|Friday, 24 January 2020|
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:
All praise is due to Allah and may the prayers and salutations be upon His Messenger to proceed:
In a previous article (see here), we highlighted the scandals of a counterfeit pretender, posing in front of his audience as an erudite 21st Century Kalam Atomist and Champion of the (Jahmite) Ash'ari creed. In reality, we are dealing with a deluded primary school child.
After showing his treachery in quoting, and his slander upon Ibn Taymiyyah that he claims Allaah is divisible (when in fact Ibn Taymiyyah says this is impossible and denied for Allaah) - the Jahmee Baleed discreetly acknowledged his error in quotation and updated his page (20th August 2009). However, out of childish resentment, he felt the need to vent his anger and frustration, just like a schoolchild, and decided to add more slanders and fabrications on the same page to make himself feel better. He thought that adding five, six frauds on top of his original fraud would win him favors with his audience.
It looks like after being disciplined previously with the sandal he has decided to come back and beg for another round with the sandal of Abdullaah bin Abi Ja'far ar-Raazee (see the opening to this article here)
Here is one of the issues that our counterfeit 21st Century Kalam Atomist has added to his arsenal of frauds (on 20th August 2009):
Abu Adam Naruiji is a glutton for punishment and thus, with the "Bayaan" in one hand and the sandal in the other:
Jahmee Baleed who makes takfir of the righteous Scholars! If you are going put yourself forward in front of the people, donning the [fake] garment of an erudite Kalam Atomist championing the Jahmite creed (pretending it is the creed of Abu Hasan al-Ash'ari) - and you want to do this under the guise of honesty and integrity, then there are certain requirements you need to abide by. From them is that when you quote statements you actually:
This ensures that when you ascribe a statement (or a belief) to someone, you are ascribing it to the right person. This is important because otherwise you are fabricating lies upon people by ascribing a statement to them which is not actually theirs, and then the guise of honesty and integrity you are using to try to conceal yourself becomes exposed ...
Here is the quote from the "Bayaan":
Obviously this requires some background and we will develop this point in what follows. However, we need to clarify who is saying what - so here is a translation:
So this is the moderate saying amongst the three sayings of al-Qadi [Abu Ya'laa] and it is in conformity with the speech of Ahmad and others from the (leading) scholars.
Right, now this is clear and we know who is saying what, let us now revisit the Jahmee Baleed's quotation with the sandal of Abdullah bin Abi Ja'far. But first very quickly, we need give just a little bit of background. Ibn Taymiyyah is discussing the issue of "al-hadd" narrated from Ibn al-Mubaarak and Imaam Ahmad (in refutation of the Jahmites), and he is addressing what has been said by al-Qadi Abu Ya'laa in his explanation of this. Abu Ya'laa initially rejected speaking with "hadd", but later permitted it. So Ibn Taymiyyah is quoting the different views of Abu Ya'laa, and commenting upon them.
Now, lets see what our Jahmee Dimwit makes of the situation:
A number of points:
As we said earlier, if you are going to take on the occupation of a 21st Century Kalam Atomist and Champion of the Jahmee Creed of negating their is a deity above the Throne, then you need to show at least some degree of competence, instead of the heights of compound ignorance (al-jahl al-murakkab).
The above is to show that the Jahmee Baleed is an incompetent fool who is not to be trusted in quoting - and he has now demonstrated this more than once, as we have shown previously. It does not however, address the actual issue and the doubt that he is bringing - so we need to address this now.
Point 2: What is The Wider Context to What is Being Discussed? It is The Refutation of the Salaf Against the Hulooli Jahmites Who Claimed Allaah is in Every Place And Some of the Salaf Said Allaah Is Above the Throne With a "Hadd"
We have covered in previous articles why some of the Salaf such as Ibn al-Mubaarak (d. 181H) and Imaam Ahmad used the word "hadd" when speaking about Allaah being above the Throne (see here and here). To cover this from another angle, recall that al-Jahm bin Safwan used to debate with the Indian Materialist Philosophers who also used to believe in the transmigration of souls - they were called the Sumaniyyah and this is well document. Imaam Ahmad mentions the debates of al-Jahm with these people in his book "ar-Radd 'alal-Jahmiyyah" (see this article for details) and what we gather from that is that the Sumaniyyah argued against Jahm saying you have not seen, nor heard, nor touched, nor smelt your Lord, so He cannot exist - this is because they only believed in what could be perceived with the senses.
So al-Jahm became bewildered and confused, not knowing who he was worshipping, and he abandoned the prayer for forty-days in his confusion. Then he concocted an answer to them which is similar to what the Christians hold that Allaah indwells within the creation in the form of a spirit, and thus speaks and commands through them. So he came back to those Sumaniyyah and said to them, you believe that there is a soul that occupies your body, so have you seen it? Have you heard it? Have you touched it? Have you smelt it? And they obviously said "No." So Jahm said that this is how my Lord is. He is witnessed and observed in everything and everywhere and at the same time, He cannot be seen, or heard, or touched, or smelt. So this was his response and in this manner he believed he convinced them of Allaah's existence, whilst rebutting their argument against him.
And it is from this that the saying of the Jahmiyyah arose which is that Allaah is everywhere, on this earth, in the heaven, within everything in the creation, not separate from it and so on - and alongside this, He cannot be seen, nor heard, nor perceived in any way, and nor can He be described with anything. All the sayings of the Jahmiyyah regarding Allaah and His attributes emanated from al-Jahm's debates with the Sumaniyyah and also what al-Jahm took from al-Ja'd bin Dirham from speaking about Allaah with negatives (sifaat salbiyyah) which al-Ja'd took from the pseudo-Sabean Harranian Philosophers.
And from their well known sayings was that "we not believe in a Lord that is in one place exclusive to another" - and this phrase and this terminology was their invention, and by necessity this meant that they had to deny Allaah was above the Throne, since if He was above the Throne, He could not be everywhere. However, at first they did not initially raise this matter, as their falsehood would have become readily apparent, because this matter was firmly established in the hearts of the common folk, let alone the Scholars. So instead they raised the issue of seeing Allah (ar-Ru'yah) and that of the Qur'aan being created, and through these affairs they were hinting or alluding to Allaah not being above the Throne.
So when these people emerged with this orientation from just before the middle of the second century (around 150H), the Imaams of the Salaf knew what they were trying to do and this is why you see statements from the Salaf as reported by Imaam ad-Dhahabee, in Mukhtasar al-uluww (p.146):
Sulayman bin Harb said: I heard Hammad bin Zayd (d. 179H) saying: "They are circulating around [the issue of] of wanting to say that there is no deity above the heaven". He means the Jahmiyyah.
So note here what Hammaad bin Zayd said that the Jahmiyyah, in their speech, they were circulating around the issue of wanting to express that Allaah is not above the Throne, without going as far as saying that explicitly.
And the saying of Yazeed bin Haroon (d. 208H) as quoted by al-Qadi Abu Ya'laa in his Ibtaal ut-Ta'weelaat:
Whoever claimed that "ar-Rahmaan ascended above the Throne" is [understood up a meaning] different to what is established in the hearts of the general folk is a Jahmee.
And then what has been said by 'Abbaad bin al-Awwaam al-Waasitiyy (d. 185H), as has been reported by al-Khallaal in "as-Sunnah", adh-Dhahabee in al-uluww (p.88), Ibn al-Qayyim in "Ijtimaa' Juyoosh al-Islaamiyyah) (2/216) and Abdullah bin Ahmad in "as-Sunnah" (no. 65):
I spoke to Bishr al-Mareesee and his associates, and I saw that the final (part) of their speech ends up with them saying there is nothing above the heaven.
And then what has been said by Abdur-Rahmaan bin Mahdee (d. 198H) as narrated by al-Khallaal in "as-Sunnah", and Abdullah bin Ahmad in "as-Sunnah" (no. 147), and Ibn Taymiyyah also referenced it to "ar-Radd 'alal-Jahmiyyah" of Ibn Abee Haatim:
There is not amongst the people of desires [those] more evil than the companions of Jahm [bin Safwan]. They are revolving around [the issue] of wanting to say that there is nothing above the heaven. I consider, by Allaah, that they are not to be married into, and nor should inheritance (be given to them or taken from them).
So when this occurred and the Imaams of the Salaf knew and understood what these people were intending (that Allaah is in every place), then we find statements of the Salaf in refutation of this and in clarification of the truth. So to rebut this deviant creed of the Jahmites some of the Salaf expressed that Allaah is above the Throne, "bi haddin" (with a limit, demarcation) - meaning by this that Allaah is not within the creation, rather He is separate and distinct from it, in opposition to what the Jahmites were trying to spread amongst the people.
And so they used this phrase to defend the truth and repel falsehood, and the likes of this term, when it has a meaning of truth, then it is from the baab (field) of al-ikhbaar (informing) about Allaah, which is wider than the field of the Names and Attributes.
In the Tabaqaat ul-Hanaabilah of Ibn Abee Ya'laa there occurs (1/267):
Muhammad bin Ibraaheem al-Qaysee said: I said to Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal: It is quoted from Ibn al-Mubaarak that it was said to him: How do we know our Lord - the Mighty and Majestic? He said, "Above (fee) the heaven, upon ('alaa) His Throne with a hadd (limit, demarcation)." So Ahmad said, "This is how it is with us".
So now we have our context and we understand what is going on. In the face of the Jahmites, the Salaf affirmed that Allaah is above the Throne, with His Essence, separate and distinct from the creation, and this is why the Imaams from the Salaf spoke with the likes of these terms "bi haddin" and "baa'inun min khalqihi", meaning that Allaah is not within the creation, not merged with it - so the debate is between the Salaf and the Jahmites, and the Salaf used these phrases.
Once we have understood this, then those who came later, such as the likes of al-Qadi Abu Ya'laa, they discussed this issue of Ibn al-Mubaarak and Imaam Ahmad and others using the word "bi haddin" in relation to Allaah being above the Throne, and they attempted to explain it and what was intended by it and al-Qadi Abu Ya'laa had a number of sayings on the issue, he initially rejected the application of speaking with the words "hadd" and "jihah" but later said that it was permissible in a particular context.
This is similar to the issue of Allaah's Descent (Nuzool) - the Jahmiyyah also tried to deny this because it relates to their bid'ah in a number of ways. First the Nuzool requires that Allaah is above the heaven, above the Throne (something which contradicts Him being everywhere) and secondly it is an action tied to Allaah's will, which to the Jahmites is a "haadithah" (event, occurrence) and this would mean to them that Allaah is a body, as only bodies undergo occurrences (hawaadith).
So the Jahmites began raising doubts about the Nuzool, and from their questions was "Does Allaah's Throne become unoccupied when He descends or not?" - so they are the ones who innovated this as they were not content with those ahaadeeth. They tried to cast doubts upon these narrations by making it necessary that Allaah would have to enter His creation if He descended according to the ahaadeeth, so they raised these doubts and the Salaf responded that Allaah descends however He wills, meaning that He is able to descend exactly as He said without the false necessities arising in the corrupt minds of the Jahmites.
So the issue here is that you do not affirm Allaah is above the Throne to begin with, or that there is a Lord above the Heavens, the question of whether the Throne becomes unoccupied or not does not even concern you. This is only relevant if you affirm there is a deity above the heaven and above the Throne. So this is deception on behalf of the Jahmites on this particular issue.
And Ibrahim bin Abi Talib said: I heard Ahmad bin Sa'eed ar-Ribaatee saying: I attended the gathering of Ibn Tahir [the Ameer of Khurasaan] and Ishaaq [bin Raahawaih] attended. He was asked about the hadeeth of Nuzool (Descent), whether it is authentic. He said, "Yes". One of the chiefs (of the Ameer) said, "How does He descend?" So he (Ishaaq) said: "Affirm Him [being above the Throne] for me such that I can describe the descent to you" So the man said, "I affirm Him [to be] above". So Ishaaq said, "Allaah said:
And Shaykh ul-Islaam, Abu Isma'eel al-Harawi (d. 481H) narrates, in his book "Dhamm ul-Kalaam":
From Muhammad bin Ishaaq ath-Thaqafi: I heard Ishaaq [bin Raahawaih] bin Ibraaheem al-Handhali (who) said: I entered one day upon [Abdullaah bin] Taahir and Mansur bin Talhah was present with him. Mansur said to me, "O Abu Ya'qub! You say that Allaah descends to the lowest heaven every night?" I said, "And we believe in it, but you do not believe that you have a Lord [that is] above the heaven, so you are not in need of asking me about this?!" So he (Ibn Tahir) said (to Mansur), "Did I not forbid you regarding this Shaykh (meaning Ishaaq bin Raahawaih).
We see from these narrations that Ishaaq bin Raahawaih - before answering the question - asked one of those detractors who were trying to stir the Ameer against him, whether he affirms Allaah is above or not, and he told him that the issue of is of no concern to him because he does affirm a Lord above the heaven in the first place. This is because the speech about the Descent branches off the affirmation of the foundation, which is Allaah being above the heaven, above the Throne. And if this is not affirmed in the first place, then questioning the Nuzool is false speech.
And we have a similar situation here with this Jahmee Baleed, regarding this particular issue of Allaah being above the Throne "bi haddin" as stated by Ibn al-Mubaarak, Imaam Ahmad and Ishaaq bin Raahwaih: Of what concern is it to the Jahmee Baleed what was discussed historically of the issue of "hadd (demarcation, limit) by some of the Scholars who affirmed Allaah is above His Throne? It is of no concern to you because you negate there is a deity above the Throne to begin with (just like your predecessors, the Jahmites of old). So leave off this pretense and deception. This only becomes an issue of discussion between ourselves, the followers of the Book and the Sunnah and the Salaf, and yourselves (the inheritors of the Philosophers of the Greeks, the followers of the doctrines of al-Jahm and al-Ja'd) if you affirm there is a deity above the heaven, above the Throne, and as you do not, there is no place in this discussion for you at all.
... developing story, please check back!
Link to this article: Show: HTML Link Full Link Short Link
You must be registered and logged in to comment.