Jahmite Intellectual Fraudsters Abu Bilal Maliki, Faqir, and Muhammad Fahmi on the Authorship of al-Ibanah by Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari - Part 10: Ibn Hazm Cites al-Ash'ari as Affirming Two Eyes and Declares Him a Mujassim
Posted by Abu.Iyaad on Monday, September, 27 2010 and filed under Articles
Key topics: Abu Bilal Maliki Faqir Muhammad Fahmi Al-Ibanah

Ibn Hazm (a Jahmite in Sifaat) Affirms al-Ash'ari Affirmed Two Eyes for Allaah and Ascribes Tajsim to al-Ash'ari

In previous articles we saw the Pusillanimous Jahmites like Faqir running around with unchanged nappies after GF Haddad fed them the rotten leftovers of the Jahmites of antiquity, trying to use those who were affected by tajahhum and i'tizaal, such as Ibn Hazm, to denounce the belief of Ahl al al-Sunnah, and that of the early Kullabi Ash'aris such as al-Ash'ari, Ibn Mahdi al-Tabari, al-Baqillani, al-Bayhaqi, of affirmation of two eyes (aynaan) for Allaah the Exalted, or the genus of eye (ayn) - bilaa kayf (without 'how').

Here is what those Jahmites said:

Furthermore, in order to infer 'two eyes' from the plural form 'eyes' which has been mentioned in the divine texts one is likely to have drawn a comparison between Allah and His creation based on the senses. Imams Ibn Hazm [fn 8] , Ibn Aqil al-Hanbali and al-Imam Ibn al-Jawzi [fn 9] have harshly criticized those who affirm two eyes because there is no evidence for it, neither in the Qur'an nor the Sunna.

Alhamdulillah some quotes of Ibn Hazm have been brought to our attention by brother MA al-Ghuzayli that were in fact previously presented to these Jahmites by him, or at least to their guardian, GF Haddad, and it is befitting these quotes are included here in relation to the issue of al-Ibanah and the issue of the mention of eye in the singular and dual because it further exposes the stinking hypocrisy of contemporary Jahmites dishonouring the good name of Abu al-Hasan al-Ashari.

Ibn Hazm on al-Ash'ari and Two Eyes

To the right is the cover page for al-Fisal Fi al-Milal of Ibn Hazm (d. 456H) and it is the Darl al-Jayl (Beirut, 1996) print with tahqiq by Muhammad Ibrahim Nasr and Dr. Abd al-Rahman al-Umayrah.

As has been stated in the previous articles, Ibn Hazm was Jahmite in sifaat, and as for Ibn Aqil, he was upon I'tizal and as for Ibn al-Jawzi then he is mudtarib (mixed, confused) sometimes, affirming, sometimes denying. When the Jahmites come to you with certain quotations from these Scholars, you can sense that very objectionable smell (of hypocrisy).

So with that, consider these two citations from Ibn Hazm (2/322):

And I saw in the book of al-Ash'ari known as al-Mujiz: That Allah, the Exalted, when he said, "Verily you are under our eyes" (52:48) that He intended two eyes. And in summary, everyone who does not fear Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic in what He says, and does not feel ashamed of baatil (falsehood), will not care about what he says. And we have stated that there has not come a (single) text through the wording of an attribute from any angle whatsoever, because Allah the Exalted has informed us that knowledge, strength, speech and power, all of this is true, and it does not return back to anything besides Allah the Exalted at all, and with this do we strengthen (our view).

And also later (2/348)

And al-Ash'ari said: Indeed, the intent behind the saying of Allaah the Exalted: "Our Hands" is that its meaning is two hands, and that the mention of "Eyes" its meaning is "two eyes". And this is false (baatil) entering into the saying of the Mujassimah (Anthropomorphists). Rather we say: This is notification from Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, the mention of hand does not return to anything besides Himself, the Exalted, and we affirm that Allaah, the Exalted, - just as He said - has a hand (yad) and two hands (yadayn) and hands (aydin) and eye (ayn) and eyes (a'yun), just as He the Mighty and Majestic said, "In order that you may be brought up under my eye" and "Floating under our eyes". And it is not permissible for anyone to describe Allaah the Exalted that He has two eyes, because the text did not come with that, and we say: That which is intended by what we have mentioned is Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, and not anything besides Him.

Now, after you have digested the above, let us go back to these hypocritical Jahmites and see what they said in their article on al-Ibaanah and the issue of two eyes:

Furthermore, in order to infer 'two eyes' from the plural form 'eyes' which has been mentioned in the divine texts one may have inadvertently drawn a comparison between Allah and His creation based on the senses. And perhaps for this reason, some non-Ash'ari scholars like the Dhahiri Imam Ibn Hazm and the Hanbalis, Imam Ibn Aqil and al-Imam Ibn al-Jawzi have rather harshly criticized those who affirm two eyes because there is no evidence for it, neither in the Qurưan nor the Sunna.

Ibn Hazm in al-Fisal fi al-Milal / 2:166 said (tr. Dr. GF Haddad):

Saying: 'He has two eyes,' is null and void and part of the belief of Anthropomorphists Allah Almighty and Exalted said 'eye' ('ayn) and 'eyes' (a'yunin) so it is not permissible for anyone to describe Him as possessing 'two eyes' because no text has reached us to that effect.

First we see the grandmaster of deception and distortion GF Haddad as the one who cited this quotation from Ibn Hazm. Notice how he did not mention that this very statement Ibn Hazm is criticizing, is from al-Ash'ari (!!).

Points to Note

From these quotes there are some points that must be noted:

  • Ibn Hazm was Jahmite in sifat, and he had problems with the affirmations of al-Ash'ari and Ahl al-Sunnah.

  • Thus when Pusillanimous Jahmites quote him on this matter (even if it is by clipping his words and deceiving the audience), they are in fact quoting his disparagement of al-Ash'ari, along with the generality of Ahl al-Sunnah who affirm two eyes. There are some scholars who in their writings adhere to the singular of eye (ayn), and this simply means they affirmed the genus of eye. Despite the Jahmites trying to use the position of these scholars, it is of no avail to them because those Scholars who only used the word in the singular (al-ayn) actually affirm it as an attribute of the essence [and not a metaphor], without takyif and tashbih and at the same time refute the ta'wil and ta'til of the Mu'tazilah and Jahmiyyah, who were followed in this by the later Ash'arites. So whatever the case, there is nothing for them in this at all.

  • Never, ever trust a Jahmite in citation, they are treacherous.

  • Affirmation from Ibn Hazm (d. 456H remember) that al-As'hari did in fact affirm two eyes, so we have al-Ibaanah, al-Mujiz, al-Maqaalaat as some of the works where al-Ash'ari affirms it. And Ibn Hazm is no more than three generations, but most likely two generations, from al-Ash'ari.

  • The complete irrelevance of the the claimed disparity as it relates to mention of eye in singular or dual. This becomes totally irrelevant by the above, as well as what has preceded in previous articles of citations from al-Juwaynee affirming that the earlier ones from the school affirmed two eyes and al-Baqillani affirming two eyes in his book al-Tamhid.