Belief of Hanbalis / Atharis (past) vs "Salafis"

[Abu Sulayman]

Ibn Qudama quotes Ahmad bin Ishaq al-Maliki in his refutation of Ibn Aqil al-Hanbali:

"In the opinion of our [Maliki] colleagues, the partisans of erroneous opinions and heretical innovations are the partisans of speculative-theology (Kalam). Therefore, every speculative theologian (Mutakalim) belongs to the partisans of erroneous opinions and heretical innovations, be he Ash'ari or not. No testimony of his should be accepted; he should be ostracized, and punished for his heretical innovation, and if he sticks to it, he should be made to retract it."

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&sourc...My3JZ__TFVQz1j

The above is a clear proof that Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH) sometimes really exaggerated beyond limits in his criticism of the Ash'ari scholars. Criticism and disagreement is one thing, but to bring such a quote from a so called "Maliki scholar" is a mistake from quite many directions.

See this thread (in Arabic): "تفنيد الاعتداد بغرائب ابن خويز منداد"

The very name and Kunya of the person quoted is differed upon! His death date is also not really clear, even if one source mentions a date but without any certainty.
The very quote that is mentioned above contains a completely unknown person in the chain of transmitters such that the quote can not be even ascribed to him with certainty in the very first place!

Then: The major Maliki authorities had a quite negative opinion of him.
Imam Ibn 'Abd al-Barr (d. 463 AH) openly attacked him and his level of knowledge.
Imam Abu al-Walid al-Baji (d. 474 AH) mentions that he doesn't even know the scholars of 'Iraq mentioning him (because it is said that he was from Basra), so this means that he regards him as unknown to such a degree let alone him being a major scholar!
Al-Qadhi 'Iyadh (d. 544 AH) mentions that he used to have a lot of strange views and was not good in investigating [issues] and not strong in Fiqh and so on.

Even an Anti-Ash'ari like Ibn Hazm [al-Dhahiri] (d. 456 AH) attacked him - and as was his style - even described him with foolishness, weakness and ignorance because of some of his weird views!

Is this the person that has the right to judge the leading scholars of Islam and whether their testimony is accepted?!

Then: The Malikiyya in general are known for their support of Imam al-Ash'ari (d. 324 AH) and his way, so the above quote is just wrong on so many levels!

And we also say: It was the Ash'ari (!) Sultan Salah al-Din (d. 589 AH) whom Allah ta'ala chose to free al-Quds al-sharif from the hands of the crusaders (may Allah ta'ala enable us to free it again!), so will Imam Ibn Qudama deny his testimony and this while he himself (!) was among his supporters!? So even Imam Ibn Qudama doesn't really implement this quote in real life!

There is one last and important point: The divine law and the Islamic sciences are basically all transmitted by the Ash'aris and attacking them in their religion is therefore like invalidating the divine law in itself! You won't even find a single narration that is not transmitted through the Asha'ira and this is enough to know how Allah ta'ala has blessed them over all other Islamic groups throughout history, no matter whether these other groups - Sunni or non-Sunni - admit this or not!
The later Hanabila knew this and therefore opted for the position inside their Madhhab that the Atharis, Ash'aris and Maturidis are all Sunnis (as found in Lawami' al-Anwar and al-'Ayn wal Athar) and this is what their Madhhab settled upon.
This is the most correct position considering that the difference between these three groups are only in the detailed issues of creed.

Wallahu ta'ala a'lam.

[AmantuBillahi]

Imam Ibn 'Abd al-Barr (d. 463 AH)..

Imam Ibn Abdul Bar al-Maliki (d. 463) in his explanation of Imam Malik's prohibiton on accepting the witnesses from Ahl al-Bid'ah said:

“The people of desires according to Mālik and all of our companions are Ahlul-Kalām. So every mutakallim is from the people of desires and Bid’ah whether he is an Ash’ari or other than an Ash’ari. His witness is never accepted in Islam. He is to be abandoned and disciplined for his innovation. And if he continues upon innovation, his repentance is sought [by those in authority].” (Jāmi’ Bayān Al-‘Ilm wa Fadlihi, 2/96)

[Abu Sulayman]

Imam Ibn Abdul Bar al-Maliki (d. 463) in his explanation of Imam Malik's prohibiton on accepting the witnesses from Ahl al-Bid'ah said:

“The people of desires according to Mālik and all of our companions are Ahlul-Kalām. So every mutakallim is from the people of desires and Bid’ah whether he is an Ash’ari or other than an Ash’ari. His witness is never accepted in Islam. He is to be abandoned and disciplined for his innovation. And if he continues upon innovation, his repentance is sought [by those in authority].” (Jāmi’ Bayān Al-‘Ilm wa Fadlihi, 2/96)

This was Imam Ibn 'Abd al-Barr (d. 463 AH) QUOTING the very person in question (whom he himself attacked in his knowledge!) and NOT his own words! Let's be precise please and not trust "Salafi" websites.

See this article "Issues Related to the ‘Aqida of Imam Ibn ‘Abdal-Barr (d. 463 AH)":

Finally, despite Ibn Abdul-Barr narrating this rejected statement his own position towards Ilm al-Kalam is made clear in the same book of Imam Ibn Abdal Barr the Salafis quoted from i.e Jami Bayan il-Ilmi wa Fadlihi. He explains that there is a difference between a time when there is no need and when there is a need for the mutakallim to repel the lies of the deviants. Ibn Abd Al-Barr said:

‘….as for the jama’ah (community) they are upon the opinion of (Imam) Malik, Allah have mercy upon him, except where one is compelled to engage in kalam, as there is no room to remain silent when desiring to refute falsehood and turn its advocate from its school or where there is fear of its general influence on the masses, or something to that effect.’

Hence, his own position towards kalam is a moderate one in keeping with that of the majority of Sunni ‘Ulema.

[AmantuBillahi]

This was Imam Ibn 'Abd al-Barr (d. 463 AH) QUOTING the very person in question (whom he himself attacked in his knowledge!) and NOT his own words! Let's be precise please and not trust "Salafi" websites.

See this article "Issues Related to the ‘Aqida of Imam Ibn ‘Abdal-Barr (d. 463 AH)":

The intention of the quote was to highlight the fact that Ibn Abdul Barr(ra) classifies the Ashaa'ira as Ahl al-Bid'ah wal-Ahwa. I'm not going to get ahead of myself and definitively claim that Ibn Qudama held the same view, but it is highly possible considering his citation of Abu Ishaq. Just because he didn't include their names at the end of Lumatul Itiqad doesn't necessarily imply that he accepted them as being from Ahl al-Sunnah or neutral. In fact, he actually referred to them as innovators and heretics in his treatise about the Speech of Allah and its Recitation:

https://islamthought.wordpress.com/2...ts-recitation/

[Abu Sulayman]

The intention of the quote was to highlight the fact that Ibn Abdul Barr(ra) classifies the Ashaa'ira as Ahl al-Bid'ah wal-Ahwa. I'm not going to get ahead of myself and definitively claim that Ibn Qudama held the same view, but it is highly possible considering his citation of Abu Ishaq. Just because he didn't include their names at the end of Lumatul Itiqad doesn't necessarily imply that he accepted them as being from Ahl al-Sunnah or neutral. In fact, he actually referred to them as innovators and heretics in his treatise about the Speech of Allah and its Recitation:

https://islamthought.wordpress.com/2...ts-recitation/

You're mixing up issues here!
As for Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH): His Tabdi' against the Asha'ira is something established and this is not a praise for him, but rather a mistake on his part.
As for Imam Ibn 'Abd al-Barr (d. 463 AH): You can't prove anything based upon him quoting someone else! It does not mean that he classifies Asha'ira as people of innovation! He even believed in the usage of Kalam himself, if there is a necessity to do so.

Then: Do you even know who the major and leading scholars of the Malikiyya are before coming up with such a quote? Their leading scholars are supporters of Imam al-Ash'ari (d. 324 AH) and his way in defending the Ahl al-Sunna!
So attacking the Ash'aris is like attacking the Malikiyya in itself, because they are the leading scholars of the Madhhab!

[AmantuBillahi]

You're mixing up issues here!
As for Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH): His Tabdi' against the Asha'ira is something established and this is not a praise for him, but rather a mistake on his part.
As for Imam Ibn 'Abd al-Barr (d. 463 AH): You can't prove anything based upon him quoting someone else! It does not mean that he classifies Asha'ira as people of innovation! He even believed in the usage of Kalam himself, if there is a necessity to do so.

Then: Do you even know who the major and leading scholars of the Malikiyya are before coming up with such a quote? Their leading scholars are supporters of Imam al-Ash'ari (d. 324 AH) and his way in defending the Ahl al-Sunna!
So attacking the Ash'aris is like attacking the Malikiyya in itself, because they are the leading scholars of the Madhhab!

Khayr inshAllah. The way the Azhari Hanbali presented his view left me with the impression that he didn't believe Ibn Qudama made Tabdee of the Ashaa'ira.

With regards to Ibn Abdul Barr it is actually you who are mixing between issues. Firstly, it does not make sense for him to quote this scholar explicitly attacking the Ashaa'ira and referring to them as Ahl al-Bid'ah if he did not share the same view. Secondly, just because a scholar approves of Kalam in certain circumstances or even accepts Kalam altogher doesn't autoatically entail that they approve of Ash'ari Kalam. The clearest example of this being Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah who was an Athari Mutakalim that considered Ahlul Kalam (Ash'aris, Maturidiss and Mu'tazila) as Ahl al-Bid'ah wal-Ahwa. The problem is not about Kalam per se, but what your Kalam has resulted in you believing.

Many of the early Malikis were Atharis from what I understand. It was a Madhhab that was gradually corrupted unfortunately. Wa Allahu Alam.

[Abu Sulayman]

The Legal Ruling Upon Those who Undermine the Ash’aris: Imam Ibn Rushd al-Jadd [al-Maliki] (d. 520 AH)

The article "The Legal Ruling Upon Those who Undermine the Ash’aris" (and also HERE) contains the position of a number of scholars on this issue, but since the Malikiyya have been mentioned and a person was quoted - who is not really accepted among them nor very much known nor from among their major scholars! - let us specifically quote a major Maliki authority and scholar on this issue: Imam Ibn Rushd al-Jadd (d. 520 AH), who should not be mistaken with his grandson who had left the correct way (i.e. Ibn Rushd al-Hafid (d. 595 AH), the philosopher).


From the article (Arabic text taken from Masa`il Abil Walid Ibn Rushd 1/716 - 718):

Another question from Morocco: ‘Alī ibn Yūsuf ibn Tashfīn, Commander of the Believers in Marrakesh, and second King of the state of al-Murabitun, who died in the year 537 AH, asked the peerless Qāḍi ibn Rushd al-Jadd [the grandfather] al-Qurṭubī al-Mālikī, may Allah have mercy on him, who was nicknamed by the Malikis as ‘Shaykh al-Madhhab‘ regarding the opinion of the Malikis with regards to the esteemed Ash‘arīs, and the ruling upon the one who opposes them.

This is the text of the question and the response [from his legal rulings (2/802) 1st ed. Dār al-Gharb al-Islāmī, Beirut, 1407 A.H.]:

ما يقول الفقيه، القاضى الأجل الأوحد، أبو الوليد - وصل الله توفيقه وتسديده، ونهج إلى كل صالحة طريقة - في الشيخ أبى الحسن الأشعرى، وأبى اسحق الاسفراينى، وأبى بكر الباقلانى، وأبى بكر ابن فورك، وأبى المعالى وأبى الوليد الباجى ونظرائهم ممن ينتحل علم الكلام، ويتكلم في أصول الديانات ويصف الرد على أهل الاهواء، أهم أئمة رشاد وهداية، أم هم قادة حيرة وعماية؟ وما تقول في قوم يسبونهم، ويتنقصونهم، ويسبون كل من ينتمى إلى علم الأشعرية، ويكفرونهم ويتبرؤون منهم، وينحرفون بالولاية عنهم، ويعتقدون انهم على ضلالة وخائضون في جهالة، ماذا يقال لهم، ويصنع بهم، ويعتقد فيهم، أيتركون على أهوائهم مذهب أم يكف من غلوائهم، وهل ذلك جرحة في أديانهم، ودخل في ايمانهم، أم لا؟.بين لنا مقدار الأئمة المذكورين، ومحلهم من الدين، وأفصح لنا عن حال المنتقص لهم، والمنحرف عنهم، وحال المتولى لهم، والمحب فيهم، مجملا، مفضلا ومأجورا، ان شاء الله تعالى

What does the Erudite Schola, the Judge, the esteemed, the peerless, Abu al-Walīd (may Allah give him success and guidance,) say concerning the Shaykh Abu al-Ḥasan al-Ash’arī 5, Abu Isḥāq al-Isfarāyini 6, Abu Bakr al-Bāqillānī 7, Abu Bakr ibn Furāk 8, Abu al-Ma‘ālī 9, and Abu al-Walīd al-Bājī 10 and their peers among those who adopt the science of Kalām and speak about the principles of the religious denominations and nations and make compilations in response to the sects of heretic tendencies? Are they Imāms of forthrightness and guidance, or are they leaders of perplexity and folly? And what do you say regarding a people that insult and undermine them [the people Kalām], as well as insulting everyone who ascribes to the Ash’arī discipline; attributing them with disbelief and disavowing them; deviating by distancing their nearness to them, having conviction that they are upon misguidanc and plunging in ignorance? What is to be said to them and done with them? Are they to be left upon their desires or not, or are their fanatics to be restrained? And is this a disparagement in theirreligion, including their faith? And is the ritual prayer permitted behind [i.e. following] them or not? Clarify for us the status of the aforementioned Imāms and their place in the religion, and express distinctly regarding the state of the one who undermines them, as well as the state of the one closely associates with them and who loves them, both generally and in detail. May you be rewarded, if Allah Wills:

فأجاب ابن رشد، رحمه الله: تصفحت، عصمنا الله، واياك، سؤالك هذا، ووقفت عليه. وهؤلاء الذين سميت من العلماء أئمة خير، وممن يجب بهم الاقتداء، لأنهم قاموا بنصر الشريعة، وأبطلوا شبه أهل الزيغ والضلالة، وأوضحوا المكشلات، وبينوا ما يجب أن يدان به من المعتقدات، فهم، بمعرفتهم بأصول الديانات، العلماء على الحقيقة، لعلمهم بالله عز وجل، وما يجب له، وما يجوز عليه، وما ينتفى عنه، اذ لا تعلم الفروع الا بعد معرفة الأصول. فمن الواجب أن يعترف بفضائلهم، ويقر لهم بسوابقهم، فهم الذين غنى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم والله أعلم بقوله: «يحمل هذا العلم من كل خلف عدوله، ينفون عنه تحريف الغلين، وانتحال المبطلين، وتأويل الجاهلين»، فلا يعتقد أنهم على ضلالة الا غبى جاهل، أو مبتدع زائغ، عن الحق مائل، ولا يسبهم، وينسب اليهم خلاف ما هم عليه الا فاسق، وقد قال الله عز وجل: «والذين يؤذون المؤمنين والمؤمنات بغير ما اكتسبوا فقد احتملوال بهتانا واثما مبينا». فيجب أن بصر الجاهل منهم، ويؤدب الفاسق، ويستتاب المبتدع، الزائغ عن الحق، إذا كان مستهلا ببدعته، فان تاب والا ضرب أبدا، حتى يتوب، كما فعل عمر ابن الخطاب رضي الله عنه، بصبيغ المتهم في اعتقاده، من ضربه اياه حتى قال: «يا أمير المؤمنين ان كنت تريد دوائى فقد بلغت منى موضع الداء، وان كنت تريد قتلى فأجهز على فخلى سبيله. والله أسأله العصمة والتوفيق، برحمته

Ibn Rushd (Allah have mercy upon him) responded:

I have analyzed (Allah safeguard us and you) this question of yours, and have pondered upon it. Those that you have mentioned of the scholars are Imāms of goodness and guidance, and are of those who must be followed. For they have undertaken giving victory to the Sacred Law, invalidating the dubiousness of the people of deviation and misguidance. They have made that which is problematic clear as well as those creedal matters which must be held as part of the religion. So they, with their understanding of the principles of religion, are the scholars in reality due to their knowledge of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) and what is obligatory for him, what is permissible for him, and what is negated for him. For the branches are not known except after the principles are known. Thus it is incumbent to recognize their virtues, affirming them in their precedents, as it is they who are meant by the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) in his saying, “The equitable from each succession will carry this knowledge, negating from it the distortion of the fanatics, the assumptions of the prattlers, and the interpretation of the ignorant.“

Thus none should have the conviction that they [the people of Kalām] are upon misguidance and ignorance except a foolish ignoramus or a deviating innovator veering from the truth. None shall insult them and ascribe to them the contrary of what they are upon except a sinner, and Allah (Mighty and Majestic) has said, “and those who abuse the believing men and believing women without their having done anything [wrong], they shall bear the burden of slander and a manifest sin” (33:58).

It is imperative that the ignorant of them have their perception corrected, and the sinner be disciplined, and the innovator deviating from the truth be asked to repent should he be lax in his innovation. He will repent, or else he will be hit continually until he repents as ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb did (Allah be pleased with him) with Sabigh 11, the accused in his creed from his hitting him until he said, “O Commander of the Believers! If you desire my cure then it has reached the site of the illness, and if you want to kill me then hasten with it.” Consequently, he [‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb] let him go.
And I ask Allah for protection and success through His mercy.
- end of quote -


'Ali bin Yusuf and his father Yusuf bin Tashfin were both known for their love for the scholars of Islam and their service to the religion of Allah.
Yusuf bin Tashfin is among the heros of Islam, through whom Allah ta'ala humiliated the disbelieving enemies of Islam.

Note how the heros of Islam are always in some way or form Asha'ira or connected to them and there seems to be a connection between the strength of the Asha'ira and the strength of the Muslims in general. Wallahu ta'ala a'lam.

With regards to Ibn Abdul Barr it is actually you who are mixing between issues. Firstly, it does not make sense for him to quote this scholar explicitly attacking the Ashaa'ira and referring to them as Ahl al-Bid'ah if he did not share the same view.

This is not how the issue works. You brought a quote that your source falsely ascribed to him, while he was only quoting someone else and this someone else is someone whom he himself attacked!
If you want to establish such an accusation against him (because attacking Ash'aris in this manner and way is nothing to be proud of!), then you need to bring the whole statement with its context, so that we can really see what he himself thought and what not.

Many of the early Malikis were Atharis from what I understand. It was a Madhhab that was gradually corrupted unfortunately. Wa Allahu Alam.

La hawla wa la quwwata illa billah! These people - whom you're accusing of gradually corrupting the Madhhab! - are those who transmitted this religion to us! You're invalidating the divine law with all of these claims, because you're claiming this against all of the 4 Madhahib.
These "corrupt" scholars directly learned from the early Malikiyya, but it seems an internet connection makes one understand the early Malikiyya better than sitting and learning for years from them.

Then people are speaking about "establishing the divine law"... how is it possible to establish it, while you're invalidating it?

[AmantuBillahi]

I wasn't sure where to post this but here's a great compilation of quotes and tidbits on the life of Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728) in al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah and other sources:

https://www.systemoflife.com/life-of...ya-wal-nihaya/

[aMuslimForLife]

I wasn't sure where to post this but here's a great compilation of quotes and tidbits on the life of Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728) in al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah and other sources:

https://www.systemoflife.com/life-of...ya-wal-nihaya/

The more I learn about Ibn Taymiyyah, and what his followers propagate, the more I find things I disagree with him and his modern day followers. I'll stick with the Asharis, Maturidis and traditional Hanbalis.

[AmantuBillahi]

The more I learn about Ibn Taymiyyah, and what his followers propagate, the more I find things I disagree with him and his modern day followers. I'll stick with the Asharis, Maturidis and traditional Hanbalis.

To each his own. The more I research about the history and development of the Ash'ari school the less I'm convinced of its authenticity. I am simply not convinced that this Aqeedah is consistent with the true creed of the Salaf or what Allah originally intended. What attracts me to Ibn Taymiyyah's methodology is how natural and straightforward his approach was. When Allah mentions x, y or z about Himself in the Quran, then the default for the Mu'min should be to affirm and believe in what Allah has revealed. When Allah said He Rose Over the Throne after the 6th day, then that means Allah Rose Over the Throne after the 6th day. When Allah said He created Adam with His Two Hands in Jannah, then that means Allah created Adam with His Two Hands in Jannah. If Allah didn't actually Rise Over the Throne specifically after the 6th day and doesn't have Divine Attributes called Hands (Yaday), then He shouldn't have described Himself in a manner that would naturally give the wrong impression.

Belief in the Dhahir theology of the Quran and Sunnah has always been the view of the majority of Muslims in the Ummah of Muhammad(saws). The laymen who haven't yet been exposed to the Shubuhat of the Mutakalimoon are naturally upon the Fitrah of accepting the religion at face-value. This was even acknowledged by some of the classical Ash'aris in their attempt to ridicule believing in the apparrent meanings of the Quran and Sunnah. We can also witness in our times the popularity of "Salafiyyah" and the Aqeedah of Ibn Taymiyyah(ra) amongst young Muslims who begin to take their religion more seriously.

It's interesting how you grouped the Ash'aris, Maturidis and 'traditional Hanbalis' as if they are one united theology againsts the Salafis. Not only were the classical Hanaabila arch-rivals of the Ash'aris throughout Islamic history, but those who you deem to be "traditional Hanbalis" didn't always see eye-to-eye with one another in their approach to creed. The Athari methodology of Shaykh al-Islam is nearer to the beliefs of the Hanaabila then the Ash'aris and Maturidis.

Perhaps the strongest 'proof' for Ash'arism being true are the list of classical scholars like Imam Nawawi and Ibn Hajr that are often referenced by the common Muslims to legitamize their beliefs. How can we go against scholars of such high calibre who have been received so well by the entire Ummah? Also, if the Ash'ari school is essentially upon deviation and misguidance, then why did Allah allow it to become so popular and widespread? These are good questions. However, I personally don't find them compelling enough for me to make that leap in faith. The spread of Ash'arism could be explained by the influence of the Nizamiyya colleges orchastrated by the zealous politican Nizam al-Mulk during a period of history when metaphysics and Greek philosophy were at the intellectual forefront. There is nothing in Islam which obligies us to defend the Ash'ari and Maturidi traditions. The religion doesn't automatically become false or redundant if we are to claim that the classical Ash'ari scholars were sincerely mistaken in certain areas of creed.

Regarding the modern followers of Ibn Taymiyyah they are irrelevant when it comes to determining the truthfulness of his teachings. Beliefs have to be judged objectively without being influenced by the politics surronding its implications. If what someone is claiming is logically sound and consistent then it should be respected regardless if it conflicts with our preconceived narratives. We can also criticize the shortcomings of the Sufis and Ash'ari-inclined Muslims in modern times but that won't render the Madhhab false.

[AmantuBillahi]

There is nothing in Islam which obligies us to defend the Ash'ari and Maturidi traditions. The religion doesn't automatically become false or redundant if we are to claim that the classical Ash'ari scholars were sincerely mistaken in certain areas of creed.

Imam Ahmad(ra) boycotted and warned against the proto-Ash'ari scholars Ibn Kullab and al-Muhasibi. Abu'l Hassan al-Ash'ari was rejected by Imam al-Barbahari and the majority of Hanaabila in Baghdad despite affirming the Attributes claiming to follow Imam Ahmad(ra). Imam al-Baqilani was also said to have faced pressure from his collegues and struggled to accumulate students.

The classical Hanaabila were not only opposed to the use of Kalam but also what the Ash'aris believed. There are reports from Imam Ahmad and other Athari traditionalists like Ibn Khuzayma wherein they criticize the Ash'ari understanding of the Attribute Kalam. This clash demonstrates the clear methodological distinction between the Ash'ari 'rationalists' and the Dhahiri traditionalists who didn't have a problem believing that Allah Speaks when and how He wills. Additionally, from this we can conclude that the classical Atharis weren't concerned about conflicting with the premesis of Burhan Huduth al-Ajsam.

Prior to the codification of this Ash'ari friendly later Hanbali school the relationship between the Ash'aris and Hanbalis ranged from being tense to sectarian violence. Some of the Hanbalis would condemn them as being deviants and innovators resulting in the Ash'aris labelling them Mujasimma and Mushabbiha.

[AmantuBillahi]

Imam al-Baqilani was also said to have faced pressure from his collegues and struggled to accumulate students.

This claim might require further looking into. I'm not sure if I'm mixing between his inability to publically preach Ash'ari doctrine with his name being included amongst the list of early Ash'aris who were refuted and ostracized by the traditionalist Atharis. I could have sworn it was the latter, but all of the pro-Ash'ari resources I'm coming across depict him as a respected figure with no indication of boycotting. In any case, this still wouldn't disrupt the narrative because the scholars mentioned that the Atharis and Ash'aris were technically considered one Firqa until the Fitna of Qushayri took place and the lines were clearly demarcated.

"There were, of course, a handful of Ash'aris in Baghdad, the most famous one being Abu Bakr al-Baqillani (d.403). Al-Baqillani had studied Ash'ari thought with Ibn Mujaahid, who was one of the few disciples of al-Ash'ari himself. There were others as well, but by all accounts the school remained small. And while traditionalist Hanbalis had a number of mosque-schools, the Ash'aris did not have a public post in any mosque."

https://archive.org/details/YasirQad...de/2up?q=FItna

Hence, the decision to send a bolder theologian was made: one that would not shy away from the heat that would inevitabely be generated by preaching anti-Hanbali doctrines in a Hanbali-dominated city. The person chosen for this endevaour was Abd al-Karim al-Qushayri (d. 614). This was the first attempt to publically and boldly preach Ash'ari doctrines in Baghdad[3], and it prroved to be a complete disaster.

[3] In Tabaqat al-Hanabila Qadhi Abu Ya'la mentioned that prior to the arrival of al-Qushayri, Ash'ari doctrine "had never been publically spread due to the treatment they (i.e. Ash'aris) would receive from our companions (i.e. Hanbalis) and their (i.e. Hanbali) suppression of them (i.e. Ash'aris)

https://archive.org/details/YasirQad...de/2up?q=FItna

Al-Qushayri was sent from Nishapour to Baghdad sometime in 469AH, whence he immedately began preaching Ash'ari theology, publically criticizing the Hanbalis labelling them Mujassima or 'anthropomorphist'.

https://archive.org/details/YasirQad...de/2up?q=FItna

[Abu Sulayman]

Yasir Qadhi unfortunately left one type of innovation - i.e "Salafism" - for another type of innovation - i.e. modernism - and what both of these groups have in common is them trying to rewrite and even change Islamic history in order to be able to justify their innovations and heresies.

Someone who wants to properly research historical issues needs to check different historical sources in order to get the full picture and not simply trust what the innovators and heretics of today claim in their superficial reading of one or two works.

It's a historical reality that after Imam al-Ash'ari (d. 324 AH) presented his rational defense of the Sunna against the innovators and heretics of his time, he became FAMOUS for this and the early scholars started praising him and his way in defense and many even adopted the Nisba of being Ash'ari, because of the strength of his arguments. To come after more than 1000 years and to claim that this is not true is ridiculous and a falsification of established facts.
What Yasir Qadi is basically trying to say is that the very early scholars of Islam used to be upon the truth, but that the very scholars who learned directly from them somehow corrupted their teachings such that all later scholars after them were "callers to innovation and heresies". While the first statement is accepted, the latter one is the claim of the innovators and heretics!


Let's show this in the case of the Maliki school, which has been attacked above and its scholars have been accused of corrupting the Madhhab based upon the statement of Ibn Khuwayz Mindad (d. 390 AH?), who had weird and wrong views according to the major scholars of Malikiyya themselves:


- Imam Abu Bakr al-Abhari (d. 375 AH) was without any doubt the Shaykh of the Malikiyya in 'Iraq and he did not see anything wrong in using Kalam to defend the Sunna! Ibn Khuwayz Mindad also studied under him.

Now let's look at this incident mentioned by Imam al-Abhari:

اجتمعنا في جماعة من أهل العلم والصلاح، وقد تناظر رجل من أهل السنة مع رجل معتزلي، فطال بينهما الكلام، فجاء المساء، فلم يظهر أحدهما على صاحبه. فقال السنّي: هذا مجلس انقضى على غير فلح. وقد حضرنا قوم صالحون فلنخلص الدعاء للمحق منا، بأن يثبت الله تعالى القرآن في صدره، وينسيه المبطل. فدعونا. قال الأبهري: فأقرّ لي المعتزلي بعد ذلك أنه نسي القرآن، حتى كأنه ما رآه قط

We had a meeting with a group from the people of knowledge and righteousness. There a man from the Ahl al-Sunna (!) had a debate with a Mu'tazili man. The speech between them was long until it reached the evening without any of them having beaten their opponent.
So the Sunni (!) said: This meeting did not end well, and this in the presence of a people from the Righteous, so let us say a supplication that Allah ta'ala makes the Qur`an firm in the breast of the one upon the truth and makes the one upon falsehood forget it.
Al-Abhari [then] said: The Mu'tazila thereafter affirmed to me that he had forgotten the Qur`an to the degree as if he had never seen it!
- end of quote (from Tartib al-Madarik 6/190) -

So here we have an Imam from among the Malikiyya watching a Kalami discussion (!) and calling one side as Sunni! This means that defending the Sunna in a rational way does not turn one into an innovator in his understanding, rather the opposite!


- Imam Ibn Mujahid al-Ta`i (d. 370 AH) was another one of the leading scholars of the Malikiyya in 'Iraq and was a direct student of Imam Abul Hasan al-Ash'ari (d. 324 AH) himself and was known as a Mutakallim in defending the Sunna!

Al-Qadhi 'Iyadh [al-Maliki] (d. 544 AH) said:

محمد بن أحمد بن محمد بن يعقوب بن مجاهد الطائي، المتكلم، أبو عبد الله، صاحب أبو الحسن الأشعري. وهو من أهل البصرة، وسكن بغداد. وعليه درس القاضي أبو بكر الباقلاني، الكلام. وله كتب حسان في الأصول. ذكر لنا غير واحد من شيوخنا: أنه كان يحسن الستر، يحسن الزي، جميل الطريقة. وكان البرقاني، يثني عليه، ثناء حسناً. وأدركه ببغداد فيما أحسب. وكان ابن مجاهد هذا، مالكي المذهب، إماماً فيه، مقدماً. غلب عليه علم الكلام والأصول. أخذ عن القاضي التستري، وله كتاب في أصول الفقه، على مذهب مالك، ورسالته المشهورة في الاعتمادات، على مذهب أهل السنة

Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Mujahid al-Ta`i - the scholastic theologian (Mutakallim) - Abu 'Abdullah, the companion of Abul Hasan al-Ash'ari. He was from the people of Basra and resided in Bagdhad. Al-Qadhi Abu Bakr al-Baqillani studied under him [the science of] Kalam. He has good works regading the foundations (Usul).
More than one of our teachers mentioned to us that he used to be good in his clothing and had a beautiful way. Al-Burqani (the Hadith master) used to to praise him in a good way, and he met him in Baghdad as far as I know.
Ibn Mujahid used to be upon the Maliki Madhhab and a leading scholar (Imam) (!) in it and [from the] advanced [ones]. He was mostly [busy] with 'Ilm al-Kalam and the Usul.
He took from al-Qadhi al-Tustari and he has books on the Usul al-Fiqh (foundations of jurisprudence) upon the Madhhab of Malik and a famous Risala regarding the I'timadat upon the way of Ahl al-Sunna...
- end of quote (from Tartib al-Madarik 6/196) -

So here we have a major Imam of the Malikiyya in 'Iraq, who was Mutakallim himself!


Know that al-Qadhi Abu Bakr al-Baqillani [al-Maliki] (d. 403 AH) - the sword of the Sunna! - was the student of both Imam Ibn Mujahid and Imam al-Abhari and that Imam al-Abhari would even give precedence to al-Baqillani among his students!
And if one looks into the biography of Imam al-Baqillani as mentioned by al-Qadhi 'Iyadh in Tartib al-Madarik, then one will know the greatness of this scholar!


But let us now go from 'Iraq to the Islamic West, the center of the Malikiyya!


- Imam Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (d. 386 AH) - the Imam of the Malikiyya of his time - had a very good relationship to Imam Ibn Mujahid - the Ash'ari Mutakallim! - and they would write each other and Imam Ibn Abi Zayd would even send his students to him to study 'Aqida with him!

This is what he thought about Imam Ibn Mujahid, the Ash'ari Mutakallim:

وعندنا من أخبار الشيخ الطيبة، ما تعم مسرته، من نصرته في هذا المذهب. وذبه عنه، ومحاماته عليه، حماه الله عزّ وجلّ مكروهه، من صحته

The good state of the Shaykh (i.e. Ibn Mujahid) has reached us, which is in general regarding his way in supporting this Madhhab, defending and protecting it, may Allah 'azza wa jall protect him from every disliked [issue] in his health...
- end of quote (from Tartib al-Madarik 6/198) -

Add to this: Imam Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani DEFENDED Imam Abul Hasan al-Ash'ari (d. 324 AH), Imam Ibn Kullab (d. 241 AH) and other Mutakallimun from the Ahl al-Sunna!

When a Mu'tazili innovator from Baghdad wrote the Malikiyya in Qayrawan a letter where he tries to invite them to become Mu'tazila, Imam Ibn Abi Zayd responded to him and among the things that he said in the letter is the following:

ونسبت ابْن كلاب إِلَى الْبِدْعَة ثمَّ لم تحك عَنهُ قولا يعرف أَنه بِدعَة فيوسم بِهَذَا الِاسْم وَمَا علمنَا مَنْ نسبَ إِلَى ابْن كلاب الْبِدْعَة وَالَّذِي بلغنَا أَنه يتقلد السّنة ويتولى الرَّد على الْجَهْمِية وَغَيرهم من أهل الْبدع يَعْنِي عَبْد اللَّهِ بن سعيد بن كلاب وذكرتَ الْأَشْعَرِيّ فنسبته إِلَى الْكفْر وقلتَ إِنَّه كَانَ مَشْهُورا بالْكفْر وَهَذَا مَا علمنَا أَن أحدا رَمَاه بالْكفْر غَيْرك وَلم تذكر الَّذِي كفر بِهِ وَكَيف يكون مَشْهُورا بالْكفْر من لم ينْسب هَذَا إِلَيْهِ أحد علمنَاه فِي عصره وَلَا بعد عصره

You accused Ibn Kullab of innovation (Bid'a), [but] then you did not mention a single statement from him that is known to be [real] innovation, so that one labels him with this name. We do not know of anyone who ascribes innovation to Ibn Kullab, rather that which has reached us is that he - 'Abdullah bin Sa'id bin Kullab - followed the Sunna and was in charge of refuting the Jahmiyya and other than them from the people of innovation.
You also mentioned al-Ash'ari and accused him of disbelief (Kufr) and said that he used to be famous for disbelief, and we do not known a single person who has accused him of disbelief other than you! You also did not mention why he disbelieved, and how is possible for him to be famous in disbelief while none of those we know from his time and after his time ascribed this to him!
- end of quote (from Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari p. 406 - 407) -

Comment: This hate of the Mu'tazili towards these two scholars should be enough for one to understand how well they were in refuting them!


Then Imam Ibn Abi Zayd mentioned how the Mu'tazili attacked Imam al-Ash'ari regarding the issue of the Lafdh of the Qur`an (!) and defended Imam al-Ash'ari on this issue (!) saying:

والقارىء إِذَا تَلا كتاب اللَّه لَو جَازَ أَن يُقَال إِن كَلَام هَذَا لقارىء كَلَام اللَّه على الْحَقِيقَة لفسد هَذَا لِأَن كَلَام القارىء مُحدث ويفني كَلَامه وَيَزُول وَكَلَام اللَّه لَيْسَ بمحدث وَلَا يفني وَهُوَ صفة من صِفَاته وَصفته لَا تكون صفة لغيره وَهَذَا قَول مُحَمَّد بن اسمعيل البُخَارِيّ وَدَاوُد الْأَصْبَهَانِيّ وَغَيرهمَا مِمَّن تكلم فِي هَذَا وَكَلَام مُحَمَّد بن سَحْنُون إِمَام الْمغرب وَكَلَام سعيد بن مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الْحداد وَكَانَ من الْمُتَكَلِّمين من أهل السّنة وَمِمَّنْ يرد على الْجَهْمِية

If it would be permissible to say - when the recitator recites the book of Allah - that this speech of the recitator is the speech of Allah in reality, then this would be wrong, because the speech of the recitator is emergent (Muhdath) and his speech gets annihilated and ceases to exist, [while] the speech of Allah is not emergent nor does it get annihilated, [rather] it's an attribute from among His attributes, and His attributes can not be attributes of others.
This is [also] the statement of Muhammad bin Isma'il al-Bukhari, Dawud al-Asbahani and other than them who spoke about this issue, and [also] the statement Muhammad bin Sahnun - the Imam of Maghrib - and the statement of Sa'id bin Muhammad bin al-Haddad, who used to be from among the Mutakallimin from the Ahl al-Sunna (!) and from among those who refuted the Jahmiyya.
- end of quote (from Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari p. 407) -


He went on in his defense until he said:

فَكيف يسعك أَن تكفر رجلا مُسلما بِهَذَا وَلَا سِيمَا رجل مَشْهُور أَنه يرد على أهل الْبدع وعَلى الْقَدَرِيَّة الْجَهْمِية متمسك بالسنن مَعَ قَول من قَالَه مَعَه من البُخَارِيّ وَغَيره

Then how is is it allowed for you to declare a Muslim man a disbeliever because of this issue, especially a man (Imam al-Ash'ari is intended!) who is FAMOUS (!) in refuting the people of innovation and the Qadariyya [and] Jahmiyya, [and one who] holds fast to the Sunan and this while others also said the same like him like al-Bukhari and other than him.
- end of quote (from Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari p. 408) -


- Imam Abul Hasan 'Ali bin Muhammad al-Qabisi (d. 403 AH) - another one of the shining stars of the Malikiyya in Qayrawan and one of the famous transmitters of Sahih al-Bukhari in the Maghrib - supported Imam al-Ash'ari's way!

He had a Risala in praise of Imam al-Ash'ari and in it he defends his rational defense of the Sunna:

وَاعْلَمُوا أَن أَبَا الْحسن الْأَشْعَرِيّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ لم يَأْتِ من هَذَا الْأَمر يَعْنِي الْكَلَام إِلَّا مااراد بِهِ إِيضَاح السّنَن والتثبيت عَلَيْهَا وَدفع الشّبَه عَنْهَا فهمه من فهمه بِفضل اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وخفي عَمَّن خَفِي بقسم الله وَله وَمَا أَبُو الْحَسَنِ الْأَشْعَرِيّ إِلَّا وَاحِد من جملَة القائمين بنصر الْحق مَا سمعنَا من أهل الْإِنْصَاف من يُؤَخِّرهُ عَن رتبته ذَلِك وَلَا من يُؤثر عَلَيْهِ فِي عصره غَيره وَمن بعده من أهل الْحق سلكوا سَبيله فِي الْقيام بِأَمْر الله عزوجل والذب عَن دينه حسب اجتهادهم قَالَ وَأما قَوْلكُم وَإِن كَانَ التَّوْحِيد لَا يتم إِلَّا بمقالة الْأَشْعَرِيّ فَهَذَا يدل على أَنكُمْ فهمتم أَن الْأَشْعَرِيّ قَالَ فِي التَّوْحِيد قولا خرج بِهِ عَن أهل الْحق فَإِن كَانَ قد نسب هَذَا الْمَعْنى عدكم إِلَى الْأَشْعَرِيّ فقد أبطل من قَالَ ذَلِك عَلَيْهِ لقد مَاتَ الْأَشْعَرِيّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ يَوْم مَاتَ وَأهل السّنة باكون عَلَيْهِ وَأهل الْبدع مستريحون مِنْهُ فَمَا عرفه من وَصفه بِغَيْر هَذَا
- end of quote (from Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari p. 122 - 123) -

Thereafter Imam Ibn Abi Zayd's defense is also mentioned!


So here we gave the example of four of the leading early Maliki scholars - two from 'Iraq and two from the Maghrib - in support of the Ash'ari way in defending the Sunna! And it is easy to give more examples, but this should suffice for the one interested in the truth.

[Abu Sulayman]

"There were, of course, a handful of Ash'aris in Baghdad, the most famous one being Abu Bakr al-Baqillani (d.403). Al-Baqillani had studied Ash'ari thought with Ibn Mujaahid, who was one of the few disciples of al-Ash'ari himself. There were others as well, but by all accounts the school remained small. And while traditionalist Hanbalis had a number of mosque-schools, the Ash'aris did not have a public post in any mosque."

https://archive.org/details/YasirQad...de/2up?q=FItna

Al-Qadhi 'Iyadh (d. 544 AH) mentioned that the majority of the Malikiyya in 'Iraq were the companions of Imam Abu Bakr al-Abhari (d. 375 AH) and the first biography that he mentions then is that of al-Qadhi Abu Bakr al-Baqillani (d. 403 AH).

Since the biography is very long I'll just quote the beginning:

أبو بكر بن محمد بن الطيب بن محمد القاضي]

المعروف بابن الباقلاني. الملقب بشيخ السنة، ولسان الأمة، المتكلم على مذهب المثبتة، وأهل الحديث، وطريقة أبي الحسن الأشعري خرّج له ابن أبي الفوارس. قال الخطيب أبو بكر في تاريخ البغداديين: درس على أبي بكر ابن مجاهد الأصول، وعلى أبي بكر الأبهري الفقه.
قال أبو بكر: وكان ثقة. حدثنا عنه السمناني، قال: وكان أبو الحسن بن جهضم الهمداني، وذكره في كتابه، فقال: كان شيخ وقته، وعالم عصره، الرجوع إليه فيما أشكل على غيره. قال غيره: وإليه انتهت رئاسة المالكيين في وقته. وكان حسن الفقه، عظيم الجدل، وكانت له بجامع المنصور ببغداد حلقة عظيمة. وكان ينزل الكرخ. ذكر أبو عبد الله بن سعدون الفقيه، أن سائر الفرق رضيت بالقاضي أبي بكر في الحكم بين المتناظرين. قال ابن عمار الميورقي: كان ابن الطيب مالكياً، فاضلاً متورعاً، ممن لم تحفظ له قط زلة. ولا نسبت إليه نقيصة. وكان يلقب بشيخ السنة. ولسان الأمة، وكان فارس هذا العلم مباركاً على هذه الأمة. قال: وكان حصناً من حصون المسلمين، وما سرّ أهل البدع بشيء كسرورهم بموته. وليَ القضاء بالثغر.وذكره أبو عمران الفاسي فقال: سيف أهل السنة في زمانه، وإمام متكلمي أهل الحق في وقتنا.
قال القاضي أبو الوليد: كان أبو بكر مالكياً، وحدث عن أبي ذر الهروي.قال: كان سبب أخذي عن القاضي أبي بكر، ومعرفتي بقدره، أني كنت مرة ماشياً ببغداد، مع أبي الحسن الدارقطني، إذ لقيت شاباً فأقبل الشيخ أبو الحسن عليه، وعظمه، ودعا له. فقلت للشيخ: من هذا الذي تصنع به هذا؟ فقال لي: هذا أبو بكر ابن الطيب، نصر السنّة، وقمع المعتزلة. وأثنى علي. قال أبو ذر: فاختلفت إليه، وأخذت عنه من يومئذ. وأخذ عنه جماعة لا تعد، ودرسوا عليه أصول الفقه والدين. وخرج منهم من الأئمة أبو محمد عبد الوهاب بن نصر المالكي، وعلي بن محمد الحربي، وأبو جعفر السماني، وأبو عبد الله الأدري وأبو الطاهر الواعظ، رحمهم الله. ومن أهل المغرب: أبو عمر بن سعد، وأبو عمران الفاسي. رحل إليه، وأخذ عنه. قال أبو عمران: رحلت الى بغداد وكنت قد تفقهت بالمغرب، والأندلس عند أبي الحسن القابسي، وأبي محمد الأصيلي، وكانا عالمين بالأصول. فلما حضرت مجلس القاضي أبي بكر ورأيت كلامه في الأصول والفقه، والمؤالف والمخالف، حقرت نفسي وقلت: لا أعلم من العلم شيئاً. ورجعت عنده كالمبتدئ. وتفقه عنده القاضي أبو محمد بن نصر، وعلق عنه، وحكى في كتبه ما شاهد من مناظرته في الفقه بين يدي ولي العهد ببغداد، للمتخالفين. قال أبو بكر الخطيب: كان أعرف الناس بعلم الكلام، وأحسنهم فيه خاطراً، وأجودهم لساناً، وأوضهم بياناً، وأصحهم عبارة. وحكى أن أبا بكر الخوارزمي كان يقول: كل مصنف ببغداد إنما ينقل من كتب الناس، إلا القاضي أبا بكر فإن صدره يحوي علمه، وعلم الناس. وقال علي بن محمد الحربي: كان القاضي أبو بكر يهم بأن يختصر ما يصنعه، فلا يقدر لسعة علمه وحفظه. وما صنف أحد كلاماً إلا احتاج أن يطالع كتب المخالفين، غير أبي بكر فإن جميع ما يذكر من حفظه. وكان أبو محمد الشافعي يقول: لو أوصى رجل بثلث ماله لأفصح الناس، لوجب أن يدفع الى أبي بكر الأشعري. وكان بعضهم يقول: جاء في الأثر أن الله تعالى، كان يتعاهد عباده بأنبيائه ورسله، فلما ختم الرسالة بمحمد صلى الله عليه وسلم، تعاهد أمته في رأس كل مائة عام برباني من علمائها، يحيي لها دينها، ويجدد شريعتها، فكان إمام رأس أربعماية: أبو بكر بن الطيب رحمه الله تعالى
- end of quote (from Tartib al-Madarik 7/44 - 48) -


So this man had this great status in the eyes of the scholars of his time and after him and was a chief Qadhi, and you expect us to believe Yasir Qadhi?!

It's explicitly stated that he used to have a huge circle [of teaching] in Jami' al-Mansur in Baghdad and also that the group who studied under him can not be counted (because they were so many!) and that even leading scholars (A`imma) studied under him!!! Do you want me to name those whom he mentions?

This is just one example - out of many! - how Yasir Qadhi gives one wrong informations! Wallahul musta'an.

[aMuslimForLife]

To each his own. The more I research about the history and development of the Ash'ari school the less I'm convinced of its authenticity. I am simply not convinced that this Aqeedah is consistent with the true creed of the Salaf or what Allah originally intended. What attracts me to Ibn Taymiyyah's methodology is how natural and straightforward his approach was. When Allah mentions x, y or z about Himself in the Quran, then the default for the Mu'min should be to affirm and believe in what Allah has revealed. When Allah said He Rose Over the Throne after the 6th day, then that means Allah Rose Over the Throne after the 6th day. When Allah said He created Adam with His Two Hands in Jannah, then that means Allah created Adam with His Two Hands in Jannah. If Allah didn't actually Rise Over the Throne specifically after the 6th day and doesn't have Divine Attributes called Hands (Yaday), then He shouldn't have described Himself in a manner that would naturally give the wrong impression.

Belief in the Dhahir theology of the Quran and Sunnah has always been the view of the majority of Muslims in the Ummah of Muhammad(saws). The laymen who haven't yet been exposed to the Shubuhat of the Mutakalimoon are naturally upon the Fitrah of accepting the religion at face-value. This was even acknowledged by some of the classical Ash'aris in their attempt to ridicule believing in the apparrent meanings of the Quran and Sunnah. We can also witness in our times the popularity of "Salafiyyah" and the Aqeedah of Ibn Taymiyyah(ra) amongst young Muslims who begin to take their religion more seriously.

It's interesting how you grouped the Ash'aris, Maturidis and 'traditional Hanbalis' as if they are one united theology againsts the Salafis. Not only were the classical Hanaabila arch-rivals of the Ash'aris throughout Islamic history, but those who you deem to be "traditional Hanbalis" didn't always see eye-to-eye with one another in their approach to creed. The Athari methodology of Shaykh al-Islam is nearer to the beliefs of the Hanaabila then the Ash'aris and Maturidis.

Perhaps the strongest 'proof' for Ash'arism being true are the list of classical scholars like Imam Nawawi and Ibn Hajr that are often referenced by the common Muslims to legitamize their beliefs. How can we go against scholars of such high calibre who have been received so well by the entire Ummah? Also, if the Ash'ari school is essentially upon deviation and misguidance, then why did Allah allow it to become so popular and widespread? These are good questions. However, I personally don't find them compelling enough for me to make that leap in faith. The spread of Ash'arism could be explained by the influence of the Nizamiyya colleges orchastrated by the zealous politican Nizam al-Mulk during a period of history when metaphysics and Greek philosophy were at the intellectual forefront. There is nothing in Islam which obligies us to defend the Ash'ari and Maturidi traditions. The religion doesn't automatically become false or redundant if we are to claim that the classical Ash'ari scholars were sincerely mistaken in certain areas of creed.

Regarding the modern followers of Ibn Taymiyyah they are irrelevant when it comes to determining the truthfulness of his teachings. Beliefs have to be judged objectively without being influenced by the politics surronding its implications. If what someone is claiming is logically sound and consistent then it should be respected regardless if it conflicts with our preconceived narratives. We can also criticize the shortcomings of the Sufis and Ash'ari-inclined Muslims in modern times but that won't render the Madhhab false.

The creed of Ibn Taymiyyah is NOT the creed of the Salaf. I rejected the creed of Ibn Taymiyyah because it is unnatural, it is forced. IT IS VERY FORCED.

The definition of a word is specific.
The meaning of a word is general.

The definition of hand in relationship to a human is a limb comprised of blood, bones and fleshed, used for writing, eating, etc. THIS IS SPECIFIC to a human.

The meaning of hand, is limb. Limb is general. It can be applied to a wood statue, a human, a jinn, an angel and if you are an anthropomorphist, god.

A wood statue has a wooden limb. A human has a limb made of flesh. A jinn has a limb made of fire. An angel has a limb made of light. In the view of the anthropomorphist, god has an uncreated limb. These are definitions of hand in relationship to those particular entities.

Hand can have an even more general meaning, part. The parts of a body. A hand is a part of the body. The hands of a clock are the parts of the clock used to tell time.

Any meaning outside these two general meanings, are philosophical. They aren’t so obvious.

The meaning of hand that Salafis affirm for Allah is a philosophical meaning, not a linguistic one. Salafis believe Allah has a real hand, that is not a limb. That is like saying, Allah has real mercy that isn’t kindness. Or like Christians who affirm that God is not a man (it says this clearly in the bible), yet believe God incarnated as Jesus. Or like Christians who affirm that God is One, yet Three. That’s all philosophical.

It doesn’t make sense in reality. Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah negates the literal meaning of hand, limb and body part for Allah. What linguistic meaning are you affirming for Allah after that? None, it is a philosophical meaning, because it takes reflection and convincing. IT IS FORCED, it is not natural. I personally rejected it, because I didn’t find the Salaf saying Allah had a real hand, there is nothing in the Shariah that says I have to believe Allah has a real hand (yad haqiqatan). Allah having a real hand, literal hand, is nothing more than Ibn Taymiyyah philosophizing trying to legitimize the anthropomorphic creed of the Hanbali which has its roots in fabricated hadiths.

There is nothing in the Shariah that say, I am obligated to believe Allah has a real (literal) hand. NOTHING. There isn’t a single authentic report of the Salaf, saying Allah has a real (literal) hand (yad haqiqatan). NOT a single report.

How can Ibn Taymiyyah’s creed be the creed of the Salaf???

How???