Was Imām Aḥmad (d. 241) a Mufawwiḍ?

Yet another spurious notion often insinuated and invoked in creedal discussions is
that Imām Aḥmad Ibn Ḥanbal adopted the approach of tafwīḍ al-maʿnā with respect
to the Ṣifāt al-khabariyyah. This claim is based primarily (in fact, almost exclusively)
on the following report which Shaykh al-Ḥanābilah Abū Bakr al-Khallāl narrated in
his Kitāb al-Sunnah from Ḥanbal Ibn Isḥāq (d. 271):

‫ سألت أبا عبد الله‬:‫ وأخبرني علي بن عيسى أن حنبل ًا حدثهم قال‬:‫قال أبو بكر الخلال‬
‫ وأن‬،‫ أن الله تبارك وتعالى ينزل كل ليلة إلى السماء الدنيا‬:‫عن الأحاديث التي تروى‬
،‫ نؤمن بها ونصدق بها‬:‫ فقال أبو عبد الله‬.‫ وما أشبهه‬،‫ وأن الله يضع قدمه‬،‫الله ي ُرى‬
.‫ ولا نرد منها شيًئا‬،‫ولا كيف ولا معنى‬

“I asked Abū ʿAbdillāh [Aḥmad Ibn Ḥanbal] about the aḥādīth narrated:
Allāh descending every night to the heaven of the dunyā, Allāh being seen
[in the Hereafter], Allāh placing His Foot [upon the Hellfire], and the likes
of these [reports about the Ṣifāt].”

Imām Aḥmad Ibn Ḥanbal answered, “We believe in them and affirm them,
without [question as to] how (kayf) and without meaning (maʿnā), and
we do not reject anything from it.”1

Firstly, the authenticity of these words is subject to dispute. If a position or state-

ment attributed to Imām Aḥmad by one of his students has tafarrud (i.e. if it is only
transmitted by one of his companions) and the pupil in question is rejected for his
solitary reports, the narration is not considered reliable. One could argue that the
primary transmitter of the above translated report (Ḥanbal Ibn Isḥāq) is suscep-
tible to this scrutiny2 and hence the narration shouldn’t be accepted, but this line
1
Ibn Qudāmah al-Maqdisī, Dhamm al-Taʾwīl, ed. Dār al-Baṣīrah, p. 22
2
See: Ibn Rajab, Fatḥ al-Bārī fī Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, ed. al-Ghurabāʾ, vol. 7, p. 259; and here.
of reasoning can be (and has been) countered as well. Although this narration from
Imām Aḥmad via Ḥanbal does have a basis, an alternate wording (see point three)
can be argued to take precedence.

Secondly, Ḥanbal had asked Imām Aḥmad about the aḥadīth of the ruʾyah (Allāh
being seen in the Hereafter) as well as the other aḥadīth regarding His attributes
(namely al-Qadam and al-nuzūl). This is crucial, because Imām Aḥmad answered for
all of these aḥādīth—without differentiating between them—by saying we ought to
affirm them “without modality (kayf) and without meaning (maʿnā).” If we were to
understand “without maʿnā” to mean “without understanding from it any mean-
ing,” we would be led to conclude that not only did Imām Aḥmad do tafwīḍ of the
meanings of al-nuzūl and al-Qadam, but that he did tafwīḍ of the meaning of the
ruʾyah as well! We can confirm that Imām Aḥmad did not do tafwīḍ of what it means
to “see Allāh”;3 nobody did tafwīḍ of this except some of the Jahmiyyah.4 Therefore,
because one cannot interpret “without meaning” to entail tafwīḍ al-maʿnā without
falling into this absurdity, we must conform to another understanding.

Thirdly, there exists another wording transmitted by Imām al-Marrūdhī (d. 275)
from Imām Aḥmad which can help clarify the meaning of Ḥanbal’s narration:

،‫ ونمرها كما جاءت بلا كيف‬،‫ ونحن نؤمن بالأحاديث في هذا ونقرها‬:‫قال أبو عبد الله‬
.‫ولا معنى إلا على ما وصف به نفسه تعالى‬

“Abū ʿAbdillāh [Aḥmad Ibn Ḥanbal] said, ‘And we believe in these aḥādīth
(concerning the Ṣifāt) and affirm them, and we pass them along as they
have come without how (kayf) and without [assigning] a meaning (maʿnā)
besides that [meaning] which He described Himself with.’”5

The qualifier “besides that which He described Himself with” clearly indicates that
the attributes are to be affirmed while leaving them upon the meanings which they

3
See: Al-Jāmiʿ ll-ʿUlūm al-Imām Aḥmad, vol. 3, p. 368 onwards.
4
See: Abū Saʿīd al-Dārimī, al-Naqḍ ʿalā al-Marīsī, ed. al-Shawāmī, p. 61
5
Ibn Baṭṭah, al-Ibānah al-Kubrā, ed. Dār al-Rāyah, vol. 7, p. 58
have come with. This would stipulate that the meanings of these attributes are first
known, which foundationally conflicts with the notion of tafwīḍ al-maʿnā. This alter-
nate wording thus clarifies that the words “without maʿnā” in Ḥanbal’s transmission
should be understood to mean “without distorting its meaning.”

Fourthly,6 other students of Imām Aḥmad—and even Ḥanbal Ibn Isḥāq himself—all
transmitted reports from the Imām which demonstrate he was not a Mufawwiḍ.

Abū Ṭalib narrated that Imām Aḥmad Ibn Ḥanbal said:

‫ ﴿هل ينظرون إلا أن يأتيهم الله في ظلل من الغمام‬:‫ قول الله تعالى‬:‫وقال أبو عبد الله‬
.‫ فقد كفر‬،‫ إن الله لا يرى‬:‫ فمن قال‬،﴾‫ ﴿وجاء ربك والملك صفا صفا‬،﴾‫والملائكة‬

“Allāh said, ‘Do they await but that Allāh should arrive to them…’ [and
He said], ‘And your Lord will come and the angels [as well], rank upon
rank,’ so whoever says that Allāh cannot be seen, he is a disbeliever.”7

This report shows that Imām Aḥmad understood the meaning of the coming (majīʾ)
and arriving (ityān) of Allāh, since he utilised these attributes to prove that He can
be seen. Imām Aḥmad definitely could not have used these Ṣifāt as evidence for the
ruʾyah unless he understood their meanings and connotations.

On this point, al-Qāḍī Abū Yaʿlā (d. 458) said:

‫وقد قال أحمد في رواية أبي طالب ﴿هل ينظرون إلا أن يأتيهم الله في ظلل من الغمام‬
‫ وظاهر‬.‫والملائكة﴾ ﴿وجاء ربك والملك صفا صفا﴾ فمن قال أن الله لا يرى فقد كفر‬
‫ وإنما يحتج بذلك‬،‫ لأنه احتج بذلك على جواز رؤيته‬،‫هذا أن أحمد أثبت مجيئ ذاته‬
.‫على جواز رؤيته إذا كان الإتيان والمجيئ مضافًا إلى الذات‬

And Aḥmad said in the riwāyah of Abū Ṭālib, “[Allāh said], ‘Do they await
but that Allāh should arrive to them…’ [and He said], ‘And your Lord
will come and the angels [as well], rank upon rank,’ so whoever claims

6
This section is largely based on this article, pp. 31–33.
7
Ibn Baṭṭah, al-Ibānah al-Kubrā, vol. 7, p. 53. It was authenticated by the muḥaqqiq.
 that Allāh cannot be seen, he is a disbeliever.” The apparent of this is that
Aḥmad affirmed [Allāh] comes with His Essence (majīʾ Dhātihī) because he
used [His coming] as evidence that He can be seen. This cannot be used as
proof for the ruʾyah except if the ityān and majīʾ are of the Essence.”8

Al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Baṭṭah (d. 387) reports that Imām Aḥmad also used the descent (nuzūl)
of Allāh as evidence that He can be seen,9 which demonstrates that he was able to
deduce from the meaning of al-nuzūl that it can facilitate for the ruʾyah.

Similarly, when asked by al-Marrūdhī concerning ʿAbdullāh Ibn al-Mubārak (d. 181)
affirming a ḥadd (demarcation) for Allāh,10 Imām Aḥmad said, “This has reached me
from him,” and he thereafter cited the Āyah, “Do they await but that Allāh should
arrive to them…” and the Āyah, “And your Lord will come and the angels [as
well], rank upon rank.”11 Imām Aḥmad cited these attributes as evidence that Allāh
has a ḥadd,12 which again isn’t possible unless he understood their meanings.

Imām Abū Bakr al-Marrūdhī reported:

.‫ […] يشير بأصبع أصبع‬،‫ورأيت أبا عبد الله يشير في حديث الحبر؛ حديث ابن مسعود‬

“And I saw Abū ʿAbdillāh [Aḥmad Ibn Ḥanbal] gesturing when relating the
report concerning the Jewish rabbi; the ḥadīth of Ibn Masʿūd. [This is the
ḥadīth in which the Jewish man stated, ‘Allāh will place the heavens on a
Finger…’] [Imām Aḥmad] pointed to each [of his own] fingers.”13

Imām Ḥanbal Ibn Isḥāq also transmitted this gesturing from Imām Aḥmad.14

8
Abū Yaʿlā al-Farrāʾ, Ibṭāl al-Taʾwīlāt, ed. al-Najdī, p. 158
9
Ibn Baṭṭah, al-Ibānah al-Kubrā, vol. 7, p. 326; from Ḥanbal from Imām Aḥmad:

…‫ هذا كله يدل على أن الله يرى في الآخرة‬،‫ ووضع كنفه عليه‬،‫ونزول وخلوه بعبده يوم القيامة‬
10
Muḥammad Ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī, al-Muntakhab min Dhayl al-Mudhayyal, p. 145; Abū ʿUmar Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr,
al-Tamhīd, ed. al-Furqān, vol. 5, p. 154, Abū Bakr al-Bayhaqī, al-Asmāʾ wa al-Ṣifāt, vol. 1, p. 1072
11
Ibn Baṭṭah, al-Ibānah al-Kubrā, vol. 7, p. 158–159. It was authenticated by the muḥaqqiq.
12
This was also said by al-Dashtī (d. 665) in Ithbāt al-Ḥadd li-Allāh, ed. al-ʿUtaybī & ʿĀdil Āl Ḥamadān, p. 118.
13
Al-Khallāl & Ghulām al-Khallāl, Kitāb al-Sunnah, ed. ʿĀdil Āl Ḥamadān, vol. 2, p. 479. It is authentic.
14
Ibid.
This act clearly necessitates understanding of the connotative meaning of Allāh’s
Fingers (Aṣābiʿ); how else would Imām Aḥmad know what to point towards?

Fifthly, Imām Aḥmad’s students also seem to not have believed he was a Mufawwiḍ.

ʿAbd al-Malik al-Maymūnī (d. 274) reported from Imām Aḥmad:

:‫ قال الميموني‬،‫ ﴿خلقت بيدي﴾ مشددة‬:‫ كيف يصنع بقوله‬،‫من زعم أن يداه نعماه‬
.‫ والقلوب بين أصبعين‬،‫ وحين خلق آدم بقبضة يعني من جميع الأرض‬:‫فقلت‬

“Whoever claims that His Hands are (a metaphor for) His blessings, how
can he reconcile [that reinterpretation] with His statement, ‘…I created
with My two Hands,’ [38:75] with a shaddah?” [The shaddah on ‘bi-yadayy’
causes ‘with My two Hands’ to be in the dual form.]

Al-Maymūnī said, “So I said, ‘And [how can he reconcile that reinterpret-
ation with the ḥadīth which mentions that Allāh] grasped [with His Hand]
from the earth when creating Ādam, or [with the ḥadīth which mentions
that] the hearts are between two Fingers [of Allāh]?’”15

Imām Aḥmad here is arguing that linguistically, the word “yad” in its dual form and
in this manner cannot be understood as a metaphor; Imām al-Maymūnī added that
the aḥādīth which describe Allāh’s Fingers and Allāh grasping with His Hand also
disprove that His Hands are metaphors. How could he have deduced the correlation
between the “Hands” of Allāh as mentioned in 38:75 and the reports of Allāh’s grasp
or His Fingers if he didn’t know the meaning of any of these attributes? Thus, since
it is known that Imām al-Maymūnī was not a Mufawwiḍ,16 it follows that he would
not have made this comment after transmitting these words from Imām Aḥmad if
he had known Imām Aḥmad to be a Mufawwiḍ either.

We also find that Imām Ḥarb Ibn Ismāʿīl al-Kirmānī (d. 280), as he was expounding
upon the creed of Imām Aḥmad, affirmed movement (al-ḥarakah) for Allāh.17 This is

15
Abū Yaʿlā al-Farrāʾ, Ibṭāl al-Taʾwīlāt, p. 202; Al-Khallāl & Ghulām al-Khallāl, Kitāb al-Sunnah, vol. 2, p. 485.
16
See al-Qāḍī Abū Yaʿlā’s comments in Ibṭāl al-Taʾwīlāt, p. 202.
17
Ḥarb Ibn Ismāʿīl al-Kirmānī, Kitāb al-Sunnah, ed. ʿĀdil Āl Ḥamadān, p. 50
a term not explicitly affirmed in the Qurʾān or Sunnah, which entails18 that Imām
Ḥarb had contentiously deduced al-ḥarakah from the meanings of other attributes,
such as Allāh’s descent (al-nuzūl), coming (al-majīʾ), and arrival (al-ityān). It would
be incorrect for him to have done this if Imām Aḥmad’s creed was instead tafwīḍ.

Other students of the Imām, like ʿAbd al-Wahhāb (d. 251),19 Ibn Qutaybah (d. 276),20
and ʿAbdullāh (d. 290),21 also had no issue with affirming a meaning for al-istiwāʾ.

All in all, the claim that Imām Aḥmad was a Mufawwiḍ of the meanings of some of
Allāh’s attributes is a weak assertion which cannot be appropriately defended.

.‫ وآله وصحبه وسلم‬،‫ وصلى الله على سيدنا محمد‬،‫والحمد لله وحده‬

18
Ibid.; see Shaykh ʿĀdil Āl Ḥamadān’s footnote.
19
Al-Dashtī, Ithbāt al-Ḥadd, p. 71; Abū Yaʿlā, Ibṭāl al-Taʾwīlāt, p. 592. He explained al-istiwāʾ to mean sitting.
20
Ibn Qutaybah, Taʾwīl Mukhtalif al-Ḥadīth, p. 394. He explained al-istiwāʾ to mean settling.
21
ʿAbdullāh Ibn Aḥmad Ibn Ḥanbal, Kitāb al-Sunnah, ed. ʿĀdil Āl Ḥamadān, p. 30. Near the beginning of his
work, he narrated from Khārijah Ibn Muṣʿab al-Ḍubaʿī (d. 168) that al-istiwāʾ means sitting.