Tafweed Al Ma’na is when you delegate the meaning of the sifaat of Allah ﷻ like istawa, nuzool, yad, aynayn etc…
This methodology is not what the salaf taught and i will be refuting this belief using the salaf and some of those from the khalaf, the common ways they try and prove this was the way of the salaf is when the salaf said “bila tafsir” without interpretation or when they said “we pass them as they have come”. These statements are not proof of tafweed al ma’na and this will be shown using other athar when the meaning is clear and known yet the salaf still said without tafsir and we pass them along as they have come.
Ibn al-A‘rābi (d.231AH) refutes ta’wil of istawa and when he was asked about the meaning of istawa he responded by saying that He is risen (mustaw) upon his throne. He did not respond by saying he doesn’t know the meaning.
Translation: Abu Sulayman said: We were with Abu ʿAbdillah Muḥammad ibn Ziyad Al-Aʿrabi (d. 231 AH) when a man came to him and asked “O Aba Abdillah, What is the meaning of ‘The Most Merciful istawa upon the Throne’?” [Ibn al-A’rabi] said, “[This means] He is risen upon His Throne, as He has informed.” The man then objected, “Rather, istawa (rose above) means ‘Istawla’ (subjugated).”
So Ibn al-A’rabi said to him, “What makes you think this?! The Arabs do not say ‘So-and-so has subjugated the Throne of so-and-so’ unless he is his opponent; when one of them overpowers [the opponent], then he has ‘istawla’ upon him. But as for Allah, then He has no opponent Iwhich He needs to overpower, so tstawla’ is not applicable). He is above His Throne as He has informed.
Isnad to ibn al a’rabi is authentic
Asma Wa Sifaat by Bayhaqi (2/314)
Hammad Ibn Abi Hanifah (d. 176AH) refutes some of the jahmiyyah in this athar as they were the ones who actually did tafweed on both meaning and modality here and Imam Hammad responds by saying we agree on not knowing the modality but we must affirm that Allah ﷻ will come (descend).
Translation: Imam Abū ‘Uthman al-Sabūni (d. 449) narrated from Hammad Ibn Abi Hanifah (d. 176) who said: We challenge these [Jahmiyyah], “Have you not seen that Allah said, ‘And your Lord will come and the angels, rank upon rank’?” They Jahmiyyah respond saying, “As for the angels, then they will come rank upon rank, but as for the Lord, we do not know what He meant by this, nor do we know the modality of how He will come (on the Day of Judgement].”
Hammad Ibn Abi Hanifah replied saying them,” [We agree that we are not required to know how He will come, but we are required [at least] to believe that He will come. The one who denies that the angels will come-who are they?” The [Jahmiyyah] say, “They are [consequently] disbelievers and deniers.” I say, “Likewise, the one who denies that Allah comes is a disbeliever and denier.
Aqidah al-Salaf wa Ashab al-Hadith By Imam Sabuni Pg 63
Ibn Abi ‘Āşim (d. 287) explicity states that we affirm the reports on the dhaahir (apparent) while negating delving into the morality.
Translation: A number of the Salaf al-Salih mentioned that the sifat al-khabariyyah are to be affirmed upon their apparent meanings.
Ibn Abi ‘Āsim (d. 287), that he said: “And all of what is in our book, (Kitāb al-Sunnah al-Kabir, regarding what is in the chapters containing reports [of the sifaat] which must be affirmed, then we believe in them, their authenticity, and their upright transmission; it is obligatory to submit to them upon their apparent while abandoning inquiry about the modality.” He then mentioned Allah’s descent to the heaven of the dunya, His istiwa upon the Throne.
Kitab Al-‘uluw lillahi al-‘Ali al-Ghaffar fi lydaah by Imam Ad Dhahabi Pg 197
Yazid bin Harun (d.206AH) says those who take istawa upon a meaning other than what our fitrah leads us to believe then he’s a jahmi proving we know the meaning of istawa.
Translation: Imam Bukhārī narrates: Yazeed Ibn Hārūn (d.206AH) said: Whoever thinks that ‘al-Rahmaan istawa above the Throne’ is upon (a meaning) other than what comes to the heart of the general masses then he is a jahmi.
Khalq A’faal Al Ibaad Volume 2 Page 37
Imam At Tirmidhi (d.295AH) says that the meaning of nuzool is understood and that the modality is unknown.
Translation: The sifaat being understood (ma’qul) is more clearly demonstrated in this incident concerning Imam At-Tirmidhi (d. 295) narrated that Abu al-Tayyib Ahmad said: “We were with Abū Ja’far al-Tirmidhi when a questioner asked him about the hadith of the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), ‘Verily, Allah descends to the heaven of the dunya! [He asked], ‘How does the descent happen?’ Imam At-Tirmidhi said, “The descent (al-nuzul) is understood, but its modality is unknown; to believe in it is obligatory and to ask about it is an innovation.“
Also recorded in: Al-Muntazam, Ibn al-Jawzi 77/13. And Tabaqat al-Shafi’iyyin 187/2. And Siyar A’lam al-Nubala 545/13. And Lisan al-Mizan 46/5. And Wafayat al-A’yan 195/4.
Tarikh Baghdad Volume 1 Page 382
Ibn Qutaybah al-Dinawarī (d. 276) said: If someone says to us, ‘What are the two hands here? we say they are the hands that people know while negating an anthropomorphic view.
Translation: Ibn Qutaybah al-Dinawarī (d. 276) said: “If he says to us, ‘What are the two hands here? we say they are the hands that people know. Similarly, Ibn Abbas said about this verse: ‘The two hands are the two hands.’ And the Prophet said: ‘Both His hands are right hands.’ So, is it permissible for anyone to interpret the hands here as one or two blessings? He also said, ‘When I created with My hands’ [Surah Saad: 75]. We say as Allah Almighty said and as His Messenger said. We do not ignore or carry the burden of what we are in, denying any form of anthropomorphism, while not rejecting what has been attributed.”
Al-Ikhtilaf fi al-Lafdh wa al-Radd ‘ala al-Jahmiyya by Ibn Qutaybah Pg 41
Al-Khalil Ibn Ahmad (d. 170)-among the leading linguists from the time of the salaf explained Allah’s istiwa to mean ascention (al-su’ud).
Translation: Al-Khalil Ibn Ahmad (d. 170) said: It is from the saying of Allah, the Almighty: “Then He directed Himself to the heaven while it was smoke and said to it and to the earth, ‘Come [into being], willingly or by compulsion.’ They said, ‘We have come willingly.” [Fussilat: 11]. So, we ascended to Him, and He asked, “Do you have flatbread, bitter milk, and fresh water?” We replied, “The Hour has separated us.” He then said, “Peace be upon you.” We did not comprehend what he said, and an Arab man remarked, “He has greeted you, leaving you neither harm nor benefit.” Al-Khalil commented, “It is from the saying of Allah, the Almighty: ‘And when the ignorant address them [harshly], they say [words of] peace.’
Tafsir Al Qurtubi Qur’an 25:63 (25/471)
Regarding Denying Knowing the “Meaning” of Allah’s Attributes
It is essential to understand the word “meaning” itself in different contexts. There are different gradations of meaning. You can have fully encompassing definitions that clearly explicate the nature and essence of what is being defined, while you can also have lower- level connotative meanings that indicate the essential core meaning while not providing a fully immersive conception of what is being defined.
The denotative definition (التعريف بالحد ) is more of a precise or dictionary definition of the term, while the connotative definition (التعريف بالرسم) connotes additional meanings or attributes related to the defined term, which signify an overall core meaning (أصل المعنى) of the term. There need not be any knowledge of the description of the essence or substance of the defined term in the connotative definition.
When it comes to the attributes of Allah, we could only discuss its connotative definitions since no one knows the Essence of Allah except for Allah Himself, which is something that even Asharis themselves acknowledge for the attributes that they affirm.
For example, what do we mean when we say that Allah has Knowledge? What comes to mind when we think of this term? Do we think of a common attribute or factor (قدر مشترك) which helps us relate to the meaning of this attribute of Allah, or do we believe that the “Knowledge” of Allah is simply nothing more than a homonym (لفظ مشترك) whereby it is simply a word we are familiar with, yet with a completely different and unknown meaning?
There is no shadow of a doubt that the Salaf believed that it is a common factor قدر مشترك we are familiar with (knowledge is conception and cognizance of the known(, for this core and generic definition applies to both the creation and to Allah.
The common factor (قدر مشترك )is merely the conceptual meaning (المعنى الكلي الذهني) that the word alludes to before it is ascribed to anyone (be it creation or the Creator) or delved into in describing its specific features. It alludes to the core meaning (أصل المعنى) core reality (أصل الحقيقة) of that term.
However, when it comes to the distinctive factors (القدرات المميزة) which differentiate Allah’s Knowledge from that of the creation, then we have entered the unseen realm of which we must not speculate.
Those distinctive factors feature in the denotative definition/meaning of words, which incorporate the modality (kayfiyyah) of the word in question. Therefore, when some deny knowing the meaning, what they really have in mind is denying knowing the modality/essence element of the denotative definition and not the connotative meaning of the term.
When the Imams of the Salaf said “Pass them as they come, bila kayf” they intended to affirm the apparent meaning.
Imam Malik for example said “𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗮 𝗸𝗮𝘆𝗳” regarding the aḥādīth about seeing Allah and the same Imam Malik understood the apparent meaning of these aḥādīth, he said: “The people will see Allah ﷻ on the day of judgement with their eyes”
This shows that bila kayf is tafwīdh in the kayfiyyah (modality), not the meaning.
Translation: Al Walid ibn Muslim (d. 195H) said: “I asked al-Awzā’i (d. 157H), Sufyan al-Thawri (d. 161H), and Malik ibn Anas (d. 179H) about these ahādīth that contain mention of al-ru’yah (the vision [of Allah in the Hereafter]).” They replied: Amirrūhā kamā jā’at bilā kayf (Pass them on as they have come, without [asking] how).
Sharh Usool Al Itiqaad by Imam Al Lalaka’ee Pg 443
Translation: Imam Malik (rahimahullāh, d. 179H) said: “Al-nās (the people) will look at Allah Ta’ālā on the Day of Judgment with their eyes.” Its isnād is şahih. It was narrated by al-Lālakāt in Sharh Uşül al-I’tiqād (2/501, hadith 870) through this chain, and Ahmad ibn Şalih is al-Mişrī. It was also narrated by Abū Nu’aym in Hilyat al-Awliya (6/326).
Kitab Ash-Shariah by Imām Ājurrī (d.360AH) (2/8-9)
What is Tafweed
Tafweed has two meanings
The tafweed the salaf were upon was affirming the wording and the meaning and leaving the manner and nature of his attributes and actions to Allah ﷻ
The second meaning which was not practiced by the salaf is to say we do not know the meaning of his attributes.
The main problem you can catch those who do tafweed al ma’na (delegating meaning to Allah ﷻ) is if they know the meaning of none of the attributes of Allah ﷻ or do they only delegate the meaning of some of his attributes …
Now they would have to show you why attributes like yadayn (hands), aynayn (eyes), qadam (foot), saq (shin) are not to be translated and can’t be understood in their meaning,
But we know the meaning of his names like rahma (mercy), ghafur (forgiver), Al Khaaliq (the creator), Ar Razzaq (the provider).
What is their criteria for knowing the meaning of some attributes while not knowing some of the others, and if they say they don’t know what it means for Allah ﷻ saw to be merciful or the creator or the destroyer. They no longer know what it means for Allah ﷻ to be god because they don’t know anything about him….
One way they argue for tafweed al ma’na is using the verse in surah al imran where allah ﷻ says there are verses in the quran that are mutashabiha, but there’s one simple way to destroy this argument.
The verse speaks for itself because the verse is talking about verses but are all the attributes mentioned in the Quran ??
Or do we have attributes affirmed only in ahadith of the prophet ﷺ?? Will they say that hands, shin are ambiguous but the hadiths that affirm laughter and a foot for allah ﷻ are not… How can they prove these are also ambiguous
Ibn Taymiyyah argues against tafweed al ma’na and says if parts of the Qur’an are too ambiguous to understand, and that it is better to leave their meanings to Allah this would be problematic as this approach implies that Allah did not clearly guide us through the Qur’an and did not make the truth evident.
The true meaning of what these people (those who advocate tafwid) claim is that the truth was not made clear to us, nor was it explained and those who do tafweed al ma’na believe allah ﷻ intended for us to not understand the Quran but at the same time he’s telling us to ponder upon it. How can we ponder upon the Quran when the meaning of the attributes are unknown….
Translation: As for tafwid, it is known that Allah, the Most High, has commanded us to ponder over the Qur’an and encouraged us to understand and comprehend it. So how can it be correct, then, that we are meant to turn away from understanding, knowing, and reasoning about it? Also, the address that was meant for our guidance and clarification, to bring us out of darkness into light, if the texts mentioned therein appear to be false and kufr (disbelief), and we were not meant to understand either their apparent meaning or their hidden meaning, or if we were meant to understand their hidden meaning without any clarification in the speech (the Qur’an), then in both cases, we were not addressed with clear guidance, nor did we know that the meaning of this speech was false and kufr.
The true meaning of what these people (those who advocate tafwid) claim is that the truth was not made clear to us, nor was it explained. Allah commanded us to believe in it, but what He addressed us with and commanded us to follow did not reveal the truth or clarify it. Rather, its apparent meaning suggests kufr and falsehood, and He intended for us not to understand anything from it, or for us to understand something for which there is no evidence in the text. All of this, it is known by necessity, is far removed from Allah and His Messenger, and is of the same nature as the statements of those who distort and deviate (Ahl al-Tahreef wa al-Ilhad).
Dar’u Ta’arud al-‘Aql wal-Naql, by Ibn Taymiyyah (1/201-202)
Ibn Taymiyyah says the statement “Leave it as it came without how” means that while we affirm the meaning of the attribute, we do not delve into or question its exact nature.
He also says that us not knowing the how does not imply denying the reality of the attribute. The how is left to Allah alone, as the attribute is affirmed, but the manner of its occurrence is not for us to know or comprehend.
Translation: The statement of Rabi’a and Malik (may Allah be pleased with them) that istawa is not unknown, and that the how (kayfiyya) is not comprehensible, and that belief in it is obligatory, is in agreement with the statement of the others: “Leave it as it came without asking how.” They only denied knowledge of the how, but did not deny the reality of the attribute. If the people had believed in the mere wording without understanding its meaning as it is appropriate for Allah, they would not have said: “The istawa is not unknown, and the how is not comprehensible,” and they would not have said, “Leave it as it came without how.” For in that case, istawa would not be known but would be as unknown like Alif Laam Meem, Kaf Ha Ya Ain Saad.
Furthermore, there is no need to deny knowledge of the how if the meaning of the word is not understood. Denying knowledge of the how is necessary only if the attributes have been affirmed. Moreover, those who deny the descriptive attributes, do not need to say “without asking how.” For example, if someone says that Allah is not on the throne, they do not need to say “without asking how.” If the methodology of the Salaf (early scholars) were to deny the attributes in essence, they would not have said “without asking how.” Additionally, their statement: “Leave it as it came,” implies maintaining its apparent meaning as it is. For the words came with meanings. If their meanings were negated, the correct thing would be to say: “Leave the words, while believing that the meaning is not intended,” or “Leave the words, while believing that Allah is not described with what they indicate in reality.” In that case, it would not have been said, “Leave it as it came,” nor would it have been said “without how,” because negating the how regarding something that is not established would be nonsensical.
Majmu Al Fatawa by Ibn Taymiyyah (5/41-42)
Shaykh Abu Bakr al-Isma’ili (d. 371 AH) uses verses 2:210- Do they await but that Allāh should come to them in covers of clouds and the angels [as well] and the matter is [then] decided? And to Allāh [all] matters are returned.
And 89:22 – And your Lord has come and the angels, rank upon rank.
To prove Allah ﷻ descends and says we take them as they have come without asking how, this is clearly not a negation of there being a kayfiyyah because he clearly says “if allah ﷻ wanted to inform us about the how he would’ve done so but he didn’t”
Translation: I read in the letter of Shaykh Abu Bakr al-Isma’ili (d. 371 AH) to the people of Jilan: That Allah, the Exalted, descends to the lowest heaven as authentically reported from the Messenger of Allah. And Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, said: “Are they waiting for Allah to come to them in the shadows of the clouds?” (Qur’an 2:210), and He said: “And your Lord will come with the angels, rank upon rank” (Qur’an 89:22). We believe in all of this, as it has come, without asking how. If Allah, the Exalted, had willed to explain to us how, He would have done so. Thus, we stop where He has made the matter clear and refrain from delving into what is ambiguous.
This is because we were commanded to do so in His saying, the Exalted: “He is the one who sent down to you the Book, in it are verses that are clear – they are the foundation of the Book – and others are ambiguous. As for those in whose hearts is deviation, they follow what is ambiguous from it, seeking discord and seeking its interpretation. But no one knows its interpretation except Allah. And those firmly grounded in knowledge say, ‘We believe in it; all of it is from our Lord.’ But no one remembers except those of understanding” (Qur’an 3:7).
Aqidatu Salaf wa As-hab ul-Hadith by Imam As-Sabuni (d. 449AH) Pg 192
Imam Ahmad ibn hanbal says regarding the narration where the prophet ﷺ says to Ali رضي الله عنه “I am to you as Musa عليه السلام is to Harun عليه السلام”
If Imam Ahmad says we pass this along as it has come does that mean Imam ahmad doesn’t know what this hadith means??
Translation: Abu Bakr al-Marwadhi reported: I asked – 446 Abu Abd Allah (Ahmad ibn Hanbal, d. 241 AH) statement to Ali: “You about the Prophet’s are to me as Harun was to Musa” (Sahih al-?Bukhari). What is its explanation He said: “Be silent about this. Do not ask about it. Leave the report as it came.” 447-Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Matar reported that Abu Talib narrated to them: I asked Abu Abd Allah (Ahmad ibn Hanbal) about the Prophet’s statement to Ali: “Whoever I am his mawla, Ali is his mawla.” What is its meaning? He said: “Do not speak about this. Leave the hadith as it came.”
Kitab As Sunnah By Al Khalla (1/281-282)
