|Thursday, 21 February 2019|
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:
At the outset, it is important to clarify words and terminologies that may be used throughout this series of articles, and thus, to get the formalities out of the way:
And this is only a fraction of their misguidance. So after subduing these Jahmite Ash'aris who have no shame in claiming there is no Lord above the heaven (being more bold in that than their Jahmite predecessors) they responded in a somewhat subdued and pusillanimous tone without really addressing the major and central issues for which they were disciplined in the articles above - and thus their subjugation is warranted.
And it is from honoring the course of discussion that if you raise the issue of Muhammad Abduh being the founder of Salafiyyah - by way of example - and then you are subdued, exposed and humiliated for making such a claim, and then in turn you want to respond - that you must respond in a manner that keeps within the actual substance of the claim you originally made. And likewise, if you claim that it was not from the way of the Salaf to say "bi dhaatihi" or "baa'inun min khalqihi" or "bi haddin" and then it is clearly established otherwise, then you've got to address why you made that false claim in the first place, instead of moving away from that and trying to forge your own explanations for these phrases. And likewise, if you reviled Ibn Taymiyyah, accusing him of originating the issue of whether Allaah's Throne becomes unoccupied when He descends or not, claiming this was not something that the Salaf spoke about - and then you were rounded up and taken care of by the sandal - it was necessary for you to address your falsehood and keep the discussion within the issue and to bring us what knowledge you have of the issue. And likewise when you tried the cheap shot of using some suspect words ascribed to Imaam adh-Dhahabi, which nevertheless were against you and not for you, and then you were appropriately disciplined and exposed, then it was binding upon you to respond in substance.
And the explanation of that in more detail will be elaborated upon in the rest of this series inshaa'Allaah. So we say, and in no particular order of preference regarding the issues to be discussed:
Concerning the Jahmites' Acknowledgement Regarding the Phrase "Bi Dhaatihi" Used by the Salaf And Their Attempt To Pass This Off As Being "Ilm ul-Kalaam"
In one of their lectures on the biography of Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari, one of the Jahmites from Philadelphia made numerous remarks regarding what has been reported from the Salaf of their use of phrases such as "bi dhaatihi" (with His Essence) and "bi haddin" (with a demarcation) and so on, and he rambled stating that the likes of these phrases are not found in the Book and the Sunnah and that the way of the Salaf was to stop at what is in the Book and the Sunnah and that "this was their methodology", and he claimed it was the likes of Ibn Taymiyyah who began saying some of these things, and that the likes of Imaam Ahmad were not upon this. And we covered this speech in this article.
In their response this is what they have now written:
And regarding this there are a number of points of subjugation:
Point 1: The Claim of the Hulooli Jahmites That Allaah is Everywhere
Concerning their saying:
In the early days following their time, rightly guided scholars like Abdullah Ibn Mubaarak were faced with new challenges. One challenge was the Jahmiyyah's claim that Allah is everywhere by his essence.
Jahm bin Safwan claimed Allaah is everywhere and in everything after he got confused by the Indian Materialist Philosophers, the Sumaniyyah. So when they debated him, he said, "Leave me for a while" and he went back and concocted a belief through which he could convince them of His Lord. And the Sumaniyyah only believed in what could be perceived by the senses and they also believed in the transmigration of souls. So he said that just like you believe that souls occupy your bodies without you having seen them, or touched them, or spoken to them, or smelt them, or heard them, then similarly Allaah is everywhere, even though you cannot see Him, touch Him, speak to Him, hear Him or smell Him, and as He cannot be perceived by the senses, then He cannot be described with anything - even though His existence is manifest in everything.
And when Jahm bin Safwan concocted this viewpoint, it was to avoid falsifying the intellectual proof he used initially to convince them, which was what later became known as "hudooth ul-ajsaam" and "hudooth ul-a'raad fil-ajsaam" - which is to argue that since qualities (sifaat), incidental attributes (a'raad) and events, occurrences (hawaadith) are found in bodies, it proves that bodies are newly-arisen (haadithah) and thus, created and anything which is newly-arisen (created), must be preceded by the one that brought them about. So in this manner he sought to convince the Sumaniyyah of the creator. And when they subsequently asked him, "We accept there is a Lord then, now describe your Lord to us", then he realized that if he described his Lord with what is in the Book and the Sunnah it would falsify his proof. So he got confused, and he concocted the creed which essentially constituted two foundations:
And the creed of the Hulooli Jahmites - those saying Allaah is everywhere - and that of the Mu'attil Jahmites - those negating that Allaah can be described with anything, until they negated two opposites from Him, such as not being within the universe and not being outside of it - were both derived from the creed concocted by Jahm bin Safwan in the course of his debates with the Sumaniyyah.
So when our Philadelphian Jahmites speak of this challenge of the Jahmiyyah, then we need to understand what specifically, precisely and exactly this challenge was. And the debates of Jahm with the Sumaniyyah are known and reported in the early books of aqeedah, and Imaam Ahmad has made mention of this in "ar-Radd 'alal-Jahmiyyah" and there are narrations in al-Laalikaa'ees "Sharh Usool il-I'tiqaad" establishing this, besides many other sources.
And the reason why it is important to understand this is because the creed that our Philadelphian Jahmites are upon - which is the deen built upon al-jawhar (substance) and al-'arad (incidental attribute) and Kalam Atomism (al-Jawhar al-Fard) is actually derived from the usool (foundations) of Jahm and the Mu'tazilah who followed Jahm in that. And you can refer to this article that covers Jahm and the Sumaniyyah in more detail. These people (the Philadelphian Jahmites and all those claiming adherence to the Ash'ari creed) all tend towards the creed of the Mu'attil Jahmites - those who say Allah is not above, nor below, not in the universe, nor outside the universe and so on.
So it grieves them that the Salaf, like Ibn al-Mubaarak and many others, used phrases like "baa'inun min khalqihi" and "bi dhaatihi", it truly grieves them, because their real affectations are with the Jahmites who negate that their is a Lord above the true and real created entity that is the Throne (al-Arsh) - see al-Bayhaqi on the Throne being a true and real created entity.
Point 2: The Saying of Ibn al-Mubaarak
Concerning their saying:
Abdullah Ibn Mubaarak's method of response was "No, he's everywhere by his knowledge, but "ala Arsh bi dhatihi" (beyond his Throne essentially). It must be understood that Ibn Mubaarak was speaking out of necessity as a means to refute the Jahmiyya.
It is not directly and explictly reported from Ibn al-Mubaarak that he said, "bi dhaatihi", however it is reported from him that he said, "baa'inun min khalqiih" (separate from His creation), and "bi haddin" (with demarcation) in relation to Allaah's uluww and istiwaa. And we have covered the saying of Ibn al-Mubaarak here and here. However, in what has been quoted "'alal-arsh bi dhaatihi" is a meaning that is correct, even though it is not reported directly and explicitly from Ibn al-Mubaarak as his speech, but it is a meaning that is comprised in the sayings of Ibn al-Mubaarak "baa'inun min khalqihi" (separate from His creation) and "bi haddin" (above His Throne, with a demarcation).
There is a narration that adh-Dhahabi mentions in "Mukhtasar al-Uluww" (p. 255) from Abu Nasr al-Waa'ilee as-Sijzee, from his book "al-Ibaanah", that he said:
Our leading scholars such as ath-Thawree, Maalik, the two Hammaads, Ibn Uyainah, Ibn al-Mubaarak, Fudayl (bin Iyaad), Ahmad and Ishaaq (bin Raahawaih) are upon agreement that Allaah is above the Throne with His Essence (bi dhaatihi), and that his knowledge is in every place.
So this is reported as the meaning of what those Imaams of the religion were upon, that all their words and statements are with the meaning that Allaah is upon the Throne, bi dhaatihi, with His Essence, but as for an explicit narration that Ibn al-Mubaarak said the words "bi dhaatihi", then we have not come across such a report.
As for those from whom "baa'inun min khalqihi" has been reported, then they are:
And amongst them are Hanbalis, Malikis, Shafi'is, Muhadditheen, Huffaadh, Fuqahaa, and heads of the Sufiyyah (and we mean the early Sufiyyah, those upon Zuhd, not the later heretical Sufiyyah who are upon Hulool and Ittihaad). So the like of this statement is reported way after Ibn al-Mubarak from a large number of the Scholars.
And as for "bi dhaatihi", then adh-Dhahabi mentions it in "Mukhtasar al-Uluww" (p. 255) from the likes of:
And the phrase "bi haddin" is well-known from Ibn al-Mubarak and Imaam Ahmad, which was used to counter the Jahmites. And if it wasn't for the fear of prolonging the matter, we would have brought each and every single quotation in this regard, from those listed above.
So in the words of the Philadelphian Jahmites we have an acknowledgment that such phrases were used by the Salaf, even though previously it was asserted by the Philadelphian Jahmites, that this was not the way of the Salaf, or of Imaam Ahmad, and that they stopped where the Qur'aan and Sunnah stopped, and they found fault with Ibn Taymiyyah accusing him of initiating such sayings. As these narrations cannot be denied, and they are authentically related from Abdullaah Ibn al-Mubaarak, and Imaam Ahmad affirmed what Ibn al-Mubaarak said, then the Philadelphian Jahmites are now forced to acknowledge thereby, that Ibn Taymiyyah was not the originator of these statements - and to claim such a thing is intellectual fraud that immediately exposes the claimant as a intellectual fraudster.
And likewise, when there are present today the same Hulooli Jahmites in the form of the extremist Soofees and other than them, in large numbers in all parts of the world, then anyone who finds fault with those who use the phrases "bi dhaatihi" and "baa'inun min khalqihi" and "bi haddin" in the course of addressing the false belief of these people, then he immediately exposes himself as an intellectual fraudster.
And we make a distinction between using these phrases in the course of refuting falsehood, and between using these phrases in the matter of affirming ones belief. In the latter case, when we simply outline and state our belief, then such expressions are not necessary. Thus, when we explain our belief to the people we say, "Allaah is above the Throne", and if a situation demands that we say, "bi dhaatihi" or "baa'inun min khalqihi", and "bi haddin" - with the meaning intended by Ibn al-Mubaarak, then we say that in order to remove doubt and confusion.
Thus, when it is the case that the Hulooli Jahmites are present in greater numbers than they ever existed previously, and when it is the case that confusion regarding where Allaah is, with many societies in the Muslim lands believing that Allaah is everywhere with His Essence, then there is no rebuke for those who say, "bi dhaatihi" and "baa'inun min khalqihi" because these are all true meanings, appropriate to the situation.
However, this truly and really grieves the likes of the Philadelphian Jahmites and the Jahmite Ash'aris of our time - why because, they don't actually believe there is a Lord above the true and real created entity that is the Throne and which is above the seven heavens. And when it is the case that the belief of Allaah being everywhere with His Essence is spread in the Ummah today more so than it was in the time of Ibn al-Mubaarak, then it is from talbees (deception) and hypocrisy for the Philadelphian Jahmites and their likes from all over the world to find fault with the phrases "bi dhaatihi" and "baa'inun min khalqihi".
Continue to Part 2 of this article.
Link to this article: Show: HTML Link Full Link Short Link
You must be registered and logged in to comment.