Isu Tentang Al-Hadd (Batas)

Today's Ash'aris are the Effeminates of the Mu'tazilah, They are Jahmite Ash'aris

The Effeminate Mu'tazilites (Makhaaneeth ul-Mu'tazilah) as they have been called historically, otherwise known as the Jahmite Ash'aris - meaning those Later Ash'aris who adopted much of the theology of the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah (whilst pretending to oppose and refute it) - and who are far removed from the earlier Ash'aris - continue to spread their lies and distortions regarding the prominent Scholars and Imaams of Ahl us-Sunnah.

In reality, their attack is not upon the likes of Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah, but upon the Imaams of the Salaf. Amongst such issues employed by them is accusing Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullaah) of affirming a "hadd" (limit) for Allaah.

This accusation is not new, and the Effeminate Mu'tazilites, or otherwise Jahmite Ash'aris of Philadelphia have resurfaced this old doubt - and they make ascription to Abu Hasan al-Ash'ari. But free is Abu Hasan al-Ash'ari from them, for Abu Hasan al-Ash'ari freed himself from the madhhab of Ibn Kullaab - which is to make a distinction between the attributes that have come in the narrations, accepting some on the basis of intellect and rejecting others - because as they claim - they necessitate tashbeeh, and indeed they say the same about the Speech of Allaah, the Most High, that it's dhaahir (apparent) words necessitate tashbeeh. So the likes of these people have little connection to Abu Hasan al-Ash'ari, except with the early and middle part of his life and for this reason you never see them speaking about his last book, "al-Ibaanah".

Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah said in Majmoo' ul-Fataawaa (6/359-360):

And upon whomever Allaah bestows knowledge of what the Messengers came with and [bestows] penetrative insight and [who] knew the reality of their source, will know absolutely that they deviate in His Names and His Verses and that they rejected the Messengers, and the Book and with what He sent His Messengers with. For this reason they say that innovation is derived from disbelief, eventually leading (back) towards it. And they say, "Indeed the Mu'tazilah are the effeminates of the Philosophers and the Ash'ariyyah are the effeminates of the Mu'tazilah". And Yahyaa bin 'Ammaar used to say, "The Jahmite Mu'tazilees were masculine (males) and the Jahmite Ash'aris were feminine (females)", and they meant the Ash'ariyyah who negated the Narrated attributes, but as for the one amongst them who spoke with the book "al-Ibaanah" which al-Ash'ari authored at the end of his life, and who did not manifest any statement opposing that, then this one is to be considered from Ahl us-Sunnah, however the mere ascription to Ash'ari is an innovation, especially when by doing so, a person creates a good impression of everyone who makes this ascription (to al-Ash'ari), and he opens by way of that the doors to evil ...

Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah here is speaking specifically about those people who ascribed to Abu Hasan al-Ash'ari and his creed in "al-Ibaanah", and he states they are Ahl us-Sunnah, except that ascribing to al-Ash'ari is an innovation and unbefitting because it leads to the impression that all those who ascribe to al-Ash'ari have a sound belief. And those ascribing themselves to Ash'ari include three groups:

Those whom Shaykh ul-Islaam mentions, who historically followed Abu Hasan al-Ash'ari in his adoption of the correct Salafi aqeedah and who spoke with what is in the book al-Ibaanah,
The earlier Ash'aris who affirmed for Allaah's dhaat (essence) some of the attributes such as Hand, Face and Eyes, whilst negating that this necessitates Tajseem and
The later Ash'arites who in reality fell back upon the Jahmite and Mu'tazilite theology - whilst pretending to refute it - and that's what we have today.

So the Philadelphian Jahmites, posing as followers of Abu Hasan al-Ash'ari dare not mention what Abu Hasan al-Ash'ari died upon, and what he wrote in al-Ibaanah - and this is true of all Ash'aris today - and some of them are bold enough of accusing Abu Hasan al-Ash'ari of taqiyyah - that he only wrote those books in order to deceive and to protect his life - this is after their attempt to claim the non-authorship of al-Ibaanah by Abu Hasan al-Ash'ari fails miserably.

The Issue of al-hadd

Coming back to the issue of al-hadd, the basis for this doubt regarding Shaikh ul-Islaam is in fact a saying which has been reported from the Imaam, 'Abdullaah ibn al-Mubaarak regarding the affirmation of 'al-hadd' for Allaah. and it is also the saying of Imaam Ahmad.

Ibn Mandhoor said, in Lisaanul-Arab, "Al-hadd, the parting (fasl) between two things such that one of them does not mix with the other, or that one of them does not extend into the other".

So this issue firstly is narrated from the some of the Imaams of the Salaf - and we need to understand why did they say this, what was the reason? These questions are in fact answered by Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah when he discusses this matter, and from what Shaykh ul-Islaam has discussed on this issue we can ask the Philadelphian Jahmites posing as followers of Abu Hasan al-Ash'ari: Does Shaikh ul-Islaam speak with the affirmation of 'al-hadd' for Allaah with that meaning which appears to suggest the idea that Allaah is confined and limited just like a wall confines a house or fencing confines the garden?! And is there an attribute belonging to Allaah which is named 'al-hadd'? And was Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah the inventor of such a term?

Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah indicated that the reason for this investigation is the saying of 'Abdullaah ibn al-Mubaarak regarding affirmation of 'al-hadd' for Allaah as will be mentioned. It is likewise reported in 'Tabaqaat ul-Hanaabilah' (1/267):

I said to Ahmad ibn Hanbal, 'It is narrated about Ibn al-Mubaarak that it was said to him, 'How do we know our Lord?' and he replied, 'Above (fee) the seventh heaven, upon His Throne with a limit (bi haddin)''. So Ahmad said, 'This is how it is with us'.

Clarification of The Issue [1]

The First

Shaikh ul-Islaam - may Allaah have mercy upon him) mocks the intelligence of the one who claims that Allaah has an attribute which is the attribute of 'al-hadd' as occurs in 'Talbees ul-Jahmiyyah' (1/442). Shaikh ul-Islaam said:

These words that he mentioned would be applicable if they had said, 'Allaah has an attribute of 'al-hadd', just as this refuter has suspected them of saying. But no one has ever said this, and no sensible person says this. There are no reality to these words, since there is not amongst the attributes by which He is described, any specific attribute which is called 'al-hadd' - as He is described with 'al-Yad' (Hand) or al-'Ilm (Knowledge) - for (al-hadd) is that by which a thing is distinguished from others in in terms of its description (sifah) and extent (qadr), as is well known regarding 'al-hadd' for those things which bring about separation (non-contact) between things. So it is said, 'The hadd (end, limit) of so and so' or 'to such and such extent', and this is from the attributes that demarcate something from others.

The Second

And when the astray Jahmees reject and oppose the attributes of Allaah, denying His being above His creation, and claiming that Alaah is everywhere, and within everything (and they are the Hulooli Jahmees) one from the Salaf said what he said - as will be mentioned - that Allaah has a 'hadd' (a limit), meaning, attributes which distinguish Him from that which is besides Him, for He is not in every place as the Jahmiyyah say.

Shaikh ul-Islaam said in 'Bayaan ut-Talbees' (1/443):
And when the Jahmiyyah speak with such words whose meanings comprise the sense that the Creator is not distinguished (separate) from the creation, then they deny and oppose His attributes by which He is distinguished, and they deny his power (qadar) such that when the Mu'tazilah come to know that He is al-Hayy (Ever-Living), al-'Aleem (All-Knowing), al-Qadeer (All-Powerful), they say, 'We already know His reality and His (true) nature', and they say, 'He is not separate and distinguished (baa'in) from those besides Him'. In fact, either they should describe Him with the attribute of non-existence so that they say, 'He is neither inside the world, not outside it and nor this and nor that', or they should make Him merged with the created things or the existence of the created things.

So Ibn al-Mubaarak explained that the Lord, free from all imperfections and the Most High, is upon His Throne, distinct from His creation, separate from them and he mentioned 'al-hadd' because the Jahmiyyah used to say, 'He has no hadd (i.e. a limit such that He is separate from that which is besides Him)', but whatever has no limit is not separate and distinct from the creation and cannot be above the world because all of this is necessitated by (the meaning of) al-hadd (i.e. it necessitates that He is separate and distinct from the creation and above it).

So when they asked Ameer ul-Mu'mineen 'Abdullaah ibn al-Mubaarak, 'How should we know Him?', he said, 'That He is above His heavens, upon His Throne, separate and distinct from His creation', then they mentioned the imperative of that which the Jahmiyyah denied, and by their denial of it, they also deny what it requires and necessitates - the existence of He who is above the Throne - free is He from all imperfection - and His distinction and separation from the creation, so they said to him, 'With a limit (bi haddin)', and he said, 'With a limit'. And this is something which is understood by everyone who knows what difference there is between the saying of the Believers of Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah and the heretical Jahmees.

The Third

It is apparent to the fair and just person that Shaikh ul-Islaam investigated the tafseer of the word 'al-hadd' because it has been reported from the Salaf, and he never actually spoke with it to begin with. He reconciled - may Allaah have mercy upon him - between this and what has reported from others amongst the Salaf and the Imaams of the Sunnah and Hadeeth regarding the denial of 'al-hadd'. He said in 'Bayaan ut-Talbees' (2/163),

And this is because by the word 'al-hadd', to everyone who speakes with it, one of two things are intended: The reality of a thing itself (its true nature) is meant by it or the existence (of something) as confirmed with the sight (wujood ul-'ainee), or the existence of something in the mind only (wujood udh-dhahnee) is intended by it, so 'Abu Abdullaah - the Imaam Ahmad - informed that He, the Mighty and Magnificent, is upon the Throne without a reality that anyone can define (bilaa haddin yuhadduhu ahadun) and without a description that anyone can describe and he followed that with his words, 'The eyes cannot grasp him, neither with a limit (hadd) nor extremity (ghaayah).

The intent here is that the tafseer of the word 'al-hadd' by 'wujood ul-'ainee' - and this is what occurs by the sight and it's encompassment (of what it sees) - or by 'wujood adh-dhahnee' - which is what occurs by the perception of the mind and intellect and its defining of what it sees or imagines - is falsehood, and is denied from Allaah the Mighty and Majestic.

Allaah does not have an attribute whose Names is 'al-hadd', however 'al-hadd' (as used by Abdullaah Ibn al-Mubaarak) is an expression of the distinction of Allaah from other than Him with respect to His Being and His attributes and His being unique and specific in His perfection, His ascendancy (uluww) over His Throne and His being distinct and separate from His creation. So after this clarification does any doubt remain and have the words of Shaikh ul-Islaam left any insinuations? Allaah does not amend the actions of the mischief-makers!

An Important Note

The abovementioned quotation of Ibn al-Mubaarak is at the heart of the matter: Ad-Daarimee reported it in 'ar-Radd 'alal-Mareesee' (p.34) and in 'ar-Radd 'alal-Jahmiyyah (162) and 'Abdullaah bin Ahmad in 'as-Sunnah' (1/175) and 'al-Bayhaqee in 'al-Asmaa was-Sifaat' (p.427) from the route of 'Alee bin al-Hasan bin Shaqeeq who said, "I asked 'Abdullaah ibn al-Mubaarak, I said, 'How do we know our Lord?' He replied, 'Above (fee) the seventh heaven, upon His Throne.' I said, 'But the Jahmiyyah say He is like this!' He replied, 'We do not say as the Jahmiyyah say, we say He is as He is.' I said, 'With a limit (bi haddin)?' He replied, 'Yes, by Allaah, with a limit (bi haddin).'"

And Imaam adh-Dhahabee said in 'al-'Uluww' (p.152 of its 'Mukhtasir'), "This is saheeh (authentic) from Ibn al-Mubaarak and Ahmad, may Allaah be pleased with him." And Shaikh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah said in 'al-Hamawiyyah' (5/184 of Majmoo' ul-Fataawaa), "This is well-known from Ibn al-Mubaarak, established from him from more than one aspect and it is also affirmed from Ahmad bin Hanbal, Ishaaq bin Raahawaih and from more than one of the Imaams." Refer also to Sharh Aqeedatut-Tahaawiyyah (p.240).

A Second Note

One of the deviated Jahmees of this era claimed that this narration has three defects in a commentary of his upon (al-Bayhaqee's) 'al-Asmaa' (p.427). He said concerning al-Hasan bin as-Sibaah, the narrator of it from 'Alee ibn al-Hasan according to al-Bayhaqee, "An-Nisaa'ee said, 'He is not strong (reliable)' and they have accused Ibn Shaqeeq with al-Irjaa', and the various narrations from Ibn al-Mubaarak differ as you can see!"

I say: These defects are themselves defective and stricken!! Al-Hasan bin as-Sibaah has been investigated by more than one person, let alone the fact that the saying of an-Nisaa'ee concerning him is unacceptable, as you will see with clear evidences in the defence of al-Haafidh Ibn Hajar of him in 'Hadee as-Saaree' (p.397).

As for reviling Ibn Shaqeeq with the innovation of al-Irjaa then that is weak for two reasons:

Firstly, an accusation (of unacceptability due to) innovation - predominantly - is not to be made for the narration of someone who is reliable and trustworthy (thiqah) amongst the Huffaadh, and (in this case) especially since in what he has narrated no element of the (innovation) of al-Irjaa is to be found in it or can approach it.

Secondly, the claim of al-Irjaa is a false and rejected claim, for when it was said to him that he held the notion of al-Irjaa! He said, 'I do not put you to liberty', as occurs in 'Taareekh Baghdaad' (11/37) and in Tahdheeb ul-Kamaal (20/372) there occurs that he returned from it. And as for the claim of the differences in the narrations "& as you can see&" , then that is false claim, for there is not the slightest aspect of difference (in the various narrations.)

That is, those who attack Shaikh ul-Islaam accuse him of initiating this matter for which - in their estimation - there is no precedence from the Salaf. However, it should have been sufficiently clear to them when they quoted the words of Shaikh ul-Islaam from his works that he is merely discussing an issue that has actually been reported authentically from one of the Salaf.

And this shows that the Jahmite Ash'aris are not to be trusted in their quoting from and their attribution to Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah - for their deception and treachery in this regard is as clear as daylight ...

Notes

[1] Adapted and emended from the book "Daf' Shubhah al-Ghawiyyah" of ash-Shukree.

Oleh Abu.Iyaad di asharis.com