst the Hashawi riff raff”. Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani explained this statement in Lisan al-Mizan saying “What he means is that [a Ḥashawī is] whoever is upon the way of the Salaf by abandoning figurative interpretation of the verses and Ḥadīth reports about the Divine attributes; they are also called the people of non-committal [mufawwiḍa]”

The Scholars’ Praise for him:

Imam Al-Taj Al-Subki says in his Tabaqat, “and Ibn Kullab in any case is from Ahl al-Sunna… the father of Imam Razi, Diya al-Din al-Khatib, mentioned Ibn Sa’id (ibn Kullab) in the end of his book Ghayat al-Maram fi ‘Ilm al-Kalam that from the scholastic theologians of Ahl al-Sunna in the days of al-Ma’mun was ‘Abdullah b. Sa’id at-Taymi who destroyed the Mu’tazilites in the gatherings of al-Ma’mun…”

Ibn ‘Asakir in Tibyan writes regarding Ibn Abi Zayd’s epistle to Ibn Isma’il al-Baghdadi al-Mu’tazili, “and you’ve attributed Ibn Kullab to Bida’, and then you didn’t mention anything that would be known as bida’ such that it be called bida’. And what has reached us is that he was a follower of Sunnah and took to refuting the Jahimites and others from the people of bida’h.”

Ibn Qadi Shuhbah writes in his Tabaqat, “He was from the great scholastic theologians and from Ahl al-Sunna, his path and that of Al-Harith al-Muhasibi, Imam Ashari’ followed.”

Jamal al-Din al-Isnawi in Tabaqat al-Shafi’iyah writes, “He was from the great scholastic theologians and from the Ahl al-Sunna…. Al-‘Ibadi mentions him in the Tabaqah (rank in regards to level of students) of Abi Bakr Al-Sayrifi that he said, “He is from our companions the Mutakallimin”.

Imam Dhahabi in Siyar writes, “The man is closest of the scholastics theologians to the Sunnah rather he’s from their Munatharihim”. Shaykh Shu’ayb al-Arnaut writes under Imam Dhahabi’s comments, “He was an Imam of the people of Sunnah in his time and was their source. Imam al-Haramayn described him in al-Irshad as him being from “our companions”.”

‘Allamah Ibn Khuldun writes, “until Shaykh Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’ari came on the scene… he was on the path of ‘Abdillah b. Sa’id b. Kullab and Abi al-‘Abbas al-Qalanisi and al-Harith al-Muhasibi from the followers of Salaf and on the path of Sunnah.”

‘Allamah Bayadi writes, “And Imam Abu Muhammed ‘Abdullah b. Sa’id al-Qattan preceded Imam Ashari in defending the madhab of Ahlus Sunnah.”

Imam Abu Mansur ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Baghdadi mentions that “another of the Kalam scholars in the time of Al Ma`mun is Abdullah ibn Sa`id Al Tamimi, who crushed the Mu`tazilah in the assembly of Al Ma`mun, and scandalized them with his eloquent exposure and clarification of their faults.”

The Accusations Against him:

This is summed up in Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr’s biographical notice on al-Karābisī:

There was a strong friendship between him [al-Karābisī] and Ahmad b. ḤHanbal, but when the former opposed the latter regarding the Qur’ān, their friendship turned into enmity. Both of them would speak badly about the other. This is because Ahmad used to say:

“Whoever says that the Qur’ān is created is a Jahmī; whoever says that the Qur’ān is the speech of Allah but does not say that it is un-created or created is Wāqifī [hesitant]; and whoever says: ‘My pronunciation of the Qur’ān is created’ is an innovator.”

Now, al-Karābisī, ‘Abdullāh b. Kullāb, Abū Thawr, Dāwūd b. ‘Alī, and their rank used to say that the Qur’ān spoken by Allah is an attribute among His attributes and can not be created; the recitation of the reader and his speaking with the Qur’ān is his own acquisition and action: that is created and is a ḥikāya [narration] of Allah’s speech…the ḤHanbalī companions of Ahmad b. ḤHanbal abandoned al-Karābisī, declared him an innovator, and spoke badly about both him and all who spoke with his belief in that matter.

Al-ḤHāfiẓ Ibn Kathīr also said in his biographical entry for al-Karābisī:

Ahmad b. Hanbal used to speak negatively about him because of the issue of pronunciation, and he [al-Karābisī] used to speak negatively about Ahmad as well, and for that reason the people abstained from taking from him [al-Karābisī]. I say: what I have seen from him is that he said:

“The speech of Allah is un-created from every angle, except that my pronunciation of the Qur’ān is created. Whoever does not believe that one’s pronunciation of the Qur’ān is created is a disbeliever.”

This is also relayed from al-Bukhārī, and Dāwūd b. ‘Alī al-Ẓāhirī. Imām Ahmad used to shut this door in order to close the discussion regarding the createdness of the Qur’ān.

Imam al-Bukhari said in Khalq Af’al al-Ibad :

‘As for what the two parties from the school of Ahmad have claimed as proof, each for his own position: Much of what they relate is not established as authentic. It is probably they did not comprehend the subteleness of his postion. What is known from Ahmad and the people of knowledge is that Allah’s speech is uncreated and all else besides Him is created. But they hated to discuss and explore obscure matters, avoiding dialectic theologians and their queries and disputations, except in what was a matter of knowledge and which the Prophet [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam] clarified.’

And Imam al-Kawthari has nicely summarised the issue saying:

‘As for Ahmad’s words against Ibn Kullāb and his companion [al-Muḥāsibī], it was due to his hatred of discussing theological rhetoric and his pious scrupulousness away from it. The truth of the matter is that it is obligatory to discuss it when there is a need – contrary to the view of Ahmad.’

His Legacy:

Imam al-Shahrastani said in Al-Milal wa al-Nihal

Until the time came upon [the likes of] Abdullah b. Sa’id al-Kullabi [d. 240h], Abu al-Abbas al-Qalanisi [contemporary of al-As’hari], and al-Harith b. Asad al-Muhasibi [d. 243H]. They were from the generality of the Salaf, however, they practised ilm al-kalam (speculative theology), and they aided the beliefs of the Salaf with theological proofs, and rational evidences. Some of them authored [works] and others taught. [Until] there occurred a debate between Abu al-Hasan al-As’hari and his [Mu’tazili] teachers on an issue amongst the issues pertaining to “al-salah wa al-aslah” [an issue pertaining to whether Allaah is obligated or not to do what is best for His servants], so they disputed. And al-Ash’ari united with this camp, so he supported their saying through the methodologies of speculative theological [discourse], and then that became a madhhab for Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama’a, and then the label of “Sifatiyyah (Affimers of the Attributes)” transferred to the Ash’ariyyah.

And, Imam al-Ash’ari was not the only one to take from Ibn Kullab. Great `ulema of Ahl al-Sunna benefited from him. For example, al-Hafidh Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani says in al-Fath al-Bari [volume 1 page 323]:

Although al-Bukhari in all he reports in commentary of rare words, he reports it from specialists of this subject like Abu ‘Ubayd, an-Nadr ibn Shamil, al-Faraa and others. And concerning matters of Fiqh, he takes most of it from ash-Shafi’i, Abu ‘Ubayd and their like. And concerning matters of Kalam, he takes most of it from al-Karabisi, Ibn Kullab and their likes.

His direct students were also major ‘ulema of Ahl al-Sunna in their own right. Imam Abu Mansur ‘Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi mentions some of them in Usul al-Din:

Among the students of Abdullah ibn Sa`id is Abdul Aziz Al Makki Al Kattani, who scandalized the Mu`tazilah in Al Ma`mun’s assembly. Yet another Kalam scholar was, his student, Al Husayn ibn Al Fadl Al Bajali, the master of Kalam, methodology, Quranic commentary and interpretation. Later scholars relied upon his notes and pointers in interpreting the Quran. He is the one that Abdul Aziz ibn Tahir, the governor of Khurasan <in north="north" east="east" iran="iran">brought with him to Khurasan, and as a result people said, “He took with him all the knowledge of Iraq to Khurasan.”</in>

Among the students of Abdullah ibn Sa`id is also Al-Junayd, the Shaykh of the Sufis and the Imam of the monotheists. He has an article that is written according to the requirements of the Kalam scholars, but with Sufi expressions.

His death:

He died in 240, or according to some in 241.

May Allah sanctify his secret.

[Amalgamated, with thanks, from the following sources: Khadim al-Ulema blog, Marifah website forum, the following previously available biographies [1] and [2] and also this article on the ulema of kalam.]