|Monday, 24 April 2017|
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:
The Barelwi Mullah's Counter-Response
This is the counter response penned by Asrar Rashid against our six articles:
We will summarize what he wrote in his counter response and it revolves around one main point which he stated at the beginning:
... during his rebuttal [meaning our rebuttal here at Asharis.Com] (it was stated) that it was from the custom of the Righteous Salaf to make tafseel (detail) when mentioning their aqidah, and this presumption is an error from him...
The rest of his statement is really an attempt to expand upon this one point. This is all the Barelwi Mullah chose to respond to from our articles and he has employed great deception in the process. The narrations he brings in the rest of the statement are basically an attempt to argue for this point he has just made, i.e. that the way of the Salaf was not one of detail (tafseel) but in fact avoidance of tafseel - and this indicates the depth of his ignorance as we shall see, of both history and the way of the Salaf.
We will tackle this in the following manner. First - in this article - we shall show how he has committed academic fraud in misrepresenting, and twisting the intent of this disputant (us), and part of honesty in discussion is to correctly characterize the view of your opponent and not lie upon him or twist his words, or deliberately fail to address it in substance, despite it being made so clear such that it cannot possibly be misunderstood. Second - in the next article - we will comment on the narrations he has brought inshaa'Allaah.
The Barelwi Mullah's Deception
This is illustrated when we go back to our articles and quote from them to show that it was made very clear as to what is meant when we say that the way of the Salaf in aqidah was to make tafseel (detail). Here is one of our statements from Part 1 of our first series of articles. Oe can see his deception despite the fact that what we have written is as clear as night and day and leaves absolutely no ambiguity about the point being made:
Third: The way of the Salaf is tafseel (detail) when it comes to mentioning and presenting their creed, and one would have thought that Asrar Rashid would have practically followed in their footsteps alongside this glittering introduction that appears to venerate and respect the Salaf and highlight the excellence and correctness of their way. Instead, as we shall see in what follows, Asrar has filled his entire page with generalizations which appear to be in agreement with the way of the Salaf in wording, but the reality of what Asrar Rashid intends by these statements and the truthfulness of his claim can only be verified when he proceeds to mention his creed in detail, something he has quite clearly avoided and for no vain reason either. Of the approximately 80 or so books that we could list written by the Salaf from the mid second century until the early fourth century (from 150H to 320H) on the issues of creed in which they opposed the Ahl al-Kalaam, we find that whilst they (the Salaf) outline generalized principles that summarize their creed, they give specific details on specific issues that pertain to the Attributes of Allaah, such that there would no confusion left in the mind of anybody who reads their statements about the difference between what they were upon of ithbaat without tahreef and ta'weel and what the blameworthy Ahl al-Kalaam were upon of ta'teel through tahreef (called ta'weel) and against whom all of these books were authored by the Salaf. People like Asrar Rashid probably recognize this reality (as in, mentioning specifics will quickly expose you and your creed as being in conflict witht that of the Salaf). If they were to start writing down exactly what attributes they affirm as attributes of the essence (dhaat) and what attributes they do not, then the wider audience would quickly identify that this is characteristic of a creed founded upon ilm al-Kalaam and not based upon the way and methodology of the Salaf even if it is decorated with the generalizations and the broad principles of the Salaf like those Asrar Rasheed has mentioned in his statement above, but which he explicitly opposes as soon as he delves into mentioning or hinting at his creed on the subject of the sifat khabariyyah and al-uluww and revealing that he is a follower of the Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah and the Later Ash'aris (who followed the way of the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah in denying al-uluww for Allaah and His sifaat khabariyyah) and not a follower of the Salaf and nor of Ibn Kullab or al-Ash'ari or the very Early Ash'aris - and we have extensively documented their position on al-uluww and the sifaat khabariyyah dhaatiyyah in numerous articles on this site, so please refer to them, and we also explained the reality of the creed of the early Kullaabi Ash'aris, who were the staunchest of people against the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah in the issue of al-uluww and the sifaat khabariyyah dhaatiyyah.
And in Part 3 we stated:
But this is the intent of Asrar Rasheed, to treat the sifaat khabariyyah dhaatiyyah as Tajseem, and in this he is in reality jingoing with the Jahmiyyah whilst making a pretence of subscribing to the Salaf, and he thought he could conceal and clothe himself with vague, generalized statements and make it look as if he is wearing the attire of the Salaf, when in reality he is wearing no attire and his deception is plain to see for anyone with baseerah. For if he was truly a follower of the Salaf, he would have followed their particular methodology in laying down his creed, and their methodology is known in their books, it is detailed ithbaat with generalized negation of tamtheel. Pick up the books of the Salaf written in the second and third centuries on the topic of the sifaat of Allaah, the Exalted and what do you see? Then compare that with the deception Asrar Rasheed thought he could pull off with this one page of generalizations and obscurities.
And also in Part 3:
Fourth: To expand further on the bolded sentence in the last paragraph, when one looks at the second and third centuries after hijrah, we see that this was when ilm al-Kalaam appeared in theological matters and it was carried by the Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah and Rafidi Mujassimah in the second century (100H-200H) and the Kullaabiyyah and Karraamiyyah in the third century (200H-300H), before the Ash'aris and Maturidis appeared in the fourth century. Now, though there was gross tashbeeh present with the Raafidi Mutakallimeen, and likewise Tajseem present with the Hanafi Karraamiyyah, the overwhelming majority of the speech of the Salaf was against the Mu'attilah from Ahl al-Kalaam. In fact, their speech against the Mu'attilah dwarfs their speech about the Mushabbihah, and this is plain and manifest when one surveys all the books authored by the Salaf on matters of creed in the second and third centuries against Ahl al-Kalaam. The point we are leading to here then is that when this is the historical reality and when it is the case that the war of the Salaf was overwhelmingly against the Mu'attilah from Ahl al-Kalaam on the issue of the sifaat, Allaah's Speech and the Qur'aan, the Ru'yah, and al-uluww, then if a person was truly following the way of the Salaf, then he would have followed their way in writing his creed. Which is detailed and specific ithbaat (affirmation). However, because Asrar Rasheed is in reality on the side of his Kalaam ancestors, the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah, who entered this ilm al-Kalaam into the Ummah and through whom it came to the Ash'aris and Maturidis (after passing through the Kullaabiyyah), Asrar Rasheed has not followed the way of the Salaf at all, because he is in reality a disputant to the Salaf. If he did follow the Salaf as he claims, we would have seen an altogether different style and different content in the writing of his creed. Instead, he tried to remain as vague and general as possible, pretending to venerate and respect the way of the Salaf, focusing on negation (nafee) mostly...
And we also stated in Part 4 - [and it is recommended you read this article because we explained and clarified in detail the shubhah (doubt) of the neo-Jahmites like Asrar Rashid towards Allaah's sifat khabariyyah and we quoted from al-Ash'ari and al-Baqillani certain statements which are a refutation of him and his likes who drink from the fountation of the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah and then hide behind the likes of al-Bayhaqi who were also influenced by a degree of that Kalaam but were not as far from the truth compared to the likes of al-Ghazali, al-Razi and others who came after] - so we said in that earlier article:
Sixth: Asrar Rasheed is not following the way of the Salaf, he is lying in his claim, rather he is following the Ahl al-Kalaam, and all he has done is to make vague general statements which are mostly based around negation of tamtheel, Tajseem, tashbeeh and so on, in order to give the illusion he is following the Salaf, and avoided committing himself to specific ithbaat. However, as we said in a previous article, there is no escape from mentioning at least something besides the generalizations (even if it is just hinted at) otherwise, the statement of creed would be meaningless to anyone who reads it, and for this reason we see that he addressed the issue of the sifaat khabariyyah dhaatiyyah in a very indirect way and he addressed Allaah's uluww at the very end of his statement, which is the subject we will tackle next inshaa'Allaah, proving that He is a Jahmee in that regard, and certaintly not a follower of the Salaf, or al-Ash'ari, or Ibn Kullaab, or al-Qalanisee, or Ibn Mahdee al-Tabaree, or even al-Baqillaani, rather he is with the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah.
From the above quotes, our intent should be very clear and it is utterly amazing that Asrar Rashid then pretends to address an issue other than what was clarified in the above passages. This is because the Barelwi Mullah was unable to answer anything in substance. And also because entering and committing himself to a serious academic study of the implications of what we have written about the true roots of the creed of Ahl al-Kalaam would then expose the game and unveil the realities, and the people in general would quickly see that there is a much bigger wider picture and perspective that is deliberately kept hidden by todays Ash'arites and Maturidis about historical realities. Once that door is opened, and people are curious, and they begin to study objective historical fact, they will realize what great difference there is between the actual way of the Salaf and the fraudulent attempts of today's Ash'aris and Maturidis to cleverly manoeuvre and position themselves and their creed as being in agreement with the Salaf.
The issue being raised is that when we look into the books of the Salaf (and those of Ibn Kullab and al-Ash'ari) we see them stating their positions on a wide variety of issues in the matter of Tawhid and Aqidah and giving specifics about what attributes they affirm, such as Allah's uluww, and His face, hands, eyes and the rest of the attributes mentioned in the Qur'an and the aathaar. Whilst there are certainly many sayings of the Salaf in which a generalized, summary belief is mentioned, in terms of the general approach, there is to be found alongside that in the speech of the Salaf, specific and detailed ithbaat (affirmation). We will give just an example here from what was stated by Imam al-Tirmidhī (d. 274H) who reported the consensus of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamāʿah in affirming the ṣifāt khabariyyah :
It has been stated by more than one person from the People of Knowledge about this hadīth and what resembles it from the narrations, such as (those of) the Attributes, and the descent of our Lord, the Blessed and Exalted, to the lowest heaven every night. They said the narrations regarding this are established and they are to be believed. No presumptions are to be made and it is not said "How?" The likes of this has been related from Mālik [bin Anas], Sufyān Ibn ʿUyainah and ʿAbd Allāh bin al-Mubārak, who all said about such ahādīth, "Leave them as they are, without asking how." Such is the saying of the People of Knowledge from the Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamāʿah. However, the Jahmiyyah opposed these narrations and said "This is tashbīh!" But, Allāh the Exalted, has mentioned in various places in His Book, the attribute of al-yad (hand), as-samaʿ (hearing), and al-basr (seeing), yet the Jahmiyyah make taʾwīl of these verses, explaining them (fassarūhā) in a way, other than how they are explained by the people of knowledge. They say, "Indeed, Allāh did not create Ādam with His own hand - they say that hand (yad) means the power (qudrah) of Allāh." Ishāq ibn Ibrahīm al-Rāhūyah said: Tashbīh (resemblance) is if it is said: "Hand like my hand, or similar to my hand", or it is said: "Hearing like my hearing, or similar to my hearing", then this is tashbīh. But if what is being said is what Allah has said, "Hand, Hearing, Seeing" and it is not asked how, nor is it said, "Like my hearing, or similar to my hearing" then it is not tashbīh. Allāh, the Most Blessed, Most High, said in His Book, "There is no likeness unto Him, and he is the all-Hearer, the all-Seer." (42:11) [Al-Sunan of at-Tirmidhī, 1/128-129.]
Why can't today's Jahmiyyah posing as Ash'aris follow the same way of making specific and detailed ithbaat of all that is the Qur'an and aathar with general negation of likeness instead of pretending to follow the Salaf by parading generalized statements deprived of the specific and detailed ithbaat found in the words and writings of the Salaf? The reason is that if they went beyond the generalizations and vague expressions and committed themselves to this approach, they would be forced to reveal that they do not affirm what the Salaf affirm, and that they are not in reality operating upon the uniform principle of the Salaf of affirming everything in the Book and the Sunnah without ta'weel and without tafweed and without tahreef, and that they are only playing games when they try to hide behind these generalized statements (which we shall look at in Part 3). Thus, if they were to be honest and say: We affirm the attributes of life, knowledge, will, power, hearing, seeing and speech, and some of the other corollory attributes they affirm, all people will come to realize that they are not following the Salaf and that the Salaf (and Ibn Kullaab and al-Ash'ari) made specific ithbaat of much more than this as is clearly abundant and evident from their works. So there is a reason why these deceptive Ash'aris and Maturidis choose this particular method in trying to conceal the reality of their creed, they are simply treading carefully so as not to open the door to the curious mind and raise too many questions.
Once more, the point we are making is that if you go and look at the books of the Salaf authored in creed in refutation of the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah you will see a type of specific and detailed ithbaat (affirmation) as opposed to just a mere collection of generalized statements alone. You will see them quoting scores and scores of aathaar (hadeeth and narrations) that pertain to the attributes explaining how the Jahmiyyah denied these aathaar and twisted the verses which pertain to the attributes. Indicating that the ithbaat (affirmation) with the Salaf was specific and detailed - as in extensive, and it is very unlike the ithbaat of some the later factions of Ahl al-Kalaam (Ash'aris, Maturidis) which was a restricted one, bound by the necessities of their proof of huduth al-ajsaam which was taken by their ancestors in Kalaam, the Jahmiyyah, from the Sabean star and idol-worshipping pagans.. To go through all the books of creed of the Salaf and then systematically list the specific attributes of Allaah that they mention and affirm in opposition to the predominant deviants of their time (the Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah) would be a worthy exercise here and it would show that Asrar Rashid and his likes are on the side of the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah against the Salaf (and Ibn Kullaab and al-Ash'ari) and that when they attack Ahl al-Sunnah with the accusation of Tajseem and tashbeeh, they are in fact simply representing the attacks of the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah upon the Imaams of the Salaf, and upon Ibn Kullaab and al-Ash'ari (and the very early Kullaabi Ash'aris) for affirming Allah's uluww and His sifat khabariyyah dhaatiyyah.
Insha'Allaah in Part 3, we will look at the citations Asrar Rashid brought from al-Bayhaqi as part of the general ploy to keep the reality and origins of the Kalaam creed hidden from the general masses.
Link to this article: Show: HTML Link Full Link Short Link
You must be registered and logged in to comment.