Thunderous Fireworks To Instill Shock and Awe Into Faint-Hearted, Pusillanimous, Stinking Hypocritical, Intellectual Fraudsters, Abu Bilal Maliki, Faqir, and Muhammad Fahmi

In order to truly appreciate the significance of this installment of this series, please be sure to read Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 and get a good grasp as to what is going on, because in this installment there are going to be some loud and illustrious fireworks and you need to make sure you don't miss anything. Jahmites beware, you better take cover, and head off back to that ditch of Khurasan from where you true and real ancestry reared its ugly countenance.

These Pusillanimous Jahmites have not had the honesty to address the real issue detailed in Part 3, which is that there is absolutely zero material significance as to whether al-ayn (eye) is mentioned in the singular or dual, as it is totally irrelevant to the wider issue of the fact that the later Asharites sided with the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah in denying the sifat khabariyyah and became disputants to Ibn Kullab, al-Ashari, and al-Baqillani (and likewise al-Bayhaqi and even Ibn Fawrak) in this matter. These contemptibly fearful "men" are proven to be deceivers, fraudsters and liars in that they are (attempting) to use a wholly irrelevant issue to blind the audience from the elephant sitting on their nose-ends.

However, to finish off their deception for good, in this installment we want to carry on where we left off in Part 2. In that article we pointed out that in all four manuscripts used by Dr. Fawqiyyah it is found that al-Ash'ari used al-ayn (eye) in both singular and dual in a particular chapter dealing specifically with the attributes of face, two hands and two eyes, and that he used "Two eyes" in the chapter heading, but within the body of the text used just the singular "eye" in reference to the genus of eye. So the fact that this variation is established in all the manuscripts, shows that trying to pretend that al-Ibanah is unreliable due to this variation is an academic fraud and shows the dumbness, shallowness and lowliness in intellect, besides dishonesty in a wider sense.

Printed Versions Cited by the Pusillanimous Jahmites

Just to lay the background to what follows, in their article they made reference to four source texts as it relates to al-Ibaanah. They are as follows:

1. The verification and print of Dr. Fawqiyyah Hussain Mahmood (1397H). She used four manuscripts.

2. The printed edition of Bashir Uyun (third edition, 1990) and what he did was to take all previously published versions of al-Ibanah including that of Dr. Fawqiyyah Mahmood, and prepare a consistent version in which there is agreement between all manuscripts and previously printed versions, and to produce a standardized text.

3. The verification of Salih al-Aseemi, which was for a PhD doctorate in aqidah, printed in 1429H, and this is by far the best and most thorough. He used six manuscripts and pointed out the flaws in previously published versions, including the above two.

4. And sections from al-Ibanah quoted by Ibn Asakir (d. 571H) who wrote the book Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari to defend al-Ash'ari against the claim that he wrote al-Ibanah out of deception, and to please the Hanbalis. Ibn Asakir in this work, believe it or not, is actually refuting the contemporary Jahmites who are peddling the very claim against which Ibn Asakir wrote the book in the first place! In this book Ibn Asaakir quoted a lengthy section from the opening of the book within which there is the mention of affirmation of face, hands and eye. Pay attention, here Ibn Asaakir did not quote the whole of Ibaanah, just the opening part.

The Original Inconsistency Pointed Out by the Jahmites

Once this is clear, it should be pointed out that in order to show the discrepancy on the matter of the attribute of eyes, the Jahmites compared between the verification of Salih al-Aseemi and what was quoted by Ibn Asakir. And sure enough there is a difference, this is not denied. Let's just put this here for the record:

The print version verified by Salih al-'Asimi, published in 1429H, here is the scans the Jahmites provided:

And also:

In both of these texts we see that al-Ash'ari's statement affirming that Allah has two eyes. Then the Jahmites quoted from Ibn Asakir in Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari in which Ibn Asakir (d. 571) quotes from whatever manuscript he was in possession of:

And also:

Here we see the eye used in the singular not in the dual. So what they have done is to compare al-Aseemi's tahqiq with Ibn Asakir's quote.

Moving From Micro Detail to Macro Picture

To understand what is going on, what is happening here is that our nose is next to the tree in the forest. We need to get out of the forest and be able to see the whole forest. You know the phrase, "can't see the wood for the trees", and what this means is: "If someone can't see the wood for the trees, they are unable to understand what is important in a situation because they are giving too much attention to details" and also, "If someone can't see the wood for the trees, they get so caught up in small details that they fail to understand the bigger picture."

So lets begin in earnest:

Firework Key: Roman Candles: they produce flames and bursting effects, accompanied with crackling flashes and loud reports. Rockets: they are like mortar shells with a big bang at the peak of their flight, there is some suspense and anticipation involved, with a trail of sparks and impressive burst. Aerial Shells: These are the kings of fireworks, spectacular visually, and usually the loudest, used by professionals and are launched the same way military mortar shells are launched. We may or may not employ these depending on the brazenness of the Jahmites, but we think that the basic, kiddy stuff should do the job and quickly have them on their heels.

The Fireworks

Roman Candle 1: Dr. Fawqiyyah's Four Manuscript Tahqiq Actually Agrees Perfectly with al-Aseemi's Six Manuscript Tahqiq in the Mention of Two Eyes and Bashir Uyun's Standardization Agrees with Ibn Asakirs(!!)

So here is al-Aseemi's as provided by the Jahmites::

And here is Dr. Fawqiyyah's equivalent:

And here is Bashir Uyun's equivalent

Compared with Ibn Asakir's:

The result of this comparison: The Jahmites have to admit that Bashir Uyun's is in agreement with Ibn Asakir's version, and maybe he chose to standardize this passage with Ibn Asakir instead of relying upon the later manuscripts, can't really fault that. At the same time, al-Aseemi' is in agreement with Dr. Fawqiyyah and between them they used six manuscripts. However, as we pointed out in Part 2 and Part 3 this variation is absolutely immaterial and means absolutely nothing. But the Jahmites want your nose squeezed against the wall so you can't see anything else.

Deception and Fraud Uncovered: Why did the Pusillanmous, Contemptibly Wretched Jahmites Compare Al-Aseemi with Ibn Asaakir instead of comparing Bashir Uyun with Ibn Asakir? Answer that question! Or for that matter, instead of comparing Dr. Fawqiyyah with al-Aseemi? Same thing.

Roman Candle 2: Dr. Fawqiyyah's Manuscript Tahqiq Actually Agrees Perfectly with al-Aseemi's Manuscript Tahqiq in the Mention of Two Eyes and Bashir Uyun's Standardization Agrees with Ibn Asakirs(!!)

OK, we liked the last firework and we have an opportunity to repeat it again, because circumstances allow us to. In the second place where the mention of the attribute of eye (singular or dual) is mentioned in all these four sources:

So here is al-Aseemi's as provided by the Jahmites::

And here is Dr. Fawqiyyah's equivalent:

And here is Bashir Uyun's equivalent

Compared with Ibn Asakir's:

The result of this comparison: Same firework, same noise and same display. The Jahmites have to admit that Bashir Uyun's is in agreement with Ibn Asakir's version, and maybe he chose to standardize this passage with Ibn Asakir instead of relying upon the later manuscripts, can't really fault that. At the same time, al-Aseemi' is in agreement with Dr. fawqiyyah. However, as we pointed out in Part 2 and Part 3 this variation is absolutely immaterial and means absolutely nothing. But the Jahmites want your nose squeezed against the wall so you can't see anything else.

Deception and Fraud Uncovered: Why did the Pusillanmous, Contemptibly Wretched Jahmites Compare Al-Aseemi with Ibn Asaakir instead of comparing Bashir Uyun with Ibn Asakir? Answer that question! Or for that matter, instead of comparing Dr. Fawqiyyah with al-Aseemi? Same thing.

Rocket 1: Complete Agreement Between All Manuscripts in the Chapter Dealing Specifically With Face, Two Hands and Two Eyes

We are now stepping up a little and we are going to use the rocket! By now, we think that the Pusillanimous Jahmites should be well on their way at the other end of town, fleeing for shame. But you have to remember that we are dealing with a particular species of Jahmite, you must not cut any corners and make sure that the finish is clinical in nature.

First, Dr. Fawqiyyah:

Just to make a quick note here and to let you into an later Ash'ari secret. THEY DO NOT REALLY AFFIRM THE attributes OF HEARING AND SEEING. But you have to be one of the elite, and read their high end books to be in the know. Here was their problem:

In reality, upon verification, the Ash'arites only affirm life (hayat) and knowledge (ilm) as attributes. The rest are all problematic for them (speech, hearing, seeing, power, wish) - and you have to really read into the kalam sophistries they had to invent in order to maintain a straight face to the Mu'tazilah. But this is a digression and its for another article, back to the topic.

Then Bashir Uyun's:

Then Salih al-Aseemi's:

The result of this comparison: Now, we do not have anything from Ibn Asaakir to compare here, but all these printed versions of al-Ibaanah, together with all the manuscripts used are identical in this chapter. And in this chapter we see that al-Ash'ari used the dual form of eye (aynan) in the chapter heading but used the singular form in the body of the text on two occasions. So this renders spurious the attempt of the PJs that the variation (between singular and dual) is a sign of tampering. If it is proven and established that al-Ash'ari himself used the singular and dual interchangeably, then it is ridiculous to use this as a sign of tampering in order to discredit the book. But what else can you expect from snotty little kids who were not left with any tissues by G.F. Haddad?

Deception and Fraud Uncovered: Why did the Pusillanmous, Jahmites not compare altogether different sections of al-Ibanah that relate to, lets say, al-uluww, or the chapter that specifically deals with the attributes of Face, Hands and Eyes as attributes of Allah's essence, and see if there is any discrepancy therein? Because they would be uncovered and because they are intellectual fraudsters and were simply out to deceive the believers and are trying to call to the deen of the Jahmites, opposing and disputing with Ibn Kullab, al-Ashari, al-Qalanisi, al-Muhasibi, Ibn Mahdi al-Tabari, al-Baqillani (and al-Bayhaqi, and even Ibn Fawrak) LET ALONE, the entirety of the Salaf.

Finally, Sayf al-Din al-Aamidee (d. 631H) wrote in his book Ghayat al-Maraam (p. 135)

And from the associates (of the madhhab) are those who added to this, and affirmed knowledge of the existence of attributes additional to what we have mentioned, and this is the likes of al-baqā' (lasting, remaining), wajh (face), ʿaynān (two eyes), yadān (two hands)

And then we have al-Juwayni (d. 478H) stating in al-Irshad (p. 155):

Chapter: Two hands, two eyes and face. Some of our leading scholars (a'immah) have gone to the view that the two hands, two eyes and face are established attributes for the Lord, the Exalted, and that the path to affirming them is the revealed texts, without entering the realm of reason (ʿaql).

These are two texts from two very prominent Ashari Scholars who affirm that there are those from their school who affirm two eyes for Allah, and they are referring to Ibn Kullab, al-Ash'ari, al-Baqillani amongst others. Al-Baqillani affirmed two eyes as occurs in his book al-Tamhid, you can read that here where he said:

And if someone says: Distinguish for us between the attributes of His Essence (dhaat) from the attributes of His Actions, so that I may know that. It is said to him: The attributes of His Essence are those that He has never ceased to be described with, and they are Life, Knowledge, Power, Hearing, Seeing, Speech, Wish (Iraadah), Permanence (al-Baqaa), Face, Two Eyes, Two Hands, and Anger, Pleasure...

Then in al-Maqaalaat (tahqiq Muhammad Muhyi al-Din, Egypt, 1950), al-Ashari affirms two eyes for Allah, whilst quoting the view of Ahl al-Sunnah, which he says that he follows and adheres to:

So he mentioned here face, two hands and two eyes. After all of this, is is sustainable to deny that al-Ash'ari, like Ibn Kullab and al-Baqillani and Ibn Mahdi al-Tabari and others affirmed two eyes for Allaah?

You see, these people falsely ascribing themselves to the aqidah of al-Ashari are on the same side of the fence as the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah whom Ibn Kullab, al-Ashari, al-Baqillani, and al-Bayhaqi all refuted for not affirming these attributes as attributes of the essence without ta'wil and tafwid.