|Monday, 17 May 2021|
Never see Ash'ariyyah in the same light, ever again! Aristotle of Stageira, Philo of Alexandria, Augustine of Hippo, the Sabeans of Harraan, the Mu'tazilites of Basrah and Baghdad and the Jahmite Ash'ari Heretics of Today Claiming Orthodoxy. Read the first article, the second article, the third article, the fourth article, the fifth article.
You are here:
All praise is due to Allah and may the prayers and salutations be upon His Messenger to proceed:
This is the first in a series of "Sunni Answers to Jahmee Claims" - being an exposition of the frauds perpetrated by 21st century Jahmites posing as followers of Abu Hasan al-Ash'ari, those who use "Kalam Atomism" as an intellectual foundation for passing judgement upon the texts of the Book and the Sunnah and rejecting the attributes through what was pioneered of ta'teel and ta'weel by al-Jahm bin Safwan (ex. 128H) and Bishr al-Mareesee (d. 218H) - the deniers of there being a deity above the Throne.
So after this differentiation between genuine Ash'aris who show honesty and integrity and between fraudsters and deceivers, then we wish to discipline a neo-Jahmite who has let loose his vile tongue against Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah, accusing him of ascribing "divisibility (inqisaam)" to Allaah, and then making takfir of him.
So here it is, here is the crime and the fraud perpetrated in broad daylight ...
Now here, walillaahil-hamd, this Jahmee Baleed - with all the delusions of self-grandeur in his occupation as a 21st century pro-Ash'arite kalam atomist - has just displayed phenomenal heights of pseudo-scholarship and pseudo-intelligence and he has understood from the above text what is not even in it - this is because he does not even know the context of the discussion or who is saying what - the Jahmites were always a primitive species, their sentiments racing ahead of their limited intellects. Because of his compound ignorance, he's read into the statement something which is as far from what the text actually means as is the earth from the heaven.
And this is besides the fact that his translation of the words of Ibn Taymiyyah, which he has battered and butchered mercilessly almost to death through his gross incompetence of the Arabic language, is screaming out for the life-support machine and from rescue from the hands of this oppressive Jahmee Baleed, so we will have to rescue it from this criminal, revive it and repair it inshaa'Allaah.
Takfir of Ibn Taymiyyah Based Upon the Jahmee Baleed's Own Crippled Intellect
This individual, on the same page, makes takfir of Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullaah) - based on the claim he has made against Ibn Taymiyyah. And there are other claims too which inshaa'Allaah we can address in separate articles. But here is what he said on the same page:
Hence, it is necessary to discipline this Jahmee Baleed with the establishment of the hujjah (proof) against him and bayaan (explanation) of the truth in this matter.
The 21st Century Kalam Atomist's Scandal
First a little background: "Bayaan Talbees al-Jahmiyyah" is a monumental work of Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah that lays to waste the attempt of the Imaam of the Later Ash'aris, Fakhr ud-Deen ar-Raazee to negate Allaah being above the Throne, using a mixture of the doubts of the Jahmites, Mu'tazilites, the theories of Kalam Atomism (and a bit of Aristotle's wisdom thrown in for good measure). The book of Fakhr ud-Deen ar-Raazee is called "Asaas ut-Taqdees".
A 10 volume print edition (pictured) of the "Bayaan" was released three years ago in 1426H (around 2006) and prior to this, a summary 2 volume print edition was available, published over 35 years ago in 1392H (Makkah), and whose verifier is Shaykh Muhammad bin Abdur-Rahmaan al-Qaasim.
This is an incomplete, summarised print of the entire "Bayaan", and in places the verifier - where Fakhr ud-Deen ar-Raazee brings one of his doubts which are not directly addressed in the "Bayaan", Shaykh al-Qaasim - provides a reply to the doubt by summarizing, or bringing quotes from other parts which are specifically related to that particular doubt.
The following explanation in the introduction by Shaykh Abdul-Azeez ar-Raajihee is found in the introductory volume (Qism ud-Diraasah) of the 10 volume print in explanation of the above:
Which translates as:
... the esteemed Shaykh Muhammad bin Abdur-Rahmaan al-Qaasim, may Allaah grant him success, released in print, with verification, what amounts to one-half of the book, and he added to it replies from other books of Shaykh ul-Islaam against the doubts brought by ar-Raazee in his book "Ta'sees ut-Taqdees", which he (al-Qaasim) never found in the book "Bayaan Talbees al-Jahmiyyah Fee Ta'sees Bida'ihim al-Kalaamiyyah" and he called this (action of his) tahqeeq (verification) and takmeel (completion).
The section that this Jahmee Baleed has quoted from the 2 volume print (as evidence and justification for his slander of Ibn Taymiyyah) - is a summary and mere reference to what has already preceded of the refutation of the argument of Fakhr ud-Din ar-Raazee that:
If Allaah was above the Throne, He would be occupying space (hayyiz), [and therefore] a body (jism) subject to divisibility (inqisaam), [and therefore] composed (murakkab) and also subject to need (iftiqaar) and as such, on this basis, it is impossible for Allaah to be above the Throne.
So this is the argument of Fakhr ud-Din ar-Raazee against Allaah being above the Throne - this is his (rational) argument as to why Allaah cannot be above the Throne, and in this ar-Raazee is in opposition to the early Imaams of the Ash'aris, like al-Ash'ari himself and al-Baqillaani. He is arguing here for the deen of the Jahmites who were the first to negate there is a deity above the Throne.
And Ibn Taymiyyah is refuting the arguments of ar-Raazee, showing them to be false and showing that Allaah being above the Throne does not necessitate the falsehoods that ar-Raazee is imposing upon the belief that Allaah is above the Throne, with His Essence. This is the wider context. And the verifier, Shaykh al-Qasim, has simply brought together a series of statements from other parts in the "Bayaan" in order to respond to this doubt.
This particular passage in question is a summary of a rebuttal that spans hundreds of pages against the arguments of ar-Raazee, and it is an indication of what has already preceded. The details of this will be covered in detail further in the article inshaa'Allaah.
Exposing The Jahmee Baleed's Treachery In Quotation: The First Strike
Take a look at this, its page 62 of ar-Raazee's "Asaas ut-Taqdees", published in Cairo, Egypt in 1986 (1406H) with the verification of Dr. Ahmad Hijaazee as-Saqaa:
Look at the words indicated, "wa qad taqaddama ibtaaluhu", which means, "...its invalidation (i.e. rebuttal) has already preceded...". Our Jahmee Baleed thought these few words were the words of Ibn Taymiyyah, whereas in fact they are the words of ar-Raazee himself!!
Now if you look at Abu Adam Naruiji's article:
You can see he is ascribing these few words, "...wa qad taqaddama ibtaaluhu..." to Ibn Taymiyyah when they are in fact, from the words of ar-Raazee, "In kaana munqasiman, kaana murakkaban wa qad taqaddama ibtaaluhu" that Ibn Taymiyyah is quoting.
Here is the the passage from the 3rd volume in the 10 volume print:
You can see that Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah is quoting the sentence of ar-Raazee, and the verifier of this volume from the "Bayaan" has indicated where quote is found in ar-Raazee's "Asaas ut-Taqdees" in the footnotes.
So this shows that the Jahmee attacked Ibn Taymiyyah for a few words that are actually the words of his Imaam, Fakhr ud-Deen ar-Raazee! So in reality, he should be making this accusation against ar-Raazee!!
But despite this grave (yet laughable) error of this pseudo-Shaykh, this Jahmite that negates there is a deity above the Throne, it doesn't really fully reveal the full nature of his claim against Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah.
This only illustrates the pseudo-scholarship, and pseudo-intelligence of this Jahmee Baleed, it shows that he does not even know the arguments for his Jahmee creed as expounded by his scholars. It does not sufficiently answer the nature and reality of the overall claim he is making against Shaykh ul-Islaam from this passage he quoted.
Despite this, what we have just exposed this Jahmee for is enough to make repentance obligatory upon him - even though we have much more to bring to show the depravity, scandal, and ignominy of this individual in this claim of his.
Ibn Taymiyyah Says That the Meanings of Taba''ud, Tajazzu', and inqisaam (Meanings of Divisibility) Are Impossible For Allaah Because He is al-Ahad, as-Samad
We find very clear and explicit statements from Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah on the impossibility of the meanings of divisibility for Allaah in the "Bayaan", as an example (3/128-130) - (and you can refer to this article for more).
Here Ibn Taymiyyah states that the meanings of divisibility (al-inqisaam, at-tarkeeb etc.) are impossible for Allaah. For the translation of this quote, go to this article.
The essence of the issue is that Ibn Taymiyyah holds that Allaah is free of, and that it is impossible for Him to be munqasim (divisible) or murakkab (composite) with the well-known, established meanings of these words in the language of the Qur'aan and the language of the Arabs.
As for what the Innovators intend by employing these terms with their newly-devised meanings - then all of them intend to negate something of what Allaah described Himself with - and through this argument they refute each other. So the Philosophers refute the Mutakallimoon (Jahmites, Mu'tazilites and Ash'arites), and the Jahmites refute the Mu'tazilites and the Mu'tazilites refute the Ash'arites and so on - all based upon this same argument of "divisibility" and "composition". See further below for a full clarification of this matter.
Thus - before proceeding further - we say to this Jahmee Baleed:
Open Invitation to Recant, Apologize and Make Repentance - 3rd August 2009
Before we proceed to utterly demolish and lay to waste - with Allaah's aid - this laughable attempt of the Jahmee Baleed to feign piety and defense of the truth, we will extend him a bit of rope. At this stage, we will not bring out the sandal of Abdullah bin Abi Ja'far ar-Raazee (see the opening part to this article here), and simply make a request and an open invitation to give the primitive Jahmite posing as an erudite 21st Century Kalam Atomist an opportunity to make amends and repent before exposing his fraud in detail and unleashing the sandal.
You need to just back off and repent from this instance of your slander upon Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah, before all the disgraces and scandals of your statement are documented, laid bare, and made manifest for all to see. Remember the Qur'anic principle, hatred of a people does not allow you to oppress them by averting from justice in reproducing their words and statements with integrity, precision and with full contextual background.
So you have the opportunity to take back your fabrication, recant, repent and make amends ... the doors are open.
In The Meanwhile, Let's Develop Our Context and Justification for Bringing Out the Sandal - Highlighting the Arguments of ar-Raazee
Let's visit Fakhr ud-Din ar-Raazee's work "Asaas ut-Taqdees", a work written and directed towards the Karraamiyyah and those whom ar-Raazee calls the Hanbaliyyah, and he accuses the Hanbaliyyah of affirming constituents (ajzaa') and parts (ab'aad) for Allaah, and what he means is the affirmation of Face, Hands and Eyes and other attributes which have come in the Book and the Sunnah - he considers this to be affirming constituents and parts for Allaah - and these Attributes are affirmed not just by the "Hanbaliyyah" but but also the Malikees, Shaafi'ees, Hanafees, Ibn Kullaab and his followers, and likewise the Early Ash'aris, like al-Ash'ari himself and al-Baqillani and many other factions. So he frames his opponents as thought they are the "Hanbaliyyah", whereas in reality, his opponents are much more than just the "Hanbaliyyah".
So what the Jahmee Baleed has quoted (on the basis of which he slanders Ibn Taymiyyah) is in reference to some particular arguments brought by ar-Raazee in his book "Asaas ut-Taqdees" - and we will quote the specific passages in question. We need to do this to provide the full context of this matter, and so that we can see the great depths of ignorance and deception of this individual and his likes.
First here is the cover of Fakhr ud-Din ar-Raazee's book, its published in Cairo, Egypt in 1986 (1406H) with the verification of Dr. Ahmad Hijaazee as-Saqaa:
And here we have on page 19-20 one of ar-Raazee's arguments:
We can provide a summary of what ar-Raazee is saying and doing here. Basically ar-Raazee is attempting to prove that the saying "Allaah is not merged with the creation and nor separate from it in any of the six directions" is something that is more instinctive, intuitive and self-evident than the claim of the opponent that "Allaah is One, free of assembly (tarkeeb) and composition (ta'leef) and at the same time, He is not minute and insignificant". In other words, ar-Raazee claims: "Allaah being neither inside the creation nor outside of it" is a more readily-apparent truth to the average person, than "Allaah being above the Throne whilst being One (i.e. not subject to divisibility)". This is the claim of ar-Raazee. Now, though this argument is addressing the Karraamiyyah who say Allaah is above the Throne, with factions of them wrongly holding that Allaah is also a jism (body) but not like the created bodies (see here) - the argument ar-Raazee brings is applicable to all those who hold Allaah to be above the Throne in any case, and this includes the entirety of the Salaf, and the Early Asharis as well as many other factions (as indicated previously).
And his argument to demonstrate this is as follows:
Just to make it clear, ar-Raazee is attempting to show that it is more absurd and ridiculous to claim:
Allaah is al-Waahid, al-Ahad, as-Samad, being above the Throne without this necessitating He is divisible (munqasim)
Than it is to claim:
Allaah is not merged with the creation nor outside of it in any of the directions - (reducing to: Allaah is not within the creation nor outside of it)
And you have just seen what his argument is for that! There is a deeper level to this argument of ar-Raazee and it goes back to the Atomism (al-Jawhar al-Fard) that the Ash'arites have made to be the core foundation of their religion (having "borrowed" it from the Mu'tazilah).
This is because to the Ash'arites, the only thing not subject to divisibility (inqisaam) is what they call the "indivisible particle" (al-Jawhar al-Fard), and that is the only space-occupying thing that cannot be further divided (according to them). Thus, when it is said that "Allaah is above the Throne..." which to them necessitates occupation of space, and when it is further said "... and He is not divisible", then this is has to mean (to them, according to their Atomism theory) that Allaah is like the indivisible particle, the smallest thing (to them), if it is claimed that Allaah is above the Throne AND not divisible.
But the argument continues (as we shall see in the second quote below) that since it is said that Allaah is above the Throne which is said to be mighty (i.e. the Throne), and that therefore Allaah is Mighty, then this is a contradiction, for if Allaah is Mighty (instead of being like the indivisible particle that occupies space and which is minute), then this MUST necessitate that He is divisible (munqasim) - and therefore this is a proof as to why He cannot be above the Throne!
In short, the smallest space-occupying thing which is not divisible is the indivisible particle, and since Allaah is above the Throne, it must mean He is Mighty, (as opposed to being the smallest indivisible particle) and therefore, this means He must be divisible - which is not possible - so the conclusion? He cannot be above the Throne.
And then on pages 76-77 another one of ar-Raazee's arguments:
To put the above in a nutshell, according to ar-Raazee, those who affirm Allaah is above the Throne, then the Throne is mighty, so Allaah too is Mighty (in His Essence). If that is the case, then that from Allaah's Essence which is parallel to the right side of the Throne must be different from the left side of the Throne - unless the Throne itself is like the smallest indivisible particle which has no spatial extension in any direction. But this is not the case, the Throne is mighty, and its left is other than its right. Therefore, this must mean that Allaah's Essence is made up of constituent parts - and this is false, therefore it cannot be the case that Allaah is above the Throne. That's essentially ar-Raazee's proof.
So when you quoted this statement from Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah - O Jahmee Baleed! - then it is from the justice that has been commanded in the Qur'an, "...let not the enmity and hatred of others allow you to avoid justice..." (5:8) that you provide the context and background to what Ibn Taymiyyah is saying - and this will become crystal clear in what follows inshaa'Allaah.
A Quick Recap and Setting the Scene
Now, its time to make sure we know what is going on - so all of the Salaf affirmed Allaah is above the Throne, this is manifest, (see al-Qurtubi's corroboration of that here, here, here and here) and those who started rejecting this were the Jahmites, and the Salaf showed severe rejection against them. The early Ash'arites such as al-Ash'ari himself and al-Baqillani (d. 403H), also affirmed Allaah is above the Throne, with His Essence. However, the Later Ash'aris, from al-Juwaynee (d. 478H) onwards, they started off a process of jahmification of their Ash'ariyyah and adopted many of the views of the Jahmites and the Mu'tazilah - chief amongst them, negating Allaah's uluww (aboveness).
So here we have ar-Raazee (d. 606H) providing arguments to negate Allaah being above the Throne, framing his opponents as being the Karraamiyyah, who say Allaah is above the Throne but they also say Allaah is a jism (body) [see this article] - so ar-Raazee is addressing them - and also those whom he calls the Hanbalis, ascribing to them that they affirm constituents (ajzaa') and parts (ab'aad) for Allaah.
And we need to pay attention that in their kalaamist polemic, the likes of ar-Raazee (the Mutakallimoon) make use of words and terms for which they have devised their own specific meanings (as part of their atomist Kalaam theology), outside of the meanings in the language of the Qur'aan and that which is known and established in the Arabic language. Then they employ these words (with their newly-devised meanings) to reject what Allaah affirms in the Book and the Sunnah - and we shall expand on this below inshaa'Allah.
At this point it is still too premature to bring out the sandal of Abdullaah bin Abi Ja'far ar-Raazee, we have to provide more background so that the reader can truly appreciate why the ditch has to be dug (for those who dare to make takfeer of the righteous, Allaah-fearing scholars) and why the sandal has to be unleashed ... so please bear with us and have patience, there is a lot more groundwork to do yet.
Digging Further: Understanding the Devised and Invented Terminologies Used By the Innovators As A Tool To Fight And Reject The Truth
Now that we have documented the arguments of ar-Raazee that are the subject of the quotation that this Jahmee Baleed has brought we can continue digging the ditch a little deeper ...
The Use Of General Terms In Order To Negate What Allaah Affirmed For Himself
Chapter: [Concerning] The One Who Desired To Negate Something From What Allaah Affirmed For Himself of the Names and the Attributes
So here Shaykh ul-Islaam has outlined broadly one of the main methods employed by the Jahmiyyah to negate what Allaah affirmed for Himself. That is, to enter into certain terms and words, meanings that are other than their established meanings in the language and then to use those generalized terms as a route to negate what Allaah has affirmed for Himself (such as being above the Throne).
The Necessity of Separating Meanings of Falsehood From Meanings of Truth In General Ambiguous Terms
Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah said in "Bayaan Talbees ul-Jahmiyyah", (4/226-227):
Which translates as:
The fourteenth angle: That it has preceded more than once that this [terminology of] "al-inqisaam" (divisibility), what is mostly intended by it [by the likes of ar-Raazee in their arguments] is the distinction (imtiyaaz) of a part of Him from another, and we explained that this [intent of their's behind this word] is like the distinction [between] the Attributes, and we explained that this is what is obligatory upon everyone to accept regarding every existing thing, and that negating this necessitates the rejection of all existing things, whether necessary (in their existence) or possible (in their existence). And we explained that whatever has been mentioned regarding that of [terminology such as] "al-iftiqaar" (need), "al-ghayr" (other), "al-hayyiz" (space), then these are general, shared, ambiguous words by which truth and falsehood can be intended. So it is obligatory to negate whatever they contain of falsehood besides the truth that is intended by some of the people through these words. And the explanation of that has preceded [in a manner] that does not need repetition, but he (ar-Raazee) made reference to what has preceded so we too have made reference to it.
Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullaah) explains that the particular meaning that the likes of ar-Raazee intend by "al-inqisaam" which is the presence of "distinction" and "otherness" (al-ghayr) within an entity that renders it (according to them) divisible (munqasim) and therefore composite (murakkab) and by which they attempt to deny Allaah is above the Throne, then this (meaning that they claim and employ to negate Allaah is above the Throne) is just like the "distinction" and "otherness" between the Attributes. And every existing thing is characterized by attributes and as such, there must be a notion of "distinction" and "otherness" affirmed for every existing thing in this regard which allows distinction between attributes - otherwise the existence of everything must be abolished if this cannot be the case.
So Allaah is described with Hearing, Seeing, Will, Power, Speech, Life, Knowledge - which ar-Raazee and the Ash'arites affirm - and all of these attributes with respect to each other have "distinction" and "otherness", and rejecting that this is the case, would mean an abolition of these attributes, just as it would mean an abolition of every existing thing, since there is no existing thing except that it has attributes.
So when a man is described as generous, loving, kind, intelligent - then there is a notion of "distinction" and "otherness" that must be affirmed to enable the affirmation of such meanings and attributes. Likewise, a flower is described as beautiful, fragrant, pleasant, colorful and so on, and these are distinct meanings and attributes. And the same applies to every existing thing - necessary (i.e. Allaah), or possible (i.e. the creation). And if we were to make this notion impossible (i.e. that of "distinction" and "otherness" found within entities) - then we would have to abolish the whole of existence.
But ar-Raazee and his likes use terms such as "al-inqisaam (divisibility)", "al-ghayr (other)", "al-hayyiz (space)" - including such meanings of "distinction" and "otherness" within them - to make it binding from the saying that Allaah is above the Throne that He is divisible (inqisaam) and therefore composed (murakkab) - and as such they are able to deny He is above the Throne with this argument.
More on the False Argument of ar-Raazee Regarding "Multiplicity", "Divisibility"
Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah said in the Bayaan (3/210-211), regarding the proof of ar-Raazee regarding Allaah's name "al-Waahid" and that this negates "multiplicity", and "divisibility" - and what he means by these terms are what he has devised himself of the meanings that are not known in the Arabic language - and He intends by this to negate that Allaah is above the Throne:
Which translates as:
The tenth angle: That this [very same] proof [of ar-Raazee] is what is used by the deniers of the Attributes entirely - those who say that Allaah does not have knowledge (ilm), nor power (qudrah), nor life (hayaat) because multiplicity of attributes prevents the one described with them as being "Ahad (singular, one)" and it negates "al-wahdah (oneness, singularity)", because there are a number of attributes, and "al-wahdah (singularity)" negates multiplicity. For this reason the pure Jahmites argued by this proof as has been mentioned by Imaam Ahmad and others. And this arguer (meaning ar-Raazee) he is amongst those who affirm the Attributes in general, and he speaks with the affirmation of the seven attributes of life, knowledge, power, hearing, seeing, speech and will.
This is another quote that makes clear the nature of the objection of Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah to the proof of ar-Raazee against what he deems to be "divisibility" (inqisaam) and "multiplicity" (ta'addud).
Those who negated the Attributes completely devised their own meaning of "tarkeeb (composition)" which they considered to be multiplicity of attributes, and this was their argument against those who affirmed the Attributes, and they claimed that those who affirm any attributes have declared Allaah to be composed (murakkab). So their argument would be that affirmation of these "distinctions" (meaning attributes) and "othernesses" (meaning attributes) renders Allaah composed, meaning divisible.
And ar-Raazee uses the same line of argument against the affirmers of Allaah's uluww (aboveness), with his own devised meanings for the terms such as "inqisaam", "murakkab", "al-waahid", "al-ahad" and so on.
And Ibn Taymiyyah points out this also means that this particular argument of ar-Raazee is falsified even against the pure Mujassimah - because this line of argument falsifies his own madhhab as demonstrated by his disputants, the deniers of the attributes in their entirety (Philosophers, Jahmites, Mu'tazilah).
Here is another quote from Ibn Taymiyyah clarifying the same, from the "Bayaan" (4/393):
This translates as:
The sixth angle: That it is said: Speech regarding the meaning of al-qismah (division) and at-tarkeeb (composition) has already passed by and its essence returns back to the distinction (tamayyuz) of a thing from a thing, such as the distinctin (imtiyaaz) of an attribute (sifah) from another attribute, and that this is what is obligatory to acknowledge regarding every existing thing. For it is impossible for any of the existing things to be without this. And if this is the case, then that which necessitates existence, of what they have labelled "inqisaam" (divisibility) and "composition" (tarkeeb), is not impossible. Thus when the proof obligates speaking with this, then it should be spoken with.
Here we have the same point as before - that what ar-Raazee claims as the meaning of "tarkeeb" and "inqisaam" is in fact something which every existing thing is described with, which is the distinction (imtiyaaz) within entities regarding their attributes. There is no existing thing that is without this, meaning there is no existing thing that is not described with attributes - whether that is the creation or the Creator. Thus, there is no proof for ar-Raazee to render this an impossibility - merely because he deceptively labels this to be "inqisaam" and "tarkeeb".
And ar-Raazee is attempting the same thing here regarding Allaah being above the Throne. Ahl us-Sunnah say He is above the Throne exactly as He said, but the people of falsehood then use their logic and rational (not being satisfied with the saying of Allaah), and then they start philosophizing with their Jahmeethink, "If He was above the Throne, then the Throne is mighty, then Allaah too must be Mighty, so if that is the case, the left part of the Throne is other than the right part of the Throne, and this necessitates the same for Allaah, and so this means Allaah must be composite and divisible..." - so the falsehood originates in their minds because accepting Allaah is above the Throne demolishes and falsifies what they have made to be the foundation of their religion - their rational, intellectual proof for the createdness of the universe. This is why they have to go to such lengths to argue against Allaah being above the Throne. Because this would mean Allaah is in direction and in spatial occupation (according to them) and then this would falsify their rational proof against the atheists and the Philosophers, their proof which is hudooth ul-ajsaam - and so this proof must be protected at all costs, since the proof offered by the intellect is decisive, definitive, over and above the texts of the Book and the Sunnah.
From the above quotes (and there are many others), we better understand the context and we also learn that there is an issue with terminology, and so what we will do now is focus on the term "al-inqisaam" and look at Ibn Taymiyyah's treatment of this subject, and also we will look at "al-ahad" and "al-waahid" and the claims of the Jahmite Ash'aris such as ar-Raazee regarding the meanings of these names - and this will further expose the treachery of our 21st Century Kalam Atomist and Jahmee Baleed in slandering Ibn Taymiyyah for something he is free of.
Demolishing ar-Raazee's Claim That Nothing in the Creation Can Be Described with "Waahid" or "Ahad" And Refutation of His False Devised Meaning For "Waahid and "Ahad"
Ar-Raazee claims that nothing from the universe (which to ar-Raazee and his likes is composed of bodies and their incidental attributes) can be described with "waahid" and "ahad" and this is tied to his proof for the denial of Allaah being above the Throne.
This is one of Shaykh ul-Islaam's numerous responses which can be found throughout the "Bayaan" in refutation of this falsehood. This passage spans over forty pages and Ibn Taymiyyah brings thirteen angles of refutation against ar-Raazee on this point, and we can take some excerpts from it and summarize it (3/165-167):
To see the refutation of this in full, with a translation of the above, please go to this article now - read it and then come back.
Demolishing ar-Raazee's Claim Regarding "inqisaam" (Divisibility)
A specific article on this is to come inshaa'Allaah, but you can read this article which addresses the subject partially.
We can now visit the actual text that the Jahmee Baleed has used in his attempt to scorn the fact that Allaah is above the Throne with His Essence, just as the Ummah held as a whole prior to the emergence of al-Jahm ibn Safwan, of whose doctrines this particular Jahmee Baleed (Naruiji) is an ardent follower.
So we have the sandal of Abdullaah bin Abi Ja'far in one hand and volume 3 of the Bayaan in the other. Here it is in the 3rd volume in the 10 volume print of "Bayaan Talbees al-Jahmiyyah", and this quote is from pages 440-442:
And there is no doubt that ar-Raazee and his likes - who argue with the likes of this proof - do not explain "al-inqisaam (divisibility)" with this [meaning] that we have established, that of the separation of one part of [an entity] from another in that each part is in two distinct places, or the possibility of that being able to occur [in that entity]. For no one said that Allaah is divisible (munqasim) with this consideration. And it is not binding from His being (considered) a jism, or occupying place, or above the universe or other than that, that He is divisible (munqasim) with this consideration (of the meaning).
The Jahmee Baleed should realize that Shaykh ul-Islaam is referring here to the view of those whom ar-Raazee frames as his disputants and they are the Karraamiyyah, who held Allah is above the Throne and is a jism (body) and those who simply held He is above the universe, whom ar-Raazee refers to as the "Hanbaliyyah" (whereas in fact, they are much more than just the "Hanbaliyyah"). And he (Ibn Taymiyyah) is saying that it is not binding from any of these views (held by these various factions) that Allaah is divisible (munqasim) according to this (correct) meaning of "inqisaam" (divisibility) in the language. However, as has been pointed out previously, Jahmite Ash'aris like ar-Raazee devise their own meanings for these terms outside of what is established in the language, and use these terms with these devised meanings, with a view to negate what Allaah affirms for Himself, which in this case is being above the Throne.
Ibn Taymiyyah continues:
And if he (ar-Raazee) said: By divisible (al-munqasim), I mean that whatever is in this direction of [an entity] is other than what is in that direction, just like we say that the sun is divisible (munqasim), meaning that its right side is other than its left side. And the celestial body (planet) is divisible with the meaning that the side of the north pole is other than the side of the south pole - and this is what he (ar-Raazee) intends - so this is from those [affairs] regarding which the people have disputed.
This is in reference to the argument of ar-Raazee that was detailed previously in this article that if Allaah is above the Throne, and since the Throne is "mighty", then Allaah must also be "Mighty" and since the right part of the Throne is other than the left part of the Throne, this necessitates the same for Allaah and this proves therefore, according to the logic of ar-Raazee that Allaah is "divisible" (munqasim) and therefore this is impossible, and since it is impossible for Allaah to be divisible (according to the meaning intended by ar-Raazee), then Allaah cannot be above the Throne.
So this is the meaning that ar-Raazee intends by "munqasim" and "inqisaam" - and it is concerning this meaning and understanding of "inqisaam" where the dispute lies - because understanding and applying "inqisaam" in this manner is not known in the language of the Qur'aan, or the language of the Arabs. What ar-Raazee intends that since Allaah being above the Throne would necessitate the notion of "distinction" within Allaah's essence (in his view and rational thinking), then this would mean Allaah is "divisible (munqasim)" with the meaning that he (ar-Raazee) has devised and which is not known in the language of the Arabs.
Together with this ar-Raazee claims that nothing from the created bodies (ajsaam) can be said to be "waahid" and "ahad", and this is tied to his overall proof. And the refutation of this has already preceded, for Allaah calls a single person "waahid" and "ahad" and "waheed", despite them being "composed" and "divisible" with the meaning that ar-Raazee intends. So this falsifies his devised meaning of "waahid" and "ahad" and "inqisaam" - which is actually based upon the notion of Atomism (al-Jawhar al-Fard) - and not upon what is established in the Qur'aan, the Sunnah and the language of the Arabs.
Ibn Taymiyyah continues:
So it is said to him: 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.
He is referring here to the claim of ar-Raazee that Allaah being above the Throne necessitates that He is divisible (munqasim), and if He is divisible, this means He is assembled, composed (murakkab), and that based upon this consideration - that it is impossible for Allaah to be above the Throne, because it is impossible for Him to be composed (murakkab), with the meaning that ar-Raazee intends by these words (munqasim, murakkab). So Ibn Taymiyyah is saying that the particular meaning you have labeled as being "murakkab" (which is ar-Raazee's own devised meaning), then the response to it has already preceded. When Ibn Taymiyyah says, "...and it was made clear that there is no proof at all for the impossibility of that...", he is referring to what ar-Raazee has labelled as "murakkab", i.e. of his own devised meaning, which is referring to the notion of "distinction" and "otherness" that everything in existence must have, without which it does not have any existence. What this means is that everything is characterized with attributes,and so within each and every entity in existence, there must be the notion of "distinction" and "otherness" (see next). As for Allaah being divisible and composite then Ibn Taymiyyah has already refuted this, and declared it impossible for Allaah and declared Him free from it - both before and after this particular speech of his.
Ibn Taymiyyah continues:
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.
Ibn Taymiyyah is referring here to the fact that if you are going to argue that Allaah being above the Throne necessitates that He is divisible (munqasim), and therefore composed (murakkab) - upon the particular meanings intended by the likes of ar-Raazee behind these words (which are deviations from the language of the Arabs) - then on that basis, it would mean the abolition of every existing thing, because the issue of distinction (imtiyaaz) and otherness (al-ghayr) within an entity, is something that all things must be described with, as all things are characterized by at least an attribute - so for example, knowledge is other than hearing, which is other than seeing, and so this is a type of "otherness" that exists within a single entity, and claiming this is divisibility (inqisaam) and therefore tarkeeb (composition) is the way the Philosophers would argue against ar-Raazee for his affirmation of multiple attributes for Allaah, since they affirm them as attributes of Allaah's Essence (dhaat). So in every entity there must the possibility of distinction and otherness - deeming this to be impossible means every existing thing is abolished.
So we can argue against ar-Raazee and say: You affirm knowledge, hearing, seeing, speech, life, power, will for Allaah - and these are all "other" and "distinct" to each other, they are not synonymous with each other, they are distinct and separate meanings, and since distinction and separation can be made regarding meanings established with Allaah's Self (Dhaat), this proves divisibility (inqisaam), and this therefore proves tarkeeb, and this therefore means Allaah is composed, assembled, and as this is impossible, it means that Allaah cannot have the attributes of knowledge, hearing, seeing, speech, life, power, and will.
So we can apply the argument of ar-Raazee to ar-Raazee. So here "power" is distinct and other than "will" and "will" is distinct and other than "hearing" and so on. Ar-Raazee is simply trying to use this same argument of "otherness" and "distinction" in the issue of Allaah being above the Throne, claiming this is "tarkeeb", and the mere use of this argument necessitates the abolition of every existing thing, because the general import of his argument is merely an extension of the argument of the Philosophers against ar-Raazee and his likes. So here, the issue is the form of argument that ar-Raazee is using. As for whether Allaah is divisible (munqasim) or composite (murakkab) - then that is denied for Allaah and is impossible for Him.
This is why Ibn Taymiyyah says that everyone, from those who speak on the attributes (the Philosophers, Jahmites, Mu'tazilites, Ash'arites etc.) and the people of the Sunnah, they must all affirm and accept that every single entity in existence, being characterized by attributes, the notion of "distinction" and "otherness" must be affirmed for it, and everyone must accept that, and that this reality is what those people (the likes of ar-Raazee) are attempting to negate by using phrases such as "al-inqisaam", "at-tarkeeb", "al-ghayr", "al-iftiqaar" and so on with their own devised meanings that are a deviation from what is known in the language of the Arabs.
This is the particular devious route through which they are trying to deny Allaah is above the Throne, and deny His Sifaat Fi'liyyah. As for Allaah being "divisible" then this is false and no one has said Allaah is "munqasim" with its established and correct meaning in the language.
Ibn Taymiyyah continues:
And the saying of the one who says from amongst them:
This is in response to the claim of ar-Raazee and his likes that the meaning of "al-Ahad" and "al-Waahid" is that which is not divisible (munqasim) according to his own devised meaning - and that only Allaah alone can be described with "al-Ahad" and it is not possible for anything in the creation to be labeled with "one" (waahid, ahad) and this is false as has preceded (see here)
Ibn Taymiyyah continues:
And a precise and comprehensive treatment of this issue is what will cut off the controversy and dispute - for this doubt is from the greatest, if not the greatest of the usool (foundations) of the Mu'attilah (Deniers) of the Attributes of the Lord, rather the Deniers of His Essence ...
The doubt that Ibn Taymiyyah is talking about is the one used by the Philosophers who say affirming anything for Allaah besides Him being the necessarily existent is tarkeeb (composition). And the Jahmites say that to affirm any name or description for Allaah necessitates tarkeeb (composition), and they argue against the affirmers of the Names and Attributes. So they say to the Mu'tazilah, you have affirmed Names for Allaah and multiplicity of Names, necessitates tarkeeb (composition). And then the Mu'tazilah argue against the likes of the Ash'ariyyah and Maturidiyyah, that you affirm distinct attributes for Allaah and this necessitates that Allaah is composite.
So this particular doubt is the amongst the greatest used by the Mu'attilah as a whole, and they use it to refute each other - they give the word tarkeeb a meaning and definition - "an entity having attributes or the notion of distinction and otherness within an entity" - that is unknown in the language of the Arabs, they treat this as being "composition" (tarkeeb). And ar-Raazee is simply using an extension of this against those who affirm Allaah is above the Throne and Ibn Taymiyyah is saying that this meaning you are attempting to pass off under the label of "tarkeeb" and "inqisaam" and by which you want to deny what Allaah said about Himself in the Qur'aan, and what the Messenger (sallallaahu alayihi wasallam) said about Him, and what the Companions said about Him, and what the Salaf as a whole said about Him, and what al-Ash'ari said about Him, and what al-Baqillani said about him, that this is just like what those Philosophers claim against you - and that you (ar-Raazee) have not brought any proof to show that this is impossible, whether that be for Allaah or for any existing thing.
And ar-Raazee rationalizes and claims that Allaah being above the Throne must mean He is divisible and composite (murakkab). Remember, this claim has originated in the mind of ar-Raazee and his likes, they concocted this understanding and this necessity and then accused those upon the creed of the Salaf of claiming Allaah is divisible, when in reality, this conception exists only in their minds due to the theory of Atomism they made to be the foundation of their religion and upon which they devised new meanings for "inqisaam" and "tarkeeb" and so on. Then they set out to deny Allaah being above the Throne with this doubt and tried to fabricate upon Ahl us-Sunnah, the product of their own corrupted intellects.
Link to this article: Show: HTML Link Full Link Short Link
You must be registered and logged in to comment.