[Abdoh]

As-salaam 'alaykom wa rahmatullah

I have always been taught that there are two tariqa's in the Ash'ari school with regards to Al-Asmaa wa al-Sifaat:
a] Affirming the attributes without specifying a meaning (tafweedh)
b] Interpreting them in a way befitting the Majesty of Allah (tt)

Now, when these two tariqa's are well known, i have always been taught that they are not contradictory, because position also entails affirmation of the attributes, based on the following explanation by Shaykh Faraz Rabbani:

Quote

Figurative interpretation doesn’t entail negation of what Allah affirmed in any way whatsoever, because this way, akin to the way of ‘consigning the meaning to Allah’ (tafwid), also entails:

[1] Affirming what Allah has affirmed, such as istiwa’ or His Hand or Eyes.
[2] Negating what Allah has decisively negated, which is any similitude whatsoever between the Creator and creation–a negation that the sound intellect readily discerns, and which was affirmed by Allah’s words, “There is absolutely nothing like unto Him.” [Qur'an]

But it differs in that it

[3] Affirms a meaning to these texts, using the principles of established linguistic usage and sound textual interpretation (such as “Hand” signifying power or favor, as understood from the context). It is very important to note that this figurative interpretation entails affirming a meaning in the sense of affirming what the text signifies–and not an exclusive affirmation of meaning (such that A=B, meaning that text A means B, and nothing else). [For examples of such interpretation, see Shaykh Gibril Haddad's Ibn `Abd al-Salam and Ash`ari Ta'wil.]

The way of figurative interpretation (ta’wil), as exercised by the mainstream Sunni scholars of the Ash`ari and Maturidi schools is an affirmation of what is understood from such expressions, and not an exclusive specification of meaning. Thus, the way of figurative interpretation (ta’wil), which the scholars only resorted to with the utmost of caution when there was genuine need, also entails a consignment of the ultimate meaning to Allah Most High (tafwid). This is an important but subtle matter, so understand!

http://seekersguidan...-sunni-beliefs/

So as such, i was under the belief that the scholars who took position b] actually affirmed the attributes and did tafweedh on the actual meaning of these attributes, and only interpreted their meaning in the specific contexts they appeared in. As such, the two tariqa's are not in contradiction with each other.

However, after having read a few articles by Ash'ari scholars, it seems that position does entails negation of the attributes, such as the article "Do the Ash'aris negate Allah's attributes?" by Shaykh al-Azhari, where he states:

Quote

Amongst them are those who recognize and affirm an attribute called ‘al-yad’ by which Allah
created Ādam, that is neither Power nor Favour, but is an independent (mustaqilla)
attribute; and there are others who do not see a difference in this sense between ‘al-yad’ and
Will (irada) or Power (qudrah), and thus they do not recognize and do not affirm that it is an
independent attribute [of Allah], but regard al-yad as one of the synonyms of Power (qudrah)
or Favour (ni‘ma) according to the context (in which it is found).

It seems to me that Shaykh al-Azhari is thus stating that position b] entails a negation of the attributes.

Also, in the article "The Attributes of Allah" by Taqi al-Din al-Subki (rahimahu Allah), he states:

Quote

We say that of istiwa, nuzul, maji’, ityan, wajh, yad, saq, qadam, janb, `ayn and relocation in
(various) levels are not from the Attributes. The claim that they are Attributes is
deception 2 and this is shown by three things.

So based on the above, it seems to me that he negates these attributes, as opposed to position a) which is to affirm them.

I understood from Shaykh Faraz's explanation that a] and b] are not at odds with each other, since position b] entails both ithbat and tafweed - however, from these two articles, i understand position b] not to entail ithbat.

So, my question is:
If we consider Shaykh al-Azhari and Imam Taqi al-Din al-Subki's presentations of position b] accurate, then how are position b] and a] not at odds with each other?

I know that I - due to my ignorance, May Allah guide me - have probably understood everything wrong and that it is very likely that i have just missed the whole point, but if it is so, then please enlighten me as i am quite confused on this matter.

Forgive me my bad english.

Your brother
Abdoh

This post has been edited by Abdoh: 29 August 2010 - 10:51 AM

[Abu Haneefa]

Wa^Alaykum Salam

From what I have understood regarding this, is that 'some' have not affirmed them as exclusive 'attributes', but that does not entail that they deny Istiwa, Saq etc, rather they do not classify these as attributes.
So they affirm the Istiwa, Yad etc as Allah has informed about in the Quran and do not deny it, but do not think it comes under the category of an attribute.

Allah knows best.

[faqir]

as-salamu `alaikum
my understanding is the same as abu haneefa's. some of the ash'aris considered yad, wajh, al-ayn to be separate attributes of Allah - others didn't. This is a difference in ijtihad. Notice also how sh. Faraz said 'Affirming what Allah has affirmed,' - not affirming an 'attribute'.

Quote

The famous Hafidh, Imam al-Bayhaqiyy, said in his book, Al-‘I^tiqad ^Ala Madhhab as-Salaf Ahl as-Sunnah Wal Jama^ah:
It must be known that the istiwa’ (استواء) of Allah, Whom we clear of resembling the creations, is not an istiwa’ of straightening up from a tilted position, nor of being established in a place, nor touching any of His creations. Rather, He has an istiwa’ over his ^Arsh just as He told--without a manner of being. It is without a place and different from all His creations. His ityan (إتيان) is not from one place to another. His maji’ (مـجىء) is not that of a motion. His nuzul (نزول) is not that of transfer. His Self is not a body. His wajh (وجه) is not a picture. His yad (يد) is not a limb. His ^ayn (عين) is not a pupil. Rather, these attributes belong to Allah as they are, and in using them we clear Allah from any manner of being. Allah said in Surah ash-Shura, 11: {لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ} which means: [Absolutely nothing is like Him in any way.] Allah said in Surah al-‘Iklas, 4: {وَلَمْ يَكُنْ لَهُ كُفُوًا أَحَدٌ} [He has none similar to Him] and Allah said in Surah Maryam, 65: {هَلْ تَعْلَمُ لَهُ سَمِيًّا } which means: [Do you know any similar to Him? There is none.]

[Abdoh]

Wa 'alaykom as-salam.

Thanks, brothers. That helped. Jazakom Allah!

Do you also know how they then classified these, if not attributes?

And also, what was their methodology that lead them to this approach?

The following is my own thoughts based upon my own ignorance, may Allah forgive me:
Was it, perhaps, because that they see a distinction between attributes such as "hearing" and "sight" (the literal meaning not impossible for Allah, because it doesn't necessarily implies limbs) and words such as "yad" and "wajh" (the literal meaning being impossible for Allah, since it implies limbs)?
And that they thus believed that "attributes" can only be the first category, while they would affirm the second category but not as attributes?

[absalih]

Imam Taqiudin al-Subki.Rah(d.756.AH)'s views can be studied in detail from his refutation of Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah(751.Ah)[IBN SAFEEL], the foremost disciple of Ibn Taymiyyah.(d.728.AH).The LINK:

http://aslein.org/bo...h/rdod/syef.rar


السيف الصقيل في الرد على ابن زفيل الإمام أبي الحسن تقي الدين علي بن عبد الكافي السبكي

نونية ابن القيم هذه من أبشع كتبه وأبعدها غوار في الضلال وأشنعها إغراء للحشوية ضد أهل السنة وأوقحها في الكذب على العلماء كما ترى إيضاح ذلك في مقدمة السيف الصقل فلا نزاحم السبكى في شرح بشاعة طريقته فيها إلا انا نشير هنا إلى ان ابن القيم كلما تراه يزداد تهويلا وضراخا خبيث وأه في تلك الحالة نفسها في صدد تلبيس ودس شنيعين ، وإنما تلك التهويلات منه لتخدير العقول عن الانتباه لما يريد أن يدسه في غضون كلامه من بدعه المخزية كما يظهر من مطالعة النونية بتبصر ويقظة.

وكان إهمال الرد عليها أنسب لكن لم يبق بعد تكرر طبعها مع تقاعس أهل العلم عن ردها مساغ للأهمال فوجب تقويض دعائمها بنشر كتاب السبكي مع تعليق كلمات عليه في مواضع رأيناها في حاجة إلى التعليق وقد سميتما علقته "تكملة الرد على نونية ابن القيم"

[faqir]

Abdoh, on 30 August 2010 - 01:49 PM, said:

Wa 'alaykom as-salam.

Thanks, brothers. That helped. Jazakom Allah!

Do you also know how they then classified these, if not attributes?

And also, what was their methodology that lead them to this approach?

The following is my own thoughts based upon my own ignorance, may Allah forgive me:
Was it, perhaps, because that they see a distinction between attributes such as "hearing" and "sight" (the literal meaning not impossible for Allah, because it doesn't necessarily implies limbs) and words such as "yad" and "wajh" (the literal meaning being impossible for Allah, since it implies limbs)?
And that they thus believed that "attributes" can only be the first category, while they would affirm the second category but not as attributes?

as-salamu `alaikum
Although Ibn al-Jawzi was not an Ash'ari you can get a good understanding of the approach of those ash'aris who don't affirm yad, wajh, ayn as attributes by reading his Daf' shubah al-tashbih bi akaff al-tanzih which has been translated into English by Sh Abdullah b. Hamid Ali as 'The Attributes of God'. I would recommend buying it if you don't already have access to it.

[faqir]

sections of his Kitab Akhbar al-Sifat can also be read here

see also this old thread which is related to this one and should insha'Allah answer your question.

[Abdoh]

Jazakum Allah! It really helped a lot.