|Wednesday, 13 December 2017|
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:
The Sayings of the Jahmiyyah
It is not possible for the Jahmiyyah (the Mu'attilah amongst them who say Allaah is neither within the universe nor outside of it, neither in touch, contact with it, nor separate from it) to corroborate this creed of theirs from the early Salaf, because the statements of the Salaf were in the course of refuting two strains of the Jahmite denial of there being a Lord above the heaven:
So the Jahmites of today, those who ascribe themselves to Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari, and who are following the views of the later Ash'ari Scholars such as al-Juwaynee (d. 478H), al-Ghazali (d. 505H) and ar-Razi (d. 606H), they simply adopted the Jahmite belief of negating their is a Lord above the Throne and took up the saying that "He is neither within the universe and nor outside of the universe" and they claim that negating two opposites being an impossibility is not the case for Allaah - and this argument is the very argument of the Jahmiyyah, as we will document inshaa'Allaah in a separate article.
The Later Scholars
So these are the people whom we see trying to argue for this creed of the Jahmites and in doing so they rely upon statements of the later scholars such as Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani and al-Qurtubi and others who were not upon the usool of the Ash'aris in the sense of arguing for them or corroborating them - they never did that, rather they opposed many of the usool of the Ash'aris. However, they simply got affected by some of the Ash'ari positions in creed, such as ta'weel of the attributes and some of the language of the Mutakallimoon (speculative theologians). And this was because in that time, just like the Mu'tazilah of old had gained prominence and strength and dominance in some of the Muslim lands, then likewise in the 7th and 8th centuries, the Ash'aris had dominance in those lands and there arose many Scholars who, naturally assuming it to be the truth and not gaining direct access to the books of the Salaf were strongly influenced by all of that. Nevertheless, once can still see clear rejection in their works of some of the foundational and most important principles of the Ash'aris - such as an-nadhar wal-istidlaal being the first obligation, and rejection of khabar ul-waahid in affairs of aqeedah and so on.
But these Scholars fell into something of ta'weel, and concurred with many of the positions of the Ash'aris in that regard. It is for this reason you will see that many of todays Jahmite Ash'aris will rush to quotations from these scholars for the simple reason that their creed, which has its roots and origins in the creed of the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah, simply cannot be corroborated through the words of the Salaf. You will not see them quoting from the scholars from the first few generations of the righteous Salaf, because all of that contains absolute clarity regarding the misguidance of the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah of old, and by default of these people.
Abul-Qasim Sulayman bin Ahmad at-Tabarani brings in "Kitaab us-Sunnah", as does adh-Dhahabi in "Mukhtasar al-Uluww" (p.132-133) from al-Abbaas bin Fudayl al-Asfaatee from Sulayman bin Harb who said:
I heard Hammaad bin Zayd (b. 98H, d. 179H) (saying): I heard Ayyub as-Sakhtiyaani (d. 131H), the Mu'tazilah were mentioned, so he said: "The central axis of the Mu'tazilah is that they want to say there is nothing above the heaven".
And adh-Dhahabi, in his "Mukhtasar al-Uluww" commented on this saying:
This isnaad is like the sun in its clarity and like a pillar in its affirmation from the head and scholar of the people of Basrah (i.e. Hammaad bin Zayd).
And reflect upon what Ayyub as-Sakhtiyaani, that great and pious scholar, said about the Mu'tazilah in his time, and Hammaad bin Zayd who narrated this from Ayyub, and he was no more than 30 years of age, he knew this for a whole fifty years, and he knew what the Jahmites and the Mu'tazilah were intending.
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 the Salaf walillaahil-hamd were wise to these Jahmites and Mu'tazilites, and all praise is due to Allaah who has preserved His deen through the speech of the pious Salaf.
The Jahmite Reason For Relying Upon the Sayings of the Later Scholars
There is a great advantage for them in relying upon the words of those later scholars affected by some of the kalaamist tendencies of the Mutakallimoon and their ta'weel, because very often those later scholars will characterize the views of the Salaf through the lens of that influence, meaning what they were affected by of the creed and language of the Mutakallimoon. To illustrate, some of these scholars will say that the sayings of the Salaf that Allaah is above the heaven, is to be taken to mean an aboveness of rank and status and the likes, doing this in order to avoid speaking with direction and place for Allaah - whilst noting that the Salaf do not use these terms in affirmation or negation, they simply speak with what the Book and the Sunnah spoke with.
So these statements from the later scholars benefit them, because on the one hand they utilize the same language as the Mutakallimoon, and secondly they provide them with the means to explain them away.
But other scholars who are also relied upon by these contemporary Jahmites (like al-Qurtubi for example) readily admit that the Salaf actually affirmed "jihah" - in the language of al-Qurtubi - for Allah, and that this was unanimously their view, and that they held He is above the Throne, with His Essence. And this is textually stated by al-Qurtubi in his tafseer, even though he adds that he does not speak with this view.
So what you see the Jahmiyyah do is they say, "See al-Qurtubi does not affirm direction for Allaah", and they don't see what he said about the unanimous view of the Salaf - so they use the saying of al-Qurtubi in isolation, as proof, and they reject the Salaf and their sayings in their entirety as proof. They are characterized as opportunists who are not really interested in objective research and truly knowing what the Salaf as a whole were upon.
Examples of the Jahmites Use of Statements of These Scholars
It's Naruiji again, and it looks like he is trying to flee from the Gutter Press Jahmee image that he's become famous for, by trying to portray a more moderate, serious image. He's brought some speech of Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani - along the lines of what we have mentioned above - so we will take a look at it here inshaa'Allaah.
First the Jahmee titles his article:
And our response is that how does this avail you? al-Qurtubi acknowledges that the entirety of the Salaf affirmed "direction" (jihah) for Allaah, even though we do not agree with this term, we adhere to the language of the Book and the Sunnah which is that Allah is above the Throne, with the Throne being a true and real created entity (and not a mere metaphor) and that it is Allaah Himself who is above the Throne, in a manner that befits His Majesty. So making the saying of Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani to be an independent proof avails you nothing and this is the way of the Jahmites in general.
So we can come along and say,
Hey, al-Qurtubi does not believe Allaah is in a direction either, but he did acknowledge that the entirety of the Salaf did.
And the translation of which is:
And the most clear of these sayings - even if I do not speak with it or choose it - is what the [Qur'anic] verses and Narrations manifestly (indicate) that Allaah, the Sublime, is above His Throne, just as He informed in His Book and upon the tongue of His Messenger, without asking how, separate and distinct from all of his creation (baa'inun min jamee'i khalqihi). This is the sum of the madhhab of the righteous predecessors (as-salaf as-saalih) in that which the trustworthy narrators (ath-thiqaat) have transmitted from them.
In his tafseer of the verse in Surah al-A'raaf (7:54), "Then He ascended over the Throne", al-Qurtubi says:
Most of the past (the early) and later [theologians] said, 'When it is necessary to purify the Creator (al-Baaree), the Sublime, from having direction (jihah) and demarcation (tamayyuz), then from the requirements and necessary consequences of this, in the view of the generality of the past scholars and their later leaders, is to purify the Creator (al-Baaree) from having direction (jihah). In their view, He is not in the direction of above. This is because to them, when Allaah is designated with direction, this would necessitate that He is restricted to a place (makaan) and a confine (hayyiz). (Subsequently), a place and a confine necessitate (for Him) (such) movement and stillness that is related to distinction (tamayyuz), transformation (taghayyur) and new occurrences (Hudooth) . This is the saying of the Theologians (mutakallimoon, the people of kalaam).
So it is clear from the above al-Qurtubi mentions that the way of the Salaf was different to the way of the mutakallimeen (Theologians), and that the Salaf never spoke with what the (later) Theologians spoke with, and they affirmed that Allaah made istiwaa over His Throne in reality (haqeeqatan) - and that they only denied knowledge of how He made istiwaa - and he (al-Qurtubi) brought the saying of Imaam Malik within this context, indicating that the meaning of al-istiwaa is known - and as he (al-Qurtubi) is speaking about the position of the Salaf, when al-Qurtubi says "in the language" when quoting the famous statement of Imaam Malik, then that means that the Salaf understood what istiwaa meant and they affirmed it upon that meaning.
So of what benefit is it to the likes of these Jahmites to bring some of the sayings of these scholars in isolation? Nothing, it only exposes their opportune nature in reality.
And we wait for the day when a single one of these Jahmites is able to write and corroborate any of the following:
So we wait for the day when they can corroborate any of this.
First Quote From Ibn Hajr
And we wonder why does this Jahmee Baleed waste his time, feigning knowledge and scholarship? Compare his translation to ours, first lets corroborate the Arabic:
وَقِيلَ مُنَاسَبَة التَّسْبِيح فِي الْأَمَاكِن الْمُنْخَفِضَة مِنْ جِهَة أَنَّ التَّسْبِيح هُوَ التَّنْزِيه فَنَاسَبَ تَنْزِيه اللَّه عَنْ صِفَات الِانْخِفَاض كَمَا نَاسَبَ تَكْبِيره عِنْد الْأَمَاكِن الْمُرْتَفِعَة , وَلَا يَلْزَم مِنْ كَوْن جِهَتَيْ الْعُلُوّ وَالسُّفَّل مُحَال عَلَى اللَّه أَنْ لَا يُوصَف بِالْعُلُوِّ لِأَنَّ وَصْفه بِالْعُلُوِّ مِنْ جِهَة الْمَعْنَى وَالْمُسْتَحِيل كَوْن ذَلِكَ مِنْ جِهَة الْحِسّ , وَلِذَلِكَ وَرَدَ فِي صِفَته الْعَالِي وَالْعَلِيّ وَالْمُتَعَالِي وَلَمْ يَرِد ضِدّ ذَلِكَ وَإِنْ كَانَ قَدْ أَحَاطَ بِكُلِّ شَيْء عِلْمًا جَلَّ وَعَزَّ
And we can translate it as:
And it has been said that the appropriateness of (making) tasbeeh in the lowered places is from the angle that tasbeeh is tanzeeh (purifying Allaah from defects, shortcomings) and thus it is appropriate to purify Allaah from the attributes of dimunition (lowering, lessening), just like it is appropriate to make takbeer (declaring great) in the raised places. And it is not binding from the two directions of elevation (al-uluww) and lowness being impossible for Allaah that He not be described with elevation (al-uluww) from the aspect of meaning (al-ma'naa). And it is impossible for that to be from the aspect of al-hiss (i.e. an actual aboveness of the essence that can be indicated towards). And for this reason there is mentioned (as being from) His Attribute(s), al-Aali, al-Aliyy, and al-Muta'aali, and the opposite of that was not mentioned, even if He, the Mighty and Majestic, has encompassed everything in knowledge.
A few points:
ONE: The Jahmee translated "al-amaakin al-munkhafidah" in the first sentence as "high places" when it is actually "lowered places".
TWO: The saying of Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani, whilst maintaining great respect for him as he is a great Scholar, is rejected as it contradicts what the entirety of the Salaf were upon - and it is not usable as proof except for the depraved Jahmites who found nothing in the speech of the Salaf by which they could argue for the deen of the Jahmites that there is no Lord above the heaven and no deity above the Throne, and had to instead go searching for quotes from 7th and 8th century scholars who were not free of influence from the Mutakallimoon.
Second Quote From Ibn Hajr
Then the Jahmee Baleed brought a second quote from Ibn Hajr:
Here is the Arabic:
قَوْله : ( يَنْزِل رَبّنَا إِلَى السَّمَاء الدُّنْيَا ) اِسْتَدَلَّ بِهِ مَنْ أَثْبَتَ الْجِهَة وَقَالَ : هِيَ جِهَة الْعُلُوّ , وَأَنْكَرَ ذَلِكَ الْجُمْهُور لِأَنَّ الْقَوْل بِذَلِكَ يُفْضِي إِلَى التَّحَيُّز تَعَالَى اللَّه عَنْ ذَلِكَ . وَقَدْ اُخْتُلِفَ فِي مَعْنَى النُّزُول عَلَى أَقْوَال : فَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ حَمَلَهُ عَلَى ظَاهِره وَحَقِيقَته وَهُمْ الْمُشَبِّهَة تَعَالَى اللَّه عَنْ قَوْلهمْ . وَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ أَنْكَرَ صِحَّة الْأَحَادِيث الْوَارِدَة فِي ذَلِكَ جُمْلَة وَهُمْ الْخَوَارِج وَالْمُعْتَزِلَة وَهُوَ مُكَابَرَة , وَالْعَجَب أَنَّهُمْ أَوَّلُوا مَا فِي الْقُرْآن مِنْ نَحْو ذَلِكَ وَأَنْكَرُوا مَا فِي الْحَدِيث إِمَّا جَهْلًا وَإِمَّا عِنَادًا , وَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ أَجْرَاهُ عَلَى مَا وَرَدَ مُؤْمِنًا بِهِ عَلَى طَرِيق الْإِجْمَال مُنَزِّهًا اللَّه تَعَالَى عَنْ الْكَيْفِيَّة وَالتَّشْبِيه وَهُمْ جُمْهُور السَّلَف , وَنَقَلَهُ الْبَيْهَقِيُّ وَغَيْره عَنْ الْأَئِمَّة الْأَرْبَعَة وَالسُّفْيَانَيْنِ وَالْحَمَّادَيْنِ وَالْأَوْزَاعِيُّ وَاللَّيْث وَغَيْرهمْ , وَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ أَوَّله عَلَى وَجْه يَلِيق مُسْتَعْمَل فِي كَلَام الْعَرَب , وَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ أَفْرَطَ فِي التَّأْوِيل حَتَّى كَادَ أَنْ يَخْرُج إِلَى نَوْع مِنْ التَّحْرِيف , وَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ فَصَلَ بَيْن مَا يَكُون تَأْوِيله قَرِيبًا مُسْتَعْمَلًا فِي كَلَام الْعَرَب وَبَيْن مَا يَكُون بَعِيدًا مَهْجُورًا فَأَوَّل فِي بَعْض وَفَوَّضَ فِي بَعْض , وَهُوَ مَنْقُول عَنْ مَالِك وَجَزَمَ بِهِ مِنْ الْمُتَأَخِّرِينَ اِبْن دَقِيق الْعِيد
And here is our translation (with comments):
And his saying, (Our Lord descends to the lowest heaven). This has been used as evidence for whoever affirmed direction (al-jihah) and said: This is the direction of above (al-uluww). And the majority (of scholars) rejected that, because speaking with that leads (to the saying) of at-tahayyuz (spatial occupation), and exalted is Allaah from that.
By "al-jumhoor", Ibn Hajr does not mean "the masses", meaning the masses of the people as the Jahmee Baleed is trying to imply with this erroneous translation. Rather, he is referring here to Scholars.
As for the claim that the majority of scholars rejected uluww for Allaah Himself, with His Essence, then this is a clear error as is manifestly evident from the hundreds of statements from the Salaf affirming Allaah Himself is above the Throne. And Ibn Hajr's saying here that the "...majority (of scholars) rejected it..." proves what we have mentioned that in the climate that Ibn Hajr was raised in, it was the creed of the Mutakallimeen that was predominant and the "jumhoor" here are the "jumhoor" of the Mutakallimeen and certainly not the "jumhoor" of Ahl us-Sunnah, Ahl ul-Hadeeth wal-Athar, the Salaf us-Saalih. And if you have any doubts about that, they'll will quickly be taken of here inshaa'Allaah: AboveTheThrone.Com.
Ibn Hajr continues:
And in the meaning of "an-nuzool" (descent) a difference has occurred upon (numerous) sayings:
Now the translation of this part does not appear in Naruiji's translation above. Not sure why because this is clearly in his favor. Why has he omitted the translation of this part - and most readers won't really bother with the Arabic, they just wan't to read the translation - so why has this part been omitted?
This statement of Ibn Hajr shows how he was unfamiliar with what the Salaf were upon which is that they carried the texts of the Attributes upon their apparent meanings in the language, firmly believing that they have realities behind them, but denying knowledge of their realities by negating kaifiyyah and tashbeeh from them. So Allaah descends, and there is a reality to his descent, but the Salaf negated that His descent is like that of the creation. And it is negated from this Nuzool that it implies being confined, or occupying a created space, because all of this is based upon the presumption that His descent is like that of the creation - which is false - and it is not permissible to approach the texts with such presumptions. Rather, Allaah descends however He wills with a descent that befits His Majesty, as was the answer of the Salaf to the Jahmiyyah who were the first to deny Allaah's Nuzool and to start making ta'weel of it to "His mercy descends" or "His command descends" and so on.
Al-Laalikaa'ee brings in Sharh Usool il-I'tiqaad (3/502)with his isnaad from Yahyaa bin Ma'een, who said:
When you hear a Jahmee say, "I disbelieve in a Lord that descends", then say, "I believe in a Lord that does whatever He wills".
And he also brings (3/502) from Fudayl bin Iyaad, his saying:
When a Jahmee says to you, "I disbelieve in a Lord that descends" then say, "I believe in a Lord that does whatever He wishes".
And it is abundantly clear that the Jahmites rejected a "Lord that descends" and if it had been the case that the truth with the Salaf was that it was His "command" or "mercy" that descends, there was no need for the Jahmites make such denials. And similarly, in the Salaf's rejection of the Jahmites is the most clear indication that they held that it is Allaah who descends.
And the Salaf affirmed the attribute of Nuzool, haqeeqatan, meaning that it is a reality (haqeeqah) and has a reality (haqeeqah) - with this reality being affirmed as true and taking place, but without likening (tamtheel) or resembling (tashbeeh) this reality to the reality found in the creation and without specifying the "howness" of it.
As for the Mushabbihah, then they made the Nuzool to be like that of the creation, and this is their tashbeeh and tamtheel - it is not in their affirming a reality (haqeeqah) for the Nuzool but in likening this reality to the reality of the Nuzool of the creation - and this is what they were criticized for by the Salaf.
So this saying of Ibn Hajr is clearly erroneous and this can be corroborated by anyone looking into the early books of aqeedah authored by the Salaf. As we mentioned earlier, the likes of Ibn Hajr and an-Nawawi and others were not granted the tawfeeq to come into direct contact with such books and to come to know the way of the Salaf in detail, for if they had, being true Scholars, they would have certainly spoken with it.
Ibn Hajr continues:
And amongst them are those who rejected the authenticity of the ahaadeeth reported regarding that as a whole, and they are the Khawaarij and the Mu'tazilah, and this is obstinacy. And it is strange that that they figuratively explained what is in the Qur'an similar to that but they rejected what is in the hadeeth, either out of ignorance or out of stubborn denial...
Meaning here that if the Khawaarij and the Mu'tazilah saw what is just like this hadeeth in the Qur'an and they made ta'weel of it to explain it away - which implies that they have first accepted it, then how can they justify their outright rejection of the Nuzool (and the ahaadeeth mentioning it) when its like is found in the Qur'an also. So if you find something in the hadeeth which is authentic and whose like is also mentioned in the Qu'ran how can you justify rejecting the hadeeth?
Ibn Hajr continues:
And amongst them are those who passed them on as they have been mentioned, believing in them in a general way, whilst purifying Allaah the Most High, from kaifiyyah and tashbeeh, and they are the majority of the Salaf. And al-Bayhaqi and others have quoted from the four Imaams, the two Sufyaans (at-Thawree and Ibn Uyainah) and the two Hammaads (bin Zayd and bin Salamah), an al-Awzaa'ee and al-Layth and others.
The Salaf actually affirmed the Nuzool upon its dhaahir and affirmed it as being a haqeeqah whilst negating from it takyeef and tashbeeh and tamtheel - as is reported from them in the early books of creed - and this is perhaps the subject of a separate article.
Ibn Hajr continues:
And amongst them are those who figuratively interpreted it in a manner that befits [with a figurative interpretation] that is used in the language of the Arabs.
The Salaf rejected all the ta'weels of the Jahmiyyah and Mu'azilah and did not permit any ta'weels, rather they ordered that the narrations be left as they without devising new meanings (ta'weels) - (bilaa ma'naa) and without specifying a "howness" - (bilaa kayf).
Ibn Hajr continues:
And amongst them are those who exaggerated in ta'weel (figurative interpretation until they almost went to a type of tahreef (distortion of the text).
Ibn Hajr does not agree in general with the ta'weel of his hadeeth as he prefers tafweed, and for this reason he criticized some of these ta'weels.
Ibn Hajr continues:
And amongst them are those who separated between that whose ta'weel is close and used in the language of the Arabs and that whose ta'weel is far and abandoned, and thus they made ta'weel of some, and made relegated others [to Allaah's knowledge], and this is narrated from Malik and some of the later (scholars), Ibn Daqeeq al-Eeed, were certain with this [viewpoint]
There is nothing authentically reported from Imaam Malik that he made ta'weel of this attribute, and there is nothing in his words - which are recorded and present with authentic chains of narration - that indicates he made ta'weel or tafweed and the proof is upon the claimant.
The dependence of the Jahmites upon the words of the likes of Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani and others from the scholars of the later times shows that they are opportunists who simply wish to gather the sayings of everyone but the Salaf - and they would never dare to venture into establishing precisely what the madhhab of the early Salaf was in this or any other issue of belief - and the madhhab of the Salaf is aslam (safer), and ahkam (more precise), and a'lam (more knowledgeable) and this is the truth - so they flee from what the Salaf corroborated and instead seek to find isolated statements of other scholars from much later times.
Link to this article: Show: HTML Link Full Link Short Link
You must be registered and logged in to comment.