Destroying the Slander of Tajsim (Anthropomorphism) Against Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah: Part 1 - Developing The Framework|
Posted by Abu.Iyaad on Friday, December, 03 2010 and
filed under Articles
In all the various discussions that take place, in person, on blogs, forums and the likes, one of the greatest slanders made against Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah by today's Jahmiyyah [posing as Ash'arites and slandering the good name of Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari (rahimahullaah) by doing so] is that they - by implication - accuse the entirety of the Salaf, and likewise the forerunners of the early Ash'ariyyah, Ibn Kullaab, al-Muhaasibee, al-Qalaanisee, and likewise, the early Ash'ariyyah, al-Ash'ari himself, Ibn Mahdi al-Tabari, al-Baqillani, as being Mujassimah.
Because this slander of Tajseem is grave, then it is important to aid one's Muslim brother, be he the oppressed or the one oppressing, and so the intent is to aid those poor souls against their souls and save them from having to meet Allaah whilst having slandered a multitude of Sunnis (Atharis, Salafis, all synonymous terms) with the accusation of tajsim, based upon either a) pure taqlid of their guides (like Keller, Yusuf, Naruiji, Kawthari and others who conceal the truth, perhaps deliberately), or b) corrupted intellects through which they are deluded into thinking they understand their doctrinal school [most of them are deluded and actually grasp very little of the issues as is plainly evident from a survey of their polemics over years]. They don't even grasp the sayings of those whom they ascribe to whether that be Abu Mansur al-Baghdadi (d. 429H), or Abu Bakr al-Bayhaqi (d. 458H), or even Imam al-Tahawi (d. 321H). So inshaa'Allaah, in this series of articles, we aim to lift that fog from their eyes and aid them against their oppressive souls.
Separating and Not Generalizing
The Various Factions
We can divide the factions into two groups:
The first: the followers of the revealed Books and sent Messengers who took the truth from these sources and considered them the manifest truth and firmly believed that Allah is the most-knowledgeable (أعلم) of His own self, the most eloquent in speech (افصح) and intended nothing but guidance, direction to His creation through what He revealed. Likewise they firmly believe that the Messenger is the most knowledgeable of the creation (أعلم) regarding Allaah, the Most High, and most eloquent in speech in the creation (افصح) and most sincere in intending good (أنصح) for the Ummah). Upon this foundation they accepted whatever Allaah and His Messenger affirmed for Him in the manner that is outlined further below.
The second: The followers of the proof of huduth al-ajsaam (origination of bodies) taken from the Sabean star and idol-worshipping pagan disbelievers which forced them to incorporate innovated language into describing their Lord. As a result they concurred with the Greek Philosophers, the Sabeans, and the Hellenized Jews and Hellenized Christians (see these five articles: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5) in the language of how they described Allaah, even if they vehemently opposed some of these factions in other affairs [such as the Philosophers, in the issues of creation, eternity of the universe, resurrection, prophethood, revelation and the likes]. These are the Ahl al-Kalaam who were condemnded by Abu Hanifah, Malik, Shafi'i, Ahmad and the entirety of the Salaf, and this Kalaam was the Kalaam of al-ajsaam (bodies) and al-a'raad (incidental attributes) - not the genus of Kalaam, not what is otherwise referred to as Kalaam in the sense of defending the truth with the Qur'an, the Sunnah and sound, uncorrupted reason. As for the condemned ilm al-Kalaam it is the proof of huduth al-ajsaam and its associated language.
So we can look at each of these two groups and their views:
From the People of the Sunnah, Hadith Who Did Not Delve Into The Heretical Kalaam (Huduth al-Ajsaam and Its Binding Necessities), Meaning They Drunk From the Stream At Its Higher, Purer Source.
We can divide these into three groups:
The First: The Righteous Salaf from the Companions, the Tabi'een, the Imaams of the second and third centuries, like al-Awzaa'ee, al-Thawri, Abu Hanifah, Maalik, Shafi'i, Ishaq bin Rahuyah, Ahmad bin Hanbal and others. They are affirmed everything Allaah affirmed for Himself of names, attributes and actions - upon their meanings - whilst negating any likeness between Allaah, in His essence, attributes and actions, with the realities found in the creation, and they said that everything Allaah described Himself with, there is no tasbhih in it at all, and so they spoke with it and left the knowledge of its kaifiyyah and haqiqah with their Lord.
It is here they began to say, in refutation of this heretical Kalaam group that "We pass them on as they have come" and likewise "without kayf", without asking how or specifying how, "without sifah" meaning a description other than the actual one the text came with, "without hadd", meaning without definition other than what the text came with, "without ma'naa", that is a meaning other than the one the text came with, "without tafsir", meaning without giving an explanation other than the one the text came with. This is dealt with in detail in this article.
The Second: Those Who Exaggerated in ithbaat (Affirmation): and this was through one of two ways:
- Either by saying, "Power like my power, hearing like my hearing, seeing like my seeing, face like my face, hand like my hand" and so on. And this is attributed to Muqatil bin Sulayman (d. 150), the Mufassir. However, this is disputed by some because there does not exist any direct citation of any of his speech which necessitates Tajseem (explanation of istawaa with istaqarra also comes from Ibn al-Mubaarak, al-Kalbi and Tha'lab) , and as for whatever criticism is cited about him, then that information was cited by al-Ash'ari through the route and direction of the Mu'tazilah, and they accuse Ahl al-Sunnah of being Mujassimah, Mushabbihah already, and that could involve lies and exaggerations. Further he was praised highly by certain authorities like Imaam al-Shaafi'ee in tafsir and criticism of him was in relation to hadeeth. So the reality of his affair needs investigation, since there is nothing of direct citations of his actual speech. Further, there are works of his which are present and published, al-Ashbaah wal-Nadhaa'ir and Tafsir Khamsami'at Aayaat, and there is nothing in there which suggests any Tajseem and tasbeeh. There is affirmation of the sifat khabariyyah (which to the Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah, Later Ash'aris and Maturidis is Tajseem and tashbeeh).
- Or by affirming fabricated narrations which contain repugnant things ascribed to Allaah and which may have been fabricated by the enemies of Islaam to corrupt the religion. From those who were attached to hadeeth who fell into some of this, such as al-Qadi Abu Ya'laa (d. 453H), the Hanbali scholar. On top of this he was also affected by the ilm al-Kalaam of Ibn Kullaab, and he considered the validity of the proof of huduth al-ajsaam (which is the foundation of the creed of Ahl al-Kalaam) as a result of which he had views on uluww, al-istiwaa and the Qur'an which was a deviation from what Imaam Ahmad and the Salaf were upon. It is important to distinguish between what al-Qadi Abu Ya'laa fell into and between that which the Mujassimah and Mushabbihah proper were upon (see below), for he did not believe in tashbih with respect to Allah, but due to unsufficient grounding in the field of hadeeth he was not able to distinguish the sound from the weak, and then affirmed baseless narrations, and then he tried to make Tafweed. So all of this is rejected from him, but it is important to understand the particular route he fell into what he fell into.
The Third: Those Who Never Drank From the Stream Lower Down But Either Kept Company With Those Did Or Adopted the Conclusions of Those Who Did Because They Lived in a Time When These People Were Dominant or Abdundant and They Acquired Knowledge Within that Setting. This is a very important distinction to make here, and this includes the likes of al-Bayhaqi, Abu Ya'laa, al-Qurtubi, al-Nawawi and Ibn Hajar. We will comment on them further a bit later. But these Scholars did not drink from that impurity. They were attached to the hadeeth, BUT they considered the conclusions of those who had drunken from that impurity to be correct and valid, without having themselves drunk from it and engrossed themselves in it. Thus, you will not see in their books what you will find in the books of those who engrossed themselves into al-ajsaam wal-a'raad and huduth al-ajsaam and so on. However, when they considered the correctness of the conclusions, they then had to reconcile that with what they knew from the ahaadeeth. And thus we see them speaking with some of the language of the Mutakallimin, and speaking with something of either ta'wil or tafwid, but not speaking with their usool (underlying foundations), rather we see them rebuking the Mutakallimin in those areas. For proof see this article for example about al-Qurtubi, al-Nawawi and Ibn Hajar, where these scholars critize and rebuke the [Ash'arite] Mutakallimin for indulging in the language of the Philosophers, and speaking with the usool of the Mu'tazilah (al-nadhar wal-istidlaal, the first obligation and the likes). And what goaded these scholars to consider the truth of those types of negations coming from the Mutakallimin, was that there were factions of Mujassimah from the Ahl al-Kalaam (who are discussed below) like the Rafidi Mujassimah and Hanafi Mujassimah who wallowed in tajsim and takyif, and they were refuted in that regard by others from Ahl al-Kalaam (Kullaabiyyah, Ash'ariyyah). So within this context, those later Scholars considered this language of the Mutakallim to be the truth, and so they reconciled it with their knowledge of hadeeth and thereby fell into something of ta'wil and tafwid, wrongly thinking that this was the approach of the Salaf. And some of them were very frank in admitting in places that their view was other than the view of the Salaf. Take a read of these three articles from al-Qurtubi as an illustration (see here, here and here). Further, it was by virtue of their dedication to hadeeth that they identified and pointed out the errors of those Mutakallimin in some of their usool. So the point here is that these scholars never set out to drink from that stream lower down, rather they turned to the Qur'an and hadeeth and were dedicated to it, but they took the opinion of those that did, considering their conclusions to be the truth, and thus were influenced in their language, and hence something of departure occurred from them from the way of the Salaf. Some of them clearly identified with the Ash'arites (like al-Nawawi) but others did not (like Ibn Hajar), and what is correct is that Ibn Hajar is not an Ash'ari. What is important though is that we understand that they did not delve into Kalaam in the sense that they studied it and built their theology upon it and the likes. They never came from this angle, but they did get affected by the conclusions of the Mutakallimin and their language.
Those From The Ahl al-Kalaam Who Drunk, In Large or Small Amounts From the Dirty Stream, Lower Down
These are classified into two groups: a) Those whose Kalaam led them to ta'teel, and they are the Mu'attilah, and b) those whose Kalaam led them to Tajseem and tashbeeh, and they and the Mujassimah, Mushabbihah, Mukayyifah. So let us discuss each of these and lift the veil by Allaah's permission...
The First: al-Ja'd bin Dirham, al-Jahm bin Safwan and the Jahmiyyah (Heavy Mu'attilah). These appeared in the early second century (after 100H), whilst the Taabi'een were alive. So these are the ones who took the leftovers of previous nations, the Hellenized Jews (an example of which is Philo of Alexandria - see here, here, here), the Hellenized Christians (an example of which is Augustine of Hippo - see here, here, here), the pseudo-Sabeans (see here), the refuse of these people, and so they drunk and drunk, and founded their deen upon huduth al-ajsaam, thinking by way of it they could establish a proof for the origination of the universe, but then they realized that in order to maintain that proof, they have to deny Allah's names, attributes and actions, since they argued that attributes and actions are proof of the createdness of things. And it is because of this that al-Ja'd and al-Jahm denied Allaah spoke to Moses direct (because it is an "event" and events only take place in bodies) and denied that Allaah will be seen in the Hereafter (because vision can only be in a direction and this necessitates embodiment), and denied that Allaah took Ibrahim as a friend (because this is both an event and ascribing khullah, friendship, to Allaah, a deficiency), and the greatest affair to them was that Allaah is not above the creation, above the Throne, because direction implies place which implies embodiment, and their greatest desire was to eradicate this belief from the hearts of the Muslims, which Muslims hold out of both fitrah and revealed text, and because they (the Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah) considered it kufr and shirk, because it is the greatest of what clashed with their proof of huduth al-ajsaam. This is why the Salaf became wise to them and you would do real good to read these ten or so statements from the Salaf in the early second to third centuries. Likewise, following from their language of al-ajsaam and al-a'raad and their proof of huduth al-ajsaam, they were forced to deny Allaah has speech and therefore, that the Arabic Qur'an is something created and which did not originate with Allaah as speech, since He does not have any. So these were the scum, who had inherited the refuse and junk of previous nations and brought it into the Ummah and abandoned the light of revelation and guidance, and chose blood, puss and dung, over wholesome pure milk. And the Imaams of the Salaf declared them as kafirs (as a genus), and indeed filthy kafirs (as a genus) they were, for they introduced many a taaghoot (false principle) into the deen of Allaah and called the masses to it, and took them away from the language of Allah and His Messenger and took them instead to the language of Greek and Sabean star and idol-worshippers and the Hellenized Jews and Christians.
The Second: The Mu'tazilah (Moderate-Heavy Mu'attilah). These also appeared in the early second century (after 100H), and they initially appeared having adopted the usool of the Khawaarij (eternal damnation in the fire for the unrepentent sinner) and the Qadariyyah (denial of the divine pre-decree). But then they interacted with the Jahmites who advised them to drink from that stream. So they drank from that stream till hearts content, and took from the Jahmites what they had hoarded from it, and they became the carriers and vanguards of this way. These Mu'tazilah propounded the deen of the Jahmites and the Salaf referred to them as the Jahmiyyah. They had already acquired this from the Jahmites as early as around 130H, consider well this saying of Ayyub al-Sakhtiyyaani. They did a great deal to refine that Kalaam over the next 100 years (al-jawhar al-fard, al-akwaan) and they began to bottle that stuff, until they achieved dominance and began to force it on the people, giving them "forced medication for their own good." In the early third century they put the Ummah to trial by setting up inquisitions and testing the people on the saying of the creation of the Arabic Qur'an as a result of which many a righteous scholarly Imam was killed, imprisoned and beaten. They gained political dominance and they goaded the rulers and desired to pass judgement upon the truth and its people, and from their figureheads was Bishr al-Mareesi al-Hanafi al-Jahmi (d.218H) who inherited this way from al-Jahm and his followers. It was that great brave, Imaam Ahmad who subjugated these people, he persevered over oppression over the reign of four caliphs until Allaah aided His deen by giving him victory and success (around 225H-232H), and thus the Ahl al-Kalaam who desired to bring blood, puss and dung to the people were abandoned by the people at large, they no longer held any position in the hearts of the people, and their political dominance also waned, they became despised, abased and rejected, and this continued for decades. Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari was amongst their leaders in the late third century after hijrah (260H to 300H), and he was upon this baatil for most of his life, and he was obviously very well-versed in this matter.
The Third:The Raafidi Hishaamiyyah (Hardcore Mujassimah). These were present from around the end of the second century (around 180H onwards). These were the followers of Hisham bin al-Hakam al-Raafidee and likewise Hishaam bin Saalim al-Jawaaliqee, and Hisham bin al-Hakam was the leading figure of 'ilm al-kalaam, and they were upon the language of al-ajsaam and al-a'raad in their theology, and they were the first to say "Allaah is a jism" [just as al-Jahm and al-Ja'd were the first to say "Allaah is not a jism"]. They claimed their Lord had the shape of humans, with limbs, that he has a color and smell, and that he is equal in length, breadth and depth, and that he is flesh and blood. And so they had vile and repugnant statements. Also from them were the Bayaniyyah (followers of Bayan bin Sam'an) and the Khattaabiyyah (followers of Abu al-Khattaab al-Asadee) and the Mughiriyyah (followers of al-Mughirah bin Sa'id al-Ijlee) and the Jawaaribiyyah (followers of Dawud al-Jawaaribee). So they made tashbih and tamthil between the essence of Allaah and the essences of the humans and thus rendered Him flesh, blood, bones and limbs. These are the ones refuted by the likes of al-Tahawi, and likewise by al-Ash'ari, and al-Baqillani and likewise Al-Bagdhadi in al-Farq bayn al-Firaq and others from the Ash'arites.
The Fourth: The Kullaabiyyah (Light Mu'attilah). They appeared after the mihnah (trial) and after the Jahmiyyah (Mu'tazilah) had been subdued and subjugated. So the story with Ibn Kullaab is that he was drinking upstream and was an affirmer, but he went downstream to debate those who were drinking therefrom, the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah. However, he was not grounded in the Sunnah and he debated those Innovators upon Kalaam, so he partook in some of it, and he was unable to address their doubt concerning the speech of Allaah, as is mentioned by Abu Nasr al-Sijzee (d. 444H). They (the Mu'tazilah) claimed that speech which is letter, word and Voice necessitates events (hawaadith) in Allaah's essence, and thus Allaah cannot have speech. So he innovated the doctrine of Kalaam Nafsee (a singular eternal meaning), as a means to affirm speech in a way that is no longer subject to the argument of the Mu'tazilah, and denied that Allaah's speech is tied to His will and power in the sense that Allaah speaks as and when He wills. He also said there are two Qur'ans, that which is from the eternal Kalaam Nafsee, and that which is present with us (the Arabic Qur'an). When he took this position on Kalaam, he was forced to remain consistent with the other attributes which are like this, such as istiwaa, Nuzool, love, anger, pleasure and the likes, all of which are tied to Allah's will (mashee'ah). So unfortunately he drunk from that stream and so Imaam Ahmad was severe against his associates and followers, the likes of Husayn al-Karaabeesee, and Haarith al-Muhaasibee. He scorned them, and used very very severe language against them, because Imaam Ahmad was given perspicacity and deep-rooted knowledge and perception and knew the door that these people were opening (after it had been shut and bolted). Now, the doctrinal school of Ibn Kullaab affirmed everything for Allaah, with the exception of the Sifaat Fi'liyyah or the af'aal ikhtiyaariyah which means those actions Allaah does as and when He wills (like istiwaa, become angry, pleased, and so on), because he was made to believe that this would imply succession and sequence in time (i.e. multiple acts, other than each other), which means events take place in Allaah's essence which would render Him a body. But aside from this ta'til, he affirmed al-uluww, and the sifat khabariyyah, and as for the Sifat Ikhtiyaariyyah, then he did not deny them outright, he simply made them eternal attributes and removed the element of Allaah's choice from them, so as not to render them as hawaadith (events). Hence, he said Allaah is eternally angry (with whomever He is angry because he died upon disbelief) and eternally pleased, and eternally loves, and eternally has mercy and so on. This was the school that al-Ash'ari adopted, supported and defended after leaving the Mu'tazilah, and as you can see it is the closest to Ahl al-Sunnah in the sense it is the least amount of ta'teel (the later Ash'arites recedeed from it and tended towards the Mu'azilah, Jahmiyyah). Now Ibn Kullab, and the early Kullaabiyyah rebutted the slanderous allegation against them that they were Mujassimah for affirming the sifat khabariyyah (like face, hands, eye), and this carried through in the writings of al-Ash'ari and also al-Baqillani (as we have documented elsewhere and as will appear at the right place in this series).
The Fifth: The Hanafi Karraamiyyah (Mujassimah, Mukayyifah) They appeared around 250H, roughly the same time as the Kullaabiyyah. They claimed their Lord was a body, but not like the created bodies. They were Ahl al-Kalaam and they were also upon the proof of huduth al-ajsaam, but it led them to other conclusions. They are argued that as there are only bodies and attributes and attributes cannot exist except in bodies that are self-established (al-qaa'im bil-nafs), then Allaah must be a body. However He is unlike all other bodies in the sense that He existed for a period in eternity without any hawaadith (by which they mean presence of attributes) but by His will and power He brought about attributes in Himself, such as speech and action and the likes. This viewpoint allowed them to maintain the argument of the proof of huduth al-ajsaam, and they simply differed with the Mu'attilah from Ahl al-Kalaam on one of the premises which is that "bodies are never devoid of hawaadith (events)," the Karraamiyyah never accepted this absolutely, they said this is true for created bodies, but as for Allaah, He is a body and was devoid of hawaadith, until He chose to bring about events in His essence (meaning acquisition of attributes). This means that Allaah was not always mutakallim, one who speaks as and when He wills, but He became mutakallim, and thereafter will remain eternally as one who speaks as and when He wills. So they permitted what is called hulul al-hawaadith fee dhaatillaah (the occurrence of events in Allaah's essence, by which they mean acquisition of attributes Allaah never had before). And you should note that this is VERY different to the issue of Sifaat Fi'liyyah, or Af'aal Ikhtiyaariyyah, which is Allaah doing actions as and when He wills. Further, upon this claim of Allaah being a body the Karraamiyyah delved into takyif (specifying how) in certain areas, in the issue of 'uluww (Allaah being above His creation) and al-istiwaa (Allaah being over His Throne). They said things like Allaah is in contact, touch, adjacency to the Throne, or that He is remote with a certain distance from the Throne, or close with a certain gap from the Throne, and they started speculating on the takyif of Allaah's essence saying that His essence fills the Throne, or is equivalent to it, or extends beyond it and so on from those things for which Allaah gave them no authority. And they also said Allaah is limitless in all directions except that in relation to the Throne. Some of the leading figures and proponents of the Karraamiyyah denied that they claim Allaah is a human body in flesh, blood, bones and limbs as claimed by the Rafidi Mujassimah. There are some extremely important points here that you need to keep in mind, as they are crucial to understanding the context of statements made by others who rebutted them and which are misapplied by today's ignorant deluded Jahmites who pretend to be Ash'arites. All of their views are documented in al-Ash'ari's al-Maqaalaat, Abu Mansur al-Baghdadi's Usul al-Din, and al-Farq bayn al-Firaq.
The Sixth: Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari (d. 324H) (Moderate ta'teel Followed by Light Kullaabi ta'teel Followed by Transition Towards Sunni, Athari Ithbaat). We have to put him in a separate category for obvious reasons. He was unfortunately drinking downstream for forty years of his life, but then Allaah guided Him to leave the Mu'tazilah, and he adopted the school of Ibn Kullaab. So he moved a little upstream, but not far enough. However, he met an Imaam of the Sunnah, Zakariyyaa al-Saajee (d. 307H) from whom he took the statements of Ahl al-Hadeeth wal-Athar. And from that time, he went into a transition period in which he gradually dropped the Kalaam, and tended towards the sayings of Ahl al-Hadith wal-Athar,as he learned more and more. So he continued moving upstream, removing the impurities and by the end of his life he was almost there. He explicitly stated he was upon exactly what Imaam Ahmad was upon, even if some very minor, subsidiary issues from the remnants of his Kullaabi past remained with him and can be discerned with a careful reading of his works. But he ended in a state where he was overwhelmingly in agreement with Ahl al-Sunnah in all the major issues. All of this is known through his last works, al-Mujiz, Risaalah ilaa Ahl al-Thaghar, al-Maqaalaat and al-Ibaanah. The reason for isolating al-Ash'ari is that whilst he was a Mu'tazili he was upon that proof of huduth al-ajsaam, considering it the foundation of Tawhid, but when he left the Mu'tazilah, his view changed and although he was unable to see it as being false and corrupt, he declared it an innovation, and unlawful to use, and he explicitly stated it is taken from the non-Muslim Philosophers (refer to his quote in this article).
The Seventh: Abu Bakr al-Baqillaani (d. 403H) (Light ta'teel, Heavy Kalaam). We have to put him in his own category because he is a unique and strange case. We saw above that al-Ash'ari moved upstream towards the people of Sunnah, Hadith and Athar, and there appeared after him those who intended support of his way and his school of doctrine. However, starting with al-Baqillani, they simply added their own views, orientations and preferences, and so it no longer remained "Ash'ariyyah" strictly speaking. It was simply an evolving creed that underwent many significant changes along the way. As for al-Baqillani, it is very unfortunate that he went downstream and drunk from whence the Mu'tazilah drunk. He gave an elaborate and detailed treatment of huduth al-ajsaam, borrowing it all from the Mu'tazilah, with a few minor differences in subsidiary detail and he declared it obligatory. So whilst al-Ash'ari went upstream, al-Baqillani took matters somewhat downstream. What makes al-Baqillani unique though is that he never considered this proof to clash with affirmation of al-'uluww (and neither did Ibn Kullaab or al-Ash'ari) or affirmation of the sifat khabariyyah (face, hands eyes). However, he declared this proof obligatory and here he opposed al-Ashari on this matter. He had powerful rebuttals against the slanderous allegation of tajsim and tasbhih that came from the Mu'tazilah for affirmation of the attributes of face, hands and eyes.
The Eighth: The Later Ash'ari Mutakallims (Tending to the ta'teel of the Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah). In this group we can start with Abu Mansur al-Baghdadi (d. 429H), al-Juwayni (d. 478H) and those after them. Unfortunately, they went further downstream, more than al-Baqillani and they began to hold opinions that were the hallmarks of the Mu'tazilah, such as ta'wil of the sifaat khabariyyah (face, hands, eyes) and rejection of 'uluww and tahreef of al-istiwaa. This is clear in the writings of Abu Mansur al-Baghdadi, and even more so with al-Juwayni who was affected by the Mu'tazilah, and then it just got worse and worse by the time al-Ghazali and al-Razi had had their fill. They were all upon the proof of huduth al-ajsaam borrowed wholesale from the Mu'tazilah, and as time went by, forced to remain consistent with it, they started receding towards the views and positions of the Mu'tazilah and Jahmiyyah and concurring with the views of their enemies amongst the Philosophers like Ibn Sina (see here for an example).
It is important to mention that there were other groups that are hard to characterize. There are two groups we are going to mention here which is crucial to this entire subject and they are "Kalaamified" Hanbalis.
The Hanbali Ahl al-Kalaam: This is the Tamimi family, and they are Abu al-Hasan al-Tamimi, Abu al-Fadl al-Tamimi (d. 410H), Rizqullah al-Tamimi (d.448H). These kept ties with the Ash'arites who were heavily into Kalaam, like al-Baqillani and as a result they were influenced by it to such a degree that they misrepresented the views and statements of Imaam Ahmad and ascribed to him that which he is free and innocent of. Now al-Qadi Abu Ya'laa was also from this group, but he split and separated from the Tamimis and issues broke out between them (that is the subject of a separate article in this series). But we need to keep this faction in mind because they are used in the overall strategy of the Innovators to attack Ahl al-Sunnah.
The Jahmified and Mu'tazilified Hanbalis: They are Ibn Aqeel and Ibn al-Jawzee. The former got poisoned by Mu'tazili teachers who despited being advised did not abandon them, and Ibn al-Jawzee was just mass confusion, and he had with him tajahhum and i'tizaal. Ibn Aqeel repented at the end of his life. And Ibn al-Jawzee wrote a work attacking specific Hanbalis (Abu Ya'laa, Ibn Haamid and his own teacher, Ibn al-Zaghuni), but this attack came from a Jahmee, Mu'tazilee perspective. It is important to note that whilst they attacked some of the Hanbalis, they also refuted and scorned the Ash'arites as a whole.
Discussion of the Framework and What Follows on From it
Now that we have a framework, some historical context, and a brief outline of the views of each faction, we are now in a position to move forward, and this will be done by documenting in detail the sayings of a) Ahl al-Sunnah and the early Kullaabi Ash'aris, b) the Rafidi Mujassimah and c) the Hanafi Karraamiyyah Mujassimah. Through this we will have established some solid ground to then analyze the accusations of tajsim made against Ahl al-Sunnah by todays deluded Jahmites posing as Ash'arites.