|Sunday, 04 June 2023|
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's Profound Ignorance Regarding the Deviant Figureheads and Sects
Under the heading "Philosopher Muslims" in his book "ash-Shakhsiyyah al-Islaamiyyah" (1/125), an-Nabahani writes:
This passage occurs in a wider context of discussing matters of aqidah such as the issue of al-qadaa wal-qadar and Allaah's attributes (sifaat), and here he is outlining what happened between the Philosophers and the Theologians (Mutakallimoon) by whom he means the Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah and Ash'ariyyah.
So he says:
When philosophical issues connected to studies in divinity were infused amongst the Muslims, some of the Scholars, at the end of the Umayyid era and the beginning of the Abbaasid era, such as al-Hasan al-Basree, Gheelaan ad-Dimashqee and Jahm bin Safwaan began to address numerous different theological issues.
Here he equates between the great and noble Imaam and Taabi'ee, Hasan al-Basree (rahimahullaah) a follower of the Companions, and an Imaam of Ahl us-Sunnah with two heads of innovation and the greatest of deviants. Jahm bin Safwan, who was executed a kaafir in 128H by Salam al-Ahwaz, the amir of Khurasaan, for his kufr and ilhaad (deviation) and Gheelaan al-Qadaree, who along with Ma'bad al-Juhanee was the flag-bearer of the bid'ah of al-Qadar (negating al-Qadar). A quick glimpse into any of the early books of aqidah written by the great Imaams such as Imaam al-Bukhaaree (d. 256H), or Imaam Ahmad (d. 241H) and others and one will see their takfir of al-Jahm and the Jahmiyyah, and their condemnation of the Qadariyyah. There is no excuse for including al-Jahm bin Safwan and Gheelaan al-Qadaree amongst the "scholars".
However, when you read what an-Nabahani says at the end of the above passage (see quote below), you will realize the repugnance of his view. Next, he speaks of those who got involved in philosophy and the logic of Aristotle, he is referring to the heads of the Mu'tazilah, such as Waasil bin Ataa, Amr bin Ubayd, Abu al-Hudhayl al-Allaaf, and an-Nadhaam. He says about these people that they studied philosophical ideas limitedly with a view to defending and strenghtening faith.
Finally, at the end of the above passage he says about all those mentioned (the heads of the Jahmiyyah, and of the Qadariyyah, and the Mu'tazilah):
For this reason, no deviation at all occurred from them in aqaa'id (beliefs) despite all their variant beliefs, for all of them are Muslims, defending Islaam.
This statement of an-Nabahani indicates either a) his compound ignorance of the Islamic aqidah and of those who deviated from it and of the positions of the great Imaams towards such people b) his deliberate distortion of historical facts and realities. And it is not our purpose here to bring the hundreds of statements from Salaf regarding Jahm bin Safwan or Gheelaan al-Qadariyy or Amr bin Ubayd and their likes from the heads of the Jahmiyyah, Qadariyyah and Mu'tazilah, and the takfir (declaring as disbelievers) of those who held onto the beliefs of these factions. This is rudimentary knowledge for anyone who has studied aqidah from its sources.
An-Nabahani cannot claim ignorance of the position of the Salaf, since either he is guiding himself by those Salaf who followed in the footsteps of the Companions in belief, speech and deed, something that all Muslims are commanded with, or he is guiding himself by something other than that. When one reads the books of an-Nabahani, you do not see him guiding his opinions by the illustrious Imaams of the Sunnah (and you rarely find a mention of them), rather his opinions - as we shall see in the rest of this series - are based upon the views of the Jahmiyyah, the Qadariyyah, the Mu'tazilah and the Ash'ariyyah. So it is little surprise that he defends these heads of innovation in such a manner, claiming that "no deviation at all occurred from them in aqaa'id..."
On page 127 of the same volume, an-Nabahani makes a list of main differences between the Mutakallimeen (theologians, the Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah, Ash'ariyyah) and the Philosophers (al-Kindi, al-Farabi, Ibn Seenaa) and he says regarding the Mutakallimeen (the Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah and Ash'ariyyah):
3. That the studies of the Theologians are Islamic studies and they are considered, [despite] their divergence and mutual contradiction, as Islamic viewpoints. Every Muslim who embraced a viewpoint from amongst them (those viewpoints) is considered to have embraced an Islamic viewpoint, and whatever he adopted is considered an Islamic aqidah.
This means that the saying that the Qur'an (i.e. the speech of Allaah) is created, which is kufr, is an Islamic aqidah, and the saying that Allaah has no Names or Attributes is an Islamic aqidah, and the saying that man creates his own actions, outside of the domain of Allaah's will and creative ability is an Islamic aqidah, and the saying that man is compelled in his actions, without choice is an Islamic aqidah, and the saying that Allaah has no speech, and never spoke to Moses is an Islamic aqidah, and the saying that Allaah is everywhere within the creation is an Islamic aqidah, and that Allaah is not above His Throne, above His creation is an Islamic aqidah and so on. And that all the great Imaams of the Salaf from the time of the likes of al-Hasan al-Basri (d. 110H) to well into the fourth and fifth centuries, in all their thousands, were all in manifest error in writing books, and warning against these deviant creeds and opinions and their figureheads, and warning against those who spoke with them, expelling them, boycotting them - that the entirety of the Salaf were in manifest error in their position towards these deviant innovators that were the Qadariyyah, Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah, Kullaabiyyah. That the books that were authored in this period such as (by way of example):
Were all in vain and were all in falsehood, and that all these great Imaams who authored these books were unjust and oppressive against those deviants, because their deviations were nothing but the "Islamic aqidah" despite the mutual contradiction between these very opinions!
However, when we come to look at an-Nabahani's other viewpoints in creed, it becomes clear that he actually is with those deviants, and is with them in their usool, and for this reason, he is very magnanimous towards them, and this explains these excuses he makes for these people who destroyed the unity of the Muslims and aided in the destruction of Islaam and its sanctified aqidah.
Link to this article: Show: HTML Link Full Link Short Link
You must be registered and logged in to comment.