Chp 3- HANBALITES AND CORPORALISM
GROUND OF CORPORALISM RELIES ON EXPRESSIONS
References of theology and biography profess that followers of corporalism formed majority of the ruling authorities retinue and the Hashawites who partisanly clung to whatsoever is narrated. "Corporalism was commonly spread among the incognizant narrators and majority of hadithists." Ibnul-Jawzi asserts.Some to no avail attempted at supporting the Hanbalites. That matter was constant and familiar to the degree that Az-Zamakhshari recorded the following poetry foot in his Al-Kashaf, part 2 page 573:
If I claim being Hanbalite, They would affirm
I am gloomy, incarnationist, odious, corporalist.
Al-Fakhr Ar-Razi's AlMetalibulAliya, volume 2 part 2 page 25:
Chapter Three
Providing Evidences On Allah's Impracticability Of Being A Corporeality. Two famous opinions regarding this question are rendered by scholars:
Majority of people agreed upon promoting Allah, the Praised the Exalted, against corporeity and occupancy. Others claimed Allah's occupying a definite location. Those are the corporalists who disputed in some questions. Some claimed Allah's having mankind appearance while others denied so. Regarding the earlier, Muslim anthropomorphists claimed the Lord's being a young man, while the Jew anthropomorphists claimed His being an old man. They also disputed about the Lord's moveableness. A group of the
Karramites17 admitted Allah's coming, going, moving and subsiding, while others denied so. Majority of Hanbalites admit.
Al-Fakhr Ar-Razi's AlMetalibul-Aliya, volume 1 part 1 page 26:
Corporalists disputed about Allah's going and coming. The believers in His being a brilliance deny His having organs and limbs; like a head, hand or leg. Majority of Hanbalites confirm existence of such organs and limbs.
AlKhattabi's Me'alimusSunen, part 4 page 302:
The trend followed by scholars and jurisprudents was dedicating to the extrinsic meanings of doctrinal texts respecting the divine attributes. They abstained from probing purports and interpretation since they realize their unattainability to understand such affairs. Some master hadithists erred during their commentary on hadith of Allah's descending to the lowest heavens. "If it is claimed that our Lord descends to the lowest heavens, some may interrogate about way of descending. This may be answered that Allah descends as He wills. If the wonderment whether our Lord moves or not is put, it may be answered that He moves when He wills and does not when He wills.
By these words, AlKhattabi adopts school of commendation. He represents that the divine attributes should be taken as they are, without interpretation. These words of commenders prove that they were the seed from which the third school was emerged, and the hay the followers held fast. They claimed that the worthy ancestors referred to the physical demeanor of language which is, in fact, corporeality, by preserving appearances and depending exclusively on explicit indications of the divine attributes texts.
The following text of At-Thehbi shows that Al-Ghezzali had led a campaign against corporalism and corporalists.
Siyeru A'laminNubela, part 17 page 558: This course, adopted by the worthy ancestors, was clarified by Abul-Hassan and his acquaintances. It indicates submission to Quranic and prophetic texts. Ibnul-Baqillani, Ibn Fawrak and Al-Kebbar adopted this opinion which lasted to Abul-Me'ali. In time of Sheik Abu Hamid, various discrepancies and divergence occurred to this opinion.
This saying shows that corporalism attained its climax in reign of Seljukian dynasty, on the hands of Abul-Me'ali Al-Juweini AnNisapuri, Imamul-Haramein, who died in 478 A.H. After people of Nisapur had banished him, the Seljukians favored and assigned him as a tutor in Al-Madrasa An-Nidhamiya school in
____________
17. Karraamism is an Islamic theologian faction, founded by Mohammed Bin Karram.
Baghdad. In his last days, AbulMe'ali adopted this concept after he had been interpreter.
AlGhezzali, who succeeded him, contradicted his opinions, creating a noise by defending the interpreters. Through a considerable number of books of exegesis, it was noticeable, however, that AlGhezzali aimed at pleasing the corporalists.
In AlAqa'idulIslamiya, volume 2, a thorough chapter is given over to exhibiting standings of the anthropomorphists and the corporalists in reference books of the Sunnis, our brothers.
Chp 4- IBN TEIMIYA, THE REVIVER OF CORPORALISM OF HANBALITES
Ibn Teimiya's book of Tafseer, part 6 page 386: Six variant opinions regarding Allah's settling, coming and the like, which are mentioned in the Quran, were followed by people:
A group claim that such affairs should be taken in as their extrinsic meanings require. They rule that Allah's coming and settling is as same as any creature's. Those are the corporalists, the anthropomorphists. Some of this group claim that the Throne becomes empty during the Lord's descending.
A group claim that the most suitable explication of such texts should be regarded and accorded to descriptions the Lord has used. He is, (Nothing is the like of his likeness), inimitable in His Entity, attributes and deeds. They claim that He descends and comes a sort of descending and coming fitting His
majesty. "He descends and comes while He is still Elevated on the Throne," they assert. Hemmad Bin Zeid says, "While He is on the Throne, the Lord approaches the creatures as He wills." Isaaq Bin Rahawayih expresses, "He descends and keeps up in the Throne in the same time." Isaaq claims that this was Ahmed Bin Hanbal's opinion messaged to Musedded.
According to report of Abu Omar Bin AbdilBerr, defining the Lord's descending as a deed of selfmastery, was the opinion adopted by the hadithists. It was also adopted by majority of Ahmed's followers. Ibn Hamid and others asserted this opinion. AtTamimi, Ibn Kelab, Abu Yali and his followers denied falling of the optional deeds. Two groups claim that the Lord descends but does not come. One attempted at finding suitable interpretation of this saying while the other suspended the meaning. Two groups suspended the whole matter. One confessed of their lacking the knowledge of God's intendment from such attributing. The other was sufficed by reciting the Quran.
Majority of Sunnis and worthy ancestors' followers rule of fallibility of interpretation deciding denial of the Lord's settling and coming. Most of them, however, refute void interpretation and reckon such texts with 'Items interpretation of which should be concealed'."
Ibn Teimiya's book of Tafseer, part 6 page 118: This implies that Allah's exaltation is one of the indispensable attributes of praise. Thus, it is impermissible to refer opposite of exaltation to Him. The Prophet (peace be upon him) stated, "Thou art the Prior. Nothing was before Thee. Thou art the Ultimate. Nothing is after Thee. Thou art the Ascendant. Nothing is over Thee. Thou art the Prevailing. Nothing is after Thee." See that the Prophet (peace be upon him) had used 'after' instead of 'under'.
This hadith has been discussed under another title. Owing to texts in the Quran and the Prophet's traditions; such as, (Are you secure of that in the heavens that He… 67:13), and the like, some may conceive that the heavens is the very elevated created thing including the Divine Throne and whatsoever down. Hence, they claim that (in the heavens) mentioned in the previous text stands for 'on the heavens'. They treated this text as same as God's sayings, (I will certainly crucify you in the trunks of palm trees. 20:71) and (Walk in the earth. 67:15). In addition, Every elevated thing is unidentifiably called 'heavens'. Hence, (in the heavens) indicates whatsoever is elevated, not low. The Lord is the Elevated and the Highest. He occupies the most elevated point in the heavens; the topmost of the Throne. There is nothing other than the Elevated the Highest the Praised, and the Exalted.
Ibn Teimiya's ArRisaletutTadmuriya, page 39:
Attributes of affirmation and negation are ascribed to Allah, the Praised. Examples of the earlier are His sayings, (The Knowing of everything. 2:29), (He has power on everything. 2:20), (He is the Hearing, the Seeing. 42:11) and the like. An example of the latter is His saying, (Slumber does not overtake him nor sleep. 2:255). Unless it comprises affirmation, style of negation is bare from praise or perfection. This is by reason that sheer negation is not sheer. Whatsoever is not sheer, is nothingness. Nothingness is too deficient to be a style of praise or perfection. Praise and perfection are not attributed to nonexistence and nonbeing. On that account, the general negational descriptive accounts used in the Quran, comprised affirmation of praise. The same thing is said about God's saying, (Visions comprehend him not). In this Verse, comprehension, which is awareness, was negated exclusively. This meaning is adopted by majority of scholars. Mere seeableness is not negated since nonexistent things are not seeable. Being not seeable is not approbation. Had this been true, nonexistent things should have been submissive to acclamation. Praise, in fact, is dedicated to point of the praised's incomprehensibility even if he is seeable and realizable. The Lord is incomprehensibly seen when He is seeable and incomprehensibly realized when He is realizable.
Ibn Teimiya's ArRisaletutTadmuriya, page 47: Answering the wonderment whether aspects of texts are their meanings or not, we are to cite the following.
Expressions of aspects are generalized and combined. Considering believing that aspects of texts reveal anthropomorphizing the creatures' attributes and specifications, this will certainly be unintended. Neither the worthy ancestors nor did the master scholars regard this as aspect of the texts. They also refuted the claim that aspects of the Quranic and prophetic texts are atheism and wrong. Allah, the Praised the Exalted, is too knowledgeable and wise to show atheism and aberrance exclusively through aspects of texts regarding His divine attributes. Adopters of such a trend either decide the void meanings as aspects of the text, in order that this would be in need of interpretation contrasting the aspects, or refute the true meaning that is ostensibly provided, and decide its falsehood.
Ibn Teimiya's ArRisaletutTadmuriya, page 72:
It is inappropriate to say that an expression is interpreted, since this means that it is transferred from the predominant probability into the less. It is also unsuitable to say that interpretation of a definite text is known by Allah alone, except that the aspect involving creation exclusively is intended. Indisputably, adopters of this meaning have an interpretation violating face of the texts. Supposing they claim such texts are not submitted to interpretation violating their aspects, or they are submitted to their manifest meanings only, they will be inconsistent. Confusedness will be decided in case they intend two different
meanings, each for a certain situation of the same text. Providing they figure mere expression as their intendment from regarding aspects of texts, neglecting understanding their meanings, this will engage them in contrast whether they prove or deny interpretation. This is by reason that proving or denying an interpretation affirms perception of meanings. The previous debate shows the contrast, people are engaged in, regarding matters of proving or denying the divine attributes.
Ibn Teimiya's ArRisaletutTadmuriya, page 55:
It is provable that Allah, the Exalted, created the cosmos in serial stages. He created progressive independence of these stages. The upper should not be in need of the next. Atmosphere is not in need of the earth that carries it. The same thing is said about clouds that are above the earth. The heavens, that are higher than the earth, are not in need of the earth's carrying them. The Exalted and Highest is the Lord who is the owner of everything. He is in the highest point on His creatures; how is it, then, acceptable for Him to be in need of His creatures or Throne? How should His extreme elevation prompt such a need, which is not prompt to His creatures? It is affirmative that the Creator is more rightful and deserving in affairs of His creatures. If a creature is in no need for another in a certain field, such as wealth, this will be discussing that Allah shall be more deserving to such a needlessness. Authentically, the following prophetic saying is communicated: "Whenever you ask your Lord for the Paradise, you are advised to name AlFirdaws which is the top and the middle of the Paradise. The ceiling of the Paradise is the Beneficent's Throne."
The last sentence shows that the Throne is on top of orbits.
Ibn Teimiya's ArRisaletutTadmuriya, page 75:
Even if some impute anthropomorphism to this signification, this does not mean it is denied by intellects and audible perceptions. The obligation is not more than denying what is denied only by legal and intellectual evidences. The Quran denied onymous of 'the like', 'the equivalent', 'the peer' and the like. Some claim that, in the Arabic, quality is neither like, equivalent nor is peer the described. Hence, this meaning does not participate in texts. Intellects, however, do not deny term of anthropomorphism intended by the Mutazilites.
Ibn Teimiya's ArRisaletutTadmuriya, page 90:
The Competent is exaltedly promoted against having such organs of eating and drinking. The hand is different since it is the organ of acting and doing. Acting and doing are ascribed to Him, the Praised. These are attributes of perfection. The able is more perfect than the disable. He, the exalted, is also exaltedly promoted against having organs and acquirements of having spouse and sons. Allah, the Praised, is also promoted exceedingly against weeping and grief since
these qualities prompt feebleness and deficiency. Happiness and ire, on the other hand, are ascribed to Him, since they are attributes of perfection.
Ibn Teimiya's ArRisaletutTadmuriya, page 95:
Some of the divine attributes are recognized by intellectuality. Attributes of knowledgeability, competence and vitality are recognized by the same way. (Does He not know who created? 67:14). This Verse guides to the meaning involved. Unanimously, scholastic provers of the divine attributes assert that the following divine attributes are recognized, by the learned, with the intellect. They are, vitality, knowledgeability, competence, willingness. Hearing, seeing and uttering are added to these attributes. Pleasantness, satisfaction and ire can be proved by intellect, too. The Lord's exaltation and incomparability are also recognized with the intellect. Ahmed Bin Hanbal, AbdulAli AlMekki, Abdullah Bin Sa'eed Bin Kelab and others proved this question. The Lord's seeableness is proved by intellects. Some alleged that seeableness of every being is possibly attainable. Others claimed that seeableness of every idiosyncratic entity is possibly attainable. The latter is more adequate. The Lord's seeableness can be proved by other means of distributing affirmation and denial. It is claimed that seeableness is exclusively depending upon existential affairs. The Anterior Necessary Aseity is more deserving than possible beings in affairs depending upon existential affairs exclusively.
COMPONENTS OF IBN TEIMIYA'S SCHOOL
First: Ibn Teimiya refuses commending interpretation of the divine attributes to Allah, the Exalted, since "these are the worst among sayings of the heretic and atheists." This testifies that he carries in mind the ill idea that abstinence from interpreting 'face of Allah' and 'hand of Allah' is reckoned with flat atheism!
Second: Ibn Teimiya decides the obligation of concluding the manifest linguistic aspects of Quranic texts respecting the divine attributes. This means that he opts for material meanings of such texts. He also stands against culling metaphoric meanings since, as he believes, there is no existence for metaphor in Quran and hadiths.
Third: Pursuant to Ibn Teimiya's trend, Allah, the Exalted, is existent at the top of this world. Except air, nothing is above Him. Below Him is this world. "See that the Prophet (peace be upon him) had used 'after' instead of 'under'." The Lord is existent on His Throne. He may descend to this world. He sees with the eye since "seeableness is exclusively depending upon existential affairs. The Anterior Necessary Aseity is more deserving than
possible beings in affairs depending upon existential affairs exclusively." The evidence he cited on Allah's being selfsufficient against the world, was so derisive that even ordinary people would disgust. He stated that every exalted thing dispenses with what is under it. Accordingly, leaves of a tree dispense with trunks, and upper story dispense with the lower!
Fourth: For Ibn Teimiya, Allah's descending to the lower heavens is intrinsic. He asserted, "The Lord's descending as a deed of selfmastery, was the opinion adopted by the hadithists.." In addition to Ibn Batuta's testimony, it is proved that Allah's descending is a physical descending of a material being. Hence, Ibn Teimiya's words of evading this idea were futile.
Fifth: Ibn Teimiya aimed at defending his belief by denying its comprising anthropomorphism. He stated that the Lord has a physical face and hand, but not like these of humans or other creatures. For him, this statement is enough to exclude circle of anthropomorphism. Cautiously, he omitted anthropomorphism by inventing another matter. He stated that texts should be regarded according to their material aspects "fitting His Glory", not the unbecoming.
Sixth: Proceeding in a daring step towards proving anthropomorphism, Ibn Teimiya stated, "Even if some people impute anthropomorphism to this signification, this does not mean it is denied by intellects and audible perceptions. The obligation is not more than denying what is denied only by legal and intellectual evidences." By these words, Ibn Teimiya tries to say that Quranic and prophetic texts negate Allah's having peers, associates, likes and equivalents. They do not negate His being anthropomorphized. At exposing God's saying, (Nothing like a likeness of Him;), majority of Muslims; Shias, Sunnis, philosophers and Mutazilites, negate Allah's having a resemblant. Hence, nothing may stop in the face of negating Allah's having an alike, since this matter is negated by texts, and Allah's anthropomorphizing His creatures!! As long as He does not deny His being anthropomorphizing His creatures, what is the wrong, then, if we adopt so?! Ibn Teimiya, therewith, declares that God's saying, (Nothing like a likeness of Him;), implies negation of His like, not resemblant. Allah does have a resemblant; Adam, and another resemblant; Ibn Teimiya!!
Seventh: Supposing the following argument is provided before Ibn Teimiya. "You definitely refer to anthropomorphism by your denying interpretation and commendation, and insist on interpretation according to aspects of texts." He shall certainly answer, "Majority of Sunnis and ancestors' followers rule of fallibility of interpretation deciding denial of the Lord's settling and coming. Most of them, however, refute void interpretation and reckon such texts with 'Items interpretation of which should be concealed.'
Ibn Teimiya, consequently, decides that it is not inadmissible to liken Allah, the Exalted, to His creatures. He also emphasizes that interpretation of anthropomorphism should be concealed. He exhibits that his god is existent in a certain point up the heavens we could see. That god is a physical being occupying the Throne. Nothing except air is above him while he is restricted from beneath. That god can move and descend to the earth. Ibn Teimiya, however, is unlike Ibn Khuzeima, his master, who claims that god's ability of ascending. Exalted and glorified be Allah against such funny statements! Later on, the other sides of Ibn Teimiya's beliefs will be debated
