by Dr. GF Haddad

Al-H.usayn ibn ‘Alī ibn Yazīd, Abū ‘Alī al-Karābīsī رحمه الله  (d. 245 or 248) the trustworthy h.adīth Master, a scholar of H.anafī then Shāfi‘ī fiqh and kalām, “one of the oceans of the Science” accord­ing to al-Dhahabī, he was one of al-Shāfi‘ī’s major disciples in Iraq whom al-S.ayrafī rec­ommended, together with Abū Thawr, to his stu­dents. He also took h.adīth from ‘Alī ibn al-Madīnī, al-Shādhakūnī, and others.

Al-Karābīsī is related to say: “When a Scholar of h.adīth narrates a report, both outward and inner knowledge of this report become obliga­tory, just as dictated by mass-narrated reports.” At the same time, he held that “The slip of one scho­lar of knowledge demolishes Islām, whereas the slips of a thousand ignoramuses do not.” Accordingly he was strict in his refusal of any ruling at variance with the letter of the Law in patent legal matters, such as the ac­ceptance of the testimony of a single witness provided he swears an oath.[1]

Al-Karābīsī was taken to task severely by Abū Thawr, Muh.ammad ibn ‘Aqīl al-Firyābī, H.ubaysh, and Ah.mad for his book Kitāb al-Mudallisīn in which he unwit­tingly provided arguments for the enemies of the Sunna, such as the disparagement of al-A‘mash.[2] This book was refuted by Imām al-T.ah.āwī in a five-volume work, unfortunately lost.

Al-Karābīsī narrated that al-Shāfi‘ī said: “After the Prophet [sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam] people were in difficulty and did not find anyone under the sky better than Abū Bakr. Thus they used him as the one who carried the responsibil­ity of the people.”

When he heard that Imām Ah.mad had declared as an inno­vation his statement that the pronunciation of the Qur’ān was created, al-Karābīsī said: “Pronunciation means other than the thing pronounced” (talaffuz.uka ya‘nī ghayra al-malfūz.). Then he said of Ah.mad: “What shall we do with this boy? If we say ‘created’ he says bid‘a, and if we say ‘not created’ he says bid‘a!” The H.anbalīs were angered and declared him un­acceptable as a nar­rator. Al-Dhahabī commented: “There is no doubt that what al-Karābīsī in­novated and explained in the question of the pronunciation is the truth. But Imām Ah.mad refused it in order to pre­clude the extension of the ques­tion to the Qur’ān itself, since one cannot distinguish the pro­nun­ciation from the pro­nounced – which is the Speech of Allāh I – except in the mind.”[3] Similarly, Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr stated that al-Karabīsī was only stating the position of most of his generation over the issue of pronunciation, such as Ibn Kullāb, Abū Thawr, and Dāwūd al-Z.āhirī (as well as al-Bukhārī and Muslim).[4]

Abdullah ibn Hamid Ali
Lamppost Productions

Imam Al-Hārith ibn Asad Al-Muhāsibī was born in the city of Basrah and lived and died in the city of Baghdad in the year 243 after the Hijrah. He was one of the Pious Predecessors (Salaf) of this Ummah and a contemporary of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal. He was called ‘Al-Muhāsibī’ due to his constant reckoning of himself, taken from the word ‘Muhāsib’ that means ‘One who takes account of something.’

Imam Al-Muhāsibī was most famous for his purity of faith and righteousness. And he is an example of a true Sūfī as understood in its true and original meaning, not as understood by many today as being one who worships dead people, or whirls in circles for hours on.

He was a scholar in all of the traditional Islamic Sciences: Aqīdah, Fiqh, and Tasawwuf (i.e. Iman, Islam, and Ihsān), and he excelled at each one of them. He is believed to have met and studied with Imam Shāfi’ī and followed his madhhab (School of Law).
Imam Al-Muhāsibī – despite enjoying such prestige – wasn’t free of opposition from certain scholars of his time due to the fact that he took an approach that was different from many of the scholars of his age.

The second and third centuries of Islamic History was the era of hadīth documentation and the development of the hadīth sciences. So most of the major scholars of the time were focused on the preservation of hadīth and distinguishing fabricated and weak reports from those that were sound.

Imam Al-Muhāsibī on the other hand, was inspired to focus on the purification of the heart and understanding the human psyche. So he would question his students about their thoughts and inclinations, try to understand them and how to cure those that were mischievous, and then he would write books inspired only by spiritual intuitiveness as opposed to what came in the form of scripture.

For this reason, some of the scholars of his time severely criticized him, and cautioned people against reading his books. For instance, when Abu Zur’ah Al-Rāzī was asked about him and his books, he said:

 “Beware of these books…Innovations and deviances. Be obliged by what is transmitted. For verily, you’ll find in it what will avail you from these books.” It was then said to him, “But there is useful consideration (‘ibrah) in these books.” He replied, “Whoever doesn’t have useful consideration in the Book of Allah, then he has no useful consideration in these (books). Has it reached you that Mālik[1], Thaurī[2], Auzā’ī[3], or any of the Imams wrote books about insidious notions (khatarāt) and mischievous whisperings (wasāwis) and these things? These are people who have gone against the People of Knowledge. They come to us sometimes with Al-Muhāsibī, other times with ‘Abdur-Rahīm Ad-Dayabalī, and other times with Hātim Al-Asamm.” Then he said, “How quick are people to innovations!”[4]

Anyone who is acquainted with the writings of Imam Al-Muhāsibī will quickly realize that these comments made by Imam Abu Zur’ah are unjustified and clearly shows the intolerance of those traditionally termed as Ahlul-Hadīth for anyone who took an approach different from theirs.

If there is any bid’ah (innovation) that Al-Muhāsibī is guilty of it is merely that he didn’t take the same approach as that of those like Abu Zur’ah, while it escaped the Imam (Abu Zur’ah) that his approach was also a bid’ah, since it was something that neither the Prophet nor his companions embarked upon. So not every bid’ah is blameworthy.

As for Imam Ahmad’s contention with Al-Muhāsibī, it isn’t totally clear except that scholars have given a few different reasons. Some say that Imam Ahmad criticized Al-Muhāsibī because of the books that he wrote in refutation of some deviant sects of Islam like the deniers of the divine decree (Qadarīyah). The problem was that in his books he would thoroughly explain or at least mention some of the arguments posed by the deviant groups. So he forbade people to read Al-Muhasibī’s, so they wouldn’t be exposed to the deviant doctrines.

Some say that Imam Ahmad took issue with Al-Muhāsibī’s statement that Allah speaks without words or sound. Ahmad’s view was that such additions shouldn’t be made. Rather, one should limit one’s self to saying that Allah speaks and has the attribute of speech, since the Salaf didn’t go into detail about such matters. Al-Muhāsibī’s position on the other hand was the natural result of his debates with deviant sects who equated Allah’s speech to the speech of his creatures by saying that it is with letters and sound. And Allah says, ((There is nothing like unto Him)). So in defense of orthodox doctrine he indulged in such matters. So it was merely a difference in approach that resulted from the urgency of the situation.

Another version has it that Imam Ahmad merely forbade people from reading Al-Muhāsibī’s books, because he knew that most people could not walk the steep path that he was on as Imam Al-Khatīb Al-Baghdādī reported with a sound chain that Imam Ahmad heard the words of Al-Muhāsibī during a lecture he gave to some of his students, and Ahmad said to one of his companions,

“I’ve never heard about the realities (of things) the like of this man. My opinion is that you shouldn’t accompany them.”

Ibn Hajar says,

“He only forbade him from accompanying them due to his knowledge that he was below their state. For verily, he was in a straitened state that every one cannot pursue. And it is feared that the one who pursues it will not give it its due.”[5]

But whatever the reason Imam Ahmad may have objected to the writings and approach of Al-Muhāsibī, from one Salaf to another, each was entitled to his own opinion, especially since the days of revelation had already passed. Only Allah can settle the dispute between the two of them.

For this reason, Imam Tāj al-Dīn Ibn Al-Subkī says after commenting on what happened between these two great scholars,

“It is proper for you – O ye seeking direction – to travel the path of discipline with the past Imams, and not look at the comments of some of them about others unless he brings clear proof. Then if you are able to give an interpretation and entertain a good opinion, then obligingly do so! Otherwise, ignore what happened between them. For verily, you haven’t been created for this. So be preoccupied with what concerns you, and leave off what does not concern you. And the seeker of knowledge remains noble in my eye until he indulges in what has happened between the Past Predecessors, and he judges in favor of some of them over others.

So beware! Then beware to turn your attention to what unexpectedly happened between Abu Hanīfah and Sufyān Al-Thaurī, between Mālik and Ibn Abī Dhi’b, between Ahmad ibn Sālih and Al-Nasā’ī, between Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Al-Hārith Al-Muhāsibī, etc. until the time of ‘Izz al-Dīn ibn ‘Abd al-Salām and Sheikh Taqī al-Dīn Ibn Al-Salāh! For if you become preoccupied with that, I fear your destruction. The men are distinguished Imams. And there are ways of construing their words. Perhaps, some of them weren’t understood. So we have no right but to be pleased with them and to keep silent about them as is done regarding what happened between the Companions (Sahābah) – may Allah be pleased with them.” [6]

——————————————————————————–

[1] He is Mālik ibn Anas ibn Mālik Abū ‘Āmir ibn ‘Amr Al-Aşbahī Abū ‘Abdillah, the Medinite Jurisprudent, and the Imam of Dār Al-Hijrah, The chief of the specialists. Imām Bukhārī said: “The soundest of all chains is: Mālik from Nāfi’ from Ibn ‘Umar.” He died in the year 179 a.h. And he was born in the year 93 a.h. Al-Wāqidī said: “He attained 90 years.” [Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb: (2/6685)]

[2] He is Sufyān ibn Sa’īd ibn Masrūq Al-Thaurī, one of the distinguished Imams in Islamic history. He died in the year 261 a.h. [Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb: 1/216]

[3] His name is ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn ‘Amr ibn Abī ‘Amr, the jurist and Imam who died in the year 257.

[4] Abū Zur’ah is ‘Ubaidullah ibn ‘Abd al-Karīm ibn Yazīd ibn Farrūkh Al-Makhzūmī, one of the great Imams and a prolific hadīth retainer (hāfiz). He died in the year 264 a.h. [Tahdhīb Al-Tahdhīb: 5/394]

[5] Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb: 6/107.

[6] Tabaqāt al-Shāfi’īyah: 2/39.

His name:

He is Abu Muhammad Abdallah b. Sa’id b. Muhammad b. Kullab al-Qattan al-Tamimi al-Basri, known as Abdallah b. Sa’id b. Kullab or simply Ibn Kullab.

His Life:

He was one of the major sunni theologians from the era of the salaf. He belonged to the generation of al-Harith al-Muhasibi, Ahmad b. Hanbal and Ishaq b. Rahawayh. His precise year of birth is unknown, but he lived in the period of al-Ma’mun’s Khilafah. He successfully debated and wrote against the Mu’tazilah, the Jahmiyyah and others.

His Books:

He has a number of works that are documented such as Kitab al-Sifat, Khalq Af’al and al-Radd ‘ala al-Mu’tazilah. These books are lost, however remnants of them can be found in other works such as al-Maqalat of Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’ari and in the works of Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim. He was also quoted by the early Ash’ari Scholars such as Ibn Furak (d. 406H), and some of his works such as Kitab al-Sifat are mentioned by Ibn an-Nadim (d. 385H) in his ‘Fihrist’ (Catalogue), who referred to him as “From amongst the Hashawi riff raff”. Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani explained this statement in Lisan al-Mizan saying “What he means is that [a Ḥashawī is] whoever is upon the way of the Salaf by abandoning figurative interpretation of the verses and Ḥadīth reports about the Divine attributes; they are also called the people of non-committal [mufawwiḍa]”

The Scholars’ Praise for him:

Imam Al-Taj Al-Subki says in his Tabaqat, “and Ibn Kullab in any case is from Ahl al-Sunna… the father of Imam Razi, Diya al-Din al-Khatib, mentioned Ibn Sa’id (ibn Kullab) in the end of his book Ghayat al-Maram fi ‘Ilm al-Kalam that from the scholastic theologians of Ahl al-Sunna in the days of al-Ma’mun was ‘Abdullah b. Sa’id at-Taymi who destroyed the Mu’tazilites in the gatherings of al-Ma’mun…”

Ibn ‘Asakir in Tibyan writes regarding Ibn Abi Zayd’s epistle to Ibn Isma’il al-Baghdadi al-Mu’tazili, “and you’ve attributed Ibn Kullab to Bida’, and then you didn’t mention anything that would be known as bida’ such that it be called bida’. And what has reached us is that he was a follower of Sunnah and took to refuting the Jahimites and others from the people of bida’h.”

Ibn Qadi Shuhbah writes in his Tabaqat, “He was from the great scholastic theologians and from Ahl al-Sunna, his path and that of Al-Harith al-Muhasibi, Imam Ashari’ followed.”

Jamal al-Din al-Isnawi in Tabaqat al-Shafi’iyah writes, “He was from the great scholastic theologians and from the Ahl al-Sunna…. Al-‘Ibadi mentions him in the Tabaqah (rank in regards to level of students) of Abi Bakr Al-Sayrifi that he said, “He is from our companions the Mutakallimin”.

Imam Dhahabi in Siyar writes, “The man is closest of the scholastics theologians to the Sunnah rather he’s from their Munatharihim”. Shaykh Shu’ayb al-Arnaut writes under Imam Dhahabi’s comments, “He was an Imam of the people of Sunnah in his time and was their source. Imam al-Haramayn described him in al-Irshad as him being from “our companions”.”

‘Allamah Ibn Khuldun writes, “until Shaykh Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’ari came on the scene… he was on the path of ‘Abdillah b. Sa’id b. Kullab and Abi al-‘Abbas al-Qalanisi and al-Harith al-Muhasibi from the followers of Salaf and on the path of Sunnah.”

‘Allamah Bayadi writes, “And Imam Abu Muhammed ‘Abdullah b. Sa’id al-Qattan preceded Imam Ashari in defending the madhab of Ahlus Sunnah.”

Imam Abu Mansur ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Baghdadi mentions that “another of the Kalam scholars in the time of Al Ma`mun is Abdullah ibn Sa`id Al Tamimi, who crushed the Mu`tazilah in the assembly of Al Ma`mun, and scandalized them with his eloquent exposure and clarification of their faults.”

The Accusations Against him:

This is summed up in Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr’s biographical notice on al-Karābisī:

There was a strong friendship between him [al-Karābisī] and Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, but when the former opposed the latter regarding the Qur’ān, their friendship turned into enmity. Both of them would speak badly about the other. This is because Aḥmad used to say: “Whoever says that the Qur’ān is created is a Jahmī; whoever says that the Qur’ān is the speech of Allah but does not say that it is un-created or created is Wāqifī [hesitant]; and whoever says: ‘My pronunciation of the Qur’ān is created’ is an innovator.” Now, al-Karābisī, ‘Abdullāh b. Kullāb, Abū Thawr, Dāwūd b. ‘Alī, and their rank used to say that the Qur’ān spoken by Allah is an attribute among His attributes and can not be created; the recitation of the reader and his speaking with the Qur’ān is his own acquisition and action: that is created and is a ḥikāya [narration] of Allah’s speech…the Ḥanbalī companions of Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal abandoned al-Karābisī, declared him an innovator, and spoke badly about both him and all who spoke with his belief in that matter.

Al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Kathīr also said in his biographical entry for al-Karābisī:

Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal used to speak negatively about him because of the issue of pronunciation, and he [al-Karābisī] used to speak negatively about Aḥmad as well, and for that reason the people abstained from taking from him [al-Karābisī]. I say: what I have seen from him is that he said: “The speech of Allah is un-created from every angle, except that my pronunciation of the Qur’ān is created. Whoever does not believe that one’s pronunciation of the Qur’ān is created is a disbeliever.” This is also relayed from al-Bukhārī, and Dāwūd b. ‘Alī al-Ẓāhirī. Imām Aḥmad used to shut this door in order to close the discussion regarding the createdness of the Qur’ān.

Imam al-Bukhari said in Khalq Af’al al-Ibad :

‘As for what the two parties from the school of Ahmad have claimed as proof, each for his own position: Much of what they relate is not established as authentic. It is probably they did not comprehend the subteleness of his postion. What is known from Ahmad and the people of knowledge is that Allah’s speech is uncreated and all else besides Him is created. But they hated to discuss and explore obscure matters, avoiding dialectic theologians and their queries and disputations, except in what was a matter of knowledge and which the Prophet [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam] clarified.’

And Imam al-Kawthari has nicely summarised the issue saying:

‘As for Aḥmad’s words against Ibn Kullāb and his companion [al-Muḥāsibī], it was due to his hatred of discussing theological rhetoric and his pious scrupulousness away from it. The truth of the matter is that it is obligatory to discuss it when there is a need – contrary to the view of Aḥmad.’

His Legacy:

Imam al-Shahrastani said in Al-Milal wa al-Nihal

Until the time came upon [the likes of] Abdullah b. Sa’id al-Kullabi [d. 240h], Abu al-Abbas al-Qalanisi [contemporary of al-As'hari], and al-Harith b. Asad al-Muhasibi [d. 243H]. They were from the generality of the Salaf, however, they practised ilm al-kalam (speculative theology), and they aided the beliefs of the Salaf with theological proofs, and rational 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 “al-salah wa al-aslah” [an issue pertaining to whether Allaah is obligated or not to do what is best for His servants], so they disputed. And al-Ash’ari united with this camp, so he supported their saying through the methodologies of speculative theological [discourse], and then that became a madhhab for Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama’a, and then the label of “Sifatiyyah (Affimers of the Attributes)” transferred to the Ash’ariyyah.

And, Imam al-Ash’ari was not the only one to take from Ibn Kullab. Great `ulema of Ahl al-Sunna benefited from him. For example, al-Hafidh Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani says in al-Fath al-Bari [volume 1 page 323]:

Although al-Bukhari in all he reports in commentary of rare words, he reports it from specialists of this subject like Abu ‘Ubayd, an-Nadr ibn Shamil, al-Faraa and others. And concerning matters of Fiqh, he takes most of it from ash-Shafi’i, Abu ‘Ubayd and their like. And concerning matters of Kalam, he takes most of it from al-Karabisi, Ibn Kullab and their likes.

His direct students were also major ‘ulema of Ahl al-Sunna in their own right. Imam Abu Mansur ‘Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi mentions some of them in Usul al-Din:

Among the students of Abdullah ibn Sa`id is Abdul Aziz Al Makki Al Kattani, who scandalized the Mu`tazilah in Al Ma`mun’s assembly. Yet another Kalam scholar was, his student, Al Husayn ibn Al Fadl Al Bajali, the master of Kalam, methodology, Quranic commentary and interpretation. Later scholars relied upon his notes and pointers in interpreting the Quran. He is the one that Abdul Aziz ibn Tahir, the governor of Khurasan <in North East Iran> brought with him to Khurasan, and as a result people said, “He took with him all the knowledge of Iraq to Khurasan.”

Among the students of Abdullah ibn Sa`id is also Al-Junayd, the Shaykh of the Sufis and the Imam of the monotheists. He has an article that is written according to the requirements of the Kalam scholars, but with Sufi expressions.

His death:

He died in 240, or according to some in 241.

May Allah sanctify his secret.

[Amalgamated, with thanks, from the following sources: Khadim al-Ulema blog, Marifah website forum, the following previously available biographies [1] and [2] and also this article on the ulema of kalam.]

What is Meant When We Say Allah is Above What He Created
Imam Ibn Furak al-Shafi’i

This researcher, may Allah forgive him, committed a criminal act against the Ashʿarīs in this research of his, far from the spirit of anything knowledge-based. The most salient points being:

The Beliefs of the Ashʿarīs: In a Calm Dialogue with the Specious Arguments of their Opponents
Shaykh Salah al-Din al-Idlibi

[The Ashʿarīs are the largest sect (firqa) of the excessive Murjiʾah, and I will not rush with the results of my research. Rather, it suffices me to present this claim and leave it open to discussion. I accept, with all pleasure, anyone who shows their point of view regarding it].

قال البيهقي ذهب بعض أهل النظر إلى أن اليد صفة ليست جارحة وكل موضع جاء ذكرها في الكتاب أو السنة الصحيحة فالمراد تعلقها بالكائن المذكور معها كالطي والأخذ والقبض والبسط والقبول والشح والانفاق وغير ذلك تعلق الصفة بمقتضاها من غير مماسة وليس في ذلك تشبيه بحال وذهب آخرون إلى تأويل ذلك بما يليق به انتهى

Some of the theologians were of the view that ‘yad’ is an attribute that is not a limb, and that in every place in the Book and the authentic Sunna where it is mentioned, what is meant is its linkage [ta'alluq] with the thing mentioned along with it, such as ‘folding up’, ‘taking’, ‘grasping’, ‘outstretching’, ‘accepting’, ‘avarice’, and spending, and other examples. All of these are [examples of] the linkage of the attribute to that which it entails, without any spatial contact; and in no way does this contain any resemblance [tashbih]. And yet others were of the view that this should be given a figurative interpretation in a manner that befits Him.

[Source: Fath al-Bari (13/396), Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani]

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 the rational approach of 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).^{[fn 2]}

The Ash’aris of today are, therefore, according to their logic not upon the path that Imam Abu al-Hasan tread in his final stage and  they, therefore, falsely ascribe themselves to him.

However, the late Wahhabi preacher Shaykh Muhammad Salih al-Uthaimin in al-Qawa’id al-Muthla fi Sifat Allah wa Asma’ihi al-Husna reminds us that:

“…Truth isn’t weighed by men. Rather, men are weighed by the truth. This is the proper criterion even though there is in the status of men and their ranks an affect in the acceptance of their views, just as we accept the report of the trustworthy person and we pause with regard to the report of the shameless sinner (fasiq). However, it isn’t the criterion in every case…”^{[fn 3]}

The Wahhabi argument which they think stands as a proof against the Ash’aris is thus rendered completely pointless. And, yes, indeed truth is not weighed by men which is why the Ash’aris have never ascribed themselves to Imam al-Ash’ari due to their blind following (taqlid) of his positions in divine Unity (tawhid).

Al-Hafiz Ibn ‘Asakir in Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari said:

“And we do not concede that Al-Imam Abu al-Hasan Al-Ash’ari invented a fifth madhhab. Instead, he only established from the madhhabs of Ahl al-Sunna what became unapparent to the innovators. And he clarified from the statements of those who preceded him from the four Imams and other than them what became obscure. Yet we do not ascribe ourselves to him in our madhhab of Tawhid with the meaning that we blindly follow him in it or that we rely upon him. Instead, we agree with him in the conclusions he reached in tawhid because of the evidences proving their correctness, not simply out of blind following.”

Neverthless, a closer examination of their claims reveal how flimsy their pointless arguments really are.  Unlike his widely documented repentance from Mu’tazalism, we find the alleged second ‘repentance’ of Imam Abu al-Hasan 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, as reported 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 [meaning the Ash'aris], and then the label of “Sifatiyyah (Affimers of the Attributes)” transferred to the Ash’ariyyah.^{[fn 4]}

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 5]} and in its unadulterated original form was reportedly rejected by some Hanbali literalists of old according to what we find, for example, 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 6]}

Sadly, the Kitab al-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 7]} (at least in its entirety). 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!”^{[fn 8]}

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 9]}

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 ^{[fn 10]}:

“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 b. Hamid ‘Ali 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.”^{[fn 11]}

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.

Discrepancies in the Texts Relating to the Attribution of ‘Ayn [tr. eye] or `Aynayn [tr. two eyes] to Allah

Below is a scan of the cover of a phd edition by Salih al-Asimi of Kitab al-Ibanah which has been printed by Wahhabis:

In this version the following statement is found:

They (the Mu’tazila) deny that Allah has  two eyes (`Aynān)…

Translation: And that He has  two eyes (`Aynayn) without modality.

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.

This is what we also find in the Kitab al-Ibanah edition printed in Cairo in 1348h / 1929 by the Wahhabi Munir Abduh Agha:

Translation: They (the Mu’tazilla) deny that Allah has an eye (`Ayn in singular form)^{[fn 12]}

Translation: And that He has an eye (`Ayn in singular form) without modality.^{[fn 13]}

This is just one example from several of discrepancies and confusion within the unreliable texts of  Kitab al-Ibanah available to us today. In the quote of the same passage from Imam al-Ash’ari found in Imam Ibn Asakir’s published Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari it says `Ayn [which is singular and in keeping with the divine texts], and in the recent printed edition of Kitab al-Ibanah we have scanned above is found ‘Aynayn [in dual form] – again, contrary to what is found in the 1929 Cairo Kitab al-Ibanah edition of Munir Abduh Agha.^{[fn 14]}

Imam al-Ash’ari on 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:

Harun ibn Ishaq al-Hamdani mentioned about Abu Na’im from Sulaiman ibn ‘Isa Al-Qari that Sufyan Al-Thauri said:

“I said to Hammad ibn Abi Sulaiman: “Proclaim to Abu Hanifa, The Idolater, that I am innocent of him.””

Sulaimaan said: “Then Sufyaan said: “That’s because he used to say, ‘The Qur’an is created.’”

Sufyan ibn Wakee’ said: “I heard ‘Umar ibn Hammad, the grandson of Abu Hanifa, say: “My father said to me: “The comment that Ibn Abi Laila demanded that Abu Hanifa repent from was his statement: ‘The Qur’an is created.’” He (Hammad) said: “So he repented from it and announced his repentance publicly. My (Hammad) father said: “How did you turn to this?” He (Abu Hanifa) said: “I feared – By Allah – that I would be disciplined. So I used a misleading expression to trick him”

Translation:

Harun ibn Ishaq said, “I heard Isma’il ibn Abi Al-Hakam mention about ‘Umar ibn ‘Ubaid At-Tanafusi that Hammad – i.e. Ibn Abi Sulaiman – sent someone to Abu Hanifa to say: “Verily I am innocent of what you say until you repent.”

Ibn Abi ‘Inabah was with him (i.e. Hammaad) and said: “Your neighbor told me that Abu Hanifa invited him to what he was asked to repent from after he had already been asked to repent from it.”

And it was mentioned that Abu Yusuf said, “I debated with Abu Hanifa for two months until he retracted his statement about the createdness of the Qur’an.”

Compare the documentation of the above inauthentic statement ^{[fn 15]} 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 tampering 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 chainless versions of Kitab al-Ibanah originally written early in the Imam’s Sunni career which we currently have in our possession are unreliable and far 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]

See Majmu’a al-Fatawa: 4/71 and 5/556.

[3]

As quoted by A. Bin Hamid ‘Ali, The Attributes of God: p. 119

[4]

Translation by ‘Abu Iyaad’ who runs a Hashwi website attacking the Ash’aris.

[5]

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 what is an example of textual discrepancy in the available  copies of Kitab al-Ibana we find that in other editions of the book the ending statement is not found and it only says: “Indeed Allah is established above His Throne, as He has said: The Most Merciful rose over the Throne…”.

In the introduction of Kitab al-Ibanah we also find the statement:

“He has no form that can be expressed and He has no limit by which one might strike a similtude for Him”.

Such statements  are just another thorn in the side of those Wahhabis who do attribute a form and limit to Allah, Most High.

[6]

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 Hanbali literalist al-Barbahari was reported to have rejected the  untampered Kitab al-Ibanah written, according to Hafiz Ibn Hajar, upon the path of Ibn Kullab while his admirers today quote it without reservation.  This adds to the evidence that the original version  authored by Imam al-Ash’ari has not reached us today. And Allah knows best.

[7]

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)

[8]

Translated by Abu ‘Abdullah

[9]

Nuh Ha Mim Keller; Imam Ash’ari Repudiating Asharism. www.masud.co.uk

[10]

As quoted by Shaykh Abdullah b. Hamid ‘Ali in ‘The Attributes of God’ (p. 120-121).

[11]

ibid. p. 122,123

[12]

See also 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.

[13]

See also 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.

[14]

Further on (in a section not quoted by Ibn `Asakir) we find in the Wahhabi, Munir Abduh Agha’s 1929 Cairo edition a title heading ‘Chapter Containing the Kalam Concerning God’s Face, His Two Eyes, His Sight and His Two Hands’ only to be followed in the text of the chapter by the statement “Allah Almighty and Exalted has said that He possesses a face and an eye which is neither given modality nor defined”!

[15]

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! …..