Let us first introduce the results of al-Naruiji's academic fraud (see diagram on right) which are founded upon a falsification of history and misrepresentation of the nature and details of the arguments between the various factions (Philosophers, Mutakallimun, Ahl al-Sunnah), and then we will give some background history and context and after this we will proceed, one by one, to demolish each of al-Naruiji's frauds, by Allaah's permission. It looks impressive and well-organized, but academic fraud and lies make even the most well appearing of things disfigured and reprehensible.
In reality, there is an abundance of information on this site already which deals extensively with the history and background of the evolution of the theology of Ahl al-Kalaam. And in all the Jahmite Ash'ari polemics today against Ahl al-Sunnah, their protagonists hide this history from their audience because history gives context, and context allows true evaluation and gives insight, and this insight is that last thing which todays Ash'ari and Maturidi scholarship wants the flock to acquire. So in what follows we are going to give historical facts. Full and proper documentation is outside the scope of this article otherwise it would become too lengthy, so the intent here is to provide a historical framework, the evidence of which is already established in many other articles, and which can be used by the reader to follow up with their own study in order to verify that what we are presenting is indeed, the truth, no more, no less.
We strongly advise the reader to be familiar with the contents of the following two series of very important articles:
The Ancient Greek Philosophers. The prominent ancient Greek Philosophers prior to the time of Aristotle (d. 322BC) affirmed the creation of the heavens and the earth and affirmed attributes for Allaah, the Exalted, and they were closer to what is in the revealed Books and what was said by the sent Messengers. The saying of the eternity of matter was propagated and popularized by Aristotle and Aristotle was a major figure whose logic and philosophy was very influential in his time and for many centuries after him. His ideas were instrumental in leading many a nation (who had received revelation) away from the teachings of the Books and Messengers to misguidance in matters pertaining to belief in Allaah and in belief in Monotheism. Jews, Christians, Sabeans were all influenced by Aristotelian Metaphysics in their theology.
Aristotle and Darwin. You might think how has Aristotle's name been put alongside Darwin's. Well it is to help you understand the mighty influence of the philosophy and Metaphysics of Aristotle and how it entered the theology of other nations (Jews, Christians, Sabeans and Muslims). If you look at Darwin, he changed the nature of science in that his theory was so influential and considered the only explanation for life and existence that all science from his time onwards was made to operate upon the premise that natural selection explains all life and is the ultimate truth. Therefore, this underlying assumption determined the nature of all scientific enquiry and scientific enquiry was made to conform to this idea and had to be interpreted in light of Darwinian evolutionary theory. Because of the widespread acceptance of this theory, even religious factions began to evaluate their beliefs (and their religious texts) in order to accommodate this view. This was how Aristotle's logic and philosophy was considered in that time, and continued to do so for many long centuries after, right into the second millenium CE.
Aristotle's Syllogistic Logic and Metaphysics. Aristotle spoke a lot about the issue of language and predication (ascribing a quality to something), and this was primarily a linguistic discussion. However, this discussion was fundamental to laying down his philosophy and Metaphysics. It was integrally tied to his syllogistic logic, that by which the truthfulness of propositions can be evaluated. A proposition is simply to say "A is B", such as "the tea is hot." You have probably heard of this before, its like this:
So since the truth and falsehood of propositions was integral to attaining knowledge to Aristotle, the issue of predication in the language, as in assigning qualities and properties to things, was discussed in detail by Aristotle to lay the foundations for his philosophy and Metaphysics. As part of this, he laid down what are known as his Ten Categories, also known as al-Jawhar wal-Arad (substance and incidental attribute or body and accident) and al-Maqulat al-Ashar (the ten categories). The intent of Aristotle here was to comprehensively categorize everything in the observable universe that can take the place of a subject and a predicate in a proposition. In the proposition "the tea is hot", the "tea" is the subject and "is hot" is the predicate. So he came up with ten categories and everything in the universe is either a substance (jawhar, jism) or nine incidental attributes, and incidental attributes are found only in substances. All of this created the framework upon which his logic and philosophy could be built. These ten categories are presented below:
Once we understand this, then many a nation incorporated the logic, conceptual tools and terminology of Aristotle within their theology and this would be parallel to how we find today, Jews, Christians and some Muslims admitting to the truthfulness of Darwin's evolutionary theory and trying to merge it with their revealed texts. We have proven in a series of articles that this is what happened with the Jews, Christiand and Sabeans before this influence came into the Muslims, and we established that this is the ilm al-Kalaam in which those Jews, Christians and Sabeans had already preceded the Mutakallimun of Islam by many centuries. We emphatically suggest you read our five-article series on this subject - it is a long read, but extremely rewarding.
The God of Aristotle. Aristotle's God is referred to as "the first cause" or "the unmoved mover" and while a full treatment of his theology and Metaphysics is outside the scope of this article we can say in short that he argued on the basis of what he saw as the perpetual motion of the celestial bodies (their orbits) that the universe and its matter is therefore eternal and perpetual. However, in order to avoid an infinite regress (endless chain) of agents and causes, this motion must itself have been brought about by an unmoved mover, and this is the "first cause" and "unmoved mover." This is identified as Aristotle's God. Then Aristotle explains that this unmoved mover is abstract, immutable, static, immaterial, outside of space and time and without attribute or action, and that the way He moves the universe is similar to the way that the one who is passionately loved moves the one who passionately loves, without any action on behalf of the passionately loved. The universe is moved by this "first cause" and "unmoved mover" without any will, speech, or action, because this "first cause" is purely abstract, immaterial, outside of space and time, devoid of action, immutable. Thus the universe is simply drawn to motion and such is the relationship between God and the universe, and God is said to permanently act, without action being established with His self. To Aristotle, this God is denied all of the ten categories (see what has preceded above, meaning Allaah is not a body, nor an accident, nor in a place, nor has any actions etc.) and is outside of space and time and is indivisible. You can see here the type of language being used to characterize this type of God (and this is what later became the God of the Mutakallimin when this influence and language crept into their theology and started permeating their conceptions about belief in Allaah). It is crucial at this stage that you make note of what Aristotle uses as proof for what makes something to be a jawhar (substance), it is the issue of motion (harakah), and this concept itself was later used by the Mutakallimeen, as proof to indicate that something is a jawhar, jism (substance, body) on account of it being subject to both motion (harakah) and rest (sukoon) and this is what Abu Bakr al-Baqillani (d. 406H) - [who is the most instrumental figure in making the Ash'ari creed what it is today] - uses in his book al-Tamheed. The point here is that even though Aristotle spoke of the eternity of the universe, he also affirmed what he called a "first cause" the God of the universe, and his belief in that God was determined and characterized by his conceptual language (negation of Jismiyyah and all the a'raad, incidental attributes, said of bodies), and this conceptual language is what entered into those who fell into "Kalaam" from the Hellenized Jews, Christians, Sabeans (and later Muslims). Asharis and Maturidis will protest that they only used the tools and concepts of those Philosophers to rebut them and were not affected by it in their theology and this is one of the greatest lies and frauds in history, as the sincere person will realize after a read of these five articles.
The Theological Language of Aristotle (and of the Ahl al-Kalaam). You can find this in Aristotle's Metaphysics 12 treatise, and here are some excerpts from it, "The unmoved mover is infinite, since it causes infinite motion. It follows that it is also without magnitude, since an infinite force cannot reside in a finite magnitude (and there can be no infinite magnitudes); having no magnitude means that the first mover is indivisible, having no parts", (now you know where the Mutakallimin get their statements such as "God does not occupy space, God does not have spatial extension" and so on). This unmoved mover is, "eternal, unmovable and separate from sensible things" (meaning cannot be perceived with the senses, and this is what al-Jahm bin Safwan brought into the Ummah), and he also says, "God is separate from sensible things because God has no magnitude (megethos), God is without a body or a spatial existence. The reason that God can have no magnitude is that God produces motion through infinite time, which means that God must be infinite, since an infinite effect requires an infinite cause; but there cannot be such a thing as an infinitude magnitude. As being a substance without magnitude, God is without parts and, therefore, indivisible (magnitudes are divisible)", and here in the next statement we see the Tawhid of the Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah and Ash'ariyyah, where we read "the primary essence has no matter, which means that there can only be one God, since it is matter that differentiates one form or definition into many manifestations of that one form or definition. Since God has no matter, then God is one not only formally or in definition, but also numerically" and here is something else which is a parallel to the theology of the Mutakallimin, straight from Aristotle, "It has been shown also that this primary essence cannot have any magnitude, but is without parts and indivisible. But it has also been shown that it is impassive and unalterable; for all the other changes are posterior to change of place." This last statement alludes to what the Mutakallimin are upon of denying what they call hawaadith for Allaah, the denial of those matters tied to Allaah's will and choice which they call "events" and "changes" but which to Ahl al-Sunnah are Allaah's chosen actions (Af'aal Ikhtiyaariyyah). The intelligent and shrewd reader will by now have seen the intellectual and academic fraud of not just Abu Adam al-Naruiji, but of all other dishonest Ash'arites who conceal historical fact from those whom they misguide. And it is for no reason that they use this very deceptive tactic of throwing Ibn Taymiyyah along with the Philosophers, because they want to create smoke and mirrors and place barriers between their flock and the realization of the true and real origins of their theological language. As for arguing with the Philosophers about the universe being eternal and about resurrection, that became a battle and a major matter of contention when people like Ibn Sina (d. 429H) came along and they saw these Mutakallimun already using the language and conceptual tools and terminology of Aristotle in trying to prove the universe is originated, and when they saw this was a corrupt proof with inherent flaws which actually proves the exact opposite of what the Mutakallimin intended by it, they began to employ the criticism of the flaw as evidence for their claim of the universe being eternal, even though they did not have any evidence at all to begin with. It is here that Ibn Sina entered with his activity and worked to corrupt and invalidate the (already flawed) arguments of the Mutakallimeen. But putting that to one side, all of them, the Philosophers and the Mutakallimun are united upon the type and nature of the theological language they use to describe Allaah the Exalted, even if they argued and debated on other matters, this is because they all submitted to and accepted the soundness of the conceptual tools and terminology which were made the platform of debate. So do not let academic fraudsters, shysters and swindlers make a fool of you dear reader, if you are someone who has any dignity or self-respect for his mind and intellect.
Hellenized Jews, Christians and Sabeans. When other nations incorporated that great science of the day (i.e. Aristotle's logic and philosophy and conceptual terminology) - even if they rejected his claim of the eternity of matter - their theological language began to resemble that of Aristotle's and again, you would do real well to read through our five-article series that deals with the Hellenized Jews, Christians and Sabeans who were already upon ilm al-Kalaam before the Mutakallimeen of Islam even saw the light of day by hundreds of years. As an illustration we see Jewish rabbis and Christian priests and monks and Sabean Philosophers all incorporating that conceptual baggage into their theological language. In that five-article series we have alluded to, we speak of Philo (20BC-50CE), a Jew from Alexandria who was present around the time Eesaa (alayhis salaam), and the second is Augustine of Hippo (d. 430CE), a Christian, and thirdly, the Sabeans of Harran, who were Hellenized Philosophers, present when Islam came.
The Sabeans and the Kalam Cosmological Argument (Huduth al-Ajsaam). There were from the Sabean star-worshippers those who still maintained belief in the creation of the heavens of the earth, that they were originated. They had a proof which is actually the precursor to the kalam cosmological argument, and it states (refer to this article):
The world has a cause who has never ceased to be, who is one, not manifold, who cannot be described by means of attributes which apply to the things caused.
As a result of this proof, it was from the hallmark of the theological language of the Sabeans that they described Allaah with pure negatives (sifaat salbiyyah) in order to avoid affirming any affirmative attribute for Him which would of course invalidate their proof, and they claimed that this proof and what follows on from it made them true monotheists. Hence, they would say, "He is not unjust, He is not blind, He is not non-existent, He is not incapable..." and so on, these are negative assertions by which they avoided establishing any affirmative attributes which would invalidate their proof for His existence. It is this proof that came into the Muslim Ummah through al-Ja'd bin Dirham, then to al-Jahm and the Jahmiyyah and through them, the Mu'tazilah and then through them the Ash'aris and Maturidis, however it received some refinements along the way. When Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari abandoned the Mu'tazilah and was upon the way of Ibn Kullaab, he wrote about this, and he himself (after speaking with it as a Mu'tazilee) spoke against it and considered it an innovation and he affirmed that this proof of al-ajsaam and al-a'raad originated with the (Sabean) Philosophers:
And that by which he (alayhis salaam) used to seek evidence through his reports is more clear and apparent in indication than the indication of [the proof] of al-aʿrāḍ which the Philosophers, those who followed them from the Qadariyyah [i.e. the Mu'tazilah], and the people of innovation who deviated from the [the way of] Messengers depended upon in deducing evidence... But those [philosophers] who affirmed the recency of the universe and an originator for it sought proof [for this] through the [evidence of] al-aʿrāḍ and al-ajsām due to their rejection of the Messengers and their rejection of the permissibility of their arrival (i.e. being sent).
Refer to Risālah ilā Ahl al-Thaghr (taḥqīq, ʿAbd Allāh al-Junaydī, Maktabah al-ʿUlūm wal-Ḥikam, 2nd edition, 2002), p. 185, 191. This book of al-Ash'ari is mentioned by Ibn Asaakir in Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari (see p. 136).
The Entrance of "Kalaam" (Discussion of Theological Matters Upon the Conceptual Tools and Terminologies of Aristotelian Metaphysics Embodied in the Crude Form of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, Huduth al-Ajsaam) Into the Muslim Nation. This was entered into the Ummah by two men, one of whom was a student of the other. This was al-Ja'd bin Dirham and al-Jahm bin Safwaan, and they brought this into the Ummah, and al-Ja'd used to mix with the Sabeans of Harraan and also with the Hellenized Jews and Christians in Damascus, and it is reported about them, through tawaatur (large-scale transmission) that they denied a) Allaah has any attributes, b) Allaah has any actions, c) Allaah is above His Throne, d) Allaah will be seen in the Hereafter with the vision of the eyes, e) Allaah spoke the Qur'an, or spoke to Moses, or has speech, f) Allaah took Ibrahim as His khalil (friend). All of this was on the basis of the proof of huduth al-ajsaam, because, according to this proof, since the presence of attributes (a'raad) and events (hawaadith) have been used to indicate the originated nature of bodies (ajsaam), and their presence is a sign of something being a body (jism), then Allaah must be absolved of them and described only with negations, and thus the language of Tawhid now takes on an Aristotelian flavour which is to deny from Allaah, all properties and actions (a'raad) of observed bodies (ajsaam). Al-Jahm bin Safwaan spread this into the Ummah and he was the first to say "Allaah is not a jism" and innovated negation (ta'teel) not known to the Prophets and Messengers and not revealed in any Book and not stated by any of the Companions and Taabi'een. It was in fact stated by Aristotle! When this "Kalaam" (which is really philosophy) entered the Ummah, all of the leading Imaams condemned it and declared its practitioners as heretics. You will be amazed at the following statements:
Imaam ash-Shaafi'ee (d. 204H) said, as reported by as-Suyuti in Sawn al-Mantiq (1/47-48):
ماجهل الناس ولااختلفوا إلا لتركهم لسان العرب وميلهم إلى لسان ارسطوطاليس
The people did not become ignorant and nor differ (with each other) except due to their abandonment of the language of the Arabs and their inclination to the language of Aristotle.
And It is well-known and narrated from Imaam ash-Shaafi'ee (d. 204H) as occurs in Siyar A'laam in Nubulaa of adh-Dhahabi, (10/29) and Sawn ul-Mantiq of as-Suyuti, (no. 65), also in Manaaqib us-Shaafi'ee (1/462), and in Dhamm ul-Kalaam wa Ahlihi of Abu Isma'il al-Harawi (4/294-295) that he said:
حكمي في أهل الكلام أن يضربوا بالجريد ويحملوا على الإبل و يطاف بهم في العشائر ينادى عليهم هذا جزاء من ترك الكتاب والسنة واقبل على الكلام
My ruling regarding Ahl ul-Kalam is that they are to be beaten with palm-branches and shoes, carried upon camels and paraded amongst the kinsfolk, it being announced about them, "This is the recompense of the one who abandoned the Book and the Sunnah and turned to kalaam."
And bn Suraij as-Shafi'ee (d. 306H) said, as narrated from him by Abu Ismaa'eel al-Harawi in "Dhamm ul-Kalaam" and as mentioned by Ibn Taymiyyah in "Bayaan Talbees al-Jahmiyyah":
توحيد اهل العلم وجماعة المسلمين أشهد أن لا اله الا الله وان محمدا رسول الله وتوحيد اهل الباطل الخوض في الأعراض والأجسام وانما بعث النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بانكار ذلك
The Tawheed of the people of knowledge and the jamaa'ah of the Muslims is "I testify none is worthy of worship except Allaah (alone) and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah". And the Tawheed of the people of falsehood is disputing about al-a'raad (incidental attributes) and al-ajsaam (bodies) and the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was sent with the rejection of that.
This condemnation is well established from Abu Hanifah, Imam Malik, Imam al-Shafi'i, Imam Ahmad and many others. And there began the well known battle between the Salaf and the Ahl al-Kalaam, who in the second century were represented by the Jahmiyyah, the Mu'tazilah and the Rafidi Hishaamiyyah Mujassimah. You should also note that all the Mujassimah from Ahl al-Kalaam are also referred to as Jahmiyyah, they are all Jahmiyyah because they are operating upon the same underlying premises which led them to deny at least something of what Allaah is described with (from His names, attributes and actions), even if some of them tended towards ta'teel in general and others tended towards Tajseem in general. In the third century, there appeared other Kalaam schools, from them the Kullaabiyyah and Karraamiyyah and in the fourth century, there appeared the Asharis and the Maturidis (although the Maturidis were not recognized as a faction until much later in the sixth and seventh centuries). All of these people were operating their theology upon this kalam cosmological argument (huduth al-ajsaam), and this is what the Asharite books were filled with.
The Sabean Kalam Cosmological Argument in the Books of the Asharites. Just by way of example, tefer to al-Ashʿarī (d. 324H) in al-Lumaʿ Fi al-Radd ʿalā Ahl al-Zaygh (this was when he had recently left the Mu'tazilah, in his later books like Risālah ilā Ahl al-Thaghar, he considered this proof an innovation), then al-Bāqillānī (d. 403H), in al-Tamhīd al-Awā'il, then ʿAbd al-Qahir al-Baghdādī (d. 429H) in Kitāb Uṣūl al-Dīn, then al-Isfarāyīnī (d. 471H) in al-Tabṣīr Fil-Dīn, then al-Juwaynī (d. 478H) in Kitāb al-Irshād and also al-Shāmil Fī Uṣūl al-Din, then al-Ghazālī (d. 505H) in al-Iqtisād Fī al-Iʿtiqād, and also Tahāfut al-Falāsifah, then al-Shahrastānī (d. 548H) in Nihāyah al-Aqdām, then al-Rāzī (d. 606H) in Muḥaṣṣal Afkār al-Mutaqaddimīn wal-Muta'akhkhirīn and also Kitāb al-Arbaʿīn Fī Uṣūl al-Dīn, then al-Ījī (d. 756H) in al-Mawāqif Fī ʿIlm al-Kalām. The proof of huduth al-ajsaam is in all their books. It became the ultimate foundation of their theology. And this is why you see them, inevitably, gravitating towards the language of the Aristotle and the Hellenized Jews, Christians and Sabeans in their theological language, as will be clear to any sincere person who looks at the facts. However, when its falsehood became apparent to some of the later ones amongst them, they started incorporating other proofs, the proof of tarkib (composition) and the proof of takhsis (specification) into their works - and both are taken from the Philosophers themselves, Ibn Sina first outlined the proof of takhsis and was "borrowed" from him by the Mutakallimin. This is why when we look at the polemics of confused, deceived, intellectually crippled, mental spastics like Abu Adam al-Naruiji, we see in their language a hotch-potch of the arguments of the Philosophers (Ibn Sina), Mu'tazilah, Ash'ariyyah (all bundled into one), so when you hear him speak of "shapes" and "sizes" and "specifications" and so on, and trying to throw this language onto Ahl al-Sunnah, and using it to accuse them of Tajseem and so on, you should realize that this mental cripple is simply drawing from what originated with Ibn Sina, and Ibn Sina brought this proof of takhsis as a means to corrupt the proof of huduth al-ajsaam of the Mutakallimun (we may discuss this in separate article, its outside the scope of this one). The intent here is to show that this mental spastic is simply pretending to have knowledge, when he is nothing short of an ignorant and confused academic fraudster, and whilst pretending to be an enemy of Ibn Sina, he is in fact borrowing the proof outlined by Ibn Sina of takhsis (specification) in order to vilify Ahl al-Sunnah, without realizing that by using this proof of takhsis, he is bound and forced to deny all attributes for Allaah, since if Allaah made specification (takhsis) of man as hearing, seeing, knowing, willing, speaking - and these are signs of "specification" indicating creation and specification of form and of attribute - and Allaah too is hearing, seeing, knowing, willing and speaking, then who made takhsis for Allaah? - and this was Ibn Sina's intent - but as we said in an earlier article about al-Naruiji, his example is like that of a dog who lolls out its tongue. Leave it or beat it, it still lolls out its tongue.
Enter the Mutafalsifah. There were from those who ascribed to Islam such as Ibn Sina (d. 429H) who were upon the philosophy of Aristotle and they tried to merge those beliefs (of the eternity of the universe) with the revealed texts. What led them to this was when they saw the Mutakallimun using the proof of huduth al-ajsaam upon the conceptual tools and terminology of Aristotelian Metaphysics (the language of al-ajsaam wal-a'raad) they saw their opportunity to argue for the eternity of the universe. Now neither Aristotle nor Ibn Sina nor any atheist till this day of ours has any proof or evidence that the universe is eternal, it is merely presumption, with no rational or scientific proof except mere conjecture and fancy. But when they saw that the proof of huduth al-ajsaam was inherently flawed, they thought that by pointing out this flaw, they could argue for their position that the universe is eternal. Now again, the discussion of the intricate details of this argument is outside the scope of this article, as our aim here is merely to provide a historical framework by which we can out Abu Adam Naruiji as an intellectual fraudster, and a crippled one at that. So we will leave that discussion for another place.
Assaulting the Revealed Texts With Aristotelian Metaphysics. We now see that the Mutakallimun of Islam simply used the rotten leftovers of previous Hellenized nations (the Jews, Christians and Sabeans, all of whom had strong influence from Aristotles Metaphysics in their theology) which they labelled "ilm al-Kalaam" and then thought they could defend Islam by way of it. They used this argument of huduth al-ajsaam, and treated it to be something which Islam's truthfulness depends upon, they were forced to abide by its binding necessities, in order not to invalidate it, and this was the birth and foundation of ta'teel (divestment) in the Ummah whose Imaams were al-Ja'd bin Dirham and al-Jahm bin Safwan (and later Bishr al-Mareesee al-Jahmee). From here the Kalaam schools differed with each other and their differences arose because they all tried to find their own ways to remain truthful to the core premises of this proof (huduth al-ajsaam), so some of them followed the Sabean Philosophers and denied all of Allaah's Names (Asmaa) and attributes (sifaat) and actions (af'aal) and said He is "He is not a body (jism)" (in order to keep the proof intact) and others only denied attributes and actions, and others denied some attributes and all actions, and others said "He is a body (jism), but not like the created bodies" - all of these debates and discussion were an inter-kalaam thing and the Salaf never knew anything of it, they were free and innocent of this falsehood, because they drank the pure wholesome milk of revelation and were far far removed from the dung, puss and blood of previous nations. We very strongly suggest you take some time out to read our series of articles on the slander of tashbeeh (Anthropomorphism) against Ahl al-Sunnah, as this will give you further insight. This is also where the ta'weel of the Ahl al-Kalaam was born, it was a means by which they tried to deal with those verses that clashed with their proof (of huduth al-ajsaam), and so all of the Ahl al-Kalaam took certain approaches towards those revealed texts (mentioning the attributes and actions of Allaah) and most of the false ta'weels were invented in the second-century, and by the Imaam of ta'weel, Bishr al-Mareesee al-Hanafi al-Jahmi (d. 218H), and these ta'weels later found their way into the books of the Ash'aris.
Between the Mutakallimun and the Philosophers in Theological Language. We will illustrate here by quoting from both al-Ghazali (representing the Mutakallimun) and Ibn Sina (representing the Philosophers) to show that they are all united in the theological language, because ultimately they are all drinking from the same fountain and as for their battles on the topics of the eternity of the universe and bodily resurrection, the Mutakallimun submitted and accepted the validity of the underlying conceptual tools which were made the platform of discussion (Aristotelian Metaphysics, al-Ajsaam wal-A'raad), and when that was the case, how they described Allaah, was inevitably going to be the same or at least gravitate towards each other and show stark resemblance. Take these two citations for example from al-Ghazali and Ibn Sina and just reflect over it, and then ask yourself, who is closer to the Philosophers like Ibn Sina in their theological language, al-Ghazali, al-Razi and the Ash'aris or Ibn Taymiyyah?!
| |Ibn Sina's Theological Language
. Ibn Sina
says in his Risaalah al-Adhawiyyah
- refer to quote in this article
As for the affair of the legislation (al-shar'), then it is desirable that one principle be known regarding it, which is:
That the religion that came upon the tongue of a prophet amongst the Prophets, what is desired by it is to address all people, as a whole.
Then from what is known and clear is that the verification [of truth] that is desirable to be referred back to regarding the soundness of Tawheed of [which is the] affirmation of a Maker [that is] unique (muwahhad) and sanctified (muqaddas) from:
- al-kam (quantity)
- al-kayf (quality)
- al-ayn (location, place)
- mataa (time, when)
- al-wad' (position)
- at-taghyeer (change) [denoted by acting (fi'l) or being acted upon (infi'aal)]
so that belief in Him becomes [one in which] He is a single essence, it not being possible for it [the essence] to have a partner in type (naw') or that it has an existent part (juz') whether in terms of quantity or conceptually (in meaning). And it is not possible that it [the essence] be outside of the universe (the creation) and nor inside of it, and nor that it would be correct to point to Him that He is "here" or "there".
And it is not possible to present this [belief] to the majority [of people]. And if it was presented in this form to the Arabs [of pure original Arabic tongue], or Hebrews [present in the Arab lands] they would have rushed to stubborn rejection (al-inaad), and they would have been in agreement that [this] belief (eemaan) that is being called to is belief in a [mere] non-existent [thing] which has no existence fundamentally [at all]...
| |Al-Ghazali's Theological Language
said in his book Iljaam al-Awaam (refer to the full quote in this article
So if it is said:
Why did he (the Prophet) not remove the cover from what was intended [of the matter of belief] through the application of the word "al-ilaah", and (why did he) not say,
- He exists, (but) is not a body (jism),
- and nor a substance (jawhar),
- and nor an incidental attribute ('arad),
- and nor is He inside the universe,
- nor outside of it,
- nor attached to it,
- nor separate from it,
- and He is not in a location (makaan),
- and nor is He in direction (jihah),
- rather all the directions are devoid of Him
For this is the truth with a people [such as the Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah and Ash'ariyyah ed.], and it is possible to express that (belief) in this manner [using these words] just like the Mutakallimoon have expressed it. And there is no shortcoming in his (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam's) expression, and nor any laxity in his desire to reveal the truth, and nor any deficiency in his acquaintance (knowledge).
We say [in response]: Whoever considered this [i.e. what the Mutakallimoon are upon] to be the reality of the truth has made excuse through (the following): That if he (the Messenger) mentioned it, the people would have fled from its acceptance, and they would have hastened to reject (it), and they would have said: "This is completely impossible", and they would have fallen in to rejection (at-ta'teel), and there is no goodness in exaggerating in (such) tanzeeh that results in at-ta'teel in the case of all people except a small minority.
What we are seeing in the above is both Ibn Sina and al-Ghazali outlining a similar point which is that what is to them the true theological language (their Aristotelian Metaphysics based terminologies in describing Allaah) is something that most people would be averse to - and which amounts to nothing but pure Atheism to most people - and the point they are both making is that people should not be called to belief through these terminologies directly, but in an indirect way so as to avoid them falling into Atheism and denial. However, what Ibn Sina is leading towards in his discussion (as we read further on) is that he says that just like you (the Mutakallimun) and us (the Philosophers) are all agreed that Allaah can't be described with such attributes on the basis of verses which to all of us (Mutakallimun and Philosophers) constitute tashbeeh (Anthropomorphism), and thus we have to make ta'weel ((metaphorical interpretation) of them, then likewise, we, the Philosophers, have even more justification of making ta'weel of those verses which deal with creation and resurrection (to support our belief that the universe is eternal and there is no bodily resurrection) because if ta'weel of the verses that relate to the most fundamental pillar, which is belief in Allaah, is acceptable to us and you (Philosophers and Mutakallimun) then ta'weel of those verses which are less than that (creation and resurrection) are even more warranted and even more acceptable. And to this, the Mutakallimun don't have any answer at all. Finally, we will leave you in further wonderment by citing here the words of al-Razi (d. 606H) too, who agrees with Ibn Sina and al-Ghazali(!!). He said in his tafseer book Mafateeh al-Ghayb (see full documentation here):
The fifth angle: And this is the strongest reason in this topic - that the Qur'an is a book that comprises the call to the people of distinction (al-khawaass) and the common people (al-awaam) [in their] totality. The natural dispositions of the common people are averse, for the most part, to comprehending the realities. Thus, when one from the common folk hears at the beginning the affirmation of an existent (mawjood) that: "is not a jism (body)", and "is not occupying space" and "cannot be pointed to", he will think this is non-existence and negation and he will fall into ta'teel (i.e. negation of such a one described). Thus, it is more suitable that they are addressed with words that indicate some of what is appropriate to what they presume and imagine, and that such (language) should be mixed with what indicates the clear truth.
From all the above, what we read is basically the following (from the Mutakallimin), "The common people are too dumb to grasp the realities of belief as characterized through Aristotelian Metaphysics (the great science and philosophy of the time) and if they were to be presented belief in Allaah through such language, they would all turn to Atheism and disbelief. Hence, it is better not to approach them directly with this type of language (not because it is false or untrue) but in the better interests of the faith of the dumb commoners. And whilst we differ with the Philosophers on matters such as the eternity of the universe and bodily resurrection, the language of truth in describing how Allaah really lies in their conceptual language, that is the true language of Tawhid and as for what the Books and Messengers brought, that is nothing but presumptions of tashbeeh which was necessary to keep the dumb commoners within the boundaries of faith, and it was left to us, the Mutakallimun to slowly introduce the true and real language of Tawhid in a careful, tactical manner to those dumb commoners." And this became their evil perception of the revealed texts, and from Allaah is the refuge! And this is exactly what al-Ghazali (see here) and Ibn-Sina (see here) and al-Razi (see here) are all saying - and this is essentially the view of all of the Ahl al-Kalaam (Ash'aris and Maturidis included) towards the revealed texts of the attributes, because they are operating upon the premise of conflict between reason (aql) and revelation (naql), and their Imaam's like al-Razi, laid down the mother of foundations for them, called al-Qaanoon al-Kulli (the Universal Principle) in his book Asaas al-Taqdis, which essentially states that when there is conflict between reason and revelation, reason should prevail, and the revealed texts should be subservient to reason.
The Door Opened for the Zanaadiqah and Malaahidah. Hence, far from aiding Islam, the Mutakallimun simply opened up an evil door which allowed the Philosophers and others to assault the revealed texts and to fool and play with the revealed texts. To see a perfect illustration of that read this article to see how the Philosophers gave the Ash'arites a mighty pounding because of the latter using flawed corrupt arguments (based on Aristotelian Metaphysics) in relation to the uluww of Allah, the Exalted (being above His creation). These types of battles then continued for centuries, until by the time al-Ghazali (d. 505H), al-Razi (d. 606H) and al-Aamidee (d. 631H) had had their turn, kalam and Falsafah had somewhat merged (this is the subject of another article). Further, when the Mutakallimin said "hand means power" and "istiwaa means conquering" and "face means reward", and "uluww and fawq means one of rank and status, not of essence" the Mutafalsifah said, "Thank you! We will do the same with the texts pertaining to the creation and resurrection, so Allaah being "the first" means one of rank and status not one of the essence (hence the texts don't disprove the universe is eternal)," and then the Baatiniyyah came along and said, "Thank you! And we will do the same with the texts of the ahkaam and sharaa'i, so the prayers are merely symbols for the names of our leaders and fasting simply means to keep our secrets and Hajj means to visit our shaykhs..." and all of this was on account of the "Kalaam" and "ta'weel" that the Mutakallimun entered into Islam from other nations.
Ibn Taymiyyah, the Mutakallimun and the Philosophers. Ibn Taymiyyah is above and beyond the characterization of dishonest intellectual cripples and mental spastics like Abu Adam al-Naruiji, and what Ibn Taymiyyah did is that he came and saw the mistakes of these Mutakallimun and siding with them and supporting them, like an elder brother does a younger one, or like a supporting army comes onto the battlefield to aid one in distress, he pointed out the flaws in their arguments and showed that they used defective goods (Kalaam) and that they strayed from the Book and the Sunnah, rather that they fell into the snares of that Aristotelian Metaphysics which they should have kept away from. He refuted their errors just as he refuted the errors of the Philosophers and showed their great dishonesty in argument and showed they were more astray. And he showed the correct way to refute the claim of the eternity of the Universe, by sticking to the texts of the Book and the Sunnah and avoiding that false, corrupt language of al-ajsaam wal-a'raad. Because there arose so many factions of Kalaam, all disputing with each other (about the details and necessities of the proof of huduth al-ajsaam) and likewise because there were Scholars attached to Hadeeth and Sunnah who were influenced by something of it, or of its conclusions, he discusses in detail and at length, the views and positions of all the factions and likewise their arguments and counter-arguments against each other, and at times, when one reads his works, a person has to be on their toes and make sure they are following carefully, to ensure that one is constantly aware as to who is saying what and whose argument or view it is that is presently being discussed and whose necessities (in argument) are being highlighted and whose implications are being stated and discussed and so on. And when this is the case, intellectual cripples and mental spastics like al-Naruiji come along, coupled with their dishonesty and having an axe to grind, they take and quote whatever they want to a naive, ill-informed audience and hoodwink them into believing that Ibn Taymiyyah believed this particular thing, or said this particular thing, when it is a complete fabrication and is nothing of the sort upon investigation. In turn they abandon and leave the clear statements where the belief is stated clearly and plainly, because here, Ibn Taymiyyah is not evaluating and discussing the views of the various factions but just stating what is the plain truth in the Book and the Sunnah and the sayings of the Salaf. Basically, the writings of Ibn Taymiyyah are too sophisticated for dumb academic fraudsters like al-Naruiji to be reading and pretending to understand.