Sabtu, 14 November 2009

Mengenai Ibnu Taimiyah dan 'Nasihah Dzahabiyyah' yang Dinisbahkan kepada Imam Adz-Dzahabi

It is claimed by the followers of Muhammad Zaahid al-Kawtharee, the one who regarded Imaam adh-Dhahabee as a mujassim (anthropomorphist) and as one who understands hardly anything of the usool (foundations of the religion), that Imaam adh-Dhahabee wrote a risaalah that they have called "an-Naseehah adh-Dhahabiyyah" which Imaam adh-Dhahabee was supposed to have directed towards Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah.

The false ascription of this so called "naseehah" to adh-Dhahabee has been corroborated and we will cover this affair in this series of articles inshaa'Allaah.

Naseehah Is Given While a Person Is Alive. Comprehensive and Judgemental Biographical Accounts Are Written After A Person's Death

We can safely assume that the followers of Muhammad Zaahid al-Kawtharee, and the Ash'ariyyah in general, will agree that naseehah (advice) can only be given to a person while he is alive, if the intent is to offer that person in particular, advice that will benefit him.

We don't think this is in dispute.

On that basis, what then will the Ash'ariyyah and their likes say about the fact that this is what Imaam adh-Dhahabee (rahimahullaah) wrote about Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullaah) AFTER he died?

Imaam adh-Dhahabee said in 'Mu'jam al-Muhadditheen' (p.25),
Ahmad bin 'Abdul-Haleem... the Imaam, the Scholar, the Haafidh, the Hujjah (the decisive proof), the unique individual of the era, ocean of sciences, Taqee ud-Deen Abul-'Abbaas al-Harraanee, then Dimashqee.

And he said,

And he wrote, read and corrected (works) and also excelled in the sciences related to the narrations and the sunan. He studied, gave verdict, made tafseer and authored the most amazing of works. He was alone in holding certain opinions and as a result his honour was attacked, yet he is a man who has sins and mistakes. But despite this, and by Allaah, my eyes have not seen the likes of him and he has not seen the likes of himself. He was a skilled and erudite Imaam in the various sciences related to the religion, had a correct and sound mind, extremely quick in his perception, fluent in his understanding, overflowing with good deeds and was characterised by excessive braveness and generosity. He kept away from the desires of food, clothing and sexual relations.

He did not find pleasure in anything but the spreading of knowledge, putting it into books and then acting upon its requirements. Abu Fath al-Ya'maree mentioned him in answering the questions of Abul-'Abbaas Ibn Dimyaatee al-Haafidh, saying, 'I found him to be amongst those who had acquired a fortune of knowledge and he fully and completey memorise the Sunan and the Aathaar. If he spoke about tafseer then he would be the carrier of its flag or if the gave a legal ruling in fiqh, he would know its extreme depths. And if he was to recall a hadeeth he would possess all the knowledge related to it and would carry its flag (i.e. make the hadeeth take precedence over all else).

And if he was to talk about the various religions and factions, no one who was more vast in knowledge or greater in meticulousness could be seen. He surpassed his contemporaries in every science and my eyes have not seen the likes of him and nor have his eyes seen the likes of himself.' I (adh-Dhahabee) say: He was imprisoned on more than one occasion in order that he would slacken with respect to his antagonists and so that the fluency of his tongue and pen may diminish - yet he would not recant and nor turn around upon the advice of anyone, up until he died while imprisoned at the Damascus Prison on the 20th of Dhul-Qa'dah, in the year 728H. And his followers consisted of nations, (the like of) their number could not be found at the graves of the Soofees, may Allaah forgive him and have mercy upon him, aameen.

And al-Haafidh adh-Dhahabee said in 'al-'Ibar fee Khibar min 'Ibar' (4/84),

And Shaikh ul-Islaam, Taqee ud-Deen, Ahmad bin 'Abdul-Haleem died in the prison of Damascus on the 22nd night of Dhul-Qa'dah... and he excelled in tafseer, hadeeth, ikhtilaaf (the issues in which there is difference of opinion) and the principle affairs (of the religion). He used to display (remarkable) intelligence and his works number more than two-hundred volumes. He also had some strange opinions on account of which his honour was attacked, and he was a leader in generosity, braveness, and was content with little. His disciples numbered more than 50,000 and he was at the forefront, may Allaah have mercy upon him.

While the "Naseehah Dhahabiyyah" is certainly falsely ascribed to adh-Dhahabee, as will be demonstrated in this series inshaa'Allaah, if we assume, for argument's sake that adh-Dhahabee did write it, then writing a detailed biographical account of one's opinion of a person after he has died certainly overrides any limited inferences that can be made from individual or isolated pieces of advice given to that person during his lifetime - since the biographical account represents the sum total of what is held by the biographer about the one being written about. This is if we assume that adh-Dhahabee did write this so called "Naseehah".

And given the fact that the Soofiyyah Ash'ariyyah of the breed of al-Kawtharee consider adh-Dhahabee to be a Mujassim and a Hashawee in any case (free is Imaam adh-Dhahabee from the slanders of the Soofees), we won't see them do justice and promote the various biographical accounts written by ad-Dhahabee.

Imaam adh-Dhahabee has numerous biographies of Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah, varying in length, in his numerous works and he greatly honours and praises Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah, and says about him, "...and his followers consisted of nations, (the like of) their number could not be found at the graves of the Soofees..." - let's repeat these words, "...and his followers consisted of nations, (the like of) their number could not be found at the graves of the Soofees..." and perhaps its the likes of this that infuriates the likes of Muhammad Zaahid al-Kawtharee, and consumes the likes of him with jealousy and hatred ...

Oleh Abu.Iyaad di Asharis.com

Penetapan Sifat Al-'Uluw Oleh Imam Al-Qurthubi

Imaam adh-Dhahabee said in the final lines of his most excellent work, "al-Uluww lil-'Aliyyil-Ghaffaar" (pp.286-287):

Al-Qurtubee said concerning the saying of Allaah, the Most High, "Then he ascended (istawaa) the Throne":

Then he starts quoting al-Qurtubi:

We have explained the sayings of the Scholars regarding this issue in the book 'al-Asnaa fee Sharh al-Asmaa al-Husnaa' and we mentioned fourteen different sayings therein... [up until he said] ... and the Salaf of the very first times - may Allaah be pleased with them all - never used to negate direction (al-jihah) [1] for Allaah and nor did they used to express this (negation). Rather, they, and all of the others, used to speak with its affirmation for Allaah, the Most High just as His Book has spoken about it and just as His Messengers informed of it. And not a single one of the Salaf denied that his ascending (istawaa) the Throne was real and true (haqeeqah) (as opposed to metaphorical, majaaz). And Allaah specified the Throne with istawaa because that is the greatest of all His creation. However they assumed ignorance only of the exact nature (kaifiyyah) of istiwaa, for the true nature of that is not known. Imaam Maalik said, 'Istiwaa is known...', meaning in the language, '...its true nature is unknown and asking about it is an innovation...

Then adh-Dhahabi says, "And al-Qurtubi also said in 'al-Asnaa'..." and then quotes al-Qurtubi:

Most of the past (the early) and later [theologians] said, 'When it is necessary to purify the Creator (al-Baaree), the Sublime, from having direction (jihah) and demarcation (tamayyuz), then from the requirements and necessary consequences of this, in the view of the generality of the past scholars and their later leaders, is to purify the Creator (al-Baaree) from having direction (jihah). In their view, He is not in the direction of above. This is because to them, when Allaah is designated with direction, this would necessitate that He is restricted to a place (makaan) and a confine (hayyiz). (Subsequently), a place and a confine necessitate (for Him) (such) movement and stillness that is related to distinction (tamayyuz), transformation (taghayyur) and new occurrences (Hudooth) . This is the saying of the Theologians (mutakallimoon, the people of kalaam)..

Then adh-Dhahabi says:

I (adh-Dhahabi) say, "Yes, this is what the deniers of the 'uluww (highness) of the Lord, Mighty and Majestic, have depended upon. And they turned away from the requirement of the Book, the Sunnah, the sayings of the Salaf and the innate dispositions of the whole of creation. What they claim to be necessitated (from affirming Allaah's highness) is only applicable to created bodies. Yet there is nothing like Allaah and the necessities arising from the clear and evident texts (of the Book and the Sunnah) are also true. However, we do not make use of any expression except one that comes through a narration.

In addition to this we say: We do not accept that the Creator's being upon His Throne and above the heavens, necessitates that He is confined (in space) and in a direction, since whatever is below the Throne is said to be confined (in space) and in direction. However, what is above the Throne is not like that. And Allaah is above the Throne as the very first generation are unanimously agreed upon and as the Imaams after them have quoted from them. They said this in refutation of the Jahmiyyah, those who said that He is in every place seeking as a proof His saying, 'And He is with you...'. So these two sayings were the very two sayings which were present in the time of the Taabi'een and their successors who came after them. And they are the two sayings that can be understood in this statement (i.e. of the philosophers).

As for the third saying which arose later which is that "Allaah the Most High is not in any of the places, nor outside of them, nor above His Throne, not attached (merged) with His creation, nor separate from it, nor is His Essence (Dhaat) confined in space, nor is He separate and distinct from His creation, nor is He in any of the directions, nor is He exempt from of any of the directions, and nor this and nor that..." then this is something that cannot be comprehended nor understood [2], along with the fact that within it is opposition to the verses (of the Book) and the narrations (from the Salaf). Therefore flee with your religion and beware of the opinions of the Mutakallimoon (Theologians). Believe in Allaah and what has come from Him upon the desired intent of Allaah, then submit your affair to Him and there is no power nor movement except by Allaah."

The book is completed and all praise is to Allaah alone...

End of quote from adh-Dhahabee.

NOTES

[1] The Shaikh, Muhaddith and Imaam of the era, Naasir ud-Deen al-Albaabee - may Allaah guard him - said, commenting upon the words of adh-Dhahabee,

I say: Yes, only those who speak with Wahdatul-Wujood (the Unity of Existence) understand this, and that the Creator and the created are one and the same thing, rather, nothing exists which is called 'creator' or 'creation', everything you see with your eye is Allaah! Exalted is Allaah from what the oppressors say. And perhaps Jahm (ibn Safwaan) and his likes from the very first callers (to this misguidance) used to intend to implant the aqeedah of the Wahdatul-Wujood, that which necessitates the denial of the existence of the Creator, the Blessed and Exalted, by their saying Allaah is in every place and that He is not upon the Throne. However, (they would do this) in a hidden and repugnant way. This is why the Salaf's rejection of him and his followers was very severe and some of them made it very clear - as has preceded in the biography of the Imaam Ibn al-Mubaarak and others - that the Jahmiyyah claim that Allaah is not an entity (i.e. not in existence). So what then would the righteous Salaf say if they were to hear on this day, the excessive Soofees saying while upon the pulpits (of the mosques), 'Allaah is not above, nor below, nor to the right, nor to the left, nor in front, nor behind, nor inside the creation, nor outside of it'!

[2] The word 'jihah' was never used as an attribute for Allaah by the Salaf, and what al-Qurtubee means by using the word 'jihah' is merely the meaning that is found in the Book and the Sunnah that Allaah is above His creation. Regarding this word 'jihah', when presented with it, we neither affirm it nor do we negate it until its intended meaning is clarified. So if what is meant by 'jihah' is the direction of above and Allah is surrounded by such a direction, then we deny and negate this from Allaah. And if what is meant is the meaning in the Qur'aan and the Sunnah, that Allaah is above His creation without being surrounded by the direction of above itself, then we affirm this meaning, though we do not use the word 'jihah' as it was not used by the Salaf.

Oleh Sunnimuthabbit di Asharis.com

Apakah Imam Al-Khatib Al-Baghdadi Adalah Asy'ari

A claim is made by the Ash'ariyyah that al-Khateeb al-Baghdaadee (d. 463H) had leanings towards the Ash'ariyyah - and there occurs in his works and treatises what falsifies that, this particular treatise in this article being an example.

The creed of al-Baghdaadee is found in a single preserved manuscript in adh-Dhaahiriyyah Book House in Damascus, collection no. 16.

Read the full document here (in PDF): Download File
Right click and select "Save Target As" or "Save Link As".

This treatise "An Issue Pertaining to the attributes of Allaah" contains the quotation of two matters:

The first: A report of the Haafidh, al-Khateeb about one of the issues from the Masaa'il of Imaam Abu Abdullaah Ahmad bin Hanbal regarding the belief in the Speech of Allaah - the Mighty and Majestic - and a rejection of the saying of the Jahmiyyah.

The second: A fatwaa of al-Khateeb regarding the issue of the attributes. He mentions a summary of the creed of the Salaf regarding the attributes of Allaah - the Mighty and Majestic. He affirmed in this fatwaa that the way of the Salaf is the middle way - just as he affirmed the Salafi principle:

Speaking about the attributes is a branch of speaking about the Essence (Dhaat)

- so he affirmed the attributes whilst negating tashbeeh (resembling them to the creation) and he destroyed ta'weel (figurative interpolation).

He also rejected from the People of Innovation their reviling of the Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Athar due to their narrating the ahaadeeth pertaining to the attributes and he made clear the obligation of referring the unclear verses (mutashaabihaat) to the precise and clear (muhkam) ones and having faith in all of that and submitting to that.

Then he divided the ahaadeeth which have been reported about the attributes into three types - from the perspective of acceptance and rejection and he made clear that whatever ahaadeeth are established then they are treated in the same way as what has come in the Qur'aan with respect to affirming (the Attributes) and negating tashbeeh (resemblance).

And this establishes the fact that the Haafidh, al-Khateeb was upon the creed of the Salaf, Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Hadeeth and not as some of them claim and associate him with the companions of al-Ash'aree - even if his saying about affirming the attributes in general agrees with the saying of al-Ash'aree in 'al-Ibaanah' (al-Ash'aree's last book) - in which (al-Ash'aree) followed the (way of the Salaf). This cannot be correct as a proof for associating him with al-Ash'aree - since affirming the attributes was the madhhab of the Salaf before al-Ash'aree even existed and al-Khateeb was the Imaam of the Ahl ul-Hadeeth in his time. Therefore associating him with them, the Salaf, is an obligation besides which there is no other option.

In fact, you will see in the first issue contained in this creed that which will declare al-Khateeb to be totally innocent and free from his being upon the madhhab of al-Ash'aree. This due to the fact that the issue of al-Lafdh (the utterance of the Qur'aan) is one of major things that take the ash'arees away from the creed of the Salaf, Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Hadeeth.

Oleh Sunnimuthabbit di Asharis.com

Imam Abul Hasan Al-Asy'ari Menolak Ta'wil Kaum Asy'ariyah Terhadap Sifat Tangan

Abu Hasan al-Ash'ari (d. 324H) rejected the false ta'weels of the (modern-day) Ash'aris and their likes who distort this attribute to mean "two favours", and others claim that al-yad means "qudrah" (power) and so on. He said in al-Ibaanah an Usool id-Diyaanah (p.133):

If it is said: Why do you deny that His saying:

Do they not see that We have created for them what Our Own Hands have created. (Yaa Seen 36:71)

And His saying:

Whom I have created with My Own (Two) Hands (Soorah Sa'd 38:75)

are majaaz (metaphorical)? It is said (in reply) to him:

The ruling concerning the speech of Allaah - the Mighty and Majestic - is that it is taken upon its dhaahir (apparent) and haqeeqah (real) meaning. Nothing is removed from its dhaahir (apparent) meaning to a majaaz (metaphorical) meaning, except with a proof ... Likewise, the saying of Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic:

Whom I have created with My Own (Two) Hands (Sa'd 38:75)

Its dhaahir (apparent) and haqeeqah (true and real) meaning is affirming al-yadayn (two Hands of Allaah). So it is not permissible to alter it from the dhaahir meaning of yadayn to that which our opponents claim, except with a proof.. Consequently, regarding His saying:

Whom I have created with My Own (Two) Hands (Sa'd 38:75)

It is obligatory to affirm two Hands for Allaah - the Most High - upon its haqeeqah (true and real) meaning, not with the meaning of ni'matayn (two bounties of Allaah).

Ahl us-Sunnah, the followers of the Salaf us-Saalih, the people of ithbaat (affirmation) - unlike the incoherent and contradictory deniers and distorters - have a sound, uniform and consistent methodology in relation to what has come in the Book and the Sunnah of affirmation of attributes for Allaah. They affirm everything that Allaah affirmed for Himself and that His Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) affirmed for Him, affirming their meanings whilst negating any likeness between the realities of His attributes the realities of the attributes of the creation.

Oleh Sunnimuthabbit di Asharis.com

Penetapan Sifat Wajah Bagi Allah dan Bantahan Untuk Asy'ari

The Face of Allaah, one of many attributes Allaah affirms for Himself in His Book, has been repeatedly affirmed by the Salaf. The exact and precise nature (kayfiyyah) of His Face, like all the other attributes is unknown, and in this regard the statement of Imaam Maalik constitutes the scales by which all of the attributes are understood, "al-Istiwaa is known, but its modality (kayf) is unknown, having faith in it is obligatory and asking about it (i.e. about its modality and true nature) is an innovation". So this is the methodology of the Salaf with respect to this Attribute, and it represents a uniform and coherent methodology in relation to every attribute ascribed to Allaah by Himself or by His Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).

However, the Jahmiyyah, the Ash'ariyyah in the present times (such as al-Kawtharee, al-Bootee, as-Saqqaaf, al-Kabbaani, al-Habashi) and those who have the affectations of Jahm Ibn Safwaan deny the Attribute of Face and resort to heretical interpretations.

With respect to this particular attribute, the practice of the innovators is only too well known. To strike the texts of the Book and the Sunnah against each other and to selectively quote that which agrees with their desires.

ONE: The explanation of al-Khattaabee, al-Bayhaqee, Ibn al-Qayyim, Ibn Uthaimeen and others:

Allaah has ascribed certain characteristics to His Face, so He said,

Everyone upon the Earth will perish, [but] shall remain the Face of your Lord, Full of Majesty and Honour (ar-Rahmaan 55:26-27)

So the description "Dhul-Jalaali wal-Ikraam (Full of Majesty and Honour)" is related to "the Face" since it is in the nominative case (raf'). This is different to His saying in another verse, "Blessed be the Name of Your Lord, the Owner of Majesty and Honour", so in this verse the description "Dhil-Jalaali wal-Ikraam (Owner of Majesty and Honour)" is related to "Your Lord" since it is in the genitive as is "Your Lord"

So it is clear from this that Allaah has the attribute of Face, and this Face too has attributes, such as what has been mentioned in this verse. And this is undeniable.

Then from the Sunnah, is the saying of the Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam), as related by Muslim from Abu Musa al-Ash'ari:

His Veil is made of light and if He was to uncover it, the subuhaat (splendors,radiances) of His Face would destroy everything from His creation that His Sight would reach.

So it is clear from this that the Face, which is an Attribute of Allaah, also has attributes. In addition this hadeeth also affirms the Attribute of Sight for Allaah.

From this fact, the falsehood of the one who claims that Face refers to 'reward' or other such false interpolations can be realized. For how is it possible for 'reward' to be described by 'Majesty and Honour' and how is it possible for it to have 'splendors,radiances' that destroy everything in sight? And which of the Salaf have spoken of this? So the challenge to the Jahmiyyah and Ash'ariyyah is: Apply your false ta'weels of the attribute of Face to every mention of Face in the Book and the Sunnah and see where that leads you?

TWO: Then to establish this further, is the variety of supplications in which the Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wasallaam) seeks refuge in the Face of Allaah and how he (sallallaahu alaihi wasallaam) separates between the essence of Allaah (dhaat) and the Face of Allaah (al-wajh) in the same supplication.

So amongst such supplications are:

I seek refuge in Your Noble Face, from that You lead me astray, there is none worthy of worship save you (Abu Dawood and others).

In relation to the verse,

Say (O Muhammad) He has power to send punishment over you from above" (al-An'aam 6:65)

the Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wasallaam) said, as related by al-Bukhari in his chapter on Tawheed:

I seek refuge in Your Face

And also reported by Abu Dawood in his Sunan:

I seek refuge in Allaah the Mighty (al-`Adheem) and in His Noble Face and His Eternal Power from Shaytaan the Accursed

So is it then plausible for a Muslim to seek refuge in a Face which in reality is 'reward' or 'dominion' - according to the false ta'weels of the Jahmiyyah and Ash'ariyyah? For these (reward and dominion) are but created things and no Muslim seeks refuge in something created.

Ibn al-Qayyim mentions concerning the third supplication above,

... so consider how he made a distinction between seeking refuge in the Essence (Dhaat) of Allaah and between His Noble Face. This is a clear refutation of the one who claims that Face is the Essence itself and of the one who claims that it is something created (i.e. other than Allaah).

This is because those things that are annexed to Allaah are of two types. Those things separate from Him, from His creation, such as al-Bait (the House of Allaah), an-Naaqah (the She Camel of Allaah), al-Abd (the Servant of Allaah) etc. Or those things that are not independent of Him, but rather from His Essence such as knowledge, life, seeing, hearing, power, speech etc. So when these are annexed to Him then it is an annexation which signifies real attributes, it is not one that signifies created things for this is falsehood. So when this is the case, how is it possible for a Muslim to seek refuge in something created? So from this the falsehood is made clear!

THREE: Ibn al-Qayyim explains regarding the verse:

Wherever you may turn, you will find the Face, Countenance of Allaah

That some of the Salaf have interpreted 'Wajh-Allaah' mentioned in the verse to mean the ‘qiblah’ of Allaah and that this is something that is acceptable for this particular verse. But then is it correct for this meaning to be applied to other verses in which Face is also mentioned? So of what benefit would this explanation be regarding the saying of Allaah,

[But] shall remain the Face of your Lord, Full of Majesty and Honour (ar-Rahmaan 55:27)

and

Except only the desire to seek the Face of His Lord, the Most High (al-Layl 92:20)

and

We feed you only for the Face of Allaah (ad-Dahr 76:9)

And what is correct regarding the saying of Allaah "Wherever you may turn, you will find the Face, Countenance of Allaah" is that it is just like the statements of Allaah in all the other verses in which Face is mentioned. In all the places in the Book and the Sunnah that Face has been mentioned, it has been attributed to Allaah in the same way, with the same meaning. It does not have two meanings that are opposed to each other.

However there is an exception with respect to that which comes in Surah al-Baqarah. In this verse, the explanation that it refers to qiblah (direction) is not singled out [as the only understanding]. Rather it can also be applied to the Face of Allaah in reality (haqeeqatan). And this is because this verse was revealed with respect to travelling. So when a person prays and he errs in finding the right direction, then wherever He turns he will be facing Allaah. And the Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wasallaam) said that "When a person stands for prayer, then Allaah is in front of him" (Bukharee and Muslim).

This is because He is high above His creation, ascended over His Throne and He encompasses the whole of creation. So wherever a servant turns, Allaah is in front of him. The Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wasallaam) said:

Indeed Allaah has commanded you with prayer, so when you pray do not turn [to the left or to the right] for Allaah directs His Face to the face of His servant in his prayer so long as he does not turn away" [Ahmad and Tirmidhee, Hasan-Saheeh]. And also his (sallallaahu alaihi wasallaam) saying, "When the servant performs ablution well and stands to perform the prayer, Allaah turns to Him with His Face…" (Ibn Maajah, all of its narrators are thiqah).

So from the above, it is clear that the verse of Surah Baqarah is just like the other verses, even if from one aspect, the meaning of wajh can be understood to be qiblah (direction).

However, it is not possible to apply the same explanation to all the other texts that have attributed Face to Allaah the Most High. And in this is a challenge to the Jahmiyyah : Apply your interpretations to the other places in the Book and the Sunnah where Face is mentioned and see where that leads you?

FOUR: Regarding the statement of Allaah the Most High,
For those who do good is the best (i.e. Paradise) and something more [that is better]…. (Yunus 10:26)

Then the Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wasallaam) said in explanation of this, "Looking at His Face, the Most High" (Muslim 1/163). Therefore, the one who denies the attribute of Face for Allaah then he is claiming that the Believers in Paradise will be looking at something imaginary, and in this he has made a great error and invented a great lie.

And the Companions, the Taabi'een, the Four Imaams, and all of the great Imaams of the Salaf are agreed that the Believers shall see the Face of their Lord in Paradise. Imaam ad-Daraqutnee (d. 385H) said (in Kitaab us-Sifaat, no. 64):

Muhammad bin Mukhlad narrated to us: Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Umar bin al-Hakam, Abu Hasan ibn al-Attaar said: I heard Muhammad bin Mis'ab, the Worshipper saying: "Whoever claims that You do not speak and that You will not be seen in the Hereafter is a disbeliever in Your Face and he does not know You. I testify that You are above the Throne, above the seven heavens - not as Your enemies, the heretical apostates (Zanaadiqah) say.

FIVE: Concerning the interpretation that Face refers to His Essence (Dhaat). Then if it is meant by this that it refers to His Essence while at the same time affirming a Face for him, then this is acceptable. For Face is an attribute of His Essence and it is not something created or separate from Him. Hence, if everything will perish save His Face, then it is understood from this that His Dhaat will not perish either, it will remain and this is because Face is an Attribute of the Essence, not created and separate from it. However if it is meant that it refers to His Essence while at the same time denying the attribute of Face for Him, then this is falsehood as has been made clear from the above evidences, such as the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) seeking refuge with the dhaat of Allaah and with the wajh of Allaah in the same supplication.

And based upon this we can understand the statements of those scholars who explain that Face (wajh) refers to His Essence (dhaat) in certain verses of the Qur'aan. So there is no contradiction between what they say and between the fact that Allaah has an Attribute of Face.

Ibn Hajar in Fath ul-Bari, in explanation of the verse "Everything shall perish except His Face" (al-Qasas 28:88), explains the statement of Imaam Bukhaaree in his Kitaab ut-Tafseer of his Saheeh, "…...except His Face, except His dominion, (illaa mulkahu)" saying:

In the narration of an-Nasafi there occurs 'Ma''mar said' and then he mentioned the above. This Ma''mar is Abu 'Ubaidah ibn al-Muthnaa, and these are his words taken from his book 'Majaaz ul-Qur'aan', however with the wording "except He". At-Tabari has quoted the same from some of the linguists and al-Faraa mentioned the same. Ibn at-Teen and Abu 'Ubaidah said, "except His Face, meaning His Majesty". And it has been said "except He alone", as you say "May Allaah ennoble your face" meaning "may Allaah ennoble you".

So here, some of the scholars are of the opinion that Face here refers to the Essence, and there is no problem with this as has proceeded and nor does it negate the Attribute of Face for Allaah.

Now in case anyone tries to argue (in the favour of ta''weel) using this statement of Imaam Bukhaaree, then what would be his reply to the fact that Imaam Bukhaaree affirms the Attribute of Face in his Kitaab ut-Taweed at the end of his Saheeh, also called ar-Raddu 'alal-Jahmiyyah (Refutation of the Jahmiyyah), using as evidence the very same verse as above (al-Qasas 28:88)!!!

Chapter: The Statement of Allaah, "Everything shall perish save His Face".

Narrated Jabir bin Abdullaah, "When this verse, 'Say (O Muhammad) He has power to send punishment on you from above' (6:65), was revealed, the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) said, 'I seek refuge with Your Face'. Allaah revealed, 'Or from underneath your feet' (6:65), the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) said, 'I seek refuge with Your Face'. Then Allaah revealed 'Or to cover you with confusion or party strife!' (6:65), then the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallaam) said, 'This is easier'."

And here Imaam Bukhaaree affirms, without doubt, the Attribute of Face, just as he brought narrations in affirmation of Hand, Eyes, Self (Nafs), His Speech, His being above the Throne and many of the other attributes that the Jahmiyyah denied. So this puts an end to the argument adduced from his Kitaab ut-Tafseer.

In addition, the arguments presented above would also apply. Try imposing these such isolated explanations that you use for denying the Attribute of Face to all those occurrences of the mention of the Face in the Book and the Sunnah and see where that leads you?! Inconsistency and mere falsehood!! To this the Jahmiyyah and Ash'ariyyah have no reply ...

Oleh sunnimuthabbit di asharis.com

Imam At-Tirmidzi Menolak Tuduhan Tasybih Oleh Jahmiyah

Speaking about those ahaadeeth which mention the attributes of Allah, Imaam at-Tirmidhee (d.279H)- (rahimahullaah) said in his Sunan (1/128-129):

وقد قال غير واحد من أهل العلم في هذا الحديث وما يشبه هذا من الروايات من الصفات ونزول الرب تبارك وتعالى كل ليلة إلى السماء الدنيا قالوا قد تثبت الروايات في هذا ويؤمن بها ولا يُتَوَهَّم ولا يقال كيف. هكذا روي عن مالك و سفيان بن عيينة و عبد الله بن المبارك أنهم قالوا في هذه الأحاديث أمروها بلا كيف وهكذا قول أهل العلم من أهل السنة والجماعة وأما الجهمية فأنكرت هذه الروايات وقالوا هذا تشبيه وقد ذكر الله عز وجل في غير موضع من كتابه اليد والسمع والبصر فتأولت الجهمية هذه الآيات ففسروها على غير ما فسر أهل العلم وقالوا إن الله لم يخلق آدم بيده وقالوا إن معنى اليد ههنا القوة وقال إسحق بن إبراهيم [راهويه] إنما يكون التشبيه إذا قال يد كيد أو مثل يد أو سمع كسمع أو مثل سمع فإذا قال سمع كسمع أو مثل سمع فهذا التشبيه وأما إذا قال كما قال الله تعالى يد وسمع وبصر ولا يقول كيف ولا يقول مثل سمع ولا كسمع فهذا لا يكون تشبيها وهو كما قال الله تعالى في كتابه : ليس كمثله شيء وهو السميع البصير

It has been stated by more than one person from the People of Knowledge about such ahaadeeth, that there is no tashbeeh (resemblance) to the attributes of Allaah, and our Lord - the Blessed and Most High - descends to the lowest heaven every night. So they say: "Affirm these narrations, have eemaan (faith) in them, do not deny them, nor ask how." The likes of this has been related from Maalik ibn Anas, Sufyaan ath-Thawree, Ibn Uyainah and Abdullaah Ibn al-Mubaarak, who all said about such ahaadeeth: "Leave them as they are, without asking how." Such is the saying of the People of Knowledge from the Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah. However, the Jahmiyyah oppose these narrations and say: This is tashbeeh! However, Allaah the Most High, has mentioned in various places in His Book, the Attribute of al-yad (Hand), as-Sama' (Hearing), and al-Basr (Seeing) - but the Jahmiyyah make ta'weel of these aayaat, explaining them in a way, other than how they are explained by the People of Knowledge. They say: Indeed, Allaah did not create Aadam with His own Hand - they say that Hand means the Power of Allaah. Ishaaq ibn Ibraheem ar-Raahawaih said: tashbeeh is if it is said: "Hand like my hand, or similar to my hand", or it is said: "Hearing like my Hearing,or similar to my hearing", then this is tashbeeh. But if what is being said is what Allah has said: Hand, Hearing, Seeing and it is not asked how, nor is it said: "Like my hearing, or similar to my hearing" - then it is not tashbeeh. Allaah, the Most Blessed, Most High, said in His Book (ash-Shooraa 42:11): There is none like unto Him, and he is the all-Hearing, the all-Seeing.

Oleh sunnimuthabbit di asharis.com

Imam Al-Juwaini Mendukung Aqidah Salaf

Imaam al-Juwaynee (d.438H) was amongst the Ash'aris who in the later part of his life came to recognize, by Allaah's favour and bounty, the stark and inherent contradictions in the path of those adopting ta'weel (figurative interpolation) towards those attributes they did not affirm for Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic. The Ash'ari madhhab is in fact full of contradictions and is a mixture of the usool (foundations) of the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah, as inshaa'Allaah we will cover in more detail. For now, here is Imaam al-Juwayneed explaining his experience.

Imaam al-Juwaynee's Retraction From the Madhhab of the Asha'riyyah

Imaam al-Juwaynee [1] (d. 438H) said:

Know, that for a brief period of time, I was confused about three matters:

the issue of as-Sifaat (Allaah's Attributes)
the issue of al-Fawqiyyah (Allaah being above His creation)
the issue of al-Harf (the Letter) and as-Sawt (the Voice) about the Glorious Quraan.

I used to be confused about the different sayings - which are found in the contemporary books with respect to these matters - whether ta'weel (interpretation) and tahreef should be made of the attributes. Whether to take them as they are and halt at their meanings, or whether to affirm them without ta'weel, ta'teel, tashbeeh or tamtheel. But I found in the texts of the Book of Allaah - Most Hight - and the Sunnah of His Messenger , a great clarity about the reality of these attributes, and likewise with respect to affirming al-uluww (the highness of Allaah) al-Fawqiyyah, al-Harf and as-Sawt.

Then I found in the books of the later Scholars - from the Mutakallimoon (the People of theological rhetoric and innovated speech) their making of ta'weel (of Allaah's Attribute) of al-istiwaa (Allaah ascending above the creation) by saying that it meant qahr (His dominance) and isteelaa (His conquering); ta'weel of (Allaah's Attribute) of an-Nuzool by saying that it meant His command descends; ta'weel of (the Attribute of) al-Yadain (the Hands of Allaah) to mean His Power or His Favour; and ta'weel of al-Qadam (the Foot of Allaah) to mean the fine reward with their Lord; and the likes of this. Along with this, I found that they claimed that the Speech of Allaah - the Most High - meant a speech existent in His Self (qaa'im bidh-dhaat) with letter, but not with voice. They claimed that these words are a mode of expression from the meaning existing with Himself!

From those who held to these sayings were a group of people, who had high status in my heart, such as a group of Ash'aree Shaafi'ee Scholars - and I am upon the madhhab of ash-Shaafi'ee - may Allaah be pleased with him - knowing the obligation of my Religion and its rulings. So I found the likes of these great Shaikhs adhering to the likes of such statements - and they were my teachers - and I had complete faith in them, their nobility and their knowledge. However, despite all this, I found my heart having a hatred for such ta'weel such that I could not find any tranquility and peace with it. It caused my chest to feel constricted, rather than causing it to expand.

And I used to fear affirming the attributes of al-uluww, al-istiwaa and an-Nuzool, fearing that it would imply hasr (limiting and encompassing Allaah by His creation) and tashbeeh (resembling Allaah to His creation i.e. anthropomorphism). However, despite this, when I studied the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger , I fond in them texts pointing to the reality of these meanings. I found that the Messenger clarified that which came from his Lord, as well as describing Him with them. And know - without any doubt at all - that he used to have present in his noble gatherings the Scholar and the ignorant person, the one with sharp intelligence and the not so sharply intelligent, the Arab and the non-Arab.

However, I did not find anything by which he followed up such texts with which he used to describe his Lord - neither with another text, nor with anything that would cause the meanings to removed from their haqeeqah (real meaning) or cause ta'weel to be made of them; such as the ta'weel of my Shaikhs and Scholars from the mutakallimeen (the People of theological rhetoric and innovated speech) - such as their ta'weel of al-istiwaa to isteelaa, and their ta'weel of an-Nuzool (Allaah's descending) to mean that His Command descends; and other such things. And I did not find that he used to warn the people from having faith in what was apparent in his speech describing His Lord, whether it was concerning al-Fawqiyyah (Allaah being above His creation), or al-Yadain (the Hands of Allaah), or other than them and there is nothing recorded from him which proves that these attributes have another inner meaning, other than what is apparent from their meaning...

Then Imaam al-Juwaynee - may Allaah have mercy upon him - mentions some aayaat and ahaadeeth concerning al-Fawqiyyah and al-istiwaa, then he continues:

So when we came to know this, and came to hold this as our aqeedah (belief), we were then preserved from the doubts of ta'weel, the blindness of ta'teel (divesting Allaah totally or partially of His Attributes) and the foolishness of tashbeeh and tamtheel (likening Allaah to His creation). We then affirmed for Allaah the uluww (highness) of our Lord - the Most Perfect - and His fawqiyyah and that He ascended (istawaa) over His Arsh (Throne) in a manner that befits His Majesty and Greatness. So the truth is very clear in this and the chest will readily accept this, for indeed tahreef (distortion of the text) is rejected by the correct and sound intellect, such as tahreef of istiwaa to Isteelaa (conquering) and other than this. Likewise wuqoof (affirming the wording of the attributes, but halting at their meanings) is also blindness and ignorance, since we know that our Lord described Himself with these attributes that we may come to know Him by them. So - in our knowing Him - we do not halt at affirming the wordings of the attributes, whilst negating what is intended from their meanings. Since He did not describe Himself to us by these attributes, except that we may affirm what He has described Himself with, not that we halt at them. Likewise tashbeeh and tamtheel are also foolishness and ignorance. . Thus, the one whom Allaah - Most High - causes to agree upon the affirmation (of His Attributes) - without tahreef, takyeef and wuqoof - then he has indeed agreed upon what is intended for them, if He - the Most High - wishes.

Then he - may Allaah have mercy upon him - explains the reason why Ahl ul-Kalaam (the People of Theological Rhetoric and Innovated Speech) felt that they were forced to make ta'weel of istiwaa to Isteelaa, so he said:

And Allaah expanded my chest about the state of those Shaikhs who made ta'weel of al-istiwaa to isteelaa - and it is my belief that they do not understand the attributes of the Lord - the Most High - except with what befits the creation. Thus they do not understand al-istiwaa of Allaah as it truly befits Him - so this is why they distort the words from its proper context and deny what Allaah has described Himself with. And we shall mention the explanation of that if Allaah wills.

And there is no doubt that us and them (i.e. Ash'ariyyah) agree upon affirming the attributes of al-Hayaat (Life), as-Sam' (Hearing), al-Basr (Seeing), al-Ilm (Knowledge), al-Qudrah (Power), al-Iraadah (Will) and al-Kalaam (Speech) of Allaah. And we certainly do not understand the Attribute of Life of Allaah to mean with the likes of such organs that are established in our bodies. Likewise, we do not understand the Hearing and the Seeing of Allaah to imply that there are limbs. So, just as they say: His Life is not like ours, nor is His Knowledge and Seeing, rather they are attributes in a way that is befitting to Him, not befitting us. Then we - likewise - say: His Attribute of Life is known but its kaifiyyah (the nature of how it is) is unknown. His Knowledge is known but its kaifiyyah is not. Likewise, His Seeing and Hearing are known and there is no implication of there being organs and bodily-parts in any of this - rather all these attributes are in a way that befit Him.

Likewise is the case for His 'Ayn (Eye), fawqiyyah, istiwaa and Nuzool. His fawqiyyah is known - it is established just like the reality of His Hearing and the reality of His Seeing are also established. They are known but their kaifiyyah is not. Then, similarly, His fawqiyyah is known and established in a way that befits Him, but the kaifiyyah is not. Likewise, His istiwaa (Ascending) over the Arsh (Throne) is known, but the kaifiyyah is not explained by implying movements or transmission which befit the creation - rather His istiwaa is in a manner that befits His Greatness. Thus His attributes are known from the direction of sentence and affirmation, but are unknown from the perspective of how they are and setting limits. So the Believer is clear about the attributes from one perspective and blind from the other. The Believer is clear from the perspective of affirmation and existence [of the Attributes] but blind from the perspective of their kaifiyyah and limits.

And this is the way by affirming what Allaah - the Most High - has described Himself with, and by negating tahreef, tashbeeh and wuqoof. This is what the Lord - Most High - intends for us concerning His attributes that we recognise them, have eemaan in them being haqeeqah (real) and negate any tashbeeh to them, nor to deny for Allaah His real attributes by tahreef and ta'weel. Indeed, there is no difference between Allaah's Attribute of al-istiwaa and as-Sam' and between His Attribute of an-Nuzool and al-Basr - since each occurs by a text.

So if they say to us about al-Istiwaa: You have made tashbeeh! Then we reply to them about as-Sam' (Hearing): You have made tashbeeh and have described your Lord with organs! So if they say: No organs and bodily parts, rather it is in a manner that befits Him. Then we reply about al-istiwaa and al-Fawqiyyah: There is no confinement nor limitation, rather it is in a manner that befits Him.

So whatever is necessary concerning the attributes of Life, Hearing, Seeing and Knowledge and not making any tashbeeh to them, then such is also necessitated regarding Allaah's attributes of Ascending, Descending, al-yad (Hand), al-wajh (Face), al-Qadm (Foot), ad-Dahak (Laughing) and Ta'ajjub (Amazament). So just as they do not imply for Him any organs we do not imply for Him any limbs nor anything that befits the creation. And it is not from justice and fairness that they understand the attributes of Ascending, Descending, Face and Hand to imply resemblance to the creation, and therefore they think that they must resort to ta'weel and tahreef - (yet they do not do so for the other attributes such as Life, Hearing and Seeing).

So those possessing justice and fairness will understand what we have said, take it as their belief, accept our sincere advice and will take as the Deen of Allaah the affirmation of all His attributes, negating from them any tashbeeh, ta'teel, ta'weel or wuqoof. This is what Allaah intended from us concerning this. Since all these attributes (that they affirm) and all the others (that they make ta'weel of) come from a single place - and that is the Qur'aan and the Sunnah. Thus, when we affirm one set of attributes without ta'weel, but make ta'weel and tahreef for the others, then we are like those who believed in on part of the Book, but disbelieved in another part. And this is sufficient and clear - if Allaah - the Most High - wills. [2]

This clarification from Imaam al-Juwaynee is very clear and manifest and extremely strong, there not being found any Ash'ari proponent to date who has been able to refute Imaam al-Juwaynee's line of reasoning - which in fact represents the generality of the refutation of the Salaf (past and present) against the rejectors and distorters of the Divine attributes.

Notes

[1]. He is Abu Muhammad al-Juwaynee father of the famous Imaam ul-Haramayn Abu Ma'aalee al-Juwaynee. Abu Muhammad was a Shaafi'ee faqeeh and initially followed the Ash'ariyy madhhab in aqeedah. However he retracted from this and returned to the madhhab of the Salaf - as is attested to by his book Risaalah Ithbaatul-Istiwaa wal-Fawqiyyah.

[2]. Taken from: Risaalah Ithbaatul-Istiwaa wal-Fawqiyyah (p.176-183), abridged - which is part of Majmoo'atur-Rasaa'il il-Muneeriyyah.

Source: Al-Ibaanah Magazine.

Oleh sunnimuthabbit

Jumat, 13 November 2009

Perbedaan Antara Asy'ari terdahulu dengan Asy'ari Belakangan

Here is what has been narrated regarding the early Asharis

ibn tamiyyah (rahimullah) made a distinction between the asharis, the early followers and the latter ones.

Imaam Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyyah al-Hanbali, rahimahullah, said:

"al-Ash'ari and the leaders among his followers, such as Abu'l-Hasan al-Tabari, Abu Abdallah b. Mujahid al-Bahili, Qadi Abu Bakr [al-Baqillani], are agreed on affirming the Attributes of Traditions (sifat al-khabariyyah) cited in the Qur'an, such as al-Istiwa' 'ala'l-'Arsh, al-Wajh, al-Yad, and they are agreed on the invalidation of interpreting them metaphorically,"

and ibn tamiyyah (rahimullah) said:

"However, al-Ash'ari's followers have two contradictory views on the Sifat al-Khabariyyah. The first well-known follower among them to deny these Attributes is Abu'l-Ma'ali al-Juwayni, for he denied the Traditional Attributes, and has two contradictory views regarding their metaphorical interpretation. In al-Irshad he interpreted them, then in al-Risalah al-Nizamiyyah he went back on his doctrine and prohibited metaphorical interpretation, and made clear the consensus of the Salaf on the prohibition of metaphorical interpretation, and used as proof that it is prohibited, that it is not obligatory or permitted. Thus those who followed his doctrine began to deny the Sifat al-Khabariyyah, and have two contradictory views regarding their metaphorical interpretation."

and here is what the imaam al-Baqillani said in his tamhid and hafidh dhahabi confirms this from another work of him:

"Likewise, Our saying in all that has been reported on the authority of the Messenger of God, peace upon him, concerning the Attributes of God - if its is authentic - from the affirmation of Two Hands, the Face and Two Eyes (al-yadayn wa'l-wajh wa'l-'aynayn); and I say that he comes on the Day of Resurrection in the shadows of the clouds, and that He descends to the lowest heaven - like its in the Hadith - and that He's rosen over the Throne"

Abu Hasan al-Mahdi says and its quoted in adh-Dhahabi's al-uluww:

"Know that Allah is fi'l-sama, above everything, upon His Throne with the meaning that He's rosen over it.."

this continued with other asharites such as ibn furak, al-baqillani, al-bayhaqi, and al-qushayri who affirmed the sifat al-dhat without any tawil and tahrif.

Abu'l-Qasim Abd al-Karim al-Qushayri said:

“We do not call Allah, ‘azza wa-jall, by any name by which He has not named Himself. And we believe in what has been mentioned in describing Him from all the adjectives and nouns. And we follow the successful way in what is found in the Book, the Sunnah and the Consensus of the Community. We do not follow in case of naming [Him] what is appropriate for Him just on the basis of proofs from reason or from the standpoint of the Arabic language”

then when ibn al-juwayni emerged and introduced the concepts of tawil known amongst the later-day asharites and spread across the lands, the scholars made then a difference between the early asharites and the later-day asharites. they named the latter asharites: al-ashariyyin al-muta'akkhirin or later-day asharites. Ibn 'aqil named them al-asha'irah al-'uzzal.

Ibn Rushd said:

"It has been customary for people of [our] Religion to affirm it of Allah the Almighty since the beginning, until the Mu'tazilites denied it. Later on they were followed in this denial by the later-day Ash'arites, like Abu'l-Ma'ali and his followers",

al-Qadi Abu Ya'la, the Hanbalite in his Ibtal al-Ta'wilat li Akhbar al-Sifat said:

"Abu'l-Hasan al-Ash'ari and his followers, such as Abu Bakr b. al-Baqillani, Abu Bakr b. Furak and Abu 'Ali b. Shadhan (d.426) affirm the Attributes. They do not [attempt to] rationalize their meanings and they don't carry them linguistically (i.e. by metaphors) such as [the Attributes] al-Wajh, al-Yadayn and al-'Ayn, and they don't carry al-Wajh meaning 'the essence', and al-Yadayn as 'the two favors' and al-'Ayn as.. Rather they affirm them as Attributes of Essence as the Law came with. And they confirm this in their books"

when the likes of ibn al-juwayni emerged, he said:

"I've seen some of them, i.e. interpreting these Attributes"

here is an excerpt by Abu Bakr Ibn al-Baqillani in his "Kitab al-Tamhid fi al-Radd 'ala al-Mulhida al-Mu'attilah wa'l-Rafidah wa'l-Khawarij wa'l-Mu'tazilah - wellknown simply as al-Tamhid. Beirut 1957 edition.

"If the speaker says: What is the Proof that Allah has a Face and Two Hands? Say to him: His saying {And the Face of your Lord endures forever, the Possessor of Jalal and Ikram} and His saying {What stops you from prostrating for the one I've created with My own Hands?} then He affirmed for Himself a Face and Two Hands"

Then al-Baqillani continues, saying:

"And if they say: Why do you reject that the meaing in His saying {created with My own Hands} is that He created Him by His Power or Favour?.."

"We say to them: This is null and void, for His saying {with My own Hands} follows the affirmation of Two Hands which are Attributes to Him. For if the intented meaning should be for them the Power, then it necessiate that He has Two Powers. But you claim that you profess that the Creator has one Power - then how can you permit to affirm for Him Two Powers? And the Muslims have agreed, both the affirmers of the Attributes as the deniars on [the fact] that He can not have for Him Two Powers - thus it is null and void what you've said! And likewise, it is not permitted for Allah that He created Adam by Two Favours, for the Favours of Allah on Adam and for others are not.."

what was stated above is a clear denialment of current day "ashari deduction" or interpretation regarding These ayaah which clearly shows a rift between early and later day asharis

As for such later ash'arite flag bearers, Ibn Asaakir and Fakhru-deen ar-Razi, they were way away from their predecessors.

Oleh Al-Boriqee

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

Apakah Asy'ariyah Adalah Ahlu Sunnah Wal Jama'ah

Are the Asharees from Ahlussunnah walJamaa`ah?

From: The Methodology of the Asharees in Aqeedah pp.15-21 by Safar bin Abdur-Rahmaan al-Hawaalee

The term Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa`ah is used with two separate meanings:
A. The General Meaning: which is used for those in opposition to the Shee`ah, so it is said: Those who claim adherence to Islaam are of two classes: Ahl us-Sunnah and the Shee`ah. So Shaikh ul-Islaam titled his book in reply to the Raafidees `Minhaaj us-Sunnah` and in it he made the two meanings clear, and clearly stated that the positions of the innovated sects are from the Ahl us-Sunnah only with this particular meaning [of `Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa`ah].
This meaning covers everyone except for the Shee`ah, such as the Ash`arees, especially since with regard to the subject of the companions and the khulafaa (caliphs) the Ash`arees are in agreement in methodology between them as will follow.
B. The Specific Meaning: Which is used for those in opposition to the innovators and the people of the innovated sects, and this is the more frequent usage. So when in the books of criticism of narrators when they say about a man that he was from Ahl us-Sunnah and the like, then what is meant is that he was not from one of the innovated sects such as the Khawaarij, the Mu`tazilah and the Shee`ahs and he was not a person of theological rhetoric (Kalaam) and innovated ideas.
So as for this meaning then the Ash`arees do not enter into it at all. Rather they are outside it and Imaam Ahmed and Ibn al-Madeenee have stated textually that whoever involves themselves in any theological rhetoric is not counted amongst the Ahl us-Sunnah, even if by that he arrives at the Sunnah, until he abandons debating and surrenders to the texts. So they do not lay down as a condition that a person merely agrees with the Sunnah, rather that he must take and derive with it (alone). So he who takes from the Sunnah is from its people even if he makes an error, and he derives from somewhere else is in error even if in conclusion he agrees with it. But the Ash`arees as you will see, take and derive from other than the Sunnah and they do not agree with it in their conclusions, so how can they be from its people (people of the Sunnah).
We will now quote the rulings about them from the scholars of the fours madhdhabs of fiqh, so what do you think was the position of the companions of hadeeth, the scholars of hadeeth criticism?

1. The Maalikees

The haafiz of the west and its outstanding scholar Ibn Abdil Barr reported with his chain of narration from the scholars of the Maalikees in the east Ibn Khuzaima that he said in the book of witnesses (Kitaab us-Shuhudaat) in explanation of the saying of the Maalik that it is not permissible to eccept the witness of the people of innovation and innovated sects, and he said:
`The people of the innovated sects in the view of Maalik and the rest of our Companions are the people of theological rhetoric (Kalaam). So every person of the theological rhetoric is from the people of the innovated sects and innovation: whether he is an Ash`aree, or other than an Ash`aree, and his witness is not accepted in Islaam ever. Indeed he is to be ostracized, and punished for his innovation and if he persists in it repentance is to be sought from him`
[Jaami Bayaan il-Ilmi wa Fadlihi (2/117)]
Also Ibn Abdil Barr himself reports in [Al-Ihtiqaa] from the three scholars: Maalik, Aboo Haneefah and Ash-Shaafi`ee that they forbade theological rhetoric and spoke severely against its people, and that they are innovators and are to be punished. Its like is reported by Ibn ul- Qayyim in [Ijtimaa ul-Juyoosh il-Islaamiyyah] and what are the Ash`arees except people of theological rhetoric?
Imaam Abul-Abbaas ibn Suraij known as `ash-Shaafi`ee the second` and he was a contemporary of Al-Ash`aree, said:
`We do not speak with Ta`weel (interpretation) of the Mu`tazilah, the Ash`arees, the Jahmiyyah, the apostates, the anthropomorphists (Mujassimah and Mushabbihah), the Karraamiyyah and those who declare Allaah to be like His creation (Mukayyifah - those asking about the modality of His attributes). Rather we accept them [the texts about Allaah`s attributes] without interpretation (Ta`weel) and we believe in them without declaring any likeness with the creation (Tamtheel).`

2. The Shaafi`ees


Imaam Abul-Hasan al-Kurjee, one of the Shaafi`ee scholars of the fifth century said:
`The Shaafi`ee Imaams have not ceased disdaining and detesting that they should be ascribed to al-Ash`aree and they disassociate themselves from that which al-Ash`aree built his madhdhab upon, and they forbid their companions and beloved ones from approaching it, as I have heard from a number of the shaikhs and imaams. He then gave an example of the shaikh of the Shaafi`ees of his time Imaam Aboo Hamid al-Isfaareenee who was known as `ash-Shaafi`ee the third` saying:
`The severity of the Shaikh against the people of theoretical knowledge is well known, to the point that he even made a distinction between the principles of the fiqh of ash-Shaafi`ee and the principles of the Ash`aree. Notes upon this were added by Aboo Bakr ar-Raadhiqaanee and it is with me. He was followed in this by Shaikh Aboo Ishaaq ash-Sheeraazww in his two books, `al-Lumaa` and `at-Tabsirah` to the point that if a point of al-Ash`aree agreed with one saying amongst our companions he made distinction and said: `It is the saying of the Ash`arees` and he did not include them amongst the companions of ash-Shaafi`ee. They disdained and avoided them and their madhdhab in the principles of fiqh not to mention with regard to the principles of the Religion.`
[at-Tis`eeniyyah (p. 238-239) and see `Sharhul-Asfahaaniyyah` (5:31) from the Fataawaa al- Kubraa itself]

3. The Hanafees

As is known the author of at-Tahaawiyyah and its explainers were both Hanafees, and at-Tahaawee was a contemporary of al-Ash`aree, and he wrote his Aqeedah to explain the Aqeedah of Imaam Abu Haneefah and his companions, and it is very like what is found in Fiqh al-Akbar from him. They report from the Imaam that he clearly states the Kufr (disbelief) of one who says that Allaah (swt) is not upon the Arsh (throne) or remains silent about it.
Also his student Aboo Yoosuf declares Bishr al-Maareesee to be a Kaafir, and as is well known the Ash`arees deny Allaah`s ascension and deny that He the Most High is above the Arsh (Throne) and it is also well known that their principles were taken from Bishr al-Maareesee!!
[See what is mentioned in Siyar A`laamin-Nubulaa in the Biography of Bishr 910/200-201) and al-Hamawiyyah pp.14-15)]

4. The Hanbalees

The position of the Hanbalees with regard to the Ash`arees is more famous than to need mention. So since Imaam Ahmad declared `Ibn Kullaab` to be an innovator adn ordered to be ostracized, and he was the true founder of the Ash`aree madhdhab. The Hanbalees have not ceased to be involved in a long battle with them. Even to the time of the state of Nizaam ul-Mulk in which they behaved presumptuously, and after it the Hanbalees ejected every speaker who mixed anything from the madhdhab of the Ash`arees into his speeches. Ibn ul-Qushairi was one of those who experienced this, and because their madhdhab had become so widespread, and due to the agreement of the scholars of the state, especially the Hanbalees that he should be opposed, so the Khaleefah al-Qaadir sent out al-I`tiqaad al-Qaadiree which clarified the Aqeedah which was binding upon the Ummah in the year 433H.
[See al-Muntazam of Ibnul-Jawzee, events of the year 433, 469 &475 - vols 8 & 9]
And Shaikhul-Islam (Ibn Taymiyyah) quotes in al-Istiqaamah (pp.85-86): that when Abdul-Qaadir al-Jeelaanee was asked:
`Has there ever been one who was a Walee of Allaah who was upon other than the Aqeedah of Ahmad bin Hanbal?` He replied: `That has not occurred and will not occurr.`
So the correct ruling about the Ash`arees is that they are from the Ahlul-Qiblah, about which there is no doubt, but as to their being Ahl us-Sunnah, then NO!
Whoever is upon the Ash`aree sect should fear Allaah and give up his deviant aqeedah, and take up the aqeedah of the Messenger (sas) and his companions.

Oleh Bassam Zawadi