|Friday, 17 September 2021|
Never see Ash'ariyyah in the same light, ever again! Aristotle of Stageira, Philo of Alexandria, Augustine of Hippo, the Sabeans of Harraan, the Mu'tazilites of Basrah and Baghdad and the Jahmite Ash'ari Heretics of Today Claiming Orthodoxy. Read the first article, the second article, the third article, the fourth article, the fifth article.
You are here:
Taqi ad-Din an-Nabahani: It is Haraam to Have I'tiqaad (Belief) in the Punishment of the Grave
We established in the previous article that an-Nabahani was simply a follower of the Mu'tazili, Ash'ari usool in rejecting the khabar ul-aahaad in affairs of aqaa'id (beliefs). Throughout an-Nabahani's books, he only quotes Ash'ari Scholars and their books and although he discusses the beliefs of the Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah, Qadariyyah, Jabariyyah and those whom he refers to as Ahl us-Sunnah (he means the Ash'aris), he considers all of their contradictory, conflicting and opposing views to be from the Islamic aqidah (see here) - thereby bringing to ruins his other fake principle that the intellect is the absolute, definitive source in beliefs - because beliefs as he claims are not permitted to be based upon speculation - however he permits all of the contradictory and conflicting doctrines of the various deviant sects (to whom he is greatly sympathetic) to be "the Islamic aqidah".
In this article we want to quote from an-Nabahani's own words the implications of this fake doctrine (separating between beliefs and rulings) he inherited from the Mu'tazilah and Ash'ariyyah as it pertains to affairs of belief, in particular the issue of the punishment of the grave.
Ad-Doosiyyah of Taqi ud-Din an-Nabahani
Ad-Doosiyyah is a book of an-Nabahani - now this book is the foundational book of the followers of an-Nabahani and they like to keep this book hidden, which is why it is not readily available, because there is much in this book that reveals a lot about their doctrines and methodologies. In this book we have on page 7-8:
Before we translate this passage, we should mention the context. The passage occurs after he has brought the verses in the Qur'an that condemn the following of "dhann" (speculation) and he is using these verses in a manner unknown to the Salaf and the Imaams of the religion - namely to cast doubt over the vast majority of the Sunnah. Most of these verses relate to previous nations who fell into Shirk and made tabdeel (changed, altered) their religion, in its beliefs and rulings, and thus they were just merely following dhann (speculation) without any certainty that what they are upon is indeed from Allaah.
And al-Khateeb al-Baghdaadee (d. 463H) has enumerated these and other proofs in his book "al-Faqeeh wal-Mutafaqqih", to establish that the khabar al-waahid is proof in the religion (without distinction between beliefs and rulings), refer to (1/281) wherein he writes:
Abu al-Abbaas Ahmad bin Ahmad at-Tabari, well-known as Ibn al-Qaass, said: "There is no difference between the people of the fiqh in the acceptance of the khabar ul-aahaad, when its narrators are proven trustworthy and when there its ruling is free from having been abrogated, even if they dispute in this being made a condition. But from the Ahl ul-Kalaam (people of theological speculation and rhetoric) is one who rejected the khabar ul-aahaad, due to his incapacity - and Allaah knows best - regarding knowledge of the Sunan, he claimed that he does not accept from them except the narrations that have come through tawaatur (successive, wide-scale transmission) from those from whom error and forgetfulness would be not permitted (collectively), and this, in our view, is (simply) an avenue for the nullification of the Sunan of al-Mustafaa (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)... [from two angles...]"
And prior to al-Khateeb, Imaam ash-Shaafi'ee brought extensive proofs to establish that the khabar ul-waahid is proof in the religion and there was no distinction between beliefs and rulings in that time - as is clear in all the books of aqidah that were authored by the Salaf in refutation of the deviants. He said, in ar-Risaalah, (أجمع المسلمون قديمًا وحديثًا على تثبيت خبر الواحد والانتهاء إليه), "The Muslims are unanimously agreed, both in the past and recently, upon affirmation of the khabar al-waahid, and settling upon it." So it is clear that the People of the Sunnah were aware of the attempts of the Ahl ul-Kalaam to cast doubt upon the Sunnah.
And the distinction between beliefs (aqaa'id) and rulings (ahkaam) is an innovation of the people of Kalaam, which they invented in order to allow them to attack the aqidah of Ahl us-Sunnah. When the Imaams of Hadeeth proved that the khabar ul-waahid is acceptable for evidence in the religion, these Innovators then tried to distinguish between beliefs and rulings. As the vast majority of these people, by their own admission were ignoramuses of the Sunnah (such as al-Juwaynee, and al-Ghazaalee, and ar-Raazee from the heads of the Ash'aris and likewise the heads of the Mu'tazilah), then they were not in a position to speak about the Sunnah with authority, and hence they innovated and carried such false principles to enable them to cast doubt upon the aqidah of Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah more readily.
Translation of an-Nabahani's Speech
Now coming back to what an-Nabahani has written above:
Towards the end of the first paragraph he says:
So the legislative ruling upon beliefs (aqaa'id) is that it is unlawful for their evidence to be speculative, and every Muslim who builds his aqidah upon speculative evidence, then he has fallen into what is haraam and to Allaah, he has been sinful.
In the next paragraph, he continues:
Except that it should be known that what is haraam is to believe (have i'tiqaad, hold as one's firm belief) but it is not to have mere tasdeeq (accept as true, assent to its truthfulness), for having tasdeeq, then there is no harm in it, and it is permissible, however, having resoluteness is what is haraam, meaning having at-tasdeeq al-jaasim (firm, resolute, belief) that is what is haraam, because he was resolute based upon dhann, and also because Allaah rebuked the one who build his aqidah upon dhann. Except that not having belief (i'itiqaad) does not mean rejection (inkaar), but it means only the absence of resoluteness. So the meaning of "I do not believe (a'taqidu) in something", does not mean, "I reject it", but it means, "I do not have resolute (belief) in it" ...
Then he goes on to say:
There have been some authentic dhannee (speculative) ahaadeeth reoprted in affairs that pertain to beliefs, but which are not from the sharee'ah rulings, so the meaning of the unlawfulness of belief (i'tiqaad) upon dhann is not to reject these ahaadeeth and not have tasdeeq in what has come in them, but the meaning is to not have resoluteness (i.e. sureness, certainty) in what is in these ahaadeeth, but it is permissible to have tasdeeq in them and to accept them, but what is haraam, is to believe (have i'tiqaad) in them, meaning to be resolute, with respect to them.
And this false, evil, innovated speech, none has preceded him in this distinction between at-tasdeeq and al-i'tiqaad. And whoever takes a look at the books authored by the Imaams of the Salaf in the early centuries to defend the Islamic aqidah, will see that they speak of having tasdeeq and eemaan and i'tiqaad collectively. Imaam at-Tahawi (d. 321H) writes in his famous aqidah, in the opening passage, (هذا ذكر بيان عقيدة أهل السنة والجماعة), "This is a mention of the aqidah of Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah", and he mentions therein many affairs from the khabar ul-aahaad. Imaam Ahmad (d. 241H) repeats often the phrase (والإيمان به ، والتصديق به), "and having faith (eemaan) in it, and attesting (tasdeeq) to it..." in relation to what has come in the Sunnah - whilst noting that an-Nabahani treats "eemaan" and "aqidah" to be the same. Documenting the use of "i'tiqaad" and "aqidah" from the works of the Imaams of the Sunnah in the second and third and fourth centuries in relation to the Sunnah is a separate article itself, but the intent here is just to allude to the fact that an-Nabahani is a straying innovator, inventing principles and distinctions from his own mind and from his Jahmi, Mu'tazili, Ash'ari heritage, and whoever is familiar with the works of aqidah of the early Salaf will know this with certainty.
Then he continues:
Rather, from them (the khabar ul-aahaad) are those in which the text has come requesting acting upon it, thus, it is acted upon. So from Abu Hurayrah who said: The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:
From all of the preceding speech, and when one considers the generality of what an-Nabahani has stated throughout his books in that aqidah is only established through the aql (intellect) - which is the primary foundation - and then through a definitive text, and he means a Qur'anic verse or a mutawaatir hadeeth, then it is clear that he casts doubt upon the rest of the Sunnah in relation to beliefs (aqaa'id), stating that it is permissible to make tasdeeq, but it is haraam to have i'tiqaad. Further, we have also seen that he makes the intellect decisive over the revelation in that he makes the intellect to be the qualifier and specifier and independent instrument of understanding the verses of the Qur'an (outside of the domain of the Sunnah in general and the sayings of the Companions) - see this article.
Built upon what has preceded above and in other articles, it is impermissible to study and learn doctrines from the books of the wandering, straying innovators, from whom is Taqi ud-Din an-Nabahani. For he is a follower of the Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah, Qadariyyah, Ash'ariyyah - a sympathizer of them - and he is not a follower of that path that the Companions were upon in creed, nor what their successors were upon, or their successors, or what the likes of Imaam Abdullaah Ibn al-Mubaarak, Imaam Sufyaan bin Uyainah, Imaam Maalik, Imaam ash-Shaafi'ee, Imaam Ahmad, Imaam Bukhaaree, Imaam Muslim and the generality of the Imaams of the Salaf were upon.
Link to this article: Show: HTML Link Full Link Short Link
You must be registered and logged in to comment.