|Wednesday, 21 February 2024
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 Use of "Eye" or "Two Eyes"
These individuals used the verification and printed version of Dr. Fayqiyyah Hussain Mahmood (from four manuscripts) as a basis to evaluate other print versions, which they claim are tampered with, because other versions mention eye in the dual form whereas Ibn Asakir and the manuscripts used by Dr. Fawqiyyah use only the singular.
Well take a look at this page here from Dr. Fawqiyyah's print of al-Ibanah:
Surely, they weren't ignorant of it. Read the title at the very top:
Speech regarding the Face, Two Eyes, Sight and Two Hands
This title is the same in every single manuscript and it is the same in all the print versions that of Bashir Uyun (p. 104), that of Salih al-Aseemee (p. 459), and in the manuscripts used by Dr. Fawqiyyah (p. 130)!!
This exposes that they are just like G.F. Haddad whose example of deception, lying and treachery in quoting they are following. They rely upon the ignorance of people and the fact that most people will not bother to follow up their lies and distortions.
Then to drive the stake strongly and firmly into this doubt once and for all just take a look at Dr. Fawqiyyah's footnote at the bottom and it will reveal something amazing to you.
In the margin of [manuscript letter] "seen" in front of the title of the chapter is a comment whose text is,
Here speech indicates that some of these manuscripts were in the possession of those inclined towards I'tizal and this opens the possiblity that the tampering with al-Ibaanah is likely to have come from the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah who added explanatory statements not said by al-Ashari in order to take his statements towards ta'til and what they consider tanzih. This is plausible considering that historically the Jahmiyyah in the time of Ibn Darbas al-Shafi'i (d. 659H) resented the book al-Ibanah and tried to discredit it. However, what is also possible and plausible is that this tampering with additional notes actually came from the later Ash'arites, especially considering that these additions all come in the same manuscript labelled (س) and which has no name of the script writer or date of the script, and is different to the three other scripts (stated by Dr. Fawqiyyah in her introduction).
Then on the very next page, we see that al-Ashari, after using eyes in the dual form in the chapter title, uses it in the single form in the chapter content itself:
So He the Exalted informed that He has a face, an eye without takyif and without defining [how].
So we can see that al-Ash'ari himself - in that in which there is no variation amongst all the manuscripts and published versions - has used both "two eyes" and "eye" and therefore, to claim that the variation in the manuscripts in some places in relation to mention of eye in the singular is indicataive of adulteration and forgery is a ridiculous and spurious claim.
Link to this article: Show: HTML Link Full Link Short Link
You must be registered and logged in to comment.