The Salafi Dilemma & the Arabic Quran

In this post, I will be quoting sources deemed authoritative by Salafi Muslims that prohibit engaging in debates, especially ones employing logical argumentation. Some of the references also emphasize the fact that Allah literally possesses hands, eyes, loins/gonads, shin, elbows, speaks, laughs, etc., even though they are supposedly unlike anything in creation.  The citations are adapted from the references provided by Ismaili philosopher Dr. Khalil Andani in his debate with Salafi anthropomorphist Jake Brancatella on tauhid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGmRFiHTv6I&t=5343s.  

"One should not dispute with anyone, nor engage in formal debate, nor learn the art of argument. Verily, kalam regarding predestination, the sight [of God in the afterlife], the Qur'an, and other topics of the traditions is rejected and forbidden. Whoever does it, even if his kalam should agree with the Sunna, is not of the people of the Sunna until he rejects argument and surrenders." (Ahmad bin al-Hanbal, Aqida III, in Ibn Yala's Tabaqat al-Hanabila, 2:167, ed. Ibn 'Uthaymin)

“God is over ['ala] the Throne. The Footstool is at the place of His Two Feet... He moves, speaks, observes, looks, laughs [yadhaku], joys, and loves... He descends every night to the lowest heaven however He wills... The servant's hearts are between two of the Most-Merciful's finger... He will put His foot in the Fire, causing it to recoil." (Ahmad bin al-Hanbal, Aqida I, Ibn Yala, Tabaqat, 1:61-62)

“According to us, Hadith is taken according to its apparent meaning (zahiri) just as what came from the Prophet. Talking [kalam] about it is an innovation. But we believe in it as it came according to its apparent meaning ('ala zahirihi).” (Ahmad bin al-Hanbal, Aqida III, Ibn Yala, Tabaqat al-Hanabila, 2:168)

Balkafa

Scholars are almost unanimous in attributing to Ibn Hanbal the use of the ancient balkafa formula. Goldziher, Wensinck, Halkin, Laoust, Makdisi, Abrahamov, and Watt all find in the Imam an advocate of this mediating principle (balkafa), which reportedly allowed the traditionalists to deny the Mu’tazilite ta’wı¯l or figurative interpretation of the Qur’anic anthropomorphisms while concomitantly affirming the doctrine of the “incorporeal, transcendent deity.”⁸⁹ According to Watt, the deadlock between the adherents of the literal interpretation of the attributes and the adherents of ta’wı¯l was broken by Ahmad ibn Hanbal with his use of bi-la¯kayfa.⁹⁰ The one dissenting voice is Joseph Schacht, who not only denies the existence of any anti-anthropomorphist implications of the balkafa formula but also points out that “there is no evidence that Ahmad ibn Hanbal . . . used the term.”⁹¹ 

Schacht is certainly correct. The balkafa formula appears in none of the Imam’s six published creeds; nor does it appear in the two semi-rationalist creedal statements attributed to him by al-Tamimi;⁹² it is absent from his al-Radd ‘ala al-Zanadiqa wa’l-Jahmiyya as well as from his Kitab al-Sunna. After affirming the mentioned attributes of God, Ibn Hanbal apparently never engaged in the practice of qualifying this affirmation by invoking balkafa. An example of this practice is the creedal statement by al-Ash’ari (d. 935), “We confess that God is firmly established on His Throne bila¯kayfa [without how]. . . . We confess that God has two hands bi-la¯kayfa . . . We confess that God has two eyes bi-la¯kayfa. . . . We confess that God has a face ayfa.”⁹³ Compare this with Ibn Hanbal’s ‘Aqı¯da I:

God is on the Throne and the Kursi is the place of His feet. . . . God is on the Throne, and the Throne has bearers carrying it. . . . He is in movement, He speaks, He looks, He laughs, He rejoices, He loves and He detests, He displays ill-will and kindness; He becomes angry and He forgives. . . . Every night He descends, in the manner He wishes, to the nearest heaven . . . the hearts of humankind are between two fingers of the Merciful; He turns them over as He desires and engraves on them whatever He wants. He created Adam with His hands and in His image. On the Day of Resurrection, the heavens and the earth will be in His palm. . . . The People of Paradise will look at His Face and see it. God will honor them. He will appear to them and dispense His grants to them. The servants will appear before Him [on] the Day of Judgment. It is He, Himself, who will ask them for their accounts. Other than He will not administer that.⁹⁴

The conspicuous absence of balkafa is observed also in ‘Aqı¯das III and V, where the imam refers to the hadith of the young man, a most suitable report with which to invoke the formula.⁹⁵

Ibn Hanbal, then, was an anthropomorphist. He affirmed for the divine a human form, including a face, eyes, curly hair, mouth,⁹⁶ voice,⁹⁷ breath,⁹⁸ chest and two elbows,⁹⁹ back,¹⁰⁰ arms,¹⁰¹ hands with a palm,¹⁰² five fingers¹⁰³ and fingertips,¹⁰⁴ legs, shin, feet, soul,¹⁰⁵ physical beauty, a limit, and even, shockingly, loins.¹⁰⁶ He affirmed the external meaning of these attributes and refused to qualify them with balkafa. (Wes Williams, "Aspects of the Creed of Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal: A Study of Anthropomorphism in 9th-10th Century Islamic Discourse," in International Journal of Middle East Studies, 34 (2002), pp. 448-449; emphasis mine)

89 Ignaz Goldziher, The Zahiris: Their Doctrine and Their History, trans. Wolfgang Behn (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1971), 125; A. J. Wensinck, The Muslim Creed (1932; repr., New Delhi: Oriental Books Reprint Corporation, 1979), 86; A. S. Halkin, “The Hashwiyya,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 54 w (1934), 15; EI, s.v. “Ahmad b. Hanbal,” 1:275; idem, Ibn Batta, 102n. 3; Makdisi, Ibn ‘Aqil, 103, 108; Abrahamov, “The Bi-la¯kayfa Doctrine,” 366 f:

Watt argues, for example, “One must maintain both the authority of Scripture and the incorporeality of God, even if one cannot reconcile them intellectually. In the doctrine of balkafiyya this position was regularized and a formal acknowledgment made of the limits to human intellect. The essence of the doctrine is that the terms and phrases of the Scripture are to be accepted bi-la¯kayfa. God ‘has two hands bi-la¯kayfa. . . . He has two eyes bi-la¯kayfa.’ . . . It is implied that the hands and eyes are not corporeal, and the phrase bi-la¯kayfa further suggests that no attempt is to be made to substitute something else for ‘hands’ and ‘eyes’ ”: Watt, “Some Muslim Discussions of Anthropomorphism,” 88 f. Cf. Abrahamov, “The Bi-la¯kayfa Doctrine,” 365 ff. Although the literal meaning of the phrase is “without how” or “without asking how,” it is commonly translated as “without modality” or without saying exactly how the attributes apply to God. It is further interpreted as a denial of kayfiyya or physical attribution: see R. M. Frank, “Elements in the Development of the Teaching of Al-Ash’ari,” Le Muse`on 104 (1991): 155 ff.

90 Watt, Islamic Creeds, 16.

91 He says, “the balkayfa is primarily directed against reasoning, not against the excesses of crude anthropomorphism as has been supposed up to now”: Joseph Schacht, “New Sources for the History of Muhammadan Theology,” Studia Islamica 1 (1953): 34. See also idem, “Theology and Law in Islam,” in Theology and Law in Islam, ed. G. E. von Grunebaum (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1971,) 11.

92 Binyamin Abrahamov, while citing the creed attributed to the imam by al-Tamimi (‘Aqı¯da VIII) as an example of the imam’s acknowledgement of this principle, notes that “the term bi-la¯kayfa, however, does not appear”: Abrahamov, “The Bi-la¯kayfa Doctrine,” 366. Abrahamov is thus required to derive the “constituents of the bi-la¯kayfa doctrine” from certain passages.

93 Al-Ash’ari, “Al-Ibana ‘an usul al-diyana,” trans. Walter Klein, in The Elucidation of Islam’s Foundation (New Haven, Conn.: American Oriental Society, 1940), 35 f.

94 Ibn Hanbal, ‘Aqı¯da I, near Ibn Abi Ya’la, Tabaqat, 1:29.

95 In ‘Aqı¯da III, Ibn Hanbal argues that one of the obligations of the sunna is “[t]o have faith in Qadar (divine predestination), its good and its evil. To affirm the hadith reports related to it and to have faith in them. It is not to be said, ‘Why?’ or ‘How?’ It is but attestation to their truthfulness and having faith in them. Whoever does not know the explanation of a hadith and whose intellect [does not have the capacity] to make him understand it, then that would be sufficient [i.e., to merely affirm the hadiths and have faith in them]. . . . And it is necessary for him to have faith in it and submit to it”: Ibn Abi Ya’la, Tabaqat, 1: 241. The imam does not use the balkafa formula here, but he rejects the asking of questions. This is most certainly a polemic against the dialectical mode of argumentation employed by the mutakallimu¯n. An illustration of this mode of disputation and traditionalist sentiments toward it is found in the narrative of Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Shaybani concerning Harun al-Rashid (d. 809), “Abu Mu’awiya al-Darir was speaking to Harun al-Rashid and he narrated to him the ˙adı¯th of Abu Hurayra, ‘Adam and Musa had a dispute . . . ’ So ‘Ali ibn Ja’far said, ‘How can this be when there exists the gap [of time] between Adam and Musa that [which] there is?’ He [the narrator] said, ‘So Harun jumped up on account of it and said, “He is narrating to you from the Messenger and you oppose him by saying ‘How?’” and he did not cease saying this until he calmed down and became silent.” The imam’s intent was to censure the mutakallimu¯n, not the mushabbiha: cf. Ibn Hanbal, Kitab al-Sunna, 55.

Although the balkafa formula is absent from all of Ibn Hanbal’s extant works, the solitary witness to his use of the mediating principle is his cousin Hanbal ibn Ishaq. According to Hanbal, when the imam was asked about the hadiths mentioning the descent (al-Nuzu¯l), the beatific vision, (al-Ru’ya), placing the Foot on Hell, and the like, he replied, “We believe in them and consider them true without ‘how’ and without meaning (la¯kayfa wa-la¯ma’na¯)”: see Ibn Taymiyya, Dar’ ta’arud, 1:255. But this is certainly an erroneous attribution. Hanbal ibn Ishaq has been cited for several such attributions by respected Hanbalı¯s: w see Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Mukhtasar al-sawa’iq al-mursala ‘ala al-Jahmiyya al-Mu’attila (Cairo: Matwba’at al-Ima¯m, 1960–61), 406.

96 He says in ‘Aqı¯da I, “Allah spoke to Musa with His mouth”: Ibn Abi Ya’la, Tabaqat, 1:29.

97 ‘Abd Allah said, “I asked my father about a people who say: ‘When Allah spoke to Musa he didn’t speak with a voice.’ And my father said: ‘Rather, your Lord indeed spoke with a voice. These hadiths we report them as they came.” Also, “My father said [from Ibn Mas’ud]: ‘When Allah spoke a voice is heard like the dragging of iron chains on stones.’ My father said: ‘This is the Jahmiyya deny’ ”: ‘Abd Allah, Kitab al-Sunna, 1:280, no. 533.

98 From Qur’an 15:29; also, the hadith reported on the authority of Abu Hurayra, who alleges to have heard the Prophet say, “Wind comes from God’s breath”: Ibn Hanbal, Musnad, 2:267.

99 Ibn Hanbal, Kitab al-Sunna, 151; ‘Abd Allah, Kitab al-Sunna, 2:510.

100 Abd Allah narrates from Ibn Hanbal, “Allah wrote the Torah for Musa while supporting His back on a rock, on Tablets of pearl, and the screech of the pen could be heard”: Ibn Hanbal, Kitab al-Sunna, 67; ‘Abd Allah, Kitab Al-Sunna, 1:294, no. 568.

101 He reports in Musnad, 3:473, the narration of Malik ibn Nadla in which the Prophet declares, “The Arm of God is stronger than your arm.”

102 Ibn Hanbal, Musnad, 2:538.

103 Ibn Hanbal narrated the hadith “God will [on the Day of Resurrection] hold the heavens on one finger [first], the lands on one finger [second], the mountains on one finger [third], the humid land on one finger [fourth], and all of the creatures on one finger [fifth]”: ibid., 1:429; idem, Kitab al-Sunna, 54.

104 Idem, Musnad, 5:243.

105 Idem, ‘Aqı¯da VIII, near Ibn Abi Ya’la, Tabaqat, 2:298.

106 From the tradition found in Ibn Hanbal, Musnad, 2:330, “After God completed creation, kinship rose and seized God’s loin (˙aqw).” Cf. Goldziher, Zahiris, 154 f; Gimaret Dieu a` l’image, 229 ff. (Ibid., pp. 459-460; emphasis mine)

“We believe in them, and we attest to their validity, without saying how, and without ascribing an interpretation to them... We know that whatever the Messenger came with is the truth." (Ibn Qudama, Luma't al-I'tiqad, Sec. 1)

"For we have no need to know the meaning which God intended by His attributes... It is possible to believe in them without the knowledge of their meaning. For indeed faith through ignorance is sound." (Ibn Qudama, Tahrim al-nazar, tr. Makdisi, The Censure of Speculative Theology, p. 22)

The following excerpt is taken from 3-Belief of Hanbalis / Atharis (past) vs "Salafis".

Imam Ibn Hamdan (d. 695 AH) said in his book Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in - which was written for teaching purpose and is relied upon by the Hanabila after him - the following:

Allah is not a particle (Jawhar) or an accident ('Aradh) or a body (Jism) and temporality (Hawadith) does not indwell in Him and He does not indwell in what is emergent (Hadith) nor is He confined by it, rather He is beyond His creation (ba`in min khalqih).

Allah is upon the throne ('ala al-'Arsh) not with a limitation [that limits Him], rather the limitation is that of the throne and of that which is besides it (or below it) [from the creation]; and Allah is above (fawq) [all of] that without place (Makan) or limitation (Hadd), because He existed and there was no place (Makan), then He created place and He is as He was before creating place.

He is not known through the senses (Hawas) and He can not be compared to humans and there is no entry for analogy [or comparing] (Qiyas) regarding His essence and attributes. He has not taken a wife or a child [for Himself], rather He's free of any needs. He's not similar to anything and nothing is similar to Him. Whosoever attributes similarity to Him with His creation has disbelieved. This is what [Imam] Ahmad (d. 241 AH) stated; and the same goes regarding the one who regards him a body. Or if someone says "He's a body unlike [other] bodies" (Jism la kal Ajsam). This was mentioned by al-Qadhi [Abu Ya'la] (d. 458 AH). Imagination does not reach Him and comprehension does not grasp Him. He's not similar to the creation and no examples can be given in behalf of Him. He's not known by the sayings [of the people].

Whatever comes to the mind or [can] be conceived by the imagination, then He is different from that, the Lord of Majesty and Bounty.SectionWe're certain that Allah is in the heaven (fil Sama`) and that He [is] established upon the throne (Istawa 'ala al-Arsh) without modality (bila kayf), and all that in the manner befitting him. We do not interpret that nor do we explain it or ascribe modality to it or imagine it or specify it or reject it or deny it, rather we relegate its knowledge to Allah. We're certain in denying attributing similarity (Tashbih) or attributing corporeality (Tajsim) or any flaw and that is the ruling [to be followed] for all verses (Ayat) concerning the [divine] attributes and the authentic and explicit narrations.

[Imam] Ahmad said: "We believe that Allah is upon the throne ('ala al-'Arsh) as He intends without modality (bila kayf) or a description that a describer can reach or a limit (Hadd) that limits him."

So whoever says that He's - with His essence - in every place or in [some] place, then he's a disbeliever (Kafir), because this [belief] necessitates place (Makan) to be eternal and that [Allah] is occupying filthy places and other than them; High Exalted is Allah above that. And this does not negate Him being in the heaven (fil Sama`) and above the throne ('ala al-'Arsh) in the manner befitting him, as clarified.

And the same statement applies regarding the narration of descent (Nuzul) and other than it which has an authentic chain and is explicit in wording, so that it's impossible to understand it literally. (Emphasis mine)

These next quotes on the differences of opinion in respect to whether the Arabic Quran is the actual word of Allah are taken from 1-Belief of Hanbalis / Atharis (past) vs "Salafis" (Part-1).

—The reason why they (Ash'aris, Maturidis and Hanbalis) all are regarded as Sunnis is that they are in agreement in these major issues of 'Aqida:

- They believe that God is described with the attributes of absolute perfection and is free from any flaws. They believe that God is described with eternal attributes that are meanings subsisting in the divine essence and this is contrast to the belief of the Mu'tazila who reject the notion that God is described with attributes that are za`ida 'ala al-dhat (additionally to the essence) and also in contrast to the belief of the Mushabbiha and Mujassima who believe that some of these attributes are actually not Ma'ani (meanings) subsisting in the divine essence, but rather A'yan (tangible entities) which make up the divine essence.

- They believe that God is free from any likeness AND similarity and therefore reject Tamthil AND Tashbih in an absolute way. They believe that God is not described with any of the meanings that apply to the creation (doing otherwise is explicitly regarded as disbelief in al-Tahawiyya!!) and that the Ishtirak (having something in common) in the attributes of the Creator with that of the creation is only one of wording (lafdh) and some of that which these attributes necessitate (Lawazim) and NOT in the real meaning (which includes the reality of the attribute).

- Since they reject the meanings that apply to the creation they do NOT have any problem with rejecting descriptions that apply to the creation like being a body, having limbs, parts or tools, being subject to changes, being in motion or stillness, having a weight, a form or a size, being spatially confined or having any type of flaw. They believe that whatever is attributed with these descriptions is not eternal and therefore created by Allah, who is completely unlike is creation.

- They believe that the Qur`an is the speech of Allah and his revelation. They believe that the speech of Allah is eternal just like the other divine attributes and can not be described with being created or having a beginning in any way or form!

- They believe that the world (everything other than Allah) has a beginning (as a singular AND in its kind!) and that only the Creator can be described with being eternal, because He's the First without beginning and the Last without end.

There are two issues where the Ash'aris and the Hanbalis differed:- The Hanabila believe that regarding the divine attributes the only correct way is that of Tafwidh (consigning the real meaning to Allah) and that Ta`wil (interpretation) is categorically wrong (except if the Sunna or the Athar contain an interpretation), while the Ash'aris also accept Ta`wil if the context and the usage of the Arabs is considered (especially in order to answer wrong interpretations). So they both actually agree that Tafwidh is the correct way and the Madhhab of the Salaf al-salih and disagree regarding the permissibility of Ta`wil,

- After agreeing that the speech of Allah is eternal the Ash'aris differed with Hanabila regarding the Arabic wording (Lafdh) of the Qur`an al-karim: The Ash'aris said that it is created and that the speech of Allah is without letters and sounds and that the Arabic words and letters are vehicles to understand the speech of Allah, which is eternal. 

The Hanabila however vehemently rejected this and said that God speaks with letters and sound. It should be noted here that with "sound" they ONLY intended that God's speech can be heard (and they used Allah speaking to our Master Musa as a proof for this) (and this is accepted by Ash'aris also!) and not sound waves or something produced by tools or organs or having orifices. 

As for letters: They said that "Alif Lam Mim" is from the Qur`an and that in the Sunna it is proven that one is rewarded for every letter and therefore it is not allowed to say that God speaks without letters. What they at the same time clarified is that these letters and words are only following each other (Ta'aqub) in the case of human beings, but Allah's speech is without Ta'aqub. 

And they said that the speech of Allah is completely different from that of the creation and that one should consign the knowledge regarding the reality of Allah's speech to Him like the rest of the divine attributes.

The issue of the al-Harf wal Sawt (letter and sound) regarding the speech of Allah is heavily disputed among the Ash'aris and Hanbalis and both groups have attacked each other because of this issue, but when one looks into the details of their statements one sees that both positions are actually very near to each other to the degree that there is statement of Imam al-Tufi (d. 716 AH) (who defends the Hanbali position) where he suggests that the difference is actually only in wording between the two groups.(Note: I've not mentioned the issue of 'Ilm al-Kalam, because it is also differed upon between the Hanbalis themselves and you'll find major scholars from among them using it in order to refute the innovators and the heretics. What the Hanabila however agreed upon is that Islamic belief should be based upon the divine texts and not 'Ilm al-Kalam.)As for the beliefs of the modern-day "Salafis"* in comparison to the three Sunni groups mentioned above:- They believe that God is not only described with attributes that are meanings (Ma'ani) subsisting in the divine essence, but also with A'yan (tangible entities) that make up the divine essence. They claim that Yad, Wajh, 'Ayn and other such attributes are Sifat 'Ayniyya!

- They believe that rejecting Tamthil (attributing a likeness) regarding God in an absolute way is correct, but Tashbih (attributing similarity) should not be rejected in an absolute way (as explicitly stated by Ibn 'Uthaymin). They believe that there is a Qadar Mushtarak (certain amount of having something in common) between the Creator and the creation and that this Ishtirak (having something in common) is not just regarding the wording (Lafdh) of the attributes and some of what it necessitates (Lawazim), but rather in the real meaning.

- Based upon the above they have a HUGE problem to reject those descriptions that apply to the creation and usually say "we neither reject them nor confirm them" or they will use the "if you intend this, then this..."-argumentation, which basically no scholar of the past – other than Ibn Taymiyya – used while discussing these issues.

To add to all this: They will show a whole new level of ignorance by claiming that it is 'Ilm al-Kalam to reject these descriptions (even though confirming these descriptions is Kufr!), while the Hanabila throughout all ages and no matter how much they were against 'Ilm al-Kalam did NOT find any problem in rejecting these descriptions.

There is one issue however where the "Salafis" openly confirm and do not reject such a description: They believe that God is subject to changes (which is the belief of the Karramiyya!).

- They also believe that the Qur`an is the speech of Allah, but at the same time they claim that the speech of Allah is ONLY eternal in its kind, while it is new and has a beginning as a singular. This is in complete contrast to the statement of the Hanabila, who ALL say that the Qur`an al-karim is eternal from every side.

- They believe that the world has a beginning as singular, but it's eternal in its kind! This is among their biggest mistakes and from the statements of the philosophers and in direct contradiction to the clear-cut divine texts! Imagine this: From one side they describe the eternal speech of Allah with having a beginning and they claim that Allah is subject to changes and from the other side they describe the creation with being eternal [in its kind] and then they claim to know Tawhid better than the rest of the Umma!

What Tawhid is this where the Eternal one is ascribed with temporality and the creation is described with eternity?!*Their scholars are meant, because they are the ones who ascribe to the above mentioned beliefs in their books and some of their speeches. Many of their layman do not actually believe in most of the above mentioned points and are not aware of these wrong beliefs. (Emphasis mine)

Further Reading

What Exactly is Allah? A Humanoid or Spirit?

Quran: Uncreated, Created, or Originated?