Bringing Down More Walls

In a previous article, the first in this series, we started the demolition process, bringing down the walls (of deception), and today we will continue to make some more progress. Just to make sure that each article on its own is complete and within context, we are going to reproduce the introductory background we used in that first article, just so that we can maintain a broad contextual understanding of what is going on. So here goes ...

When we use the word "Ash'arite Heretics" you must remember that "Ash'ariyyah" is of types, and is not a monolithic, uniform creed. What we mean by "Jahmite Ash'arite Heretics" are the contemporary followers of those who cut off and had little connection with al-Ash'ari himself and took the Ash'arite way into the direction of the Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah and the Philosophers and they are al-Juwayni (d. 478H), al-Ghazali (d. 505H), al-Razi (d. 606H) and al-Amidee (d. 631H). This is the "engine" and "core" of today's Ash'arites.

Today's Ash'arites have no connection with al-Ash'ari (d. 324H) himself and likewise no connection to the Early Ash'aris like Ibn Mahdi al-Tabari (d. 380H) and al-Baqillani (d. 403H). Read this article for more details on this subject

• The Levels and Ranks of Ash'arism or Those To Whom It is Ascribed - An Important Classification And Exposition of the Contemporary Jahmites Posing as 'Asharis' - (see here)

However, there are two layers by which this inner core and central machinery is concealed and attachments and associations are made to either of these two layers so as not to reveal the filling in the middle.

Hence, you will see the contemporary Ash'arites associating with the first lower layer, Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari, despite the fact that they rely upon NONE of his existent works written towards the end of his life, such as al-Mujiz, Risalah ilaa Ahl al-Thaghar, al-Maqaalaat, and al-Ibaanah in knowing how his creed evolved towards that of Ashab al-Hadith at the end of his life. So it is just mere use of the name. This is very different to the likes of Abu Bakr al-Ismaa'eelee, and Abu Uthman al-Sabuni and others who were amongst those who on account of what was in the book al-Ibaanah, sometimes displayed association with al-Ash'ari, and that association was on the basis of what he manifested of agreeing with Imaam Ahmad at the end of his affair. So take note of this crucial matter and beware of the trickery and deception of the conniving Jahmites of today posing as "Ash'arites." Likewise they are not really into al-Baqillani that much either for reasons that become clear from the many articles we have on him on this site (see here). So this is the lower layer.

The second upper layer which conceals the filling in the middle is that made up of al-Qurtubi, al-Nawawi and Ibn Hajar. Now these Scholars did not delve into the heretical kalam but they were convinced of the conclusions of the Mutakallimin without really knowing the inner realities, and thus, they tried to merge their knowledge of hadith, with these conclusions, and thus you will see strange things from them. They censured the Mutakallimin for indulging in that Kalaam, and speech of al-ajsaam and al-a'raad, and for what they made to the be the first obligation (al-nadhar wal-istidlaal) and the likes [see this article about Ibn Hajar, al-Nawawi and al-Qurtubi on this matter], yet they spoke with ta'wil and tafwid, having considered the conclusions of the Mutakallimin to be correct. This is because they grew up in an environment and era where this was the only way known, and they considered the conclusions of the Mutakallimin to be the truth, and they did not truly distinguish between the sayings of the various factions (and this is clear in the writings of Ibn Hajar especially), and so merged between those conclusions and what was found in the ahaadeeth. They would often speak of the way of the Salaf through this particular orientation and influence, although at times they would clearly acknowledge that the way of the Salaf was different to what they held (see this example and this one from al-Qurtubi). Hence, this upper layer is ideal for confusing people and presenting a "good" face for pseudo-Ash'ariyyah and for calling the people to it. And what they are doing is lending credibility to the way of al-Juwayni, al-Ghazali, al-Razi and al-Aamidee through the expertise of the likesof al-Nawawi and Ibn Hajar in the field of hadith. The Ash'ariyyah they are really calling to is not that of Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari, since they no longer have any knowledge-based connection to al-Ash'ari himself, not even to the Kullabi period in his life. Rather, it is the Ash'ariyyah of tajahhum, i'tizal and Falsafah, that of al-Juwayni, al-Ghazali, al-Razi and al-Aamidee - the inner core, the machinery, and the filling.

Due to copyright rules and terms of purchase we can't make the whole PDF available for download, so we will just quote relevant sections.

Here is the cover page:

The paper discusses how Philo of Alexandria (a Jew) and Augustine of Hippo (a Christian) were both influenced by the writings and philosophy of Aristotle in their theological discourse, and in particular on God, His immutability (not subject to change), and His attributes. What we are interested in here is looking at parallels between the influence upon these Jews and Christians and the Mutakallimin (speculative theologians), meaning the Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah, Ash'ariyyah and Maturidiyyah. In fact, pay close attention to the following saying of Imaam al-Shafi'i (d. 204H) as reported by as-Suyuti in Sawn al-Mantiq (1/47-48):

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 just keep that in mind as we proceed through a discussion of what is in this paper. As indicated in the previous article, we have chosen a third-party source so as to make sure there are no barriers to any Ash'ari who very easily finds any fickle excuse not to accept the truth when it's right there sitting on his nose-end.

First, crucial background information:

Paper Background: Predication, Immutability, the Ten Categories

Before we move on to the paper, a few things need to be clarified. The author will be discussing the issue of predication and immutability. Predication is simply to assign a quality, attribute or property to a thing. And immutability means the inability to change, to not undergo any type of change. Now Aristotle spoke a lot about the issue of predication, and this was a linguistic discussion, however, this was integrally tied to his syllogistic logic, by which the truthfulness of propositions is 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. Likewise, he also laid down what are known as his Categories, which is known as al-Jawhar wal-Arad (substance and incidental attribute) or al-Maqulat al-Ashar (the ten categories). The intent of Aristotle here was to comprehensively categorize everything 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 this is clear, what we need to understand is that these aspects of Aristotle's philosophy already affected those amongst the Sabeans, Jews and Christians before it affected the Muslims. And so what we are going to do here is look at the theology of a Jew and a Christian before Islam came (we will look at the Sabeans in a separate article altogether). One is Philo (20BC-50CE) was a Jew from Alexandria who was present around the time Eesaa (alayhis salaam), and the second is Augustine of Hippo (d. 430CE), a Christian. Now, you will see a stark resemblance between the language of their theology and the usool of the Mu'tazilah and the Ash'ariyyah, in fact its identical. the ilm al-Kalaam, of the Ahl al-Kalaam is not so original. Rather, it's simply the second-hand, used and abused toy of the past nations (Sabeans, Jews, Christians). Unfortunately, when it came into the hands of the Mutakallimin (Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah, Ash'ariyyah, Maturidiyyah), they took it and lapped it up like a kid does a ice-cream, not realizing that there has been many a nation, or scholastic whose already "been there, done that." So pay attention, we will be discussing predication, immutability and negating Aristotle's ten categories from Allaah - which is essentially what the deen of the Mutakallimin is founded upon - as opposed to the way of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah, which is:

So let us now proceed to the paper itself:

Philo, Predication and Immutability

Discussed first is Philo (the Jew of Alexandria) predication and immutability.

The author begings by pointing out how theists of religions used conceptual tools forged by pagan Greek Philosophers to contstruct their theologies. He mentions how some amongst them found this deplorable. This is parallel to how the people of the Sunnah and Jamaa'ah likewise found this deplorable from the Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah [and Ash'ariyyah] who were guilty of using the exact same conceptual tools. This, as the author points out, necessitated that there was some part of religious belief for which these conceptual tools were either necessary or helpful. He treats these conceptual tools like a Trojan horse. After this opening, the author takes two or three pages to go into some detail on the theory of predication and we don't really need to go into that, we are just interested in the effect of these theories, terms etc. upon Philo and Augustine. So he first discusses Philo:

We see here the statement that the "property" of God is that He is the unchanged, and this is an ambiguous statement. For Allaah has never ceased possessing all of His attributes, so in that regard He is not subject to change. Yet Allaah also has actions tied to His will and power, and Allaah never ceased to be the doer of whatever He wills, and these actions are established with His essence, and this [meaning, the issue of both attributes and actions] is what the Theologians, be they Jews, Christians or Muslims (from the Mutakallimin) were debating about and trying to philosophically arrive at the truth regarding what God can or cannot be described with in order to maintain what they believe is unicity in His essence.

Again what they mean by God being unchangeable, is the same as what the Mutakallimin refer to when they negate attributes and actions (which they refer to as a'raad, incidental attributes and hawaadith, events).

However, what Philo stated above that "it is impossible for the essence of God to have been understood at all by any creature" is true, since no one knows the reality of Allah's dhaat (essence).

We now come to look a particular problem raised by "predicating" (assigning) to Allaah more than one property, and here we see the shubhah that was found amongst the Mu'tazilah and also those Philosophers ascribing to Islam regarding tarkib (composition) which they used to deny the attributes, and which the later Jahmite Ash'arites used to deny the sifat khabariyyah.

What is being said here is actually very similar to the doubt of the Mu'tazilah in that if you assign any property to Allaah, then this means there are two components to Allaah, and thus multiplicity of properties, qualities, attributes necessitates multiple eternal entities along with Allaah. However, if it can be said that the attributes are nothing but Allaah''s essence itself, then you resolve that problem, and thus, Allaah's hearing is but His essence, and likewise seeing, life, knowledge, will, power and so on. This was one of the ways the Mu'tazilah tried to deal with this issue and the other way was to say that the attributes of Allaah are other than Allaah, meaning that which is created, from His creation, just like we say, "Messenger of Allaah", "House of Allaah", "She-camel of Allaah", and thus, when we say, "Speech of Allaah", it means what He creates in others of speech, but it is metaphorically said to be His speech.

Now this is where it gets juicy, lets discuss Augustine, and you have to seclude yourself, and pay good attention here:

Augustine on Divine Immutability, Incidental attributes [Accidents] and Aristotle's Ten Categories

The author then discusses Augustine's theology:

Just read that again and pay attention to what you see:

As Augustine puts it slightly later,

in created and mutable things what is not said according to the substance remains to be said according to the accident. For all things happen by accident to them [omnia enim accidunt eis], which can be either lost or diminished - both quantities and qualities - along with what is said [in relation] to something - as friendships, relationships, servitudes, similitudes, equalities, and things of this kind - and positions, states, locations, times, actions, and passions.

The list is a famous one - the ten predicables canonized by Aristotle in the Categories (l^b25-2^a4) and the Topics (I, 9, 103^b20-24). Augustine's maneuver is to lump together the nine categories other than substance, counting them all as accidents.

You have to really appreciate the significance of what you have just read (and what you will read further below). What you have just read above is the foundation of al-Ja'd bin Dirham and the Jahmiyyah claiming Allaah never took Ibrahim as a friend (with khullah), and that Allaah never spoke to Moses with speech that Moses heard, and that the Qur'an we have is makhluq, Muhdath (created, originated), and that Allaah does not perform al-istiwaa, and that there is no Lord "above" the creation or or "above" His Throne. Seriously, it can't be stressed enough. This is like a bombshell. We don't know how to put it. Let's try:

Now a whole book could be written here, and there is not enough space in article for us to say and explain everything we would like to. But for now, we see here the deen of the Ash'arites preceded by OVER 500 YEARS at least - that's half a millenium. So here we have a Christian, affected by the concepts of Aristotle, arguing for the immutability and unicity of Allaah through the negation of accidents (incidental attributes, a'raad) from Allaah, using Aristotle's Ten Categories.

So Jahmite Ash'ari folks! Please, how long are you going to continue in your fraud? Don't deceive yourself, you can't falsify history. At least admit that the roots of your theology is based upon the language of a pagan Greek disbeliever, star and idol-worshipper, which came to you through the books of the Mu'tazilah because you took the proof of huduth al-ajsaam from them, and they took it from the Jahmiyyah, and they took it from al-Ja'd bin Dirham, and its in all your books:

Go and check your books:

Refer 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 IS THE ULTIMATE FOUNDATION OF THEIR THEOLOGY. 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 - in order to cover their backs and to hide that vulnerability. Others were not smart enough to realise the flaw in huduth al-ajsaam, so they remained upon it, defending it. And this is why you will see that intellectual cripple and mental spastic called Abu Adam Naruiji using the proof of takhsis (specification), little does this pretentious fool know that this is the proof of Ibn Sina and that this cunning kafir formulated this proof in order to corrupt the proof of huduth al-ajsaam for the Mutakallimin, and that's an altogether separate article, one in which the sandal of Abdullah bin Abi Ja'far (see here) will be polished and made ready for this Jahmite pretender.

Thus, what you find above from Shaykh Augustine [the pre-Islamic era "Ash'ari" Mutakallim], is the foundation of the deen of the Ash'ariyyah [and Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah] who deny what they call hawaadith (events, occurrences) and by which they mean Allaah's chosen actions (Sifaat Fi'liyyah, Af'aal Ikhtiyaariyyah).

This, O Muslim, is the ilm al-Kalaam that the Salaf condemned, and this is the ilm al-Kalaam of the Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah, Kullaabiyyyah, Ash'ariyyah and Maturidiyyah. The Salaf did not condemn the genus of kalam (as in defence of the truth through the Book and the Sunnah and sound reasoning), rather they condemned this speech of al-ajsaam and al-a'raad and speaking about Allaah's Names, attributes and actions through this Kalaam, through the proof of huduth al-ajsaam and what follows on from it. So reflect upon the saying of Abu Haneefah in the era of the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah, as reported in Dhamm ul-Kalām wa Ahlihī of Abu Ismāʿīl al-Harawī (4/213-214), with his isnad:

Nuh al-Jāmiʿ said: I said to Abū Hanīfah: What do you say about what the people have innovated of speech regarding al-aʿrād and al-ajsām? He said, "(Nothing but) the sayings of the Philosophers. Upon you is (to follow) the narrations and the path of the Salaf, and beware of every newly-invented matter, for it is an innovation."

Free and innocent is Abu Hanifah (rahimahullaah) from that fraudulent, spurious ascription of Abu Mansur al-Maturidi and the Maturidiyyah to him in terms of the their creed, for their creed is a product of the Greeko-Sabean, Jahmite, Mu'tazilite, derived proof of huduth al-ajsaam and its binding necessities, all of which is based upon the language of al-ajsaam and al-a'raad. Watch Maturidis.Com for an exoneration of the honour of Abu Hanifah from its defilement by these heretics who have deceived the Ummah for many a century gone by.

And likewise you will now truly fathom the saying of Ibn Surayj as-Shafi'ee (d. 306H) who 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":

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.

The Prophets and Messengers were sent to abolish all false speech, and the speech of the wandering Philosophers, Poets, worshippers of stars, and all other species of misguided strayers, and to affirm His Names and attributes and His Uloohiyyah (the two areas in which mankind strayed, deviated and innovated). So the Prophet was sent with a rejection of that, and you will then also understand the saying of Allaah, the Most High:

سُبْحَانَ رَبِّكَ رَبِّ الْعِزَّةِ عَمَّا يَصِفُونَ وَسَلَامٌ عَلَى الْمُرْسَلِينَ وَالْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ

Glorified be your Lord, the Lord of Honour and Power! (He is free) from what they attribute unto Him! And safety, peace be upon the Messengers. And all praise is due to Allaah, the Lord of the Worlds. (37:180-182)

This is an amazing short passage. A whole paper can be written on these three verses alone.

In short, Allaah has freed and exonerated Himself from everything He is described with which is false [in relation to both His Uloohiyyah and al-Asmaa wal-Sifaat], and whatever did not come from Him, and this is the saying of all the wandering, straying deviants from those of the abrogated religions and the Philosophers and star-worshippers and their likes. It is also a repudiation and rejection of what the Mutakallimin (Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah, Ash'ariyyah, Maturidiyyah) describe Him through the use of "negative theology" which they inherited from the Sabean star and idol-worshipping disbelievers through the proof of huduth al-ajsaam. Then Allaah stated that security, peace is upon His Messengers, and this means that in everything His Messengers brought of His Names, attributes and actions, then there is safety, and they brought nothing but the truth, and there is nothing objectionable in any of that, and His Messengers were the most knowledgeable of the creation with respect to Him, and they conveyed knowledge of Him in the most-eloquent way, and they were most sincere in wishing guidance for their people. So these three qualities, that they are a'lam (most knowledgeable), afsah (most eloquent), and ansah (most sincere), means that their way was the a'lam (most erudite), ahkam (most precise), and aslam (most safe) - and with that the claim of the Jahmite Ash'ari Maturidi, lying deceiving, surmising, self-aggrandizing self-righteous bigots is rendered the greatest falsehood and greatest of affronts to Allaah and His Messenger, for their saying necessitates that the heritage of the pagan Greek and Sabean Philosophers is ahkam and a'lam over what the Messenger of Allaah brought! And this is the reality of their saying, except that they are the greatest of cowards, and they wish to protect themselves from the scorn of the people, just like the Mu'tazilah used to try and protect themselves from the scorn of the people through concealment, trickery and deception.

And then consider the affront of Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (d. 505H) in his book Iljaam al-Awaam, for he says that the language that Allaah and His Messenger chose is not the real truth, rather it is nothing but tajsim and tashbih and that the real truth lies in their language which they inherited from the Greek and Sabean star and idol-worshipping disbelievers, that of al-ajsaam and al-a'raad, but then he excuses Allaah and His Messenger by saying that since the Arabic language was not fit to carry and express the eloquent truth, and since the average person was too dumb to understand the real truth (which is their "negative theology"), then it was necessary for Allaah and His Messenger to use such language, even if it gave the presumption of tajsim and tashbih, so as not to make those dumb commoners flee from faith. To have a majority (of dumb commoners) believing in Allaah, even if it be through this way, is far better than having the majority turning atheists and only having a handful of elites (meaning their arrogant selves) believing in Allah through the real truth (i.e. through the language of the Philosophers and Mutakallimin). So it was a necessity - and such is the saying of al-Ghazali, to the letter - go and read it all in all its repugnance and filth right here, and then don't be surprised to see that kafir, Ibn Sina (d. 429H), who is supposed to be an enemy of the Mutakallimin saying the exact same thing, and he said it before these As'harites, and they took it from him, take a look right here.

Shaykh Augustine of Hippo, the "Ash'ari" Mutakallim of the Pre-Islamic Era and the Negation of a'raad (Incidental Attributes) and Hawaadith (Events, Occurrences)

Next the author spends some time covering a chapter that Shaykh Augustine, the Mutakallim, had written regarding the negation of a'raad (incidental attributes, accidents) from God. Its a lengthy piece, so we don't want to waste space quoting it all, we will simply provide a summary of it all here, so basically Shaykh Augustine, the pre-Islamic era Christian Mutakallim, the forerunner of the Ash'arites, he explains that incidental attributes or accidents (a'raad) are of three types:

The first are "inseparable accidents" which do not separate from the essence, and he gives the example of the black colour of the feather of a raven. The black color is inseparable and it only expires when the raven dies and turns to dust. The second are "separable accidents", and he gives the example of the blackness of a man's hair which can turn white, not by virtue of it being separable, but by virtue that its blackness is merely an incidental property. The third are "accidents with degrees" and this means the variation in a particular quality, or attribute, such that it has gradations, degrees. Now this third type is really an overlap of the previous two, and it refers to those qualities which can be diminished or increased. So Shaykh Augustine denies all of these a'raad (incidental attributes, accidents) from God.

The thing to note here is that there are some meanings which are certainly correct. Take for example, Allaah's knowledge and power, does it have degrees? Of course not, it is absolute, all-inclusive. So this is certainly rejected, but when the Mutakallimin (the Jewish, Christian and Muslim ones) resorted to using these types of conceptual tools, language and classifications in trying to describe Allaah or to negate for Allaah, they rejected much of the truth along with it.

Now if you are wondering again about the likes of al-Bayhaqi, Abu Ya'laa, al-Qurtubi, al-Nawawi and Ibn Hajar. As we already explained, there were Scholars who were attached to the Qur'an and Hadith, and engrossed in those sciences. They did not delve into Kalaam, but they considered the conclusions of the Ahl al-Kalaam to be correct, and so they adopted those conclusions. However, they never liked Kalaam, and you will see them censuring it (see that from al-Qurtubi, al-Nawawi, and Ibn Hajar in this article), and they did not enter into all that huduth al-ajsam, and al-Jawhar al-Fard, and so on like those Mutakallimin. However, when they saw the Mutakallimin refuting the true and real Mujassimah and Mushabbihah, who were also Ahl al-Kalaam, like Hisham bin al-Hakam al-Rafidi, he was a Mutakallim, upon that ilm al-Kalaam of huduth al-ajsaam and al-ajsaam and al-a'raad, and likewise the Hanafi Karraamiyyah Mujassimah, they too were upon this very ilm al-Kalaam. So they considered the conclusions of those Mutakallimin to be true and then they tried to reconcile between those conclusions and the ahaadeeth of the Messenger. And because they saw those Mutakallimin taking the path of ta'wil or tafwid or both, they considered that to be acceptable and they wrongly presumed it was the way of the Salaf. So they erred in this matter. And as for Abu Ya'laa, he got affected by the Mutakallimin, on the subject of Allaah's chosen actions (Af'aal Ikhtiyaariyyah), which they called hawaadith (events) and tried to deny them, and likewise he exaggerated in ithbaat (affirmation) and he was not like those repugnant Mujassimah from the Ahl al-Kalaam, be they Raafidites of Hanafi Karraamites, but he erred from the angle of affirming fabricated narrations and bringing disrepute upon himself, and allowing himself to be censured and maligned.

So when this is clear and this is apparent, it is not longer permissible for any Ash'arite to use any of these Scholars as a justification to remain upon an incorrect creed, and remember that these Names they use of al-Bayhaqi, al-Qurtubi, al-Nawawi and Ibn Hajar, they only use them as a front, what they are really calling to is the "Heretical Ash'ariyyah", that of al-Juwayni, al-Ghazali, al-Razi and al-Aaamidee. It is not what Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari was upon at the end of his life when he transitioned away from the usool of Ibn Kullaab and adopted the creed of Imaam Ahmad, and it was for this particular creed that some scholars either spoke well of his book al-Ibaanah (like Abu Uthmaan al-Sabuni) or may have ascribed to him, like they would have ascribed to any other Imaam of the Sunnah when they saw what he manifested of the truth and ascription to Imaam Ahmad, and this would include people like Abu Bakr al-Ismaa'eelee and others.

From the above two paragraphs, you will come to understand the grand deception of today's Ash'arites and how they rely upon people's ignorance of the fact that there are different types of "Ash'aris" so to speak, and that they use certain Names only as a front, and what they are really calling to is nothing but a creed founded upon the language of al-ajsaam and al-a'raad and that was the very ilm al-Kalaam that the Salaf severely condemned and declared its practitioners as diseased heretics. So we exonerate the likes of al-Qurtubi, al-Nawawi, and Ibn Hajar from that, for they never indulged in that Kalaam like those Mutakallimin did, but they lived in an era, growing up whilst this was considered in their lands to be the truth, and so they thought the conclusions of these Mutakallim were the truth, and so they are not to be put alongside those heretical Ash'arites who hybridized Tajahhum, I'tizaal and Falsafah with the Kullaabi original that even al-Ash'ari himself transitioned away from.