From the doubts of the Jahmites is that they invent new meanings for terms and phrases which are unknown in the language of the Qur'aan, and the language of the Arabs. They enter into words such as "tarkeeb", "inqisaam", "waahid", "ahad" meanings that are not known and which they have devised on the basis of the theory of "Atomism" they made to be the foundation of their religion, they then utilized these words (stuffed with these devised meanings) as a tool to reject much of what Allaah has affirmed for Himself.

In this article we will look at one such example, which is the claim of ar-Raazee that nothing in creation can be called "waahid" or "ahad". This is because according to the theory of Atomism they have made to be the foundation of their creed and which determines their positions on Allaah's attributes and other areas of creed, all created bodies [ajsaam] are made up of at least two indivisible particles, and as such are murakkab (composed) and therefore cannot be considered "waahid" or "ahad".

Ar-Raazee said on pages 30-31 of Asaas ut-Taqdees:

This translates as:

... So we say: Indeed His, the Most High's saying, "Ahad" [in Surah Ikhlaas 112:1] indicates the negation of Jismiyyah (being a body), and negation of al-hayyiz (space) and al-jihah (direction). As for its indication that He, the Most High, is not a body (jism), then this is because the least of what a jism (body) is composed of is two [indivisible] particles (jawharayn), and this negates singularity (wahdah), and when His saying "Ahad" (about Himself) is an exaggeration of the singularity (waahidiyyah), then His saying, "Ahad" negates Jismiyyah (being a body).

He also said:

In which there occurs

...And it is established that every divisible (thing) is not "ahad" (singular, one)..."

Here ar-Raazee is claiming that nothing from the universe (which to ar-Raazee and his likes is composed of bodies and their incidental attributes) can be described with "waahid" and "ahad" as these terms signify singularity, and the absence of what he understands to be multiplicity and composition and divisibility. All of which is based upon the theory of al-Jawhar al-Fard (Atomism) - meaning that since every created thing is made up of two indivisible particles, then they are said to be "composite" and thus cannot be referred to as one.

Here is one of Shaykh ul-Islaam's numerous responses which can be found throughout the "Bayaan" in refutation of this falsehood. This passage spans over forty pages and Ibn Taymiyyah brings thirteen angles of refutation against ar-Raazee on this point, and we can take some excerpts from it and summarize it (3/165-167):

Here is a summary translation:

... It is said to him: When you said, "The jism (body) is composite (murakkab)", this necessitates that anything which is said to be a jism (body) cannot be described with "al-wahdah" (singularity, oneness). It is known that this is in opposition to what is in the Book and the Sunnah, and in opposition to the language of the Arabs. Allaah the Most High said:

O Mankind, have taqwaa of your Lord who created you from a single soul (nafsin waahidatin), and from it created its spouse (Nisaa 4:1).

And it is known that the single soul from which its spouse was created was Aadam, and Hawaa (Eve) was created from the lowest part of the rib of Aadam. She was created from his body, she was not created from his spirit (rooh) such that one may say: Oneness (al-wahdah) is in consideration of the rational soul in which there is no composition (tarkeeb). And as Eve was created from the body of Aadam, and the body of Aadam is a jism (body) amongst the ajsaam (created bodies), and as Allaah named it as "nafs waahid" (a single soul), it is known that the jism (body) can be described with singularity, oneness (wahdah).

And more far reaching than that is what the Imaam Ahmad has mentioned, and others, from His saying:

Leave me (to deal with) he whom I created alone (waheedan) (Muddathir 74:11).

And (the word) "al-waheed" is an emphatic form of "al-waahid" (one). So when a single man is described as being "waheed" (singular, one), then his being described with "ahad" is even more befitting - and alongside this, he is a jism (body) amongst the ajsaam (created bodies).

And He the Most High said:

Allaah commands you as regards your children's (inheritance); to the male, a portion equal to that of two females; if (there are) only daughters, two or more, their share is two thirds of the inheritance; if only one (waahidah), her share is half. (An-Nisa 4:11)

So He described the woman as being "one" (waahidah), and this (i.e. the woman) is a jism (body) described with oneness (wahdah), in that there was no other equal to her in being a daughter of this deceased (person).

Then after this Shaykh ul-Islaam brings many other verses, amongst which are:

• And if one (ahadun) of the Mushrikoon seeks your protection then grant him protection, so that he may hear the Word of Allaah. (At-Tawbah 9:6)
• And there entered with him two young men in the prison. One of them (ahaduhumaa) said: "Verily, I saw myself (in a dream) pressing wine." (Yusuf 12:36)
• Would one of you (ahadukum) like to eat the flesh of his dead brother? (Al-Hujurat 49:12)

In total he brings twelve verses from the Qur'aan in which "ahad" (one, single) is applied to people. So this demolishes the claim of ar-Raazee that created bodies cannot be described with "ahad" and "waahid" because they are murakkab (composite) or munqasim (divisible).

Then Ibn Taymiyyah brings proofs from the Sunnah, and this spans the next 24 pages with an abundance of ahaadeeth. We will mention just a few here:

• His (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam's) saying, "Let not one of you pray in a single garment (thawbin waahidin) whilst nothing from it covers his shoulder." (Sahih al-Bukhari).
• His (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam's) saying to the couple who invoked the curse upon each other (in the case of accusation of adultery), "Allaah knows that one of you (ahadukumaa) is lying, so is there a repentant from amongst you (both)?" (Sahih al-Bukhari).
• His (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam's) saying, "When one of you (ahadukum) becomes angry whilst he is standing, let him sit." (Ahmad, Abu Dawud)

So this is just the first angle of Ibn Taymiyyah: That the Qur'aan and the Sunnah falsify the claim of ar-Raazee that created bodies (ajsaam) which are said by him to be composite (murakkab) cannot be described with "waahid" or "ahad".

Another part in the "Bayaan" addressing this issue (4/125-127):

This translates as:

This evidence that he (ar-Raazee) has mentioned for the impossibility of anything from the [created] bodies (ajsaam) being (considered) waahid (one), or the impossibility of anything from the existing things being waahid, it is known that this is in opposition to the Book, the Sunnah, the consensus of the Muslims, rather, the consensus of the intelligent. Allaah, the Most High said:

...if only one (waahidah), her share is half. (An-Nisa 4:11)

And He said:

Leave me (to deal with) he whom I created alone (waheedan) (Muddathir 74:11).

And the saying that "this is one (waahid)" about a single person, and a single animal, and a single tree, and a single dirham is amongst the most well-known affairs to the sons of Aadam, and it is from the elementary instinctive perceptive [types of] knowledge to them, and it is the knowledge of numeracy(i.e. counting), and that one is half of two.

And if there had not been amongst the [created] bodies what is described as one (waahid) - and [had] the people not witnessed any [created] bodies - alongside [the fact that] the conceptual knowledge [in the mind] that "one is half of two" is dependent upon one being half of two externally [in reality], since mental sciences [dealing with] universals (i.e. concepts in the mind) are preceded by specific sciences relating [to external] existence - so if there had not been amongst the [created] bodies what is "waahid" (one), then the judgement of the mind that "one is half of two" would have been impossible. And this is from the elementary, instinctive sciences by which examples are struck in the [course of] observation and debate.

Thus, his (ar-Raazee's) argument for a jism (body) not being considered as "waahid" (one) opposes this, and thus it becomes from the most corrupt of sophistries, due to its revilement upon the most obvious of perceptible, elementary affairs.

So again, this shows the falsehood in ar-Raazee's claim that nothing from the created bodies (ajsaam) can be described as "one" (waahid). As indicated earlier, the reason why the likes of ar-Raazee make it impossible for any created thing to be described as "waahid" or "ahad" is the Atomism theory - that every jism is made up of at least two indivisible particles, and hence is "divisible" (munqasim) and "composite" (murakkab, mu'allaf), and thus cannot be described as "one". Then from this they argue that Allaah being above, or above the Throne renders Him a jism (body) subject to divisibility - and all of this is based upon the Atomism theory that the indivisible particle, or a jism is a space-occupying thing, and thus anything in location or direction must be a body and therefore "divisible" and "composed".

To understand more fully why ar-Raazee argues this, we have to also understand the devised meaning of the likes of ar-Raazee for the word "inqisaam" (divisibility), and we shall cover that in a separate article - and all of this is tied to ar-Raazee's attempts to negate Allaah is above the Throne - using the darkness and corruption of his purely rational arguments which he throws against the texts of the Book and the Sunnah, and the Ijmaa' of the Companions and of the Imaams of the Religion.