What do the esteemed masters, Imāms, and jurists, may Allah increase them in success and be pleased with them, say regarding a group that has concurred upon cursing the group of al-Ash‘arī….
Read More:
The Legal Ruling Upon Those Who Undermine the Ash’aris
Quotes from the `Ulema Compiled by Shaykh al-Azhari
Written by Abu Bilal al-Maliki, ‘faqir’ and Muhammad Fahmi
We often hear from the Wahhabis and their admirers the claim that Imam Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’ari (d.324h) went through three phases in his life:
1) 40 years as a Mu’tazalite,
2) a period where he followed a major theologian of Ahl al-Sunna, Abdullah b. Sa’id b. Kullab (d.240h) [fn 1] – who they falsely accuse not to be a Sunni – and
3) a final period whereupon he abandoned Ibn Kullab and returned to the doctrine of the salaf and Ahl al-Sunna and is meant to have written the book Al-Ibanah ‘An Usul al-Diyanah (The Clear Statement on the Fundamental Elements of the Faith).
Unlike his widely documented repentance from Mu’tazalism, however, we find the alleged second ‘repentance’ of Imam al-Ash’ari unsupported by reports from the earlier historians or from his own companions and students. Rather, apart from the likes of shaykh Ibn Taymiyya (d.728h) and those who followed him in this regard, we find their mentioning only two phases in the Imam’s life - his leaving the Mu’tazila and then entering upon the methodology of the salaf and Ahl al-Sunna.
For example, Imam Abu Bakr b. Furak (d. 406h) said in Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari (p. 127):
“Shaykh Abu al-Hasan ‘Alī b. Isma’il al-Ash’ari went from following the doctrine of the Mu’tazila to aiding the doctrine of Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama’a with rational proofs, and he wrote books on that.”
Imam Abdul Karim al-Shahrastani (d.548h) similarly said in Kitab al-Milal wa al-Nihal (p. 105-106):
Until the time came upon [the likes of] Abdullah bin Sa’id al-Kullabi [d. 240h], Abu al-Abbas al-Qalanisi [contemporary of al-As'hari], and al-Harith bin Asad al-Muhasibi [d. 243H]. They were from the generality of the Salaf, except that they practised Ilm al-kalam (scholastic theology), and they aided the beliefs of the Salaf with philosophical proofs, and fundamental [cognitive] evidences. Some of them authored [works] and others taught. [Until] there occurred a debate between Abu al-Hasan al-As’hari and his [Mu'tazili] teachers on an issue amongst the issues pertaining to “as-salah wal-aslah” [an issue pertaining to whether Allah is obligated or not to do what is best for His servants], so they disputed. And al-Ash’ari united with this faction [the Kullabiyyah], so he supported their saying through the methodologies of speculative theological [discourse], and then that became a madhhab for Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah, and then the label of “Sifatiyyah (Affimers of the Attributes)” transferred to the Ash’ariyyah.
The idea that Al-Ibanah ‘An Usul al-Diyanah was written contrary to the methodology of Ibn Kullab in a separate third phase also opposes what we hear from the likes of Imam Ibn Hajar who said in Lisan al-Mizan (3;291): “In his book al-Ibanah, al-Ash’ari was upon his [Ibn Kullab’s] path.”.
It is not surprising then that the tampered book we now have before us is not always entirely palatable to the ‘salafis’ who tirelessly promote it today [fn 2] and in its unadulterated original form was wholeheartedly rejected by the Hanbali literalists of old as we find mentioned in Ibn Abi Ya’la’s Tabaqat al-Hanabila:
“When al-Ash’ari came to Baghdad he went to al-Barbahari and began telling him: ‘I have refuted al-Jubba’i and Abu Hashim and have shown the error of the Jews and the Christians and the Zoroastrians; I said (thus and so) and they said (thus and so)’ and he went on at length in this vein. When he stopped talking; al-Barbahari said: ‘I don’t know what it is you have said, neither the short of it nor the long of it. We only recognise what has been said by Abu Abdullah Ahmad ibn Hanbal.’ Al-Ash’ari then left him and wrote the Ibana, but (al-Barbahari) did not accept it from him…”[fn 3]
Sadly, however, the Ibanah we now have in our possession has reached us without any known chain of transmission (isnad) and cannot be definitively attributed to Imam al-Ash’ari [fn 4]. Incidentally, Imam Ibn Furak, a pupil from amongst those who studied directly with Imam al-Ash’ari until his death did not mention this work in his documentation of the works of Imam al-Ash’ari. Imam Al-Safadi (d. 797h), the author of al-Wafi bi al-Wafayat went so far as to say whilst quoting the Maliki jurist Imam al-Mazari (d. 536h) in his biography of Abu al-Ma’ali b. al-Juwayni (d.478h):
“Al-Mazari, Allah’s mercy be upon him, said in Sharh al-Burhan concerning his statement ‘Allah knows the universals, not the particulars’: Would that it have been wiped away by my blood or by the tears of my eyes! I say: I exclude Imam al-Haramayn from the saying in this issue. The thing I think is that it has been slipped into his speech and been put into his mouth because of jealousy, just like the book al-Ibanah has been put on the tongue of the Shaykh Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’ari!”
There were, however, numerous ‘ulama who were of the opinion that Al-Ibanah ‘an usul al-diyanah was, in fact, written by the Imam. Imam Ibn ‘Asakir has two chapters of this work in his book Tabyin kadhib al-muftari fi ma nusiba ila al-Imam al-Ash‘ari [On showing the untruth of the liars, concerning what has been ascribed to Imam Ash‘ari]. Imam al-Kawthari was of the view that the Imam did write the book and it was amongst his first after his conversion from the Madhab of the Mu’tazila to the path of Ahl al-Sunna. He says in al-Sayf al-Saqil (p. 108):
“The Ibana was authored at the first of his return from Mu‘tazilite thought, and was by way of trying to induce [n: the Hanbali literalist] Barbahari (d. 328/940) to embrace the tenets of faith of Ahl al-Sunna. Whoever believes it to be the last of his books believes something that is patently false. Moreover, pen after pen of the anthropomorphists has had free disposal of the text—particularly after the strife (fitna) that took place in Baghdad [n: after A.H. 323, when Hanbalis ("the disciples of Barbahari") gained the upper hand in Baghdad, Muslims of the Shafi‘i madhhab were beaten, and anthropomorphism became the faith (‘aqida) of the day (Ibn Athir: al-Kamal fi al-tarikh, 7.114)]—so that what is in the work that contradicts the explicit positions transmitted from Ash‘ari by his own disciples, and their disciples, cannot be relied upon.” [fn 5]
His view that al-Ibanah was written early in Imam al-Ash’ari’s sunni career is shared with many other contemporary academics and scholars. For example, while discussing whether the style used by Al-Ash’ari in his Kitab al-Luma’ is similar to the style of Kitab al-Ibanah, Dr. Hamudah Ghurabah says [as quoted by Shaykh Abdullah b. Hamid 'Ali in 'The Attributes of God' (p. 120-123)]:
“McDonald W. as well as the Salafiya believes the two styles to be clearly different. Despite that, they believe that the phase of Al-Ibanah is the final phase of which the opinion of Al-Ash’ari settled upon – and Goldziher also agrees with that – even though McDonald and the Salafiya differ with regard to the justification for his change from the rational style that Al-Luma’ portrays to the Salafiya style that Al- Ibanah portrays. McDonald believes that he was compelled to abandon the rational style and to establish the face, the hands, and others after he settled in Baghdad during the last days of his life and his fall under the influence of the Hanbalis. What that means is that he invented the second style to earn the satisfaction of the Hanbalis. And perhaps to ward off their evil too. So the matter isn’t one of Aqida. Rather, it is a matter of conforming to circumstances and observing what they require. And perhaps what bears witness to that is the statement of some of them that: “The Ash’aris attributed Al-Ibanah to the Hanbalis as a shield.” However, this explanation doesn’t please the Salafiya chiefs. Rather, they say: “Al-Ash’ari arrived to the truth in phases. First, he abandoned the madhhab of the Mu’tazilah to his rational madhhab. So he attained half of the truth. Then he finally left his rational madhhab to the madhhab of the Salaf. So he attained the truth fully, and then he died well-pleased with.” And this is a view that appears to be acceptable. But it will remain a hypothesis until it finds the decisive evidence that supports it.
On the other hand, I believe that there is another hypothesis that is more worthy of claiming and closer to acceptance. It is that the Salafiya style that Al-Ibanah portrays issued first, and that the rational style that Al-Luma’ portrays issued last and that it set the boundaries for the madhhab of Al-Ash’ari in its final form upon which its proponent died while adopting it believing its correctness, defending it, and being pleased with it for his followers.
And the reasons for preferring this view of mine are many. Some of them are psychological, and others are scientific. And perhaps amongst what originates from the psychological reasons is that we see Al-Ash’ari in Kitab al-Ibanah, more brilliant in style, more zealous, and pressing more heavily on the Mu’tazilah and of further remoteness from their views. These are psychological manifestations that a person experiences in his self towards his opinion that he gives up after abandoning it or after relinquishing it. As for the scientific side, it is sufficient for the reader to review a chapter shared between the two books in order to see that Kitab al-Luma’ in that (particular) chapter has covered all of its particulars, sufficiently presented its proofs, thoroughly mentioned the objections of his opponents, and refuted them with excellence; something of what indicates that Kitab al-Luma’ was only written at the time within which the madhhab had matured in the mind of its proponent, and that he only presented it in this book after he had become accustomed to it and it became clear to him. And Wensinck and other researchers share this view with me.”
Shaykh Abdullah also points out in ‘The Attributes of God’ :
Kitab al-Ibanah doesn’t contain one rebuttal of Al-Ash’ari’s supposed previously held rational doctrine as claimed by the So-Called Salafis and Hanbalis. So if Al-Ash’ari had taken back any thing he believed, why is it that we don’t find him repudiating any of his prior beliefs?
In the Chapter of ‘The Mention of the Establishment on the Throne’ he says, “The Mu’tazilah, the Hururiya, the Jahmiya, and others claimed that Allah – Mighty and Majestic – is in every place.” So here he undertakes the refutation of the aforementioned factions in their belief that Allah is everywhere, and then he declares that Allah is in Heaven. But why does he not refute the statement of the Ash’aris when they say, “Allah transcends place.” That is, He does not occupy space?”
Shaykh Abdullah then concludes that al-Ibanah would, therefore, have to be from his early works after relinquishing the doctrine of the Mu’tazilah, and not his last as claimed by Ibn Taymiyah. He continues:
“Or if it were his last work it would still leave room to believe that he still acknowledged his rational doctrine to be the truth as maintained by McDonald W.
Imam Al-Ash’ari also didn’t warn his pupils and followers against reading his supposed earlier works that portray the rational style of polemical theology as he did when he left the Mu’tazilah. [For example,] Ibn Asakir reports him as saying,
“And we composed a book about the attributes that we entitled ‘Al- Jawabat fis-Sifat ‘an Masaili Ahliz-Zaighi wash-Shubuhat.’ In it we undid a book that we composed about them (i.e. the attributes) in the past while considering the madhhab of the Mu’tazilah to be correct. A book hasn’t been composed for them like it. Then Allah – Glory is His – clarified for us the truth. So we retracted it, and then undid it and clarified its falseness.”
Regardless of when in his sunni phase it was written, today’s al-Ibanah is certainly not the same text authored by Imam al-Ash’ari, the unaltered version of which was known to and praised by Ibn `Asakir, Abu Uthman al-Sabuni , Imam al-Bayhaqi and the other Ash’ari Imams in the past.
Shaykh Wahbi Sulayman Ghawiji in Nazra `Ilmiyya fi Nisba Kitab al-Ibana Jami`ihi ila al-Imam al-Ash`ari (A Scientific Look at the Ascription of al-Ibanah in its Entirety to Imam Abu al-Hasan) has meticulously demonstrated that the current version has faced interpolation, extraneous additions, and deletion. The evidence for this includes:
- The takfir of Imam Abu Hanifa by Imam Hammad – despite the dispute relating to the creation of the Qur’an arising after the death of Imam Hammad.
- The claim that Imam Abu Hanifa would say that the Qur’an is created.
- Discrepancies in the different copies of the text of al-Ibanah available today including differences with the printed edition edited by Dr. Fawqiyya Husayn Mahmud who used four manuscripts for her own version which despite this remains flawed.
- Differences between the passages that Imam Ibn Asakir quoted and present versions of al-Ibanah.
That Kitab al-Ibanah in its current available format is unreliable was also the opinion of Imam al-Kawthari who severely criticised the edition printed in India and called for a reprint of al-Ibanah based on reliable sources.
So that the Wahhabis do not accuse us of spreading lies, please see below scanned passages from the books in print relating to some of the above mentioned points.
The attribution of ‘Ayn [tr. eye] or `Aynayn [tr. two eyes] to Allah?
Below is a scan of the cover of an edition of the Ibanah printed by Wahhabis:
In this version the following statement is found:
They (the Mu’tazila) deny that Allah has two eyes (`Aynān)…[fn 6]
Translation: And that He has two eyes (`Aynayn) without modality. [fn 7]
Yet, Imam Ibn `Asakir’s citation of the same passage in Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari differs as can be seen in the following edition in print whose cover we have scanned below:
In this edition of his book we find it says:
Translation: They (the Mu’tazilla) deny that Allah has an eye (`Ayn in singular form)
Translation: And that He has an eye (`Ayn in singular form) without modality.
Now we do not, of course, say that Allah is one-eyed. We do, however, affirm the texts mentioned in the Qur’an. The word ‘Ayn is only in the singular and plural form in the Qur’an but never in dual form. We deny that the word refers to a body part in relation to Allah and we consign the precise meaning of the word to Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala without researching into it further. This consignment is certainly the way of the Salaf which Imam al-Ash’ari’s book represents.
Furthermore, in order to infer ‘two eyes’ from the plural form ‘eyes’ which has been mentioned in the divine texts one is likely to have drawn a comparison between Allah and His creation based on the senses. Imams Ibn Hazm [fn 8] , Ibn Aqil al-Hanbali and al-Imam Ibn al-Jawzi [fn 9] have harshly criticized those who affirm two eyes because there is no evidence for it, neither in the Qur’an nor the Sunna.
So, above is just one example from several of distortion in the text of Kitab al-Ibanah. In the quote of Imam al-Ash’ari from Imam Ibn Asakir it says `Ayn [which is singular and in keeping with the divine texts], and in the printed edition we have scanned above is found ‘Aynayn [in dual form].
The Forgery Calling Abu Hanifa a Mushrik
Below is the cover of an edition of Kitab al-Ibanah printed in Saudi Arabia.
The view of Imam Abu Hanifa being a Mushrik and kafir found in this version is also found in other versions of al-Ibanah except in the edition edited by Dr. Fawqiyya as we shall demonstrate. Below are scans from the Saudi edition:
Translation: Hammad said: Notify Abu Hanifa, the Mushrik that I am free of him.
Sulayman said: Sufyan said: Because he (Abu Hanifa) claimed that the Qur’an is created.
Abu Layla called upon Abu Hanifa for repentance over the question of the creation of the Qur’an …
Translation: Your neighbor informed me that Abu Hanifa called him to that which he was called to repent from [the belief in the creation of the Qur'an] after he had repented. It was mentioned that Abu Yusuf said: I debated with Abu Hanifa for two months until he retracted from the doctrine of the creation of the Qur’an.
Compare the documentation of the above inauthentic statement [fn 10] to what is scanned below from the printed edition of Dr. Fawqiyya:
Regarding the above alleged incident we find that Imam al-Ash’ari says: Hasha(!) – that Imam al-A’zam Abu Hanifa (Allah be pleased with him) said anything like this. It is a falsehood and a lie. Abu Hanifa is one of the greatest from Ahl al-Sunna(!)
The question arises as to why this quote is absent from other manuscripts which the other editions in print have used?
If you say ‘this phrase was added later’ then you confirm the distortion and change in the text of the book such that one can not be sure that everything found therein is actually from Imam al-Ash’ari.
Similarly, after mention of the incident of repentance from the missionary activities of Imam Abu Hanifa regarding his neighbor and the creation of the Qur’an we find in the edition of Dr. Fawqiyya scanned above that Imam al-Ash’ari says: This is a blatant lie…
Again, this statement of Imam al-Ash’ari is not found in the other printed versions.
Many scholars of the Hanafi school of law followed the methodology of Imam al-Ash’ari in theology. If Imam al-Ash’ari had truly attributed this belief to Imam Abu Hanifa why would the Hanafis hold him in such high esteem? Rather this is just one more example amongst many which confirm to us that these versions of al-Ibana we have in our possession are far away from being authentically preserved. But how sad that the Wahhabi Najdis are like this. Their proofs and arguments are weaker than dust on a windy night.
And to Allah is our complaint.
—————
Notes:
Imam Al-Subki said: Ibn Kullab is from Ahl al-Sunnah .. (Al-Tabaqat 2/300)
al-Hafiz Ibn `Asakir quotes Imam Ibn Abi Zayd saying: We know of no one who has accused Ibn Kullāb of innovation. What has reached us is that he closely follows the Sunna and takes it upon himself to refute the Jahmīyya and other innovators… (Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari: p. 405)
Ibn Qadi Shuhba said: He was one of the major theologians and he was from Ahl al-Sunna…..(Tabaqat al-Shafi’iyya: 1/78)
Jamal al-Din al-Isnawi said: He was one of the major theologians and he was from Ahl al-Sunna… (Tabaqat al-Shafi’iyya of al-Isnawi: 2/178)
Imam al-Dhahabi said: The man is the closest of the theologians to the Sunna; nay, he is among their debaters. (Siyar ‘Alam al-Nubala’: 11/175)
For example, in two editions of the Ibanah (Dr. Fawqiyya Husayn Mahmud’s 1977 edition and Abbas Sabbagh’s 1994 edition) we find (tr. Dr. GF Haddad):
“And [we believe] that He established Himself over the Throne in the sense that He said and the meaning that He wills in a way that transcends touch, settlement, fixity, immanence, and displacement. The Throne does not carry Him, rather the Throne and its carriers are carried by the subtleness of His power, subdued under His grip. He is above the Throne and the Heavens and above everything to the limits of the earth with an aboveness which does not bring Him nearer to the Throne and the Heavens, just as it does not make Him further from the earth. Rather, He is Highly Exalted above the Throne and the Heavens, just as He is Highly Exalted above the earth. Yet He is near to every entity and is {nearer to [the worshipper] than his jugular vein} and He witnesses everything.”
Incidentally, in other editions of the Ibanah the ending statement is completely removed and it only says: “Indeed Allah is established above His Throne, as He has said: The Most Merciful rose over the Throne…”.
قرأت على علي القرشي عن الحسن الأهوازي قال: سمعت أبا عبد الله الحمراني يقول: لما دخل الأشعري إلى بغداد جاء إلى البربهاري فجعل يقول: رددت عل الجبائي وعلى أبي هاشم ونقضت عليهم وعلى اليهود والنصارى والمجوس وقلت لهم وقالوا وأكثر الكلام في ذلك فلما سكت قال البربهاري: ما أدري مما قلت قليلاً ولا كثيراً ولا نعرف إلا ما قاله أبو عبد الله أحمد بن حنبل قال: فخرج من عنده وصنف كتاب “الإبانة” فلم يقبله منه
One would have to question why the early anthropomorphists used to reject the Ibanah written, according to Hafiz Ibn Hajar upon the path of Ibn Kullab, while those of later centuries quote it without reservation. This further confirms to us that the original untampered version has not reached us today. And Allah knows best.
The importance of isnad in our religion can be gleaned from the likes of Imam Abd Allah ibn al-Mubarak (Allah be pleased with him) who is reported to have said:
“Isnad is part of religion (deen), and if it was not for Isnad, one would have said whatever one desired. When it is said (to the one who speaks without an Isnad): “Who informed you? He remains silent and bewildered.”
[See: Introduction to Sahih Muslim, 1/87, al-Jami’ li akhlaq al-rawi wa adab al-sami’ and others)]
He (Abd Allah ibn al-Mubarak) also stated:
“The one who seeks matters of his deen without an Isnad is similar to the one who climbs to the roof without a ladder.”
[See: Shaykh Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghudda, al-Isnad min al-Din P. 18-20)
Nuh Ha Mim Keller; Imam Ash’ari Repudiating Asharism.
However, in what is an example of the many discrepancies in the various available texts of Kitab al-Ibanah we find that in the Cairo 1348h./1929 edition of Kitab al-Ibanah the same section actually states: “They deny that Allah has an eye” i.e. eye is in singular form. Refer to p.48 of Klein, W. C.’s: Elucidation of Islam’s Foundation (New Haven, 1940). A translation of al Ash‘ari’s al Ibana ‘an usul al Diyanah.
Once again, the Cairo 1348h./1929 edition of Kitab al-Ibanah differs – the same section stating: therein “And He has an eye without modality”. Refer to p.50 of Klein, W. C.’s: Elucidation of Islam’s Foundation (New Haven, 1940). A translation of al Ash‘ari’s al Ibana ‘an usul al Diyanah.
“Saying: `He has two eyes,’ is null and void and part of the belief of anthropomorphists… Allah Almighty and Exalted said `eye’ (`ayn) and `eyes’ (a`yunin)… so it is not permissible for anyone to describe Him as possessing `two eyes’ because no text has reached us to that effect.”
[Ibn Hazm, al-Fisal fi al-Milal (2:166). (Tr. Dr. GF Haddad)]
Hafiz Ibn al Jawzi in his Kitab Akhbar al-Sifat (KAS) (p. 223, Swartz edition) quotes Imam Abu Sulayman al-Khattabi (d. 388 AH) as saying:
“Do not ascribe attributes to God except by reference to the Qur’an or to reliable reports, that is, reports based on the Qur’an or prophetic sayings whose genuineness is beyond question. What is in conflict with these (two sources) should not be ascribed (to God) or should be interpreted (yuta’awwal) in accordance with the principles (usul) agreed upon by competent authorities (ahl al-ilm), along with a rejection of anthropomorphism (tashbih)…”
Ibn al Jawzi in Kitab Akhbar al-Sifat says (point 40, pg 141 KAS):
“In the same category are the following verses: ‘…In order that you might be reared under My (watchful) eyes.’ And ‘build an ark under Our eyes.’ The expression ‘Under Our eyes’ is taken by (some) exegetes to mean ‘under our command’ (amr)’, and by others to mean ‘under Our oversight (mar’an minna).’ Abu Bakr b. al-Anbari pointed out that among the Arabs the plural (pronoun) is sometimes used even when the referent is singular; hence, one may say: ‘We travelled to Basra (when one really means ‘I travelled to Basra’).’ This use of the plural derives from the practice of kings who are in the habit of saying ‘our command’ or ‘our prohibition.’ The Qadi (Abu Ya’la) maintained that ‘eye’ is an attribute added to the divine essence (za’ida ala dh-dhat). Already before him Abu Bakr b. Khuzayma said, in connection with the above verses: ‘Our Lord has two eyes by which He sees.” Ibn Hamid said: ‘We must believe that God has two eyes.’ This view, however, is an innovation for which there is no justification in scripture. (Champions of this view) attribute two eyes to God only through a kind of inferential reason (Dalil al-Khitab) based on the Prophet’s (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) statement: ‘He is not one eyed.’ These words, however, were meant only to deny that imperfection of any sort can be ascribed to God….”
In points 217-219 (p. 266-269, KAS), Ibn al Jawzi said:
In the Sahihs of Bukhari and Muslim there is a tradition from Anas b. Malik in which it is reported that the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) said while discussing (the signs of) the Antichrist (dajjal): “He will have one eye (a’war), but your Lord is not one-eyed.”
The Ulama maintain that the chief aim of this saying is to assert that God cannot be described in any way that might imply imperfection, for being one-eyed is obviously an indication of imperfection. The Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) did not mean to ascribe to God bodily organs, for there is nothing praiseworthy in the attribution of such to God.
Ibn Aqil said: “The ill informed sometimes assume that since (the Prophet) denied that God is one eyed He meant to establish by a kind of inferential reason (dalil al-khitab) that God has two eyes. This is a serious misunderstanding (of the saying), for by denying that God is one-eyed (the Prophet) merely intended to negate (the possibility of) imperfection in Him….
Imam al-Bayhaqi in al-I’tiqad with a chain of reliable narrators reports from Muhammad bin Said bin Sabiq that he said: I asked Abu Yusuf: Did Abu Hanifa used to say that the Qur’an is created? He replied: No! Allah’s refuge is sought, and neither do I say it! …..
I say:
The Ash’aris or True Tawhid and Shirk
Shaykh Salah al-Din al-Idlibi
Posted in REBUTTALS, SHIRK (POLYTHEISM) | Tags: Safar al-Hawali, SHIRK (POLYTHEISM), Tawhid
Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani (d. 852 Hijra) states:
وأما أهل السنة ففسروا التوحيد بنفي التشبيه والتعطيل، ومن ثم قال الجنيد فيما حكاه أبو القاسم القشيري ” التوحيد إفراد القديم من المحدث ” وقال أبو القاسم التميمي في ” كتاب الحجة ” التوحيد مصدر وحد يوحد، ومعنى وحدت الله اعتقدته منفردا بذاته وصفاته لا نظير له ولا شبيه، وقيل معنى وحدته علمته واحدا، وقيل سلبت عنه الكيفية والكمية فهو واحد في ذاته لا انقسام له، وفي صفاته لا شبيه له، في إلهيته وملكه وتدبيره لا شريك له ولا رب سواه ولا خالق غيره.
وقال ابن بطال تضمنت ترجمة الباب أن الله ليس بجسم لأن الجسم مركب من أشياء مؤلفة وذلك يرد على الجهمية في زعمهم أنه جسم، كذا وجدت فيه ولعله أراد أن يقول المشبهة، وأما الجهمية فلم يختلف أحد ممن صنف في المقالات أنهم ينفون الصفات حتى نسبوا إلى التعطيل، وثبت عن أبي حنيفة أنه قال بالغ جهم في نفي التشبيه حتى قال إن الله ليس بشيء.The orthodox ulama explained tawhid, (the uniqueness of God) to be the repudiation of the notion that Allah has any attribute which resembles the attributes of created things [which notion in Arabic is called tashbih], and of the notion that He does not possess those transcendent attributes which His perfection and majesty require [which notion in Arabic is called ta`til].
That is why al-Junayd (d. 297 hegira / 910 AD) in a report transmitted by al Qushayri [in his al-Risalah] said: “Al-Tawhid consists in maintaining the uniqueness of the Unoriginated [that is, the Eternal−Arabic: qadim] with respect to the originated [Arabic−hadith].”
Abu Qasim al-Tamimi said in his book al-Hujjah:
Al-Tawhid is the verbal noun [Arabic −masdar] from which the past verb wahhada, and the present verb yuwahhidu are derived. The meaning of the sentence Wahhattu Allah is I`taqttu Allah munfaridan [that is, I declared (or maintained) categorically that Allah is unique] in His person (dhat), and that in respect of His attributes (sifat) He has no likeness nor resemblance.]” However, it has also been said that it means: “I acknowledge that He is one”, and likewise, that it means: “I deny Him all quality and quantity; for He is one in His Essence, indivisible; and one in His attributes; there is nothing which is like Him. He has no associate in His divinity, dominion, and providence. There is no other Lord than He, and no other Creator.”
Ibn Battal said: “The title that al-Bukhari has given the chapter [in his hadith collection called al-Sahih] implies that Allah is not a body because bodies are compounded of parts put together.”
[Fath al-Bari, (Beirut: Dar al-Ma`rifah), p. 344, vol. 14.]
Imam Muhammad al-Sanusi (d. 895 Hijra) said in the commentary upon his al-Barahin,
The establishment of the divinity of our Master the Majestic and Mighty with every reasonable person is undisputable. However, disbelief occurs when an additional deity is added. If other deities are added then negation of the deities that have been added to Allah ta`ala is required. This is how the science of Divine Unity (al-tawhid) came into being, so consider that.
[Nur as-Sa`ada]
Imam al-Bayjurî (d. 1277 Hijra) said:
It is to single-out al-Ma’bûd (the One to be worshipped – i.e. Allâh) with worship, along with belief and affirmation in the oneness and uniqueness of His Dhât (Essence), Sifât (Attributes) and Actions.
[Tuhfat al-Murid ala Jawharah Al-Tawhid]
Posted in METHODOLOGY, NAMES & ATTRIBUTES OF GOD, SHIRK (POLYTHEISM) | Tags: Ibn Hajar, SHIRK (POLYTHEISM), Tawheed, Tawhid
al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar states in Fath al-bari:
ولا يلزم من كون جهتي العلو والسفل محال على الله أن لا يوصف بالعلو لأن وصفه بالعلو من جهة المعنى والمستحيل كون ذلك من جهة الحس، ولذلك ورد في صفته العالي والعلي والمتعالي ولم يرد ضد ذلك وإن كان قد أحاط بكل شيء علما جل وعز
The fact that the two directions of “above” ['uluw] and “below” are inapplicable and impossible for Allah does not preclude His being described with the attribute of elevation (`uluw), for such description is only from the standpoint of the meaning of elevation, not that of sensory perception. And this is stated in the case of His attributes of al-`Aali and al-`Ali and al-Muta’ali and not the opposites of these and his knowledge encompasses everything, Azza wa Jal.
Arabic Text Source
Elsewhere Ibn Hajar says:
قال الكرماني قوله ” في السماء ” ظاهره غير مراد، إذ الله منزه عن الحلول في المكان، لكن لما كانت جهة العلو أشرف من غيرها أضافها إليه إشارة إلى علو الذات والصفات،
Al-Kirmani said: “The outward meaning [dhahirahu] of the saying: “He Who is in the heaven” (man fi al-sama’) is not meant. Allah is transcendent above immanence and place. However, because the direction of aboveness [jiha al-uluw] is nobler than any other direction, Allah linked it to Him to indicate the loftiness of the Essence and the Attributes.
Arabic Text Source
And again, the Imam says:
وقد حكى البيهقي عن أبي بكر الضبعي قال: العرب تضع ” في ” موضع ” على ” كقوله (فسيحوا في الأرض) وقوله (ولأصلبنكم في جذوع النخل) فكذلك قوله (من في السماء) أي على العرش فوق السماء كما صحت الأخبار بذلك
[...]
إلا حديث ابن عباس فليس فيه إلا قوله ” رب العرش ” ومطابقته والله أعلم من جهة أنه نبه على بطلان قول من أثبت الجهة أخذا من قوله (ذي المعارج) ففهم أن العلو الفوقي مضاف إلى الله تعالى، فبين المصنف أن الجهة التي يصدق عليها أنها سماء والجهة التي يصدق عليها أنها عرش كل منهما مخلوق مربوب محدث، وقد كان الله قبل ذلك وغيره، فحدثت هذه الأمكنة، وقدمه يحيل وصفه بالتحيز فيها والله أعلم.
Bayhaqi mentioned Abu Bakr al-Dab`i’s saying that the Arabs use “in” (fi) in place of “over,” as in Allah’s saying: “Roam over (fi) the earth” and “I shall crucify you over (fi) the trunks of the palm-trees.” Likewise, Dab`i says, “In the heaven” means “Over the Throne above the heaven, as stated in the sound reports
[...]
And by including the hadith of Ibn `Abbas containing the words: “Lord of the mighty Throne” into this chapter, Bukhari warned those that might predicate spatial elevation to Allah (`uluw fawqi) that both the direction in which the heaven is believed to be and that in which the Throne is believed to be are created, lorded over, and brought into existence by Allah Who existed before all that and before everything else. Thus these places were created, and his existence, being eternal without beginning, precludes reference to him as being bounded by them. And Allah knows best
Arabic Text Source
Posted in METHODOLOGY, NAMES & ATTRIBUTES OF GOD | Tags: 'Uluw, Direction, Ibn Hajar
The following is a scan from one of the Athbat of the Imam al-Hind, Shah Waliullah Muhaddith al-Dehlawi, and his transmission of a unique musalsal chain which contains some famous Asharite Imams including al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani. [Scans courtesy of Sh. Abul Hasan]
Posted in SCHOLARS
فتح الباري، شرح صحيح البخاري، – للإمام ابن حجر العسقلانيالحديث: -1145-حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مَسْلَمَةَ، عَنْ مَالِكٍ، عَنْ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، عَنْ أَبِي سَلَمَةَ وَأَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الْأَغَرِّ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ:
يَنْزِلُ رَبُّنَا تَبَارَكَ وَتَعَالَى كُلَّ لَيْلَةٍ إِلَى السَّمَاءِ الدُّنْيَا حِينَ يَبْقَى ثُلُثُ اللَّيْلِ الْآخِرُ يَقُولُ: مَنْ يَدْعُونِي فَأَسْتَجِيبَ لَهُ مَنْ يَسْأَلُنِي فَأُعْطِيَهُ مَنْ يَسْتَغْفِرُنِي فَأَغْفِرَ لَهُ.
الشرح: قوله: (عن أبي سلمة وأبي عبد الله الأغر، عن أبي هريرة) في رواية عبد الرزاق، عن معمر، عن الزهري، ” أخبرني أبو سلمة بن عبد الرحمن وأبو عبد الله الأغر صاحب أبي هريرة، أن أبا هريرة أخبرهما”.
قوله: (ينزل ربنا إلى السماء الدنيا) استدل به من أثبت الجهة وقال: هي جهة العلو، وأنكر ذلك الجمهور لأن القول بذلك يفضي إلى التحيز تعالى الله عن ذلك.
وقد اختلف في معنى النزول على أقوال: فمنهم من حمله على ظاهره وحقيقته وهم المشبهة تعالى الله عن قولهم.
ومنهم من أنكر صحة الأحاديث الواردة في ذلك جملة وهم الخوارج والمعتزلة وهو مكابرة، والعجب أنهم أولوا ما في القرآن من نحو ذلك وأنكروا ما في الحديث إما جهلا وإما عنادا.
ومنهم من أجراه على ما ورد مؤمنا به على طريق الإجمال منزها الله تعالى عن الكيفية والتشبيه وهم جمهور السلف، ونقله البيهقي، وغيره عن الأئمة الأربعة والسفيانين والحمادين والأوزاعي والليث وغيرهمومنهم من أوله على وجه يليق مستعمل في كلام العرب.
ومنهم من أفرط في التأويل حتى كاد أن يخرج إلى نوع من التحريف، ومنهم من فصل بين ما يكون تأويله قريبا مستعملا في كلام العرب وبين ما يكون بعيدا مهجورا فأول في بعض وفوض في بعض، وهو منقول عن مالك وجزم به من المتأخرين ابن دقيق العيد
قال البيهقي: وأسلمها الإيمان بلا كيف والسكوت عن المراد إلا أن يرد ذلك عن الصادق فيصار إليه، ومن الدليل على ذلك اتفاقهم على أن التأويل المعين غير واجب فحينئذ التفويض أسلم
The hadith of descent from Sahih Al-Bukhari:
Abdullah bin Maslamah narrates from Malik from Ibn Shihab from Abu Salamah and Abdullah Algharr both of whom narrate from Abu Huraira that:
The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said:
‘Our Lord, the Blessed, the Superior, descends every night to the nearest Heaven when the last third of the night remains, saying: “Is there anyone to invoke Me, so that I may respond to invocation? Is there anyone to ask Me, so that I may grant him his request? Is there anyone seeking My forgiveness, so that I may forgive him?”‘
Ibn Hajar’s comments from Fath al-Bari :
Those who assert direction for Allah have used this hadith as proof that He is in the direction of above-ness (uluww). The vast majority of the scholars reject this, because saying such leads to establishing boundaries for Him and Allah is exalted above that.
And so there is disagreement regarding the meaning of ‘Nuzool’ upon the [following] sayings (i.e. of the scholars):
Al-Bayhaqi said: “The safest method is to believe in them without modality, and to maintain concerning what is meant except if the explanation is conveyed from the Prophet himself, in which case it is followed.” The proof for this is the agreement of the scholars that the specific interpretation is not obligatory, and that therefore the commitment of meaning to Allah (tafwid) is the safest option.
Posted in METHODOLOGY, NAMES & ATTRIBUTES OF GOD
Abstract: The thirtenth and fourteenth centuries CE saw the development of scholasticism in Sunni Muslim education and law. However, this move was protested by more conservative and traditionalist elements. In Damascus, this debate was largely played out within the Shafi’ite madhhab (legal school). The debate was not merely intellectual; in addition to the obvious arguments over the role of rationalism in the traditional Muslim curriculum and particular disciplines such as theology, it also reflected a dispute over the very tenor of Sunnism as a community. The effects of the ultimate triumph of scholasticism would influence developments in Muslim law, theology, and institutions of Muslim society well into the pre-modern period.
Traditionalism against Scholasticism: The Debate Over “Curriculum” in Damascus Between 1150-1350
Sh. Talal al-Azem [http://www.alazem.org/]
Posted in LOGIC & ILM AL-KALAM | Tags: Aqida, Ash'ari, Ash'aris, Ilm al-Kalam
Imam al-Razi’s Interpretation of ‘Two Hands’
Imam Fakhr al-Din al-Razi
Posted in NAMES & ATTRIBUTES OF GOD, REBUTTALS | Tags: al-Razi, yaday, two hands
Mulla ‘Alī al-Qārī (d. 1014 h. / 1606; Makkah), a Hanafi faqīh, a muḥaddith , an expert in language, a mutakallim, and a prolific author of important Islamic texts including the commentary on Abū Ḥanīfah’s al-Fiqh al-Akbar, which is a work on belief, and a ten-volume commentary on the Ḥadīth compilation Mishkāt al-MaSābīḥ.
Commenting on the words reported from the Prophet [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam] “Where is Allāh?” in the Ḥadīth al-Jāriyah, he wrote:
In another version of the same Ḥadīth there is the wording: “Where is your Lord?” It means that where is His place of decision, and His order, and the place where His dominion and power are manifested. {She said: “In the sky.”} Al-Qāḍī [‘Iyāḍ] said: “The meaning is that His command and His prohibition comes from the direction of the sky. The Prophet [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam] did not mean to ask her about the whereabouts of Allāh, since He transcends such an attribute as place, just as He transcends the attribute of time. Rather, the Prophet [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam] intended to find out by his question to her whether she was a monotheist declaring the uniqueness of Allāh (muwaḥḥidah), or whether she was a polytheist (mushrikah) because the Arabs were worshipping idols. Each clan amongst them had its special idol, which it worshipped and revered. Perhaps some of their ignorant and stupid people did not recognize any god whatsoever; therefore, the Prophet [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam] wanted to ascertain what she worshipped. So when she said “in the sky,” or, as in another version, she pointed to the sky, he [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam] understood that she was a monotheist declaring the uniqueness of Allāh. In other words , he wanted to preclude the gods on earth; that is, the idols. He did not mean to imply that He occupies a place in the sky, far-removed is Allāh from what the transgressors ascribe to Him in their insolence. Moreover, the Prophet [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam] had been ordered to speak to the people according to the extent of their intelligence, and to guide them to the truth in way which was appropriate to their understanding. So when the Prophet [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam] found that she believed that the one who deserves to be worshipped is the God who implements His purpose from the sky to the earth, not the gods which the pagans worshipped, he was satisfied with that much from her, and he [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam] did not charge her with sheer unity (Sirf al-tauḥīd )–the principle of transcendence (ḥaqīqat al-tanzīh) Some [of the ulamā’] have said that the meaning is that His order and prohibition, His mercy and revelation comes from the sky. In that case, this Ḥadīth is similar [in its implications] to His word [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam]: “Do you feel secure from Him who is in the sky…?” Furthermore, in some other [authentic] versions of this Ḥadīth it comes that this girl was dumb, and for that reason [Imām] al-Shafi‘ī [d. 204 / 820; Cairo] permitted the freeing of a slave even if he is dumb. In such case, the words in the Ḥadīth “She said, ‘In the sky.’” mean that she pointed to the sky [since she could not speak, obviously; and this is just what has come expressly in another version of the Ḥadīth: “She pointed to the sky.”]
[Mulla ‘Alī al-Qārī, Mirqāt al-Mafātīḥ (Beirut, ), p. 454; vol. 6 / http://www.almeshkat.com/books/open.php?cat=22&book=2190 pg 412 in Doc. 3]
Posted in NAMES & ATTRIBUTES OF GOD | Tags: 'Uluw, al-qari, Direction, jariyah
Recent Comments