Conclusion
In conclusion, I ask the readers to read every section of this rebuttal carefully, not to realise who is right and who is wrong, but to realise who is genuine and who is fake.
Firstly, academic discussions are carried out with those who are balanced, objective and truthful. Not those who are pretentious, liars and deceitful, for such people are only exposed for who they really are.
Secondly, it is a fact that the deviant sects have been historically struggling to infiltrate the four Sunni schools of Fiqh to gain legitimacy and hijack traditionalism for themselves. This is exactly how the Mu’tazilites gained legitimacy and placed the real Sunni traditionalists, like Imam Ahmad, on trial. The traditionalist movement in Islam has always been the strand that opposed an independent rational approach to Allah, i.e. the Hanbalis/Salafis.
Merlin Swartz states in his biography of Ibn al-Jawzi (in Kitab al-Qussas wal-Mudhakkirin), about the term ‘traditionalist’ that it is
Read MoreEternal, temporal and comments by Salafi editors
On page 257, ImÄm as-SafÄrÄ«nÄ« affirms that the AtharÄ« position is that the attributes of action such as IstiwÄ, NuzÅ«l, MajÄ«, Khalq, ect are QadÄ«mah, i.e. they are ancient according to the Salaf of this Ummah and the ImÄms of the DÄ«n. He says:
“Nothing of them are Muhdath, otherwise (if that were so) He would be subject to change and what is subject to change is created and AllÄh is Exalted above that.â€
The Salafi editors of this edition of ImÄm as-SafÄrÄ«nÄ«s book saw fit to place a footnote under his above mentioned words. They said after quoting a Salafi response from ibn SahmÄn:
“So if you know this, it will become clear to you that the statement of the explainer (i.e. ImÄm as-SafÄrÄ«nÄ«) concerning AllÄhs actions of IkhtiyÄr (choice) that: ‘Nothing of them are Muhdath, otherwise (if that were so) He would be subject to change and what is subject to change is created and AllÄh is Exalted above that’ -is not from the words of the Salaf and its ImÄms, rather it is from the words of the people of innovation who are opposed to the Salaf.â€
For the Mutakallimun, as mentioned earlier, ‘Eternal’ (Qadim) is synonymous with ‘Creator’, whereas ‘temporal’ (Hadith) is synonymous with the ‘Creation’, which is why when the Hanbali Imams say that Allah’s Speech is eternal, meaning it is not Created, not that it is ‘inner Speech’, as the Ash’arites claim; and this is further consolidated by the fact that they all affirm, literally, that Allah Speaks with a sound, or that He Descends last third of the night.
Precisely for this reason, as also mentioned earlier, the Madhab is not to use these terms that have two possible connotations, the right one and the wrong.
Hence,
Read MoreTakhliq and Takwin, between Salafis, Maturidis and Ash’aris
The author says,
On page 252, ImÄm as-SafÄrÄ«nÄ« shows that the Athariyyah are in agreement with the MÄturÄ«diyyah in affirming the attribute of TakhlÄ«q (creation).
There is no way to describe the above except deception, pretentiousness and deep ignorance.
Al-Saffarini makes this statement in refutation of the Ash’aris saying:
‘From the differed matters, which the Salaf and the Maturidis affirmed, in exclusion to the others from the Mu’tazila, the Kullabites and the Ash’arites, is the Attribute of the Act of Creation (khalq)’.
Therefore, al-Saffarini does not agree with the Maturidis, rather it is the Maturidis who agreed with the Salaf, who had always maintained that Allah has eternally been Creating, as opposed to the Mu’tazilite, the Kullabite and the Ash’arite blasphemous belief that Allah has NOT been Creating eternally, which is why if we notice, they do not include the Attribute of Creating amongst the only Seven Attributes, these miserly heretics affirm for their Lord!
However, the
Read MoreOn Allah’s Nuzool (Descent)
Speaking of NuzÅ«l, he quoted ImÄm al-BayhaqÄ« saying:
“The safest position is ImÄn in it without ‘how’, and remaining quiet about what is intended by it unless expounded upon by the truthful and confirmed one (i.e. the Messenger of Allah) sallallahu alayhi was sallam whereby we could hold to that…and from the evidence for that, is their agreement that the particular Ta’wÄ«l is not obligatory, so in that case, TafwÄ«d is safer.â€
Again, ImÄm as-SafÄrÄ«nÄ« quoted without anything but tacit approval and acceptance.
ImÄm as-SafÄrÄ«nÄ« quoted al-QÄdÄ« (I suppose he is referring to QadÄ« ‘IyÄd, although there is a possibility that he means QÄdÄ« Abdul WahhÄb) in explanation of the Hadith of NuzÅ«l¬:
“We do not affirm a Nuzūl (that means a Nuzūl) from a high position to a lower one, rather, (we affirm) a Nuzūl whose meaning is not comprehended and it is not comprehended in reality.†(page 250)
In this same page, ImÄm as-SafÄrÄ«nÄ« explicitly affirms NuzÅ«l without movement (Harakah) or relocation (IntiqÄl)
He goes on to quote the words of Shaykh ‘ImÄd ad-DÄ«n al-WÄsitÄ« who said:
“His (AllÄh’s) NuzÅ«l is established and known and not Mukayyaf (given a ‘how’) with movement and relocation that is fitting for something created. Rather, His NuzÅ«l is as befits His Grandeur and Might. So His attributes, the Exalted, are known in general and affirmed, not comprehended in terms of ‘howness’ and TahdÄ«d. So the believer sees them (understands them) from one angle, and is blind from another. He sees (understands) in the sense of affirming their existence, and he is blind in the sense of ‘howness’ and TahdÄ«d and by AllÄh is all strength.†(page 250)
In this text quoted above, it is clearly shown that Tahdīd is not synonymous with a new fangled term called Tafwīd al-Kayf.
As usual, the deceptive author brings what he clearly does not understand, nor does he realise that his quotations are in fact in opposition to the Jahmite Madhab of tafwidh he adheres to, which is to negate the literal meanings.
1) al-Saffarini begins the chapter on Allah’s Descent by saying: ‘The Attribute of Descent, is what the Salaf affirmed without making ta’wil: the Attribute of al-Bari’s Descent – Jalla wa ‘ala – to the lowest Heaven’. Hence, al-Saffarini clearly
Read MoreOn Allah's Eye and Tafwidh of Tahdid (definition)
In the section affirming belief in the attribute of al-‘Ain, Im?m as-Saf?r?n? says:
“…rather, we assent and submit and comply and believe in all of that and affirm it with the affirmation of existence and not the affirmation of ‘howness’ or Tahd?d (giving it a precise meaning).”
Im?m as-Saf?r?n? does not say explicitly “Without giving it a precise meaning”, but this is what is understood from the word Tahdid. This word comes from Haddada, Yuhaddidu Tahd?d which means to give a Hadd to something. Hadd, in the nomenclature of the scholars means meaning given to something.
The logician and grammarian, Im?m Ibn Sabban said in a line of poetry about the introduction to sciences:
Inna Mabadi’a Kulli Fannin Ashara
al-Haddu wal Mawdu’u Thumma ath-Thamara…
Indeed the basics of every subject are ten
(from them) al-Hadd (the definition), the subject matter, and the fruit…
What the author has quoted here from al-Saffirini is a proof against him and not for him. However, the unfortunate author, as we have clearly witnessed, is ignorant of Kalam, the Hanbali doctrine, Usul al-Fiqh and logic, due to which, we see him quoting texts like a blind-following parrot, in refutation of his own arguments, while he knows not.
1) The author refuses to translate the word ‘Ain into English as ‘Eye’, claiming that the literal meaning must be negated, while we have shown over and over, the explicit statements of al-Saffarini, affirming the literal meanings of the texts, and therefore, al-Saffarini literally attributes to Allah ‘Eyes’ and not just al-‘Ayn, as it will be demonstrated in the due course.
2) al-Saffarini’s quote which the author mentioned is a clear-cut refutation of the author’s Jahmite principles, for he clearer states: ‘rather, we assent, submit, comply and believe in all of that and affirm it (i.e. Allah’s Eye), thereby affirming its existence (wujud) without affirming the nature (takyif) or a universal definition (tahdid)’.
From this we deduce that al-Saffarini literally believes in the existence of Allah’s Eye, yet refuses to affirm a nature (takyif), or a give a definition (tahdid) thereof.
The author then makes the most ridiculous blunder by rendering the word ‘tahdid’ into ‘giving a meaning to something’, and then contradicts himself by quoting Ibn Sabban, that tahdid in fact means, ‘the definition’!
Firstly, why quote from Ibn Sabban, when al-Saffarini himself in his excellent section on logic, at the very end of the same Sharh the author is quoting from, defines for us what Hadd means to the logicians? How can then, this pretentious author, claim to decipher the Sharh of al-Saffarini, while he remains completely ignorant of the contents of this book? Does not this show to the readers, and perhaps to the author himself, that he has plunged too early into subjects that do not concern him?
Secondly, the author says: ‘This word comes from Haddada, Yuhaddidu Tahd?d which means to give a Hadd to something’.
Indeed, this much can be deduced by anyone who is slightly familiar with Arabic morphology. But what does the ‘term’ Hadd generally mean, and in particular in the context of our discussion, and whoever defined the Hadd to mean: ‘giving a meaning to something’?!
Hadd in theology means a limit, or limitation.
Hadd in Kalam and philosophy means a perfect definition which is universal and proper (jami’ mani’) that defines the essence of something, and this is the definition being referred to in the statement of al-Saffarini, because it is Kalam we are discussing here and not logic, although its definition in logic is not very off either.
Yet, I do not know, in which science the term Hadd means ‘meaning given to something’, unless of course, if the author is referring to Hadd lafdhi, and if so, then even that involves defining the meaning of a word, and not simply stating a meaning; and which al-Saffarini is clearly not referring to when his methodology, as he states, is to affirm the literal meanings of the Attributes.
To simplify for the readers, a Hadd for something means the definition, for al-Saffarini says in his own poem that ‘the Hadd is the foundation of all sciences’, i.e. the definitions, because it describes a thing with its most complete description (wasf muhit), which reveals (kashif) the essence of that thing, and distinguishes it from other things.
Al-Saffarini gives the following example for Hadd, which will clearly show the difference between meaning and Hadd:
‘Insan’ means a human being
The Hadd of ‘Insan’, however, is Haywan Natiq, i.e. A speaking animal.
Therefore, there is a clear difference between the meaning and Hadd, i.e. the definition. The former al-Saffarini affirms, while the latter he, and we all relegate the knowledge of to Allah.
Moreover, if the author claims to be a Hanbali, he should be aware that there are two narrations from Imam Ahmad concerning Hadd, as in ‘limit’; one affirming it and the other negating it. Yet, in reality, there is only one narration in meaning, for Imam Ahmad negated the false meaning of Hadd (i.e. Allah being limited in His Attributes and therefore deficient), yet he affirmed the correct meaning of Hadd, in the sense that there is clearly a Hadd (limit) between Allah and His creation, that He does not intermix with His creation. This is also the opinion of ‘Abdullah b. al-Mubarak.
This further highlights the problem with using such ambiguous terms that can mean numerous things, while the Madhab of the Salaf, and that of the Hanbalis, is to describe Allah how He described Himself, without adding or negating anything from His Attributes.
In affirmation of the attribute called ‘Ain, as taken from the Hadith of the Dajj?l being blind in one eye, Im?m as-Saf?r?n? says:
“…al-Bayhaq?, al-Qurtub? and others mentioned: ‘in this narration there contains the negation of Awr (blindness) from All?h the Exalted and affirmation of al-‘Ain for Him as an attribute. We know from His words: “There is nothing like unto Him.” that it is not an organ.”
Im?m as-Saf?r?n? states:
Our scholars say:
“The divine texts have established an attribute for Him the Exalted that is called al-‘Ain, so it is passed on just like (the attribute) of hearing and seeing. By affirming the Ain, it is not (affirming what is) a bodily organ whose description is a piece of flesh because that Ain (eye) is a body that has a beginning and All?h is far removed from that. As for the Ain that the Creator-the Mighty and Exalted- is described with, it is one that is befitting His essence in that it is not a Jism, a Jawhar, nor an‘Ard. So there is not known for it a how nor reality (the M?hiyah of it- i.e. the actual essence of it in the Haq?qah).”
1) The author here mentions al-Saffarini quoting al-Bayhaqi and al-Qurtubi affirming an Eye for Allah, while negating that it be a pupil (hadaqa), which obviously consolidates our position and not His, for our position is to affirm these Attributes literally.
2) He then quotes al-Saffarini, and thereby refuting himself as usual, demonstrating the glaring contradiction in his thought. He quotes al-Saffarini affirming ‘al-‘Ain’, exactly as he affirms for Allah Hearing and Seeing, yet the author himself makes Tafwidh of al-‘Ain by leaving it in Arabic, while translating al-Sam’ and al-Basar into Hearing and Seeing, while al-Saffarini makes no distinction at all between the affirmation of an Eye or the affirmation of Hearing and Seeing, as he affirms them all literally!
Simple logic dictates that if a) al-Saffarini negates the literal meaning, and b) affirms al-‘Ayn, just as he affirms al-Sam’ and al-Basar; then a+b should equal: al-Saffarini believing in al-‘Ayn, al-Sam’ and al-Basar.
Equally, if a) al-Saffarini affirmed the literal meaning, and b) affirms al-‘Ain, just as he affirms al-Sam’ and al-Basar, then a+b should equal: al-Saffarini believing in an Eye, Hearing and Seeing, literally.
What clearly defies logic, is what the deceptive author claims that a) al-Saffarini negates the literal meaning, b) al-Saffarini affirms al-‘Ayn, just as he affirms al-Sam’ and al-Basar, yet a+b equals: al-Saffarini believing an al-‘Ayn making tafwidh, but believing in Allah’s Hearing and Seeing literally!
3) The fact that al-Saffarini affirms an Eye for Allah literally becomes more obvious when he relates the Attribute of Eye with Allah’s Seeing, unlike the Ash’arites. He says: ‘(Our Hanabli scholars) said: The Mu’tazila and the Ash’aris refused that it be said that Allah has an Eye. As for the Mu’tazila, then they negated the Eye and Seeing, and therefore remained consistent. As for the Ash’aris, then they negated the Attribute of Eye, while they affirmed the Attributed of Seeing, which weakened their doctrine.’ Therefore, it becomes clear beyond doubt, that al-Saffarini affirmed an Eye for Allah with which He Sees, which he couldn’t have done unless He literally believed that Allah has an Eye. This alone destroys the hypothesis of Jahmites disguised as Hanbalis from its roots, that al-Saffarini was a mufawwidh in an Ash’ari sense, and that his creed is different to that of the Salafis.
Read More