Hanbalī Reflections

Q: Did the Ashāʿira, when they reinterpreted some of the Attributes, disbelieve in the verses of Allāh and reject them, as the ignorant liars claim? A: The scholars have asserted that the speculative reinterpretations of the Ashāʿira regarding the Ahādīth are, in fact, an acceptance of them. Therefore, it is not a rejection or disbelief in them, nor a deviation concerning the names of Allāh and His verses. This holds true regardless of the ruling concerning the necessity of speculative reinterpretation for ambiguous verses and narrations. Indeed, those who assert this view prohibit the use of reinterpretation and do not believe in it; ponder on this carefully. Al-Qādī Abū Yaʿlā stated, as cited by his son from his Creed and that of his Hanbalī predecessors¹: “Verily, the scholars of Ahl al-Hadīth and the Ashāʿira among them are unanimous in accepting these Ahādīth. Some accepted them as they were transmitted, they are Ashāb al-Hadīth, while others reinterpreted them, they are the Ashāʿira. Their reinterpretations are an acceptance of these Ahādīth; had they been false to them, they would have rejected them, just as they have rejected other invalid reports.” ¹ طبقات الحنابلة - لابن أبي يعلى - ت الفقي - ٢ ‏/ ٢١٠ https://app.turath.io/book/9543?page=641 وصلى الله وسلم وبارك على سيدنا محمد وعلى آله وصحبه أجمعين.

The obligation to affirm the listed Attributes and to reject the attempt to interpret them is based on two premises. Premise One: The verses and reports concerning the revelatory Attributes are ambiguous; this point is noted by Ibn Qudāma in Rawḍat an-Nādhir [1/66], by Ibn ʿAqīl in al-Wāḍiḥ fī Usūl al-Fiqh [1/167–178], and by al-Mardāwī in at-Taḥbīr [3/1395–1397]. Premise Two: The ambiguous texts are unclear in their meanings—either due to a commonality in wording, vagueness, or the appearance of Tashbīh as seen in as-Sifāt al-Khabariyya, which is our topic in this case. This is in contrast to the decisive texts, as mentioned by at-Tūfī in Sharḥ Mukhtasar al-Rawḍa [3/43–45] and by Ibn an-Najjār in Sharḥ Mukhtasar at-Taḥrīr [3/140–141]. It is concluded from these two premises that the verses and narrations concerning the revelatory Attributes are ambiguous in meaning. Therefore, one cannot definitively interpret or reinterpret them, since they are statements marked by doubt and speculation and because their apparent meaning does not befit Allāh’s majesty. The best course is to remain silent on their interpretation. وصلى الله وسلم وبارك على سيدنا محمد وعلى آله وصحبه أجمعين.

Contrasting Views on Polytheistic Beliefs About Idols Al-Fawzān states in his commentary on al-Qawāʿid al-Arbaʿa that the Mushrikīn whom the Prophet (ﷺ) fought did not ascribe any benefit or harm to their idols. He claims that the Qubūrīs say the same as the Arab polytheists—that their idols are merely intercessors, nothing more, with no ability to harm or benefit. Meanwhile, Abū Bakr al-Anbārī [D. 328 هـ] - رحمه الله تعالى - stated: ❝Idols, although they are inanimate objects like doors, clothes, and walls, are not living beings. Yet the Mushrikīn claimed that they possessed intellect, could distinguish knowledge, and had the ability to harm and benefit.❞ وصلى الله وسلم وبارك على سيدنا محمد وعلى آله وصحبه أجمعين.

Benefit: ash-Shams as-Saffārīnī - رضي الله عنه - stated: ❝The name al-Kabīr is an attribute that applies to both tangible beings [maḥsūsāt] and rational conceptions [maʿqūlāt]. It is one of the names of the Lord—Transcendent and Exalted above any likeness to bodies or resemblance to creation. Therefore, what is attributed to Him - تعالى - from these meanings are rational conceptions [maʿqūlāt], not tangible [maḥsūsāt].❞ See: Lawāmiʿ al-Anwār al-Bahiyya, vol. 1, p. 48 وصلى الله وسلم وبارك على سيدنا محمد وعلى آله وصحبه أجمعين.

The fifth Qāʿida Kubrā: the customs must be referred to if the conditions for its usage have been met. For example, if someone has abandoned a Rukn of Prayer and only realizes after a long period of time, their Salāh is invalid. What is the standard for what constitutes a long period of time? The customs determine it. Another example: if someone moves excessively in prayer, their prayer is invalid. How do we define “excessive”? It is judged by customs. The terms ʿUrf and al-ʿĀdah refer to what is predominant among the people. First Condition: The custom in question must be firmly established and not subject to frequent change. Any other minor or rare customs are considered exceptions. For example, in Saudi Arabia, when someone says, “The price is 20 riyals,” it is understood that it refers to Saudi riyals—even though other Gulf countries also use “riyals.” Because Saudi riyals are recognized by default in Saudi Arabia, this exemplifies a custom that does not change and can therefore be relied upon. Second Condition: The custom must have previously been applied to the matter at hand or must be directly related to it. It should already exist before the case arises; one cannot create a new custom on the spot. When customs are used in contracts (such as buying, selling, or renting), the terms will be judged according to the recognized ʿUrf. However, if the parties explicitly agree not to follow ʿUrf—either by a clear statement or through actions that contradict the custom—then their agreement takes precedence. In all cases, the custom must not conflict with the religion of Islām. The customs are used in instances where neither the religion nor the language provides a clear standard—such as what qualifies as “excessive movement” in prayer. Rulings can change as customs change if the original ruling was based on those customs. وصلى الله وسلم وبارك على سيدنا محمد وعلى آله وصحبه أجمعين.

Some students cite al-Shams al-Saffārīnī to establish the Ashā’ira as being from Ahl as-Sunnah. However, this argument is flawed due to; Sh. ʿAbd-Allāh explains that al-Saffārīnī, in his commentary on «الدرة المضية», mentions the view that the saved sect includes all three schools, which upon verification is actually the correct position. Nevertheless, he [as-Saffārīnī] negates this claim by stating that the Hadīth negates plurality. Additionally, other scholars, such as Ibn Badrān al-Hanbalī, confirm this when questioned about al-Saffārīnī’s view. However, this doesn’t imply that the Imām considers the Ashā’ira a sect of deviance and misguidance, as he himself excludes them from the sects of deviance and falsehood (see Lawāmiʿ al-Anwār, vol. 1, p. 73). وصلى الله وسلم وبارك على سيدنا محمد وعلى آله وصحبه أجمعين.

The foundational principle in customary matters such as phones, clothes, and speakers is permissibility. The burden of proof lies upon the claimant who asserts impermissibility. This principle is unanimously agreed upon, as mentioned by Sh. al-Islām, and it has been applied consistently across all the jurisprudential schools of thought. It is essential to note that the evidence required to establish impermissibility does not necessarily have to be explicit. Contrary to what some self-proclaimed jurists claim, a Dhannī piece of evidence suffices. An example is the Hadīth about music found in al-Bukhārī.  Even if this Hadīth has secondary interpretations, the apparent meaning is not invalidated by mere possibilities of reinterpretation. For a reinterpretation to be valid, it requires a contextual indicator to substantiate it before being considered.  The apparent meaning of the text can only be nullified as a proof if the potential reinterpretations are either equally strong or stronger than the apparent meaning itself. وصلى الله وسلم وبارك على سيدنا محمد وعلى آله وصحبه أجمعين.