He also commented on al-Dhahabi’s statement in al-Mizan (3/507): “A lapse proceeded from Ibn Hibban for which they criticized him.”
Ibn Hajar stated in Lisan al-Mizan (5/114): “If he intended the first story with which he opened his remarks—meaning his expulsion from Sijistan due to his denial of a limit (hadd)—then this is not a lapse; the truth is that the right was on the side of Ibn Hibban regarding it!! And if he intended the second [story]—meaning Ibn Hibban’s statement regarding ‘prophethood and knowledge’—then he had already offered an excuse for it; so how can it be judged that he lapsed?! What is this but excessive prejudice against the proponents of figurative interpretation (mu’awwilun)!! Ibn Hibban was a master of many disciplines, possessed extreme intelligence, and had vast memorization...” This ends the words of Ibn Hajar.
I say: Ibn Hajar, in his commentary on al-Bukhari, explicitly declares the denial of highness (uluww), let alone affirming a limit (hadd) for Allah the Almighty. Among the examples of this are:
a) His citation from al-Kirmani which supports that, where he said: “(His saying: ‘In the heaven’): Its literal meaning is not intended, for Allah is transcendent beyond indwelling (hulul) in a place. However, since the direction of highness is more noble than others, He attributed it to Himself as an indication of the highness of the Essence and the Attributes.”
b) Ibn Hajar said in al-Fath (1/508): “(And in it is a refutation of the one who claims that He is over the Throne in His Essence).”
It was previously mentioned (p. 40) regarding his statement that if a Jew says: “(There is no god but He who is in the heaven),” it is not accepted from him because he is an anthropomorphist (mujassim)! Unless he is ignorant like the black slave girl whose
