hanaabilah.co m http://www.hanaabilah.com/2012/07/false-accusations-against-hanaabilah.html False Accusations Against the Hanaabilah I decided to write this af ter being f alsely accused of kuf r by not f ollowing Imam Ahmad in the "correct way", In which case the person posted this Article to show what Imam Ahmad "Really" believed. I realize the article is old, however, the age of it doesn't prevent people f rom relying on it, and even though I didn't search to f ind if it was ever answered, Insha'a Allah what I wrote here will benef it people in order to expose the mistakes the Original author presented as the truth. From here on out the Color RED in Italic f ont will symbolize the Original Authors words. Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said: ""Regarding the question of whether Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 241/855) was an anthropomorphist, this is something that has been asked since early times, particularly since someone forged an anthropormorphic tract called Kitab al-sunna [The book of the sunna] and put the name of Imam Ahmad’s son Abdullah (d. 290/903) on it.I looked this book over with our teacher in hadith, Sheikh Shu‘ayb al-Arna’ut, who had examined it one day, and said that at least 50 percent of the hadiths in it are weak or outright forgeries. He was dismayed how Muhammad al-Qahtani, the editor and commentator, could have been given a Ph.d. in Islamic faith (‘aqida) from Umm al-Qura University in Saudi Arabia for readying for publication a work as sadly wanting in authenticity as this. Ostensibly a "hadith" work, it contains some of the most hard-core anthropomorphism found anywhere....."" To proclaim the work is f orged simply because someone disagrees with some of the content is incorrect, as is known this work is a work of Hadith and as was of ten done All of the sayings were combined and kept in order to preserve them, regardless of whether or not they were Saheeh or otherwise, simply by putting the hadith in the book doesn't make the Author not the Author, nor does it make the Author an anthropomorphist (As is claimed by Al-Kawthari) The f act of the matter is that many scholars had thought that this work was indeed the work of the Son of Imam Ahmad, Including: 1) Abi Ya'la Al-Hanbali (Born in 381 Hijri) 2) Al-Laalikaa'i (Died in 418 Hijri) 3) Al-Bayhaqi (384 – 458 H) 4) Ibn Al-Jawzi ( Died in 597 Hijri) 5) Ibn Taymiyyah (Died 728 Hijri) 6) Ibn Al-Qayyim (Died 751 Hijri) 7) Ibn Abi Izz (Died 792 Hijri) 8) Adh-Dhahabi (Died 748 Hijri) 9) Al-Kitaani (Born 1274 Hijri) Scans of the pages related to when and where the af orementioned scholars ascribed the book to Abdullah Bin Ahmad Bin Hanbal: __________________________________________ Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said: ""The real (‘aqida) of Imam Ahmad was very simple, and consisted, in the main, of accepting the words of the mutashabihat or ‘unapparent meanings’ of the Qur’an and hadith as they have come without saying how they are meant. His position is close to that of a number of other early scholars, who would not even countenance changing the Qur’anic order of the words or substituting words imagined to be synonyms. For them, the verse in Sura Taha, "The All-merciful is ‘established’ (istawa) upon the Throne" (Qur’an 20:5) Does not enable one to say that "Allah is ‘established’ upon Throne," or that "The All-merciful is upon the Throne" or anything else besides "The All-merciful is ‘established’ (istawa) upon the Throne." Full stop."" This is completely incorrect f rom multiple angles: 1) Allah says in 17:110: Say, "Call upon Allah or call upon the Most Merciful. Whichever [name] you call - to Him belong the best names." And do not recite [too] loudly in your prayer or [too] quietly but seek between that an [intermediate] way 2) His position isn’t close to not changing the word order in order to conf irm the meaning and this can be seen in two places. He conf irmed that Allah is everywhere with his knowledge, while still being above the throne. This does not come in that exact wording in the Quran. As seen in the f ollowing scan: He believed the Quran is the speech of Allah with Sound and Letters, again which didn’t come in that exact wording in the Quran. As seen in the f ollowing scan: 3) Imam Ahmad also stated that the verse “Laysa Kamithlihi Shay”-There is nothing like unto him- Was f rom the Mutaashaabih, does this mean there was no Apparent meaning f or this verse to him, so that he would say “It has come without knowing what it means? As seen in the f ollowing scan: 4) Imam Ahmad also said that he takes the ahadith that are related to seeing Allah and others like them upon there Apparent meanings, As seen in the f ollowing scan: __________________________________________ Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said: ""It should be appreciated how far this position is from understanding the mutashabihat or ‘unapparent in meaning,’ scriptural expressions about Allah as though they were meant literally (‘ala al-dhahir). The Hanbali Imam Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Khallal (311/923), who took his fiqh from Imam Ahmad’s students, relates in his al-Sunna[The sunna] through his chain of narrators from Hanbal [ibn Ishaq al-Shaybani] (d. 273/886), the son of the brother of Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s father, that Imam Ahmad was asked about the hadiths mentioning "Allah’s descending," "seeing Allah," and "placing His foot on hell"; and the like, and he replied: "We believe in them and consider them true, without ‘how’ and without ‘meaning’ (bi la kayfa wa la ma‘na) [emphasis mine]."" 1) In terms of what is and what isn’t Mutaashabihat this has been dealt with above when Imam Ahmad said the statement of Allah:“There is nothing unto like him (Allah)” was f rom them, the least that can be said concerning this issue is that since the time of the Salaf there has been dif f erent opinions about what is and what isn’t Mutashaabih of the ayat, that is why you f ind Ibn Abbas accusing the Khawaarij of using verses improperly and saying that were using Mutashaabih verses. 2 ) There is academic dishonesty when one presents only one version of something without at least acknowledging that other opinions are present. In f act, At-Tabari (224 – 310 AH) doesn't even make mention of this meaning f or "Mutaashabihaat" in his Taf seer. See: Taf seer At-Tabari 3:7 3) Without meaning has also been dealt with, by it being clear that Imam Ahmad as well as the Salaf have admitted that there is a meaning to the Sif aat, such as Withness “Ma’iyah” In which case they conf irm that Ma’iyah (withness) means with Allahs knowledge, and He is above The Throne. Likewise, Imam Ahmad was beaten and tortured because he rightf ully believed that the Qu’ran was the speech of Allah, uncreated, with sound and letters, this is what was understood f rom the Islamic texts, not something explicitly mentioned. As seen in the f ollowing scan, Imam Ahmad in speaking concerning the verses pertaining to the speech of Allah he said: "These verses are in a clear Arabic language, it doesn't require any explanation, it's clear All Praise be to Allah." 3) Alaa Dhaahirihi (Upon the Apparent Meaning) is the Madhab of Imam Ahmad, and the Madhab of the Hanaabilah in general as understood f rom his above text concerning the seeing of Allah, and as understood by the Sheikh Al-Hanaabilah Muwaf iq –u- Deen Ibn Qudaama Al-Maqdisi (Died 620 Hijri). As seen in the f ollowing scan: __________________________________________ Nuh Ha Mim Keller Said: ""And he said, when they asked him about Allah’s istiwa’ [translated above as established]: "He is ‘established’ upon the Throne (istawa ‘ala al-‘Arsh) how He wills and as He wills, without any limit or any description that be made by any describer (Kawthari, Daf‘ shubah al-tashbih. Cairo n.d. Reprint. Cairo: al-Maktaba al-Tawfiqiyya, 1396/1976, 28)."" 1) In order to properly represent the Aqeedah of Imam Ahmad (and the rest of the Salaf ) one would have to do a comprehensive research, and be truthf ul in that he would provide f ull detail of what he f ound if he intends f or his opinion to be made public concerning what they believed. In which case the issue of Allah having limits then this is something that the Salaf have conf irmed in some of their sayings, and in f act one scholar as represented below wrote an entire book on the topic. In which case, we can’t simply accept the statement of Ibn Al-Jawzi as the be all end all of the belief s of Imam Ahmad in this regard, especially when he himself was not Athari/Hanbali when it comes to most of the Attributes of Allah. As seen in the f ollowing scan, It’s reported that Ahmad Ibn Hanbal conf irmed f or Allah a “Hadd.”: 2) As will be mentioned later, there is actually no dif f erence between conf irming limit or Sitting and conf irming Rising and Descending, the Modality is still unknown, and to those who dislike to conf irm the later two, the f ormer two would be no dif f erent in that regard, to them they would both be incorrect to conf irm f or Allah.