A "Jahmi" and a "Taymiyyan" are sitting on a Bench

[Muhammad Hasan]

Note: Below is a polemical discussion regarding certain beliefs, there are better things the productive believer can do with their time over reading such things. The discussion is aimed at people who agree with the views of either Ibn Taymiyyah or the views of the Ash'ari/Maturidi/Athari and/or are into such polemics - all other people should avoid this.

After watching a video of Shaykh Dedew explain something, I came across this article.

It is written by a supposed follower of Ibn Taymiyyah and the Salafi Movement, and it is written regarding Ithbat of Uluww.

Before I begin, I will just confirm that my position on Uluww currently is that it is a Sifat of Allah, and some of the scholars like al-Bayhaqi and Imam al-Maturidi provided ways we can understand it (i.e. as transcendence and negation of place), but that the best method is that of the Athari to say that its meaning is known to Allah and we can believe in it without needing to know what it entails. I say Allah is Fis Sama, and and that he Istawa ala al-Arsh, as he has said and do not comprehend how or understand them. I leave the interpetation to Allah. As for Allah, this poem sums up the gist of my beliefs regarding him as far as comparisons to the creation go. (I should have used Yad instead of hand in hindsight).

Someone shouldn't assume I am refuting the above article or agreeing with it until they have read what I've wrote. The above paragraph was my position before watching Shaykh Dedew's video and reading the bigot's article.

The article above is written by a bigot who has little learning in what the "Jahmi" Ash'ari he is referring to teach. I will go through the article, and comment on his views, and then conclude my own views and whether his or Shaykh Dedew's ideas have changed my view.

[Muhammad Hasan]

First before I begin, I invite some of the followers and rejectors of Ibn Taymiyyah's creed to comment on what they think regarding the article quoted above from www.AboveTheThrone.com (I understand it is part of the same series of websites as Asharis.com etc.)

Here is the link again.

Make sure you read through all of it in its entirety.

AmantuBillahi
TazkiyyatunNafs
Abu Sulayman
aMuslimForLife

[Muhammad Hasan]

Ok, so let us begin the Analysis.

Before proceeding to the statement of at-Tahawi it is important to provide a little background. The Mutakallimoon (Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah, Kullaabiyyah, Ash'ariyyah, Maturidiyyah) all share in a rational, intellectual proof they devised to demonstrate the universe is created. This is called "Hudooth ul-Ajsaam" or "hudooth ul-a'raad fil-ajsaam".

I should mention I removed the highlighting, links, and boldening originally present in the article, and have emboldened parts that I wish to draw attention to.

The writer begins by naming the Mutakallimun as the 5 groups, the Jahmiyyah (heretics), the Mu'tazila (heretics), Kullabiyyah (Early Sunni group including the likes of Imam al-Bukhari), Ash'ariyyah (Sunni group), Maturidiyyah (Sunni group).

He has not mentioned other groups like the Hazmiyyah or the Karramiyyah. In particular the Karramiyyah would use Kalam in an attempt to defend anthropomorphic doctrine.

I will say that I am deeply displeased with this first paragraph of the writer, as he falsely ascribes positions to the Ash'ari and Maturidi - which show that these Taymiyyans are quite uneducated about what we believe and are taught lies such that they associate us with the Jahmiyyah heretics.

The writer in this first section of that paragraph makes the claim that they all share in an intelectual proof that the universe is created.

That is wrong.

Speaking regarding the Mu'tazilah, they had an array of different and contradictory proofs based off of different understandings, and this was the same I understand for the Jahmiyyah. The Kullabiyyah I do not know regarding. The Ash'ari and Maturidi do not use the same proofs as the Mu'tazilah due to disagreeing over some of the concepts they adopt. The Jahmiyyah of all of these may actually meet his next claim though.

He then talks about the proof which is called Hudooth ul-Ajsam (contingency of the bodies). First of all I should say that in most texts that are taught of the Ash'ari or even Maturidi - such a proof is not relied upon.

In fact the first text I learnt rational proof from was Aqidah as-Sanusiyyah, which does not use Huduth al-Ajsam. When I first came across discussions debating Jism by Allah's will I quickly concluded it is impossible for Allah - and this has nothing to do with the proof I use for proving Allah exists.

Most of the proofs of the later Ash'ari simply use the contingency argument or the first (only) cause argument. Both arguments have basis in the Qur'an and Sunnah - and RasulAllah Alayhis Salam used an argument similar to the first cause argument to deny secondary causation. I cannot speak for the Maturidi for I am not so famaliar with their proofs aside from what Imam al-Maturidi himself used.

Other proofs used by the Ash'ari are Atomist proofs which are similar to Hudooth al-Ajsam, but again such proofs are not necessary.

The basic underlying language, classification and terminology for this proof is Aristotles "Ten Categories", known to the Arabs in that time as "al-Maqoolaat al-Ashar", or "al-Jawhar wal-'Arad".

Sometimes I wonder if the people who write these things have ever actually sat with an Ash'ari and bothered learning what they teach.

No, we couldn't give half a toss about Aristotles ten, eleven or whatever categories and your definitions of them. Aristotle was a Kafir. Imam al-Biruni proved this.

If we use similar terminology to him, we reject whatever he intended and go with our own definitions. By the way, the Athari creed of Imam al-Balbani negates Jawhar for Allah.

I will at this point show the picture the writer is using:

---

---

The main thing I disagree with here is that he says a Jawhar is what "something is" - that isn't what it is. I couldn't care less what the Kafir and irrational Aristotle says a Jawhar is - I say that a Jawhar is a substance existing of itself by hypostasis i.e. a philosophical atom (the fundamental thing that composes all creation). A Jawhar may occupy space and be in one place as opposed to another, may be substituted and the place it occupies may be occupied by another Jawhar or lack of a Jawhar.

In other words, a Jawhar is a particle of sorts that underlies existance. People familiar with the concepts of atoms and strings from physics will be familiar with the idea that these things were once thought (or are now thought) to underlie all contingently (contingent = Hawadith means something that could logically be any other way and so is determined as it is a certain way) existant things - i.e. people thought they were the Jawhar (fundamental particle that makes up everything around us physically).

As for his other definitions, I will just use the English terms the writer is using in any following discussion.

The idea behind the writer saying that the Ash'aris and Maturidis say that a Jawhar is "something that is" is that he intends to make it seem that the Ash'ari and Maturidi are negating Allah and saying "Allah is nothing". This is a false accusation and is tantamount to Takfir.

In fact Imam al-Maturidi said (and it is the saying of the Ash'aris) that Allah is a thing unlike things. I.e. Allah is something unlike everything else and that he necessarily exists.

In other words, the writer shows ignorance regarding Ash'ari and Maturidi doctrine, and thinks the Ash'ari and Maturidi negate Allah, when the truth is the opposite. We will see what his ignorance culminates in at the end.

It argues by the presence of qualities (sifaat), incidental attributes (a'raad) and events, occurrences (hawaadith) in the bodies (ajsaam) that make up the universe that these bodies are themselves events (hawaadith), and subsequently events cannot go on for infinity in the past, thus there must be a creator. This proof was pioneered by the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah, in particular, Jahm Bin Safwaan (ex. 128H), and refined and formalized by Abu al-Hudhayl al-Allaaf (d. 235H) - (see this article). The Mu'tazilah incorporated some other notions into it (namely "Atomism") to make it easier to argue the case and iron out some criticisms. The Ash'ariyyah took this from the Mu'tazilah and it is found in all their early foundational books such as those of al-Baqillani (d. 403H), Abu Mansur al-Baghdadi (d. 429H) and al-Juwaynee (d. 478H) - see the proof here.

By the way, does anyone know how the word Sifat (attribute) comes to be used for Allah? Just something to think about - why a word never used by the Sahabah is used by everyone today...

Nevertheless, the writer argues that the Ash'ari took from the Mu'tazilah and Jahmiyyah.

Hmm...

What happened to the other two groups of the Mutakallimun mentioned above? The Maturidi and Kullabiyyah are not mentioned here - and that is despite the author claiming they use Huduth ul-Ajsam. Want to know why?

Imam al-Maturidi was taught by Imam Abu Bakr al-Juzjani, founder of the Dar-al-Juzjaniyyah seminary. He in turn was taught by al-Muhaddith Imam Abu Sulayman al-Juzjani, who was in turn taught by Shaykh Muhammad ash-Shaybani who was taught by Imam al-Azam Abu Hanifah. Imam al-Maturidi also had other teachers like Imam Nusayr Ibn Yahya. Nusayr Ibn Yahya is also reported to have taught another famous early theologian and ascetic - Imam al-Hakim al-Tirmidhi who is particularly revered by ahl at-Tasawwuf.

All of his teachers were Hanafis, and they all had their chains going back to Abu Hanifah. The serious student of Hanafi fiqh, who knows anything about Abu Hanifa's fiqh positions, know that Abu Hanifa certainly believed many doctrines that these Taymiyyans would feel troubling - because some of his fiqh positions indicate that.

Abu Hanifah wrote two particular works which only contain his creedal/kalami opinions, Fiqh al-Akbar and al-Alim wa-l Muta'alim. Of these, Fiqh al-Akbar survives in three transmissions today. Those ignorant of early islamic history generally reject the works as they contain a Murji in the chain, not realising that the same scholars accusing those narrators of Irja also accused Abu Hanifah of the same (this is due to his particular understanding of Iman vs Taqwa). In fact the accusation of Irja proves these individuals were upon the same doctrine of Abu Hanafi who himself was accused.

So if Imam al-Maturidi also rationally proved the existance of Allah - why aren't we told of him?

Because unlike Imam al-Ash'ari, Imam al-Maturidi was never a Mu'tazili. He transmitted the Ilm ul-Kalam carried out by early Sunnis, such as Abu Hanifah. It is not convenient to talk about someone who does not fit your narrative, so Taymiyyans hardly ever mention Imam al-Maturidi. It is clear he held pretty much exactly the same beliefs as At-Tahawi, except At-Tahawi did not engage in Kalam to my knowledge.

As for the Kullabites - they took their Kalam from Imam al-Shafi'i who also wrote a work called Fiqh al-Akbar, which there is a manuscript of in the Zahiriyyah library to my recollection. Some of the Taymiyyans do admit that Imam al-Shafi'i engaged in Kalam, e.g. this is stated in an article written by a Taymiyyan cited by AmantuBillahi.

The usool of the Ash'ariyyah and Mu'tazilah are the same.

Again this is not true, they have fundamental differences in how they approached things - and also the way they defined reason. They had significant differences in the concepts they used and the Mu'tazilah above all negated attributes as they argued this impedes Tawhid. The Mu'tazilah did affirm things such as power etc. but they said this is the same thing as the essence of Allah.

E.g.

Mu'tazili says, "Allah is power"

Ash'ari says, "Allah has power" (However his power is not seperate from him either - being neither the same nor seperate from his essence - the definition of an attribute - Sifat).

The Ash'ari got their view on this from the Kullabiyyah, along with the general tradition of defending the Hadith using Kalam, whilst not abusing reason.

Finally the Ash'ari did not go beyond reason and did not make baseless assumptions e.g. assuming Allah must be Jism to be seen - arguing that what is required for sight is incidental due to Allah causing it that way, and he can cause you to see without such incidents. Thus they affirmed the seeing of Allah, Bi La Kayf.

[TheHaqq]

I think both sides use strawmans against eachother when it comes to refutations, the fight is mostly over semantics.

[TazkiyyatunNafs]

First before I begin, I invite some of the followers and rejectors of Ibn Taymiyyah's creed to comment on what they think regarding the article quoted above from www.AboveTheThrone.com (I understand it is part of the same series of websites as Asharis.com etc.)

Here is the link again.

Make sure you read through all of it in its entirety.

AmantuBillahi
TazkiyyatunNafs
Abu Sulayman
aMuslimForLife

السلام عليكم ورØمة الله وبركاته
I haven't read the article, but didn't want to give you the feeling I left you hanging. inshaaAllaah I have no intention to participate on this forum anymore. And I want to take this opportunity to apologise to you. Please forgive me if I've been unnecessary harsh to you. بارك الله �يك

[TazkiyyatunNafs]

AmantuBillahi السلام عليكم ورØمة الله وبركاته
Before I go I hope it's ok if I quickly ask you something inshaaAllaah. It seems we're kind of in the same situation regarding rejecting the Najdi da3wah but still being 'Salafi' inclined in some other matters, and I was wanting to know which scholar or student you would go to if you'd have a question regarding your personal situation. It has to be someone who is not a supporter of the Najdi da3wah as they won't understand and not give me the advice I'm seeking. Please forgive me if I'm asking too much, I wouldn't ask you if I felt I didn't need to. جزاكم الله خيرا

[Muhammad Hasan]

السلام عليكم ورØمة الله وبركاته
I haven't read the article, but didn't want to give you the feeling I left you hanging. inshaaAllaah I have no intention to participate on this forum anymore. And I want to take this opportunity to apologise to you. Please forgive me if I've been unnecessary harsh to you. بارك الله �يك

May Allah help us imitate your Adab online sister.

[TazkiyyatunNafs]

May Allah help us imitate your Adab online sister.

Really not, may He give you much better than that. I feel remorseful for most of my comments on here and it has been a clear reminder for me to keep quite and just learn. I've made a complete fool out of myself for defending the indefensible and while doing that I've been harsher than I would've liked. I'm sorry for that.

[AmantuBillahi]

AmantuBillahi السلام عليكم ورØمة الله وبركاته
Before I go I hope it's ok if I quickly ask you something inshaaAllaah. It seems we're kind of in the same situation regarding rejecting the Najdi da3wah but still being 'Salafi' inclined in some other matters, and I was wanting to know which scholar or student you would go to if you'd have a question regarding your personal situation. It has to be someone who is not a supporter of the Najdi da3wah as they won't understand and not give me the advice I'm seeking. Please forgive me if I'm asking too much, I wouldn't ask you if I felt I didn't need to. جزاكم الله خيرا

Wa Alaykum Salam wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatu

I guess our situations in real life might be radically different, seeing how I'm still living in the West and don't really need advice from scholars regarding my "personal situation" (if I'm understanding you correctly).

With regards to Fiqhi questions you could ask anyone who is knowledgeable that you trust. I would prefer adopting a specific Madhhab (Shafi'i would make sense if you're living in Egypt) and restrict yourself to those Fataawa. The Salafis should be avoided in matters pertaining to "Tawhid" (i.e. Najdi Tawhid) and their sectarian application of Manhaj.

[TazkiyyatunNafs]

Wa Alaykum Salam wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatu

I guess our situations in real life might be radically different, seeing how I'm still living in the West and don't really need advice from scholars regarding my "personal situation" (if I'm understanding you correctly).

Allahul Musta3aan.

[AmantuBillahi]

Wa Alaykum Salam wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatu

I guess our situations in real life might be radically different, seeing how I'm still living in the West and don't really need advice from scholars regarding my "personal situation" (if I'm understanding you correctly).

With regards to Fiqhi questions you could ask anyone who is knowledgeable that you trust. I would prefer adopting a specific Madhhab (Shafi'i would make sense if you're living in Egypt) and restrict yourself to those Fataawa. The Salafis should be avoided in matters pertaining to "Tawhid" (i.e. Najdi Tawhid) and their sectarian application of Manhaj.

I don't mean to derail the thread and this will be my last post here unless there's a need.

Bro Hajji's playlist with over 10 hours worth of videos dismantling the faulty methodology of the Salafis concerning Tabdee and Khuruj:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...CmnMRyadd-Jfor

Yasir Qadhi on disproving the attribution of Sharh as-Sunnah to Imam al-Barbahari: