The Pusillanimous Jahmites Continue in Their Talbis After Being Exposed

As we explained in a previous article in this series, these Jahmites are constantly revising their article, every time we expose their deception and lies in order to patch up their pathetic little case of trying to claim that because there is a variation between the manuscripts in the use of eye in the singular and dual, that al-Ibanah therefore is spurious and cannot be relied upon - when the reality is that this has been proved to be a completely immaterial matter given the fact that later Asharis like al-Juwayni and al-Aamidee admit that earlier Asharis affirm two eyes for Allaah (see here), and the fact that al-Baqillani affirms two eyes for Allaah, and likewise al-Ash'ari in his book al-Maqaalaat also affirms it (see here) and likewise in al-Mujiz as cited by Ibn Hazm in this article.

We also explained how these Jahmites selectively chose between the different published versions in order to highlight a discrepancy between what Ibn Asakir quoted from the beginning of al-Ibaanah of the mention of eye in the singular and what is found in some of these published versions of the mention of eye in the dual (see details in this article).

It appears that they are still on the loose in their unchanged diapers and are continuing to peddle the same deception in trying to make a mountain out of the immaterial difference. They've gone and found another published version of al-Ibaanah in which the singular of eye is mentioned in the opening passage that is found in Ibn Asakir's Tabyin.

Here is what they posted - for the record, its the cover and quotes from a 1348H published version of al-Ibaanah:

Then these Pusillanimous Jahmites commented:

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.

You see the fake pseudo-scholarship and the outright deception going on here. In the more recent published version of Bashir Uyun (see earlier articles) he actually mentions eye in the singular in the opening passage where the above two quotes appear, and so they did not compare the above version and Ibn Asakirs with Bashir Uyun's to show conformity, since that is another way of presenting what is found amongst the manuscripts and the published version, and here are those quotes from Bashir Uyun's print.

And also:

Why cannot be said, for argument's sake that there are two published versions that of Bashir Uyun and that mentioned above, which are in agreement with the point of comparison, which is Ibn Asakir's citation, and hence, the issue of "tampering" which is based on a wholly immaterial matter in the first place (the mention of eye in the singular or dual) becomes totally irrelevant. Hence, games are clearly being played here.

So what they are doing is selecting only certain published editions to give the view of discrepancy, when there are other published versions that completely agree with what Ibn Asakir has cited. This is being done to deceive the reader - and this is on top of what has been mentioned previously that it is a totally immaterial difference in any case, since in other parts of the book, in all the various manuscripts we see al-Ash'ari mentioning eye in both singular and dual, within the same chapter - so as all available manuscripts are agreed with respect to this, it puts an end to this fraudulent use of discrepancy to cast doubt about al-Ibaanah as a whole.

The Reality of these 21st Century Jahmites

To this end they are trying to hoodwink their audience into using irrelevant issues to build the charge of tampering, when there is stronger evidence that the Ash'arites have actually tampered with al-Ibaanah and inserted fabrications into it in order to support their denial of al-uluww and al-istiwaa as has been documented in Part 4 of this series. Then these fools don't realise they have al-Baqillani to contend with, and al-Ash'aris other books such as al-Maqaalaat and al-Mujiz to contend with. It is all one big mess for them and so they work with deception, lies, and conniving in order to pull themselves out of that ditch of Khurasan from whence their true and real ancestry emerged.