Details about the Salaf and the khalaf ways.

[Walid....@sophia.inria.fr]

Dear Brothers,

Assalamou ^alaykum wa rahmatou-llahi wa barakatouh,

In this article I will In sha'a Allah explain the difference
between the salaf way of interpreting the ayat al-mutashabihat and
the khalaf way of interpreting these ayat.
I will show insha'a Allah that both
ways were accepted by the islamic scholars of Ahl As-Sunna wal Jama'a.
I will then go to the details of an article posted by M. Hassan to
show that the way he used to interpret these ayat and ahadith which
are called mutashabihat does not correspond to any of the two ways
(the salaf way and the khalaf way).

Let me begin with the definition of the word mutashabih:
A verse (ayah min al Qur'an) or a hadith is called mutashabih if
1) it has more than one meaning in arabic
and
2) its meaning or interpretation is not explicit.

example corresponding to the definition:
the verse "ar-Rah.man ^ala al-^arsh istawa".
The word istawa has 15 meaning in arabic among which:
istaqarra (to settle), iktamala nudujahu (rippened), qahara (subdue),
hafiza (preserve), abqa (to keep), istawla (conquer).

Another definition:
Al-Ayat almuhkamat: verses that have one explicit meaning.

Scholars from the Salaf (the salaf are scholars which were
in the first 3 centuries after the hijra of the prophet) used
to interpret the mutashabihat in the following way:
they refuted the unacceptable interpretations but did not specify
which one of the acceptable meanings was the intented meaning of
the verse or the hadith. For example when Imam Malik and As-Shafi^i
and al-Awza^i were asked about the interpretation of the verse
"ar-Rah.man ^ala al-^arsh istawa" in particular, and about similar
verses (mutashabihat) in general, they used to say:
"Amirruha kama ja'at BILA KAYFIYYA" which means they did
not interpret these verses explicitely but they rejected
the kayfiyya which means the resemblance of Allah to his
creations. They said accept these verses and hadith
as they were given without believing that they have meanings
which pertain to images, descriptions related to creations
and the like.
about this verse "ar-Rah.man ^ala al-^arsh istawa"
Imam Malik said "al-Istiwa'a ma^lum, wal kayf ghayru ma^qoul",
(al-istiwa' is cited in the Qur'an so we must believe in this
attribute of Allah, but the kayf (which means the manner)
is impossible). That is, it is impossible to attribute to Allah
a kayf such as organs, colors, sounds, images and bodies.
and Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanabl said: "Istawa kama akhbar la kama
yakhtouru lil bashar". That is, Allah mentioned al-'istiwa'
and al-'istiwa' is what Allah mentioned about it and NOT like
what the humans will imagine about it.
Note that Imam Malik said the manner is IMPOSSIBLE and that
other salaf scholars said that the mutashabihat should
be cited and that we should believe in these verses
WITHOUT MANNER (bila kayfiyya).

So in general the salaf did not give explicit interpretation to
these verses but they rejected the meanings that do not correspond
to the ayat al-MUHKAMAT. The salaf rejected the meanings that implies
a kayf (a manner) because the manner implies a resemblance of
Allah to the creations. This is called global interpretation
(Ta'wil ijmali) or general interpretation.
For example, the salaf did not accept to interpret the word
istawa in the verse: "ar-Rah.man ^ala al-^arsh istawa" by
istaqarra (to settle) or jalassa (to sit) because these
two interpretations implies a resemblance of Allah to his creations.
(Tashbih lillah bi khalkihi). They liken Allah to his creations.
Any one who settle or sit down
has two parts a lower part and an upper part. So if one interprets
the verse "ar-Rah.man ^ala al-^arsh istawa" by "Allah sat on the throne"
he commits a very grave error (a kufr) by attributing to Allah resemblance
to his creautures.
Another example. Al-'imam Ahmad said that the person commits kufr
if he says Allah is a body even if he says that Allah is a body
not like other bodies. He was quoted saying that "The terms are
taken from language and al-'Islam and the people of language
have put this term (body) on something that has length, width,
thickness, image, structure and components and it was not narrated
in ash-shari^ah (Islamic law). Therefore, it is invalid and cannot
be used" (end of quotation of Imam Ahmad).
Al-bayhaqiyy narrated that about Ahmad in his book
manaqib Ahmad and az-Zarkashiyy narrated the first saying of
Ahmad. Notice that Ahmad did not accept the term (body not like
other bodies) because it does not befit Allah and the language
does not accept that.
Similarly, sitting cannot be attributed to Allah because of
the fact that this term does not befit Allah and it was not mentioned
in al-'Islam as an Attribute to Allah. Istawa has many meanings
and sitting is not used to mean istawa.

The salaf often did global interpretation (ta'wil ijmali)
but in fact they also did explicit interpretation (ta'wil tafsili) sometimes:
for example Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal interpreted the verse
"Wa ja'a Rabbuka wal malaku s.affan s.affa" (al-Fajr) by the following:
The traces created by the Power of Allah will appear and
the angels will come in rows. So Imam Ahmad did not
say Allah has the attribute of "coming" when he
interpreted this verse. He did not only refute
this unacceptable interpretation, but he also
gave an explicit interpretation of this verse as
I cited before. Imam Ahmad said when he interpreted
this verse this way "li'anna Allah la yajuzu ^alayhi
al'intikal" because we cannot attribute motion
to Allah (reported by al-Bayhaqi in manaqib Ahmad).
Another example of ta'wil tafsili from the salaf
is what al-bukhari in the sahih al-bukhari
when he interpreted the verse "kullu shay'in
halikun illa wajhahu" (al-Qasas) he interpreted al-wajh
by al-mulk he said "kullu shay'in halikun illa mulkahu".
Al-mulk may mean the domination and control over everything.
Among the scholars that adopted the salaf way are:
Abu hanifa, Imam Malik, asShafi^i, Ahmad Ibn Hanbal,
alAwza^i, layth Ibn Saad, At-tahawi, Zein Al^abidin
Ali ibn al hussein ibn ali bin abi talib, al-bayhaqi,
ibn hibban, al-bukhari, Ibn hajar al^asqalani, and others.
Among these scholars some did ta'wil tafsili:
Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, al-Bukhari and also al-Bayhaqi cited some
ta'wil tafsili in his book al-asma' wa-sifat, ibn hajar
al^asqalani in fath al bari, Ibn aljawzi which is one
of the TOP hanabali scholars.

The prophet made du^a' to Ibn ^abbas and asked Allah to let him
be knowledgeable about al-Qur'an and make him able to perform
at-Ta'wil (narrated by al-Hakim). Ibn ^Abbas explained ayah al-Qalam
42 by not saying it speaks about the kaf but about a day of strain and
horror (the day of judgment when the kuffar are treated with
humility). He thus made ta'wil tafsili.

The khalaf way is to give an explicit meaning to the verses.
This way is acceptable also, especially when there is a fear
from tashbih (likening Allah to his creations).
For example there is a verse in Qur'an:
"yadu-llahi fawqa aydihim"
the khalaf ulema interpreted the yad in this verse by
^ahd-u-llah (al-^ahd from the verb yu^ahid). That is, it
is the covenant.
They interpreted the word yadayy in the verse
"lima khalaktu bi yadayy" by the care (al^inaya).
These interpretations are acceptable and they do not imply
to deny any of Allah's attributes which there are consensus
on them ( almujma^ alayha).
Among the great scholars that adopted the khalaf way are:
Abu alhassan alAsh^ari, abu mansur al-Maturidi, abu bakr
Ibn al-Baqillani, Fakhr-eddine ar-Razi, Hujjat AlIslam
Abu hamid Alghazali, an-Nasafi, al-Baydawi. From this century
Muhamad Zahed al-Kawthari and many others of the scholars
of Ahles-Sunna Wal Jama'a.

In article <7120...@lear.cs.duke.edu>, has...@cs.ubc.ca (Moustafa Hassan) writes:

|> Walid's article presented a single viewpoint and made all other
|> viewpoints seem heretical. My perspective in the article is in
|> complete agreement with salafi scholars, which Walid acknowledges
|> as being valid.
|>

The view point that I presented is the viewpoint of Ahles-Sunna wal Jama'a,
I can cite explicit references from Sunni scholars about this subject.
On the contrary, the perspective of Hassan's article is not in agreement with
the salafi school for the following reasons:

1) The salaf did not consider things that are possessed by
Allah as an attribute of Allah see the very interesting book
of Ibn alJawzi "Daf^u shubhat aTashbih" or "alBAz alAsh-hab
almunqadd ala mukhalifi almath-hab".
In this book Ibn alJawzi refuted some people who claimed they
were adopting the salaf way in interpreting the mutashabihat.
In fact, he called them mushabbiha (people who liken Allah to his creations).
Ibn alJawzi (among many other Ulema) did not
consider the "qadam" cited in the hadith as
an attribute of Allah. I will give later in this article
a citation from the book of Ibn alJawzi about
the interpretation of the hadith where the "qadam"
is cited.

Also early scholars of language like al-Azhariy (the crown of
Arabic) did not consider this as an attribute. When some of the
sunni scholars wanted to say that
al-qadam is an attribute of Allah, the scholars corrected them
and warned them of such a big mistake. Similarly, AlKhattabiy
and alBayhaqiy did not consider al_qadam as an attribute.
The salaf did not consider any thing which was "mudaf ila Allah"
to be an attribute of Allah. We can not say that the ka^aba is
an attribute of Allah (Allah called the Ka^aba "Bayti"
this is "idafat mulk wa tashrif"). The preposition added
to the word bayti as added for honor and posession and not for
refering to an attribute. This case is different from
the case of alqadam.
In al-'anbiya' 99 Allah taught us that the created things
will come into hell and no the Creator. How can you
accept that Allah will put one of his Attribute
in hell or on hell? This is the saying that does not make any sense.

2) The salaf did not consider ta'wil tafsili as contrary to
islamic believes. The proof is that they did such ta'wil tafsili
when they found it is necessary. However, they preferred not
to do such ta'wil tafsili without urgent need. In fact, ta'wil
tafsili is to choose one of the valid meanings of the ayat or the hadith.
This chosen meaning may not be the intented meaning which corresponds to the
knowledge of Allah. That's why the salaf preferred not to do such
ta'wil often. This does not mean that ta'wil is ta^til. That is, this
does not mean that when the person follows the ta'wil tafsili method he
is rejecting the Attributes of Allah. No! We already said that the salaf
did ta'wil tafsili. Can you accuse them of rejecting the Attributes of
Allah?!

Then Hassan said in his article:

|> Finally, this article has an addendum attached concerning the
|> attribute of the foot. In his posting, Walid sounded so convincing
|> that I myself doubted this attribute. However, after researching the
|> subject, I found that my initial statement was correct. This article
|> is not a flame, and aqeedah is one of the most important topics in
|> Islam.

See Ibn alJawzi : "alBAz alAsh-hab almunqadd ala mukhalifi almath-hab"
see also daf^ subah at-tashbih by the same imam who is from the hanbaliy
school for more detailed reply on this subject. In the end of the
article I will translate Insha'a Allah the chapter concerning the
interpretation of the hadith where the "qadam" is cited.

Then Hassan said:

|> In terms of the attributes (such as hands, ascension of the throne,etc):
|> As far as I know, what I said is exactly in accordance with the 'Salaf'
|> scholars. Abdur-Rahman Abdul-Khaliq is salafi in his thinking. Also,
|> he bases much of his work on Ibn-Teymiyyeh, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ibn
|> Jawziyyah, Muhammad Abdul-Wahhab, and other scholars (all are 'salafi'
|> in their thinking).

No, except Ahmad Ibn Hanbal no one of the cited persons is salafi.
If someone transaltes 'yad' to hand or 'istawa' to ascension then
he is not salafi because he had already chosen one of the meanings
of these words. The word hand in english never has the forteen meanings
of 'yad' cited in fath albari (kitab atawhid) nor the word istawa.
why to choose the word ascension while there are many other meanings
like: preserve, dominate. There are other unacceptable meanings for
istawa: "jalassa", "nadaja", "I^tadala" (become straight), "istaqarra".
Allah said about Musa: "Falamma balgha ashuddahu wastawa"
here istawa means "sara tam alkhilka". Here it means that Musa reached
a great degree of strength.
Istawa may also mean " kasada". This used by sifyan as narrated
by al-'imam an-nawaiy. Allah arranged the creation of the heavens
and earth after He created things previous to them.
If someone choses the translation ascension to the word istawa, it
means that this person did wrong ta'wil tafsili and that is what
the salaf were afraid of, and that's why they did not prefer to
do ta'wil tafsili. However, they insisted to refute the unacceptable
meanings like ascension or sitting down. That's why Sunni scholars
consider the way used by hassan to interpret the mutashabihat as
out of the salafi school.
Ibn taymiyya and his disciple ibn aljawziyya (different from the great
hanbali scholar Ibn alJawzi) are not considered to belong to the salafi
school. ibn taymiyya was put in jail because of many of his wrong
teachings concerning the aqeeda. He was not put in jail by some
tyranic ruler. He was put in jail to preserve the people from his ideas.
(See Rihlat Ibn Battoutah where ibn battoutah said: when i came to
damascus there was a man called ibn taymiyya speaking about religion
science, but there was something strange in his mind...
Once he was doing "kutbat aljuma'a" and he said yanzilou rabbuna
ila assam'a adunya, then he went down two steps on the minbar and he said
"kanuzuli hatha" (like my descending). the people of damascus jumped
on him and wanted to kill him. al-'imam al-mujtahid asSubkiy wrote
many books to refute ibn taymiya. This event of ibn Taymiya is
registered by the books of history and they are available and may be
the Muslims need to read them or some of their contents.
Ibn Taymiyah was put in jail by the agreement of the Muslim scholars
of Egypt and ashSham. His imprisonment came as a result of the ijma^
of the scholars of his age..
So the men cited above ibn taymiya, ibn alkayyem aljawziyya do not
belong to the salaf school. Similarly, ashShawkaniyy. He is part
of the same school. So don't use the writings of those authors to prove
something that as-salaf did not say. None of those people you mentioned
lived in the 3rd hijriy century. Not only that, but they reject the
Muslim scholars and the mathahib altogether. They reject the salafi
mathahib of Malik, Ahmad, Abu Hanifah and ash-Shafi^iyy. You also
said that Malik said a saying about an-nuzul and the scholars disagreed
with him. Do you think that these issues are a place of disagreement?
There is no disagreement among the sunni scholars about issues of belief.

About Muhammad Abdul-Wahhab: he is the person who revived the wrong
ideas of ibn taymiyya and founded a sect called al-Wahhabiyya
which killed many muslims by accusing them to be kuffar in makka
in the early 18th century. He is not following the salaf way of Ahl
as-Sunna wal Jama'a. One proof: who is his sheikh? he does not have
a sheikh from ahl asunna wal jama'a. Ibn ^abd alWahhab has a long
history of ordering Muslims to be killed. The mufti of makka Zayniy
Ibn Dahlan wrote a book just to expose Ibn ^abd alWahhab. Many others
did the same thing. Ibn ^abd alWahhab was called to be from albughat
who refused to obey the ottoman khalifa and rebelled against the
muslim authority.
Concerning ibn taymiyya i can cite a list of great Ulemas from ahl
es-Sunna wal jama'a who refuted him and decalred that his is out of
the right way of islam. Take "aSubki" in his "aRasae'l aSubkiyya
firrad ala ibn taymiyya", take ibn hajar alhaytami, take abou
hayyan alandaloussi, take ibn hajar alaskalani
(fath albari page 410 fascicle 13 kitab atawhid)
and many others like:
1) al-qadi muhammad bin ibrahim bin jamaa asshafi^i,
2) al-qadi muhammad bin al-hariri al-ansari al-hanafi
3) al-qadi muhammad bin abi bakr al-maliki
4) al-qadi ahmad bin umar al-makdissi, al-hanbali
Ibn taymiyya was put in jail after a fatwa signed
by the above four judges (qudat) in 726 H. (see ^uyun
at-tawarikh wrote by al-kutbi, and najm al-muhtadi
wrote by ibn al-muallim)
5) salah ed-dine al ^ala-'i who died in 761 H,
6) al-qadi al-mufasser badr ed-dine bin jama'a who died in 733 H,
7) bin dakik el-^id ,
8) el-kadi kamal ed-dine ibn ez-zemelkani died in 727 H,
9) azahabi died in 748 H (in a letter called Annassiha Azahabiyya)
after that he followed ibn taymiyya for some time...
10) Ibn battoutah died in 779 H,
11) Ibn hajar al-^asqalani in lisan al-mizan and ad-durar
al-kamina
12) al-hafiz waliyy-ed-dine el-^iraqi died in 826 H,
13) Abou bakr el-Hussni in a book called "daf^ shubah
man shabbaha wa tammarrad wa nassaba thalika ilal
Imam Ahmad" that is response to the sayings of
who liken Allah to his creatures and said that
these are the sayings of Imam Ahmad"
14) Al-hafiz es-sakhawi died in 902 H,
and may others.

We can summerize by saying that whoever considers Allah
to have a resemblance with his creations or who said that
Allah has the attribute of motion is not following
the salaf way at all, and that he is not following islam.

Then Responding to my statement:

|>
|> |>
|> |>
|> |> The author also attributed motion to Allah:
|> |> this is also unfounded and contrary to Islamic beliefs.
|> |> Imam malik said about the hadith "yanzilou rabbuna
|> |> ila assama^i dunya": nuzul rahma la nuzul naqla.

Hassan said:

|> Yes, that is Imam Malik's opinion. Other great Islamic scholars
|> disagree with him on this point. (See Ibn-Teymiyyeh,
|> or Ibn-Hajar). Allah knows best. According to the Arabic, we can
|> only extrapolate that Allah descends;

No, we can say "yanzilu rabbuna" we cannot say Allah descends
this is the very basic point which shows that your posting
in not consistent with the salaf way. In fact, this hadith
"yanzilu rabbunna ila asamaa' adunya" has three acceptable interpretations
among sunni scholars:
1) To say Allah yanzilu nuzulan yaliqu bihi (precisely speaking that this
nuzul is not a motion, because motion implies resemblance with creations).
It says yanzilu has a meaning that befits Allah.
This is the way some salaf and Ibn hajar interpreted this hadith
this is very acceptable and (^ala al-ra's wal^ayin).
2) to say this is nuzul rahma la nuzul naqla.
as Imam Malik said. In fact, this is ta'wil tafsili from
one of the greatest salaf scholars. Imam malik refuted
attributing motion to Allah (la nuzul nakla, it is not motion),
and he also specified the specific meaning of the hadith
"nuzul rahma". The mercy descends. This is an acceptable interpretation.
3) there is another interpretation which is very strong also.
There is another riwayat (narration) of the hadith:
"Iza mada shatro-l-laylil-awwal amara Allah malakan fa yanzil ila
asama'a addunya fa yunadi hal min mustaghfirin fayaghfirou Allah lahou?"
If the first half of the night goes out, Allah orders an angel
to descend to the first sky and call is there any Muslim who
is asking Allah for forgiveness so that Allah may forgive him.
So this riwayat of the hadith allows to interpret the other riwayat:
the verb yanzil does not designate an attribute of Allah but is cited
to designate that Allah ordered the angle to descend to the first sky.
The verb can be attributed (musnad) to whom ordered tha act.
There is a verse in Qur'an :
"Fanafakhna fihi min rouhina" and the literal meaning means to
blow. There isn't any muslim who said that Allah has the attribute of
"Nafkh", i.e. blowing, although the word of fanafakhna has
been attributed to Allah. This is only because Allah ordered the
act and not because Allah is attributed with this act of blowing.
(Ta^ala Allah ^amma Yakuluhu azalimuna ^Uluwwan kabira).

For more precise information I said:

|>
|> |>
|> |> Concerning the attribute of "yad" we cannot translate it to hand
|> |> in English because the word yad in arabic has more than 14 meanings
|> |> (see fath al bari sharh sahih al bukhari, kitab altawhid).

And then Hassan claimed:
|>
|> So does 'hand' in English.

No neither hand has the same meanings as 'yad', nor
ascends nor descends has the same meanings of "istawa" and "yanzilu"
Could you give your english reference that these three arabic
words has exactly the same set of meanings in english.

|> To deny, however, that Allah has a hand is to deny one of His attributes.

No, we should say Allah has the attribute of 'yad' which is not a 'jariha'.
It is not an organ.
we should believe in this attribute, and we should believe that the
word 'yad' does not mean the 'jariha'.

|>
|> |> so we cannot choose the meaning hand in English which implies
|> |> resembling Allah to his creatures (tashbih).
|>
|> The word "yad" to the pagan Arabs also implied a human quality.
|> The point is to educate people that the attributes of Allah do
|> not resemble human attributes. Allah used the word "yad" for a
|> reason. Allah knows best.

No, I disagree, the word 'yad' is arabic and the "pagan" people
became "sahaba" of the most great prophet Muhammad Salla Allahu
Alayhi wa Sallam. So they were able to understand from the verse
"laysa kamithlihi shay'" that the word 'yad' does not mean a resemblance
to the creatures.

|> |> either adopt the salaf's way by saying it has a meaning which
|> |> corresponds the Allah's non resemblance to creatures
|>
|> This is what I do.

No, please see explanation above.

Then Hassan said:
|>
|> Addendum: Concerning the Attribute of the foot.
|>
|>
|> The following is evidence supporting the statement that Allah
|> possesses the attribute of a foot. Again, I must stress that
|> the attributes of Allah do not resemble those of any creature
|> real or imagined. I have listed the evidences in order of
|> increasing reliability:
|>
|> To avoid problems in translation, I did not translate most of the
|> statements which follow; sorry for any inconvenience.
|>
|> 1) In his tafseer of "yawma yukshafu 'an saaqin wa yud'awna ilas sujudi
|> falaa yastatee'un" (surat al-qalam), al-Shawkani cites al-Bukhari's
|> hadeeth implying that Allah has the attribute of a foot. I consider
|> this evidence weaker than the next three points because I do not own
|> al-Shawkani's tafseer and did not read it myself. I asked a brother
|> about the hadeeth and he told me this. The next three points I've
|> verified for myself.
|>
|> 2) In his _The Translation of the Meanings of Sahih-Bukhari_ ,
|> Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan of the Islamic University of Medina
|> translates hadeeth 481 (Vol IX, Kitab al-Tawheed, Article 7,
|> p. 357). The translation includes "till the Lord of the worlds
|> puts His Foot over it [Hell Fire]". Obviously, the Arabic
|> preposition 'fee' is not necessarily translated as 'in'.
|> Furthermore, the translation must have been approved by various
|> scholars before publication.
|>
|> 3) In his tafseer of "yawma naqoolu lijahannam hal imtala^ti wa
|> taqoolu hal min mazeed" (surat qaf), Ibn Katheer (abridged)
|> does not mention the interpretation of "yada' qadamahu fin naar"
|> as meaning "putting the last of them in the Fire". Throughout
|> his discussion of the hadeeth in question, Ibn Katheer implies
|> that "qadam" means "foot". More explicitly, he says "fa 'ind
|> haa^ulaa^ anna qawluhu ta'aala "hal imtala^t" innama huwa ba'd
|> ma yada' 'alayha qadamahu"
|> ^^^^^^
|> Thus, this time the preposition "'ala" is used, so the statement
|> unequivocally refers to a foot, and not to the end of the people
|> of the Fire.
|>
|> 4) In Fath al-Baari (Vol. XIII, Kitab al-Tawheed, Article 7, p.370-371),
|> Ibn Hajar does not mention the "end of the people" interpretation
|> for "qadam". He does, however, say:
|> wa taqaddam fee tafseer surat qaf min hadeeth Abee Huraira:
|> "fayada' ar-rab qadamahu 'alayhaa".
|> ^^^^^^^
|>
|> Thus, in another riwayah (citation) of al-Bukhari's hadeeth, the Prophet
|> himself (SAWS) used the preposition 'ala, thus unequivocally implying
|> that Allah has a foot.
|>

No, there is no explicit citation that Allah has the attribute of "qadam".
The people who adopted the salaf way did not say that it is an attribute:

1) I quote here Ibn al-Jawzi from al-Baz al-Ash-hab al munqadd ala
mukhalifi almath-hab. Ibn al-Jawzi cited the hadith which
I will give in arabic:
"La tazal jahannam yulka fiha wa takoul hal min mazid hatta
yada^ rabboul ^izzati fiha qadamouhu fayazwi ba^douha ila
ba^din fatamtali'"
Then Ibn al-Jawzi said:
"I said we must beleive that Allah is not a body and thus cannot
be partitionned and we cannot attribute place to Allah. We must
also beleive that we cannot attribute change or motion to Allah.
Abu ^ubeid al-Harawi narrated that al-Hassan al-bassri (of the TOP
Tabi^in scholars i.e. he is from the salaf) said: al-qadam are
a group of bad people which will be entered to hell by Allah.
And the Imam Ibn al-A^rabi said: al-qadam means al-mutaqaddim
and Abu bakr al-Bayhaqi narrated that an-Nadr bin Shamil said
al-qadam here means the kuffar which Allah knows that they will
be among the hell people.
Ibn Akil said: Allah does not have an attribute that fullfil
a place, who say this is doing tajsim (attributing a body to
Allah which is kufr as Imam Ahmad said), Allah does not need parts
and organs to order the fire: Allah said to the fire 'kuni bardan
wasalaman ^ala Ibrahim'. This is a ridiculus beleive (to beleive
that Allah has the attribute of "foot") "
end of the quotation of Ibn al-Jawzi.

2) see fath al bari (the reference that you cited by yourself!! In tafseer
surat qaf Ibn hajar gave many interpretations:
he gave first the salaf ta'wil ijmali by saying that we should
beleive in this verse without interpretation BUT WE SHOULD
ALSO BELEIVE THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ATTRIBUTE TO ALLAH ANY THING
THAT DOES NOT BEFIT ALLAH.
Then Ibn Hajar gave many acceptable interpretations (ta'wil tafsili):
a) The meaning of the expression is to humiliate the hell and not
that the hell will be put under a qadam. The arabs say 'rughma anfihi'
or 'sakata fi yadihi' to say in spite of him or he couldn't
do anything.
b) alqadam means the group of people
c) al-qadam means a created foot which is possessed by Allah
d) al-qadam means a created thing which will be put in hell
and which will take place there to fullfil the hell.

but he never said it is an attribute. I already mentioned the
position of the scholars of al-'Islam from this issue.

Wa Allah A^lam wa Ahkam

Walid Dabbous

------- End of Forwarded Message

[Walid....@sophia.inria.fr]

[Postmarked: 5 Aug '92 ]

[Walid Dabbous]

Dear Brothers,

Then Hassan said:

Hassan said:

Ibn Akil said: Allah does not ahve an attribute that fullfil

a place, who say this is doing tajsim (attributing a body to
Allah which is kufr as Imam Ahmad said), Allah does not need parts
and organs to order the fire: Allah said to the fire 'kuni bardan

wasalaman ^ala Ibrahim'. This is a ridiculs beleive (to beleive

[Walid....@sophia.inria.fr]

Dear Brothers,

Then Hassan said:

Hassan said:

Ibn Akil said: Allah does not have an attribute that fullfil

a place, who say this is doing tajsim (attributing a body to
Allah which is kufr as Imam Ahmad said), Allah does not need parts
and organs to order the fire: Allah said to the fire 'kuni bardan

wasalaman ^ala Ibrahim'. This is a ridiculus beleive (to beleive