ALKAWTHARI REFUTES CORPORALISTS AND THEIR FALSE ACCREDITATION TO MASTERS OF THE ISLAMIC SECTS
In the introductory of AlBeihaqi's AlAsma'u WesSifat, AlKawthari, the reviser, writes down:
AlBeihaqi wrote a book in which he freed Ahmed, the master, from matters of anthropomorphism and corporalism ascribed to him falsely. This book refutes words falsely accredited to Ahmed by some of his followers.
AbulFadhl AtTamimi, head of Hanbalites in Baghdad, stated that Ahmed contradicted those who accredited corporeality to the Lord. He said, "Names are inferred from the doctrine and language. Linguists assign 'corporeity' to beings having length, width, density, structure, picture and complexity. Allah, the Praised, is out of all these things. Hence, it is illicit to assign corporeity to Him since He is out of being a corporeality. The Doctrine, also, did not mention such a thing."
AlBeihaqi states, "AlHakim: Abu Amr Bin AsSemmak: Hanbal Bin Isaaq:
Ahmed, my uncles, said, 'On that day, day of argumentation in the presence of the caliph, they contended that suras of Baqara and Tebarak will materially come on Resurrection Day, as the Prophet had told. I say that this stands for reward of these suras. God's competence is intended by God's saying, (Your Lord will come.) Quran is a set of examples and admonition.'
( 145 )
Documentation of this narrative is not doubtful. At any rate, it proves that Ahmed had not believed in material coming and descending, mentioned in Quranic and prophetic texts. He presumed that such matters were expressions of advent of God's marvels and competence. They claimed that it would be unfit for the Quran to practice material coming and going if it was one of the Lord's attributes of Essence. Abu Abdillah answers that it is the reward which will appear on that day. Hence, appearance of the reward was expressed by using coming and going. Saving the most intelligent masters, who promote the Lord against unfitting affairs, none would be guided to such an answer."
AlBeihaqi's AlAsma'u WesSifat is an unparalleled book. The writer does not criticize those who claim Allah's being in the heavens or on the Throne, resting upon texts supporting this meaning, but he deprives the Lord's being in the heavens or on the Throne, of all meanings of materiality, unlike anthropomorphists. This is proved by his wording while he discusses the Lord's settling on the Throne. We provided a considerable commentation there. He adjudges believers in Allah's being materially in the heavens, as deviant. Meanwhile, he permits this saying, linguistically, if it is alluded to the Lord's being so exalted and elevated, without referring to a definite point or locality. Doctrinally, there are some legal phenomena permitting such a saying. Since some hadiths, such as that of Abu Zurein and the ibex, reveal, to some extent, unacceptable remarks, it is precautious not to speak of so even if promoting the Lord against unbecoming affairs is declared. Moreover, it is obligatory not to publicize such hadiths at all, for sake of blocking doors into anthropomorphism so firmly. As a matter of fact, there is no single authentic hadith regarding this topic plainly. Hadith of the deaf bondmaiden comprises a bewilderment so consequential that it is unbefitting to rest upon in topic of beliefs. Acceders to God's saying, (Are you secure that Who is in the heavens…), as their argumentative evidence, are totally wrong. Later on, this will be proved. Statements of AlBeihaqi and his corollaries respecting permitting claiming Allah's being in the heavens as a signification of His exaltation and glorification, do not flow in the good of those assigning material exaltation and space to the Lord. In miscellaneous places of this book, AlBeihaqi assures this fact. It is quite wrong to reckon such statements of AlBeihaqi and his corollaries with evidences on substantiating the Lord's physical exaltation. Within narrators of relations respecting the divine attributes, ascribed to Abu Haneefa, is Nueim Bin Hemmad and his maternal grandfather. Abdullah Bin Nafi AlAssem, the doubtful narrator, is within the series of narratives ascribed to Malik, regarding this topic. Likewise, AbulHassan AlHekari, Ibn Kadesh and AlAshari are within series of narratives related to Ashafii, regarding the same topic involved. Those three men are notorious doubtful narrators. Some, however, were deceived by such reports. Depending upon the previous, it is unacceptable to ascribe the faith of Allah's being in the heavens, to the three masters of the sects.
( 146 )
SAYID ALAMIN'S KESHFULIRTIYAB FI ITTIBA IBNI ABDILWAHAB
In His Keshfulirtiyab Fi Ittiba Ibni AbdilWahab, page 94, Sayid AlAmin records:
Quran and the Prophet's traditions are in Arabic. Like ordinary Arabic texts, they comprise factuality and metaphor. Factuality is the actual use of an expression; such as saying, "I saw a lion in the jungle." Lion, here, stands for that strong animal. Metaphor, on the other hand, is the use of an expression for exposing a condition between the expression and the meaning intended. As an example on this, we cite the sentence, "I saw a lion in the meeting." Lion, here, may stand for a brave individual. The acceptable condition linking the two is courage.
Like Quranic and prophetic texts, Arabic texts used metaphor so generally. The following are Quranic metaphorical texts:
(The hand of Allah is above their hands.)
(And make the ark before Our eyes.)
(That you might be brought up before My eyes.)
(You are surely before Our eyes.)
(And could you see when they are made to stand before their Lord.)
(Woe is me, for what I have squandered in the side of Allah.)
(Everything is perishable except His face.)
(Whither you turn, thither is Allah's face.)
(And there will endure only the face of your Lord.)
(The Beneficent settled on the Throne.)
(They fear their Lord above them.)
(So he was the measure of two bows or closer still.)
(Only whom your Lord will have mercy on.)
(Only whom Allah will have mercy on.)
(And Allah will send His wrath on him.)
(Allah shall pay them back their mockery.)
(And does come your Lord.)
Presumption of metaphor of the previous Quranic texts, is impossibility of intending the factual meanings that result in God's corporeity, occupying a definite space, existing in a definite point and being encountering contingent affairs.
( 147 )
Metaphorical expressions should be having a presumption. Back to the earlier example, wild animals do not attend meetings usually. Occasionally, the presumption is circumstantial, that is indicated through the circumstance, not expressional, that is indicated through representation of wording; therefore, some cannot comprehend it correctly. Metaphor, sometimes, is used so commonly that it does not need a presumption. It is also named reported metaphor when it attains rank of factuality.
Keshfulirtiyab Fi Ittiba Ibni AbdilWahab, page 119:
Wahabists claimed their being the only monotheists, while other Muslims are entirely polytheists. In fact, Ibn Teimiya, Mohammed Bin AbdilWahab and their followers abused, desecrated and raped monotheism. They ascribed unbecoming affairs to Allah, the Exalted. Allah be highly exalted and glorified against sayings of the wrong. They materialized Allah's having the physical upper locality, settling on the Throne which is above the heavens and the earth, descending to the lowest heavens, coming, going and alike material matters. Without any interpretation, they also claimed His having a face, two hands, fingers, palm and eyes. This is indeed a clear corporalism. They rested upon the extrinsic meanings of aspect of the divine attributes and names texts; therefore, they proved Allah's affection, mercy, pleasingness, wrath and the like. They alleged that Allah articulates physically. Thus, they decided God as a contingent being.
Ibn Teimiya asserted the Lord's occupying a locality, having corporeality, material settling on the Throne and physical articulation. He was the foremost in this misbelief. He wrote dependent essays in this regard. His AlAqidetul Hamawiya and AlWasitiya and many other essays are good examples. His two students; IbnulQeyim AlJawziya and Ibn AbdilHadi, as well as their partisans, ensued him. Jurisprudents and master scholars of his time judged him as deviant and atheist. They asked the ruler to kill or detain him. Hence, he was banished to Egypt where he was argued commonly. He was sentenced to imprisonment. In the prison, he died after he had breached his word of repentance.
For recognizing the actual value of Ibn Teimiya, the following are sayings of the master scholar regarding his personality and beliefs.
Ahmed Bin Hajar AlHeithami AlMekki, the Shafiite, writes in his
AlJawharul Munaddham Fi Ziyaretin Nabiyyil Mukarram:
Ibn Teimiya transgressed the divine presence and violated fence of the divine excellence when he provided claims of Allah's having a locality and a corporeality before the public.
In His AdDurrarul Kamina, Ibn Hajar records:
People stated various opinions about Ibn Teimiya. Some assigned claims of corporalism to him. This was because of his writings in his
AlAqidetul
( 148 )
Hamawiya and AlWasitiya, when he claimed Allah's having material hands, feet, leg and face. He also claimed that He is settling on the Throne physically. As he was argued that these beliefs lead to corporalism, he answered, "I do not submit to the matter that having a locality or divisibility are specifications of corporealities." This means that he had indeed claimed the Lord's having a definite space.
In Ashraful Wasail Ila Fehmi Shemail, the writer records that IbnulQeyim and his master, Ibn Teimiya, pronounced a funny thing when they claimed that the reason beyond recommendation of sending edges of the turban on the shoulders, was the Lord had fixed His hands between shoulder of the Prophet while he was looking at him! Therefore, the Prophet honored that position. "We have not found a single report supporting this claim." AlIraqi asserted. However, such claims are listed under misbeliefs and deviation of these two individuals. They adopted and spared no efforts in finding evidences on corporalism and anthropomorphism. In addition, they aimed at debasing AhlusSunna for their denying this misbelief. Greatly exalted be Allah against sayings of the wrong and atheists. Moreover, they oversaid in this topic such catastrophic statements that ears cannot bear, and forgery, belying and fraudulence are easily decided. Deformed be their sayings and them. Ahmed, master of Hanbalism, and his reverent acquaintances are freed from such a hideous stain. For majority, it is decided as atheism.
In Hellul Ma'aqid, AlMawlawi AbdulHalim AlHindi records, "Taqiyuddin Ibn Teimiya was Hanbalite. But he transcended limits and attempted at substantiating matters contradicting the Lord's glorification and excellence. Besides many others, he claimed Allah's occupying a locality and a corporeality. The judge sentenced him to imprisonment in 705. In Damascus, it was publicly declared that properties and souls of followers of Ibn Teimiya's misbeliefs are lawfully disregarded. This was recorded in Abu Mohammed Abdullah AlYafii's Miratul Jinan. After he has shown repentance and declared of being Asharite, Ibn Teimiya was released in 707. Immediately, he breached his repentance and showed his heretic affairs anew. Thus, he was detained in more severe circumstances. He could escape and resettle in Syria. Historical records wrote down his circumstances, conditions and sayings. Sheik Ibn Hajar, in the first volume of his AdDurarul Kamina, recorded his manners and events. The same thing was written by AtThehbi, in his book of history, as well as many others. In brief words, Ibn Teimiya claimed Allah's being a corporeality and lacking a space. He relied upon the fact that every corporeality needs a space. Resting upon God's saying, (The Beneficent settled on the Throne.), Ibn Teimiya claimed the Lord's occupying the Throne. Accordingly, he had to state anteriority, eternality and ceaseless renovation. The Lord's final possibility is eternal, while the limited are contingent.
AbulFida, in his book of history; events of 705, records:
( 149 )
On that year, Taqiyuddin Ahmed Bin Teimiya was summoned to Egypt where he was publicly argued. Owing to his belief of corporalism, he was detained. Within the royal judgment against Ibn Teimiya, the following statements are mentioned, "During this period, Ibn Teimiya, the miserable, used his quill and wording for delving into questions of the Quran and the divine attributes. He spoke in illfavored affairs, and asserted what was denied by masters of Islam. Unanimity of scholars contracted him, since he contravened savants and jurisprudents of his time and province. We have been informed that his people complied with him after he had betrayed them. We have been acquainted that they declared their misbeliefs of the Lord's having physical articulation and corporeality."
Mohammed Bin AbdilWahab and his group did adhere to beliefs of Ibn Teimiya regarding corporalism, visitating tombs, intercession to Allah and the like. Without interpretation, son of AbdulWahab exceeded his master in substantiating that Allah has a definite locality, which is above, and settles on the Throne that is above the heavens and the earth, and enjoys physical corporeality, material mercy, satisfaction, wrath, right and left hand, fingers and palm.
Partisans of Mohammed Bin AbdilWahab claimed Allah's occupying an upper locality, settling on the Throne, having a face, hands and eyes, descending to the lower heavens, coming, nearness and the like; all with the material meanings wanting interpretative exegeses.
The following is written down in the fourth chapter of AlHadiyetus Sunniya, recorded by Mohammed Bin AbdulLatif, the grandson of Mohammed Bin AbdilWahab. "Allah, the Exalted, is on His Throne as he said, (The Beneficent settled on the Throne;), and He has two hands wanting a certain condition, as he said, (When I created with My hands;) and (His hands are open.) He also has eyes and face wanting a certain condition, as he said, (And there will endure the face of your Lord,)…" They give credence to the Prophet's saying, "Allah descends to the lowest heavens…" and they believe that Allah shall come on Resurrection Day, as he said, (And there come your Lord and the angels.) By the same token, they believe that Allah comes near to His creatures as he desires. He said, (We are nearer to him than his lifevein.)
In the fifth chapter of the previous book, the writer records, "We do believe that Allah settles on the Throne and exalts over His creatures. We believe that His Throne is above the heavens. Allah said, (The Beneficent settled on the Throne.) We believe in the expression and substantiate reality of settling, without suggesting a definite condition or picture. We adopt the saying of Malik Bin Anas, master of DarulHijra (AlMadina). When he was asked about condition of the Lord's settling, Malik answered, 'Settling is known and its way
( 150 )
is unexplored, and believing in this is obligatory and questioning about it is heresy.'"
This saying results in one of two things; either corporalism or impossibility. Both, however, are impracticable. Occurring of material settling wanting a definite condition is impossible, on criteria of mentality. Occurrence of material settling with a definite condition results in opting for corporalism. Hence, it is requisite to opt for finding interpretative exegesis or resting upon metaphorical meaning. Presumption, however, should be intellectuality. This proves that the previous statement ascribed to Malik is rarely true. The good reputation of the man makes us suspect authenticity of assigning this statement to him. Malik's statement, 'Settling in known', if the material meaning of settling is intended, is impracticable according to intellectuality, since Allah's corporeity is infeasible. It is also impossible to settle materially without being a corporeality. How is it practicable to decided asking about it as a heresy while giving credence to unknown matters is impossible?! If the meaning intended by Malik is believing in the settling proposed by the Lord without asking about its detailed conditions, its impracticability should be ruled for the same previous intellectual grounds. If he alludes to the metaphorical meanings only, where is the actuality of settling, then?!
Moreover, if those faction take Malik's words as their guidance and principals, what for did they shun his statements regarding directing towards the Prophet's tomb and seeking his intercession to Allah, then? Malik did instruct AlMansour, the caliph, to turn his face towards the Prophet's tomb and seek his intercession to the Lord.
Abdullah Bin Mohammed Bin AbdilWahab, in the second chapter of AlHadiyetus Saniya, states, "Our claiming of the Lord's having a locality; which is the above, does in no means require our being corporalists, since consequences of a sect are not the sect itself." If the previous rule is true, it stands for the idea that adopting a certain faith does not necessarily require believing in its consequences. But, when this faith is false, its consequences shall be false, too. Falsity of consequences leads to falsity of principals. Lest, inherence is totally null. If corporeity of Allah is false, accrediting locality of exaltation to Him shall be void and null, too. We have previously provided that Ibn Teimiya, their master and guide, was decided as atheist, and sentenced to death penalty in absentia and imprisonment, because he claimed corporeity of the Lord. Mohammed Bin AbdilWahab, founder of their faction, followed Ibn Teimiya in claiming Allah's having right and left hands, fingers and palm. Those are following these two so accurately and comprehensively that they would not be acquitted even if they declare freeing from corporalism.
( 151 )
ASSAQAF IN ASSAHIH FIL AQIDETIT TAHAWIYA
In AsSahih Fil Aqidetit Tahawiya, page 165, AsSaqaf, the current reviser, states:
Singling out metaphor is a course adopted by the worthy ancestors. No single sane can doubt so. Ibn Teimiya, in his AlIman, page 85, records Ahmed's considering metaphor as a style used in some expressions. AlHafiz AzZerkashi, in AlBahrul Muhit Fi Ilml Usoul, part 2 page 182, relates so to Ahmed. Ibn Teimiya and IbnulQeyim failed in their endeavors to deny metaphor. They contrasted themselves! While he decides metaphor as a sort of devil deeds, IbnulQeyim, in his AlFawaidul Mushawiqa, contrasts himself as he proves and cites many evidences on materialization of metaphor. Sheik AlAlbani, the selfcontradictor, opposes Ibn Teimiya in this regard when he upholds metaphor in the introduction of Mukhtasarul Uluw, page 23 (the margin). On page 31 of our AlBisharatu WelIthaf, we have referred to this contradiction.
Because of compulsion and force, the present compiler of Adwa'ul Bayan was suffering in the country he had lived in, in his final days, he had to deny metaphorical expressions of the texts. Compulsion, however, has its own rulings! At any rate, denial of this scholar is not that strong evidence to which students and seekers of the truth via individuals, not seekers of individuals via the truth, should hold fast, especially when clear proofs have been provided. Allah, however, is the guide.
It is quite strange for Ibn Teimiya to claim, on page 85 of his AlIman, that neither Ahmed's followers, Malik, Ashafii nor did Abu Haneefa maintain that there are metaphorical expressions in the Quranic texts. He also claimed that division of factuality and metaphor had been originated in the fourth Hijri century, and that it might have emerged in the last of the second and the first of the third Hijri centuries!
Indeed, this is inconstancy in identifying history. It is aimed for nothing more than deviating the readers. Masters of sects, specially Ashafii who used another term, did refer to metaphor. Muammar Bin AlMuthenna, whose birth was in 106, did compile a book named Mejazul Quran, Metaphor in the Quran.
AsSahih Fil Aqidetit Tahawiya, page 311:
Corporalists provided God's saying, (The Beneficent settled on the Throne), as their evidence on God's being sitting on His Throne and being materially utmost. Evading stating belief of God's material settling and physical exaltation, some say that Allah is being above in the heavens.
Indisputably, this is a clear blunder. Allah is gloriously promoted against having a space. In Arabic, the expression 'He is in the heavens.', is used for glorifying. The following are detailed exposition about meanings of this Verse and its likes,
( 152 )
quoted from IbnulJawzi's Dafu Shubehit Tashbih, page 121, in addition to our comments:
The word, 'Throne' mentioned in God's saying, (He settled on the Throne), stands for the royal bench. It is commonly used in Arabic before and after Islam. It is also used occasionally in the holy Quran. The item 'settle' has various meanings. It may hint at equity, perfection, direction or prevalence.
AsSahih Fil Aqidetit Tahawiya, page 324:
Corporalists and anthropomorphists claim that deniers of God's being in or out of the cosmos, are denying His Existence. This is a valueless mistake. They compare the Lord to corporealities. They believe that the Lord is a thing like other things and beings that occupy a point in spaces. Some imagine that He is compact corporeality, like mankind, or loose, like air, light or gas. In spite of their denouncement, they all imagine the Lord as a corporeality conceived by mentalities whether in or out of the cosmos. Our duty is clarifying this question, resting upon Quranic and prophetic texts.
Scholars, at suggesting that Allah is neither in nor out of this cosmos, intend that He, the Praised, cannot be given descriptions of this material cosmos. Hence, He is neither connected nor disconnected to this universe. Connection and disconnection are qualities of corporealities. Allah, the Exalted is as he describes Himself, (Nothing like His likeness). The point corporalists and anthropomorphists claim of being above the Throne and occupied by the Lord, the Praised the Exalted, should be positively a space. It would not have been possible to conceive had this point not been a space. By the same token, it would not have been described as occupied by the Lord, being above the Throne if it had not been a spatial point. Finally, it would not have been possible for them to indicate to that elevated point for referring to the Lord, if it had not been a definite point. Correspondingly, they imagine that Allah is a corporeity comparable to material beings. They conceive that He is being above the Throne that He created along with the cosmos. Accordingly, they believe Allah had had a lower locality before He created this cosmos. He would certainly have upper, before, behind, left and right localities had He a lower one. Complex of those corporalists and anthropomorphists is that they have not submitted totally to the doctrine. Hence, they could not recognize that Allah, the Exalted, is incomprehensible and inconceivable, and that He is promoted against whatever may come to connotation and minds. Had they submitted to His extraordinary Existence and incomprehensibility, they would have been saved and joined to faith of promotion; the genuine faith of Islam.
AsSahih Fil Aqidetit Tahawiya, page 334:
The supreme reliable masters of Islamic scholarship and hadith pledged God's promotion against being in or out of this cosmos. They used the following expressions in various occasions. "He is neither in nor out of this cosmos." "He is neither connected nor disconnected to this cosmos."
( 153 )
"He is neither combined nor separated from this cosmos." "He is neither touching nor quitting this cosmos." The entire expressions, however, lead to the same purport indeed. The following are sayings of those master scholars:
1. AlGhezzali, in Ihyau Uloumiddin, part 4 page 434:
Allah, the Exalted, is holily elevated against having a space, and blessedly promoted against having measures or localities. He is neither in nor out of this cosmos. By the same token, He is neither connected not disconnected to it. He bewildered some people's minds so perplexedly that they denied His Existence when they were unable enough to listen and recognize Him.
2 & 3. AnNawawi and AlMutawalli:
In his Rawdatut Talibin, page 1064, AnNawai records:
AlMutawalli says, "He is an atheist, that whoever believes in anteriority of the cosmos, contingent of the Creator, negation of constant unanimous attributes of the Anterior, connection or disconnection of the Lord."
AnNawawi, however, certifies this statement; therefore, this is considered as sayings of two supreme scholars.
4. AlBeihaqi, in his AlAsmau WesSifat, pages 4101, as well as Shiebul Iman, renders this faith with thorough details.
5. Alizz Bin AbdusSelam, in his AlQawaid, page 201, asserts that within faiths that are rather difficult for the public to apprehend, is God's being neither in nor out of this cosmos, and neither connected nor disconnected to it.
6. AbulMuzaffar Alisferaini, in his AtTabsiru Fiddin, page 97, revised by AlKawthari, Publication of AlAnwar 1359:
… and to apprehend that moveableness and stillness… connection and disconnection are impracticable for Allah, the Exalted, since all require an edge and end.
7. IbnulJawzi, the Hanbalite, in his Dafu Shubehit Tashbih, page 103, Publication of Darun Nawawi:
By the same token, it is illicit to claim that Allah is in or out of this cosmos, since being in or out are consequences of spatial beings.
The previous was a good number of the master scholars who assert that it is impracticable to describe Allah, the Exalted, as being in or out of this cosmos.
AsSahih Fil Aqidetit Tahawiya, page 339:
The following is a literal quotation of his statements:
( 154 )
"The hadiths 'Allah comes with His face' and 'Allah is between your hands in prayers' do not contradict His being on His Throne, elevating His creatures. This fact is asserted by Quranic and prophetic texts, as well as traditions of the Prophet's companions and the worthy ancestors. Still, Allah is being far ranging and comprehending the whole cosmos. He has told that His servants encounter His face whenever they turn their faces. Naturally, exalted things encounter whatever is below from every side. Hence, Allah, the Comprehensive of everything, should be fitting this affair more intensely. More details can be provided in books of SheikulIslam, Ibn Teimiya, specially AlHamawiya and AlWasitiya, pages 20313, that are revised by Zeid Bin AbdilAziz Bin Feyad."
As if they are divine texts, AlAlbani, in the introductory of Mukhtasarul Uluw, page 71, attests and cites Ibn Teimiya's statements recorded in his AtTadmuriya, as his evidence. "If localities are created beings, Allah, then, is not included with His creatures. If localities are what is aloft the cosmos, it is most surely that Allah is being aloft the cosmos. The same thing is said about those who substantiate that Allah is being in a certain locality. If they claim Allah's being aloft, they will be right. But if they claim His being included with His creatures, this will be wrong."
Thus, they claim existence of an area lying beyond the cosmos which is not included with the created beings. Hence, in that area, god of those faction exists!!
AsSahih Fil Aqidetit Tahawiya, page 358:
Corporalists and anthropomorphists are two names of the same faction. They conceive God's being a definite corporeality. Most of them imagine the Lord's being in a form of a man sitting on a great seat (throne). Statements of those faction, appertained to questions of monotheism and faiths, recorded in their books are clear evidences on the previous allegation. One of the most evident witnesses is the book titled AsSunna, and ascribed to son of Ahmed, the master founder of Hanbalism. They do prevaricate when they claim their being believing in a faith other than the forecited. Their books, wordings, speech, private orations and many other ostensible matters; these all are obvious indications on authenticity of our claims against them. For instance, although they reckon with the divine attributes, they aver the Lord's having limbs and organs such as a hand, fingers, face, leg, feet, eye, side and the like. They ascribe qualities of contingent material beings to the Lord; such as sitting, moving, edges and localities
