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:
[1]
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)
[2]
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…”.
[3]
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.
[4]
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)
[5]
Nuh Ha Mim Keller; Imam Ash’ari Repudiating Asharism.
[6]
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.
[7]
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.
[8]
“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)]
[9]
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….
[10]
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! …..
Recent Comments