Barelwi Mullah Asrar Rashid Flees on His Heels and Commits Academic Fraud on His Audience, Unable to Answer the Rebuttal of His Kalam Creed He Took From the Hellenized Jews, Christians and Sabeans Through the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah - Part 1
Posted by Abu.Iyaad on Friday, August, 05 2011 and filed under Articles
Key topics: Asrar Rashid Asrar Rasheed Barelwi Saint Worship

Background Explanation

On 5th April 2011 a statement of creed written by a charged up Barelwi Mullah with a chip on his shoulder called Asrar Rashid who is upon the doctrines of the Ahl al-Kalam condemned by the Salaf was sent to us by email, with a request for a Sunni, Athari, Salafi response to it. Over the next 9 days, we wrote six articles (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6). On the 10th July 2011 we received an email containing a response by Asrar Rashid, which was supposedly a reply to our six articles. Being extremely busy we have not had time to give it a second glance until now (5th August 2011). As we have a spare hour or so, inshaa'Allaah we will write this article to clarify that Asrar Rashid has failed miserably in trying to disguise his creed which is founded upon the ilm al-Kalaam condemned by all the four Imaams and the Salaf as a whole. And more importantly, the fact that he used outright deception in his response, hoping that readers of his response will not go back and review our articles.

In his counter-response to our six-articles Asrar Rashid has done an amazingly super job of not addressing anything at all in anything we wrote. This is because he is unable, he knows it being the coward that he is, and hence, he resorted to deception and lies as we will demonstrate clearly and lucidly inshaa'Allaah. The reason is because if he even tried to address the matters raised with substance and with sincerity, it would draw him into the discussion of matters that would expose the true and real foundation of the creed of the Ash'aris and Maturidis, which is the very same ilm al-Kalaam of the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah and the Hanafi and Rafidee Mujassimah - all of which was condemned by the Salaf. This conceptual language in creed was simply borrowed from the Hellenized Jews, Christians and Sabeans who were speaking of theism and divinity through the language of bodies (ajsaam) and accidents (a'raad) long before the Ahl al-Kalaam of Islaam came along and thought it was the best thing since the horse and cart. If Asrar Rashid was honest and sincere and tried to address, in substance, whatever we explained in our response, it would open a "Pandora's box" to the audience who would subsequently come into historical details, facts and realities through which they would come to realize that Asrar Rashid's claims of following the Salaf are spurious, and he is simply a tail end of the Ahl al-Kalaam condemned by the Salaf. This would also in turn open upon another door of exploration with respect to a category of scholars associated mainly with study of the Qur'an, Hadeeth and Sunnah such as al-Bayhaqi, Abu Ya'laa, al-Nawawi, al-Qurtubi, Ibn Hajar and others, who, although never indulging fundamentally in ilm al-Kalaam (al-ajsaam wal-a'raad), became affected by something of it in their speech and writings.

Being unable to address anything at all, Asrar chose one point in our first article and used it as a means to deceive his audience, to make him think as if he has responded to our six articles and we shall explain that in what follows.

Summary of the Barelwi's Initial Statement

This was his initial statement of creed:

Asrar Rashid wrote:

...A [person] asked me to clarify my aqidah in the topic of Tawhid, so I say - and with Allaah, the Exalted, lies success -:

Indeed, my aqidah in the topic of Tawhid is that which the majority of the Righteous Salaf, those for whom goodness has been testified, as occurs in the hadeeth, "The best of generations is my generation, then those who follow them, then those who follow them." Indeed, the madhhab (way) of the Righteous Salaf is most knowledgeable, most precise, and most safe, being established upon the Book and the Sunnah, and it is that which the best of the Ummah and the most senior of the Scholars traversed upon.

Then in the rest of the statement all we have is the following:

  • A general statement regarding affirmation of "descriptions of perfection" (he did not use the word "attributes") reported in the Book and the Sunnah alongside negation of tashbih, tamthil, deficiencies and shortcomings.

  • A repetition of the above stating again, the affirmation off what has been related whilist negating tashbih and mumaathalah, and takyeef aand Tajseem, quoting the verse "There is no likenesss unto Him" and repeating again the negation of likeness, resemblance and so on and incorporating here the language of the people of Kalaam or those influenced by it in negating from Allaah.

  • Then he approached the subject of Allaah's ma'iyyah (Allaah being with the creation), and istiwaa in a few lines each, using the language of the people of kalam or those influenced by it.

As you can see, this is hardly anything of substance that would constitute a reasonable response to a request to clarify one's creed in the matter of Tawhid. It is generalities which the Ahl al-Bid'ah always use and rely upon in order not to give away the specific details of what they really believe and how it clashes with what the Salaf were upon. The presentation of creed with generalities is a tactical ploy used by the Ahl al-Kalaam. Once, victims have been entered into that circle, the specifics are then taught from the Kalaam books of Ghazali, al-Razi, Sanussi and others - all of whom departed and abandoned what Ibn Kullaab and al-Ash'ari and their earliest followers were upon.

Summary of our Detailed Response

In our response, we intended to be brief and concise and we referred readers to other articles on the site for background information. Our response in those six articles (and the referred to articles) can be summarized as follows:

ONE: That the ilm al-Kalaam of the Ahl al-Kalaam (Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah, Rafidi Mujassimah, Kullaabiyyah, Karraamiyyah, Ash'ariyyah, Maturidiyyah) is the exact same kalam of the Hellenized Jews, Christians and Sabeans. This came into the Ummah through the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah and was passeed through them to the rest of Ahl al-Kalaam, including the Ash'aris and Maturidis. In our response to this Barelwi, we recommended the reader to study these two sets of articles which are necessary background reading:

TWO: This language of bodies and accidents is found with the Jews, Christians and Sabeans. The Sabeans in particular had a rational proof to demonstrate the universe has a beginning, and on account of which they were forced to speak of the creator with pure negations. This proof is what entered amongst the Muslims and it is called Hudooth al-ajsaam, or Hudooth al-a'raad fil-ajsaam or Hudooth al-hawaadith fil-ajsaam. The underlying conceptual tools and language for this group is Hellenic, i.e. Greek, in particular the language of Aristotle. By using these conceptual tools and in order to remain consistent with this proof, all of the Ahl al-Kalaam gravitated towards the language of the Philosophers in describing Allaah, the creator, but varying in the degree to which they were influenced. They were forced into this by the fact that the conceptual tools, language and terminology they used left them with no choice except to tend in this direction in order to maintain consistency. This is despite the fact that they were fighting and arguing with the Philosophers on other matters at the same time such as is the universe eternal, is there bodily resurrection and what is the nature of prophethood. Those who indulged in this "Kalaam" were condemned by the Salaf, those who spoke of Allaah's Names, attributes and actions through these conceptual tools (bodies and their accidents, ajsaam and a'raad). As a result they departed from what the Companions, Tabi'een and Salaf were upon with respect to Allaah's uluww, His attributes, His speech and the Qur'an and seeing Allaah in the Hereafter as well as other matters. This condemnation is agreed upon by all the Salaf, and the four Imaams, and all of the speech of the Salaf condemning "Kalaam" is about this specific Kalaam (not the genus of kalaam) and it is this very Kalaam (proof of huduth al-ajsaam) that was inherited by the Ash'arites and is found in all their works and it is the foundation and basis of their opposition, enmity, slander and fabrication against Ahl al-Sunnah, the followers of the Salaf.

THREE: In Part 1, we pointed out that Asrar Rashid's ascription to the Salaf is spurious and is only meant to deceive the audience, since anyone can string up generalized statements which no one would disagree upon and then claim one is truly following the Salaf whereas in reality, in their private circles, gatherings and instutitions, they qualify and specify those generalized statements (through the books of al-Razi, al-Sanussi, al-Ghazali) with what clearly clashes with what the Salaf were upon, and this is the tact that the Barelwi Mullah and the countless other dishonest deviants use to misguide others. So we indicate these are just public slogans and nothing more. We also indicated that the way of the Salaf was tafseel (detail) when mentioning the and presenting their creed. Note, this was the only point that Asrar Rashid chose to criticize from all of our six articles, and we shall highlight his great fraud in his criticism of this point further below.

FOUR: In Part 2, we pointed out how he never used the word "attributes" (الصفات) once in his initial statement of creed and instead chose to use other words and there is a particular reason for this, because it would cause problems for deviants like Asrar Rashid in their attempts to impose their Kalaam creed upon the general statements of the Salaf which they try to twist for their own ends. We also indicated that in order to convict Asrar Rashid of his deviance and attempted fraud in creed and in the historical record one does not even need to recourse to the 70-80 books of the Salaf written on creed, one can simply go to the likes of Ibn Kullaab (see al-Asha'ri's Maqaalaat) and al-Haarith al-Muhaasibee (see his book, Fahm al-Qur'aan), and al-Ash'ari (see al-Maqaalaat, al-Ibaanah, and Risaalah Ilaa Ahl al-Thaghar) and al-Baaqillaanee (see at-Tamheed) and read about Ibn Mahdee al-Tabaree and Abu al-Abbaas al-Qalaanisee all of whom were upon the early Kullaabee-Ashari creed and who affirmed Allaah's uluww and His sifat khabariyyah dhaatiyyah in refutation of the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah who accused them of being Mushabbihah and Mujassimah because of that. They affirmed meanings but denied takyif and tamtheel, and they never allowed ta'weel or tafweed in these particular matters. This is pure historical fact and record and cowards like Asrar Rashid do not want to go there, because their fraud would be uncovered to the general public. We also indicated that when we look in the books of the Salaf and the books of the early Kullaabi Ash'aris we find that they present their creed by being specific about what attributes they affirm and not suffice with just generalized statements.

FIVE: In Part 3, we exposed Asrar Rashid's attempts at camouflaging his Kalaam creed through the use of the generalized statements of negation of tashbeeh and Tajseem and exposed him, leaving him bare with nowhere to hide. This involved tracing the true and real origins of these negations to the Kalaam creed that he is really operating upon, but trying to hide. We explained that when the Salaf make tanzeeh of Allaah (purify Allaah of defects) it is not the same as the tanzeeh of the Ahl al-Kalaam, since they are operating upon a foreign, alien, Hellenized (Greek) conceptual language which came to them from the Jews, Christians and Sabeans who had already toyed with these conceptual tools before them in the matters of divinity, just go and ask Philo Judaeus and Augustine (see this series), they will teach you the same ilm al-Kalaam of the Mu'tazilah and Ash'ariyyah. We spoke in length on this matter and and we also brought statements from al-Ash'ari and al-Baqillani refuting the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah's allegation of Tajseem against them because they affirmed the sifat khabariyyah. No wonder he never came back to discuss in substance anything we raised.

SIX: In Part 4, we highlighted an error he made of making an absolute rejection of mushaabahah (resemblance) between Allaah and His creation and we quoted Fakhr al-Din al-Razi who acknowledged and affirmed that there are shared attributes between Allaah and the creation indicating that there is resemblance from some angles but not all. Then we expanded upon this matter in detail explaining the view of Ahl al-Sunnah, the Righteous Salaf, and highlighted the error of the Later Ash'aris who deviated away from the position of the Early Ash'aris, let alone the way of the Salaf! This is a matter of pure historical record. There is also a good explanation of how there is not tashbeeh at all in anything which Allah described Himself with, as that is impossible and hence, there is absolutely no caution in affirming whatever attributes have come in the Book and the Sunnah. This is very different to the way of the Ash'aris who presume there is tashbih in what Allaah has described Himself with and it is from this starting point that their methodology is founded upon. Through this we established that Asrar Rashid is a liar in his claim of following the Salaf. Indeed, he would even be a liar if he claimed he was following al-Ash'ari and al-Baqillani and Ibn Kullaab, Ibn Mahdee al-Tabari and al-Harith al-Muhasibee, who are the early Kullaabi Ash'aris! We also quoted some important statements from al-Ash'ari and al-Baqillani in the article which prove that Asrar Rashid is spuriuos in his claim of following them, let alone the Salaf, and that he is on the side of the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah as disputant against the Salaf and Ibn Kullaab and al-Ash'ari on the subject of the sifaat khabariyyah dhaatiyyah (attributes pertaining to Allaah's essence that are only known through revealed texts).

SEVEN: In Part 5, we addressed the matter of al-uluww and al-istiwaa which Asrar Rashid only really alluded to without really committing himself to being very clear about it. This is the way of these conniving Jahmites, they know that they can only deceive the people by non-specification and vague speech and generalizations. We highlighted and exposed the fact that Asrar Rashid's specific formulation of words in this matter is taken from the Hellenized Jews, Christians and Sabeans and the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah who used what essentially comes from Aristotle [of how "the First Cause" is outside of "time and space"] to deny Allaah's uluww (and also His attributes, specifically the sifat khabariyyah). We explained the false necessities that these people (Ahl al-Kalaam) were operating upon which forced them to hold these views in order to remain consistent with their proof of Hudooth al-ajsaam which they took from the star and idol-worshipping Sabean pagans (see here). We also established that it is ijmaa' (concensus) of the Salaf that Allaah, Himself, is above the seven heavens above the Throne, and that the false necessities that these people speak of (that it necessitates confinement in space, Tajseem and so on) do not apply to us because we are not operating upon the language and conceptual tools of a pagan star and idol-worshipper (Aristotle) and we do not agree to that jurisdiction and thus whatever necessities are claimed do not apply to us, they only remain amongst the Ahl al-Kalaam, both the Mujassimah (the Rafidi Mujassimah and the Karraamiyyah) amongst them and the Mu'attilah (Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah, Kullaabiyyah, Ash'ariyyah, Maturidiyyah). Thus, we remain, upon the light of revelation, with pure wholesome milk, ithbaat without takyeef and tamtheel.

EIGHT: In Part 6, we highlighted the issue of "jurisdiction" and that we as Ahl al-Sunnah, followers of the Salaf are not bound by the dung, puss and blood which is the conceptual language and baggage of the Hellenized Jews, Christians and Sabeans, that of al-ajsaam wal-a'raad and the necessities following upon them. We explained that since we do not believe that such conceptual tools are permitted when speaking about Allaah, we therefore do not come under the jurisdiction of the language of Kalaam and hence, the Ahl al-Kalam cannot force their necessities up us, Ahl al-Sunnah, (as in if you say, for example, "Allaah is above His Throne", it means you are saying "He is confined in space") because we do not submit to and nor accept that jurisdiction or these necessities, rather we consider these necessities false and are unapplicable to Allaah, because there is nothing like unto Him. We also explained in other articles that they are the Mushabbihah in truth, because in order to justify their theological speech, they have to include Allalah within the genus of all created things in order to allow the necessities that apply to created things to also apply to Allaah such that they can say, for example, "If you say Allaah is above His Throne it means He is confined in space." They can only make this judgement if they make a false analogy for Allaah (qiyas al-shumool, qiyas al-tamtheel) in that they treat Him like all created bodies such that the realities said of Him are the same as the realities of the creation. This is a very crucial matter to understand and it is elaborated upon in this article.

NINE: We also indicated through the articles we alluded to within our response and rebuttal of this Barelwi Mullah that their use of the likes of al-Bayhaqi and al-Qurtubi and al-Nawawi and others does not deceive us and we know exactly why they choose to use these particular Scholars as fronts for their deviant creed. We explained that there were scholars in this Ummah whose main pre-occupation was Sunnah and Hadeeth and they never fundamentally delved into Kalaam. Thus, you will not see in the books of al-Bayhaqi what you see in the books of al-Baqillani, or Abu Mansur al-Baghdadi. However, because these scholars considered the conclusions of the Ahl al-Kalam to be correct, they tried to merge those conclusions with their knowledge of the Sunnah, and as a result fell into something of ta'weel and usage of some of this language of Kalaam in their works. This is what happened to the Hanbali scholar Abu Ya'laa as well. As a result these scholars opposed the way of the Salaf in certain areas whilst agreeing with them in others, and they did contribute some good to the Prophetic Sunnah, in the sense that they aided it, and dedicated part of their lives to the hadeeth (unlike those engrossed in kalaam). For this reason, these scholars are a prime target and prime choice for today's Jahmiyyah posing as Ash'aris as a means of laying down the foundations for presenting and calling the people to their creed. Hence, they will start quoting from al-Bayhaqi as a precursor to what follows. So we already alluded to that in many of our articles previously, and lo and behold, the Barelwi Mullah, did exactly as we said when he came to write his counter-response to our six articles!

It is important to keep all of this in mind as we now proceed to document and comment upon his counter-response inshaa'Allaah in Part 2, where we learn that Asrar Rasheed fled on his heels like a coward and did not address anything in substance from all of what we have mentioned above and instead implemented a swindle on his audience, by pretending to refute us on an issue which is not even the issue of discussion, and to achieve that he played a sleight of hand on one sentence or expression which we used. Please proceed to Part 2 to learn more about that.