I have added the following communication because I believe it is of extreme import to share this with Sunnis.
Sidi Gibril Haddad exposes the pseudo-salafi tactics:
o decontextualization
o misattribution
o mistranslation
o misinterpretation
o marginalization/poor adab
in the quote from the Sharh of Sahih Muslim regarding the hadith of the slave girl.
A questioner asked on Sidi G.F. Haddad’s email list the following question:
Has anyone come across the following slightly odd statement of Imam al-Nawawi
[somewhat mis-translated by a salafi as follows ]:
فمن قال بإثبات جهة فوق من غير تحديد ولا تكييف من المحدثين والفقهاء والمتكلمين
تأول : في السماء , أي : على السماء , ومن قال من دهماء النظار والمتكلمين وأصحاب
التنزيه بنفي الحد واستحالة الجهة في حقه سبحانه وتعالى تأولوها تأويلات بحسب
مقتضاها
[Here follows some nonsensical mistranslation.]
> He seems to be suggesting that jiha was affirmed by the scholars of hadith and
fiqh? Is this something that the majority of scholars of hadith did?
Are you sure you understood the above correctly? Why even mention a
pseudo-translation? Have you read the rest of the paragraph on the webpage you
cited?
We should keep a checklist of the various tactics used by the innovators for the
misrepresentation of the words and positions of the scholars of Ahl al-Sunna.
Among those tactics:
o decontextualization
o misattribution
o mistranslation
o misinterpretation
o marginalization/poor adab
Etc.
These tactics are not an accident and it is sound advice for us to not only be
aware of them, but suspect their presence by default, in some degree or other,
in most discussions and publications on Islam nowadays (as I warned in my
critique of Lings’ Prophetic Sira) and, if needs be, question our own naive
assumptions before proceeding.
First, the above are not Imam al-Nawawi’s but Qadi `Iyad’s words as cited from
the latter’s commentary on Sahih Muslim by Imam al-Nawawi in his own Sharh Sahih
Muslim.
Second, the words suggest that direction was affirmed not by “the scholars of
hadith” but by some from among the commonality of the scholars, while giving the
counter-position both the numerical edge (dahma’) and superior authority
(nuzzar=keensighted). Moreover, “those among” them who asserted the upward
direction, did so (i) without a limit (hadd), contrary to the mujassima who
affirm it and (ii) through ta’wil of the preposition “fi”, contrary to those who
deny that they apply ta’wil in the Sifaat.
Third, anyone who reads on can see that `Iyad (and implicitly al-Nawawi)
ultimately disagree with the assertion of direction as it violates the Salaf’s
rule of bila-kayf.
Note: there is tahrif and tas-hif in the website’s text and you will need to
combine it with `Iyad’s Ikmal al-Mu`lim bi-Fawa’id Muslim (Dar al-Wafa’ ed.
2:465) to get the complete picture.
The above discussion took place in the context of mentioning the highmost
exaltation (`uluw) of Allah Most High in the hadith “Where is Allah?” narrated
from Mu`awiya ibn al-Hakam al-Sulami by Muslim, Abu Dawud, al-Nasa’i, and Ahmad
concerning which Imam al-Nawawi (may Allah Most High have mercy on him) said in
Sharh Sahih Muslim (Dar Ihya’ al-Turath al-`Arabi ed. 5:24-25):
“This is one of the narrations that deal with the Divine Attributes and there
are two schools of reading for it which we have already discussed several times
in the book of Iman [of his Sharh Sahih Muslim]. The first consists in believing
in it without probing its meaning while holding that there is nothing like unto
Allah Most Highand, declaring His transcendence beyond the characteristics of
things created. The second consists in interpreting it in whatever way befits
it.
“Whoever holds the latter position says that the intention [of the Prophet, upon
him blessings and peace] was to test her: was she a believer in oneness
(muwahhida) who confirms that the Creator, Disposer, and Doer is Allah alone?
and that it is He Who, when the petitioner invokes Him, he turns towards the
heaven, just as when the worshipper prays, he turns towards the Ka`ba? And this
is not because He is circumscribed in the heaven nor is it because He is
circumscribed in the direction of the Ka`ba. Rather, this is because the heaven
is the orientation (qibla) of those who supplicate, just as the Ka`ba is the
orientation of those who worship. Or, on the other hand, was she of the
idol-worshippers who worship the idols that are displayed in front of them?
“When she replied: ‘In the heaven,’ it became known that she was a believer in
Oneness and not an idol-worshipper.
“Al-Qadi `Iyad said : ‘There is no disagreement among the Muslims – all without
exception: jurists, scholars of hadith, theologians, debaters, and followers,
that the external terms (al-zawahir) cited pertaining to Allah being ‘in the
heaven’ – as in His saying: {Have you taken security from Him Who is in the
Heaven that He will not cause the earth to swallow you?} (67:16) and the like –
are not meant in their outward sense (laysat `ala zahiriha) but rather are
interpreted by all of them (muta’awwila `inda jami`ihim). So whoever among the
hadith scholars, jurists, and mutakallimun asserted the upward direction (jihati
fawq) without specifying limit or modality did so only by interpreting {in the
heaven} (fil-sama’) to mean ‘OVER the heaven’ (`alal-sama’). And whoever, among
the great multitude (dahma’) of the perspicuous experts (al-nuzzar) and
theologians (al-mutakallimun) and those who stress the transcendence of Allah
Most High (as-hab al-tanzih), spoke to negate the concept of limit and the
inconceivability of direction with relaation to Him – exalted is He! –
interpreted them variously according to their necessary inference (muqtadaha).’
“Then he [`Iyad] said: ‘I would truly like to know: What is it that made Ahl
al-Sunna all agree and made them all join in the obligation of withholding
reflection about the [Divine] Essence just as they were commanded, and they
refrained from speech due to the mind’s defeat and they concurred that modality
(takyif) and composition (tashkil) were categorically prohibited, and that such
suspension and self-restraint on their part did not form doubt in the Existence
and the Existent, nor did it gainsay the doctrine of Oneness, rather, it formed
its very reality? Then X or Y negligently asserted a direction specific to Him
or pointed to Him with a boundary circumscribing Him – but is there, between
modality and the assertion of direction, any difference? or, between attributing
a limit to His Essence and asserting direction, any distinction? However, the
unqualified statement (itlaq) of what the Law has stated in unqualified terms,
namely, that {He is the Omnipotent above His servants} and that {He has
established Himself over the Throne}, while strongly holding onto the verse of
comprehensive, all-encompassing transcendence (al-ayat al-jami`a lil-tanzih
al-kulli), which is {There is nothing whatsoever like unto Him}, is a thorough
protection for him to whom Allah Most High grants success.’ And that is the
discourse of the Qadi, may Allah Most High have mercy on him.”
Allahumma tawaffana Muslimin wa-alhiqna bil-Salihin!
Was-Salam,
GF Haddad
salam
This is the blessed creed that I ignored my whole life. Allah is beyond time and space.
ameen! The absolute foundation of Tawheed is that Allah subhana wa ta’ala is transcendent beyond time and place. To give Allah ta’ala a place is to make Him an idol, a’udo billah.