Jahmite Intellectual Fraudsters Abu Bilal Maliki, Faqir, and Muhammad Fahmi on the Authorship of al-Ibanah by Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari - Part 3|
Posted by Abu.Iyaad on Sunday, September, 19 2010 and filed under Articles
Key topics: Abu Bilal Maliki Faqir Muhammad Fahmi Al-Ibanah
After our first two articles on this topic (Part 1 and Part 2) in which we pointed out that the ascription of affirming two eyes for Allah without kayf to the Early Ash'aris is found in the writings of later Ash'ari Scholars such as al-Juwayni and al-Aamidee, and likewise that within all manuscripts of al-Ibaanah, al-Ash'ari uses both the dual and singular of eye, which in effect makes the claim that because there are variations in the manuscripts, with some mentioning eye in the singular and dual, it is forged or tampered with, invalid and irrelevant. You still have not managed to negate the fact that al-Ash'ari al-Baqillani, along with Ibn Kullab, al-Muhasibi, al-Qalanisi all affirmed these attributes for Allaah without ta'wil and tafwid, alongside their refutations of the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah.
So after these two articles were written yesterday, the Jahmiyyah posing as Ash'aris, updated their article and added the following:
At this point, in an effort to divert attention from the textual discrepancies in the text of Kitab al-Ibanah the Wahhabis often produce some statements from the later Ash'ari Imams al-Juwayni, al-Izz ibn 'Abd al-Salam and al-Amidi which mention that some of their Ash'ari colleagues have attributed and even differed regarding the attribution of 'al-Aynayn' (in dual form) to Allah. In order to prove this was indeed the case the Wahhabis often quote the early Ash'ari Imam al-Baqillani (d. 403H) who, for example, in al-Insaf (chapter 1, p. 5) is reported to have said that al-Aynayn (in dual form) is from Allah's attributes. Less to their liking, however, immediately afterwards he goes on to say:
There are numerous points which indicate their jahl (ignorance) and their talbis after the non-relevance of their claim was exposed:
ONE: Their saying:
At this point, in an effort to divert attention from the textual discrepancies in the text of Kitab al-Ibanah the Wahhabis often produce some statements from the later Ash'ari Imams al-Juwayni, al-Izz ibn 'Abd al-Salam and al-Amidi which mention that some of their Ash'ari colleagues have attributed and even differed regarding the attribution of 'al-Aynayn' (in dual form) to Allah.
The diversion of attention is actually being done by these Jahmites who conceal from the people the fact that the Early Ash'aris affirm as attributes of Allah's essence, face, two hands and two eyes, and some of them adhered to mentioning eye in the singular, but that does not necessarily prove that they denied two eyes unless textual evidence is brought from their own words denying that. Even those who affirm two eyes from the Asha'rites used both the single form and dual form when mentioning this attribute and rebutting the Mu'tazilah. Whatever the case, there were early Ash'arites who affirmed these attributes as attributes of the essence, without ta'wil and without tafwid. This was the way of Ibn Kullab. Those who came after them began to wander in the direction of the Mu'tazilah and Jahmiyyah, and started making ta'wil of these attributes, starting with al-Baghdadi, and al-Juwayni.
Once this is firmly established and known, the argument of variation in the manuscripts becomes an irrelevant issue. It absolutely has no bearing on the wider dispute between Ahl al-Sunnah and the Jahmiyyah in relation to the Sifat Khabariyyah. It is just a way for them to deceive the people and divert their vision away from the elephant in the room which is they support not the view of al-Ash'ari or Ibn Kullab and others, but the view of the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah. Further, as we will demonstrate in another article, it is the Ash'arites who have had their hand in tampering manuscript (س) and making insertions into it in order to support their Jahmi beliefs, and which differs from the various other manuscripts.
TWO: Their saying:
In order to prove this was indeed the case the Wahhabis often quote the early Ash'ari Imam al-Baqillani (d. 403H) who, for example, in al-Insaf (chapter 1, p. 5) is reported to have said that al-Aynayn (in dual form) is from Allah's attributes. Less to their liking, however, immediately afterwards he goes on to say:
This is representative of the typical ignorance, or pretending of ignorance, of these Jahmites of the position of Ahl al-Sunnah.
First let us outline the various factions and their views in this matter, and they are three:
Once this veil has been lifted from these Jahmite deceivers, and it can be clearly seen that they are in fact supporting the deen of the Jahmites, and taking the way of the later Asharis who went back into the usul of the Jahmiyyah annd Mu'tazilah, their fraud becomes readily apparent, just as their unjust, oppressive slander against those whom refer to as 'Wahhabis' also becomes apparent.
THREE: Their saying:
So, the Imam (as is the practice of those Ash'ari Imams of Ahl al-Sunna who did consider Yad, Wajh and al-Ayn to be from Allah's attributes) immediately negated any resemblance to creation...
This is true, but he negated in a manner that opposes the way of Ahl al-Sunnah, the point of difference is not in the negation of resemblance in principle, but in the manner in which it is done, and this is after their agreement that these are indeed attributes of the essence. So this is between us, Ahl al-Sunnah and the Early Ash'aris, it has nothing to do with you Jahmite fraudsters and you have absolutely no entrance in this discussion because you don't even believe these attributes to be attributes of the essence, be that in your ta'wil or your tafwid.
... - specifically negating the attribution of an organ or body part to Allah Most High.
This is the point of difference, the Salaf were upon specific ithbaat (Allah has hearing, seeing, life, will, power, face, two hands, two eyes etc.) with general negation of tashbih and takyif, (without asking how and without saying 'like my hearing, like my seeing, like my face, like my hand' etc.) As for al-Baqillani and al-Bayhaqi and they made specific negation, and even if the meaning is true, it is a methodological error.
So there is no difference in meaning and in reality between us, Ahl al-Sunnah and the early Ash'arites in this issue, its a subsidiary methodological difference. And we are all on the same side of the fence. And as you for Jahmites, pretending to be Ash'aris you are on the side of the fence with the Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah and with their ta'til, and ta'wil.
This is, of course, in keeping with the position of Ahl al-Sunna...
This is from their fraud and deception and from the conniving of their hearts that they have the audacity to write this sentence, whilst they know they are lying out of their back teeth, because what you are describing here is the position of of the Early Ash'aris which is identical to the position of Ahl al-Sunnah except in that methodological manner of speech. So when they say, "This is, of course, in keeping with the position of Ahl al-Sunna" they imply that they are Ahl al-Sunnah, when they do not even agree with this viewpoint and do not consider these attributes as attributes of the essence to begin with, such that they should be in a position to be acting authoritative by stating "this is the position of Ahl al-Sunnah." You are not even on this position, you are with the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah.
... and indeed this very negation of organs and parts does not sit well with the Wahhabis as it is something which is against their own doctrine.
This is from injustice and oppression, and all the books of Ahl al-Sunnah from the second century after hijrah to this day of ours are filled with specific affirmation with general negation, and whilst these specific negations are true in meaning, the issue is not in the meaning, but in the methodological aspect of speech, negation has come in the Qur'an in general, not in specifics. So whoever claimed that Ahl al-Sunnah have a problem with the negation of parts and limbs and so on, in meaning, then Allah is watchful over him and his Jahmite-oriented injustice, slander and oppression against Ahl al-Sunnah - who affirm what Allaah and His Messenger affirmed for Him, whilst negating resemblance to the creation.
FOUR: Their saying:
Furthermore, Shaykh Abul Qasim al-Ansari (d. 512 AH) in his Sharh al-Irshad has quoted Imam al-Baqillani himself as saying:
What they mean by negating taqlid in matters of belief emanates from their innovated saying that the first obligation is al-nadhar wal-istidlal (to observe and inspect) with a view to proving rationally that the universe is originated and has a creator. Until al-Juwayni himself went to extremes and declared a kafir anyone who reached puberty, maturity, had the means to make al-nadhar wal-istdilal, but died without doing so (see here). Further, al-Razi laid down the "Universal Principle" for the Ash'arites in Asas al-Taqdis that the texts of the attributes are but presumptions of tashbih and tajsim and the proof of reason and rationality is decisive over the revealed texts. So when the Ash'arites prohibit taqlid (which actually means submission to and acceptance of the revealed texts, the speech of Allah and Messenger), then it is not suprising that they prohibit "taqlid" of the early Kullabi Ash'aris whom they claim, spuriously and fraudulently, they are following. So in other words, when they realise that in agreement with Ahl al-Sunnah, the Righteous Salaf, the early Kullabi Ash'aris affirm what is in the revealed texts without ta'wil and tafwid, these Jahmites say, "Taqlid is prohibited in matters of aqidah"!! And then they permit themselves to make taqlid of al-Jahm bin Safwan, Amr bin Ubayd, Bishr al-Marisi and others!!
FIVE: Their saying straight after:
Thus, even if it is established that some Imams like al-Baqillani have attributed Aynayn to Allah then (even if they negated Allah having organs or parts) based upon al-Baqillani's own cited methodology we respectfully disagree and stick to what has been mentioned in the Qur'an and Sunnah.
Again, you don't know whether to laugh or to cry for these poor souls who can't even see the blatant contradictions in just a few paragraphs of their own writings and their nifaq (hypocrisy) in what they are writing. What the above paragraph is really saying is this:
Thus, even if it is established in Allah's speech and that of His Messenger that the attributes of face, two hands and eye or two eyes are in fact attributes of the essence, and this is what the Companions were upon, the Tabi'in, and likewise all the Imams of fiqh, hadith, tafsir in first three centuries, and likewise Ibn Kullab and the Kullabiyyah and al-Ashari and all the Ash'ariyyah until al-Baqillani and al-Bayhaqi (leaving aside the slight difference in methodology in the matter of negation of likeness) - we [Jahmites] respectfully disagree and stick to what is in the Qur'an and the Sunnah!!!!!
And indeed we find the early major Ash'aris like Imam al-Bayhaqi (d. 458H), Imam al-Sabuni (d. 449H) and others attributing al-ayn in the singular form to Allah Most High in keeping with the divine texts. Nor are we aware of any of the major later authorities from the Ash'aris attributing aynayn to Allah. And Allah, Glorified be He, knows best.
There is conniving and deception in the way this paragraph is crafted. First of all, look at how they dismiss al-Ash'ari and al-Baqillani who are THE TWO MOST IMPORTANT FIGURES in their madhhab. They should have said,
Indeed we find the early major Ash'aris like Imam al-Ash'ari, al-Baqillani affirming eye in the dual form for Allaah.
Then after, they said that they do not know of any of the later Ash'arites who ascribe two eyes to Allah. That's because the later Ash'arites took the way of the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah and denied what the earlier ones affirmed. So since you have a contradiction in your madhhab then you have to choose with whom you are going to ally, is it with Ibn Kullab, al-Ashari and al-Baqillani (two eyes as attributes of the essence), or is it with al-Bayhaqi and Ibn Fawrak (the genus of eye as an attribute of the essence) - or is it the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah (no such attributes established for Allah as attributes of the essence, they mean something else, or their meanings are unknown) and the later Ash'arites who blatantly followed them!
As for Imam al-Sabuni he is not an Ash'arite, by Allaah, for he affirms sifat fi'liyyah for Allaah, and anyone who affirms sifat fi'liyyah, which are the actions tied to Allah's will and power, has invalidated the premise of the Kullabi-Ashari doctrinal school which is negation of hawadith, and to claim any scholar holding this is an Ash'ari is a blatant intellectual fraud. This is a different subject in itself, but al-Sabuni praised the book al-Ibanah (which these Jahmites are trying to discredit), because its contents were in agreement with the Sunnah, and he also spoke well of Ibn Mahdi al-Tabari because his positions were close to the Sunnah. However, al-Sabuni was certainly not an Ash'ari, and this is the subject of another article. But briefly we need to be aware of three factions. Those who ascribe to al-Ash'ari and adhere to whatever was in al-Ibaanah, historically there were Asharis like this, and it can be said they were the true "Ash'aris" even if labelling with "Ash'ari" is a bid'ah in the religion. Those who did not ascribe to al-Ashari, but commended the book al-Ibanah due to the agreement of its contents with the Sunnah, and this is the likes of al-Sabuni. Those who ascribe to al-Ashari and have a problem with al-Ibanah, they are the Jahmiyyah (in the time of Ibn Darbas, seventh century), and the Mu'tazilah (who were in possession of manuscript letter س) and the later Ash'arites who reverted to the doctrines of the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah and resent what is in al-Ibanah of affirmation of Allah's 'uluww and the sifat khabariyyaah and the affirmation of sifat fi'liyyah, and all Ash'arites today are of this category.
So we have al-Sabuni and the Ash'aris who spoke with what was in al-Ibanah (from them Ibn Asakir, and Ibn Darbas) on one side of the fence. And then we have these individuals on the other side of the fence along with the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah and contemporary Asharites who disliked al-Ibanah and considered it contents to be tajsim and tasbih and who try to discredit its asription to al-Ash'ari or discredit its contents, and it is iikely these people who added things to manuscript (س) which is undated, and whose manuscript copier is unknown!