Jumat, 13 November 2009

Debat Salafi dengan Asy'ari Di Internet

The heretics say

Quote:The opponent [We salafis] said:

According to the Shāfi’īs:
Imām Abūl ‘Abbās b. Suraij [1], nicknamed ; al-Shāfi’ī the second, who lived during the time of al-Ash’arī said:
We don’t believe in the interpretation of the Mu’tazila, Ash’arīs, Jahmiyya, atheists, corporalists anthropomorphists, the Karrāmiyya and those who speak of ‘how ’. Rather, we accept them (the reports concerning the Divine attributes) without interpretation, and we believe in them without resemblance (to the creation).

Response: [by the heretics]

The opponent—may Allāh guide him—used the words of Imām Ibn Suraij to prove that the Shāfi’īs condemn the Ash’arīs. This is completely false for two reasons:

1. This statement is not authentically attributed to Imām Ibn Suraij. The Ash’arīs, as an independent school of theology did not manifest during Imām Ibn Suraij’s time. Ibn Suraij died in the year 306 Hijrī, whereas al-Ash’arī died in the year 324 Hijrī. al-Ash’arī was born in the year 260 Hijrī. So, if al-Ash’arī remained a Mu’tazilī for forty years before separating himself from al-Juba’ī, and we assume that he started learning from him at ten years of age, this would mean that Ibn Suraij died a few years before al-Ash’arī’s repentance. Even if we supposed for arguments sake that Ibn Suraij died after al-Ash’arī’s repentance by a few days, how could he condemn a theological school that had not yet independently manifested itself with that name? Without doubt, Imām Ibn Suraij did not say this, as surely he did not know the unseen.

Sunni/Salafi response from Ibn Abi Y'ala

The respondent denies the authenticity of this statement on two grounds:

1- The Ash'ari Madhhab did not manifest itself durings Ibn Surayj's time, therefore Ibn Surayj could not have criticized him.

2- Even if the Ash'ari Madhhab did manifest itself durings Ibn Surayj's days, Ibn Surayj could not condemn it since it was too early on the scene to attract others.

I say, preliminary and without having the necessary tools with me (just from memory, so don't judge me too fast if I'm mistaken in some things):

Ibn Surayj died in 306. According to the most reliable data I know, and the preferred one, al-Ash'ari was born in 260 and died in 324. The respondent would agree with me, I guess. There are reports he died later, such as in the 30's. And there is even a report that he was born in 270. However, I say: from 260 till 324.

Scholars are agreed upon the fact that al-Ash'ari was a Mu'tazilite, for a long time. Actually. many writers state explicitly that he was one for 40 years. I believe this should not be taken literally, as Sa'id Fawdah (in his Buhuth mentioned and other knowledgeable things such as his supposedly sudden conversion etc).

What I believe is that after approximately 40 years, around 300 AH, he became a renegade of I'tizal. Roughly: born in 260, add 40 years, conversion in 300. Thén, after this date or around it (but before 303, see below!) he became less or more Sunnite untill 324.

Abu 'Ali al-Jubba'i, his step-father and closest teacher, died in 303. And historians agree that al-Ash'ari's conversion happened in his lifetime, as the famous story of the boys indicates. Here I like to counter Sa'id Fawdah's or another man's argument:

He said: well, he was first a Sunnite as indicated by a story from his father's bequest. Approximately after 10 years, i.e. in his boyhood, being entrusted in the care of the Mu'tazilah he would stay for 40 years a Mu'tazilite. This means, if we accept the birthdate of 260 (an earlier date is absent), that he became a renegade of I'tizal far beyond 300 - closely 310. But this is impossible!

al-Jubba'i died in 303, according to all data I've seen, so if he converted to Sunnism it must had happened before this date; and if we hold on to an aprox. 40-year span, ca. 300 is a reliable date.

Let say for the sake of argument that he converted to Sunnism in 302, i.e. a year before al-Jubba'i died. With the knowledge of Ibn Surayj's death-year (of 306) would it be farfetched to say that al-Ash'ari manifested himself and his new doctrinal views prominently and loudly?

Is three years too short notice to gain a following, who admired his refutation or anti doctrine policy, against his old fellows?

Particularly against his teacher ánd step-father, who he undoubtedly loved or respected being close too him for almost 40 years?!

I let you decide.

As for me: I say it is definetily not farfetched to conclude that there was enough opportunity in al-Ash'ari post-Mu'tazilite days but still within Ibn Surayj's lifetime to gain a following.

Actually, any reader of the Tabyin will see that al-Ash'ari was quite a public person, particularly after denouncing the Mu'tazilah.

This illustrates also the ignorance of what is cited above, and let me repeat that please:

Quote:So, if al-Ash’arī remained a Mu’tazilī for forty years before separating himself from al-Juba’ī, and we assume that he started learning from him at ten years of age, this would mean that Ibn Suraij died a few years before al-Ash’arī’s repentance.

Hallo...! Ibn Surayj died after Abu 'Ali al-Jubba'i!

So the argument is waisted already. Beside, I don't believe - and it seems these author's have it from Fawdah, or the way around? - in his tenth year he started to learn I'tizal. There is no shred of evidence for such speculation.

This is enough, as a preliminary critique. Please, check the data of 260, 324, 303, 306 etc. to verify the clearly incorrect, and obviously incompetent, argued point of the two writers.

The Heretical Ash'aris say

Quote:Another thing that illustrates the weakness of this narration attributed to Imām Ibn Suraij, is that the narrator, Abūl Qāsim Sa’d b. ‘Alī b. Muhammad al-Zinjānī was born after the death of Ibn Suraij by approximately 80 years! He was born in the year 380 Hijrī and died in the year 471 Hijrī . Ibn Suraij was born in the year 279 Hijrī and died in the year 303/306 Hijrī , therefore the chain is severed.

Ibn Abi Y'ala responds with the following

The respondent declares this statement to be weak on the ground that the chain is severed:

Yes, the chain is severed. Does this make the narration weak?

In one aspect, yes. But the writers know that not all statements of scholars have connected chains with known reliable narrators in it. It would be impossible to write history at all, if this was requested for all narrations such as these.

Therefore, there is no reason for me to list all the narrations in praise of the Ash'arites or al-Ash'ari himself and pin-point the severity of the chains and the anonimity of the narrators who carried it.

What surprises me is that the writers do not target Ibn al-Qayyim himself, after all he cites the well-known Abu'l-Qasim al-Zanjani from his work and al-Zanjani cites Ibn Surayj's Jawab from another lost work.

Why make a fuss about the connection between al-Zanjani and Ibn Surayj, a span of 80 years according to the critics, when Ibn al-Qayyim was born in 691 and al-Zanjani died in 371 - a distance of more than 300 years between a senior and one just born?!?!

Can they explain that?

I say: not everything what is cited needs chains. We all rely upon the words of scholars, not fussing about the chains. We all cite a person of the past, or even present, without a chain.

Don't get me wrong: the chain is important, but not in every context. I discussed this before, but I don't think this needs a lot of elaboration.

In this instance, I believe, a chain is not necessary.

Obviously, Abu'l-Qasim al-Zanjani had acces to a famous Jawab on beliefs which is cited by him in full in a similar question which Ibn Surayj was confronted with. al-Zanjani's Jawâbât of Makkah were probably also well-known, which is why Ibn al-Qayyim didn't feel the urge to reveal the names of the narrators of this work.

Imagine, every Faqih or Usuli or even Mufassir revealing each and every name of the carrier of a book or writing he cites from?

Can they provide all the statements ascribed to Ibn Surayj, who is a mujtahid within the Shafi'ite Madhhab, on Usul and Furu' - all with connected chains as cited in the books of al-Shirazi, al-Ghazzali, al-Rafi'i, al-Nawawi and other Shafi'ites?

NOW, the Ash'aris say this

Quote:2. The scholars of the Ash’arīs and the heads of Ahl al-Sunna among the Ash’arīs were adherents of the juristic school of Imām al-Shāfi’ī, such as Imām al-Ghazālī, the author of al-Wajīz, al-Basīt, and al-Wasīt in Shāfi’ī jurisprudence. The Shāfi’ī Imāms such as: Imam al-aramain, al-Nawawī, Ibn ajr, al-Rāzī, al-Subkī, and Ibn al-Ṣalāh were all Ash’arīs. See the book; Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfi’īyya and you will find that they were Ash’arīs. How could the opponent have missed all of this?

So now Ibn Abi Y'ala replies with

The Ash'arites of the past were not confined to one Madhhab. Actually, there is an argument whether al-Ash'ari himself is a Maliki or Shafi'i. And Ibn Mujahid, Ibn al-Baqillani, Abu Dharr al-Harawi etc. who are not the least Ash'arites of old, all were Malikites.

Yes, the Shafi'ites in the past from early time on embraced many of the Ash'ari Madhhab. This is obvious. And this the writer of the Manhaj did not miss, at all.

Actually, the chapter is produced to provide evidence that prominent Shafi'ites opposed them from the beginning in the hope that many of today realize that what they adhere too was something their elderly predecessors did not accept. So instead of this expression:

Quote:How could the opponent have missed all of this?

We ask: How could the respondent have missed what was said in the past, let alone miss the purpose of the booklet he singled out for criticism?

Obviously he missed out more. For if he could not understand the purpose of the writer, for the author of the Manhaj did not write the work out of nothing but in criticism of the writings of a prominent Ash'arite teaching at Makkah, I'm not surprised he missed much more from the past Imams a few he mentioned in this so-called critique of his.

So now, these Ash'ari heretics continue with their rebuttal with

Quote:The opponent [Meaning Salafis] said:

Imām Abūl Hasan al-Karjī [3] , from the Shāfi’ī scholars of the fifth century, said the following:

The Shāfi’ī Imāms have not ceased censuring and exiling those that ascribed them to al-Ash’arī, and they disavowed themselves from what al-Ash’arī built his school upon. They have not ceased prohibiting their companions and loved ones from descending around its border areas—according to what I have heard from many Imāms and Shaykhs.

He then gave an example from the Shaykh of the Shāfi’īs in his time, Imām Abū Hāmid al-Isfara’īnī who was nicknamed; al-Shāfi’ī the third:

The severity of the Shaykh upon the people of theological rhetoric is well known, so much so that he distinguished Shāfi’ī fundamentals of jurisprudence (Usūl al-Fiqh) from the fundamentals of al-Ash’arī. Abū Bakr al-Rādhaqānī commented upon it and it is in my possession. Shaykh Abū Ishāq al-Shīrāzī conformed to his way in his two books; al-Luma’ and al-Tabsira. Even if a view of al-Ash’arī agreed with an angle from our companions, he would distinguish between the two and say: ‘It is the view of some of our companions, and was also the view of the Ash’arīs.’ He did not consider them from the companions of al-Shāfi’ī’s school. They censured them and their way in the fundamentals of jurisprudence, not to mention the fundamentals of creed.

Response:[Meaning what the Heretical Ash'aris replied with]
1. The view of one scholar that dissents from his entire school, can in no way be considered to represent the entire school.
2. Imām al-Sam’ānī, a scholar that was Ash’arī in creed, praised the creed of al-Karjī. In addition, there is no actual chain for the narration mentioned by the opponent, rather, it was mentioned by Ibn al-Qayyim without a chain, in his Ijtimā’ al-Juyūsh al-Islāmiyya, as well as Ibn Taymiyya in his Tis’īniyya.
3. Ibn Taymiyya cited the words from al-Karjī from a supposed work of his titled: al-Fusūl fī al-Usūl ‘an A’imma al-Fuhūl Ilzāman li Dhawī al-Bid’i wal-Fuḍūl. al-Isnawī said in Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfi’īyya in al-Karjī’s biographical notice: ‘He has authored works in jurisprudence and [Qur’ānic] exigesis, as well as a work called ‘al-Dharā’i fī ‘Ilm al-Sharā’i.’ al-Isnawī did not mention any work on creed belonging to al-Karjī, which adds doubt regarding the authenticity of this quote.

Ibn Abi Y'ala responds with

The respondent confronts the author of the Manhaj on three grounds. Again, only a preliminary reaction on each and every point.

1- The view of one scholar that dissents from an entire school is not the spokesman for that school IF the premises of this argument are correct:

- that there is just one scholar who voices one opinion, from that Madhhab;

- that this opinion is opposed by the views of all of his Madhhab-colleagues, who share an opinion contrary to his.

These premises, dear brother, are wrong from the beginning. Surely, the writers know for a fact - without I knowing them - that historically seen there were more then one, or even two or even ten Shafi'ites, who opposed the Ash'ari Madhhab.

I don't think people are waiting here to bring forth the statements of Ash'arites of the past who acknowledged this fact, and 'problem'. But if I name just al-Dhahabi, al-Birzali and al-Mizzi, excluding those targetted by Ibn Subki in the past or al-Kawthari today, and exluding the names mentioned in this so-called critique of the Manhaj, I ask:

Did they have any sense, the two writers, when they suggested the sole existence of one voice shouting in the desert?

I say, about representation of the Madhhab's view, what I said before in this thread. Unfortunately, you disagree with that. But more unfortunate is the fact that no substantive criticism came forth after your disagreement, while I was hoping that you could teach me your view on what constitutes the view of a Madhhab.

2- Imam al-Sam'ani is I assume to author of the Ansab, the colleague of Ibn 'Asakir with whom he travelled to Nishapur. What al-Sam'ani thought about al-Karaji's doctrines only says something about his, al-Karaji', doctrines. Not per definition the way around.

Yes, sometimes it is indicative what the doctrinal affiliation of a scholar is when he speaks highly of another. And if he praises his beliefs, more so. But surely there exist clear examples of Ash'arites who praised the beliefs of others, while these others opposed them in terms of beliefs. Indeed, I can bring up without taking recourse to books detailed examples of scholars Ibn Taymiyyah praised, despite their incorrect - Ash'arite - beliefs.

Does this make Ibn Taymiyyah an Ash'ari?

You all know, Ibn Ajibah and surely the two writers from whom you translated, the way Ibn al-Subki viewed the Hanbalites in matters of doctrines. And it is not hidden how the same al-Subki dealt with al-Dhahabi, his own teacher who praised even his own student, in his works and how another - the two writers would say: Ash'arite - al-Sakhawi came up to the defence of al-Dhahabi and the generality of the Hanbalites. At the same time, he mentioned ill words about Ibn al-Subki.

A scholar whose praise of others is clearly, and almost always, indicative of his pleasure or displeasure of his beliefs is: Ahmad b. Hanbal.

If he spoke ill of man, known or unknown to him, it was because of his beliefs. If he spoke well, it was because of his beliefs. The story of al-Karabisi, Ibn Kullab, al-Harith and many other comes to mind.

Even this said, I do think al-Sam'ani may had a leaning towards the Ash'arites. And I do not exlude the possibility that al-Sam'ani praised al-Karaji's creed and thought of it to be in conform to his own, assumed, Ash'arite beliefs. After all, al-Sam'ani would praise even the Salaf's beliefs which both parties beliefs.

Where there may lie a problem is al-Sam'ani's understanding of what is or is not Ash'arite in doctrines. I suggest that he praised what he believed to be doctrines similar to the Salaf's beliefs, and these 'Salafi beliefs' can be Tafwid-beliefs or staying off from Ta'wil and philosophying.

Ibn 'Asakir, who was his colleague, had similar beliefs I guess. Actually, all those Hadith-orientated Ash'arites had such beliefs starting probably from al-Bayhaqi to Ibn 'Asakir a line of praised Muhaddithin. Abu Tahir al-Silafi, another colleague of these two, seems to be less influenced by Ash'arites. Indeed, his creed in a poem which I posses shows his Salafi beliefs.

As a friend of Ibn 'Asakir, would I claim the author of the Tabyin to be anti-Ash'ari?

Add: In the footnote the two writers say that Abu'l-Hasan al-Karaji died in 571. This is probably a typ mistake. Ibn 'Asakir died that year. al-Karaji died in 532 AH.

In the second point also attention is drawn to the chain-less story. As I said before, not everything has a chain or is in need of a chain.

It seems the authors do feel now a need to mention Ibn al-Qayyim's reproduction of the historical report without a chain..

I say: there is no good reason do doubt what is cited. Or lets make it better:

Who told you Ibn al-Qayyim and Ibn Taymiyyah said that? Can you provide in the future chains in all of your footnote references when citing from these two, containing the names of all those involved in handling this story up the way to you?

3- True, if a book is ascribed to a scholar and none mentioned it in a biographical sketch - it CAN raise doubt.

Remember this, dear reader.

I say: Ibn Taymiyyah cited well. Actually, all of his citations are correct except a few sporadic instances when he narrates ahadith from his extraordinary mind. This is attested in his day and today. Especially today researchers - even orientalists! - took note of that. Read the secundary literature on the man's life, thoughts and books.

Surely, the book he cites from existed. And surely, based upon Ibn Taymiyyah's habit to cite only what is surely from the author he ascribes it too, the book is his. Never according to my readings has any Ash'arite from the past, or any other opponent from the Shaykh, doubted the words the Shaykh cited from books. None said when he debated in the presence of eminent Ash'arites about the Wasitiyyah creed:

'You are wrong.. you misquoted the Ibanah.. you misquoted al-Bayhaqi..' or something alike.

Neither when he was requested to explain, interestingly to a grand master of the Shafi'i Madhhab in his day (in Hama, Syria), the Hamawiyyah creed.

And this creed is loaded with citations: refer to this http://z3.invisionfree.com/sunnipres...p?showtopic=11 for the sources of Hamawiyyah.

And everyone knows:

Not all works of a scholar are cited in a biography. Only a selection.

And as i said before:

To al-Nawawi are works ascribed such as his refutations of the Ash'arites and the Maqasid - two works unmentioned anywere except in later tradition. Tell me, should both two works be discarded so easily in the same vein the work cited by Ibn Taymiyyah? This work is less then 200 years used. How about other works..

Do the writers do not realize some of the things they say?

I hope others do.

The respondent said also:
Quote:In addition to this, a poem was ascribed to al-Karjī that contained some elements of anthropomorphism. These portions are not correctly ascribed to him for three reasons:

Quote:Here we see something which needs to be explained. First, we are now dealing with a poem ascribed to al-Karaji. Not his Fusul on 'Aqidah, which is a book wherein he mentioned the beliefs of the Imams of the past, i.e. men like al-Thawri, Abu Hanifah, Malik, al-Shafi'i etc. One should not bring up the poem at all, since from it nothing is cited about the Ash'arites by the aforementioned critics (i.e. the author of the Manhaj and others).

So what purpose does it have to bash the poem and with it al-Karaji's Fusul? I can't see the connection. In reality, there isn't except the same author. The anthropomorphism in the poem doesn't say anything about the authenticity of the Fusul. Unfortunately, people are willing to applu every necessary mean to bash a thing..

Second. Does the poem contain anthropomorphism in reality, or is that the understanding of the respondents and whoever preceded them (i.e. the author of the Tabaqat al-Shafi'iyyah for example)?

As we know, the Hanbalites when dealing with Tawhid and Allah's Attributes are an easy target for many later-day Ash'arites who accuse them of Tashbih. They have a loose gun. The Mu'tazilites are no different, when they accused not only the Salaf, their followers from Ahmad b. Hanbal's adherents but also - a fact they are aware off - the Ash'arites!

So what is Tashbih? Or more exactly: let them, the claiments, provide the clear-cut evidence of Tashbih by citing the parts of the poem and explain the heretical part of it.

So now the Heretics (ash'aris) continue with

Quote:1. The Ash’arī Imām, al-Sam’ānī, praised the poem and it is not possible that he could have praised anthropomorphism. It also contained insults against al-Ash’arī and things that no scholar could say. It is not possible that al-Sam’ānī could have praised that.

Ibn Abi Y'ala responds with

This needs a lot of research. Research on al-Sam'ani's credal affiliation and beliefs, from his books primarily, the historical reports about him, from his teachers and close students. Also the poem itself needs to be studied; as far I'm aware, it only exist in fragments in a few historical books.

Only after this is studied, one can say whether al-Sam'ani praised it or not. In reality history teaches us, so far, two things: al-Sam'ani praised his poem ánd it contains things against al-Ash'ari. Anyone with some insight would opt, provided there is clear cut evidence against this apparent idea, that al-Sam'ani wasn't an Ash'arite. Right? For now: I keep quite.

PS: There are dozens of theses on scholars of the past and their theological affiliation, ideas and heritage. I've never come across the subject of al-Sam'ani, but I'm sure someone wrote on him too.

The Ash'aris continue by saying
Quote:2. The author of those forged lines claimed that al-Ash’arī was murdered in Ahsā’. This is false because he died upon his death bed of natural causes.

Ibn Abi Y'ala responds with

I have dealt with that elsewhere. Insha'Allah, when I finish my research on al-Ash'ari I will post about it. Sufficient to say for now is that Ibn 'Asakir is probably right, and al-Ahwazi's source is mistaken.

The heretical ash'aris continue with
Quote:3. al-Sam’ānī stated that the poem was a little more than two hundred lines, while the poem that contains anthropomorphism is over two hundred and forty lines. This means that there was clear forgery—not to mention that the forged lines of poetry do not fit with the rest in their style and the blatant anthropomorphism.

Ibn Abi Y'ala responds with

This needs to be researched. And I don't know exactly what al-Sam'ani said and neither remember how Ibn al-Subki understood things, but different versions of poems do exist without anyone claim one or another to be forged. If the full poem is posted and we can observe the style of the different parts, only then we can judge reliably what is authentic what not. Its difficult to rely upon Ibn al-Subki's observations, knowing how prejudiced the man was according to even fellow Madhhab scholars.

the Heretical ash'aris continue to say

Quote:Imām al-Sam’ānī said: “He has a poem ending with the letter ‘bā’ about the Sunna. Therein he explained his creed and the creed of the Salaf. It is a little more than two hundred lines and I read it in his presence at his house in Karaj.”

Ibn Abi Y'ala responds with

Ok. So what if al-Karaji added to his own poem later? Don't they amend their own works, books and poems? Or let say al-Sam'ani speaks about the exact same poem, only he considers 240 lines 'a little more than two hundred', which in my view is not a farfetched way of describing it?

Whatever the case, its difficult to judge this matter. If only Ibn al-Subki was so nice to cite the poem in full, the good part and the so-called forged part, like he cited in full al-Razi's final statement in order to counter Ibn Taymiyyah's understanding of it..

Interestingly, this is proof of Ibn Taymiyyah's correct citation of others. Ibn al-Subki couldn't counter it so he acknowledged the Wasiyyah, but interpreted against the apparent intent of al-Razi's last - farewell - will. In order to strenghten his misinterpretation he had to bash others statements of al-Razi, which added to Ibn Taymiyyah's argument and - read: - correct interpretation. I'm referring to the saying narrated by al-Shahrazuri, which he considers forged!

From Allah we seek Help!

The Ash'aris continue to say

Quote:Based on all of this, it is known that the poem is not correctly ascribed to al-Karajī. If it was, it would make him out to be a liar, for how can he claim that al-Ash’arī was murdered in Ahsā’? Nay, these extra lines were from other people that did not fear Allāh. They added them in order to give aid to their falsehood. May Allāh deal with them with His justice. [4]

Ibn Abi Y'ala responds with

The respondents have nothing credible to conclude that at all.

And how come they reach such a conclusion about al-Karaji if he wrote that, when he was preceded by al-Ahwazi who died a century before him? al-Karaji was not the first person who said that, provided he did for I haven't seen the part that mentions that, so he can in no way be a liar.

Accusations of forgery are heavy ones. Many people today, incl. several people who call themselves Ash'arites, fear not when they say: this or that work is forged. Calling something a forgery is not a daily thing. Only after research or some obvious evidence, one can say that something is forged. Especially if we talk about the Islamic heritage of the past.

Again, from Allah we seek Support!

The Ash'aris continue with

Quote:The opponent [meaning Salafis] said:

“Shaykh Abū Ishāq al-Shīrāzī conformed to his way in his two books; al-Luma’ and al-Tabsira.”

Response: [Meaning what the Ash'ari reponse is]
To claim that Imām al-Shīrāzī was not an Ash’arī is clearly incorrect. Take the following proofs:

Just wait a bit with the proofs, please..

To claim that Abu Ishaq al-Shirazi was or was not an Ash'ari, without careful research prior to it, is CLEARLY incorrect. Why?

As I've said elsewhere in this forum when speaking about Usul al-Fiqh, I was researching about al-Shirazi's credal affiliation. Asking myself: Was he or not an Ash'ari? I did this not out of nothing, but because I read conflicting opinions.

Anyway, I will not bore you with the detailed arguments. But sufficient to indicate the unclarity or ambiguity of this subject is to refer to this post http://z3.invisionfree.com/sunnipres...?showtopic=239 and the sources mentioned therein, and a few articles by French and English speaking orientalists who devoted 3 or 4 articles to this. In this thread I dealt a bit on the Ishara, http://z3.invisionfree.com/sunnipres...?showtopic=229. Point is: there was and still is a debate on al-Shirazi's credal affiliation.

So the writers are: clearly incorrect in their assumptions.

The opponents now comes with evidences he believes support his case, such as: [and then he qutes the next continuiong response by them to us which is]

Quote:1. Imām al-Shīrāzī was one of those that signed his name to document written by al-Qushayrī during the tribulation of Baghdād. [5] al-Shīrāzī said:

It is as stated in this document regarding the status of the Shaykh, Imām and unique one, Abū Nasr al-Qushayrī—may Allāh increase his likes among the Imāms of the religion—as one that has organized gatherings and mentioned Allāh in a manner that befits Him regarding His Oneness, His Attributes, and negating likeness from Him. I did not hear anything from him other than the way of the people of truth from Ahl al-Sunna wal-Jamā’at. This is what I take as my religion with Allah  . This is what I firmly believe, and this is what I have found the Imāms of our companions upon. Many among the anthropormorphists were guided by way of him. They all became adherents to the way of the people of truth, and there remained not but a few among the innovators. [6]

Ibn Abi Y'ala replies with

This is taken from the Tabyin, before Ibn al-Subki cites it. Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned this too - in the course of refuting Ibn 'Asakir and whosever thought al-Shirazi was an Ash'arite - and nullified the claim. I refer the reader back to that or to one of the secundary works, wherein the author on his turn criticized - I must confess - strongly Ibn Taymiyyah. Again, it is not my intention to deal with who is right or most probably right.

I believe that the above citation, in defense of Abu Nasr, is not sufficient. There is little said in that document, or in another wherein the Ash'arites are defended of being insulted and harassed and also signed under by al-Shirazi (under the name Ibrahim b. 'Ali b. Yusuf al-Firuzabadi, refer to the Tabyin), which would indicate convincevily to whom he allied himself by name or beliefs. Especially if we are confronted with evidences contrary to this.

Then the Ash'aris use another absurd proof which is

Quote:2. Imām al-Shīrāzī stated in some of his written works:

Whoever was upon the school of al-Shāfi’ī in the subsidiary branches, and upon the creed of al-Ash’arī in the fundamentals, then he is the sign post on the path and he is upon the clear truth…as for the statement of the ignorant ones that we are Shāfi’īs in the subsidiary branches and anbalīs in the fundamentals, then he is not to be relied upon because Imām Ahmad did not author a book in creed and nothing of that sort was attributed to him, save his patience when he was beaten and imprisoned after the Mu’tazila attempted to coerce him to agree to their belief regarding the creation of the Qur’ān and his subsequent refusal. He was invited to a debate but did not debate. Adhering to the way of those that composed independent works (in creed), spoke concerning it, and silenced the innovators with clear cut evidence and obvious proofs is more appropriate and better. [7]

Ibn Abi Ya'la replies with

This is from the Ishara ila Ahl al-Haqq, unknown for a long time. I've cited the first part here already: http://z3.invisionfree.com/sunnipres...hp?showtopic=5. And I also added part of a poem he supposedly related and translated it:

If you are in theology in conformity # Fastened to the saying of the accurate al-Ash'ari

And you act to your Noble Master in sincerity # With the saying backed up of Imam al-Shâfi'i

And you've perfected nothing but the reading of Ibn al-'Alâ' # Not to regard in I'râb the opinion of al-Mubarrad

Then you are upon the certain truth in conformity # To the Shari'ah of the best of Messengers: Muhammad

I say first:

Dear researchers, how come you accept this work which Ibn 'Asakir nor al-Subki, neither al-Haythami or any other famed and major Ash'ari ever cited?

You speak about the Fuhul of al-Karaji, the Jawab of Ibn Surayj, both attested 700 years ago in the works of Ibn Taymiyyah and by others - while at the same time you have no problem in using this work?!?!

So remember, dear reader. They are quick in doubting one work or another, cited times ago, while they make easy use of the Ishara ila Ahl al-Haqq released only in the 20th century.

I have this work. Actually, I also have seen the so-called 'Aqidat al-Salaf also ascribed to Abu Ishaq al-Shirazi. And this latter one is more explicit Ash'arite than the Ishara! Imagine that.

I have great doubts about the authenticity of both works. Are they really his? Allahu A'lam. I only feel sorry for the critics of the Manhaj, who have no one straight manhaj wherein they accept or reject works..

I hope in a detailed, well-researched critique, this issue of Abu Ishaq al-Shirazi can be dealt with. This, as said before, is only a preliminary objection to it.

Then, I, al-Boriqee, add to what brother Sunni press aka Ibn Abi Y'ala says by saying

Quote:ash-Shahrastaani must have not had access to good knowldeg at all for him to say such a most absurd description since it is kjnown Usoolu-SUnnah was penned by the imaam himself, and his "radd alal Jahmiyyah, along with his other work on creed of which I forget the name (i iwll have to search for it)

thus ash-Shahrastaani's statement about "then he is not relied upon" is one of those statements of absurdities that the ash'aris are well known for in every era and thus nullified since his statement is based off of his ignorance of noty know that Ahmad bin Hanbal wrote a work on creed, and it is unanimously accepted that Ahmad and his students wrote most extensively on creed more than other madhaab by far, and i iposted something by yaasir qadhi in which he brilliantly explained the four madhaabs on their stance of the ash'aris early on and how they eventually infiltrated teh malikis and shafi'ees later on, while the mutazilah and some ash'aris infiltrated the hanafees, but the hanbalis remained pure as the ahlul-hadeth throughout all times and only a few dropped the coal (fell out on some matters) like ibnl-jawzi, and ibn aqil (who retracted by the way) and a couple others.

and I mest up, it should read Shiraazi, not Shahrastaani, I read wrong.

so now the ash'aris continue with

Quote:No one should suppose that Imām al-Shīrāzī prohibited others from following a juristic school besides that of al-Shāfi’ī, or a Sunnī creed that is not established on the same methodological foundations of the Ash’arīs. Rather, he was clarifying that whoever was on that path, then he us upon the truth—contrary to those that impute innovation upon them. He also clarified in this quote that al-Ash’arī authored works, established a methodological basis, and went into detail in matters of creed in a manner and level of detail unlike that of other scholars.
Whoever is in doubt regarding Imām al-Shīrāzī’s creed, let them read his creed that is printed in the introduction to his book al-Luma’. In it, he says:

Ibn Abi Y'ala responds with

This must be the 'Aqidat al-Salaf, as I recognize it I think. The same 'Aqidat al-Salaf wherein is stated that whosoever claims to follow Ahmad b. Hanbal in creed is stupid or ignorant or something like that, impugning those who think that Imam Ahmad left anything or expounded anything on 'Aqidah..

Imagine the ridiculity of this! Abu Ishaq al-Shirazi, speaking as such on Imam Ahmad while every beginning student knows Ahmad's tribulation in the Mihna and what he expounded on beliefs..

There is no might nor power then with Allah!

The Luma' is clear, in that the author - who really is: Abu Ishaq al-Shirazi as agreed upon by all - expresses his ideas contrary to the Ash'arites. He says this more then once in this book and in his larger Tabsirah fi Usul al-Fiqh, both highly recommended for al-Izaaree and everyone else.

This is an observed fact.

Such it is, as confirmed by Ibn Taymiyyah and others against opponents, that history even kept safe an explicit statement by al-Shirazi himself saying, defending his own: 'These are my books on Usul al-Fiqh against the Ash'aris..' - when he was accused or suspected of being an Ash'ari (!) in Baghdad.

And the evidences of these works are stronger than the Isharah and the 'Aqidat al-Salaf, for they are beside direct and explicit in expressions (as the Isharah and the 'Aqidat) also rightly confirmed to be his. While the passages from the Tabyin, such as his testimony for the Ash'arites against insulting and attacking them (about which Ibn Taymiyyah said that every scholar should sign it, or something alike!) or the words on Abu Nasr are not so explicit in inferring from it his Ash'arism.

Now the Ash'aris continue with

Quote:…from that, they believe that the first obligation upon the one that is of sound rational mind and at the age of puberty is to intend investigation and inference (from the creation), both of which lead to knowledge of Allāh…

…they also believe that servile conformism [Ar. Taqlīd] with regards to knowledge of Allāh is impermissible because servile conformism is accepting the statement of another without evidence…

…they also believe that Allāh is not a corporal body [Ar. Jism]…[8]

…according to the people of truth, the intellect can not independently obligate or declare good or bad…

…it is not to be said that Allāh’s speech is in multiple languages. This is because languages are from the attributes of the creation…[9]

…then, they believe that Allāh is ‘Mustawin ‘Alā al-‘Arsh’, and that His Istiwā’ is not settlement or spatial contact. This is because settlement and spatial contact are both from the qualities of created bodies, and the Lord  is infinitely pre-eternal—which proves that He was without a place, then He created place, and He is now as He always was. [10]

He said about the opponents of the Ash’arīs:

Their open display of what they are upon of anthropomorphism, cursing of Muslims, and imputing them with unbelief does not prove that they are upon the truth…and from their evils: their cursing the people of truth as well as their backbiting of them, maligning their names in front of the common folk and giving them the nickname; al-Ash’arīyya. [11]

so Ibn Abi Y'ala responds with this

Again, a disappointment to see researchers (?) accept one book and reject another. And how do they solve the problem of contradicting views? How do they argue against the evidences that indicate the opposite? What kind of Ash'arism did he defend?

The the Ash'aris contintues with

Quote:The opponent [meaning us salafis] said:

Similar to his words—nay, even more severe—were the words of Shaykh al-Islām al-Harawī al-Ansārī. It is to be noticed that both the Shāfi’īs and anbalīs claim him for their own. What he said regarding the (the Ash’arīs) was quoted in al-Tis’īniyya from the book; Dhamm al-Kalām (in condemnation of theological rhetoric)…

Response:[meaning the Ash'ari response to us]
al-Harawī is: Abū Ismā’īl ‘Abd Allah b. Muhammad al-Harawī al-Ansāri who died in the year 481 Hijrī. He was a Hanbalī Ṣūfī who was known for his bigotry. He was far from the juridical school of al-Shāfi’ī and the Shāfi’ī scholars. There is no biographical notice for him in the collection in Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfi’īyya of al-Subkī, nor was a biographical notice written for him by Shāfi’ī biographers such as; Ibn Ṣalāh, Ibn Qāḍi Shuhba, or al-Isnawī. The opponent’s statement that both the Shāfi’īs and Hanbalīs claimed him for their own has no basis.

Ibn Abi Y'ala responds with

al-Harawi was not known for bigotry. Refer to his bio on www.hanbalis.com to see his true nature and how he dealt with al-Ash'ari the founder himself.

al-Harawi was not far from the Shafi'ite Madhhab, for the Hanbalites of the east were close with them as being Ahl al-Hadith like the Shafi'ites against the Ahl al-Ra'y from the Hanafites. But the researchers are right, he was not a Shafi'ite or claimed by the Shafi'iyyah - as far as I know. Maybe the author of the Manhaj has knowledge we don't have?

What's true is that most people who claim him, albeit not because he's a Hanbalite jurist, are non-Hanbalites: such as Hanafites and some Shafi'ites because of his Sufism. In that sense, yes, the Shafi'ites claim him in some way. If the author said: the Hanafis claim him, i.e. as their scholar or imam in the scholalrly tradition they have some point.

But truth dictates: al-Harawi was no Shafi'ite, nor is their anything that would indicate this. Or as al-Harawi would say, "I call all to be Hanbalis and die upon it".

So now the Ash'aris continue with

Quote:There is no doubt that al-Harawī was a fierce enemy of the Ash’arīs in general, and Imām Abūl asan al-Ash’arī in specific. He said about al-Ash’arī: “It has spread among the Muslims that their head (i.e. the head of the Ash’arīs) ‘Alī b. Ismā’īl al-Ash’arī used to not clean himself after relieving himself, perform ablutions, or pray.” [11] So while al-Harawī’s stance is known, it in no way represents the ‘position of the Shāfi’ī school’, especially as he was not a Shāfi’ī in the first place, as is claimed by some.

Ibn Abi Y'ala replies with

What al-Harawi narrates, is taken from others. The student of al-Ash'ari himself, the Shafi'ite Zahir b. Ahmad al-Sarakhsi, related something similar. Refer to the sunnipress links in the Ash'ari Forum.

End of the preliminary critique