Miscellaneous: Sarkhasi, Bazdawi & Bukhari affirmed Allah’s attributes

as salam `alaykum

A contender’s email:

Contention:

Please translate this and putt on your site:

Al-Sarkhasi in his ‘Usul (1/164 dar al-ma’arifah edition):


وبيان ما ذكرنا من معنى المتشابه من مسائل الاصول أن رؤية الله تعالى بالابصار في الآخرة حق معلوم ثابت بالنص، وهو قوله تعالى: * (وجوه يومئذ ناضرة إلى ربها ناظرة) * ثم هو موجود بصفة الكمال، وفي كونه مرئيا لنفسه ولغيره معنى الكمال إلا أن الجهة ممتنع، فإن الله تعالى لا جهة له فكان متشابها فيما يرجع إلى كيفية
الرؤية والجهة مع كون أصل الرؤية ثابتا بالنص معلوما كرامة للمؤمنين، فإنهم أهل لهذه الكرامة، والتشابه فيما يرجع إلى الوصف لا يقدح في العلم بالاصل ولا يبطل، وكذلك الوجه واليد على ما نص الله تعالى في القرآن معلوم، وكيفية ذلك من المتشابه فلا يبطل به الاصل المعلوم.
والمعتزلة – خذلهم الله – لاشتباه الكيفية عليهم أنكروا الاصل فكانوا معطلة بإنكارهم صفات الله تعالى، وأهل السنة والجماعة – نصرهم الله – أثبتوا ما هو الاصل المعلوم بالنص وتوقفوا فيما هو المتشابه وهو الكيفية، فلم يجوزوا الاشتغال بطلب ذلك كما وصف الله تعالى به الراسخين في العلم فقال: * (يقولون آمنا به كل من عند ربنا وما يذكر إلا أولو الالباب)


Al-Bazdawi with the sharh of ‘ala ad-deen al-Bukhari (1/59-60 usul al-Bazdawi in the marginalia of Abdulaziz Al Bukhari’s sharh)


قَوْلُهُ (وَكَذَلِكَ) أَيْ وَكَإِثْبَاتِ الرُّؤْيَةِ إثْبَاتُ الْوَجْهِ وَالْيَدِ لِلَّهِ تَعَالَى حَقٌّ عِنْدَنَا فَبِقَوْلِهِ عِنْدَنَا احْتَرَزَ عَنْ قَوْلِ مَنْ قَالَ لا يُوصَفُ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى سُبْحَانَهُ بِالْوَجْهِ وَالْيَدِ بَلْ الْمُرَادُ مِنْ الْوَجْهِ الرِّضَاءُ أَوْ الذَّاتُ وَنَحْوُهُمَا وَمِنْ الْيَدِ الْقُدْرَةُ أَوْ النِّعْمَةُ وَنَحْوُهَا فَقَالَ الشَّيْخُ: بَلْ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى يُوصَفُ بِصِفَةِ الْوَجْهِ وَالْيَدِ مَعَ تَنْزِيهِهِ جَلَّ جَلالُهُ عَنْ الصُّورَةِ وَالْجَارِحَةِ ; لأَنَّ الْوَجْهَ وَالْيَدَ مِنْ صِفَاتِ الْكَمَالِ فِي الشَّاهِدِ ; لأَنَّ مَنْ لا وَجْهَ لَهُ أَوْ لا يَدَ يُعَدُّ نَاقِصًا, وَهُوَ تَعَالَى مَوْصُوفٌ بِصِفَاتِ الْكَمَالِ فَيُوصَفُ بِهِمَا أَيْضًا إلا أَنَّ إثْبَاتَ الصُّورَةِ وَالْجَارِحَةِ مُسْتَحِيلٌ, وَكَذَا إثْبَاتُ الْكَيْفِيَّةِ فَتَشَابَهَ وَصْفُهُ فَيَجِبُ تَسْلِيمُهُ عَلَى اعْتِقَادِ الْحَقِّيَّةِ مِنْ غَيْرِ اشْتِغَالٍ بِالتَّأْوِيلِ, وَاعْلَمْ أَنَّ فِي أَمْثَالِ مَا ذَكَرْنَا يَتْبَعُ اللَّفْظُ الَّذِي وَرَدَ بِهِ النَّصُّ مِنْ الْكِتَابِ وَالسُّنَّةِ فَلا يُشْتَقُّ مِنْهُ الاسْمُ وَلا يُقَالُ: اللَّهُ تَعَالَى مُتَوَجِّهٌ إلَى فُلانٍ بِنَظَرِ الرَّحْمَةِ أَوْ الْعِنَايَةِ وَلا يُبَدَّلُ بِلَفْظٍ آخَرَ لا بِالْعَرَبِيَّةِ وَلا بِغَيْرِهَا فَلا يُبَدَّلُ لَفْظُ الْعَيْنِ بِالْبَاصِرَةِ وَلا لَفْظُ الْقَدَمِ بِالرِّجْلِ وَلا يُقَالُ بِالْفَارِسِيَّةِ أَيْضًا ” جثم خداي وروى خداي ودست خداي ” وَغَيْرُ ذَلِكَ. قَوْلُهُ (وَلَنْ يَجُوزَ إبْطَالُ الأَصْلِ) أَيْ لا يَجُوزُ الْحُكْمُ بِأَنَّ الْقَوْلَ الرُّؤْيَةُ وَالْوَجْهُ وَالْيَدُ بَاطِلٌ بِالْعَجْزِ عَنْ دَرْكِ الْوَصْفِ أَيْ الْكَيْفِيَّةِ لِمَا فِيهِ مِنْ إبْطَالِ الْمَتْبُوعِ بِالتَّبَعِ وَالأَصْلِ بِالْفَرْعِ وَذَلِكَ كَمَنْ رَأَى شَخْصًا عَلَى شَطِّ نَهْرٍ عَظِيمٍ لا يُتَصَوَّرُ الْعُبُورُ مِنْهُ بِدُونِ سَفِينَةٍ وَمَلاحٍ ثُمَّ رَأَى ذَلِكَ الشَّخْصَ فِي الْجَانِبِ الآخَرِ مِنْ غَيْرِ أَنْ يُشَاهِدَ سَفِينَةً وَمَلاحًا لا يُمْكِنُهُ أَنْ يُنْكِرَ عُبُورَهُ مِنْ النَّهْرِ ; وَإِنْ لَمْ يُدْرِكْ كَيْفِيَّةَ الْعُبُورِ, فَكَذَا فِيمَا نَحْنُ فِيهِ لِمَا ثَبَتَ بِالدَّلائِلِ الْقَاطِعَةِ جَوَازُ الرُّؤْيَةِ وَصِفَةُ الْوَجْهِ وَالْيَدِ لِلَّهِ سُبْحَانَهُ لا يَجُوزُ إنْكَارُهَا بِالْعَجْزِ عَنْ دَرْكِ أَوْصَافِهَا وَالْجَهْلِ بِطَرِيقِ ثُبُوتِهَا, فَإِنَّهُمْ رَدُّوا الأُصُولَ يَجُوزُ أَنْ يَكُونَ مَعْنَاهُ رَدُّوا أَصْلَ الرُّؤْيَةِ وَالْوَجْهِ وَالْيَدِ لِجَهْلِهِمْ بِالصِّفَاتِ اللامُ فِي الصِّفَاتِ بَدَلُ الْمُضَافِ إلَيْهِ أَيْ بِكَيْفِيَّاتِهَا. وَيَجُوزُ أَنْ يَكُونَ مَعْنَاهُ رَدُّوا الأُصُولَ أَيْ الصِّفَاتِ جَمْعٌ بِأَنْ قَالُوا لَيْسَ لَهُ صِفَةُ الْعِلْمِ


So if these Hanafi Maturidis can make ithbaat of Al-Yad/Hand and Al-Wajh/Face with Qati’e texts of the Qur’an as they make ithbaat of the ru’yah bila kayfiyyah, then why is that not tashbih and what the Salafiyyah say is tashbih? Thus, i have found out, that i was manipulating by misled Asharis, and i have seen the truth of the Salafis, as i found these 3 great Hanafis (Sarkhasi, Bazdawi, Al-Bukhari) accepting those sifaat in same manner. I thank Allah.

PS: You should accept the same, because you say i am Hanafi!

Shaykh Abu Adam’s Response:

To affirm the attribute is not the issue, it has never been the issue. Many say that the word yad refers to an attribute, likewise the word wajh. Abu Hanifah is one of them. None of Ahl-al-Sunnah say, however, that these are physical. The problem with the Wahabis is that they believe that these are bodily attributes, or do not deny that they are. As-Sarakhsi says below: “…direction is impossible. Verily Allah is not in a direction.” Al-Bukhaariy says the same; that this wajh and yad do not have the meaning of a shape or a bodypart. He even says: “It is not allowed to express these words (wajh and yad) with subsitute words in Arabic or in another language.” I.e. it is prohibited to translate wajh as face and yad as hand.

15 Responses to Miscellaneous: Sarkhasi, Bazdawi & Bukhari affirmed Allah’s attributes

  1. Mosa says:

    Assalamu alaikum shaykh,

    I would like to know where Bukhari(Rah) states that?

    Jazakallah Khair

  2. (1/59-60 usul al-Bazdawi in the marginalia of Abdulaziz Al Bukhari’s sharh)

  3. faqir says:

    as-salamu `alaikum shaykh
    the exact arabic quote of abdul aziz al-bukhari saying that the words yad and wajh should not be substituted (and therefore translated) would be very helpful.
    jazakumAllahu khayran.

  4. On the 7th line in the Arabic quote above from the book.

  5. Irfan says:

    Imam `Ali ibn Abi Talib said: “A people of this Nation (of the Prophet Muhammad shall return to being blasphemers when the Day of Judgment is near.” A man asked, “O Prince of the Believers! What is their blasphemy for? Is it for inventing something, or for denying something?” `Ali replied: “It is for denial. They deny their Creator; they say that He is attributed with a body and limbs.”
    Fakrud-Din Ibn al-Mu`allim al-Qurashi, in his book Najmul-Muhtadi on page 588.

    can the above hadith be used as a proof ? is it reliable in its sanad ?
    —————–

    Al-Bukhari said: In the section explaining the aayah, “ta’ruju al-malaa’ikatu wa-r-ruuh ‘ilaihi” (70,4) which the ignorant and careless Pickthall translated as “the angels and the Spirit ascend unto Him,” he says, “ta’ruj (linguistically speaking) means ‘they ascend’, and al-ruuh is Gabriel, and other meanings (of al-ruuh) have been said (by scholars)…

    can i have the reference for the above explaination of Imam Bukhari RA?

    ———————

    deviants quote Imam Malik RA saying that istawa is known and how is unknown.
    what is the correct understanding and is the quote authentic?

  6. Abu Eesa says:

    Salaam.

    Very beneficial website, sidi. Thanks.

    Sidi, you said:

    “Many say that the word yad refers to an attribute…”

    1. I thought ‘yad’ is an attribute of God? If it’s not an attribute then what is yad (and wajh,etc) referred to as?

    2. You said ‘many say…’ What do others say?

    Thank you again.

    • Some said “yad” is an attribute other than power in the aayah about Adam’s creation, but that they do not know the meaning. Most of the Salaf took this position, though the Prophet and the most knowledgeable companions definitely knew the meaning, as pointed out by Imam Al-Qusħayriyy. Others said that it refers to His attribute of Power, and refuted the arguments of those who said it has another meaning, like Ibn Al-Jawziyy, the famous Hanbali scholar. Al-Mujaahid, the student of Ibn ˆAbbaas, and the imaam of Qur’aan commentators, said it does not refer to an attribute, but the purpose of the expression “biyadayy” is to emphasize that Allaah created Adam. In Arabic you might say, “I did this with my hands,” meaning “I did this (and no one else,)” and it has nothing to do with having hands.

  7. Ahmad-Qadri says:

    Salam Alaikum Mohtaram Sheikh

    In regards to the comment: “The Prophet and the most knowledgeable companions knew the meaning” – a wahabi raised the typical emotional blackmail question: “Do you think the Prophet witheld knowledge? How can a prophet whose job is to propagate the message leave parts of it unclarified? If he knew the exact meaning, why didn’t he explain openly?”

    They say this other times too when we mention tawil or tafwid. What is a good response to this comment, be it in regards to yad or nuzuul or wajh or any other attribute?

  8. Ahmad-Qadri says:

    Mohtaram Sheikh, that is the argument they present when we say that the Prophet, 3alaihis salam, knew the meanings best and definitively.

    Where they [supposedly] find a route to pester the Sunnis and perpetuate their fitnah is their picking on words such as “best” and “definitive” (or similar words) and saying that why isn’t such “definitive” interpretation available to us and why we are involving with tawil and tafwid and have these minor differences within our Ashari and Maturidi [Sunni] schools and have the major differences we have with them – if we say that such definitive interpretations were handed down by the blessed Messenger of Allah himself?

    The response that comes to my mind is that of course the Prophet, 3alaihis salam, is also the master of the Sharia (fiqh rules) along with perfect knowledge of his Creator, and there too he knows everything definitively. Yet, the scholars have ikhtilaf on various matters even in the most basic of acts like wudu. So they might as well present this stupid argument there too.

    Is what I think a good enough response?

    Jazakum’Allahu khayr for your help.

    • First of all do not say that the Prophet has perfect knowledge of Aļļaah. Only Aļļaah has perfect knowledge of Himself.

      We do believe, however, that the Prophet knew the meanings of the scriptures that were revealed to him. That does not mean, however, that all of these meanings have reached us. That is why, for example, there are 4 schools of fiqh today, and there were several more in the past.

      The ambiguous aayahs apparently ascribing a meaning to Allaah Himself, have meanings that are no longer clear to us, and this is a test. Those who fail are the ones who think that these meanings are like meanings that apply to created things.

  9. Abu Abdillah says:

    Assalaamu ‘Alaikoem Shaykh,

    وكذلك الوجه واليد على ما نص الله تعالى في القرآن معلوم، وكيفية ذلك من المتشابه فلا يبطل به الاصل المعلوم.

    What does the Scholar means with this Shaykh ? It’s from as-Sarkhasi in his usool, 7th line the first which is quoted above.

    Does it mean that the meaning of the words Wadjh, Yad in the Qur’an is known however the howness is unknown like how the salafi’s are saying ?

    JazakumAllah khayran wassalaamu ‘alaikoem.

    • waˆalaykumussalaam,

      He means that the scripture text, which is the origin, or aşl, is affirmed as true and known, but the meaning is mutashaabih, i.e. unknown. Mutashaabih in the Ĥanafiyy school means that there is no way of knowing the meaning.

  10. faqir says:

    as-salamu `alaikum sayyidi

    would you consider the following translation done by a salafi accurate?

    وكذلك الوجه واليد على ما نص الله تعالى في القرآن معلوم وكيفية ذلك من المتشابه فلا يبطل به الأصل المعلوم
    والمعتزلة خذلهم الله لاشتباه الكيفية عليهم أنكروا الأصل فكانوا معطلة بإنكارهم صفات الله تعالى وأهل السنة والجماعة نصرهم الله أثبتوا ما هو الأصل المعلوم بالنص وتوقفوا فيما هو المتشابه وهو الكيفية فلم يجوزوا الاشتغال بطلب ذلك كما وصف الله تعالى به الراسخين في العلم فقال { يقولون آمنا به كل من عند ربنا وما يذكر إلا أولوا الألباب }

    [ِAnd the same with al wajh (Face) and yad (hand), according to what Allah stated in the Quran, is known, and the kayfiyyah (HOW) from that is from the mutashabih, so the asl (attribute) that is known is not to be negated by it (the kayfiyyah).
    And the mu’tazilah, khadhalahum Allah, because of the dubiousness of the HOW to them, they rejected the asl (attribute), so they became mu’atila by negating the attributes of Allah Ta’ala, and ahl Assunnah wal Jama’ah, may Allah make them victorious, affirmed the known asl by an-nas (clear text), and kept silent with the mutashabih and that is the kayfiyyah (HOW), so they did not make it permissible to concern oneself with that, like Allah described the rasikheen fi al ilm ….] Then he quoted the end of the ayah in surat Ali-Imran ayah (7).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: