|Wednesday, 18 September 2019|
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:
Who is Abu Bakr al-Baqillani?
He is the Qaadee Abu Bakr al-Baqillani who was born around the middle of the fourth century (hijri) and died in 403H (around 1013CE) in Baghdad. He is a prominent Ash'ari theologian and is touted by the Ash'aris as one of their luminaries - and Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah has words regarding him, stating in meaning that he was amongst the better ones of the Ash'aris - as he was closer to the truth in certain affairs.
He is the author of the book: "At-Tamheed al-Awaa'il wa Talkhees ud-Dalaa'il" - a book which focuses on the issues of creed, and it is found with a different name in the Paris manuscript, "at-Tahmeed fee ar-Radd 'alal-Mulhida was-Raafidah wal-Khawaarij wal-Mu'tazilah".
Opening Cover Page Of the Book
Between the Earlier and Later Ash'aris
In this book we find that al-Baqillani affirms attributes for Allaah that are rejected by the Later Ash'aris. The Later Ash'aris were subject to more influence by the Philosophers, Jahmites and Mu'tazilah - since they relied more on their arguments in order to rebut the affirmations of Ahl us-Sunnah of the Attributes of Allaah. And thus we see that the Ash'ari madhab, from its beginning to its end is one of glaring contradictions, with many of the prominent Ash'aris refuting others, or those that came before them, and differing in many of the fundamental issues - and how can a madhhab that is so full of contradictions, and whose subscribers and proponents do not agree on fundamental matters - be the truth? So if a person were to take all the writing of all the Ash'aris from the earliest times to the present time, and study the affairs they have written about in the subject of belief in Allaah - a person would come back confused and dazed, not finding any coherence, and would see nothing but a great deal of differing and contradiction.
Al-Baqillani Affirms the Attributes of Hand and Face and Refutes the ta'weel of the Later and Contemporary (Today's) Jahmee Ash'aris
Chapter: Concerning Allaah Having a Face and Two Hands
Al-Baqillani on the Mu'tazilah
And they (the various factions of the Mu'tazilah from various locations) all claimed that there is no Face for Allaah, the Most High, despite His, the Mighty and Majestic's saying, "And the Face of your Lord shall remain (the Face) full of Majesty and Honour" and that He has no Hand, despite His saying, the Mighty and Majestic, "Rather, both His Hands are outstretched..." and His, the Most High's saying, "What prevented you from prostrating to (the one) that I have created with My Own Two Hands?" ...
Points of Benefit from al-Baqillani's Words
TWO: al-Baqillani refutes the false ta'weels of those claiming that al-yad (hand) is power (qudrah), or ni'mah (bounty, favour) - in those verses. And he is refuting the Mu'tazilah and Jahmiyyah - whose ta'weelaat, the Later Ash'aris adopted - and declares all of that to be baatil (false).
THREE: Hypocrisy of the contemporary Jahmi Ash'aris who accuse the likes of Ibn Taymiyyah and others on the basis of that which is found in the works of their most prominent historical figureheads. So they do not accuse their earlier Scholars of Tajseem and tashbeeh.
FOUR: His rejection of the argument that affirmation of the attributes of Face and Two Hands for Allaah necessitates their being limbs and his explanation that just because we - in the creation - do not see a living, knowing, able thing except that it has a body - this does not necessitate that we can judge Allaah with the same. And this is what the Salaf are upon with respect to all the Attributes such as Hands, Eyes, Face and so on.
FIVE: His rejection of their argument concerning the attributes ascribed to Allaah's dhaat (essence), which is their claim that it is necessitated that they are a'raad and hawaadith merely because what they observe of things in existence in the creation whose essences have such attributes are in the form of a'raad and hawaadith and so on.
SIX: The fraud of the likes of Muhammad Zaahid al-Kawtharee, the Habashis and other neo-Jahmites whose tongues are drawn against the Scholars of Ahl us-Sunnah such as Imaam adh-Dhahabee whom al-Kawtharee declares to a mujassim (anthropomorphist) - the while the ealier Ash'ari Scholars affirmed such attributes as Hands and Face whilst negating from them any likeness to the creation and whilst nullifying the ta'weel of the deviants and their claims of Tajseem against the affirmation of such attributes.
SEVEN: His rebuke for all the factions of the Mu'tazilah who claimed Allaah has no Face nor Hands - and yet the Later Ash'aris adopted the ways of the Mu'tazilah. And in reality - the Mu'tazilah and the Ash'ariyyah are all Jahmiyyah - since Tajahhum is to negate the Attributes - something that they all fall into - only that the Ash'arites are the most contradictory, and their stances are hypocrytical, since their answers to the Mu'tazilah are the same as the answers of Ahl us-Sunnah to them in relation to the charge of Tajseem and tashbeeh. So they are satisfied in giving the Mu'tazilah the same answers against the charge of Tajseem and tashbeeh that they do not accept from Ahl us-Sunnah.
EIGHT: Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah said in Majmoo' ul-Fataawaa (6/359-360):
And upon whomever Allaah bestows knowledge of what the Messengers came with and [bestows] penetrative insight and [who] knew the reality of their source, will know absolutely that they deviate in His Names and His Verses and that they rejected the Messengers, and the Book and with what He sent His Messengers with. For this reason they say that innovation is derived from disbelief, eventually leading (back) towards it. And they say, "Indeed the Mu'tazilah are the effeminates of the Philosophers and the Ash'ariyyah are the effeminates of the Mu'tazilah". And Yahyaa bin 'Ammaar used to say, "The Jahmite Mu'tazilees were masculine (males) and the Jahmite Ash'aris were feminine (females)", and they meant the Ash'ariyyah who negated the Narrated Attributes, but as for the one amongst them who spoke with the book "al-Ibaanah" which al-Ash'ari authored at the end of his life, and who did not manifest any statement opposing that, then this one is to be considered from Ahl us-Sunnah, however the mere ascription to Ash'ari is an innovation, especially when by doing so, a person creates a good impression of everyone who makes this ascription (to al-Ash'ari), and he opens by way of that the doors to evil ...
There is a difference between those who held to what Abu Hasan al-Ash'ari was upon at the end of his life, in what he wrote in the book "al-Ibaanah", and they are Ahl us-Sunnah - and between the Jahmite Ash'aris who are what we have today - who are in reality upon much of what the Mu'tazilah and Jahmiyyah were upon. These are mainly the Later Ash'aris up until the contemporaries. And then there are the earlier Ash'aris, such as the likes of al-Baqillani, who despite being closer to the truth, were still upon error, for while they had a better position on the issue of the sifaat (Attributes), they unfortunately followed similar sayings to the Jahmiyyah in other issues (such as Imaan, faith, being tasdeeq).
NINE: From the above, we can understand the policy of many of today's Ash'ari leaders to discourage their followers from looking too deeply into 'aqeedah due to their fear that when the common person comes to realise the utter confusion and contradiction in the Ash'ari madhhab - from its beginning to its end - they will realise it's falsehood and abandon it.
Link to this article: Show: HTML Link Full Link Short Link
You must be registered and logged in to comment.