Menyoal Ibnu Taimiyah dan Turunnya Allah ke Langit Dunia

Amongst the many scandals of the Jahmite Ash'aris is the manner of their discussion regarding Ibn Taymiyyah and the issue of when Allaah descends, whether His Throne becomes unoccupied (yakhloo minhu al-arsh) or not (laa yakhloo minhu al-arsh) - an issue spoken of by the Salaf in response to the statements being made by the Jahmites of the time.

In his lecture on the biography of Abu Hasan al-Ash'ari one amongst the Jahmite Ash'aris of Philadelphia said:

So this was their methodology, we don't say Allaah made istiwaa on the Throne "bi hadd", with a limit, with a boundary, with a barrier. So he made istiwaa over the Throne and then there is a barrier between him and the Throne, that's the takyeef, thats giving it a kaifiyyah that's, a modality and they did not used to say that. They didn't say that He made istiwaa over the Throne and the Throne became full of Him and He descends to the first heaven without the Throne becoming empty of him. They did not say nothing like that ...some people who came later who were Hanbalees said some of that stuff [with a snug smile on his face] .... OK Ibn Taymiyah used to say that [laughter from audience] he is the one who used to say that... this was not the methodology of the early Hanbalee scholars and Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (rahimahullaahu ta'aalaa) himself. So this needs to be kept in mind.

Although there are numerous issues in this statement (some of which we have addressed elsewhere) we will suffice with only the parts that have been highlighted. To see some of the previous issues clarified see these articles: Here, here and here.

Get some good background information that puts this topic into a wider historical context by reading this article: The Origins of Jahmeespeak (here).

Understanding What These Jahmites Are Upon From a Historical Perspective

First we need to look at the behaviour of the Salaf towards the likes of these Jahmites - for their negating that Allaah is above the Creation, separate and distinct from it, and we will take from the example of Abdullaah bin Abi Ja'far ar-Raazee (d. after 200H) - as is narrated by Ibn Abee Haatim in his "ar-Radd 'alal-Jahmiyyah" and which was quoted by Imaam adh-Dhahabi (in al-Uluww):



Here is a translation of the above quote:

From Saalih bin ad-Darees who said: Abdullaah began beating the head of a relative of his who held the view of Jahm. So I saw him beating him on his head with a sandal whilst saying, "No (I will not stop), (not) until you say Ar-Rahmaan ascended above the Throne, separate and distinct from His creation (ar-Rahmaanu 'alal-arsh istawaa, baa'inun min khalqihi)."

And by Ibn al-Qayyim (in Ijtimaa' Juyoosh al-Islaamiyyah):



And the translation of the above quote:

Saalih bin ad-Darees said: Abdullaah bin Abi Ja'far (ar-Raazee) began beating a relative of his - who held the view of Jahm - on his head with a sandal whilst saying, "No (I will not stop), (not) until you say Ar-Rahmaan ascended above the Throne, separate and distinct from His creation (ar-Rahmaanu 'alal-arsh istawaa, baa'inun min khalqihi)." It was mentioned by Abdur-Rahmaan bin Abi Haatim in the book "ar-Radd alal-Jahmiyyah".

The Jahmites were the first to start denying Allaah is above His creation, above the Throne, and they were the first to start denying the Sifaat Fi'liyyah or af'aal iktiyaariyyah (those actions of Allaah that are tied to His will and choice) - and this happened well over a century, if not two, before the Ash'arites were even known as a faction - so the Salaf stood to refute their falsehood, and to discipline them - and we see Abdullaah bin Abi Ja'far ar-Raazee using a sandal for someone affected with the poison of Jahm - and today - it is befitting that such people are beaten with two sandals - because they have no excuse in following the falsehood of Jahm bin Safwan which has been exposed the world over - so there is no excuse for following falsehood once its reality has been made manifest - and is there any falsehood that is not as abundantly clear than that of the Jahmites who negated their is a Lord above the heaven?

The Jahmites began to say, "Allaah is in every place" and these were the Hulooli Jahmees, and there were other Jahmites who began to say, "Allaah does not have a place", and they were the Mu'attil Jahmees, those who were saying things like, "He is not inside the universe, nor outside of the universe". And they also began to say regarding Allaah's Nuzool, "We disbelieve in a Lord that moves from His place", and they said this latter phrase in order to deny Allaah's actions such as al-istiwaa (Ascent over the Throne) and an-Nuzool (Descent). And they began reviling the narrations and raising doubts such as whether Allaah leaves the Throne when descending or not. So the Salaf stood to expose, refute and discipline such people and to clarify the truth. And you have to remember that this was almost two centuries before the As'hari madhhab was formalized and known as such.

And the Jahmites whom we are addressing in this article are simply the 20th century offsprings of those Jahmites of old - they haven't brought anything new, since falsehood merely regenerates itself and brings nothing new. So these Jahmite Ash'aris whom we are addressing they are negators of Allaah being above His creation, above His Throne, and they are negators of Allaah's istiwaa and negators of Allaah's Nuzool. And their precedence in that is their Jahmite ancestors of old.

And we have to distinguish between the earlier figures in the Ash'ari madhhab like Abu Hasan al-Ash'ari and Abu Bakr al-Baqillani from the Later Ash'aris (after Imaam ul-Haramayn al-Juwaynee, d. 478H) who simply adopted the views of the Jahmiyyah and the Mu'tazilah into their creed. Al-Ash'ari and al-Baqillani affirmed Allaah is above His Throne, with His essence, and that He has the attributes of Face, Hand and Eyes, without any of that resembling or being likened to the creation and without that necessitating for Allaah, confinement in space or being a body like the bodies. And you can see other articles on this site for a corroboration of that:

Al-Baqillani: Allah is above the Throne with His Essence, without that necessitating tajseem (here)
Al-Baqillani: Allaah is above the Throne and not in every place (here)
Al-Baqillani: Affirms sifaat Fi'liyyah (here)
Al-Baqillani: Affirms attributes of Face Hands and Eyes Without ta'weel or Takyeef (here)
Jahmite Ash'aris Shaken and Disturbed By Al-Baqillani's Affirmation al-uluww for Allaah (here)
Al-Qurtubi's Corroboration of al-Baqillani's Affirmation of al-uluww (here)

Buth the (later and contemporary) Jahmite Ash'aris negate these attributes of Allaah because they reverted back to the original roots of ta'teel which lie in the doctrines of the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah.

And their reasons are that saying that Allaah is "above" means, by necessity, declaring him to be a body, subject to non-essential, incidental attributes (a'raad, such as space, location, direction, length, breadth, depth, etc.) and also because performance of actions by Allaah means that events occur within Him and this necessitates change (which only the creation is subject to) - and in reality these claims they made were the heritage of the Jahmites as well as the fabrications of their own minds - and they are not the necessities of the clear verses of the Qur'aan and the clear ahaadeeth of the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).

Get some good background information that puts this topic into a wider historical context by reading this article: The Origins of Jahmeespeak (here).

And inshaa'Allaah we will address their doubts and misconceptions and let this article be the disciplinary sandal of Abdullah bin Abi Ja'far ar-Raazee (rahimahullaah) ...

Uncovering the Jahmite's Dishonesty and Scandalous Fraud

Before proceeding to uncover the scandal it is appropriate to demonstrate exactly how these Jahmite's behave and there is nothing more appropriate to illustrate than what has been quoted in another article:

There emerged a group who showed enmity towards Ibn Taymiyyah, some of them did not understand his words, and some of interpreted his words upon the foundational principles of those besides him, so such a one did not act justly, even if he [Ibn Taymiyyah] spoke the truth. So for example, an-Nawawee in al-Majmoo' says, "Whoever claims Allaah is a jism (body), then he is a disbeliever by the unanimous agreement of the Muslims".

And Ibn Taymiyyah when he was asked, "Can the [saying] be applied to Allaah that he is a jism (body)?". So he replied: "This is innovated speech, however I do not declare the one who says Allaah is a body (jism) to be a disbeliever". So then they said, "Ibn Taymiyyah says that Allaah is a body (jism)". Yet Ibn Taymiyyah says, "This is innovated speech" and in other places in his books, such as "Sharh Hadeeth in-Nuzool", he says, "We say to the one who says Allaah is a body (jism): What is your intent by this? If your intent is that Allaah is divisible and separable (into parts), then this is a statement of disbelief, the one who says it is more severe in disbelief than the Jews and the Christians. And if the intent of the one who says it is that Allaah is true (i.e. exists and is true and real), that He is separate from the creation (aalam) and can be alluded to, then this is an innovatory statement, but the one who says it is not a disbeliever".

Remember this well, for this is the behaviour of the Jahmite Ash'aris in what they quote from and ascribe to Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah. Pretending to wave the flag of Tanzeeh (which is in reality ta'teel and Tahreef) does not grant you authority to use deception when discussing the statements of others.

Point 1: On Integrity in Quoting and Narrating Other People's Statements

When you ascribe a viewpoint or statement to others - even if they are your opponents or adversaries - it is not permissible to fabricate lies upon them and to accuse them of originating something they did not originate when it is in fact the saying of someone else which they mentioned, discussed and evaluated.

So when we look at the book of Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah "Sharh Hadeeth in-Nuzool" - the explanation of the Hadeeth of Descent - we find that the entire book was written in response to a question.

Here is the opening page of the book:



In the opening page of the book we can see that a question has been posed to Shaykh ul-Islaam:

What does our chief and our shaykh, Shaykh ul-Islaam, the good example for mankind, may Allaah strengthen him and be pleased with him, say regarding two men who argued concerning the hadeeth of an-Nuzool (descent), one of them an affirmer and the other a negator:

The affirmer said: Our Lord descends every night to the lowest heaven when there remains the last third of the night. The negator replied: How does He descend? The affirmer replied: He descends without asking how. The negator replied: Does the Throne become unoccupied (of Him) or not become unoccupied (of Him). The affirmer replied: This is an innovated saying, and a fabricated opinion.

The negator replied: This is not my answer, rather it is evading the answer. The affirmer replied: This is your answer.

The negator replied: It is His command (amr) and mercy (rahmah) that descends. The affimer replied: His command and His mercy descend at all times (kullu saa'ah) and the descent has been specified by the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) in the last third of the night.

The negator replied: The night is not equal in the countries, for in one country the night is fifteen hours long and its day is nine hours long. And in another country it is sixteen hours long while the day is eight hours long, and vice versa. Hence, there is variation in the length and shortness of the night, according to regions and countries. And in some countries the night and day are equal, and in some countries the night extends until it lasts for most of the twenty-four hours with the day only lasting for a short time. It is necessitated from this that it is always the last third of the night, and that the Lord is always descending to the heaven.

And putting and end to this doubt and ambiguity, and subduing the people of misguidance is what is being requested.

He (Shaykh ul-Islaam) responded ...

Thus, the entire book was written in response to this question. And as we shall see, this question arose because of the doubts of the Jahmees who negated the Actions of Allaah tied to His will, the sifaat fi'iliyyah, like istiwaa and nuzool. And with no surprises - that's what the Ash'aris are upon too.

And in attempting to negate Allaah's Nuzool, they began to raise questions such as "Is Allaah always descending since it is always night at some place or other"? And "Does the Throne become unoccupied of Him or not?" And they started saying "We do not believe in a Lord that moves from His place (yazoolu an makaanihi)", intending by that to negate the sifaat fi'liyyah. This was their aim in raising these doubts.

They were the first to raise these questions of doubt and ambiguity aimed at nullifying the texts - and today's Jahmite Ash'aris simply follow their ancestry. The difference being that the very first Jahmites never had access to the philosophical ideas of the Greek and Hindu Mushriks (Atomism) which the Mu'tazili and Ash'arite Theologians used and by which they continued the work of the Jahmiyyah in stripping Allaah of His attributes based upon rational and philosophical arguments.

And this is typical of the Jahmite mindset which simply inherited the ta'teel of the Mushrik Sabean Philosophers amongst the Chaldeans of the people of Nimrod. And it is said that al-Ja'd bin Dirham (the originator of the negation of Allaah's attributes in this Ummah) was from the land of Harraan where the remnants of these people remained and he took their sayings. And then from al-Ja'd did Jahm Ibn Safwaan take his speech and popularize it.

Point 2: On Actually Understanding or Grasping What Your Opponent or Adversary is Saying or Discussing Before Ascribing to Them or Imputing Them With Anything

Ibn Taymiyyah discusses each part of the abovementioned question posed to him, and we will take up the discussion from when he discusses the issue raised by the negator in the original dialogue between the two men as to whether the Throne becomes unoccupied or not when Allaah descends.

The subject is introduced on pages 132-133, when Ibn Taymiyyah begins addressing the doubts invented by the Jahmee negators:



Ibn Taymiyyah's Commentary and Discussion on the Topic

We can summarise Ibn Taymiyyah's words on this topic in the following points:

ONE: Ibn Taymiyyah says that the person saying this maybe one who negates Allaah is above the Throne or one who affirms Allaah is above the Throne. Depending on what he believes will determine how he is to be answered. If he does not affirm Allaah is above the Throne to begin with, then his question, "Does the Throne become unoccupied of Him or not" is false speech, since it is something that follows on from Him being above the Throne. And if he affirms Allaah is above the Throne, then there is a different course of dialogue with him, and Ibn Taymiyyah covers that response over the next few pages (pp. 135-137). And as the person asking this question could be:

One who claims Allaah is in every place (like the Huloolee Jahmees), or
It could be one who says He is neither separate from the creation nor within it (like the Mu'attil Jahmees), which means He does not exist as this is something impossible, or
It could be one who affirms Allaah being above the creation but he denies the Nuzool (descent) making ta'weel of it (with Allaah's "mercy" or "command") .

Then each one has a different response, so Ibn Taymiyyah refutes each one of these and deals with the false ta'weels of the last group in detail, demolishing them from their foundations (pp.139-149).

And from the noteworthy things he mentions in the course of refuting the ta'weel of the last group is (p. 138):

And one of the negators of al-uluww (Allaah being above the heavens, above His Throne) was asked about the Nuzool (Descent) and he replied: "His command descends". And so the questioner said to him: "To you there is nothing above the universe, so from whom did the command descend? From pure nothingness?" And so he was stupefied (overcome).

TWO: Between pages 149 to 162, Ibn Taymiyyah mentions what has been reported from the affirmers (Ahl ul-Ithbaat) on the specific issue of whether when Allaah descends, does His Throne become unoccupied of Him or not? And he mentions the three sayings held by the Ahl ul-Hadeeth wal-Athar.

Here are the relevant pages where he quotes the opinions from the Salaf:



He states:

Then after all this: When He descends, does the Throne become unoccupied of Him or does it not become unoccupied? This is a different matter about which the affirmers (Ahl ul-Ithbaat) have spoken:

So amongst them are those who said: the Throne does not become unoccupied of Him, and this is transmitted from (Imaam) Ahmad bin Hanbal in his risaalah to Musaddad, and from Ishaaq bin Raahawaih, and Hammaad bin Zaid and Uthmaan bin Sa'eed ad-Daarimee and others ... (p.149)

And Ibn Taymiyyah mentions some of these narrations that have been transmitted from those whom he mentions (p. 151):

Al-Khallaal said in the book "as-Sunnah" - [mentions chain of narration]: Bishr bin as-Suraa asked Hammaad bin Zaid (d.179H): "O Abu Ismaa'eel, the hadeeth which has come: Our Lord descends to the lowest heaven, does He move from one place to another (min makaanin ilaa makaanin)? So Hammaad remained silent for a while and then said: "He is where He is (huwa fee makaanihi), and He comes close to His creation however He wills".

And the verifier of the treatise adds in the footnote, "This narration was reported by al-Uqaylee in his book ad-Du'afaa (1/142) through Ja'far al-Firyaabee. And Ibn Battah also reported it in al-Ibaanat ul-Kubraa with something similar, as occurs in Mukhtasar al-Ibaanah (p. 197) through Abu Haatim, from Sulayman bin Harb. And Ibn Taymiyyah also reported it in Dar ut-Ta'aarud al-Aql wan-Naql (2/24) and in al-Isfahaaniyyah (p. 25) and he ascribed it to al-Khallaal in Kitaab us-Sunnah.

NOTE: Bishr bin as-Suraa - he used to be a Jahmee, adh-Dhahabee quotes the saying of al-Humaydee about him, "Jahmee, it is not permissible to write from him", and adh-Dhahabee followed this up by saying, "As for Tajahhum, then he recanted from that, and his hadeeth is in the six books (of hadeeth)". And al-Bukhari says about him, as occurs in al-Meezaan, "Bishr bin as-Suraa, Abu Amr, the admonisher, theologian (mutakallim)", and Ibn Ma'een said, "thiqah". He died in 195H.

So he used to be a Jahmee, and he is the one who posed this question to Hammaad bin Zayd, in relation to the hadeeth of Nuzool, "Does He move from one place to another (min makaanin ilaa makaanin)...", and Hammaad bin Zayd (d. 179H) said, "He is where He is..." using the phrase "...huwa fee makaanihi..." and at this time the clangor made by the later Ash'arite Theologians by way of the words jihah (direction) and makaan (place, location) had not occurred, we are speaking here just after the middle of the second century, and that's around two centuries before the formalization of the Ash'ari madhhab.

And this doubt that the Jahmite Ash'aris use, it is the legacy of the Jahmites before them from the second century after hijrah - as we can clearly see from this doubt raised by Bishr bin as-Suraa.

And Ibn Taymiyyah also brings on page 151 the same narration from Ibn Battah in his al-Ibaanah.

Then on page 152 he brings another narration from Ibn Battah:

Ibn Battah said: [mentions chain of narration]: Alee bin Khushram said: Ishaaq bin Raahawaih said: I entered upon Abdullaah bin Taahir [the Ameer] and he said: "What are these ahaadeeth that you are narrating?" I said: "[About] what thing, may Allaah rectify the Ameer?" He said, "YOu are narrating that Allaah descends to the lowest heaven". I said: "Yes, the trustworthy (narrators) who also narrate the (ahaadeeth) of the ahkaam (rulings) have narrated them". He said: Does He descend and leave His Throne?" He (Ishaaq) said: I said: Is He able to descend without the Throne being unoccupied of Him?" He said: "Yes". I said: "And why are you speaking about this?"

And on page 153 Ibn Taymiyyah comments on this, saying:

And Abdullah bin Taahir - and he is the best of those who had authority over Khurasaan. He used to know that Allaah was above the Throne, but His descending became difficult for him due to his impression that this would necessitate the Throne being unoccupied of Him. So the Imaam, Ishaaq confirmed from him (that he holds) that He is above the Throne, and he said to him, "Is He able to descend without the Throne being unoccupied of Him", and the ameer said, "Yes", and Ishaaq said to him, "Why are you speaking about this?"

So he (Ishaaq) says that if He is able to do that, then it is not binding from His descending that the Throne becomes unoccupied of Him, and thus it is not permissible to object against the Nuzool (descent) because it necessitates that the Throne becomes unoccupied of Him. And this would be an easier (situation) than the objection of one who said: "There is not anything above the Throne" as a result of which (such a one) rejects both this and that (i.e. Allaah being above the Throne, and His descent).

And Ibn Taymiyyah continues on page 160, saying (about the other two views):



And this translates:

And the Ahl ul-Hadeeth have three sayings regarding this (having already covered the first on page 149):
Amongst them: The one who rejected that it should be said: It becomes unoccupied or does not become unoccupied, as al-Haafidh Abdul-Ghaniyy al-Maqdisee and others say (p.161).

And amongst them: The one who says "Rather, the Throne becomes unoccupied of Him" and Abul-Qasim Abdur-Rahmaan bin Abee Abdillaah bin Muhammad bin Mandah has authored a work which he called, "A Reply To The One Who Claimed That Allaah Is in Every Place (Fee Kulli Makaan), and To the One Who Claims Allah Does Not Have a Place (Laysa Lahu Makaan) And To The One Who Interpreted the Descent Upon Other Than the Descent"...

And the intent of Ibn Mandah (d. 475H) was to refute the Jahmiyyah, those who said that a) Allaah is in every place (the Hulooli Jahmees) and also those who claimed that b) Allaah does not have a place, which means He does not exist and this faction are those Mu'attil Jahmees who said "He is not outside the creation, nor within the creation" and also c) those who made ta'weel of the nuzool to something else.

And here some of the Salaf used the word "makaan" in response to the sayings of the Jahmiyyah (see further below) - and they used this word when quoting what the Jahmiyyah were saying and clarifying the truth in that regard, and their intent was clear - that Allaah exists, separate and distinct from His creation and that Allaah is where He is, above His Throne, above the seven heavens, without that necessitating enclosure, since there is nothing in existence, outside of and separate and distinct from the creation, except the Creator - in opposition to the Jahmites who began to say either a) He is in every place or b) He is not in any place. So some of the Salaf like Hammaad bin Zayd (d. 179H), said - in relation to the Nuzool, which the Jahmites (both the Hulooli and Mu'attil types) tried to reject - "huwa fee makaanihi" meaning, He is where He is (above the Throne) and He comes close to His creation however He wills.

And we are speaking here just after the middle of the second century (i.e. around 150H) and the clangor of the Mutakallimoon Ash'arite Theologians about terms they began using such as "makaan" (space, location) and "jihah" (direction) and enclosure by space (tahayyuz) and so on - in order to deny Allaah's uluww (ascendancy with His Essence) - had not happened at this point. That happened well over a century after (at the end of the third and beginning of the fourth century) when they inherited the legacy of the Mu'tazilah and Jahmiyyah (in denial of the attributes).

Note: The Ibn Mandah (d. 470H) referred to here by Shaykh ul-Islaam is the son of the other Ibn Mandah (d. 395H) who also wrote "ar-Radd alal-Jahmiyyah" and on page 174, after discussing the risaalah of Ibn Mandah (the son), Ibn Taymiyyah says: "The generality of the refutation of Ibn Mandah is sound and applies to them, however he added certain things on account of which innovation was ascribed to him, and this is why they used to prefer his father, Abu Abdullaah [Ibn Mandah (d.395H)] over him, and Ismaa'eel bin Muhammad bin al-Fadl at-Taymee and others used to speak about him (the son) regarding that as is well known about them."

THREE: And between these pages (pp.149-161) Ibn Taymiyyah mentions narrations from the Salaf in this regard which show the doubts raised by the Jahmites - and from them:

What is narrated by Abu Bakr al-Athram in "as-Sunnah" regarding Fudayl bin 'Iyaad (d.187H)

Ibraaheem bin al-Ash'at said: I heard Fudayl bin 'Iyaad say: When a Jahmee says to you, "I disbelieve in a Lord that moves from His place (yazool an makaanihi)" then say, "I believe in a Lord that does what He wills".

And Ibn Taymiyyah explains this by saying:

Al-Fudayl bin Iyaad (may Allaah have mercy upon him) intended to oppose the Jahmee who says that no actions tied to will and choice (al-af'aal al-ikhtiyaariyyah), actions tied to Allaah's will) are established with Him, and thus, we cannot imagine about Him that He "comes (majee')" or "arrives (Ityaan)" or "descends (Nuzool)" or "ascends (istiwaa)" and other such actions from the actions tied to will and choice (al-af'aal al-ikhtiyaariyyah) that are established with Him. So al-Fudayl said: When a Jahmee says to you, "I disbelieve in a Lord that moves from His place (yazool an makaanihi)" then say, "I believe in a Lord that does what He wills". So he commanded him to believe in a Lord that does what He wills of the actions that are established with His Self, and which He wills, he (al-Fudayl) did not mean the performed actions (occurring in the creation, that Allaah creates) separate from Him [but he meant the actions established with His Self]. And the likes of this is what has been reported from al-Awzaa'ee (d. 157H) and others from the Salaf, that they said regarding the hadeeth of Nuzool: "He does what He wills".

And Ibn Taymiyyah quotes from al-Laalikaa'ee, who narrates Ahmad bin Alee al-Abaar that he said:

I heard Yahyaa bin Ma'een (d. 233H) say: When you hear a Jahmee say: "I disbelieve in a Lord that descends", then say: believe in a Lord that does what He wishes".

And then Ibn Taymiyyah refutes the opinion of the Mutakallimoon (Theologians, amongst the Ash'arees) and others who tried to use the saying of al-Fudayl bin Iyaad "I believe in a Lord that does what He wills" to mean that Allaah creates the action of "Nuzool" in something else that is separate from Him (i.e. something in the creation) and thus when it is said, "Allaah's Nuzool" it is not an action established with Allah but an action that Allaah created, established in other than Him - making the fi'l (action) to be the maf'ool (that which is done). So Ibn Taymiyyah explains that they say this because

To them the actions of Allaah refer to actions He creates in the creation which are established with other than Himself, and that He does not perform actions Himself as such and
They deny that any affairs (actions) that are tied to His Will occur from Him, because this necessitates in their view that He undergoes changes (hawaadith, events).

So Ibn Taymiyyah refutes them on this issue (pp. 155-160) and establishes that what al-Fudayl bin Iyaad meant by his saying was to establish those actions for Allaah that are tied to His will and choice (al-fi'l al-ikhtiyaariyy).

FOUR: With respect to Ibn Mandah (the son), Shaykh ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah discusses his viewpoint in the risaalah that he wrote (referred to ealier) and he spends the next 40 pages summarising what Ibn Mandah (the son) said. Ibn Mandah was attempting to refute three groups of people who all denied the Nuzool but in different ways. And they were

The Hulooli Jahmites who said Allaah is in every place
The Mu'attil Jahmites who said Allaah is not in any place
the Mutakallimoon who made ta'weel of the Nuzool - doing that on account of their belief that Allaah has no Sifaat Fi'liyyah (actions tied to Allaah's will).

And Ibn Mandah also wrongly held that those who clarified that when Allaah descends, He is able to descend without the Throne becoming unoccupied of Him, - and they said that in response to the Jahmites who were saying, "I disbelieve in a Lord that moves from His place" - he (Ibn Mandah) held that by saying such a thing, they also denied the Nuzool, due to his mistaken notion that Nuzool can only be by the Throne becoming unoccupied of Him.

We can summarize and highlight the main points from the 40 page discussion with the following points:

(A) Ibn Taymiyyah covers the critique of Ibn Mandah (the son) upon the authenticity of the risaalah of the Imaam Ahmad to Musaddad in which there occurs, "and then He (Allaah) descends to the lowest heaven and the Throne does not become unoccupied of Him (laa yakhloo minhu al-arsh)..." - as this opposes Ibn Mandah's opinion and methodology of refuting the Jahmees, so he argues that it is not authentically ascribed to Imaam Ahmad. However, this risaalah is established from Imaam Ahmad, and Ibn Taymiyyah says (p. 201):

As for the risaalah of Ahmad bin Hanbal to Musaddad bin Musrahad, then it is well known to Ahl ul-Hadeeth was-Sunnah from the companions of Ahmad and others, they all took it with acceptance. And Abu Abdullah Ibn Battah mentioned it in his book "al-Ibaanah", and more than one (person) relied upon it, and wrote (a copy of it) with his own script, such as al-Qaadee Abu Ya'laa.

(B) Ibn Taymiyyah mentions that Ibn Mandah (the son) narrated all the ahaadeeth on the subject and said that none of them mention that the Throne becomes unoccupied of Him and he treats those who said "Allaah descends and the Throne does not become unoccupied of him..." [and they said this in refutation of the Jahmiyyah] to be the same as those who say, "No space is empty of Him" and those who say, "Allaah is in no place". And Ibn Taymiyyah comments on this view of Ibn Mandah (the son) saying:

I say: Those who speak with that (from the Ahl ul-Hadeeth) [meaning those who say "the Throne does not become unoccupied of Him"] did not say: "This wording is in the hadeeth", and there is not anything in the hadeeth that "the Throne does not become unoccupied of Him" or "the Throne becomes unoccupied of Him" as is claimed by those who claim that. So there is nothing in the hadeeth, neither the wording of those who affirm that, nor the wording of those who negate that...

(C) Ibn Taymiyyah mentions what Ibn Mandah (the son) quotes from his father (d. 395H) on page 175-176:

My father said in refuting the one who made ta'weel of the descent (an-nuzool) to other than the descent and who sought to use fabricated ahaadeeth to nullify the authentic narrations: "And al=Mareesee (d. 218H) claimed that he speaks with the hadeeth of descent, but he distorted it in front of those who attended his gathering, and in his khutbah he rejected what Allaah revealed of proofs in His Book, and what the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) explained in that He descends with His Essence (bi dhaatihi), and he interpreted the descent figuratively to mean "Command (al-amr)" and "Prohibition (an-nahee)", not a real descent, and he claimed that their scholars, knowledgeable of the usool declare Allaah free of movement (changing places), and so he nullified everything that has been narrated on this subject, since his madhhab is other than what is manifest from the hadeeth, and (due to) his dependence upon the futile figurative interpretation, and corrupt understanding...

And after Ibn Mandah (the son's) quote from his father, Ibn Taymiyyah said (p.179):

So this is what Abdur-Rahman (Ibn Mandah) quoted from the speech of his father, and his father was more knowledgeable than him, had greater understanding and was more upright and exact in his speech.

(D) Ibn Taymiyyah continues to cover Ibn Mandah's reply and documents the part where Ibn Mandah treats those who say, "I disbelieve in a Lord that descends and ascends" to be the same as those who say, "I believe in a Lord [whose] Throne does not become unoccupied of Him" - and he considers both of these to be negators of Allaah's Nuzool. This is because of his erroneous understanding of the hadeeth, as Ibn Taymiyyah points out himself. Ibn Taymiyyah says regarding the likes of al-Fudayl bin Iyaad and what they said (i.e. "I believe in a Lord that does what He wills"):

It is known that the intent of those (i.e. the likes of al-Fudayl bin 'Iyaad and Yahyaa bin Ma'een) was to affirm al-fi'l al-ikhtiyaariyy (the action of Allaah tied to His will) that is established with Him. However, alongside this, there is nothing in their speech that shows that they believed that the Throne became unoccupied of Him, or that He does not remain upon the Throne (due to His descent) - as Abdur-Rahmaan has mentioned and as he claims is the meaning of the hadeeth.

Here Ibn Taymiyyah (p. 182) declares Ibn Mandah (the son) to be in error with regard to his understanding of the hadeeth itself (of an-Nuzool) and of what some of the Salaf said in refuting the Jahmiyyah (like al-Fudayl and Yahyaa bin Ma'een).

The essence of what Ibn Taymiyyah discusses in this section is that Ibn Mandah wrongly thought that when they (the Salaf) said "We believe in a Lord that does what He wills", that they understood the Throne to become unoccupied of Him and that He no longer remains above the Throne - and he (Ibn Mandah) thought that this is a defense of the affirmation of the descent (an-nuzool) and that anyone who denied this was negating the descent (an-nuzool) but he was mistaken in that - and as a result of some of what he put in this book he was spoken against, as Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned previously.

Although we have not finished this article yet, the deception and scandal of the Jahmite Ash'ari in his casual and snide remark in what we have quoted from him at the very beginning should be manifestly clear at this stage, even though we have not finished yet. Ibn Taymiyyah is simply discussing the various viewpoints held by the Ahl ul-Hadeeth wal-Athar regarding questions and doubts raised first by the Heretical Jahmites to whom they were responding. And these Heretical Jahmites began saying "Does Allaah move from His place?" and "Does the Throne become unoccupied of Him?" and so on, and so they invented these phrases and these doubts and the Salaf investigated these sayings with a view to arriving what is correct regarding them.

And we see the Ash'arites after them, who acquired the tools of the Greek and Hindu philosophical concepts which they entered into their theology and used to negate Allaah's uluww and Allaah's Sifaat Fi'liyyah - in the same vain as that of the Jahmites before them - and they inherited the legacy of the Jahmites, and they also retained the influence of the Mu'tazilites and adopted the ta'weels of Bishr al-Mareesee al-Hanafee al-Jahmee.



FIVE: Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah at the end of this section, after mentioning all of the narrations that Ibn Mandah (the son) included in his treatise, then says on pages 200-201:





You should pay very close attention here, as this represents the essence of the whole discussion on this issue:

... and he (meaning Ibn Mandah) shows rejection against the one who says "the Throne does not become unoccupied of Him", and he considers this (statement) to be the same as the one who says, "He is in every place" and (the same) as the one who says, "He is not in a place".

And his (Ibn Mandah's) speech is of the same category of speech as the faction that thinks that only two sayings are possible:

The saying of the one who says: He descends with a descent in which His Throne becomes unoccupied of Him
The saying of the one who says: There isn't any descent at all, to begin with - such as the saying of the one who says: He does not have any action established with His self that occurs out of His choice.

And these two groups [i.e. Ibn Mandah on the one hand and the Mutakallimoon, those who negate the sifaat fi'liyyah]: There is no Nuzool in their view except the Nuzool that the bodies of the servants are described with, [that] which necessitates the vacating of one space and occupying of another.

Amongst them [the first group] are those who negate the descent (an-nuzool) from Him, freeing him from the likes of that.
And amongst them [the second group] who affirm for him a descent of this type, which necessitates vacating a place and occupying another.

So those (the first, those negating the nuzool) say (to the second group), "This is falsehood", thus the first saying is incumbent - just as those who oppose them (the second group) say (to the first group) "That saying is falsehood", so the second saying is incumbent.

And they (the second group, such as the likes of Ibn Mandah) carry the speech of the Salaf, "He does what He wills" to mean that it is a descent in which His Throne becomes unoccupied of Him, and those who oppose them (from the Mutakallimoon) carry it upon the meaning that (Allaah doing what He wills means) it is an action separate from Allaah [meaning Allaah does not do the action of Nuzool, but creates the act in something other than Him, thus making it from His maf'oolaat and not His af'aal].

And to sum up: Those who say that the Throne becomes unoccupied of Him are a very small faction amongst Ahl ul-Hadeeth. And the majority of them are upon (the view) that His Throne does not become unoccupied of Him (laa yakhloo minhu al-arsh), and this is what is reported from the Imaams known for the Sunnah.

And there has not been reported from any single one of them with an isnaad that is authentic or weak that the Throne becomes unoccupied of Him and what Abdur-Rahman (Ibn Mandah) has mentioned about weakening those narrations from Ishaaq (bin Raahawaih), then we have mentioned the other established narration which Ibn Battah and others have reported.

And we mentioned also the wording established from Sulayman bin Harb and Hammaad bin Zayd, reported by al-Khallaal and others.

As for the risaalah of Ahmad bin Hanbal to Musaddad bin Musrahad, then it is well known to Ahl ul-Hadeeth was-Sunnah from the companions of Ahmad and others, they all took it with acceptance. And Abu Abdullah Ibn Battah mentioned it in his book "al-Ibaanah", and more than one (person) relied upon it, and wrote (a copy of it) with his own script, such as al-Qaadee Abu Ya'laa.

The affair is crystal clear. Ibn Taymiyyah has simply narrated what has come from the likes of Imaam Ahmad, Ishaaq bin Raahawaih, Hammaad bin Zaid and others all of whom clarified that Allaah does not have to leave the Throne in order to descend, and this clarification was made in response to the Jahmites, the Huloolis and the Mu'attils amongst them, who attempted to negate the Nuzool in their own ways - amongst which was their saying, "I disbelieve in a Lord that moves from His place (yazoolu an makaanihi)" . So the Salaf clarified that Allaah does whatever He wills and His Nuzool does not mean He leaves the Throne and becomes encompassed within the Creation - and this is what the Jahmites intended, and they reviled these narrations which were reported through tawaatur (successive, large-scale transmission).

Get some good background information that puts this topic into a wider historical context by reading this article: The Origins of Jahmeespeak (here).

So we request the Philadelphian Jahmite Ash'ari to recant and to make clarification of his error in his claim about Ibn Taymiyyah, that he was the one who originated this matter. Rather it was the theological ancestors of this Jahmite who initiated this matter in the time of the likes of Abdullah Ibn al-Mubaarak, Hammaad bin Zayd, and Fudayl bin Iyaad, and these Scholars clarified the truth, as did Imaam Ahmad and Ishaaq bin Raahawaih.

Its no surprise that it was the Jahmites who stirred this issue against Ishaaq bin Raahawaih by complaining to the Ameer Abdullaah bin Taahir about his narrating the ahaadeeth of Nuzool, exactly as they have come.

And its no surprise that the same Jahmites stirred this issue in the time of Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah.

And its no surprise that it is the same species of Mareesee Jahmite in our times, the likes of al-Kawtharee, al-Habashee and their followers and tail-ends who have stirred this issue against Ahl us-Sunnah - there precedence in all of that being none other than al-Ja'd bin Dirham and al-Jahm bin Safwan.

SIX: Right at the very end of this book "Sharh Hadeeth in-Nuzool" Ibn Taymiyyah states what is obligatory in this matter (p. 459):



Ibn Taymiyyah said:

And that which it is obligatory [to speak with] definitively: Is that Allaah, there is nothing that is a likeness to Him in everything that He has described Himself with. Thus, anyone who describes Him with the likeness of the attributes of the creation in anything from amongst the things, then he is errant, definitively, absolutely. Such as the one who says, "He descends, undergoing motion and movement (yataharrak, yantaqil) just like a person descends from the roof to the lowest part of the house" and like the saying of the one who says, "His Throne becomes unoccupied of Him, and so His descent is vacating one space and occupying another", and this is baatil (false), it is obligatory to free the Lord from this, as has preceded.

And here Ibn Taymiyyah has made it very clear - that those who speak about Allaah's Nuzool in the terms of what is found in the creation - are speaking with falsehood - and that it is obligatory to free Allaah from this.

POINT 3: What is Now Obligatory Upon the Jahmite Ash'ari Who Sought To Accuse Ibn Taymiyyah Of Originating This Matter

After everything that has preceded the Jahmite Ash'ari has no option except to apologise and recant for what he said. More specifically, it would be befitting and in accord with the truth for him to say:

I take back my mockery and sarcasm against Ibn Taymiyyah when I implied he was amongst the first of those who said that Allaah's Throne does not become unoccupied of Him when He makes the Nuzool. I acknowledge my factual error in this regard and accept that in actual fact this is narrated from the Salaf and Ibn Taymiyyah was simply discussing why and how this issue arose and he quoted specifically from Imaam Ahmad and others. So I am mistaken in that regard and take this back.

I realise that my Jahmite belief of negating that Allaah is above the Throne, above the seven Heavens, does not in any way allow me to misrepresent the words of my opponent, or to falsely accuse my opponent of something that did not originate with him, and that I should apply the Qur'anic principle of not letting hatred of a people prevent from abiding by justice.

I acknowledge the feebleness of my intellect, in fact, the feebleness of the intellects of a thousand Jahmites like me combined, compared to that of Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah and I now understand and appreciate what adh-Dhahabee means when he says, in his various statements of praise for Ibn Taymiyyah:

...the prodigy of the era, author of amazing works, and (a manifestation) of excessive intelligence...His associates and also his enemies humble themselves in front of his sciences, acknowledge the swiftness of his understanding, that he is a river which has no banks (i.e. no end), a treasure for which there is no equal...He would not approach (any matter) with a faulty and evil understanding, rather he had excessive intelligence. And nor would he approach any matter with lack of knowledge, for he was an overflowing ocean, having firm knowledge and insight of the Book and the Sunnah, without there being any equal to him in that... 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...

For Ibn Taymiyyah discussed the issue with breadth and depth - and taking it all from the Salaf - and it wasn't simply something he said of his own accord, and what I stated was simply an ignorant and shallow statement that completely misrepresents the truth of the situation.

I acknowledge that it was actually the Jahmites who originated this issue - those with whom I share the belief that Allaah is not above His Throne, above His creation, and that He does not have actions tied to His Will and Choice - they (the early Jahmites) originated this issue in order to deny the Nuzool - something which I also do - following them in that.

Following on from the last point, I acknowledge that the reason why this issue arose was because my Jahmite Ancestry began to say "Allah is in every place" and "Allah is in no place", and "It is not Allah that descends, but His Command, or His Mercy that descends" and "I disbelieve in a Lord that moves from His place" and so when my Jahmite Ancestry began to raise these issues, the likes of Hammaad bin Zayd, Abdullah Ibn al-Mubaarak, Fudayl bin Iyaad, Ishaaq bin Raahawaih and others stood to clarify the truth and to warn from falsehood - and that this was in the middle to the end of the second century, well before the likes of Abul-Hasan al-Ash'ari and Abu Bakr al-Baqillani.

I acknowledge the severity of the Salaf in dealing with the poison of Jahm (of negating Allah being above the Throne, and negating His having sifaat Fi'liyyah), such as what was done by Abdullah bin Abi Ja'far with his relative who began speaking with the speech of Jahm - and I realise that all of this took place centuries before the later Ash'arite Mutakallimoon acquired this same Jahmite poison into their kalaamist theology - and this helps me to position my own Jahmite aqeedah more accurately in terms of what its real sources and roots are.

I understand the importance of actually understanding what my opponent said, and what he actually wrote before opening my mouth, and so I resolve not to do this again.

sumber:The Philadelphian Jahmite Ash'ari Scandals Of 2009: Regarding Ibn Taymiyyah, Allaah's Nuzool and the Jahmee Invented Doubt Concerning Whether the Throne Becomes Unoccupied or Not

Lagi, Pernyataan Al-Baqillani yang Bertentangan dengan Asy'ari-Jahmiy

In a previous article we quoted from one of the earliest and perhaps second most important figure in the formalization of the Ash'ari Madhhab, Qaadee Abu Bakr al-Baqillani, on the subject of where is Allaah, from his book "at-Tamheed".

This has disturbed the Ash'ari Jahmites, and they have started, as usual, to try and patch up the psychological comfort they need to maintain their belief in a madhhab as contradictory and confusing as the Ash'ari madhhab which is a in reality a mixture of:

The usool of the Mu'tazilah (the bulk of their positions are based on the usool of the Mu'tazilah by which they have been influenced - many of their differences with the Mu'tazilah are on subsdidiary issues)
Ilm ul-Kalaam
The sayings of Ibn Kullaab who preceded al-Ash'ari (amongst which is affirming the seven attributes)
And the adoption of much of the ta'weels of the Mu'tazilah and Jahmiyyah who preceded them, and their Imaam (chief and leader) in all of that being Bishr al-Mareesee.

And inshaa'Allaah this will be amply demonstrated on this site.

The Statement of al-Baqillani

Let's revisit al-Baqillani's statement again:



Chapter: And if someone says: Where is He? It is said to him: Asking where (al-ayn) is asking about place (al-makaan) and He is not one that a place (makaan) is permitted to enclose (yahwee), and nor [one that] places can encompass. Except that we say: Indeed He is Above His Throne, [but] not with the meaning of a body [being as such] through contact and adjacency, Exalted is He above that with a Lofty Exaltation.

Notes and Comments

First: al-Baqillani raises the issue of someone asking "Where" regarding Allaah. He kind of disapproves of the raising of this question through his next couple of sentences. Since all creation is either substance (jawhar) or accident ('arad) to the Mutakallimoon (the Jahmite, Mu'tazilite and Ash'arite theologians) - and since space or location are unessential attributes of substances (bodies), then designating space or location, necessitates, according to them, enclosure by space, and thus being a body like the created bodies.

And our approach, the sound Sunni approach is to halt at all words not used in the Book or the Sunnah. Ibn Taymiyyah said in Dar' ut-Ta'aarud (1/133):

And when these words are general, then the one addressing them (i.e. addressing those using them) should either clarify and say [to them], "What do you mean by these words". If they explain them with the meaning that agrees with the Qur'aan, they are accepted. If they explain them in opposition to that, they are rejected. And either he withholds from agreeing with them in speaking with these words, in negation or affirmation. And if he withholds himself in speaking with these words with them, they will accuse him of incapacity and severance (i.e. withdrawing). And if he speaks with these terms with them they will accuse him of applying those words that contain both truth and falsehood, and they will then make the ignorant ones to think that the application of those words encompasses false meanings from which Allaah is to be declared free of".

So we say: If it is meant by al-makaan (place) that Allaah is contained by space such as is observed in the creation, where all things are contained in space by virtue of their being within the creation, then this meaning is false. And if it is meant by al-makaan, Allaah's existence outside of the creation (where the notion of "enclosure by space" is impossible for Allaah), then we affirm this meaning and simply say, "Allaah is above the Throne".

Second: There is no one from those who affirm that Allaah is above the Throne, above the Creation - following the Salaf in that - who holds that Allaah is enclosed by space and is therefore a body. These are only things made binding in the minds of the people of Kalaam. So they make analogies for Allaah with the creation. They think that since in this creation substances (body) only exist surrounded by space, and as such they can be said to have direction or location by virtue of that, then as Allaah is not like His creation, we have to negate from Him having direction (jihah) and location (makaan).

And if anyone says "Allaah is above the Throne", they (the Jahmite Ash'aris) resemble Allaah being above the Throne to what they see and observe in the creation (of substances and bodies having attributes including space and direction), and so they say "you have attributed direction and location to Allaah and have likened him to the created bodies". So the sickness is really in their mind, but they want to project that sickness onto others.

If you (i.e. Jahmite Ash'ari) say,

Although no one verbally says this (i.e. that Allaah is enclosed by space and therefore a body), this is nevertheless, the implication of your belief that Allaah is, in reality, above the Throne

Then you have just judged the Qur'aan and the Sunnah, and hundreds of statements, if not thousands, from the Companions and their Successors, and the Salaf in general, to be speaking with what is in your view apparent kufr and shirk.

And on top of this, this is without there being even a single indication in all of those verses, ahaadeeth and statements, that Allaah is not above the Throne in a true and real sense, but only in a metaphorical sense. Rather, we find the Imaams of the Sunnah, before al-Baqillani and al-Ash'ari were born, condemning those who denied Allaah was above His Throne (with His Essence), such as the Jahmites who said He is in every place (with His Essence). And their statements in this regard are numerous. See this article for details.

So speaking with what the Book and the Sunnah spoke with does not necessitate the false implications that are imposed by the Theologians and their followers who speak with the poison of the Greek and Hindu Philosophers and their Kalaam theology.

The pagan Philosophers (such as the Greeks and Hindus) who came before, attempted to classify and categorize reality according to their logic, intellect, observation and reflection and so they said that all existence is either substance (jawhar) or accident ('arad) and that accidents cannot exist in and of themselves but need substances (jawaahir). The Ash'arites simply took this philosophy, refined it a little and then used it to prove Allaah's existence by demonstrating the created, temporal nature of the universe.

But then when that became a fundamental element of their expression and explanation of their creed (it became standard in all their books), they were influenced by it in other affairs, such as Allah's uluww, Allaah's attributes that are tied to His Will, al-Qadr and so on.

Third: However, al-Baqillani was shrewd and was more sound and coherent than the later ones, and the truth and obviousness of Allaah being above the Throne in truth and in reality is so powerful that al-Baqillani had do say: "Except that we say: Indeed He is Above His Throne...". And in his words "ghayr annaa naqoolu", "Except that we say: ..." indicates this.

Then he says straight after this:

[...but] not with the meaning of a body [being as such] through contact and adjacency, Exalted is He above that with a Lofty Exaltation

In other words we affirm that Allaah is above the Throne - as that cannot be denied - however not with the meaning of a body [being as such] through contact and adjacency. In other words he affirms Allaah being above the Throne whilst negating an incorrect meaning. And if an affirmation is made along with the denial of an incorrect meaning, it shows that there is a correct meaning: that He is above the Throne without being enclosed by space and nor being a body (jism) - since that is only characteristic of created bodies - and that does not apply to Allaah, the Creator. And if this meaning was impossible al-Baqillani would not have said, "Except that we say: Indeed He is Above His Throne...".

Fourth: Some of the confused Jahmite Ash'aris have tried to claim that al-Baqillani is denying that Allaah is above His Throne, despite him clearly and explicitly stating as such. So they have said that al-Baqillani is denying makaan and jihah (place and direction) and is denying Allaah being a body and showing disapproval of the question "Where".

However, they can't explain al-Baqillani saying: "Except that we say: Indeed He is Above His Throne...". This has really disturbed them, and they have no real answer to this. And adh-Dhahabi confirms in Mukhtasar al-uluww, that al-Baqillani affirms Allaah's aboveness (see this article) and the quote below. And likewise al-Qurtubi (considered an Ash'ari) also confirms that al-Baqillani holds Allaah to be above the Throne with His Essence (bi dhaatihi) - see this article.

Fifth: al-Baqillani said in his book "al-Ibaanah" as quoted from him by Imaam adh-Dhahabi in his Mukhtasar al-Uluww:



Then if it is said: "Do you say that He is in every place?"

It is said (in reply): "Refuge is with Allaah, rather He is ascended (mustawinn) above His Throne, just as He informed [us] in His Book, saying, "Ar-Rahmaan has ascended above the Throne", and He said, "The good word (al-kalim ut-tayyib) ascends up to Him", and He said, "Do you feel secure that He who is above the heaven ..." ... [he, al-Baqillani said]: And if He was in every place, then He would have been in a man's stomach, his mouth, and in the [public] toilets, and it would be necessitated that He increases with the increase of spaces (places) when He creates of them those that did not previously exist, and it would be correct that [people turn to Him], seeking Him towards the earth, and to behind of us, and to our right and our left. And the Muslims are agreed upon what opposes this and [agreed] upon declaring the one who says this to be erroneous..."

Finally: Refer back to the speech of Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah quoted earlier and you will see the methodology of these people. When you say, "Allaah is above His Throne", and you use the speech of Allaah and the speech of His Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and the sayings of the Companions, and the great Imaams of the Salaf, these Jahmites respond with: "You've affirmed makaan (place) and jihah (direction) and jism (body) for Allaah". Now, where have they taken this from?

How can it be that when you speak with the manifest, clear speech of Allaah, these people respond to you with statements that are made on the basis of underlying concepts that have been derived from the Greek and Hindu Philosophers? And they make binding that speaking with the apparent, manifest verses of the Qur'an is tantamount to kufr and shirk.

The reason why they do this goes back to their adoption of philosophical and rational principles that are a crucial and fundamental aspect of their creed, and unfortunately, it does not remain just as a means to prove Allaah's existence, it actually affects a wider range of their views in the affairs of creed, as will be demonstrated inshaa'Allaah.

However, these statements of al-Baqillani pose a particular problem for the later Jahmite Ash'aris in that he affirms Allah is above His Throne, above the Heaven, whilst negating from Him enclosure by space and being a body (jism) - and this is besides al-Baqillani's affirmation of the attributes of Face, Hands, and Eyes for Allaah, which today's Jahmite Ash'aris would consider Tajseem (see this article). In fact, al-Baqillani went further and refuted the very ta'weels of the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah that today's Jahmites Ash'aris have adopted!

sumber:Jahmite Ash'aris Shaken and Disturbed By al-Baqillani's Statements Concerning Allah Being Above The Throne

Asy'ariyah dan Filsafat Yunani

All of the major books of the Ash'arites discuss the created nature of the universe through Aristotle's substance and accident (jawhar and 'arad) and also adopt the "Atomism" theory of some of the Greek Philosophers. It actually constitutes a fundamental and crucial aspect of their theology. By way of example, it is found discussed in the following:

The books of al-Baqillani, "at-Tamheed" and "al-Insaaf"
The book of Abdul-Qahir (Abu Mansur) al-Baghdadi (d. 429H), "Usool ud-Deen"
"al-Farq Bayn al-Firaq" of Abdul Qahir (Abu Mansur) al-Baghdadi
"al-Ghunyah Fee Usool ud-Deen" of Abu Sa'd an-Neesabooree (d. 478H)
"ash-Shaamil Fee Usool ud-Deen"
"al-Irshaad"
"Lum' al-Adillah" of Abdul Malik al-Juwaynee (d. 478H)
"al-Iqtisad fil-I'tiqaad" of al-Ghazali
"Nihayat ul-Aqdaam" of ash-Shahrastani
"al-Arba'een fee Usool ud-Deen" of ar-Raazee
"Asaas ut-Taqdees" of ar-Raazee
"Ma'aalim Usool ud-Deen" of ar-Raazee
"al-Mawaaqif" of al-Eejee

We have already quoted in a previous article from al-Baqillani, his saying in his book at-Tamheed:

Chapter: The Types Of Muhdathaat (Non-Eternal, Temporal, Created Things)

And all of the muhdathaat divide into three categories: A jism (body) made up (of individual atoms), the individual atom (jawhar), and the non-essential incidental attribute ('arad) that is present with bodies (ajsaam) and substances (jawaahir)...

Abdul-Malik al-Juwaynee said in ash-Shaamil fee Usool ud-Deen (p.143):

The Islamics are all agreed that in their divisibility, bodies (al-ajsaam) end up as individual ([indivisible] parts)... and this is what the erudite amongst the geometricians have tended to, they call an indivisible part to be a point (in space) and they declared definitively that a point does not divide further.

And Abdul-Qahir al-Baghdadi says in al-Farq Bayn al-Firaq (p.315):

And they [the Ash'aris] are agreed that the components of the universe are of two types: jawaahir (substances, meaning atoms) and a'raad (accidents, unessential attributes) ...

And Abu Sa'd an-Neesabooree says in al-Ghunyah Fee Usool ud-Deen (p.49-50):

The "universe" is: a noun for every existing thing except for Allaah - the Most High - and it is divided into two types: jawaahir (substances, meaning atoms) [and] a'raad (accidents, unessential attributes)...

Ar-Raazee said in Ma'aalim Usool ud-Deen (p.32):

Speaking with al-Jawhar al-Fard (Atomism) is true...

These are just some examples.

The Ash'aris held that knowing Allaah can only be perfected through rational evidence, and deemed observation and deduction of evidence to be obligatory upon everyone. In this, they simply followed the Mu'tazilah before them, whose method they took and refined somewhat.

The Ash'aris said that it was obligatory upon everyone to know and understand the intellectual demonstration of the created and temporal nature of the universe through the notion of al-jawhar wal-'arad (substance and accident) which in turn proves the existence of a creator.

However, the use of al-jawhar wal-'arad and the Atomism theory did not just stop there. Some of the contemporary Ash'arites have attempted to defend the use of their scholars of al-jawhar wal-'arad and Atomism, claiming that though this is not found in the Book and the Sunnah, it is a general intellectual proof that all religious factions (Christians, Jews etc.) use to demonstrate the existence of a Creator and that's all the Ash'aris used it for.

And this is plainly false because it's not all that they used it for. It influenced them in other areas of creed, especially in relation to Allaah's attributes and those actions of His tied to His Will. This will be covered in other articles inshaa'Allaah.

Source: The source of the quotes above were from Muneef al-Utaybee's "The Effect Of The Mu'tazili Thought Upon The Ash'arite Creed, Presentation and Criticism".

Note: The Greek Philosophers differed on the notion of all reality being made up of individual atoms, and Aristotle opposed this view. This was an area of long debate and discussion between them. The Ash'arites have adopted Aristotle's substance and accident (al-jawhar wal-'arad), and in addition to that they also adopted and developed further the idea of Atomism that some of the earlier Greek and Hindu Philosophers spoke of, it becoming the basic premise upon which many of their positions in the affairs of creed (Allaah's attributes, Allaah's actions, al-Qadr etc.) were built upon.

sumber: Aristotle's Substance (Jawhar) and Accident ('Arad) and Greek and Hindu Atomism Is A Fundamental, Integral Aspect of the Ash'arite Creed

Imam Al-Qurthubi berkomentar tentang Al-Jauhar dan Al-'Arad

We mentioned in a previous article Ibn Hajr's refutation of one of the main principles of the Ash'aris relating to the first obligation upon the servant (which the generality of the Ash'aris consider to be an-nadhr wal-istidlaal - to rationally prove one's faith in the Creator). View that article here.

This was in the beginning of his explanation of Kitaab ut-Tawheed from Saheeh ul-Bukhaaree. In the same section Ibn Hajr quotes a nice piece from al-Qurtubi - inshaa'Allaah if time allows we may translate it all, the quote from al-Qurtubi spans more than a page in length.

The generality of the Ash'aris hold that it is an obligation for each person to know the proofs for the existence of his Lord, through rational and observational proofs and some of them (such as al-Baqillani) go to extremes in claiming that each and every person must learn the preliminary philosophical precepts that underlie the demonstration of Allaah's existence through al-jawhar wal-'arad (substance and accident).

A page earlier, Ibn Hajr makes mention of the positions of Ibn Fawrak and his followers, and also that of Abu Bakr al-Baqillani and Abu Ishaq al-Isfaraa'eenee (all Ash'aris - being students of Abul-Hasan al-Bahili, the student of Abu Hasan al-Ash'ari) on this subject.



In this quote al-Qurtubi is repudiating the likes of the mutakallimeen (Theologians) and their sophistry and much of what they delved into. In the course of this, al-Qurtubi says:

And sufficient in deterring (anyone) from delving into the path of the mutakallimeen (the philosophical theologians) is what has been established from the preceding Imaams, such as Umar bin Abdul-Azeez, Maalik bin Anas and ash-Shaafi'ee. And some of the leading scholars have categorically stated that the Companions never delved into al-jawhar and al-'arad [substance and accident, (taken from the Greek Philosophers by the Mu'tazilah and then the Ash'ariyyah)] and whatever is related to that in the investigative studies of the mutakallimeen (Theologians). And anyone who desires a path besides theirs, then suffice it as misguidance for him...

And he (al-Qurtubi) continues:

And al-kalaam (theological rhetoric) led to many of its people to doubt, and some of them to deviation (al-ilhaad) and some of them to be neglectful in the tasks of worship. The reason for that was their turning away from the texts of the legislator (i.e. Allaah) and their seeking (knowledge of) the realities of affairs from other than them. There is not in the strength of the intellect, what allows it to grasp what is in the texts of the legislator of the ruling that He has kept in the knowledge with Himself. And many of their leading scholars turned back from their path, until it has come from Imaam ul-Haramayn (al-Juwaynee) that he said, "I have traversed the greatest ocean and in seeking the truth and fleeing from taqleed I plunged myself into everything that the people of knowledge forbade. And now, I have returned (recanted) and believed the madhhab of the Salaf", this is his speech or it's meaning. And also from him (al-Juwaynee) that he said, "O our companions, do not get occupied with al-kalaam, for if you knew it led me to what it led me, you would not become occupied with it"...

So we see from these quotes that Ibn Hajr quotes al-Qurtubi in the context of the opinions of the Ash'arite Theologians on the subject of the first obligation upon the servants - being influenced in that by the Mu'tazilah - and al-Qurtubi repudiates those delving into the al-jawhar (substance) and al-'arad (accident) - which is all of the Ash'arite Theologians, for all of their books contain this, and he makes mention of one of the earlier leading figureheads, Imaam ul-Haramayn al-Juwaynee, repenting from that misguided path at the end of his life.

Jahmi Ash'arite Apologetics Exposed

And this is an exposition of many of these Jahmite Ash'ari apologetics writing on the subject of "al-Jawhar al-Fard" (the indivisible element), attempting to defend it, making wild and exaggerated claims that unless we hold onto this notion and use it in our creed, it will lead to belief in the eternity of the universe (and therefore atheism)!

And here we have Ibn Hajr, quoting al-Qurtubi who repudiates the people who investigate into such affairs, declaring them to be upon misguidance!

The root of this is their following the Philosophers of the pagan nations of the past such as the Greeks and Hindus and their abandoning what the Companions were upon and not sufficing with that.

sumber: Ibn Hajr Quoting al-Qurtubi: The Companions Never Delved into al-Jawhar (Substance) and al-'Arad (Accident) - And Criticism of the Ash'arite Theologians

Asy'ariyah dan Kitab Fathul Bari Karya Ibnu Hajar Bagian 4

The Ash'aris of today claim that Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani (rahimahullaah) was a subscriber to the Ash'ari madhhab, and Ibn Hajr's name is often mentioned in a long list of those whom they claim were Ash'aris.

The Ash'aris have certain fundamental principles (usool) that characterize their madhhab, and though Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani fell into their way of ta'weel in relation to many of Allaah's attributes, that does not make him an Ash'ari (in the manner that al-Baqillani, al-Juwaynee and others were Ash'ari). There is a great difference between a person's usool (foundations) being Ash'ari and a person agreeing with the Ash'aris in some affairs.

As will be shown in later articles, Ibn Hajr was not upon many of the false usool of the Ash'aris, and it cannot be said that Ibn Hajr was an Ash'ari (in the manner that al-Baqillani, al-Juwaynee and others were Ash'ari by way of example), merely because of his ta'weel of the attributes. For someone to be considered an Ash'ari, they have to propound and validate the usool of the madhhab - and Ibn Hajr certainly was not upon that.

Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani, when discussing the hadeeth of Mu'aadh bin Jabal at the beginning of Kitaab ut-Tawheed in Bukhaaree's Saheeh, in which there occurs the saying of the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam), "... Let the first thing that you call them to be to the Tawheed of Allaah (yuwahhidullaahu), and when they have come to know that ..." he discusses the issue of what the first obligation upon the servant is.

The generality of the Ash'aris hold that it is an obligation for each person to know the proofs for the existence of his Lord, through rational and observational proofs and some of them (such as al-Baqillani) go to extremes in claiming that each and every person must learn the preliminary philosophical precepts that underlie the demonstration of Allaah's existence through al-jawhar wal-'arad (substance and accident).

Ibn Hajr first makes mention of the positions of Ibn Fawrak and his followers, and also that of Abu Bakr al-Baqillani and Abu Ishaq al-Isfaraa'eenee (all Ash'aris - being students of Abul-Hasan al-Bahili, the student of Abu Hasan al-Ash'ari) on this subject.



So in the course of discussing this issue, Ibn Hajr rebuts this position of the Ash'aris saying:

And I have mentioned in "Kitaab ul-Eemaan" the one who turned away from all of this [i.e. what al-Baqillani, Ibn Fawrak, and al-Isfaraa'eenee are upon] from its very foundation and who held on to His, the Most High's saying "So set your Face towards the upright religion, Allaah's fitrah (meaning Tawheed) to which He has made mankind to be inclined..." (ar-Rum 30:30) and the hadeeth, "Each child is born upon the fitrah (i.e. inclination to Allah's recognition and Tawheed)..." For indeed the apparent meaning of the verse and the hadeeth is that knowledge (al-ma'rifah) is already acquired on the basis of the fitrah, and that (a person's) departure from that is through what (subsequently) happens to a person, due to his (alayhis salaatu wassalaam), saying "...then his parents make him a Jew or a Christian..."

And Abu Ja'far as-Samnaanee - and he is one of the heads of the Ashaa'irah - has agreed with this, and he said: "Indeed this one of the issues of the Mu'tazilah that remained in the saying of al-Ash'ari and branching off from it is (the saying) that the obligation upon every person is to have knowledge of Allaah through the evidences that point to Him, and that taqleed is not sufficient in this regard."

So here:

Ibn Hajr rebuts this position (of the main early Ash'ari scholars) very clearly and unequivocally, as he has also done previously in Kitaab ul-Imaan (see part 1 of this series) - with just one verse and one hadeeth.

Ibn Hajr makes mention of as-Samnaanee who agreed with what was correct and had to admit that this issue was one that remained with al-Ash'ari from his Mu'tazili past.


As we shall demonstrate inshaa'Allah, this is not the only issue in which the Ash'aris are simply followers of the Mu'tazilah. In reality, the bulk of the Ash'ari madhhab is tainted with Mu'tazilite influence. They are pretty much agreed upon foundational principles and their differences and debates are regarding subsidiary issues branching off from those foundational principles.

sumber:Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani's Mention of the Ash'ari Sect By Name in Fath ul-Baaree - Part 4

Ketergelinciran Al-Qadhi Abu Bakr Al-Baqillani Dalam Masalah Jauhar dan 'Arad

Al-Baqillani's Book at-Tamheed and Aristotle's substance and accident

Qaadee Abu Bakr al-Baqillani is one of the most important figures in the Ash'ari madhhab for he formalized and codified the Ash'ari madhhab in his works. We already outlined in other articles how al-Baqillani had a better position as it relates to some of the attributes such as Allah's Hand, Face, Eyes and His uluww - and this made him better than the later, more misguided Ash'aris such as al-Juwaynee, ar-Raazee and al-Ghazali and others.

In his book at-Tamheed, he uses the classification of Aristotle of substance (jawhar) and accident ('arad) and spends time explaining it before moving on to proving Allah's existence through its basic notions.

Note: The Ash'aris simply followed the methodology of the Mu'tazilah in affirming Allaah, the Creator, and in demonstrating the created nature of the universe - this methodology being through the use of the basic notions of Aristotle's substance and accident and what is known as Atomism (al-Jawhar al-Fard). They took it from the Mu'tazilah, refined it a bit more, and addressed many of the criticisms against it. Al-Baqillani was the first to do this, and the Later Ash'aris followed what he had laid down - the likes of al-Juwaynee, al-Ghazaali and ar-Raazee.

Here it is from page 37 onwards, we provide it here only to provide satisfaction to uninformed Ash'aris.



al-Baqillani wrote at the start of the quoted text above:

Chapter: The Types Of Muhdathaat (Non-Eternal, Temporal, Created Things)

And all of the muhdathaat divide into three categories: A jism (body) made up (of individual atoms), the individual atom (jawhar), and the non-essential incidental attribute ('arad) that is present with bodies (ajsaam) and substances (jawaahir)...

Whilst this is merely an introductory post to establish the Ash'arite adoption of the Aristotelian thought in classifying what is observed, and it being found in their books, we will cover in more detail the notion of "Atomism" (al-jawhar al-fard, or the indivisible particle) which is found in all the source books of the Ash'aris and they use this theory as a methodology in affirming the Creator - which in turn forced them to hold positions in other affairs of creed in order to remain consistent with this rational proof - which explains how and why they were led to misguidance in opposing the Book and the Sunnah in fundamental matters of creed.

Sumber: Qaadee Abu Bakr al-Baqillani (Prominent Early Ash'ari) Adopts Aristotle's Substance (Jawhar) and Accident ('Arad) and the Atomism of the Mu'tazilah

Asy'ariyah dan Kitab Fathul Bari Karya Ibnu Hajar Bagian 3

The Ash'aris of today claim that Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani (rahimahullaah) was a subscriber to the Ash'ari madhhab, and Ibn Hajr's name is often mentioned in a long list of those whom they claim were Ash'aris.

The Ash'aris have certain fundamental principles (usool) that characterize their madhhab, and though Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani fell into their way of ta'weel in relation to many of Allaah's attributes, that does not make him an Ash'ari (in the manner that al-Baqillani, al-Juwaynee and others were Ash'ari). There is a great difference between a person's usool (foundations) being Ash'ari and a person agreeing with the Ash'aris in some affairs.

As will be shown in later articles, Ibn Hajr was not upon the false usool of the Ash'aris, and it cannot be said that Ibn Hajr was an Ash'ari, merely because of his ta'weel of the attributes.

For someone to be considered an Ash'ari, they have to propound and validate the usool of the madhhab - and Ibn Hajr certainly was not upon that. For he opposes the Ash'aris in some of the views held by them as a faction - some of which are from their usool - the issue of the first obligation upon the servant, and likewise, the entrance into the affairs of theological philosophy (ilm ul-kalaam), and the issue of khabar al-waahid, and also whether Allaah's speech is just of a single type (i.e. there being no difference between a command, a prohibition, a threat, a promise and so on) and other affairs.

So if someone says "Ibn Hajr was an Ash'ari", we say he agreed with the Ash'aris in their ta'weelaat, or we say he fell into some of what the Ash'aris fell into of ta'weel of the attributes, or he was influenced by the path of the Ash'aris but he did not propound the generality of their usool from the angle of validating them, or deeming them correct.

In Kitaab ut-Tawheed



Here Ibn Hajr mentions the Ash'aris in relation to the issue of Allaah's Speech and whether it is with a voice (sawt). So after mentioning the hadeeth in question and stating that there is a difference regarding whether Allaah's Speech is with letter and voice or not, he says:

The Mu'tazilah said: Speech is not by (anything) but letter and voice, and the speech attributed to Allaah existed in the tree. And the Ashaa'irah said: The Speech of Allaah is not letter and voice, and they affirmed al-kalaam an-nafsee, whose reality is a meaning that is established with the Self, even if it may vary, such as [being in] Arabic or a foreign (language). And this difference (in language) does not indicate a difference in that which is being expressed (i.e. the meaning established with His self), as the Kalaam Nafsee is that which is being expressed (through these languages).

And the Hanbalees affirmed that Allaah speaks by way of letter and sound, as for letters then that is due to their being explicitly stated in the apparentness of the Qur'aan. And as for voice, then whoever prevented (from this saying), he said that the voice is (formed through) the hearing of (the sound made through) blocked or interrupted air (occurring) in the larynx (throat). And those who affirmed the voice replied that voice that is described as such is what is well-known amongst men, just like hearing and seeing, but the attributes of the Lord are different to that and thus, the aforementioned caution is not binding whilst holding a belief of tanzeeh (Allaah being far removed from deficiencies and imperfections) and absence of tashbeeh (not resembling that voice to that of the creation), and that it is possible for (the voice) to be without a larynx (throat), and thus tashbeeh is not binding (by affirming the voice for Allaah).

And Abdullaah bin Ahmad bin Hanbal said in the book Kitaab us-Sunnah: I asked my father about a people who say, when Allaah spoke to Moses, that he did not speak with a voice. So my father said to me, "Rather, He spoke with a voice. These ahaadeeth are to be reported as they have come", and then he mentioned the hadeeth of Ibn Mas'ood and others.

In Kitaab ut-Tawheed - Mention of al-Ash'ari and His Followers



Here Ibn Hajr is discussing the subject of the Speech of Allaah again, and in the course of outlining all the various positions he says:

And the Kullaabiyyah said: The Speech is a singular eternal attribute, binding upon the Essence (dhaat), just like life (al-hayaat) and that He does not speak by His Will or His Power. And His speaking to those whom He spoke to is through His creating a (means of) perception (for that person) through which he hears the speech ... and something similar to this is quoted from Abu Mansoor al-Maatureedee from the Hanafiyyah, however he said that He created a voice when He called him and made him (Moses) to hear His speech.

And some of them claimed that is the intent of the Salaf, those who said that the Qur'aan is not created.

And the saying of Ibn Kullaab was adopted by al-Qaabisee and al-Ash'ari and their followers ...

So he mentions here al-Ash'ari and his followers who adopted the saying of Ibn Kullaab regarding the issue of Allaah's Speech. After abandoning I'tizaal, al-Ash'ari took much of what Ibn Kullaab was upon and that is what really constitutes much of the Ash'ari madhhab towards Allaah's attributes.

In Kitaab ut-Tawheed



Here Ibn Hajr makes mention of the issue of takleef maa laa yutaaq again, which is the issue of whether Allaah imposes obligations that (He knows) cannot be fulfilled (takleef maa laa yutaaq) - this is also referred to as the issue of al-Istitaa'ah (ability) and in this regard they (the Ash'aris) as argument for their position the case of Abu Lahab and also the situation on the Day of Judgement, when those who prostrated to Allaah out of show and to be heard of will be unable to prostrate.

Ibn Hajr quotes Ibn Battaal:

Ibn Battaal said, "The one who permitted the imposition of that which cannot be fulfilled (takleef maa laa yutaaq) from amongst the Ashaa'irah clung to this (as proof) and they also sought the story of Abu Lahab as proof..."

And the text continues to show that the story of Abu Lahab cannot be used as a proof.

On this same page is an example of the tendency of Ibn Hajr towards ta'weel, and the case being discussed at the top half of the page is related to "the Shin" - and the Salaf differed as to whether the verse, "the Day that the Shin will be laid bare" was amongst the verses of the attributes or not, so Ibn 'Abbaas explained "the Shin being laid bare" to mean "severity", and he explained that in accordance with the language, and thus this is not an instance of ta'weel - it is an explanation of the verse upon the understanding that it is not a verse that pertains to Allaah's attributes, and thus this is tafseer.

And Abu Sa'eed al-Khudree, narrated the hadeeth in which it mentions, "... then Allaah will uncover His Shin ..." and from this the Salaf understood the verse to be a verse of the attributes, so they affirmed it, like the other attributes such as Hand, Eyes, Face, and adopted the same position towards it with respect to all the other attributes.

Sumber: Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani's Mention of the Ash'ari Sect By Name in Fath ul-Baaree - Part 3

Jauhar dan 'Arad, Sebuah Doktrin Asy'ari dan Aristoteles Yang Telah Usang

Between the Sunni Affirmer and the Jahmite Ash'ari Negator

When a Sunni Affirmer says,

I believe that Allaah is above His servants, above His creation, ascended above the Throne as He has textually and manifestly stated in His Book, in the clear Arabic tongue, addressing a people who clearly understood the meaning of what they were being addressed with:

So He said, "ar-Rahmaan ascended above the Throne" and He said, "And He is al-Qaahir, above His servants", and He said, "The Angels and the Rooh (i.e. Jibreel) ascend up to Him" and the abundant verses similar to this. And then we have in the Sunnah, the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) ascending up to his Lord (al-Mi'raaj), the Angels descending from their Lord, and ascending to Him, the saying of the Prophet to the Khawaarij, "Do you not trust me whereas I am the ameen (trusted one) of the one who is above the sky..." and the supplication of ruqya, "... Our Lord, Allaah, who is above the heaven, your name be sanctified..." and so on from the abundant ahaadeeth which reach the level of tawaaatur (large-scale successive transmission). And then what we have from the statements of the Companions and then those after them, which reach hundreds, if not thousands...

And this is what I speak with and affirm for Allaah the Most High - upon the principle:
That there is no one more knowledge of Allaah than Himself, and there is no one more eloquent in describing Himself than Himself and that there is no one more eloquent in His creation in describing Him than His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)

And there are multiples upon multiples of the statements of His Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) affirming what is in the Book in that Allaah is above the creation, above His Throne.

And also upon the principle
That I do not affirm for Allaah except what He affirmed for Himself, sticking to the wording of what He affirmed for Himself, be that a Name, Attribute or Action, and I negate for Allaah whatever he negated for Himself, sticking to the (methodology of the) texts in negating for Allaah
And everything I affirm for Allaah - then there is - by the textual ruling of the Book - no likeness of it from that which the creation is described with. And this is the trodden path of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthmaan, Alee, the Muhaajiroon, the Ansaar and the generality of the Sahaabah (radiallaahu anhum), and I guide myself by their way.

The Jahmite Ash'ari Distorter says (with the tongue of disposition):

I believe in the philosophical doctrines based upon the notion of substance (jawhar) and incidental attribute ('arad) spoken of by Aristotle and his likes on the basis of which I have truly understood the Tawheed that neither the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was able to eloquently express and nor his companions were able to understand and convey.

Rather, they consistently used phrases and expressions that in our view tend towards tashbeeh and Tajseem, and thus your use of that same language in speaking about Allaah tends to the same.

The real understanding of Tawheed was not acquired and promulgated until our Ash'ari Scholars clarified it, being illuminated therein by [our application of] Aristotle's jawhar and 'arad and the notion of al-Jawhar al-Fard (the indivisible particle) of the Greeks and Hindus before us.

Based upon this illumination which we have been blessed with and which you are deprived of, it is clear to me that you have attributed to Allaah a direction, and anything that is in a direction is enclosed in space - and direction and enclosure by space are attributes of bodies, substances (ajsaam, which are made of jawaahir) and everything that is created is but jawhar (substance) and 'arad (unessential attribute, or accident), and thus you (by saying Allaah is "above") have likened Allaah to be a body like the bodies and thus you have uttered what is kufr (disbelief).

And no doubt, by way of this illumination of ours, we are better guided than you in the use of phrases and expressions in speaking about our Lord.

So unless you abandon your expressions (i.e. those of Allaah and His Messenger):

He is al-Qaahir, above His servants,
The One who is above the Heaven,
Ar-Rahmaan ascended over the Throne,
The Angels ascend to Him ...

and adopt only ours [which we have derived from our philosophical illuminations derived from what we borrowed from the notions of the Greek Philosophers]:

Allaah is not in a direction,
Allaah is not in a space,
Allaah is not above ...

you will not leave the darknesses of Tajseem and nor be saved from the misguidance of tashbeeh.

Explanatory Notes and Points

Point 1: The Logic and Metaphysics of Aristotle

Aristotle, the Greek philosopher, understood observable reality to be made up of substances (jawaahir, plural of jawhar) and unessential attributes, also called accidents (a'raad, plural of 'arad). So everything created is substance or accident. To illustrate what this means, a chair is a substance, and it's being brown is merely an incidental attribute that does not affect it's being a chair at all, so being brown (i.e. colour) is an attribute that is non-essential to its being a chair. Accidents (a'raad) can only exist in substances (jawaahir), and accidents are basically changes and modifications that substances go through. To give another example, a headache is an incidental attribute ('arad) occurring in a man (jawhar). Accidents cannot exist in and of themselves. Thus a headache can't exist on its own, it needs substance (jawhar, in this case a man) for it to occur. Aristotle put accidents into nine categories that include amongst others a) quantity, b) quality, c) time, and d) place.

Some other Greek Philosophers spoke of the indivisible particle described as "Atomism", this was also spoken of by the Hindu Philosophers. Though not all the Greek Philosophers agreed upon this, having considerable debate and discussion around it, the basic notion was adopted by the Mu'tazilah and then after them the Ash'ariyyah and they incorporated it into their theology.

When they adopted these classifications of observable reality, they made it the concrete foundation upon what could or could not be said regarding Allaah, the Most High. And thus they used it to deny and negate much of what is in the Book and the Sunnah.

Point 2: The Ash'arite Adoption of the Aristotelian and Greek and Hindu Philosophy Into Their Theology

Al-Baqillani on al-Jawhar and al-'Arad: Read about this in this article.

Qaadee Abu Bakr al-Baqillani, who is perhaps the second most important figure in the Ash'ari madhhab, formalized and codified the basic elements of Aristotle's substance and accident (jawhar and 'arad) in his book at-Tamheed. This became the basis for rationally proving the eternal existence of a creator and the created nature of the universe. Aristotle's notion of substance and accident (as a means of understanding observable reality) and also what is called "Atomism" (al-Jawhar al-Fard) - developed by both Greek and Hindu Philosophers played a considerable role in influencing the Ash'arite's positions towards other issues of belief in Allaah, such as their view on the sifaat (attributes), al-qadr (Divine Decree), ta'theer ul-asbaab (inherent qualities created in things that produce effects) and so on.

Point 3: The Origin of the Denial of Allaah Being Above His Creation, Above His Throne

The first to deny Allaah' being above His Throne were al-Ja'd bin Dirham and Jahm ibn Safwaan, and al-Ja'd the true and real originator of the Jahmites (Jahm took from him) was influenced by the Mushrik Sabean Philosophers in the land he came from and he brought this into the Ummah. After the Jahmites popularized this (and other deviations in belief), the Mu'tazilah, upon the influence of Greek philosophy carried it further. And Abu Hasan al-Ash'ari was an Imaam of the Mu'tazilah and spent forty years upon that before abandoning it - though not being completely free of its influence. And these Ash'arite Theologians simply continued upon this, and they likewise adopted and formalized the philosophical concepts of the Greeks and made them integral to their theology. However, the earlier ones (like al-Baqillani) were much better than the later ones (Like al-Juwaynee, and al-Ghazaali and ar-Raazee) - holding positions in some areas of creed that were good and sound (such as al-uluww and in some of the attributes).

Most Ash'arites, sadly, have to be literally blind not to see this - which couldn't be a more clearer indication of the falsehood they are upon in denying Allaah being above the creation. On what basis do they deny it - yes, Greek philosophical concepts of classifying all created reality to be either jawhar (substance) or 'arad (unnessential attribute) and using this as a basis to make judgement upon the Book and the Sunnah and what Allaah can or cannot be described with.

So what is their chain of narration, or chain of influence for rejecting Allaah being above His Throne? Mushrik Sabean Philosophers, al-Ja'd bin Dirham, al-Jahm bin Safwaan, Bishr al-Mareesee the master of ta'weel (tahreef), the Mu'tazilah, and the Greek Philosophers.

Sumber: Aristotle and The Ash'arite Doctrines Of Substance (Jawhar) and Non-Essential Incidental Attribute ('Arad)

Fakhru Ar-Razi Membantah Quburiyun

Many of these quotes from Fakhr Ar-Razi have been found through the book “Mawsu’ah Ahlus Sunnah” of Shaykh AbdurRahman Ad-Dimashqi written in refutation of the Ahbash. The Ahbash claimed that Mushriks believed in many Lords and their Shirk was in Lordshp (Rububiyah) and these sayings of Fakhr Ar-Razi refute these claims.



Grave worship being similar to idol worship



Allah (Ta’ala) said:



“And they worship besides Allah things that hurt them not, nor profit them, and they say: "These are our intercessors with Allah." Say: "Do you inform Allah of that which He knows not in the heavens and on the earth?" Glorified and Exalted be He above all that which they associate as partners with Him!” (Yunus : 18)

Fakhrudin Ar-Razi in the Tafsir of this verse mentioned different sayings of scholars about how the Mushriks took idols as intermediary towards Allah, and he mentioned in fourth explanation:

“They built these statues and idols upon the forms of their Prophets and leaders (Akabir), and they believed that when they would worship these idols, then these leaders (Akabir) would become intercessors for them in front of Allah. And what is similar to this in our times is the veneration (ta’zeem) of a lot of people among the creation of the graves of their leaders (Akabir), with the belief that if they venerate their graves, then they (leaders) will be intercessors for them in front of Allah.”



Comment: After quoting this explanation of scholars explaining how Mushriks worshiped these saints by seeking intercession from their idols, Fakhr Ar-Razi clearly linked this idol worship to grave worship present in his time and also in ours.



Mushriks believed that Allah is the creator of everything



Allah (Ta’ala) said:



“And if you ask them who created them, they will surely say: "Allah". How then are they turned away (from the worship of Allah, Who created them)?” (Az-Zukhruf : 87)

Fakhr Ar-Razi wrote in the Tafsir of this verse: “Know that He (Ta’ala) mentioned this speech in the beginning of this Surah and its end, and the aim is to point to the fact that when they believe that the creator of the universe and the creator of the living people is Allah, how can they favour with this creed the worship of degraded bodies and filthy idols that do not bring harm or benefit…?”


Comment: So Fakhr Ar-Razi clearly said that the Mushriks of Makkah believed in Allah, that He was the creator of all things, but despite this belief they would worship other than Allah. This is a clear refutation of Quburiyah of Ahbash and others that claim Mushriks believed in different Lords or creators or sustainers.



Mushriks worshiped idols to get close to Allah



Allah (Ta’ala) said:

“Say: "Whose is the earth and whosoever is therein? If you know!"
They will say: "It is Allâh's!" Say: "Will you not then remember?"
Say: "Who is (the) Lord of the seven heavens, and (the) Lord of the Great Throne?"
They will say: "Allâh." Say: "Will you not then fear Allâh (believe in His Oneness, obey Him, believe in the Resurrection and Recompense for each and every good or bad deed)."
Say "In Whose Hand is the sovereignty of everything (i.e. treasures of each and everything)? And He protects (all), while against Whom there is no protector, (i.e. if Allâh saves anyone none can punish or harm him, and if Allâh punishes or harms anyone none can save him), if you know."
They will say: "(All that belongs) to Allâh." Say: "How then are you deceived and turn away from the truth?"” (Muminun : 84-89)

Fakhr Ar-Razi said in Tafsir of these verses: “It is possible that the aim of these verses is to refute the deniers of resurrection or is it possible that the aim is to refute the worshipers of idols, and this because these people were believing in Allah (Ta’ala) and they said: We worship these idols to get close to Allah.”


Comment: So Ar-Razi affirmed that Mushriks did believe in Allah and in fact worshiped idols to get close to Allah, they were only means to seek Allah’s proximity and they were not equating Allah and the idols or sayings the idols are our Lords



Mushriks established partners to Allah in worship and not lordship



Allah (Ta’ala) said:



“And most of them believe not in Allâh except that they attribute partners unto Him” (Yusuf : 106)



Fakhr Ar-Razi wrote in Tafsir: “And most of them believe not in Allâh except that they attribute partners unto Him” by establishing a partner for Him in worship (Ma’budiyah), the Arabs would say in their Talbiyah “Labayka, You do not have a partner except a partner that belongs to You and he does not possess” and the people of Makkah would say: “Allah alone is our Lord, He has no partner and the angels are His daughters, so they did not do Tawhid rather were polytheists, and the idolaters would say: “Allah alone is our Lord and the idols are His partners IN DESERVING WORSHIP, and the Jews would say: “Allah alone is our Lord and Uzayr is the son of Allah” and the Christians would say: “Allah alone is our Lord and Al-Masih is His son”



Comment: So this shows that the Shirk of these people was not in Tawhid ur Rububiyah (Tawhid of Lordship) but in Tawhid ul Uluhiyah (Tawhid or worship). These people believed in Allah as their Lord, creator and sustainer, yet they would associate to him in worship (Ma’budiyah) by worshiping idols, invoking them, sacrificing for them and others. They did not say that these idols are our Lords, they created us and sustain us.



No Mushriks believe that their divinities are equal to Allah



Allah (Ta’ala) said:



“And (remember) when Ibrâhim (Abraham) said to his father Azar: "Do you take idols as âlihâ (gods)? Verily, I see you and your people in manifest error” (6 : 74)



Fakhr Ar-Razi said in Tafsir of this verse: “Know that there is none in the universe who established a partner to Allah being equal in existence, power, knowledge, wisdom, and this has not been found until now, there is only the case of the dualists who establish two divinities, one being wise and doing good and the second being idiot and doing evil. As for worship of other than Allah, then a lot of people did this”

Comment: So for Ar-Razi, people did not establish partners to Allah in Lordship claiming their divinities have same attributes as Allah, rather they would worship other than Allah without equating these divinities to Allah.



Mushriks worshiped idols to seek intercession from the saints these idols represented


Allah (Ta’ala) said:



It is Allâh Who takes away the souls at the time of their death, and those that die not during their sleep. He keeps those (souls) for which He has ordained death and sends the rest for a term appointed. Verily, in this are signs for a people who think deeply.
Have they taken others as intercessors besides Allâh? Say: "Even if they have power over nothing whatever and have no intelligence?" Say: "To Allâh belongs all intercession. His is the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth, then to Him you shall be brought back." (Zumar 42-44)

Fakhr Ar-Razi said in Tafsir: “Know that the disbelievers raised a question and said: “We do not worship these idols because of the belief that they are divinities that can bring harm or benefit, we only worship them because they represent the forms of individuals that were close to Allah, so we worship them so that these leaders (Akabir) become intercessors for us in front of Allah” and Allah (Ta’ala) replied to them saying: “Have they taken others as intercessors besides Allâh? Say: "Even if they have power over nothing whatever and have no intelligence?”

The detailed answer to this is that these disbelievers either desired the intercession from these idols or from these scholars and saints upon whose forms these idols have been made.

The first case is falsehood because these non-living idols do not possess anything nor have any intelligence, so how can one think about seeking intercession from them?

As for the second, it is falsehood because on the day of resurrection none will possess the intercession and none will have the power of it except by Allah’s permission, so the intercessor in reality is Allah who allowed this intercession, so worshiping Him is better than worshiping someone else.”

Comment: Ar-Razi showed the weakness of the thinking and belief of these Mushriks, that as Allah only allows the intercession, so He only should be worshiped, and these saints cannot intercede but with Allah's permission, so they should not be worshiped. Also worshiping non-living idols is useless as they have no intelligence.

Ar-Razi showed that the belief of Mushriks was not that there is another creator brining them harm and benefit besides Allah, they only worshiped idols seeking intercession from them or from saints these idols represented, and seeking intercession of non-living objects is pure falsehood and worshiping saints that will intercede is also falsehood, as Allah, the one who allows this intercession, should only be worshiped.


The falsehood of Muhammad ibn ‘Alawi Al-Maliki



Muhammad ibn ‘Alawi Al-Maliki wrote in “Notions that must be corrected” Engl. Transl. p 60 about the verse “We do not worship them except that they might bring us near to Allah” (Az-Zumar : 3)



“This statement is rejected, and the attempt to use this verse as evidence here is misplaced. This is because this noble verse is explicit in its censure of the pagans for their worship of idols and taking them as gods besides Allah, the Exalted, and their association of them with Him in His godhood, claiming that their worship of these idols is nothing more than a means of drawing nearer to Allah. The disbelief and paganism of their action stems from both their worship of these idols, and their belief that they are lords besides Allah. Something of great importance which must be explained here is that this verse confirms that the pagans were not sincere in their justification for their worship of idols by claiming that they used them to draw closer to Allah. For had they been truthful in this, Allah would have been greater to them than their idols, and they would not have worshipped other than Him”



Comment: So Muhammad ibn ‘Alawi Al-Maliki claims that Mushriks also did shirk in Rububiyah and claimed that their idols were Lords with Allah. Then Al-Maliki says that Mushriks were not sincere in their claim of worshiping idols to draw closer to Allah. Shaykh Salih Al Shaykh in his “Hazihi Mafahimuna” refuted this pure falsehood of Al-Maliki and said that this an invention of Al-Maliki and none of the scholars before him said that Mushriks were not serious and sincere in their claim of worshiping idols to get close to Allah, so Al-Maliki couldn’t quote from any famous book of Tafsir. Why did all scholars like At-Tabari, Al-Qurtubi, Al-Baghawi, Ibn Katheer, Ibn ‘Atiyah, Abu Hayan Al-Andalusi, Ibn Jawzi, An-Nasafi, Al-Alusi, Abu Layth As-Samarqandi, Ar-Razi and all others, not agree with Al-Maliki in the explanation of this verse?



Muhammad ibn ‘Alawi Al-Maliki further wrote p 61:



“Similar can be said with regards to Allah's words: (And if you were to ask them who created the heavens and the earth, they would surely say "Allah!") (al-'Ankabut: 61)



If the pagans truly believed that Allah, the Exalted, is the only Creator, and that their idols had not created anything, they would have worshipped Allah instead of their idols, or at the very least their reverence towards Allah would have been greater than their reverence towards their stones and statues”



Comment: So for Al-Maliki, Mushriks believed that their idols were creators beside Allah and Mushriks were not sincere in their claim that Allah is the creator of the heavens and the earth. Of course, he could not bring any quote from famous book of Tafsir to support his invention. Now the Ash’aris and Sufis can wonder why their great scholar Fakhruddin Ar-Razi says the contrary of Al-Maliki?



Fakhr Ar-Razi wrote in Tafsir of verse 87 of Surah Az-Zukhruf:



“The aim is to point to the fact that when they believe that the creator of the universe and the creator of the living people is Allah, how can they favour with this creed the worship of degraded bodies and filthy idols that do not bring harm or benefit”



So for Ar-Razi Mushriks believed that their creator and the creator of the universe is Allah, and Al-Maliki says that Mushriks were not sincere in this claim. What a mockery of the religion!!! Why wouldn’t any scholar says such as Al-Maliki? What new falsehood Quburiyah will invent to deny the clear speech of Allah?



Now the Quburiyah translate this pure falsehood of Al-Maliki in English and propagate distortion in the meaning of the Quran without any shame….they clearly want to extinguish the light of Allah and replace it with their Shirk!!! Allah ul Musta’an



When is invoking other than Allah shirk and the falsehood of Al-Maliki?



Muhammad ibn ‘Alawi Al-Maliki wrote in his “Notions” p 170 (Engl. Trans.):



“In summary, the one who seeks aid is not imputed with disbelief unless he believes that (things) besides Allah possess the independent ability to create and bring into existence. The distinction drawn between the living and the dead has no real meaning, because if someone believes that something other than Allah possess the ability to independently create, then they have disbelieved…”



Answer: The Mushriks of Makkah did not believe that their idols created them, rather they believed Allah created them and in times of difficulties only invoked Allah.



Allah (Ta’ala) said: “And when harm touches you upon the sea, those that you call upon besides Him vanish from you except Him (Allah Alone). But when He brings you safely to land, you turn away. And man is ever ungrateful” (17 : 67)



Al-Qurtubi wrote in the Tafsir of this verse: “The meaning of this verse is that the Kufar were only believing in the idols that they were intercessors and that they have nobility. And everyone knows by Fitrah, with a knowledge none can remove, that the idols have no actions in great hardships”



Allah (Ta’ala) said: “And if you ask them who created them, they will surely say: "Allah". How then are they turned away (from the worship of Allah, Who created them)?” (43 : 87)



Al-Qurtubi wrote in Tafsir: “And if you ask them who created them, they will surely say: "Allah"” meaning they will certainly affirm that verily Allah created them after they were nothing. “How then are they turned away?” meaning how do they turn away from His worship until they ascribe partners to Him hoping their intercession to Him?”



So Al-Qurtubi clearly said that Mushriks believed that Allah created them and they only believed that idols were intercessors.



And all scholars of Tafsir acknowledged that Mushriks believed that Allah created them. Even Sufis like Ismail Haqqi acknowledged that Mushriks worshiped Idols to get close to Allah.



So according to Al-Maliki’s understanding of Shirk, the Mushiks of Makkah would have been Muslims doing Tawassul with idols as they did not believe than other than Allah can create. This is the problem of these people, they do not know what Tawhid and Shirk is, they ignore the reality of the Shirk of the Mushriks of Makkah despite all the scholars of Tafsir clearly writing about it.





Did Ash-Shafi'i do Tabarrk with grave of Abu Hanifah



Quotes below are taken from the book “Mawsu’ah Ahlus Sunnah” of Shaykh AbdurRahman Ad-Dimashqi written in refutation of the Ahbash.



The Ahbash have claimed that Tabarruk with the graves is correct and they justified this by what Khateeb Al-Baghdadi narrated that Ash-Shafi’i said: “I do Tabarruk with Abu Hanifah and I go to his grave every day -meaning for visit- and when I have a need I pray two Rak’ah and I go to his grave and ask my need to Allah (Ta’ala) and I do not leave it until it is fulfilled” (Tarikh Baghdad v 1 p 123)



This Sanad to Ash-Shafi’i contains Majhul (unknown) narrators as said by ‘Allamah Al-Mu’allimi. Shaykh Albani said in his “Silsilah Ad-Da’ifah” (1/31): “This narration is weak, rather Batil (pure falsehood), because ‘Umar ibn Ishaq ibn Ibrahim is not known and there is no mention of him in books of narrators. And it is possible that he is ‘Amr ibn Ishaq ibn Ibrahim ibn Humayd ibn us-Sakan Abu Muhammad At-Tunsi, and Al-Khateeb mentioned him (12/226) and mentioned that he was from Bukhara and he went for Hajj in 341H and he did not mention any Jarh nor Ta’dil (criticism or praise) so he is Mahlul ul Hal, and it is unlikely that he (the narrator Umar ibn Ishaq) is him (‘Amr ibn Ishaq) because the death of his Shaykh Ali Maymun is in latest case in 247H, so there is between their death approximately 100 years, so it is unlikely that he reached him (meaning ‘Amr ibn Ishaq did Hajj in 341 and it is difficult for him to narrate from Ali Maymun who died in 247, so the narrator of this narration is unlikely to be ‘Amr ibn Ishaq)”



Ash-Shafi’i said in his “Al-Umm” v 1 p 278: “I consider it Makruh that creation should be venerated (Ta’zim) until his grave is transformed into a place of worship (mosque) fearing the Fitnah for him and for those after him”



An-Nawawi in his Sharh Muslim quoted the words of Ash-Shafi’i v 7 p 24, Janaiz Bab 32 and “Majmu’” v 5 p 298: “I have seen among the rulers some who destroyed what was built upon graves and I have not seen the Fuqaha blaming this”



Al-Baydhawi said in his “Hashiyah Sunnan An-Nasai” v 2 p 42 that the Jews and the Christians used to come to the graves of their saints for prayer and invocation”



Comment: When Ash-Shafi’i mentioned he saw rulers destroying constructions over graves, so if the people of this time and he himself were doing Tabarruk on graves, why did he failed to mention this?



And if Ash-Shafi’i was doing such actions, why didn’t he do this on graves of Sahabah?



Why would he fail to mention in his books such actions if they were to be beneficial?



Can anyone having little reason believe that Ash-Shafi’i do such actions and believe them to be beneficial then fail to mention this in his books and recommend to do such actions on graves of Sahabah?





Compiled by Ali Hassan Khan



May Allah send Salah and Salam on the Prophet (saw), his family, companions and those who follow them

sumber:umm-ul-qura.org