Impaling Jahmee Doubts: Does Ibn Taymiyyah Claim That Allaah Is 'Divisible' and 'Composite'? Outing the Jahmee Baleed Known As Abu Adam Naruiji - Part 2
Posted by Abu.Iyaad on Sunday, August, 30 2009 and filed under Sunni Answers
Key topics: Abu Adam Naruiji Jahmi Baleed 21st Century Kalam Atomist Al-Uluww Fakhr Ud-Din Ar-Razi Asaas Ut-Taqdis Kalam Atomism Bayaan Talbees Al-Jahmiyyah Abu Adam Naruji Abu Adam Naruiji Jahmi Baleed 21st Century Kalam Atomist Al-Uluww Fakhr Ud-Din Ar-Razi Asaas Ut-Taqdis Kalam Atomism Bayaan Talbees Al-Jahmiyyah Abu Adam Naruji

All praise is due to Allah and may the prayers and salutations be upon His Messenger to proceed:

In Part 1 of this article we covered the treachery and impudence of a 21st Century Kalam Atomist Jahmite - (fraudulently posing as a follower of Abu Hasan al-Ash'ari) - who made a claim against Shaykh ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, that he speaks of Allaah being "divisible" (munqasim) and "composite" (murakkab), and who also proceeded to make takfir of Shaykh ul-Islam on account of this (and other affairs).

As he had started digging his own ditch by initiating such a slander and making such takfir, we decided to show some benevolence and aided him with a JCB digger to facilitate the affair for him. Unfortunately that was not to his liking, he went into a sulk, and decided to grab a few spades and dig his own ditch - which by responding to part 1 of our article - he has now done so, completely.

We clarified that Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah denies Allaah is composite (murakkab) and divisible (munqasim), explicitly and this is found in abundance in the "Bayan Talbees al-Jahmiyyah" and many other works (see here, and here), and he rejects that Allaah can be described as such with these terms, upon their known established meanings in the language of the Qur'an and the language of the Arabs.

As for the likes of ar-Razi, then Ibn Taymiyyah explains that they invent and fabricate their own devised meanings for these terms in order to employ this as a means to reject Allaah being above the Throne (or to reject some of His Attributes), and thus, they load these newly devised meanings into terms such as:

  • "tarkeeb" (composition),
  • "inqisaam" (divisibility),
  • "iftiqaar" (need),
  • "ghayr" (otherness),
  • "kathrah" (numerousness)

and then they expect from and demand their opponents to reject these terms for Allaah. However, when their opponents, meaning Ibn Taymiyyah and those upon the creed of the Salaf, do not fall into their sly trickery and deception, they accuse the likes of Ibn Taymiyyah of speaking with and affirming the very meanings that they fabricated in their own minds for these terms. And this is how these Jahmites are operating and it is also the way that the Jahmee Baleed, Naruiji, is operating in his response.

So lets make this clear, this is how things are working:

Ar-Raazee: If Allaah is above the Throne which is mighty (in its size), then this means He is also Mighty and as the right part of the Throne is other (ghayr) than the left part of the Throne, the same applies to Allaah, and thus as the notion of "ghayr (otherness)" is established for Allaah on account of Him being claimed to be above the Throne, then this is tarkeeb (composition) and inqisaam (divisibility) and separability into parts (ajzaa') - and therefore He cannot be on the Throne.

Ibn Taymiyyah: Your definition of tarkeeb and inqisaam differs to what is well-known and established in the Qur'an and the language of the Arabs, and regarding the correct and established meanings of these terms, we deny them and reject them for Allaah, for Allah is al-Ahad, as-Samad, and such meanings are impossible for Allaah, and He is purified and free of them. As for the meanings you intend behind these terms then in light of that, they are general and ambiguous terms which comprise both truth and falsehood - so we reject the falsehood, which is Allaah being composite and divisible upon the established meanings in the language. And as for the truth which you have incorporated into these terms such as "tarkeeb" (composition) and "iftiqaar" (need) and "ajzaa'" (parts) and "ghayr" (otherness) and their likes in order to reject that truth, then this notion of "distinction" and "otherness" within an entity is something that every existing thing must be described with, otherwise it could not exist, since every existing thing has distinct multiple attributes. And further, this mode of argument you are attempting to employ, is the very same argument that the Philosophers use against you when you affirm the seven attributes, and you are simply extending it and applying it to the issue of Allaah being above the Throne. So we reject your argument and we are not going to reject meanings of truth that you have loaded into these terms, so that if we reject these terms in line with your whims and desires, we reject the truth along with the falsehood. So we are not falling for your trickery and deception.

And our saying is that Allaah is above the Throne and He is al-Ahad, as-Samad, with composition and divisibility being impossible for Him. And your disputants are not just us, but they are also the Early Ash'aris, such as al-Ash'ari himself, al-Baqillani (see here), Ibn Mahdi at-Tabari (see here), al-Qalanisi (see here) amongst others. And also it is the view of Ibn Kullaab (who is the true author of the Ash'ari madhhab) and all of the Salaf (see al-Qurtubi's corroboration of that here) - as well as many other factions from the Islamic groupings.

Jahmee Baleed Naruiji: See! Ibn Taymiyyah does not reject these terms, he affirms them and he says Allaah is made up of quantitative parts and is divisible!

And we have quoted in another place, the saying of Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah in Dar' ut-Ta'aarud (1/133):

And when these words are general, then the one addressing them (i.e. addressing those using them) should either clarify and say [to them], "What do you mean by these words". If they explain them with the meaning that agrees with the Qur'aan, they are accepted. If they explain them in opposition to that, they are rejected. And either he withholds from agreeing with them in speaking with these words, in negation or affirmation. And if he withholds himself in speaking with these words with them [either in negation or affirmation of these words], they will accuse him of incapacity and severance (i.e. withdrawing). And if he speaks with these terms with them they will accuse him of applying those words that contain both truth and falsehood, and they will then make the ignorant ones to think that the application of those words encompasses false meanings from which Allaah is to be declared free of.

As you can see Ibn Taymiyyah is certainly wise to these people and their games.

The Response of the Jahmee Baleed

In response to our initial refutation of the Jahmee Baleed's slander against Ibn Taymiyyah, he is now claiming that Ibn Taymiyyah has two different definitions for "divisibility" and "composition" - one which he denies and the other that he affirms and which the Jahmee has labeled as "quantitative divisibility", again, imputing lies to Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah.

After he was totally exposed and humiliated in our first part - he has now come back - a glutton for punishment - and decided to dig his hole deeper and deeper by elaborating upon his slander a bit more (25th August 2009), and squirming in trying to find angles with which to continue his slander.

As for what he has brought in response, then inshaa'Allaah what follows will be a detailed response to it. We want to hasten the burial and funeral of this Jahmee Baleed, seeing the zeal and keenness with which he wishes to be buried, after having already shown his fondness and affinity to the sandal of Abdullaah bin Abi Ja'far ar-Razi, and after having zealously dug his own ditch.

So we say:

Point 1: The Argument Used by Fakhr ud-Din ar-Razi regarding "tarkeeb" and "Tajuzzee" and "Iftiqaar" and "Ghayr" is in fact based upon the Intellectual Proof of the Philosophers for the Existence of a Creator Which The Philosophers Also Use To Reject the Attributes in Refutation of the Ash'arites - And As Such The Ash'arites Reject This Proof Of "tarkeeb" And Refute It, Since It Means Negation of the Seven Attributes They Affirm

We stated previously that the Jahmites are a primitive species, their psychological constitution embodied in the thought process behind the response devised by al-Jahm bin Safwan to the Indian Materialist Philosophers who confused him, leading him to doubt in His Lord and abandon the prayer for forty days. And thus is the outcome of all Jahmites who abandon the Book and the Sunnah and turn to theological speculation.

It is unfortunate that Naruiji, the Jahmee Baleed, does not realize that he has been forbidden to read the books like those of Fakhr ud-Din ar-Razi by his later Ash'ari Scholars due to what they contain of much of the sayings and underlying arguments of the Philosophers. However, since he has not followed the advice of the likes of Muhammad bin Yusuf as-Sanusi (d. 895H) from the prominent later Ash'arites, he has fallen prey to using specific arguments in attacking Ibn Taymiyyah which are in fact based upon the intellectual proof of the Philosophers for demonstrating the existence of a Creator and the Philosophers use this to deny attributes for Allaah - which opposes the Ash'arite creed of affirming seven attributes for Allaah.

And this is argument through at-tarkeeb (composition) and what is connected to that of "al-iftiqaar" (need) and "al-ghayr" (otherness) and so on.

Those demonstrating the existence of a creator through Kalaam (theological speculation) are of two groups:

The Philosophers argued for the existence of a creator through the argument of tarkeeb (proof through composition), and the Mutakallimoon (Mu'tazilah and Ash'ariyyah) rejected this when they saw its falsehood and its use to deny any and all attributes for Allaah.

In turn, they resorted to Atomism, or the indivisible particle (al-Jawhar al-Fard) and the four "akwaan" (states of being) which are al-ijtimaa' (combination, union), al-iftiraaq (separation), al-harakah (motion) and as-sukoon (rest), and the presence of a'raad (incidental attributes) and hawaadith (occurrences) in bodies made up of indivisible particles - and they made this to be the foundation of their creed, being the basis of their demonstration of the createdness of the universe. However, this is also a corrupt proof, because just like the proof through "tarkeeb" led the Philosophers to deny all attributes, it led the Ash'arites - and the Mu'tazilah before them from whom the Ash'aris acquired this proof and refined in their own way - to deny many of the attributes as well.

Now Fakhr ud-Din ar-Razi (d. 606H) was a bit of a chameleon and a charlatan, he wandered in every direction, and he mixed and confused many of the sayings of the Philosopher and Mu'tazilah within his books, often supporting some of them.

The book "Asaas ut-Taqdees" which is depended upon by most Later Ash'aris to argue in favor of the Jahmite creed of negating their is a Lord above the Heaven and a Deity above the Throne, was written by Fakhr ud-Din ar-Razi, and the book does illustrate how ar-Razi was all over the place. This is evidenced by the fact that in this book he brought together all the arguments he could find against the people of the Sunnah in their affirmation that Allaah is above the Throne - so he brought the arguments of the Philosophers, the Jahmites and the Mu'tazilites, fused them altogether and put them altogether in this book. This was in desperation to refute that there is a Lord above the heaven and a Deity above the Throne.

Ar-Razi tended to do this throughout many of his books throughout his life, and for this reason he was criticized by the later Ash'arites for his companionship of the Philosophers (and their books), and they warned against his books for this reason, especially for the newbies (beginners) - and it is apparent that Abu Adam Naruiji is just a beginner.

Now, in our view and estimation, Abu Adam Naruiji is fraudulently parading himself as some erudite, highly charged 21st Century, pro-Ash'arite, Kalam Atomist Guru.

In reality, he hasn't even been weaned yet, he is still suckling on the basics.

And for that reason we need to bring him down from cloud cuckoo land. And this will be achieved by the all the points that follow:

Point 2: Prominent Later Ash'ari, Muhammad bin Yusuf as-Sanusi (d. 895H) on Fakhr ud-Din ar-Razi (d. 606H) and the Ash'ari Shaykhs Warning From His Books And His Mentioning of Poetry From Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah With His Isnaad Regarding ar-Razi And One Of His Books!

As-Sanusi (d. 895H) is one of the later Ash'ari Scholars who has some works that are held in regard by the Ash'arites and which are study manuals for them. And our Jahmee Baleed, Naruiji, has also translated a brief treatise by as-Sanusi himself, thus Naruiji knows full well who we are quoting from.

Here is the cover to his book "Sharh al-Kubraa", which is an Egyptian print dated just before 1900, just before the turn of the 20th century:

On page 22-23 of this book as-Sanusi says about Fakhr ud-Din ar-Razi:

Which translates as:

And it could be plausible that the reason for his supplication with this is what he knew of his condition of craving to memorize the opinions of the Philosophers and the People of Desires and propagation of their doubts and his strengthening their citation alongside his weakness in determining the reply to many of them - based upon what is apparent from his authorship. And they pilfered him (i.e. won him over) in some beliefs, and he departed (getting) close to their abominable desires. For this reason, the Shaykhs warn from looking into much of his authorship.

The Shaykh Abu Abdullah Muhammad bin Ahmad al-Muqri at-Tilmisani (may Allaah have mercy upon him and be pleased with him) said, "Whoever ascertained the speech of Ibn al-Khateeb (i.e. ar-Razi) will find him stronger in corroborating the doubts than in separating from them (i.e. in repelling them), and in this there is what is not hidden (of the warning against his books). My Shaykh, Abu Abdullah al-Iblee recited poetry to me, saying: Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Ibraheem az-Zamuri recited poetry to me, saying: Taqi ud-Din Ibn Taymiyyah recited some poetry of his to me, saying:

"Mahsul Fee Usool ud-Din", and his "Haasil"
And his "Tahseel", it is knowledge without religion
The foundation of misguidance is in manifest falsehood
For whatever is in it, then most of is the inspiration of the devils

He (as-Zamuri) said: And in his hand he (Ibn Taymiyyah) had a staff and he said, "If I reached Fakhr ud-Din I would have beaten him on his head with my staff" End (of quote).

So here we have a prominent figure of the later Ash'arites (and the Jahmee Baleed knows exactly who as-Sanusi is!) saying that the Ash'arite Shaykhs warned from the books of ar-Razi due to his being confused and mixed up with the doubts of the Philosophers, and he even brings, with his isnaad, some poetry from Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah about one of the books of ar-Raazee, "Mahsul Fee Usool ud-Din", and also alluding to two other books (of ar-Razi's students) through the words "Haasil" and "Tahseel". And the poetry of Ibn Taymiyyah means that anyone acquiring and going through the book of ar-Razi, and the other two books, will simply gain knowledge but lose his religion, and most of what is in them is plain falsehood and inspired by the devils.

The point being here that ar-Razi, in his book "Asaas ut-Taqdees" which Ibn Taymiyyah is refuting, has brought the doubts of the Philosophers, and in particular he has employed elements of the proof through composition (at-tarkeeb) which is what the Philosophers use to establish a Maker for the universe, however this same proof is used to negate any and all attributes for Allaah.

And the Jahmee Baleed, Naruiji, is ignorant of this because he is still being suckled on the basics of his Jahmee Creed. Thus, when the Jahmee Baleed jumped on these quotes from Ibn Taymiyyah which he misunderstood, he did not realise that Ibn Taymiyyah is pointing out to ar-Razi, that the particular mode of argument you are using is the very one that the Philosophers use against you.

And this is made manifestly clear with the next point:

Point 3: as-Sanusi (d. 895H) Refutes the Argument of "tarkeeb", "Iftiqaar" and "Ghayr" Of the Philosophers And Reprimands Fakhr ud-Din ar-Razi For Using Such Arguments (Which The Jahmee Baleed, Abu Adum Naruiji, Has Used To Attack Ibn Taymiyyah)

Oh dear! We advise the Jahmee Baleed to take cover.

It is advisable that you go and read Point 1 again as a reminder and set the context for what is to follow from as-Sanusi. In this passage below, as-Sanusi has just finished addressing the doubts of the Mu'tazilah in rejecting the attributes and he has provided responses to their arguments. It is here that he moves on to the Philosophers:

Here are the relevant pages, from page 118-121.

There is a lot here, and there is also much that is in other parts of the book that can be brought, but we've highlighted relevant sections and we want to elaborate upon them to understand what is going on, and why Naruiji must recant and take back his slanders and lies - which he has based upon ar-Razi's use of the proof of "tarkeeb" of the Philosophers - those very same Philosophers whom he is supposed to be an ardent enemy of, yes "those vile and nasty atheist Philosophers and their evil logic....", but its fine if you want to employ their arguments to attack Ahl us-Sunnah though!

Commentary on as-Sanusi's Words - Part 1 - The Argument of the Philosophers

On page 118, just after the middle of the page (highlighted with red vertical line), he says:

Know that the Philosophers have sought to use as proof for the negation of the Attributes (a doubt) that is close to the previously (mentioned) doubt of the Mu'tazilah, and they said:

If attributes were present it would necessitate that they are in need (muftaqirah) of the Essence (adh-dhaat) due to the impossibility of attributes being established by themselves. And also because some of them are a condition for the others such as life (al-hayaat) which is a condition for power (al-qudrah), knowledge (al-ilm) and will (al-iraadah). So it is binding that the contigent (mashroot) is in need of the condition (shart), or (that it) comes after it according to reason. And need (al-iftiqaar) negates the necessity [of existence] since that [whose existence is] necessary is absolutely free of need, and this negates being in need (al-iftiqaar) or having requirement (al-haajah). And precedence (of the contingent) over the necessary in existence is impossible.

Thus, the response is to prohibit the [consequential] necessity (mulaazamah) [claimed by the Philosophers arising from our view]. For being in need (al-iftiqaar) upon another entity (al-ghayr) requires that the existence of the thing in need (al-muftaqir) is derived through (the presence of) the other entity (al-ghayr), thus, rendering it newly-arisen (haadith, something existing after having not existed) - and we do not claim that...

Here, as-Sanusi mentions the argument of the Philosophers that having attributes necessitates that these attributes have need (al-iftiqaar) for an essence to exist, and as we will see that this also necessitates composition (tarkeeb) and parts (ajzaa').

Commentary on as-Sanusi's Words - Part 2 - Concerning the Word "al-Iftiqaar" (Need)

If we go to the bottom of page 118 and the top of page 119, here as-Sanusi says:

And if you mean by "al-iftiqaar (being in need)", [the meaning of] concomitance (mulaazamah, meaning two things existing in connection with one another), and the absence of separation of one of the two existents from the other, then we would prohibit the exceptionality, and "al-iftiqaar" with this meaning would not negate [the necessity of] existence.

So why have you (the Philosophers) said that this dependence (of the attributes) in knowledge or in existence (upon the essence) - which have you have labelled as "iftiqaar (being in need)" - negates the necessity of existence, or necessitates (only) its possibility...

Now this part is very important. Here as-Sanusi is arguing against the Philosophers and he is clarifying what they mean by the word "al-iftiqaar" that they are using to negate the Attributes for Allaah. In the first quote he has already responded to them and said in essence:

"Hey! We don't claim about Allaah what you Philosophers are saying, that His Attributes are in need of His Essence, and therefore this only makes their existence possible instead of necessary. Rather we say that the existence of all of Allaah's attributes are necessary in existence, along with Allaah's Essence."

So in other words as-Sanusi's counter to the Philosophers is we are not saying what you are implying with your use of the word "al-iftiqaar" and the meaning that you have given to it.

Now in this quote, as-Sanusi is saying (in essence):

"Hey you Philosophers! If what you mean by the use of the word "al-iftiqaar" is that two things exist together (i.e. Allaah and His Attributes), in connection with each other, without one of them separating or disengaging from the other, then if this is the meaning of "al-iftiqaar" that you intend, then this does not negate the necessity of existence of those Attributes (alongside His Essence). So why then have you Philosophers labeled this relationship (between the Essence and the Attributes) to be "iftiqaar (being in need)", and something that negates the necessity of existence (for his Attributes and in turn for Allaah)!"

And this is what Ibn Taymiyyah is saying to ar-Razi as well, who has simply brought the doubt of the Philosophers. If we go back and look at the quotation that was the basis of Naruiji's initial slander against Ibn Taymiyyah:

We will find here what Ibn Taymiyyah is saying against ar-Razi is what as-Sanusi is saying against the Philosophers:

So it is said to him (ar-Razi): Your saying, "If He was divisibe (munqasim), He would be composed, assembled (murakkab) - and its invalidation has already preceded", and the reply against that which he (ar-Raazee) has labeled as "murakkab (composed, assembled)" has already preceded and it was made clear that there is no proof at all for the impossibility of that.

Rather, it was made clear that declaring that impossible necessitates the abolition of every existing thing, and had he not referred to what has preceded we would not have referred to it. And what is contained of generality in the word "at-tarkeeb (composition)", and "al-hayyiz (space)" and "al-ghayr" (other)" and "al-iftiqaar" (need) has already preceded, and that the [particular] meaning that they (the likes of ar-Raazee) intend, it is necessary that every existing thing be described with it, regardless of whether it's [existence] is necessary (i.e. Allaah) or possible (i.e. the creation), and that saying that this is impossible necessitates pure sophistry.

And it was made clear that it is binding upon every one to speak with the likes of this meaning which (he ar-Raazee) has labelled as "tarkeeb" (composition), until even the Philosophers, and that this disputant (ar-Raazee) [himself] speaks with the same as this in the multiplicity of attributes [that he, ar-Razi, affirms for Allaah], and that he (ar-Raazee) has made binding upon the Philosophers the likes of that.

So you can see what Ibn Taymiyyah is saying. We have clarified this repeatedly to this dumb Jahmee, but he persists in his slander and his takfeer of Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullaah).

Commentary on as-Sanusi's Words - Part 3 - The Fraud of Loading Meanings Into Terms

In the middle of page 119, from the eighth line onwards as-Sanusi, after answering this particular doubt of the Philosophers, says:

... and thus, your humiliation becomes apparent through your claim for whose validation you found no route except the fraud through the word "al-iftiqaar" [and its contained] presumption and its use to (denote) unrestricted and unqualified dependence...

... So in summary, these people made (mere) imaginations - despite the weakness (in these imaginations) - to be the judge and they made them the evidences therein ...

Here as-Sanusi is addressing the Philosophers and reprimanding them and saying that their humiliation is established by the fact that they found no route except to use the fraud of loading certain meanings into the word "al-iftiqaar" and then using that to accuse the Ash'arites and those affirming the Attributes of claiming Allaah is composed (murakkab) and has parts (see further below).

Commentary on as-Sanusi's Words - Part 4 - Rebuke of Fakhr ud-Din ar-Razi, His Confusion, Deviance and Being Affected by the Philosophers

At the bottom of page 119, as-Sanusi says:

Sharf ud-Din Ibn at-Tilmisani said: And when al-Fakhr [ud-Din ar-Razi] believed the correctness of this proof, meaning the doubt of the Philosophers that "al-iftiqaar" - with the meaning of unrestricted dependence - necessitates (only) the possibility (of existence), and that every composed (thing) is in need of its (composite) part (juz') and (in need of) the part that is other than it, and that anything that is need of what is besides it cannot (have) except a possible (existence), and (the doubt of) the presumption of "tarkeeb" (composition) [for Allaah] through consideration of the attributes - [so ar-Razi, believing in the correctness of all that] when he used these precepts in seeking evidence for the possibility (of existence) of everything that is besides Allaah, the Exalted, he perceived (that this also meant) the invalidation of the attributes of Allaah, the Exalted. So on one occasion he (ar-Razi) said, "This is from (amongst those affairs) in which we beseech Allaah, the Exalted, for counsel"...

And then a little later, on page 120

... and from the repugnance of his madhhab (i.e. ar-Razi's) his reducing the Attributes to being mere ascriptions and attributions (i.e. have no existence outside of the mind), and his labeling them in some places as "heterogenous to the Essence" (meaning different to the Essence), alongside what is known that the leading Scholars of the Sunnah [he means amongst the Ash'arites] prohibit the application of "al-ghayriyyah (otherness)" to His, the Most High's Attributes, because of what this permits of the correctness of separation (between Allaah and His Attributes), just as they prohibit that it be said, "They (the Attributes) are Him (Allaah) because of what this permits of the meaning of "al-Ittihaad" (union through combination).

And what has led him (i.e. ar-Razi) to most of these corrupt views is fleeing entirely from "at-tarkeeb" (composition) which the Philosophers have presumed to be binding from the affirmation of the Attributes, and for that reason, they negated them - whilst (we should note) that something does not increase (numerically) on account of the numerousness of its attributes and nor does it increase (numerically) on account of the numerousness of its considered qualities (such as hearing, seeing, speaking)...

The essence of the above quotes is that ar-Razi got affected by the doubt of the Philosophers of "tarkeeb" composition - which is that if Allaah was described with Attributes, it would amount to Him being composed of distinct parts that are "other" to each other - and thus he had strange statements on the Attributes, on account of being confused by the Philosophers.

And when he got confused and tried to flee from the "tarkeeb" that the Philosophers made binding upon the likes of him, it was this same way of thinking and this underlying doubt and argument that ar-Razi in turn used to deny that Allah is above the Throne, by claiming it necessitates Allaah is compose of parts (murakkab).

So just as as-Sanusi is saying to the Philosophers that:

Our affirmation of attributes does not necessitate composition through parts (ajzaa') or numerousness (kathrah, ta'addud), even if you fraudulently label that as tarkeeb

Then Ibn Taymiyyah is saying to ar-Razi (who is bringing this same doubt of the Philosphers),

Our affirmation of Allaah being above the Throne does not necessitate He is composed (murakkab) and divisible (into parts) based upon the corrupt necessities and inventions of your mind. Rather He is above the Throne, and He is al-Ahad as-Samad, and the meanings of composition are impossible for Him because He is as-Samad, and your claimed necessity (of composition through parts) is not binding from what is the manifest truth of Allaah being above the Throne with His Essence - which is what all the Salaf affirmed and the earliest Asha'ri Scholars also affirmed that too. And as for your use of these words "tarkeeb" (composition), "iftiqaar" (need), "ghayr" (otherness), "ajzaa'" (parts) and so on, then you are fraudulently labeling correct and true meanings with these terms in an attempt to reject the truth - just like the Philosophers argue against you, claiming that you (ar-Razi) affirm "tarkeeb" (composition) for Allaah on account of your affirmation of the attributes.

So either an-Naruiji:

  • Affirms that as-Sanusi's refutation of the Philosophers is correct in which case Ibn Taymiyyah's refutation and response to ar-Razi is correct - since ar-Razi is simply extending the very same proof of "composition (tarkeeb)" of the Philosophers against those affirming Allaah is above the Throne.

  • Or he affirms that that the saying of the Philosophers is correct, and thus the Ash'arite creed necessitates Allaah is composed (murakkab) of parts (ajzaa'), and thus his own creed is invalidated.

Thus, we require a firm, honest and upright answer from the Jahmee Baleed with respect to his slander against Ibn Taymiyyah on the basis of ar-Razi's proof of "tarkeeb" which ar-Razi borrowed from the Philosophers!

Commentary on as-Sanusi's Words - Part 5 - What is Binding Upon ar-Razi

As-Sanusi continues on page 120, in the middle of the page, quoting at-Tilmisani, and you can refer to the Haashiyah (Notes) of al-Hamidi (which we have used to ensure accuracy of meaning and intent):

Sharf ud-Din bin at-Tilmisani said: And at-Tarkeeb (composition) in [Allaah's} Essence is binding upon him (ar-Razi) as well, because the quiddity (the true essence of a thing) of every attribute amongst life (al-hayaat), knowledge (al-ilm), power (al-qudrah), will (al-iraadah) are distinguished (mutamayyizah) from the others in the mind. From them are those that have no connection (to others) such as life (al-hayaat), and from them are those that do have connection, but do not have influence (upon other things) such as knowledge (al-ilm). And from them are those which are connected and also have influence such as power (al-qudrah) and will (al-iraadah). So when they are distinguished (from each other) and are different (to each other in Allaah's Essence), they (the Attributes) necessitate different aspects in that which is required for them (to exist) [meaning Allaah's Essence], and when the Philosophers realized that, then it was not possible for them except to deny the Attributes, and so they deceived the Muslims in applying them (to Allaah) whilst negating their realities (haqaa'iq), and they explained them (the attributes) with affairs that are different to their true essence - such as their explanation of Him being knowing (aalim) as meaning "He is not a jism (body) or established within a body (meaning He is not a body or an incidental attribute of a body)"...

And the meaning here from what as-Sanusi has quoted from Ibn at-Tilmisani is that it is binding upon ar-Razi to affirm composition (tarkeeb) for Allaah - through this mode of argument - because the true essences (quiddities) of Allaah's Attributes are distinguishable in the mind in relation to Allaah's Essence - and when the Philosophers realized that this was necessitated by their proof of "tarkeeb" (for the createdness of the universe), and meant that the attributes are separate, distinguishable parts within the Essence, they had to deny the Attributes to keep their proof intact, so they began to play games by affirming them in wording but making ta'weel of them, so the meaning of Alaah being "aalim" (knowing) is that "He is not a body" - this is what some of the Philosopher started doing. So all of this is binding upon ar-Razi and it is necessary for him to affirm Allaah is composite (murakkab) if he is going to affirm the Attributes for Allaah and use the likes of these proofs.

Commentary on as-Sanusi's Words - Part 6 - Refutation of Another Doubt Regarding Allaah's Composition Through Parts and Claim of "Numerousness"

And as-Sanusi said, regarding the doubt of the Philosophers, that if Allaah's Attributes were the presence of multiple meanings, then they would be eternal entities existing with Him from eternity - and that this is what they, the Heretics, mean by "Numerousness (takatthur) of the eternal (i.e. Allaah) would be necessitated by those meanings (i.e. Attributes)".

So he replies to this (top of page 121 after a few lines):

The consensus is that al-Qadeem (meaning Allaah) is one, and the answer [to their doubt] is to prohibit the binding necessity (they are trying to establish). So if you mean by "numerousness of the Eternal One" that He is composed (tarakkub) and has many parts (ajzaa') on account of the presence of the Attributes, then (the response is) that numerousness of attributes does not prohibit the oneness of the one being described with them, and nor does is it necessitate His tarkeeb (composition), and nor is it said regarding Him on account of (the Attributes) that "He is many", neither in the language, nor in customary usage, and nor in the intellect.

As-Sanusi here is responding similar to what he did before which is to rebut the presumption of tarkeeb (composition through distinct parts, ajzaa') on the basis of the claim that multiple meanings (i.e. the Attributes) necessitate that multiple parts had to exist with Him in eternity.

And then as-Sanusi elaboratese on this further - first giving the example that the indivisible particle (al-Jawhar al-Fard) is described as being one, even if it is described with multiple attributes. So this is as-Sanusi illustrating that within the creation there can be found that which alongside being one (i.e. indivisible), can also be described with multiple attributes.

And that if they (the Philosophers) mean by "Numerousness of the Eternal One" that the meaning of (eternity) is present for more than one reality (i.e. for the various attributes in addition to the essence), then we would prohibit the exceptionality, and it would then be necessary that you have used the claim as part of the evidence itself. Then after this he says (bottom half of page 121):

And the consensus that you (the Philosophers) have quoted that "al-Qadeem (the Eternal) is One", it is necessary that it's meaning be:

Al-Qadeem (the Eternal One with no beginning) described with the attributes of uloohiyyah, the Mighty and Majestic, is One, there is no second to Him

And not that (it should be):

The reality of eternity (with no beginning) is not established except for a single thing (shay waahid) without looking at its being described [if it is an Essence] or [it being] an attribute

as you (the Philosophers) have understood.

Yes, the word "al-Waahid (the One)" can be applied in the manner we have said, and also upon what you (the Philosophers) have mentioned, so you should stop (employing) the shared (meanings) in the word (i.e. the word al-Waahid) through which you have deceived (others), and instead say (clearly): "The Ummah is unanimously agreed that He does not have attributes" and in this case you will not find any way to (establish) the correctness of this. And how can unanimous consensus have taken place regarding (something) the opposition to which clear evidences have been established.

Here what as-Sanusi is saying to the Philosophers can be explained as:

What you mean by the statement "al-Qadeem is only one", meaning that eternity can only be affirmed for a single entity, and that this is a matter of consensus - then you have understood it wrongly. Rather, the correct way to understand it is that "al-Qadeem (the eternal one with no beginning) is described with attributes, and there is no other entity sharing that eternity with Him", so he is a single entity that is eternal and He has attributes. And what you have done is to take this word "al-Waahid" and tried to claim it refers to the meaning that you have stated (i.e. an essence without attributes) - so you have tried to deceive the people through this play with the meanings and definitions of words. And instead of doing that, why don't you come straight out and say, "the consensus of the Ummah is that Allaah has no attributes" - instead of playing about and saying, "the consensus of the Ummah is that al-Qadeem can only be One (waahid)", by which you actually mean, "al-Qadeem has no attributes".

Commentary on as-Sanusi's Words - Part 7 - The Doubt That Deceived the Philosophers Is What Deceived Fakhr ud-Din ar-Razi

Straight after the above, as-Sanusi says (bottom of page 121):

Know that this doubt is the very one that misled the Philosophers to reject all the Attributes, and it misled the Imaam, al-Fakhr (ud-Din ar-Razi) until he said what he said, and Allaah guides whomever He wills to the right path.

And in ending our quote from as-Sanusi from this part of his book, it is established that the claim of the Jahmi Baleed, Abu Adam Naruiji, is demolished and relegated to the dustbin of history, the while Naruiji himself accelerates down from the stratosphere, out of cloud cuckoo land, and back to earth. We now await him to announce his repentance.

What Just Happened?

The Jahmee Baleed, Naruiji, along with his students attempted to slander Ibn Taymiyyah based upon one of his statements in which he was rebutting an argument used by Fakhr ud-Din ar-Razi (d. 606H) which is actually the argument of the Philosophers (the proof through composition "tarkeeb") used by them to demonstrate the universe has a Maker. However, this proof necessitated that they reject all the attributes, because the attributes would have - in their view - constituted distinct parts, being in need of the whole, thereby rendering Allaah to be composite (murakkab), and thus created - thus falsifying the proof. And the Philosophers deceptively included Allaah being described with multiple attributes under the label of "tarkeeb" (composition) and "iftiqaar" (need) and "ajzaa'" (parts) and so on.

Now, ar-Razi simply tried to use every argument he could - even if it came from the Philosophers and Jahmites - in order to negate Allaah was above the Throne. So he used this issue of "tarkeeb", composition.

So Ibn Taymiyyah stated that the meanings that you are entering into these terms (tarkeeb, iftiqaar, ajzaa' etc.) - besides those that are the established known meanings in the language - then if you deny those meanings (the ones you have invented) through denial of these terms, you are denying the existence of every single thing, because it is impossible to deny these meanings you have included behind these terms for anything in existence - which is that all existing things are described with multiple attributes which are distict from one another. And Ibn Taymiyyah says that all ar-Razi is doing is simply extending the argument of the Philosophers of "tarkeeb" to deny that Allaah is above the Throne. And we reject the established meanings in the Arabic language of "tarkeeb" and "inqisaam" and so on for Allaah, but as for what they (the Philosophers and ar-Razi) are trying to do with these words, then we won't fall for that deception - because by that they are intending to reject all the Attributes, or reject that Allaah is above the Throne.

So the Jahmee Baleed jumped on this statement (which we have quoted a little earlier in this article) and claimed: See! Ibn Taymiyyah is saying Allaah must be composite and made of parts! Whereas what Ibn Taymiyyah is saying is something else. In fact, what he is saying is exactly what as-Sanusi is saying - and we have seen how as-Sanusi has rebuked and reprimanded ar-Razi for falling into the nest of the Philosophers and using their argument of "tarkeeb". So the essence of the situation is that Ibn Taymiyyah and as-Sanusi - who is a prominent and important later Ash'ari whose books are standard Asha'ri texts - are both refuting ar-Razi (and therefore, the Jahmee Baleed by necessity).

So what happened above is that the Jahmee Baleed got sent hurtling into the stratosphere with the equivalent of a few Hiroshimas, and he is now hurtling his way down to the crater - and this is the end result of those who are brazen enough to make takfir of the righteous scholars on account of things that those scholars do not even believe or hold as their religion before Allaah.