.:Creed of Imām Abū Hanīfah regarding Allāh:.

1. Imām al-Aáżam Abū Ĥanīfah al-Númān ibn al-Thābit al-Kūfī [70-150 AH / 689-767 CE] states in Fiqh al-Akbar:

“Allāh táālā shall be seen in the Hereafter, and the believers shall see Him while they are in Paradise, Image
with the eyes of their heads, without similitude or modality, and there shall not be any distance between Him and His creation.”
Commenting on this, Abu’l Muntahā Shihābuddīn Aĥmad ibn Muĥammad al-Maghnīsāwī [d. 1000 AH / 1592 CE] writes:

“Musāfah in the language means distance, and the intention of it here is direction and place.”

Thus we see he negated place and direction for Allāh. ImageImage
2. He states in Kitāb al-Waşiyyah:

“The meeting of Allāh táālā with the inhabitants of Paradise is a reality, without modality, similitude and nor direction.”

Here we observe explicit negation of direction for Allāh by the Imām. ImageImage
3. He says in the same book:

“We affirm that Allāh táālā did Istiwā'a on the Throne without there being any need for Him or settledness [istiqrār]. He is the Keeper of the Throne and of other than the Throne, without any need. ImageImage
If He was in need then He would not have been able to bring the world into existence or arrange it, as the two creations [are unable].

If He was in need of sitting [julūs] and settling [qarār] [on the Throne], then where was Allāh before the creation of the Throne?
Allāh is exalted beyond that with a great exaltedness.”

We see here that the Imām affirms Istiwā'a whilst negating need for it, settling upon the Throne, and sitting upon it. He also negates that the Throne is the place of Allāh.
4. He states in Fiqh al-Absaţ:

“The one who states, ‘I do not know if Allāh is in the heaven or on the earth’, has committed kufr.”

The reason why is explained by Abu’l Layth Naşr ibn Muĥammad al-Samarqandī [d. 375 AH / 985 CE] in his commentary. Image
He writes:

“Because, by this statement he assumes that He has a place, thus he became a mushrik.” Image
The Imām continues:

“Likewise is the one who states, ‘He is on the Throne but I do not know if the Throne is in the heaven or on the earth.’”

Abu’l Layth al-Samarqandī comments on this writing:

“In reality, this returns to the first meaning, because when he stated, ImageImage
‘I do not know if the Throne is in the heaven or on the earth’, then it is as if he stated, ‘I do not know if Allāh táālā is in the heaven or on the earth.’”

Therefore, it can be understood that the reason why the Imām declared both of these expressions to be kufr,
is because they both intend to ascribe a place to Allāh. This is supported by what is mentioned in the following quote.

5. He was asked further in Fiqh al-Absaţ:

“What is your opinion, if it is asked, ‘Where is Allāh táālā?’” Image
He replied:

“It is said unto him, Allah existed and there was no place before He created the creation, and Allāh táālā existed and there was no ‘where’, no creation, nor anything, and He is the Creator of all things.”
This makes clear beyond doubt that the Imām did not consider Allāh to be located in any place; neither on the Throne nor in any other place.

This is clear from his declaring ‘where’, i.e. place, to be a creation, and by doing so He negated it for Allāh.
6. Imām Abū Jaáfar al-Ţaĥāwī al-Ĥanafī [239-321 AH / 843-933 CE] writes in his Áqīdah:

“This is a mention of the creed of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l Jamāáh, upon the methodology of the jurists of the religion: Abū Ĥanīfah al-Númān ibn al-Thābit al-Kūfī, ImageImage
Abū Yūsuf Yáqūb ibn Ibrāhīm al-Anśārī, and Abū Ábdullāh Muĥammad ibn al-Ĥasan al-Shaybānī, and what they believed from the foundations of the religion, and professed as their religion for the Lord of the Worlds.”

Thus, what is mentioned in this text is the creed of the Imām.
It must be remembered that Imām Ţaĥāwī was a student of the direct student of the two main students of the Imām, and so there is no doubt in the authenticity of what is mentioned in the text.
In this he writes:

“Exalted is Allāh ázza wa jall from limits, extremes, corners, limbs and instruments. The six directions do not contain Him, as with all created things.”

Thus, if it is said Allāh is located on the Throne, then it would result in saying He has a limit, Image
and that He is in the upwards direction. Therefore, such a belief would contradict what is authentically narrated from the Imām and his students.
Image
Image
Image

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with ابنِ خان

ابنِ خان Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @IbneKhan01

28 May
Alahazrat was asked:

From Bareilly, Mohallah Kanghī Tolah, asked by Nabī Bakhsh.

11 Şafar 1339 AH [~ 24 October 1920 CE]

“What do the scholars of the religion state in this issue, that most women, after having called the bangle-seller, reveal their hand from behind the veil, Image
and have bangles put on them by placing their hands in the hands of the bangle-seller, is this permissible or not?

Some women have bangles put on by the bangle-seller in front of their menfolk, and some individuals themselves, whilst being present,
have bangles put on their womenfolk, without veiling.

Is it permissible or not for them to put their hands into the hands of a non-maĥram man, whether from behind a veil or without a veil?”

He replied:

“Ĥarām, Ĥarām, Ĥarām. It is Ĥarām to present her hand to a non-maĥram man.
Read 4 tweets
26 May
.:Ĥakīm al-Samarqandī and Sawād al-Aáżam:.

As mentioned in this thread, there are many points of creed affirmed by Ĥakīm al-Samarqandī in his book Sawād al-Aáżam which contradict the Salafī creed.

This text gives us an insight into the Ĥanafī theology of Transoxiana. Image
The reason as to why this text was written was due to the request of the Samanid ruler Ismayīl ibn Aĥmad [234-295 AH / 849-907 AH]. He gathered the scholars of Transoxiana and requested them to compile a creed which contains the orthodox belief, due to the spread of heresies.
It was Ĥakīm Abu’l Qāsim Is’hāq ibn Ibrāhīm al-Samarqandī, a Ĥanafī scholar who was also a Sufi, who was chosen for this task.

The text was well-received and became an official catechism in the lands under Samanid rule, it was also translated into Persian.
Read 26 tweets
22 Apr
.:Thread on basic books:.

I was requested to make a thread with basic books for those who wish to seek knowledge. This list will probably be updated as I remember more books, but it should suffice for now.
1. Áqīdah:

a. 50 Essential Beliefs
ridawipress.org/wp-content/upl…

b. Áqīdah al-Tahawiyyah with commentary

web.archive.org/web/2017010307…

c. Beginner’s Guide to Islamic Creed – Translation of Kitab al-Aqa’id

ridawipress.org/wp-content/upl…
d. Aqidat al-Awam – Translation of a Classical Text on Islamic Beliefs

ridawipress.org/wp-content/upl…

e. Bad’ al-Amali – Translation of a Classical Text on Islamic Aqidah

ridawipress.org/wp-content/upl…

f. Bahār e Sharīát, Vol. One:

noori.org/resources/view…
Read 7 tweets
21 Apr
.:Suhūr:.

Said RasūlAllāh ﷺ:

“The distinctinction between our fasting and the fasting of the people of the Book is the eating of suhūr.”

[Muslim]

See, may Allāh have mercy upon you, that the Most Beloved ﷺ differentiated between us and them even in fasting.
How, much more necessary is it to then differentiate ourselves in the rest of our affairs? If even our fasting is not to be as their fasting, then how can it be conceived that our ideologies and morals be the same as theirs?
Should we then be ashamed of our religion before them and deny parts and alter others in order to please them and make our own beliefs and ideas in line with theirs?

No, rather we must submit fully and maintain our difference with them.
Read 7 tweets
20 Apr
.:Accusing a man of rape without evidence:.

It has become common for Muslims to accuse men of rape without sufficient evidence, and to then spread such among society. Some imagine that a mere claim of a woman, without the necessary proof,
is a satisfactory criterion by which a Muslim can be accused of a major sin. To the extent that we have such statements being said, and people are liking and pleased with them:
In the sharīáh, rape is a coerced form of zinā, and so is established only by what causes zinā to be established; testimony of four upright Muslim witnesses, or confession. Besides this, it is not permissible to accuse someone of any form of zinā, including rape.
Read 22 tweets
20 Apr
In Ĥanafī Fiqh rape is, “istikrāh ála al-zinā”, coercion upon zinā.

In Mukhtaşar Ikhtilāfi'l Úlamā authored by Imām Abū Jaáfar al-Ţaĥāwī al-Ĥanafī [239-321 AH / 843-933 CE] is the section, “Regarding the one who is coerced upon zinā”:

“Our companions [i.e. scholars] have said,
if he coerces a woman and commits zinā with her, then upon him is the Ĥadd, and there is no Mahr upon him. And this is the saying of Ibn Shubrumah and Thawrī.”

Vol. 3, pg. 298.
Imām Qudūrī al-Ĥanafī [362-428 AH / 973-1037 CE] writes in Tajrīd in the section, “The man's coercion of a woman upon zinā.”:

“Our companions have said that if the man coerces a woman upon zinā, then upon him is the Ĥ￲add, but there is no Mahr upon him.”

Vol. 7, pg. 3343
Read 22 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(