Introduction

Muhammad Anwar Shah al-Kashmiri

He is a Hanafi-Maturidi-Deobandi scholar (d. 1352H) and he has explanations of the books of hadeeth such as the Saheeh of al-Bukhari and the Sunan of al-Tirmidhi and dictations and marginal notes on Muslim, Abu Dawud, and Ibn Majah.

To the above are the covers for the books al-Arf al-Shadhiyy Sharh Sunan al-Tirmidhi (tahqiq, Muhammad Shakir, Dar Ihyaa al-Turath al-Arabi, 2004), and Faid al-Bari alaa Sahih al-Bukhari (Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah, 2005). We are going to quote his commentary on the hadeeth pertaining to the Nuzul (descent) of Allaah, the Exalted, as it contains a valuable explanation about the issue of Haadith, hadath, Muhdath, makhluq, and the confusion in these terms as it relates to the Sifaat Fi'liyyah (Allaah's chosen actions). And likewise his commentary on certain chapters in al-Bukhari's Kitab al-Tawhid relating to the Qur'an and Allaah's speech.

As for his belief, then he is a Maturidi, and naturally, we consider him in opposition to the Salaf in his doctrinal views, and thus whatever refutations are found with the Salaf and their followers, past and present, against the schools of Kalaam, and ta'weel and the likes would be applicable. However, what we find here (in the quote that we are going to present and comment on) is a display of honesty and justice that you will not find these days (for the reasons mentioned above in the introduction).

Context of the Quote

The quote we are going to present below occurs as commentary on the hadeeth of al-Nuzul (descent), and this is cited on page 414, the hadith of Abu Hurairah (radiallaahu anhu) which is also in the two Sahihs. There is a bit of discussion before we come to the actual passage we are interested in, and so we can summarize that discussion in the following points:

One: [p. 415] Mention that al-Nuzul (descent) is a matter of aqidah and not fiqh, and that a generalized belief in it is sufficient, as is mentioned in al-Fiqh al-Akbar which is a work authored by Abu Mutee' al-Balkhee, a student of Abu Hanifah, and who al-Kashmiri deems to be saduq (truthful).

Two: [p. 415] A discussion of the view of the Philosophers (Aristotle, al-Farabi, Ibn Sina) on the attributes and the attribute of existence (wujood), and their rejection of qudrah (power) and iraadah (wish), and within this the mention of whether the attributes are synonymous with the essence or something additional to the essence. Also a mention that the difference in the views of the Sufis and the Mutakallimeen regarding whether the attributes are the very essence or other than the essence is a difference in wording only, and a brief explanation of this matter.

Three: [p. 415-516] A brief mention that the actions of Allaah have wisdom behind them (mu'allalah bil-hikam), and that a complete cause ('illah taammah) precedes the thing being caused (ma'lul) with a precedence in time.

Four: [p. 416] He refers to this hadeeth of al-Nuzul to be from the mutashaabihaat and includes al-istiwaa within these matters. This is not the way of the Salaf, and they never referred to these matters as the mutashaabihaat as far as their meanings are concerned. Al-Kashmiri says: "The view of the Salaf regarding them is having faith (al-eemaan) upon the apparentness (dhaahir) of what is granted to be upon its apparentness without ta'weel and without takyif and relegating (yufawwadu) the matter of their kaifiyyah to Allaah, the Exalted." We have to remember that al-Kashmiri is a Maturidi, and the Ahl al-Kalaam often make expressions that appear to be approximate to what Ahl al-Sunnah say, except that how they explain these expressions is upon a way other than what the Salaf were upon.

Then he mentions [p.416] the way of the Mutakallimeen (Ahl al-Kalaam) and says about them that they claim the way of the Salaf to be tafweed (i.e. of the meaning) which is safer (aslam), and that their madhhab (the Mutakallimeen) is making ta'weel through reason (aql) in conformity with the legislation (shar') and that this is more precise (ahkam). Al-Kashmiri says (that upon this view of the Mutakallimin) it means that the foundational basis of Ahl al-Sunnah (to them, the Mutakallimin) is making tafweed, and as for ta'weel then it is only resorted to out of necessity, when countering those who oppose the Sunnah. Al-Kashmiri says that the Mutakallimin resorted to these ta'weels when they were debating the opposers to Islaam. Then he mentions two other categories of people, those who made ta'weels in agreement with their reason (aql) which oppose the Sharee'ah, and the Mushabbihah who said Allaah is a jism (body) like all the bodies.

We say: That this position of the Mutakallimin (in regards to ta'weel and tafweed ascribed to the Salaf) is baatil (falsehood) and this way was never found amongst the Salaf in relation to the sifaat. This is despite the fact that they came across falsehood and they came upon the zanaadiqah and the malaahidah (heretics, disbelievers, opposers to Islaam). They are the ones (the Sahaabah and Taabi'een) who conquered the lands in which there were many factions of non-Muslims and various civilizations and various creeds, and it is not known from any of them that they resorted to this methodology or the use of innovated theological language. Rather, the truth of the matter is that the there appeared the likes of al-Ja'd and al-Jahm who adopted the conceptual tools of the Hellenized Jews, Christians and Sabeans (see this series), and used it to debate the atheists, and this approach was taken and refined by the Mu'tazilah in the form of the proof of huduth al-ajsaam (the origination of bodies), to prove the universe is created, and they were forced to remain consistent with this proof by denying the names, attributes and actions. Hence they innovated things not known to the Salaf and started raising issues like a) separating the deen into usool and furoo' and b) the issue of majaaz and haqeeqah in the the Qur'an and c) innovating ta'weel (which is really tahreef) as a means to deal with those problematic texts that affirm attributes and actions, and d) trying to distinguish between mutawaatir and aahaad (in terms of what amounts to knowledge) and so on. These approaches characterize the reality of what the doctrines and viewpoints of the schools of Kalaam (Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah, Kullaabiyyah, Ash'ariyyah, Maturidiyyah) are founded upon - which is conflict between revelation and reason and giving reason precedence. Amongst them were those who tended towards Tajseem through this same Kalaam, like the Raafidee Mujassimah and the Hanafi Karraamiyyah, but they were all united around this proof of huduth al-ajsaam and trying to maintain its major premises. Some were let to ta'teel and others were led to Tajseem.

Four: [p. 416] After mentioning the way of the Salaf and the way of the Mutakallimeen, he then addresses the issue of the tafweed ascribed to the Salaf. He says, that the tafweed ascribed to the Salaf can bear two meanings. The first is pure relegation [of the meaning] to Allaah without showing any rejection against those who made ta'weel in whatever way they made ta'weel due to the reason that they affirmed they do not to have knowledge (i.e. are wholly ignorant of the meaning of the text). The second making tafweed only of the details (tafseel) and the how (takyeef), and leaving that knowledge to Allaah as well as showing rejection against those who made ta'weel through his opinion and reason. Al-Kashmiri says that the tafweed of the Salaf is this second meaning, not the first one. Again, bear in mind that al-Kashmiri could intend by the word "tafseel" (detail), the actual "ma'naa" (meaning), and thus the way of the Salaf to him is tafweed of the ma'naa and kaifiyyah together, except he chose to express ma'naa through the word tafseel, which obscures matters a little.

Five: We have to remember that al-Kashmiri is a Maturidi and he considers there to be groups who make ta'weel that are also upon the truth. He says that those who make ta'weel are of three groups, and he mentions those who are a) the specialists of the language who use metaphors and allegories and the likes, b) the Sufis who make ta'weels like Allaah's nuzul being "manifestation" and c) the ta'weel of the Mutakallimeen. He says that the third group, the Mutakallimin, are divided into the Ash'arites and the Maturidis. He says that when the label "Ash'arites" is used it includes the Maturidis.

Six: [p. 416] He then describes the two groups, Ash'aris and Maturidis. He says the Ash'arites affirm sifaat dhaatiyyah qadeemah azaliyyah (eternal attributes of the essence) which are the seven, knowledge, hearing, seeing, power, wish, speech and life, and that they also affirm Sifaat Fi'liyyah (actions) but that these are hawaadith (events) and creations of Allaah, and are not established with Allaah Himself (meaning these actions are not established with Allaahs essence). As for the Maturidis, he says that they say the attributes of Allaah are seven, and they are eternal. And as for the Sifaat Fi'liyyah (such as giving life, taking life, anger, pleasure) they are also eternal. He says that the Maturidis put all of the various types of Sifaat Fi'liyyah under one genus, and called it al-takween, and they make this an eighth attribute for Allaah.

Seven: [p. 417] He then mentions the position of the Ash'arites that whilst Allaah's attributes are eternal (like wish, power etc.) their associations (ta'alluqaat) with things are hawaadith (recent events). What he is referring to here is the attempt of the Ash'arites to connect Allaah's attributes of wish and power and the likes (which are eternal) to the recency of created things and so they came up with the concept of "ta'alluq" (association), which is really an imaginary connection between Allaah's eternal wish and power with the things wished for (muraadaat) and under Allaah's power (maqdooraat). This attempt by the Ash'arites does not establish any true and real connection in external reality (it is just word play), because if their was, it would falsify their entire doctrinal school as they would be obliged to accept what they refer to as hawaadith in Allaah's essence, since the element of recency would have to come into those attributes (power, wish, hearing, seeing).

Eight: [p. 417] He then says, that from the Maturidi perpective (as the Maturidis see it), there is another matter that is connected to Allaah, and which is also called fi'l (action), he says that this labelling of it as fi'l is from himself and it is the likes of Allaah's nuzul to the lowest heaven and other such matters which are connected to Allaah Himself but which cannot be from the type which are eternal in Allaah. He says, these actions are "hawaadith", and he says that the Maturidiyyah say that they are not established with Allaah, rather they are from His creation.

We say: Note that this is the same view as the Ash'arites, except that the Maturidis distinguish between those actions they include within al-takween and make eternal (like ihyaa, imaatah, tazreeq, ridhaa, ghadab) and those they do not like al-istiwaa, al-nuzul and the likes. The Ash'aris operate upon the principle they borrowed from the Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah that al-fi'l huwa al-maf'ul, that "action" is nothing but the created entity or event in the creation, which is said to be Allaah's action, but is not actually established with Him, meaning that everything besides Allaah is His action (but not established with Him), hence you will understand the saying of the Ash'arites like al-Ghazali, "Nothing exists save Allah and His actions."

It is at this point now that we come the passage that is relevant to our purpose in this article. Before we proceed to it, an important observation needs to be kept in mind.

An Important Observation Regarding Language and Terminology

It is vital to understand that the Kalaam schools of theology (Ash'aris and Maturidis) have a particular language (not known to the Salaf) and they make use of terms and phrases to describe and characterize certain views. In this particular case, they use the word "hawaadith" (events, occurrences) to refer to the actions of Allaah tied to His will and power. Thus, when you come to read the speech of al-Kashmiri, you should be aware of the type of language he is using to characterize the view of Ibn Taymiyyah (which is the view of the Salaf), and you have to see beyond and above the terminology he is using and simply grasp the actual meanings and concepts that he is explaining and putting across. We do not agree with this terminology, and it is not from the way of the Salaf to speak of Allaah's actions (af'aal) in this manner.

Muhammad Anwar Shah al-Kashmiri on Ibn Taymiyyah, Hawaadith, and the terms Haadith, Muhdath and Makhluq

Here is a screenshot of the page for reference (p. 417):

We can translate this piecemeal and add relevant comments. So al-Kashmiri said - after what has preceded above - from the sixth line down:

As for the orientation of al-Haafidh Ibn Taymiyyah regarding al-sifaat al-hawaadith [the attributes with element of recency] which are established with the Maker [Allaah] and are hawaadith, and are not created, and it is claimed that he agrees with the Righteous Salaf...

Commentary:

What he is referring to as hawaadith are the Sifaat Fi'liyyah ikhtiyaariyyah, those actions that are tied to Allaah's choice, will, power and which He is not permanently described with, or those which are indeed permanent in their genus but are tied to will and power (like speech) as it relates to their instances. These includes the likes of ridaa (pleasure), ghadab (anger), mahabbah (love), dahak (laughter), ajab (amazement), nuzul (descent), istiwaa (ascent), majee' (coming), Ityaan (arriving) and so on. The Salaf never referred to these as hawaadith, and nor did Ibn Taymiyyah, rather we see the Salaf affirming all these matters, without distinguishing them from the permanent attributes, like ilm (knowledge), qudrah (power), sam' (hearing), basr (seeing) and what is similar to them. Their approach was consistent and uniform, which is to make ithbaat (affirmation) of everything without distinction and to negate tamtheel (likening) and takyeef (specifying the reality). And they waged war against the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah and their offshoots who rejected these Sifaat Fi'liyyah in a variety of different ways, from them, by claiming they are eternal (such as with love, pleasure and anger), or by claiming that they are not established with Allaah's essence, but are simply what take place in the creation. So these approaches were taken by the Mu'tazilah towards the sifaat (attributes) and these approaches were borrowed by the Ash'ariyyah and Maturidiyyah from the Mu'tazilah and applied to the af'aal (actions). So we do not refer to these as hawaadith, this is purely the terminology of Ahl al-Kalaam, because their entire orientation has its roots in the Kalaam which they took from the Hellenized Jews, Christians and Sabeans (through the route of al-Ja'd bin Dirham, to al-Jahm bin Safwan to the Mu'tazilah through to the Raafidah, and to the Kullaabiyyah and Karraamiyyah, and to the Ash'ariyyah and Maturidiyyah). Hence, they have a particular theological language that is unique to them, through which they characterize not just their own doctrinal views, but also those of others (who are not from the Kalaam groups) from those who do not agree to this language in the first place. For this reason, these people have made mistakes in characterizing the views of Ahl al-Sunnah in certain areas, because they were looking at them with clouded vision. This is very prominent in the issue of the Qur'an.

He continues:

...and it is claimed that he agrees with the Righteous Salaf, and he says: "Indeed, hawaadith, are established with Allaah through choice (ikhtiyaar), and He is not one who is devoid of hawaadith, rather He can be one described with hawaadith and also not described with hawaadith...

Commentary:

As we said, al-Kashmiri, coming from the kalam theology schools, is characterizing the matter through the language of Kalaam. The actions of Allaah (af'aal), if they are said to be established with His essence and tied to His choice and will, such that Allaah is not permanently and eternally described with, by way of example, pleasure, anger, istiwaa, nuzul, and specific instances of speech (not the genus of speech), and so on, all of this is labelled as "hawaadith" to the Kalaam theologists. So in this passage from al-Kashmiri, you have to remember that we are discussing concepts through the labels and terms of the kalam theologists, so we are going to have to work with him on this, because the objective here is to see how al-Kashmiri is honest and decent enough to characterize truthfully the viewpoint of Ibn Taymiyyah, even if it be upon innovated language, and this is in stark contrast to the riff-raff from the hooligans, clueless zombies, dishonest swindlers and others who are from the school of al-Kawthari, GF Haddaad, Keller and others. As we shall see, that what al-Kashmiri is attributing to Ibn Taymiyyah (and the Salaf) is correct in meaning, but the terminology he is using is not correct, and we neither agree with it or accept it.

He continues:

...And he [Ibn Taymiyyah] said: Between [what is] Haadith (recent) and [what is] makhluq (created) there is generality (umoom) and specificity (khusoos), for the attributes [of action] which are haadithah (have recency) and all of the things of the universe are hawaadith (of recent occurrence). But the sifaat (attributes of action) are not created, unlike all of the things of the universe [whose existence is] possible.

Commentary:

This is a characterization of the view of Ibn Taymiyyah (and of the Salaf) through the language of Kalaam theology. In simple terms all it means is that Allaah is described with certain actions, which are established with His essence, which are tied to His will and power, and therefore they are said to be of recent occurrence (Haadith) when they take place through His will and power. So an example would be Allaah's speech, not in its genus (which is eternal) but in its specific instances. He spoke to the Angels before creating Aadam (alayhis salaam), and He created Aadam and spoke to Aadam, just as He spoke to Iblis, and He also spoke to Messengers, like Musa and Muhammad (alayhimaa as-salaam) and He will speak on the Day of Judgement, to the Believers and likewise to the inhabitants of the Fire and so on. All of these are instances of speech that are not the same as each other, rather they are different instances of speech and they occur at different "times".

Important Note Concerning Time. The issue of "time" (zamaan) is a topic we have not covered in-depth yet, and there are found amongst the Ash'aris and Maturidis who utter the statement "Allaah is outside of time" without really knowing what they are saying. This is because they are conceiving of a theological idea that exists only in the mind, and it does not exist in external reality. This does not mean we are saying that Allaah is enclosed by time, since Allaah created all time, and Allaah existed and there was no time [and this leads to the question as to what is the "time" being referred to here], but what it means is that the idea they are trying to conceive of in their minds in trying to deny Allaah has speech and action (al-kalaam wal-fi'l) tied to His will and power is such that it really implies Allaah's non-existence, through the non-existence of his sifat fi'liyyah muta'addiyah and Af'aal Ikhtiyaariyyah except that they can't really see it, and it is impossible for them to reconcile what they are saying "Allaah is outside of time" with what is plain and manifest in thousands of revealed texts that Allaah speaks and acts with choice and that His speech and action is mentioned in thousands of revealed texts in relation to time. Inshaa'Allaah we will dedicate a series of articles that explain the position and view of the Salaf in this matter in detail. For now, what we can say briefly is that Allaah is the creator of times (azminah, measurements of time), and there are different measurements of time, we have our created measurement of days and years (through movement of the sun and moon), and there is also another created measurement of time of days and years that is with Allaah (a day with Allaah is a thousand years of our reckoning). Likewise on the Day of Judgement there is a measurement of time (that day lasts 50,000 years) and in Paradise their will also be measurement of time (morning, evening, week). So we affirm time is created, as in relational time. At the same time there is an altogether separate issue which is that Allaah has speech and action tied to His will and power and that He has eternally been "the doer of whatever He wills" (2:253, 11:107, 22:14, 85:16). It is not binding that because Allaah speaks and acts as He wills, with choice, that His speech and action is now "encapsulated by time", for Allaah has eternally been one who speaks and acts as He wills, before He created the azminah (times), and time is simply measurement of motion. Further, it is because He is one who speaks and acts by choice that we are able to make sense of the multitudes of revealed texts that make mention of Allaah speaking and acting within the context of specific times as it relates to our measurement of time, or in an altogether different measurement of time that is with Allaah. We can give two examples to illustrate what has just been said. The first, the Angels that ascend to Allaah at Fajr and Asr and who inform Allah, even though He knows best about His servants, as to what state they left them in. So here is an example of Allah's speech (because He speaks to those Angels) mentioned in relation to time, and it happens to be our measurement of time. Imaam al-Bukhari brings under numerous chapter headings in Kitab al-Tawhid from his Sahih, many ahaadeeth which are like this, to establish that Allaah speaks as and when He wills, such that He spoke to Moses, and speaks to Jibreel and will speak on the Day of Judgement and so on, as a refutation of the Jahmiyyah (and their offshoots). The second, is the six days of creation, so there are days with Allaah other than the days of this creation (and that measurement of time is also created, and each of those days is equivalent to a thousand years of our time), and Allaah made istiwaa over the Throne after creating the heavens and earth in that measurement of six days, as is stated in six verses in the Qur'an (7:54, 10:3, 13:2, 25:59, 32:4, 57:4). Likewise, Allaah wrote the decrees 50,000 years before creating the heavens and earth and this measurement of years is other than our measurement of years. So we are able to reconcile all these texts and still believe that Allaah is not enclosed and encapsulated by time, because we affirm Allah has actions tied to His will and power - something which all the Kalaam groups fled from because they deemed this to be "hawaadith" (events, occurrences) that would clash with their proof of huduth al-ajsaam whose fundamental principle is "Whatever is not devoid of hawaadith (events, occurrences), is itself Haadith (originated)." As a result, they took certain approaches to deny and eliminate the element of choice (ikhtiyaar) from Allaah's actions to maintain their Kalaam theology. As part of this approach, they say "Allaah is outwith time" and they are just dazed and confused. What they are doing here is conceiving of something in the mind that clashes with external reality. They see the thousands of revealed texts which clearly mention Allaah's speech and action in the context of time, and then because they are operating upon that Kalaam theology that must reject what they define as "hawaadith" for Allaah (otherwise the proof for His existence is destroyed), then they are forced to make statements like "Allaah is outwith time" as a means of psychological comfort to their souls which have been disturbed by those thousands of revealed texts and for which they have absolutely no explanation and to which they turn a blind-eye or simply flee from. And when they make this statement, they don't really grasp what they are saying, and at the same time, if they were honest in their souls, they would know and admit that the revealed texts are blatanly in opposition to their particular conception of this matter. Rather, the truth lies in what we have stated, which is what is manifest in the Qur'an, the Sunnah and what the Salaf were upon.

He continues:

And as for the Ash'arites, they say that the Maker, lofty be His name, is not subject to hawaadith (events), and they said that there is no difference between the Haadith (that which is of recent occurrence) and the makhluq (that which is created).

Commentary:

Here we are getting into the crux of the matter, and it is the dispute between Ahl al-Sunnah, the Righteous Salaf, and between the Kalaam theologists. The language of the Qur'an, the language of the Arabs and the view of the Salaf is that what is Haadith is not necessarily what is makhluq (created). And the Kalaam groups claim that that which is Haadith is not anything but makhluq (created). It is upon this basis they denied the element of choice (ikhtiyaar, through will and power) from Allaah's speech and action, because according to them, it would mean that created things (i.e. hawaadith) take place in His essence. This is why they took those approaches towards the Af'aal Ikhtiyaariyyah that we mentioned before, be they the Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah, As'hariyyah or Maturidiyyah. Al-Kashmiri has now defined the Ash'ari view, after outlining the view of Ibn Taymiyyah (which is the view of the Salaf). He now goes on to discuss this matter.

He continues:

And I say: The (Arabic) language is in support of al-Haafidh Ibn Taymiyyah...

Commentary:

Refreshing to see a Maturidi scholar who knows his Arabic and correctly characterizes the view of others in this particular matter, unlike the deceivers that came on the scene in the 20th century from the madrasah of al-Kawthari al-Dajjaal al-Affaak, that perishing bigoted and blazing Hanafi-partisan.

He continues:

And I say: The (Arabic) language is in support of al-Haafidh Ibn Taymiyyah, for when Zayd (for example) is standing, it is said, the qiyaam (act of standing) is connected to Zayd, and that Zayd is described (muttasif) with qiyaam. It is not said that he (Zayd) is the creator of qiyaam (in himself). Likewise, when Allah is described with al-nuzul, then there must be nuzul established [with Allaah], and that the Maker, lofty be His manifest evidence, is described with al-nuzul, not that He is a "creator" of it.

Commentary:

This is what is known in the Arabic language and in the language of the Qur'an and to the Salaf. When Allaah performs an act, it is something that He is described with (muttasif), it is not said that He created the act in Himself. This is not known in the Arabic language. Thus, extending this to all of Allaah's Af'aal Ikhtiyaariyyah, Ahl al-Sunnah say that Allaah is described with them all, and they are not created events that take place in His essence, which is what the Ash'arites and their likes claim, that they are hawaadith (meaning to them, created), and this type of characterization of this reality is not something found in the Arabic language.

He continues:

And with the very same thing that Ibn Taymiyyah said, al-Bukhari [also] said, that Allaah is described with attributes [of action] that are recent (sifaat haadithah), except that the explainers made interpretation (ta'weel) of his speech.

Commentary:

Inshaa'Allaah we will address what al-Kashmiri has alluded to here in the next article, as it relates to Imaam al-Bukhari. But note here how he indicates that the explainers of al-Bukhari's Sahih [such as Ibn Hajar] tried to give their own interpretation to what al-Bukhari said.

We have explained in other articles that the likes of Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani fall into a category of Scholars who never fundamentally delved into Kalaam, rather they were attached to hadeeth and its sciences. However, they grew up and acquired knowledge in a certain setting, climate and environment where the Ahl al-Kalaam were the majority. They deemed the conclusions of the Ahl al-Kalaam to be correct, even though themselves never delved into the study of Kalaam. Then they tried to merge these conclusions with their knowledge of hadeeth (their main preoccupation), and for this reason you will often see the expressions and language of Kalaam appearing in their writings, despite the fact that they themselves condemned the very Kalaam that the conclusions of Ahl al-Kalaam were based upon in the first place (see this article for example). You will also see a type of idtiraab (shakiness, inconsistency) in their writings, as is clear with Ibn Hajar himself. And al-Kashmiri has alluded here that on this particular issue, the explainers of the Sahih (like Ibn Hajar) made ta'weel of the speech of al-Bukhari. Inshaa'Allaah we will look at this in more detail in the next article where we cite the relevant sections from al-Bukhari's Sahih (along with al-Kashmiri's commentary). As for this category of Scholars like Abu Ya'laa, al-Qurtubi, al-Nawawi, Ibn Hajar refer to our comments in these articles (this one, and this one and this one).

Al-Kashmiri continues:

And its like has also been related from Abu Hanifah and Abu Yusuf and Muhammad bin Hasan with an authentic isnaad in the book al-Asmaa wal-Sifaat [of al-Bayhaqi], when they said: "Whoever said that the Qur'an is created (makhluq) is a disbeliever", meaning, whoever said that the Qur'an is not an attribute of the Creator and that it is isolated and separated from the essence of the Creator. But they [Abu Hanifah and students] are not saying that the Qur'an is qadeem, meaning the Kalaam lafdhee, so the end-result is that they are speaking with the huduth (recency) of the Kalaam lafdhee, and not with its khalq (creation). And Ibn Taymiyyah authored a complete volume on the Creator being one with whom chosen actions (Af'aal Ikhtiyaariyyah) are established, and what we have reported indicates, in spite of the one who said that Abu Hanifah was a Jahmee, refuge is with Allaah, for Abu Hanifah speaks with what the righteous Salaf spoke with.

Commentary:

Here al-Kashmiri has explained the difference between huduth (recency) and khalq (creation) in the course of explaining the view of Abu Hanifah (rahimahullaah) and his students. He says that they (like the Salaf) speak with the recency of the Kalaam lafdhee, meaning that Allaah speaks with His will and power, meaning He chooses to speak when He wills. In this regarad, al-Kashmiri makes reference to the treatise written by Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullaah) on this subject in particular. In light of all of this, al-Kashmiri exonerates Abu Hanifah from being a Jahmite. You have to understand what he means here, he is saying that upon what is correct in the language (that Haadith is not synomymous with makhluq), and upon what supports Ibn Taymiyyah (against the Ash'arites) from the language, that Haadith (recent) is not synonymous with makhluq (created), and upon the view of Abu Hanifah and students that the Qur'an is an attribute of Allaah with the wording of the Qur'an (al-lafdh) being of recent occurrence [as in tied to Allah's will and power, meaning choice], then Abu Hanifah is not a Jahmite, since this saying does not mean the Qur'an is created!

He continues:

So the essence [of the matter] is that the descent (nuzul) of the Creator to the lowest heaven is a true and real nuzul (haqeeqah), that is to be carried upon its dhaahir (apparentness), and [the knowledge of] its tafseel and takyeef is to be relegated to the Creator, lofty be His manifest evidence, and this is the madhhab of the four Imaams and the Righteous Salaf as has been quoted by al-Haafidh [Ibn Hajar] in Fath al-Baaree.

Commentary:

This statement of al-Kashmiri should be read and understood in light of what he said earlier in verifying what the actual madhhab of the Salaf is with respect to tafweed. And he clarified earlier that their way was to affirm a text upon its dhaahir (apparentness), reject ta'weel, and to consign the tafseel (detail) and takyeef (how) to Allaah. And this agrees with what is known that the Salaf made tafweed of the takyif, and not of the meaning (ma'naa) that is dhaahir (apparent) from the text, except that you have to understand that the Ash'aris and Maturidis often use expressions to make their views appear as close as possible to the Salaf (in wording at least), whereas in the actual interpretation of those expressions (in private study), they mean something else. So when he says that the Salaf made tafweed of the tafseel and the takyeef, it is possible that by tafseel he intends the ma'naa (meaning). So one should be aware of this.

He continues:

And the Ash'arite Mutakallimin have tended [to the view] they have tended to, and thereafter we say: Verily the statement of the Ash'arites that the Sifaat Fi'liyyah are hawaadith [as in of recent occurrence and therefore created], they have no evidence for this, for they are not haadithah. And if it is said that the Sifaat Fi'liyyah which come under the Beautiful Names of the Creator have an association (ta'alluq) with the hawaadith (created things) and are therefore hawaadith (themselves), then I say: That power [he means qudrah] and wish [iraadah] and other than them also have an association (ta'alluq) with the hawaadith (created things), and you [Ash'arites] do not speak with their huduth (i.e. being created). Further, that which is well-known amongst the Mutakallimin is that iraadah (wish) for example, is eternal and that the associations (ta'alluqaat, of that iraadah) with the muta'allaqaat (created things arising from that iraadah) are themselves hawaadith (of recent occurrence). And the smart ones amongst them said: The iraadah (wish), by way of example, and the association (ta'alluq) are both eternal and the muta'allaq is of recent occurrence (i.e. created) as has been said by al-Dawwaanee in Risaalah ithbaat al-Waajib.

Commentary:

Now this needs some elaboration. What we have here is essentially an Ash'ari versus Maturidi treatment of the Sifaat Fi'liyyah. Now after al-Kashmiri did justice in explaining the view of Ibn Taymiyyah, and Abu Hanifah, the Imaams and the Salaf as a whole - even if it was through the language of the people of Kalaam - he is now addressing a purely Ash'ari versus Maturidi issue.

Recall that the Ahl al-Kalaam are all united upon negating what they call hawaadith from Allaah, which essentially means Allah's chosen actions. This was inherited by the Ash'aris and Maturidis from the Mu'tazilah. The Mu'tazilah had certain approaches towards the attributes such as claiming that the attributes are not established with Allaah but are merely the attributes in the creation which can be said to be Allaah's. Or they said that the attributes are synonymous with the essence. And the Ash'arites said about the Sifaat Fi'liyyah, they are acts which take place in the creation, not with Allaah (so istiwaaa is an act that takes place in the Throne and nuzul is an act in the creation, and likewise those transitive actions, like creating, providing, giving life, taking life and so on, they are not actions established with Allaah himself, but the very thing that takes place in the creation itself, meaning the creation, or the provision, or the life, or the death). And likewise they say that pleasure and anger are synonymous with the iraadah (wish) and not independent attributes. And the Maturidis had another approach, they simply took all of the Sifaat Fi'liyyah and put them under an umbrella term, and called it al-takween, which they made to be eternal. So this is one of the numerous issues of difference between the Ash'aris and Maturidis. In reality, both the Ash'aris and Maturidis took the same approach towards the Sifat Fi'liyyah that the Mu'tazilah did with the sifaat dhaatiyyah, using essentially the same methodological procedure. And the driving force behind it all is that all of them (Mu'tazilah, Ash'ariyyah, Maturidiyyah) are operating upon the proof of huduth al-ajsaam, since they have used this method to prove the universe is created and therefore has a creator, and this leads to the plausibility of miracles (since Allaah has hayat, ilm, iraadah and qudrah) to demonstrate the truthfulness of the Messenger which in turn demonstrates the truthfulness of the Qur'an. It is only then, that you can start deducing evidence with the Qur'an (because before you establish all of that, you would be falling into circular reasoning by using the Qur'an to prove the Qur'an). This is essentially their theology and it all starts with proving the universe is originated, and this is what they call Usul al-Din, and hence, you will understand their saying "the first obligation is to observe and reflect (al-nadhar wal-istidlaal)", or "to have the intent (qasd) to do so" and some of them said "to assume doubt (shakk) and then to observe and reflect" and what they mean by observe and reflect is to prove the universe is originated through pure Kalaam. So they borrowed the Kalaam of the Hellenized Jews, Christians and Sabeans in that regard (the language of al-ajsaam wal-a'raad) and this in turn forced them to take a position towards Allaah's Names, attributes and actions. They just differed amongst themselves as to what they saw the binding necessities of this proof. So the Jahmiyyah said we must negate everything, names, attributes and actions. The Mu'tazilah said we must negate the attributes and actions, and the Ash'ariyyah said we must affirm some attributes, negate others, and negate all the actions, and the same with the Maturidiyyah. They are all one family in reality. However, in trying to reach essentially the same objective, they obviously had differences, and as such there are refutations between them.

It is here that we understand the polemics between the Ash'aris and the Maturidis on how to deal with the Sifaat Fi'liyyah. So the Ash'aris said that because these actions are hawaadith (events) they must be created and therefore can only be referring to entities and actions that occur in the creation, and not actions established with Allaah's essence. Hence the particular approach they took. From a Maturidi viewpoint, this is not correct, because they consider all of Allaah's Sifaat Fi'liyyah to be an eternal attribute (called al-takwin) and therefore are not hawaadith (as the Ash'arites claim).

So here al-Kashmiri is rebutting (from a Maturidi perspective) the Ash'ari argument. In order for us to understand this rebuttal of al-Kashmiri we have to first explain the Ash'arite viewpoint and their treatment of attributes such as iraadah (wish) and power (qudrah).

This is done with the following:

When the Ash'arites took the viewpoint that they did and the particular method they used to deal with this problem of hawaadith as it relates to Allaah's Sifaat Fi'liyyah, they put themselves into a problem (and this problem also actually lies with the Maturidis too). Which is how do you explain the relationship between Allaah's attributes like wish (iraadah), power (qudrah), hearing (sam') and seeing (basr) which are eternal and the created things that they must relate to (the things that are created and have been wished, have come about through power, are seen and heard) which are recent. This must mean that there must be an aspect of recency (huduth) in those attributes that relate to these created things. We don't mean recency as in Allaah acquiring the actual attribute, but in the sense of their relation to created things, having accepted they are eternal. In other words, if Allaah is seeing you right now, this means that Allaah's sight has an element of recency to it, in that He is seeing now what He did not see before the creation of the heavens and the earth and everything therein. And the same goes for explaining how does Allaah's iraadah relate to what has come about through His wish (that which is muraad), and likewise qudrah (power) in relation to what is maqdur. So the Ash'arites invented a few terms to patch up this hole, and so they spoke of what they call ta'alluqaat (associations) and muta'allaqaat (the things associated). So let us explain through the example of seeing (basr). There is Allaah's attribute of basr (seeing), which is eternal. There is the thing seen (let's say it is you, right now). How does the attribute of seeing of Allaah (that is eternal) relate to you? Now things are a little deeper here than meets the eye and you have to get into the mind of the kalam theologist and understand what he means by "eternity" since he is conceiving of this in a way different to what is in the Qur'an and Sunnah - but that is for another article. The point here is that the particular conception they have is what is forcing them into these types of wranglings. So they say there is an association (ta'alluq) between the attribute of seeing (basr) and between you who is the muta'allaq (the thing associated). So we have three things, the eternal attribute, the ta'alluq (association) and the muta'allaq (you, the associated thing). And in this manner they are trying to distance themselves from the necessity of having the element of huduth (recency) into the attributes they affirm as eternal attributes. They are doing this by putting a "buffer zone" in between the attribute and recent, created things, and this buffer zone is through these words, to allow the illusion of a connection or relation. Now in reality, all of this just pure waffle and is pure word games. All they have done is created an imaginary thing called ta'alluq (an association) and pretended they have solved the problem when they haven't. So either they say that this ta'alluq is wujoodi (i.e. existent, real) in which case they have affirmed a contemporaneous connection between Allaah's sight and what He is seeing right now, or what He is wishing right now, or subjecting to His power right now, which would then mean huduth (recency) and that would then undermined their entire theology and make it collapse on itself. Or they say that this ta'alluq is 'adami (non-existent, intangible) which is what they are really saying, trying to make it look as if there is something of substance, but there is no actual connection between the eternal attribute and the thing it is supposed to relate to right now, it is just an illusion of connection through mere words. Now this same problem exists for the attributes of iraadah, and likewise qudrah, and qudrah (power) in particular poses a big problem for them, and this we can address in a separate article as we do not wish to go into a tangent here. The aim is just to get across the Ash'arite position and their way of dealing with the sifaat fi'lyyah (tied to Allaah's choice) and those particular attributes from the seven (like wish, hearing, seeing, power) that must have things they relate to from the creation.

Now that this is clear we are in a position to understand al-Kashmiri's Maturidi counterpunch, and it is a nice little uppercut to be honest, but he is not the first to refute them on this, and he was preceded in this by Ibn Taymiyyah centuries earlier. Remember, the Maturidis hold that all of Allaah's Sifaat Fi'liyyah [both those which are transitive like ihyaa' (giving life), imaatah (taking life), tazreeq (sustaining) and likewise love, pleasure, anger] all come under a single eternal attribute called al-takwin and therefore they are not considered "hawaadith" to the Maturidis. But the Maturidis do agree with the Ash'aris in certain actions that are exceptions (like al-istiwaa and al-nuzul), as has preceded. So al-Kashmiri's counter to the Ash'aris is that you claim that wish (iraadah) and power (qudrah) that are eternal have a ta'alluq (association) with created, originated things (hawaadith), yet you do not argue thereby that Allaah's wish and power are therefore originated. His intent here is to rebuke the Ash'arites for not claiming that wish and power are hawaadith, external to Allaah's essence, just like they claim that the sifaat fi'lyyah are hawaadith and external to Allaah's essence, meaning created. He says that it is known amongst the Mutakallimeen that the ta'alluqaat (pay attention here), the associations (that sit in between the attribute and the created thing [muta'allaq] it relates to) are actually hawaadith. Meaning the associations [ta'alluqaat] themselves have to be hawaadith. This would mean, upon the principle they all adhere to as part of the proof of huduth al-ajsaam, that whatever is not devoid of hawaadith is itself haadith, that these attributes of Allaah (like power, wish, hearing, seeing) must be Haadith (originated, as in created, to them). Then he says that the smart and shrewd ones amongst them began to say that the sifah (attribute) and the ta'alluq (association) are eternal (pay attention here) and only the muta'allaq (the thing associated, meaning the created thing) is of recent occurrence, meaning originated, created. And again, this is just another level of sophistry in fleeing from what is plain and obvious in the Qur'an and Sunnah that Allaah has actions tied to His will and power (something they can't reconcile with their proof).

The point here is that the Ash'arites have a very weak position and all they have is waffle, pure imaginary things that have no reality to them, and mere word play as a means to deal with a problem they are faced with based upon the way they tried to reconcile some of the attributes and all of the actions with the proof of huduth al-ajsaam. However, at the same time, the Maturidi position (all actions come under al-takween which is eternal) is also falsehood, its just another way of trying to achieve the same goal and objective of the Ash'arites, the Mu'tazilah and the Jahmiyyah and the Karraamiyyah Mujassimah all of whom were trying to abide by the principle "Whatever is not devoid of hawaadith (events) is itself Haadith (originated)" in order to validate and complete the proof of huduth al-ajsaam and reconcile the revealed texts with it. As we stated in our series on the Slander of tajsim Against Ahl al-Sunnah (see here), all of the Kalaam groups are united upon a certain basic framework. Their differences with each other are only subsidiary differences related to how to patch up that framework and keep it together. In the process some of them were led to ta'teel (Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah, Kullaabiyyah, Ash'ariyyah, Maturidiyyah) to varying degrees, and others were led to Tajseem (Raafidah, Hanafi Karraamiyyah)

This brings us to the end of this quote from al-Kashmiri and our comments. As there is a lot in this article it is important we summarize the important lessons we can take away from it.

Closing Notes and Lessons

So these are the most important things you should take away from this article:

The first: Distinguishing between those showing honesty, justice and genuine scholarship (even if we consider them to be upon error in their orientation broadly speaking) from that breed of conniving dishonest Jahmite that unfortunately reared its ugly head in the 20th century and which unfortunately dominates todays polemic against the followers of the righteous Salaf and whose offspring are found in abundance on the blogs, forums and websites. We are talking here about the collection of swindlers, shysters, fraudsters, be those with calculated intent, or the deluded clueless ignorant who follow them. Here is what we mean (only by way of example):

People like Zubair, (see this article and the entire series that follows) Abu Adam Naruiji (see here), the Philadelphian Jahmites (see here), the Ma'rifah blind-followers (see here), the pretender Abu Layth (see here), the deceiver Abdullah Ali al-Amin (see here), GF Haddaad and his babies, Faqir et. al. (see here, here, here and here), Nuh Keller (see here and also here) and others.

And likewise the various so called "Sunni" forums, the Marifahs and the Asleins and others where these clueless people hang out, the blind leading the blind, where mass confusion, and ignorance of their own creed, let alone that of their opponents, is the rule of thumb.

The second: Al-Kashmiri's corroboration of what is correct in the language that what is Haadith (of recent occurrence) is not necessarily what is makhluq (created), and that an action (fi'l) is what one is described with (muttasif) not something one is said to have created in his own essence. Thus, Allaah's Sifaat Fi'liyyah or his Af'aal Ikhtiyaariyyah are things Allaah is described with when they are established with His essence, and it is not said Allaah "creates" them in His essence.

The third: Al-Kashmiri attributes this viewpoint to Imaam al-Bukhari (of distinguishing between what is Haadith and makhluq), and we have a separate article on that, and in particular his observation that the explainers of the Sahih tried to make ta'weel of al-Bukhari's view.

The fourth: Al-Kashmiri also explains this as the view of Abu Hanifah, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad bin Hasan, through the issue of the Qur'an.

The fifth: Al-Kashmiri makes a clarification (distinction) about what is said to be the tafweed of the Salaf in that he says their way is to take the text upon its dhaahir, without ta'weel, and to make tafweed of its tafseel (detail) and how it is (takyeef). This appears to be in agreement with what Ahl al-Sunnah say that the way of the Salaf is tafweed of the kaifiyyah and haqiqah, and not takyeef of the ma'naa (meaning). However, being a Maturidi, it is likely that by "tafseel" he actually means "ma'naa." The battle between the Salaf and the Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah was a battle of meanings, and not over the mere existence of words in the revealed texts. The Jahmites and their offshoots accused the Salaf of being Mushabbihah because they affirmed the meanings, and the Salaf clarified that affirmation of the meanings are not tashbeeh, rather resemblance of the realities (of Allaah's attributes and actions) to those of the creation is what comprises tashbeeh.

The sixth: His response (from a Maturidi) perspective to the Ash'arite treatment of the Sifaat Fi'liyyah who say they are created things (hawaadith) not established with Allaah's essence, whereas the Maturidis include them within al-takwin as eternal attributes.