‫اﺑﻮ ﻳﻮﺳﻒ‬

@truthunveilled

126 Tweets • 2022-12-21 •  See on Twitter

rattibha.com 

Imām Abū Ja'far At-Tahāwī's Creed — Salafi or

Hanafi/Maturidi/Ash'arī?

Before I begin this thread, I would like to clarify for

those who are in urgent need of logic and brain,
that by the title I am not intending that Imām Abū
Ja'far At-Tahāwī' was possibly Ash'arī/Māturīdī,
instead, it is to verify if he agrees with their
understanding of religion.
Before starting off with the quotes, I would like to
first show how Imām At-Tahāwī and the others
who I will bring, are connected to Imām Abū
Hanīfah. This is important as Imām At-Tahāwī is
presenting Abū Hanīfah's creed here, and he is
generally presenting

the Hanafi Creed which had reached him.

1. Imām At-Tahāwī's chains to Imām Abū Hanīfah

He took from, Sulaymān bin Shu'ayb al-Kīsānī, who

took from, Basār bin Qutaybah and Ibn Abī 'Imrān
and Abī Hāzim.
Also, he took from 'Isā ibn Abbān who took from
Imām Muhammad, who took from Imām Abū
Hanīfah.

— Basār took from his father, who took from Abū

Yūsuf, who took from Imām Abū Hanīfah.

— Ibn Abī 'Imrān took from Hilāl bin Yahyā, who

took

from, Zufar and Abū Yūsuf, who took from Abū

Hanīfah.

— Abī Hāzim took from, Ibn Samā'ah and Bishr al-

Walīd, Ibn Samā'ah took from Imām Muhammad
and Abū Yūsuf, who both took from Abū Hanīfah.
Bishr al-Walīd took from Abū Yūsuf who took from
Abū Hanīfah.
2. Al-Hakīm as-Samarqandī

He took from, Abū Mansūr al-Māturīdī, he took

from Nusayr bin Yahyā, Abū Bakr al-Juzjani, Abū
Nasr al-'Iyādhī and Muhammad bin Muqātil ar-Rāzī.

— Nusayr took from, Hammād, who took from Abū

Hanīfah. He also took from Abū Sulaymān al-
Juzjānī,

who took from Abū Yūsuf and Imām Muhammad,

who both took from Imām Abū Hanīfah.

— Abū Bakr al-Juzjānī took from Abū Sulaymān al-

Juzjānī (the rest of it is mentioned in the previous
one)

— Abū Nasr al-'Iyādhī took from Abū Sulaymān al-

Juzjānī (the rest is as above)
— Muhammad bin Muqātil ar-Rāzī, took from,
Imām Muhammad, who took from Abū Hanīfah.

2. Al-Hakīm as-Samarqandī

He took from, Abū Mansūr al-Māturīdī, he took

from Nusayr bin Yahyā, Abū Bakr al-Juzjani, Abū
Nasr al-'Iyādhī and Muhammad bin Muqātil ar-Rāzī.

— Nusayr took from, Hammād, who took from Abū

Hanīfah. He also took from Abū Sulaymān al-
Juzjānī, who took from Abū Yūsuf and Imām
Muhammad, who both took from Imām Abū
Hanīfah.
— Abū Bakr al-Juzjānī took from Abū Sulaymān al-
Juzjānī (the rest of it is mentioned in the previous
one)

— Abū Nasr al-'Iyādhī took from Abū Sulaymān al-

Juzjānī (the rest is as above)

— Muhammad bin Muqātil ar-Rāzī, took from,

Imām Muhammad, who took from Abū Hanīfah.

3. Abū Salamah as-Samarqandī

He took from, Abū Ahmad Nasr al-'Iyādhī.

— Abū Ahmad took from, Imām Abū Mansūr al-

Māturīdī and Imam Abū Nasr al-'Iyādhī (and their
chains have been mentioned in Al-Hakīm's chains)
4. Abū al-Qāsim as-Saffār al-Balkhī

He took from Abū Salamah and Nusayr bin Yahyā.

— Both of their chains have been mentioned above

(Abū Salamah and Abū Mansūr al-Māturīdī's chain
to Nusayr).

5. Muhammad bin Fadhl al-Balkhī

I was unable to find his chains, however, what is

known is that he lived during the 300s and was
also around the Balkh scholars, which means he
most likely took from their heads, for example, Abū
al-Qāsim as-Saffār al-Balkhī and similar.
Nevertheless, it does not harm to share the
consistency of the orthodox Hanafīs in their creed.

What's clear from the chains is that all scholars

relate back to two main students of Imām Abū
Hanīfah, Imām Al-Qādhī Abū Yūsuf, and Imām
Muhammad bin al-Hassan ash-Shaybānī.

Points in discussion:

• Allāhs attribute being eternal

• The impossibility of change for the eternal
Almighty Allāh
• Directions and place
•Sensory aboveness and meaningful aboveness
• Ta'wīl & Tafwīdh
• Beatific Vision of Allāh

• For each point I will also quote contemporary

Sunni Hanafi scholars and prove how they were all
in one line with Imām At-Tahāwī
﷽

One of the many points Salafis do not ponder over

enough is that Imām At-Tahāwī in fact did negate
emergent possibilities for Allāh. This is clearly
suggested in the following statement by the Imām:

"He eternally existed with His attributes before His

creation. None of His attributes increased by their
coming into existence from what they were prior to
their existence. Just as He was eternally
characterised by His attributes, He will likewise
continue to be characterised by
them perpetually."

— Allāhs attributes are eternal

— Allāh does not change

This point is essential for another point, Allahs

aboveness, which we will discuss later.

In the above statement it is very clear that Imām

At-Tahāwī establishes that Allāh is perfect and
complete, he does not change, nor gain any new
attributes, nor do his attributes change in their
nature, nor do they become more complete. They
are as they were before he created
the creation and they will be as they are now.

Furthermore, the Imām pushes the idea that Allāh

always will have the same attributes. This
concerns all attributes including his aboveness and
it will even relate to other issues like Allāhs
descent and rising.

If Allāhs essence itself is described with

descending, then the descent must be an eternal
act of Allāh which he does without entering His
creation, nor can this descent have a beginning
and end. However, if the descent does not refer to
an active attribute of his

essence but rather an action or event he causes to

occur, like Him causing angels to descend and
similar, then this can have a beginning.
Nevertheless, it is very clear from Imām At-Tahāwī
that theoretically if we applied the above principle
to Allāh descending
himself with his essence, then by definition it
would be impossible according to the Imām as the
definition of descent requires a beginning and end
in its event. Therefore, it must be an eternal act of
Allāh if it falls in relation of his essence, and the
eternal does not

undergo change.

The above can also apply to any other action a

Salafi claims to be emergent, like the act of Allāh
starting to speak to his creation on the day of
judgement. If the act of speaking which relates to
His essence, only begins on the day of judgement,
then this

in fact is what Imām At-Tahāwī negates, if the act

of speaking is other than His essence, meaning he
creates the speech in another body, then this is not
Allahs speech in reality instead it is the body's
speech.
Again, we can see clear issues with the Salafi
understanding contradicting Imām At-Tahāwī.

Contemporary Hanafi Sunni scholars on this issue:

Imām Al-Hakīm as-Samarqandī (d. 342 AH) states

in As-Sawād Al-A'dham (this book is also
attributed to Abū Hafs al-Kabīr [d. 216 AH] and Abū
Hafs as-Saghīr [d. 246 AH] in some manuscripts):
" A believer should know Allāh eternally was the
creator before he created the creation, he does not
change from one state to another. As for the one
who says 'Allāh was not a creator before he
created the creation, and he became a creator
after' then his

statement is like that of the one who says 'Allāh

was not a God, then he became a God' and this
statement is disbelief..."

[Point 36]

Imām Abū Salmah as-Samarqandī al-Hanafī (d.

340 AH) has a whole chapter in his Jumal min Usūl
ad-Dīn in which he discusses that the world is
emergent and the necessary existence must exist
to cause all this while He is not emergent. He
points out in it that
having emergent quality would express an effect
other than himself, and that is impossible. Thus he
makes it clear that the necessary existence does
not change, as change would necessitate him to be
affected by time, and time is a creation, and
creation is other than God.

Pg16
Imām Abū al-Qāsim as-Saffār Al-Balkhī (d. 320 AH)
states in his Ajwibah as-Saffār, or more famously
known as Usūl at-Tawhīd:

"He was asked about the one who says 'The

speech of Allāh is an eternal attribute of His, it is
timeless and
does not end, it does not associate with time.'
However, [it is known that] speaking is associated
with time, and so on about the one who says the
same about all other attributes, is disbelief applied
on him or not?

He replied: Yes, because speaking is an attribute of

Allāh, and the one who says speaking associates
with time [in the right of Allah], then he has
affirmed emergent matter for the attributes of
Allāh, and the one who says the attributes of Allāh
are emergent is a disbeliever."

Page 87 Dār an-Noor Publishing 2022

Once again, a very clear statement by a

contemporary of Imām At-Tahāwī. No further
explanation on what he has written is required.
Imām Muhammad bin Fadhl al-Balkhī (d. 419 AH)
states in his Kitāb al-I'tiqād:

"Allāh does is timeless and he was a creator and

sustainer in timelessness, he does not change
from one state to another state."

[Point 37]
We have now established that Imām At-Tahāwī as
well as other contemporary Mutakallimūn from the
Ahnāf at the time of Imām At-Tahāwī all agree with
his creed and we do not find even a drop of
problematic matter in their statement (in the
context of it contradicting

with Imām At-Tahāwī's words).

It becomes clear that, if Allah were to act within

time, and emergent quality occured in relation to
Him, then it would go against exactly what Imām
At-Tahāwī and the contemporaries of his stated.
— Are directions and place possible for Allāh
according to Imām At-Tahāwī?

Before I bring the statement of Imām At-Tahāwī, it

is important to use the previous methodology
established by Imām At-Tahāwī in all cases when
we speak about Allāh and his divine attributes.
Therefore,

when we discuss Allāh's aboveness, we will keep

the main points Imām At-Tahāwī established for
His attributes, and apply them to aboveness.

• Allāh's attributes do not change

• Allāh's attributes are eternal
• Allāh does not gain a new attribute after the
existence of creation

The Imām states:

"Allāh is exalted above limits, endings, constituent

parts, limbs and instruments (i.e. tools)."
Then he elaborates:

"The six directions do not enclose Him, likewise do

not all the rest of originated things."

The statement is very clear, however, I must attach

a refutation on Salafīs to making mistranslations
on this passage, it further exposes their
weaknesses in Tarkīb

(composition of Arabic sentences) of arabic

sentences.

You will usually find them translate it as the

following:

"The six directions do not encompass him, as they

do with the rest of originated things."
This translation is utterly false and incorrect. For
those who have studied Arabic syntax, they would
know that the word Tahwī (‫ )ﺗﺤﻮي‬i.e. he/they
encompasses has Ta'alluq with the word Kasāir
(‫ )ﻛﺴﺎﺋﺮ‬i.e. like the rest - therefore, the correct
translation is

as follows in basic diagram:

‫ﻻ ﺗ ﺤ ﻮﻳ ﻪ ا ﻟ ﺠ ﻬ ﺎ ت ا ﻟ ﺴ ﺖ‬

The six directions do not encompass Him

(‫ﻻ ﺗﺤﻮﻳﻪ ﻛـ(ﺳﺎﺋﺮ اﻟﻤﺒﺘﺪﻋﺎت‬

Nor do the rest of originated things encompass

Him.
The Jārr and Majrūr does of 'Kasāir' never relates
to a pronoun like the Hā, as Salafis have
mistakenly done so. Rather, it either relates to a
verb or a hidden word, in this case it is the verb 'lā
Tahwī'.

So it becomes apparent, that Imām At-Tahāwī in

fact, negates that all six directions encompass
Him, nor does any creation itself encompass Him.
This means, even if were claimed one direction
encompasses him, then even then he is going
against Imām At-Tahāwī's words

as Imām At-Tahāwī further expresses that nor

does any creation encompass him. And one
direction or two directions aside of the whole
package of six directions together, are also
particular creations, therefore Imām At-Tahāwī has
negated even one direction being a possibility for
Allāh, and here the ignorance of the commentators
from the Salafīs is exposed.

We have now established that Imām At-Tahāwī

negates Allāh being in any direction, likewise he
negates Allāh being encompassed by any other
creation, this includes space and place of course.

To strengthen this claim, we will re-apply Imām At-

Tahāwī's initial principles. Were Allāh to delve into
space or place, or were he to move and go from
one point to another point, then he would be
attributed with new qualities which he previously
did not possess.

And this clearly goes against what the Imām has

said as I have proven earlier in this thread.

Contemporary Hanafī scholars on the possibility of

Allāh being encompassed or being in creation:
Imām Al-Hakīm as-Samarqandī al-Hanafī states:

"And we have mentioned that one should know that

a place is not affirmed for Allāh, nor is [literal]
coming and going [affirmed], nor any attribute like
that of the creation...so know! That he does not
have a place, nor
does he have any need from the throne, rather the
throne exists due to his power..."

[Point 47]

Imām Abū Salmah as-Samarqandī al-Hanafī again

compiles the whole idea of Allāh being different to
his creation and in it he clearly suggests that Allāh
having a body and similar qualities which suggest
in Allāh being encompassed are all expressions of
being overcome and emergent,
which are all impossible.

[Jumal min Usūl ad-Dīn 20 DKI]

Imām Abū al-Qāsim as-Saffār Al-Balkhī said:

"If it is said, 'the existing thing is seen only when it

exists in a direction, so you see the thing from a
direction to a direction' so is Allāh existing without
a direction? How can he then be seen?'
We say: A thing is seen not because of it being in a
direction, rather it is seen because it exists,
therefore Allāh is seen because he exists without
direction."

Ajwibah as-Saffār 97

The above statement is very clear in the Imām

negating direction from Allāh.

Imām Muhammad bin Fadhl al-Balkhī mentions:

"One should know that Allāh has done Istiwā upon

the throne, He is above it, without modality, without
resemblance, it is as Allāh has intended, an
aboveness of might and lord hood, not an
aboveness of rising of place and distancing.

It is not that what the Karrāmiyyah say, that the

'Arsh is a place for him."
He also mentions clearly:

"One should know that a place is not affirmed for

Allāh because he does not need a place."

[Point 52 & 48]

Moving on, the issue of Allah's aboveness.

Does Imām At-Tahāwī accept the position of the

Salafīs or does he fall in line with what the
Māturīdiyyah adhere to?

Before I begin to establish his position, it is

important to know what position the Māturīdiyyah
and Ashāirah hold.
1. They attribute Allah with aboveness of status

2. They attribute to Allāh an aboveness in a

complete sense, free of closeness to the throne
and whatever is beneath it.

3. Some also use the attribute as a negating

attribute, to negate Allāh being within his creation,
we ascribed 'Uluwe to him in symbolisation of
transcendence. See Tafsīr as-Samarqandī

4. Some adhere to the position that He is above

everything in a meaning he only knows of, and we
do not delve into searching for it's meaning.
What does Imām At-Tahāwī say about aboveness?

We have several manuscripts on this issue, they

maintain two different wordings so I will give both
statements:

M1 & M2:

"He, exalted is He, is independent of the throne and

whatever is below it. He encompasses everything
while he is above it. And the creations are
overcome in encompassing him"

M3 & M4:

He, exalted is He, is independent of the throne and

whatever is below it. He encompasses everything
and whatever is above it. And the creations are
overcome in encompassing him."

Bringing back our initial principle which the Imām

established in the opening of the book as I have
mentioned, for the first two manuscripts:

Allāh is attributed with attributes of timelessness,

he does not gain any more attributes after the
creation came into existence and
he is described with the same after the creation
existed just as He is described with what He had
before it existed.

Therefore, Allāh always had aboveness, he was

described with having aboveness before he
created the throne, likewise he always had
aboveness after he created

the throne. The existence of the throne does not

make a difference to him, he is all-above,
regardless of the existence of creation. This very
clearly contradicts the understanding of literal
aboveness, as literal aboveness requires the
throne to exist. It can also be known

as restricted aboveness, which is the belief that the

throne is a condition for existence, so that He may
be above it. He cannot be above it without its
existence.
This is then what Imām Abū Hanīfah referred to in
his Wasiyyah when he stated:

"If he is settled/established or sitting on the throne,

then where was Allāh before He created the
throne? Allāh is far above it."

Meaning, were there a spatial literal relation like

closeness or touch or distance with the throne,
then Allāh certainly would be bound to relying on
its existence to be above it. Thereby the Imām
says, where was He then when the throne did not
exist? Meaning, when the throne

did not exist, he was no longer established upon it,

therefore he must have been somewhere else.

Using the principle of Imām At-Tahāwī, it's become

quite clear, if we took these wordings, then it would
not make a difference to a Māturīdī because
complete aboveness is being
established, and that is the way of Ahl as-Sunnah.
It is also clear by the context of what the Imām has
stated, that he is not referring to literally
aboveness as he states "he is independent of the
throne" - "the creations are overcome from
encompassing him" [as he is always

overpowering] thus he mentions it in the context of

Him being above everything, while His creations
are being overcome. I.e. he is referring to the
aboveness of ultimate divine power.

If we went by the second wording, then there is no

need to explain further as the Imām simply states
that Allāh is free of relying on the throne and
whatever is beneath it. Likewise, he is free from the
throne and whatever is above it. He encompasses
all.
We do not need to quote contemporary Hanafī
scholars here as we've already done so in the last
topic.

Nevertheless, we can add a statement of Imām

Muhammad here which has been authentically
transmitted from him by An-Nātifí in his Al-Ajnās:

"Allāh has not created the creation to settle upon it

—

And our Lord is not equal in creation for belief—

Rather, He is above it with power and might—

Not with movement he is above it nor ascends

above."
Again, a very clear statement from a scholar of the
Salaf, whose creed Imām At-Tahāwī explained in
this text.

The next issue is Tafwīdh & Ta'wīl

Before we started on this, we must define both

terms and give their possible meanings.

Tafwīdh: Relegating knowledge about a certain

matter back to Allāh — this is what is done with
most verses of the Mutashābihāt and we are told
to do so as
mentioned by the students of Imām Muhammad
bin Al-Hassan Ash-Shaybānī, Imām Abū Hafs al-
Kabīr.

He states:

"...we are not burdened with knowing what is

meant by them [the Mutashābihāt]." [See as-sawad
al-Adham passage below]

The second position is Ta'wīl. And that is of two

types; 1. Ta'wīl Ijmālī 2. Ta'wīl Tafsīlī.

Ta'wīl: Changing the apparent wording of

something to another. It is also known as
interpretation.
Ta'wīl Ijmālī: Ta'wīl Ijmālī is a form of Tafwīdh, how
so? Interpretation is derived from a complete
clause, while specific words in that clause are not
interpreted, and this is the way of most of the
Salaf. Seeking the real benefit of the Āyah, without
looking for specific

meanings of words within that Āyah. Most

Mufawwifdhah also adhere to this position as
meaning from a whole Āyah can still be sought
without having the need to delve into specifics.

Ta'wīl Tafsīlī would require going into specifics. It

is that interpretation in which a specific word in a
clause is interpreted — not the complete clause
itself. This was what most Mu'tazilah from the
Salaf adhered to and some of the Ashā'irah also,
however their position
also claims to negate certainty in that
interpretation, while Allāh certainly knows best of
its interpretation.

What does Imām At-Tahāwī state?

He just after the chapter of Ru'yah:

"And whatever has come from it authentically in

the Hadith from the messenger of Allah, then it is
as said, and the meaning is whatever he intended,
we do not enter into any of its interpretations with
our
[own] opinions."

"We do not engage in any of that by Interpreting [it]

with our personal opinion or imagining it with our
whims."

He states later on:

"In their (the attributes) meaning is nothing from

the creation" Meaning non of the meaning of
creation is attributed to him.
This is a principle built by most of our Māturīdī
Shuyūkh— the way of the Salaf is the safest
(Aslam).

1. Imām At-Tahāwī states "the meaning is

whatever he intended" which suggests staying
away from delving into specific matter, like Ta'wīl
Ijmālī.

2. He states, non of the meanings from creation

are of his. I.e. we cannot attribute a definitive
meaning to Allāh which is found within the
creation. This also brings us to another point;
certain concepts which are only attributable to
Allāh, can in fact be attributed to

him because non of the creation has them,

therefore the meaning of those is known. For
example, Allāh being eternal and similar.
Nevertheless, there are other aspects which cannot
be attributed to him as we do not know, except that
which can be attributed to the human, for example
a limb when it comes to hand. We do not know any
other than this, therefore, we will restrain from
delving

into the matter and consign it's knowledge to Allāh.

What do contemporary scholars state in regards to

this discussion?

Al-Hakim as-Samarqandi writes:

Further:

“As for the ambiguous [mutashābihāt] verses and

ambiguous reports, then it is appropriate for him to
have faith
in them and not explain them, as explaining them
enters into the way of denial, thus he would
become an innovator, and when you see an
ambiguous verse, then leave that to Allāh táālā and
do not explain it as it is not obligatory [fard] upon
you that you know its

explanation, rather the obligation upon you is to

have faith in it.”

In some manuscripts, it is also Imam Muhammad

making this statement while the author is just
narrating.
Imām Abū Salmah as-Samarqandī states:

"As for the statements of ambiguity in the Qur'ān,

then it is permissible to be tested by having belief
in them (meaning being patient on them as you do
not know what is exactly intended). One does not
barr on its literal understanding,
so this is also a type from the test [of patience] just
like all the other tests from the types of worship,
the creation stopping on them (meaning the
Mutashābihāt) and what is actually in them, is from
wisdom."

The Imām expands for another page affirming that

we are not obliged to search for it's interpretation
and that the presence of ambiguous passages in
the Qur'ān, is seen as a test to be patient on and
also as a wisdom from Allāh.

[Jumal Min Usūl ad-Dīn 33-35]

Muhammad bin Fadhl al-Balkhi writes:

"Point 51 is is to believe in the ambiguous verses,

like the statement of the Most High, 'Your Lord
came', 'They are looking for nothing (to accept the
truth) but that Allah (Himself) comes upon them',
and the
ambigious reports [of the messenger] , like the
Nuzul, Yad and similar to that. It is not explained,
not rejected but believed in as it came from the
Prophet Sallallahu Alayhi wa Sallam. He is ascribed
with highness, and not with belowness because
belowness is not from

[the characteristics] of Lordship and there is no

modality therein."
Imām Abū al-Qāsim as-Saffār Al-Balkhī states:

"The foundation in regards to the approach on all

the ambiguous verses, for Ahl as-Sunnah is:

1. Having belief in what Allāh stated upon whaevert

he intended. We do not search for their
interpretation as narrated from Imām Malik
when he was asked about His statement: "The
Most merciful Istawa upon the throne" He replied:
‘Istiwā is not unknown, and modality [for Him] is
inconceivable, belief in it is obligatory and to ask
about it is an innovation.’ This agrees with the
statement of Allāh: "No one knows
it's interpretation except Allāh"

The second approach: It is permissible to make

appropriate interpretations which do not lead to a
negation or to resemblance [of Allāh with creation].
So if we say, Yad is an expression for Qudrah
(power) or ability or generosity or kinghood,

then it will necessitate negation of 'Yad. And if we

say, that it is a real limb, then it will necessitate
resembling."

The Beatific Vision of Allāh

Imām At-Tahāwī states:

"The Beatific Vision for the people of Jannah is

true, without any encompassment nor any
modality, just as it has come in the book of our
Lord, "On that day their faces will be radiant,
looking towards their lord" and
it's explanation is whatever Allāh has intended and
He knows it."
A principle Imām At-Tahāwī establishes:

• He states 'without any modality' (‫ )ﺑﻼ ﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ‬it is

known that if the particle Lā appears for negation,
while the thing which is being negated (in this case
modality) is put in an indefinite form, while it
maintains the kasrtayn, then

the negated matter has been negated in a

complete sense, meaning it is impossible to
ascribe such to the thing which it is being negated
of. This is the Madhab which all Ashā'irah and
Māturīdīiyah agree with, and in fact, most of the
Salaf would negate modality. Nevertheless,

the Salafi doctrine upholds the belief that modality

must be affirmed while not knowing what that
modality is.
• He also states without any encompassment, and
this is because Allāh is not encompassed, be it by
directions or bodies.

Know! That directions are from the particles of

encompassment, likewise is it from modality. Our
Imām has already negated directions previously
and

only barred upon this doctrine even further by this

statement. If that is not the case, then what else
can be interpreted from this?

Keep in mind, many Salafis also establish that the

Beatific Vision is not possible without Allāh being
seen in a direction.
Furthermore, scholars of theirs, like Ibn Uthaymin
goes as far as stating, if being a body is required to
be seen, then let that be so. Allah is far above what
they ascribe to him.

What do contemporary scholars of Imām At-

Tahāwī state about the Beatific Vision?

Imām Abū al-Qāsim as-Saffār al-Balkhī:

"If it is said, the existent thing is only seen when it

is in a direction, therefore he will be seen in a
direction relating to another direction, but Allāh
exists without direction, so how could he be seen?
He answers: The direction is seen, not because it is
a direction, rather it is seen because it exists, so
Allāh is seen because he exists without direction.

He adds: Do you not see that Allah is known

without direction, likewise he is not seen with
direction."

[Ajwibah as-Saffār 97]

Imām Al-Hakīm as-Samarqandī states:

"It should be known that the people of Jannah will

see Allāh without any likeness nor direction.

Know! That the believers will see their Lord in

Jannah without resemblance, without any doubt.
Just as a
person sees the moon on the night of Badr, so
does he doubt that if anyone else looks towards it
that it is not the moon? Likewise, believers will see
Allāh with a real vision, and they will not doubt that
it is their Lord, just as the believers acknowledge
their Lord without

likeness nor modality."

[As-Sawād Al-A'dham point 31]

Muhammad bin Fadhl al-Balkhi states:

"The 30th point is to know that the believers will

see Allāh the Most High in the hereafter without
any modality nor any resemblance to His creation.
The one who rejects the beatific vision is a
Mu'tazilite Najjārite."
Imām Abū Salamah as-Samarqandī al-Hanafī
states:

"As for the opinion of the Beatific Vision, it is real

without any resemblance, nor negation, nor
comprehension, nor encompassment, as it has
come in the Sunnah and as the scholars have
stated ."
From the above, it becomes quite clear that when it
comes to the issue of the Beatific Vision, the
scholars would at least negate modality, and at
most negate direction. And this is in opposition to
those who say, it is necessary for the observed to
be in a direction.

Lastly, I could include the issue of Imān, but there

is not really any benefit in including this since this
is quite known and Salafis quite openly say Imām
At-Tahāwī was wrong here anyways.

Nevertheless, it is very clear whose side Imām At-

Tahāwī stands on.

Conclusion:
 Imām At-Tahāwī is much closer to the
understanding of the Ashā'irah and Māturīdīiyah
when it comes to matters of creed which the
Ashā'irah and Māturīdīiyah dispute over with
pseudo-Salafis.

Allāh is the enabler alone and He knows best.

These pages were created and arranged by Rattibha services

(https://www.rattibha.com)
The contents of these pages, including all images, videos,
attachments and external links published (collectively referred
to as "this publication"), were created at the request of a user
(s) from Twitter. Rattibha provides an automated service,
without human intervention, to copy the contents of tweets from
Twitter and publish them in an article style, and create PDF
pages that can be printed and shared, at the request of Twitter
user (s). Please note that the views and all contents in this
publication are those of the author and do not necessarily
represent the views of Rattibha. Rattibha assumes no
responsibility for any damage or breaches of any law resulting
from the contents of this publication.