Ibanah of Imam Abul Hasan al-Ashari

[maturidi sufi]

Can someone please refute this post:
[Edited by MOD: Sorry no links to anti-traditional Islamic sites]



Bismillahi al-Rahmani al-Rahim,

To "maturidi" and others who rely on G.F. Haddad and his unreliability in issues like these,

I will mention part of what I've prepared so far in refutation of the allegation that al-Ibanah 'an Usul al-Diyanah, of the Imam Abu'l-Hasan al-Ash'ari, has been tampered with - on the issue of Eyes (multiple) & [Two] Eyes (dual), Insha'Allah.

Amma ba'd:[/u]

[u]FIRST,

I have in front of me two works of Imam Abu'l-Hasan al-Ash'ari:

- al-Maqalat al-Islamiyyin

- al-Ibanah 'an Usul al-Diyanah

In al-Maqalat, which is authentically ascribed to the Imam and no one has - as far as we know - found difficulty in the phrase which mentions,

"And He has Two Eyes, without how (wa-lahu 'aynayn bila kayfa)",

the ascription of the Attributes of Two Eyes is a fact.

So no one may claim: 'It is a forgery!' On what basis? Has the man found new manuscripts which states otherwise? Has he found earlier quotes, such as of copyist of the Maqalat-passage? - May Allah give to the liars what they deserve!

[Source: al-Ash'ari, Maqalat al-Islamiyyin, ed. Ritter, Istanbul, p. 290]


SECOND,

The Ibanah-editions in front of me are 4 in number:

- Kitab al-Ibanah 'an Usul al-Diyanah, Hayderabad edition from 1321/1904 - in Sab' Rasa'il.

- Kitab al-Ibanah 'an Usul al-Diyanah, Cairo edition from 1348/1929.

- al-Ibanah 'an Usul al-Diyanah, Cairo edition of Miss Fawqiyyah H. Mahmud, published in 1397/1977.

- al-Ibanah 'an Usul al-Diyanah, Cairo print from 1413/1992.

We shall refer to these volumes with: "1904", "1929", "1977" and "1992".

The First Relevant Passage - in Bab fi Ibanat Qawl Ahl al-Zaygh wa'l-Bid'ah.

In 1904 it is said:

"They deny that Allah has Two Eyes, while His Saying, Subhanahu is { Under our Eyes it floated} and.."

The same passage in 1929 says:

"They deny that Allah has an Eye, while His Saying.."

The same passage in 1977, i.e. Fawqiyyah Husayn Mahmud's edition:

"They deny that Allah has Two Eyes.."

Lastly, in 1992 is stated, exactly as Fawqiyyah!:

"They deny that Allah has Two Eyes.."

So far, all agree that there must be 'Two Eyes' in the passage, except one which state 'an Eye'.

The Second Relevant Passage - in Bab fi Ibanat Qawl Ahl al-Haqq wa'l-Sunnah.

1904:

"And He has Two Eyes.."

1929:

"And He has an Eye.."

1977, Fawqiyyah:

"And He has Two Eyes.."

1992:

"And He has an Eye.."

The Third Relevant Passage - in the title of a chapter which says:

In 1904:

"Saying about the Face, the Two Eyes, the Seeing and the Two Hands"

And in 1929: (I've forgotten to note this one in my photo-copies/notes)

I believe exactly as the three others - but I will not state this positively for I'm not like the type you quote from! - as for the 1948 Hayderabad edition, which is as far as I see it a reprint of the 1904 edition - and therefor I haven't included it here - it states, "al-kalam fi'l-wajh wa'l-'aynayn wa'l-basar wa'l-yadayn", i.e. the same, thus affirming Two Eyes.

In 1977, Fawqiyyah:

"Saying about the Face, the Two Eyes, the Seeing and the Two Hands"

In 1992:

"Saying about the Face, the Two Eyes, the Seeing and the Two Hands"

So woe to the people of Innovation! Those who deny for Allah the Attributes of Two Eyes, while they contradict themselves, the Muslims, their Imams they claim to follow, not to speak about the other A'imma.. Subhan Allah al-'Azim!

See how he contradicted himself, in his saying:

Quote:
Imam al-Ash`ari (d. 324) said in the authentic version of his Ibana published by Dar al-ansar and edited by Fawqiyya Husayn Mahmud


Is then Two Eyes acceptable or not?! For Fawqiyyah stated it positively in:

THREE passages!

And he acknowledged one himself in his saying,

Quote:
The passage: "[Our position is] that He has two eyes (`aynayn) without saying how; just as He stated: {That ran under Our eyes (a`yuninâ)} (54:14)."16 Ibn `Asakir's citation of the same passage in the Tabyin states: "[Our position is] that He has an eye (`aynan) without saying how."17


Quote:
16Al-Ash`ari, al-Ibana (Mahmud ed. 2:22=Sabbagh ed. p. 36), cf. Maqalat al-Islamiyyin (`Abd al-Hamid ed. 1:345=Ritter ed. p. 290).
17Ibn `Asakir, Tabyin (p. 159= al-Kawthari ed. p. 158).


And plus! He gives us the information - which i don't trust untill I see it with my own (two!) eyes - that the same phrase is edited as such by the 1994 edition of Sabbagh - which I could not use, unfortunately.

So tell me, O ignorant one who does not look with his own eyes what is stated in the books of the Imams - but relies in stead on one who aint reliable as he himselfs indicates.

Thus he says,

Quote:
The "Salafis" said:
Abul Hasan al-`Ash'ari said: "And he has two eyes without any mention of how." (Imam al-`Ash'ari, Al Ibanaah 'an Usul ad-Diyanah, Page. 9 and Maqalat, Page 290)
The above is definitely not al-Ash`ari's original text. Ibn `Asakir's citation of the same passage in Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari (p. 158-159) states: "[Our position is] that He has an eye (`aynan) without saying how." A recent edition of the Ibana by Bashshar `Uyun (p. 44) consequently amended its own tradition to follow the text cited by Ibn `Asakir since the evidence of the Qur'an and the Sunna mentions {My Eye (`ayni)} (20:39) in the singular and {Our Eyes} (52:48, 54:14) in the plural but never two eyes in the dual.


Then did he notice the reader the other passages with state that al-Ash'ari affirms Two Eyes - I mean in the same book but in other places?!

Besides, what the Hafidh Ibn 'Asakir mentioned on the authority of al-Ibanah of al-Ash'ari is not an Eye, in the singular form, for sure - since, the Hafidh al-Dhahabi quotes (from the khatt of his own son? - I think I read it in al-'Uluww, but I've not the book right now with me to state so) from the Tabyin this:

"Qala al-Hafidh al-Hujjah Abu'l-Qasim Ibn 'Asakir fi Kitab al-Tabyin.. wa-anna lahu 'aynayn bila kayfa" !!!

Further, the man said:

Quote:
Further down in all versions of the Ibana the text states: "Allah Almighty and Exalted has said that He possesses a face and an eye which is neither given modality nor defined."20


Quote:
20Al-Ash`ari, al-Ibana (Mahmud ed. 2:121 [lahu wajhan wa `aynan wa lâ tukayyafu wa lâ tuhadd]=Sabbagh ed. p. 97 [lahu wajhan wa `aynan lâ bi kayf wa lâ hudûd]= `Uyun ed. p. 104 [lahu wajhan wa `aynan lâ yukayyafu wa lâ yuhadd]).


See what he has done here! He refers to p. 121 of Fawqiyyah's edition with states what he says, but he DELIBERATELY hides the chapter heading which, we quoted above - and says:

al-Kalam fi al-Wajh wa'l-'Aynayn wa'l-Basar wa'l-Yadayn

So woe to the one who misinforms the true words of a Muslim - the lying one who has no shame.

Could he not state that those three above - incl. his own Fawqiyyah edition (see above what he said about it) - state Two Eyes - all of them (and maybe the 1929 edition too but I have to check on that, Insha Allah)!

So do not doubt - my brothers - that falsehood will vanish, and truth will see the light.

And the passages which state that He, Subhanahu wa-ta'ala, has an Eye - By Allah! I believe that Allah has an Eye unlike eyes, and that {Nothing is like him}!

So do not doubt brothers - to state positively that He has an Eye is correct, and Imam al-Ash'ari stated that so, and that is true. And Imam al-Ash'ari stated that He has Eyes, and that is true. And Imam al-Ash'ari stated that He has Two Eyes - in more then one place, and in more then one book - and that is true - May Allah let the truth shine forever, and destroy doubts and lies!

Amin. Ya Rabb al-'Alamin.

Wa-Salamu 'Alaikum.
_________________
"Be a Shafi'ite, but not an Ash'arite; be a Hanafite, but not a Mu'tazilite, be a Hanbalite, but not an anthropomorphist"

(Source: Ibn al-Jawziy, al-Muntazam, X, p. 106 - see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/radd_ashariyyah)



That was in reply to our Sheikh Dr. GF Haddad's post.

[Ibn_Abi_Yala]

I'm not a Salafi, I'm a Muslim of the Ahl al-Sunnah wa'l-Jama'ah.

[Ibn_Abi_Yala]

I'm a follower of Imam Ahmad in 'Aqidah. As for Imam al-Ash'ari, rahimahullah, he's one of my beloved Imams who struggled against the people of innovation - such as the Jahmiyyah. I'm an Ash'ari as much al-Ash'ari a Hanbali is.

[Ibn_Abi_Yala]

No, I dont believe that Allah has two eyes whatever they may mean.

RATHER: I believe that Allah has Two Eyes, Attributes of Him, which mean what Allah intented by it.

This is not particular to His Eyes, but to all His Attributes. As the Imam of the Ahl al-Sunnah said, Imam Abu'l-Hasan al-Ash'ari:

"And He has Two Eyes, bila kayfa (without how), as He has said {Under Our Eyes it floated}" (Ibanah)

and he said this because,

"We accept all the traditions for which the people of Hadith give credit: the Descent to the lower heaven, the Lord's saying [Is there any who has a request Is there any who asks forgiveness?] and the other things they relate and confirm.." (Ibanah)

So,

"We praise Him as He praises Himself, and as He merits and deserves!"

al-Hamdulillah al-Rabb al-'Alamin.

[Mossy]

He did not say he has two eyes.

He did not write any of his texts in English.

Once you translate it like that you are assigning meaning.

You are restricting it to the English understanding of "eyes" - it is no longer bila kafyah.

Stick with arabic and leave it alone.

Be very, very careful.

[Ibn_Abi_Yala]

Let me take that with a grain of salt.. :D

[Mossy]

Let me take that with a grain of salt.. :D

No masala? You can have some maslaha instead if you like. It's not in the public interest to discuss attributes in a limiting language when it clearly states nothing is like him. Kinda like "translating" the Qu'ran and passing it off as the same as the original :)

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

kitab al-ibanah: really Imam al-Ashari's final work? one of his works? or a complete forgery? see attachment

[faqir]

www.masud.co.uk

The Corrupt Text of al-Ash`ari’s al-Ibana:

The above lists exclude al-Ash`ari’s al-Ibana `an Usul al-Diyana but Ibn `Asakir explicitly attributes it to him in the first few pages of Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari, an attribution confirmed by al-Bayhaqi, Abu al-`Abbas al-`Iraqi, Abu `Uthman al-Sabuni, and other hadith masters. The book dates from the beginnings of al-Ash`ari’s Sunni career according to a report narrated by Ibn Abi Ya`la in Tabaqat al-Hanabila and adduced by al-Dhahabi in the Siyar. The report is phrased rather oddly since it depicts a fawning Imam Abu al-Hasan al-Ash`ari visiting the Hanbali Abu Muhammad al-Barbahari upon entering Baghdad and enumerating before him his refutations of the Mu`tazila and defense of Ahl al-Sunna in order to win his approval, to which al-Barbahari coolly responds: "We only know what Ahmad ibn Hanbal said." "Whereupon," the report continues, "al-Ash`ari went out and wrote al-Ibana but they [the Hanbalis] did not accept it from him." Al-Dhahabi cites this report at the opening of his biographical notice on al-Barbahari in the Siyar directly following the extremely brief notice on Imam al-Ash`ari. Apart from its obviously Hanbali-biased terms, the report clearly shows that al-Ash`ari composed the Ibana upon first coming to Baghdad or shortly thereafter. Shaykh Wahbi Ghawiji cites a statement explicitly confirming this date from Imam Abu al-Hasan `Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Muqri (Ibn Matar) who died in the year 306: "Imam al-Ash`ari composed it in Baghdad upon entering it."

However, despite the authenticity of al-Ash`ari’s authorship, the text of the Ibana itself has undoubtedly not reached us in its original authentic form but in a corrupted version which comprises interpolations along two main ideological slants:

(1) the anthropomorphist interpretation of the divine Attributes and

(2) the apostatizing of Imam Abu Hanifa for supposedly holding, with the Jahmiyya, that the Qur’an was created.

Shaykh Wahbi Sulayman Ghawiji has shown in his analysis of the work entitled Nazra `Ilmiyya fi Nisba Kitab al-Ibana Jami`ihi ila al-Imam al-Ash`ari ("A Scientific Look at the Attribution of al-Ibana in Its Entirety to Imam al-Ash`ari") that these two stances are contradicted by what is known of al-Ash`ari’s authentic positions in his and his students’ works.


1. The anthropomorphist interpretation of the divine Attributesis illustrated by the following examples:

*

The passage: "[Our position is] that He has two eyes (`aynayn) without saying how; just as He stated: That ran under Our eyes (a`yuninâ) (54:14)." Ibn `Asakir’s citation of the same passage in the Tabyin states: "[Our position is] that He has an eye (`aynan) without saying how." A recent edition of the Ibana consequently amended its own tradition to follow the text cited by Ibn `Asakir since the evidence of the Qur’an and the Sunna mentions My Eye (`aynî) (20:39) in the singular and Our Eyes (52:48, 54:14) in the plural but never two eyes in the dual. Further down in all versions of the Ibana the text states: "Allah Almighty and Exalted has said that He possesses a face and an eye which is neither given modality nor defined."
*

The passage: "When supplicating, the Muslims raise their hands toward the sky, because Allah Almighty and Exalted is established (mustawin) over the Throne which is above the heavens… The Muslims all say: `O Dweller of the Throne’ (yâ sâkin al-`arsh)!" This kind of faulty reasoning can hardly come from al-Ash`ari for the following reasons:
*

The Attributes are divinely ordained (tawqîfiyya) and al-Ash`ari considers it impermissible to make up or derive new terms such as mustawin and sâkin al-`arsh if there is no verse or authentic hadith transmitting them verbatim: "My method in the acceptance of the Names of Allah is Law-based authorization without regard to lexical analogy."
*

The argument of supplication on the basis of location leads to placing Allah Almighty and Exalted inside the Ka`ba according to the same logic, an absurd impossibility.
*

The claim that "the Muslims all say: `O Dweller of the Throne’" is unheard of. Yet Ibn Taymiyya cites it and attempts to justify it with the narration: "Allah created seven heavens then chose the uppermost and dwelt in it," adducing a condemned report to support an invented phrase!
*

Three editions of the Ibana have, "O Dweller of the heaven (yâ sâkin al-`samâ’)" which further casts doubt on the integrity of the text in addition to being equally anthropomorphist.
*

The passage: "If we are asked: `Do you say that Allah has two hands?’ The answer is: We do say that, without saying `how.’ It is indicated by the saying of Allah Almighty and Exalted The Hand of Allah is above their hands (48:10) and His saying that which I have created with both My hands (38:75). It was also narrated from the Prophet – Allah bless and greet him – that he said: `Allah created Adam with His hand then He wiped his back with His hand and brought out of it his offspring.’ So it is established that He has two hands without saying how. And the transmitted report reached us from the Prophet – Allah bless and greet him – that `Allah created Adam with Hand, created the Garden of `Adn with His hand, wrote the Torah with His hand, and planted the tree of Tuba with His hand,’ that is: with the hand of His power (ay biyadi qudratih)." The last clause contradicts the entire reasoning that precedes and follows, and is actually suppressed from the latest edition of the Ibana! The text further states: "They say: `the hands’ (al-ayd) are the strength (al-quwwa), so the meaning of with both My hands has to be `with My power’ (bi qudratî). The answer to them is: That interpretation is wrong." Al-Ash`ari’s actual position on the Attribute of hand according to Ibn `Asakir is: "Al-Ash`ari took the middle road [between the Mu`tazila and the anthropomorphists] and said: His hand is an Attribute and His face is an Attribute, just like His hearing and His sight."
*

The following passage is missing from two of the editions of al-Ibana but is found in two others: "And [we believe] that He established Himself over the Throne in the sense that He said and the meaning that He wills in a way that transcends touch, settlement, fixity, immanence, and displacement. The Throne does not carry him, rather the Throne and its carriers are carried by the subtleness of His power, subdued under His grip. He is above the Throne and the Heavens and above everything to the limits of the earth with an aboveness which does not bring Him nearer to the Throne and the Heavens, just as it does not make Him further from the earth. Rather, He is Highly Exalted above the Throne and the Heavens, just as He is Highly Exalted above the earth. Nevertheless, He is near to every entity and is (nearer to [the worshipper] than his jugular vein) and He witnesses everything."


2. The apostatizing of Imam Abu Hanifa for supposedly holding, with the Jahmiyya, that the Qur’an was created. Imam al-Tahawi stated that Abu Hanifa held the opposite position in his Mu`taqad Abi Hanifa or "Abu Hanifa’s Creed," also known as the `Aqida Tahawiyya. Nor did al-Ash`ari mention Abu Hanifa in the chapter on those who held the Qur’an was created in his Maqalat al-Islamiyyin. Al-Ash`ari lived in Baghdad – the seat of the Caliphate and home of the Hanafi school – at a time the Hanafi school had long been the state creed and would probably have been executed or exiled for making such a charge. Furthermore, al-Bayhaqi stated that "al-Ash`ari used to defend the positions of the past Imams such as Abu Hanifa and Sufyan al-Thawri among the Kufans." The charge of the Ibana is therefore almost certainly a later interpolation, as enmity against the Imam al-A`zam and his school and followers typifies fanatic Hanbalis and their "Salafi" successors.

There are also blatant errors which al-Ash`ari the heresiographer and former Mu`tazili would never commit, such as the attribution to the Mu`tazila as a whole of the belief that Allah Almighty and Exalted is everywhere, when he himself reports in his Maqalat that the vast majority of the Mu`tazila said, like Ahl al-Sunna, that it was the controlling disposal (tadbîr) of Allah Almighty and Exalted that was everywhere. Furthermore, there is apparently no known chain of transmission for the Ibana from the Imam despite its ostensible fame and the abundance of his students, nor do any of his first or second-generation students – such as Ibn Furak – make any mention of it. Finally, Imam al-Qushayri’s Shikaya Ahl al-Sunna bi Hikaya Ma Nalahum Min al-Mihna provides an additional external sign that the tampering of al-Ash`ari’s Ibana took place possibly as early as the fifth century:

They have attributed despicable positions to al-Ash`ari and claimed he had said certain things of which there is not one iota in his books. Nor can such sayings be found reported in any of the books of the scholars of kalâm who either supported him or opposed him, from the earliest times to our own – whether directly quoted or paraphrased. All of that is misrepresentation, forgery, and unmitigated calumny!

In conclusion it is possible to say with a fair degree of certainty that the Ibana attributed to al-Ash`ari today is actually the anonymous, chainless rewriting of an anti-Ash`ari, anti-Hanafi literalist with clear anthropomorphist leanings and a willingness to adduce Israelite reports typical of the works of anthropomorphist doctrine while the unaltered version known to Ibn `Asakir, Abu `Uthman al-Sabuni, and other Ash`aris did not reach us. It is a telling confirmation of this conclusion that the early anthropomorphists used to reject the Ibana while those of later centuries quote it without reservation. And Allah knows best.

[samrqandi]

salaam alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatahu

This thread is good but this topic has been discussed so many times i wonder why people dont have a break :)

Alhamdulillah i like the replies tho masha-allah, one of the things mentioned about the text al-ibana i.e. about imam abu hanifa is what clarifies the point, because the shia qoute the ibana against imam abu hanifa and then u got these same so-called salafiyyah affirming this text as authentic. I dont need to comment further this is becoming a joke!

In addition to this i was surprised by seeing abi yala's reply to a brothers question, this was his reply:


RATHER: I believe that Allah has Two Eyes, Attributes of Him, which mean what Allah intented by it.

I dont need to coment further :) however i have a question to ask you! when did the prophet use the word e.g. two eyes? in arabic you know what he (peace and blessings be upon him) used! ayn bila kayfiyyah, ayun bila kayfiyyah, i am still waiting for a qatee daleel where the prophet used it in its dual sense!. As for your innovated stance as is apparent i have no time to reply to it because a thread about this topic has already gone!

wassalaam alaikum

any errors are from me may allah guide us all ameen!

[Ibn_Abi_Yala]

I'm not gone.. go to the forum of [...clipped...]
I'm still on the net - here or there, doesn't matter.

by mod : Please, this is a traditional site i.e. no such links will be tolerated :)

[samrqandi]

salaam alaikum

This thread is pointless people make claims but cant even defend them! because the opponents know that they cant bring nothing but conjecture in regards to Allah having Two Real Eyes! Allah preserve us ameen the thread on ayn allah bila kayfiyyah was enough! :) but people do not care!

wassalaam alaikum

i aint going to waste my time in this thread

[Ibn_Abi_Yala]

I'm not gone.. go to the forum of [...clipped...]
I'm still on the net - here or there, doesn't matter.

by mod : Please, this is a traditional site i.e. no such links will be tolerated :)

I can see how biased the moderator is..

Can you explain your dishonesty in tolerating this,


Can someone please refute this post:
[Edited by MOD: Sorry no links to anti-traditional Islamic sites]

from 'maturidi sufi',

and whereto I referred, in fact the same?!

I think you can not.

[Ibn_Abi_Yala]

Thank you,

cause if we want to talk with respect and dignity about issues like these, then we should set aside our biasedness. Especially if there is a moderator who disagrees with something: he, as a moderator, should be most unbiased and fair in dealing between what is said between Muslimbrothers, and in what they disagree.

[Ibn_Abi_Yala]

I've nothing to say to you

[Abul Hasan]

Thank you,

cause if we want to talk with respect and dignity about issues like these, then we should set aside our biasedness. Especially if there is a moderator who disagrees with something: he, as a moderator, should be most unbiased and fair in dealing between what is said between Muslimbrothers, and in what they disagree.

I have been reading your posts and following up some of your claims, and Insha'allah, We may respond with counter proofs. You are trying to make out that you are so fair and unbiased, but your rhetoric on ahya and elsewhere shows your real nature and intent.

For now it seems that you also post under names like: "Sharif Abu Jafar", or are you also known as Abdullah Moulai? You seem to be a friend to Ali Rida Qadri - who was nicely exposed by one calling himself: "Salafist". Why didn't you comment on the fact that al-Qadri is a muqallid of Ahmad al Ghumari? He also claims that Shaykhuna Shu'ayb al Arna'ut never made Ta'wil?!

The forum you post on with Ali Rida is the most disgraceful example of pseudo-Salafi bickering I have ever seen; indeed it is a place of great Fitna and Fasad, run by individuals linked to the controversial Abdullah al-Farsi of Kuwait. The latter has been exposed by other pseudo-Salafiyya (like Fawzi al-Athari, spubs.com et al...). Or are you aware of the claim (by spubs) that ahya has been accused of stealing their books and publishing them for free distribution via the net?!

I used to post there in 2001, until they decided that it was time for a banning order! Do you really think that we can post there to counter your claim? No chance! We saw some Sunni contributors post much useful rudud on many anti-Ash'ari/Maturidi claims - but the so called moderators tore most of them down!

So before you talk of moderation and bias - go and see if your new haunt: ahya - will allow us to post with no censure - provided we remain civil and polite in our counter-confrontations.

And while you are at it please provide us a Sahih Isnad back to the Ibana ascribed to Imam al-Ash'ari, and his Maqalat. And why didn't you mention what your Imam: Abu Ali al-Ahwazi had to say about the Ibana and the reason why your Imam al Barbahari refused to acknowledge it! See Siyar a'lam an Nubala and Tabaqat al Hanabila for this, and while you are at it, please tell us all here finally: If you believe that Allah's Messenger - sallallahu alaihi wa sallam - will be seated literally upon the Arsh next to Allah in the Hereafter?!

[Abul Hasan]

i was referring to u.... how petty of u to notice a small thing.. while ure anti-ashari claims seem to have no resolve but to declare us asharis kaafir or bidati ot wht ever it is u want us to be deemed.... if u r truthful... answer our concerns... instead of stooping down to the level of dwelling on people's mistakes.. i think the mods are unaware that siratemustaqeem is an anti-traditional site..... and i wud request them to remove tht link too... (yes i am biased - a result of months of research)


:salam:

The so called siratemustaqeem is the new forum name for the rable rousers known as AHYA! Moderators please take note.

Wassalam

[Reply from MOD: Noted. Jazakallahu khair]

[samrqandi]

Salaam Alaikum

Ibn abi Yala, ive read the link you have provided, and i have seen those statements time and time agian. Its the same thing every so-called salafi qoutes. When you even know the ayats are agianst you on this issue. Qouting the likes of ibn qayyim (or any other anti-asharee) is not going to convince anyone apart from the so-called salafiyyah/mushabiha since his their hujjah. Why are you misguiding people the ayats use ayn, ayun, where is the mention of the english equivalent two eyes, thats what your aql says! Also the rest of the ayats youve translated there is no mention of bila kayfiyyah and you know and i know that translations stand as no daleel when coming to the sifaat of allah. if wajh is used we stop to the arabic, if saaq is used we stop to the arabic, if yadd, yadayn, aidin are used we stop there, if ayn or ayun are used we stop there, if istiwa is used we stop there with all of the above we recite it and say bila kayfiyyah.

Now let me tell you whoever says there is no mention of ayn or ayun well we know that person has denied the ayaats and his a kaafir. The differences between the asharee's and the mushabiha (so-called salafiyyah) emerge from the interpretation of ayn and ayun (and other sifaats of allah) since the so-called salafi's say aynayn haqiqan etc. Hence we are forced to use taweel otherwise we dont need to use taweel.

By the way ibn abi yala what i want from you is the primary daleel where allah or the prophet says 'allah has two eyes' (since thats how you like to translate it)

Otherwise this thread is a waste of time barak allah feekum

any mistakes are from me and all perfection is with allah

I would like to comment further; abul hasan your right there that these people talk about tolerance and say we shouldnt be biased, when in fact these people are the worst at it. I left a site because of this same reason they hate it when you say stuff to them. they make it seem all cool using terms as aakhi, aukhti etc etc and leave it to that! what about imam razi what did the mushabiha do to him apart from slandar him and his family.

wassalaams

[Live for Islam]

Thank you,

cause if we want to talk with respect and dignity about issues like these, then we should set aside our biasedness. Especially if there is a moderator who disagrees with something: he, as a moderator, should be most unbiased and fair in dealing between what is said between Muslimbrothers, and in what they disagree.

Assalamu Alaikum Warahmatullah,

I'm sure the moderator who edited the link from your post wasn't picking on you. He/she must have missed the link from the first post. Alhamdulillah, it's sorted now, that link has also been edited out. What you need to realise is it's diffificult for us to check every single post in every single thread. We do have other responsibilities outside of sunniforum. Please try and be patient with us, Insha-Allah. We'd appreciate it if all our members used the 'report post' feature when seeing something wrong with a particular post/thread, so that we can deal with the offending post/s as soon as possible.

Jazakallahu khair.

Wassalam.

[samrqandi]

I will tell you a bit about what these peoples aqeedah promotes:

A certain brother who i know attends the lectures of abu rumaysah in birmingham. He follows their creed and i was talking to him my self and he started to say to me: "you are denying the hands of allah" and lifts his own hand and looks at it and says you are denying allahs hands. It clearly shows how their creedo can lead to kufr, (i am not making takhfir of the bro because he admitted he was wrong) people might say i am being extreme but if we were to hear what imam malik had to say regarding this issue it would be clear cut! allah preserve us ameen.

Malik said: 'whoever describes part of allah’s essence and then points to a part of his own body – hand, hearing or sight – then that amounts to a definite statement on his part because he has made allah like himself. Shifa of qadi iyad pg. 419 eng edition.

We should find excuses for people being misguided rather then to excommunicate them (i.e. being a slip of the tongue or slip of action). This can be understood from this hadeeth:

It is narrated in the saheeh of imam Muslim; Anas ibn Malik (Allah be well pleased with him) relates from the Holy Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) that he said: Truly, Allah rejoices more at the atonement of His servant when he repents to Him than one of you would if he were on his riding camel in an empty tract of desert, and it got away from him with all his food and water on it, and he gave up all hope of finding it, so he came to a tree and laid down in its shade, having despaired of ever seeing it again. While lying there, he suddenly finds it standing beside him, and he seizes its halter, and overjoyed, cries, "O Allah, You are my slave, and I am your lord," making a mistake out of sheer joy" (Muslim, 4.2104: 2747). Another exception is when the word becomes commonly used in the language and people say it commonly without knowing its implications. Due to the fact it has become a common phrase or statement e.g. Allah is everywhere, however it is better to ask the person by what he is saying.

All mistakes are from me and may allah guide us all and guide all the ummah ameen and guide the kufaar to islam and help the muslimeens where-ever they may be ameen!

[Ibn_Abi_Yala]

Bismillahi al-Rahmani al-Rahim,

Some collected statements of the Hafidh Ibn 'Asakir on al-Ibanah 'an Usul al-Diyanah authored by the Imam Abu'l-Hasan 'Ali b. Isma'il al-Ash'ari - rahimahullah.

Taken from al-Tabyin al-Kadhib al-Muftari fi-ma Nusiba ila'l-Imam Abi'l-Hasan al-Ash'ari.

"Nothing comparable to this book on the praiseworthy reports from al-Ash'ari has ever been written" Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah

"Listen [O people], to what he mentioned in the beginning of his Book, the one he named al-Ibanah!" p.153

And after quoting the Creed mentioned in p.7-33 of al-Ibanah (in the edition of Fawqiyyah H. Mahmud) in full, the Hafidh comments:

"Take heed, may Allah grant you all mercy, of this Creed, what he made clear and elucidated! And know the excellence of this Imam - the Scholar - the one who explained and elucidated [clearly the Creed]. Behold the easy eloquence of what he explained beatifully. And be of those [people] of whom Allah said, {Those who listen to the word and follow what's best } [39:18]" p.164

al-Hafidh Ibn 'Asakir rejects strongly a assertion about al-Ibanah - i.e. that al-Ash'ari/Ash'arites did not believe in it - in his saying,

"And what he mentioned about the use of the Book al-Ibanah, then his saying is far away from the sayings of the People of Religion! How can a Muslim compose such a distinguished book and he speaks by what it contains correctly but beliefs it not?!" p.362

And he rejects also the claim that the Ash'arites use al-Ibanah as a protection against the Hanbalites, as al-Ahwazi alleged, responding with:

"..one of the dishonest claims and far saying! Rather, they (i.e. the Hanbalites) believe in what's in it stronlgy of dogma's, and they firmly attach to it, for they are - al-Hamdulillah - not Mu'tazilah or deniars of Allah's Attributes. Rather they affirm for Him, subhanahu, what He affirms for Himself from the Attributes. And they attribute with what the clear Verses attribute, and with what the Prophet, sallallahu 'alai wa-sallam, attributes in the correct transmissions.." idem.

untill the Hafidh says:

"And the Book al-Ibanah has always been regarded highly by the People of Religion" p.363
______________________

COMMENTS:

So those who reject al-Ibanah - praised by Ibn 'Asakir - find themselve opposing the scholars of Islam, especially 'the People of Religion' or Ahl al-Diyanat. Then who will oppose them but a stubborn ignorasmus?

And he calls on to the like of them, in his statement: "Take heed..", meaning: O listen fellow Muslims! Look into it! See how excellent it is! Its words, sayings etc.

And the Ibanah is not hidden - rather it is a famous book. The Hafidh indicates this by again supporting his words with "the sayings of the People of Religion" - as an example he mentions Imam Abu 'Uthman al-Sabuni, author of 'Aqidat al-Salaf wa-Ashab al-Hadith, who would not lecture in a Majlis without taking al-Ibanah with him in his own hands! And then comments: "And this is the word of Imam Abu 'Uthman, and he's one of the prominent of the Ahl al-Athar in Khorasan"

And again he says:

"And the Book al-Ibanah has always been regarded highly by the People of Religion"

And those A'immah who relied on it are mentioned by Abd al-Malik Ibn Darbas in his Risalah fi Dabb 'an al-Ash'ari/Treatise in Defense of al-Ash'ari (ask the moderator for this work) after his declaration:

"And the book has been mentioned, relied upon, and confirmed [as coming] from the Imam Abi'l-Hasan, Allah's mercy upon him. And he has been praised for what he has written in it, and they have declared him free (thereafter) from every innovation that has been ascribed to him. And they have quoted from him from his work (al-Ibanah), [like] a community from the Imams from the Fuqaha of Islam, and Imams of the Cities, and the Hadith-masters, and others then them"

wa-Billahi al-Hamd!

Wa-Salam!

PS: Just to let people know what Ibn 'Asakir thought! (copied from www.****.org)
_________________
"Be a Shafi'ite, but not an Ash'arite; be a Hanafite, but not a Mu'tazilite, be a Hanbalite, but not an anthropomorphist"

(Source: Ibn al-Jawziy, al-Muntazam, X, p. 106 - see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/radd_ashariyyah)

[faqir]

The Corrupt Text of al-Ash`ari’s al-Ibana:

The above lists exclude al-Ash`ari’s al-Ibana `an Usul al-Diyana but Ibn `Asakir explicitly attributes it to him in the first few pages of Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari, an attribution confirmed by al-Bayhaqi, Abu al-`Abbas al-`Iraqi, Abu `Uthman al-Sabuni, and other hadith masters. The book dates from the beginnings of al-Ash`ari’s Sunni career according to a report narrated by Ibn Abi Ya`la in Tabaqat al-Hanabila and adduced by al-Dhahabi in the Siyar. The report is phrased rather oddly since it depicts a fawning Imam Abu al-Hasan al-Ash`ari visiting the Hanbali Abu Muhammad al-Barbahari upon entering Baghdad and enumerating before him his refutations of the Mu`tazila and defense of Ahl al-Sunna in order to win his approval, to which al-Barbahari coolly responds: "We only know what Ahmad ibn Hanbal said." "Whereupon," the report continues, "al-Ash`ari went out and wrote al-Ibana but they [the Hanbalis] did not accept it from him." Al-Dhahabi cites this report at the opening of his biographical notice on al-Barbahari in the Siyar directly following the extremely brief notice on Imam al-Ash`ari. Apart from its obviously Hanbali-biased terms, the report clearly shows that al-Ash`ari composed the Ibana upon first coming to Baghdad or shortly thereafter. Shaykh Wahbi Ghawiji cites a statement explicitly confirming this date from Imam Abu al-Hasan `Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Muqri (Ibn Matar) who died in the year 306: "Imam al-Ash`ari composed it in Baghdad upon entering it."

However, despite the authenticity of al-Ash`ari’s authorship, the text of the Ibana itself has undoubtedly not reached us in its original authentic form but in a corrupted version which comprises interpolations along two main ideological slants:

(1) the anthropomorphist interpretation of the divine Attributes and

(2) the apostatizing of Imam Abu Hanifa for supposedly holding, with the Jahmiyya, that the Qur’an was created.

Shaykh Wahbi Sulayman Ghawiji has shown in his analysis of the work entitled Nazra `Ilmiyya fi Nisba Kitab al-Ibana Jami`ihi ila al-Imam al-Ash`ari ("A Scientific Look at the Attribution of al-Ibana in Its Entirety to Imam al-Ash`ari") that these two stances are contradicted by what is known of al-Ash`ari’s authentic positions in his and his students’ works.


1. The anthropomorphist interpretation of the divine Attributesis illustrated by the following examples:

*

The passage: "[Our position is] that He has two eyes (`aynayn) without saying how; just as He stated: That ran under Our eyes (a`yuninâ) (54:14)." Ibn `Asakir’s citation of the same passage in the Tabyin states: "[Our position is] that He has an eye (`aynan) without saying how." A recent edition of the Ibana consequently amended its own tradition to follow the text cited by Ibn `Asakir since the evidence of the Qur’an and the Sunna mentions My Eye (`aynî) (20:39) in the singular and Our Eyes (52:48, 54:14) in the plural but never two eyes in the dual. Further down in all versions of the Ibana the text states: "Allah Almighty and Exalted has said that He possesses a face and an eye which is neither given modality nor defined."
*

The passage: "When supplicating, the Muslims raise their hands toward the sky, because Allah Almighty and Exalted is established (mustawin) over the Throne which is above the heavens… The Muslims all say: `O Dweller of the Throne’ (yâ sâkin al-`arsh)!" This kind of faulty reasoning can hardly come from al-Ash`ari for the following reasons:
*

The Attributes are divinely ordained (tawqîfiyya) and al-Ash`ari considers it impermissible to make up or derive new terms such as mustawin and sâkin al-`arsh if there is no verse or authentic hadith transmitting them verbatim: "My method in the acceptance of the Names of Allah is Law-based authorization without regard to lexical analogy."
*

The argument of supplication on the basis of location leads to placing Allah Almighty and Exalted inside the Ka`ba according to the same logic, an absurd impossibility.
*

The claim that "the Muslims all say: `O Dweller of the Throne’" is unheard of. Yet Ibn Taymiyya cites it and attempts to justify it with the narration: "Allah created seven heavens then chose the uppermost and dwelt in it," adducing a condemned report to support an invented phrase!
*

Three editions of the Ibana have, "O Dweller of the heaven (yâ sâkin al-`samâ’)" which further casts doubt on the integrity of the text in addition to being equally anthropomorphist.
*

The passage: "If we are asked: `Do you say that Allah has two hands?’ The answer is: We do say that, without saying `how.’ It is indicated by the saying of Allah Almighty and Exalted The Hand of Allah is above their hands (48:10) and His saying that which I have created with both My hands (38:75). It was also narrated from the Prophet – Allah bless and greet him – that he said: `Allah created Adam with His hand then He wiped his back with His hand and brought out of it his offspring.’ So it is established that He has two hands without saying how. And the transmitted report reached us from the Prophet – Allah bless and greet him – that `Allah created Adam with Hand, created the Garden of `Adn with His hand, wrote the Torah with His hand, and planted the tree of Tuba with His hand,’ that is: with the hand of His power (ay biyadi qudratih)." The last clause contradicts the entire reasoning that precedes and follows, and is actually suppressed from the latest edition of the Ibana! The text further states: "They say: `the hands’ (al-ayd) are the strength (al-quwwa), so the meaning of with both My hands has to be `with My power’ (bi qudratî). The answer to them is: That interpretation is wrong." Al-Ash`ari’s actual position on the Attribute of hand according to Ibn `Asakir is: "Al-Ash`ari took the middle road [between the Mu`tazila and the anthropomorphists] and said: His hand is an Attribute and His face is an Attribute, just like His hearing and His sight."
*

The following passage is missing from two of the editions of al-Ibana but is found in two others: "And [we believe] that He established Himself over the Throne in the sense that He said and the meaning that He wills in a way that transcends touch, settlement, fixity, immanence, and displacement. The Throne does not carry him, rather the Throne and its carriers are carried by the subtleness of His power, subdued under His grip. He is above the Throne and the Heavens and above everything to the limits of the earth with an aboveness which does not bring Him nearer to the Throne and the Heavens, just as it does not make Him further from the earth. Rather, He is Highly Exalted above the Throne and the Heavens, just as He is Highly Exalted above the earth. Nevertheless, He is near to every entity and is (nearer to [the worshipper] than his jugular vein) and He witnesses everything."


2. The apostatizing of Imam Abu Hanifa for supposedly holding, with the Jahmiyya, that the Qur’an was created. Imam al-Tahawi stated that Abu Hanifa held the opposite position in his Mu`taqad Abi Hanifa or "Abu Hanifa’s Creed," also known as the `Aqida Tahawiyya. Nor did al-Ash`ari mention Abu Hanifa in the chapter on those who held the Qur’an was created in his Maqalat al-Islamiyyin. Al-Ash`ari lived in Baghdad – the seat of the Caliphate and home of the Hanafi school – at a time the Hanafi school had long been the state creed and would probably have been executed or exiled for making such a charge. Furthermore, al-Bayhaqi stated that "al-Ash`ari used to defend the positions of the past Imams such as Abu Hanifa and Sufyan al-Thawri among the Kufans." The charge of the Ibana is therefore almost certainly a later interpolation, as enmity against the Imam al-A`zam and his school and followers typifies fanatic Hanbalis and their "Salafi" successors.

There are also blatant errors which al-Ash`ari the heresiographer and former Mu`tazili would never commit, such as the attribution to the Mu`tazila as a whole of the belief that Allah Almighty and Exalted is everywhere, when he himself reports in his Maqalat that the vast majority of the Mu`tazila said, like Ahl al-Sunna, that it was the controlling disposal (tadbîr) of Allah Almighty and Exalted that was everywhere. Furthermore, there is apparently no known chain of transmission for the Ibana from the Imam despite its ostensible fame and the abundance of his students, nor do any of his first or second-generation students – such as Ibn Furak – make any mention of it. Finally, Imam al-Qushayri’s Shikaya Ahl al-Sunna bi Hikaya Ma Nalahum Min al-Mihna provides an additional external sign that the tampering of al-Ash`ari’s Ibana took place possibly as early as the fifth century:

They have attributed despicable positions to al-Ash`ari and claimed he had said certain things of which there is not one iota in his books. Nor can such sayings be found reported in any of the books of the scholars of kalâm who either supported him or opposed him, from the earliest times to our own – whether directly quoted or paraphrased. All of that is misrepresentation, forgery, and unmitigated calumny!

In conclusion it is possible to say with a fair degree of certainty that the Ibana attributed to al-Ash`ari today is actually the anonymous, chainless rewriting of an anti-Ash`ari, anti-Hanafi literalist with clear anthropomorphist leanings and a willingness to adduce Israelite reports typical of the works of anthropomorphist doctrine while the unaltered version known to Ibn `Asakir, Abu `Uthman al-Sabuni, and other Ash`aris did not reach us. It is a telling confirmation of this conclusion that the early anthropomorphists used to reject the Ibana while those of later centuries quote it without reservation. And Allah knows best.

[ilm_seeker]

As sallamu alaikum

So, what are both sides trying say BASICALLY?

Wa alaikum as sallam

[ilm_seeker]

well one is saying tht the book Ibanah, as it is available in its current form, was authored by Imam al Ashari. The problem with the book is tht it is NOT authentically from him, and the book has anthropomorphic leanings.

We all know tht the Imam al Ashari was far from being an antrhopomorphist. The other side, namely the sunni side, is trying to prove tht the book Ibanah is NOT from Imam al Ashari, and neither was he an anthropomorphist.

ma'as salam
As sallamu alaikum
Jazak Allah Khair
Wa alaikum as sallam

[Ibn_Abi_Yala]

All the Ahl al-Sunnah scholars agree that al-Ibanah is from al-Ash'ari.

Even G.F. Haddad and his likes accept this.

[Ibn_Abi_Yala]

lol.. did u even READ tht article???

The question is: Did you read it?

Cause it says in the Title:

"The Corrupt Text of al-Ash'ari's Ibanah" which means it IS his text, but allegedly corrupted.

So you need to read better.

And in the text of the article it says: Ibn 'Asakir, al-Bayhaqi and others accept it being one of his works.

So if these peopel are not Ahl al-Sunnah, who are then the scholars of the Ahl al-Sunnah who rejected al-Ibanan?

Can you name them? I mean, the classical/traditional scholars in Middle Ages?

[Ibn_Abi_Yala]

yeah.. and ure quoting from the CORRUPTED text....
Ibanah WAS Imam al Ashari's book... how can it be his after ppl corrupt it?

We did not speak about the text of the book now: we spoke about al-Ibanah being ascribed to al-Ash'ari! You deliberately change the subject from 'acription' to 'description'!!!

So you refute yourself, G.F Haddad and whoever wrote that above!

As for
here is what GF Haddad has to say...

I can refute this from many different angles:

ONE: from Haddad's own angle: i.e. theirs no Insad for Maqalat, then how can he draws arguments from it to refute/doubt al-Ibana's contents which hasn't also no known Isnad?!

TWO: There are no blatant errors in it of the former Mu'tazili al-Ash'ari! This is not the only misinterpretation of Haddad. It would be wiser and more reliable to see yourself what's in it before copying the words of others! Thus Haddad takes this statement of al-Ash'ari: "The Mu'tazilah, the Haruriyyah and the Jahmiyyah think that Allah is in every place.." but he deliberately overlooks the meaning of the "Mas'alat" totally, incl the statement of Imam al-Ash'ari in the beginning of it:!!!! "Some of the Mu'tazilah and the Jahmiyyah and the Haruriyyah have said that Allah's Words [The Merciful established on the Throne"} mean that He has the mastery, reigns and power" soe woe to the one who misunderstands and to the one who copies misunderstanding! Besides, his statement: 'the Mutazilah as a whole' does not exist at all in the text!

THREE: His 'cleverly' expressed words "nor do any of his first or second-generation students – such as Ibn Furak – make any mention of it" is not convincing to the one who reads the Ash'arite/Other sources, except convincing for one like you! For he refers in fact to Ibn Furak's list of Books of al-Ash'ari, and it is no secret that he didn't mentioned al-Ibanah in it - not forgetting that Haddad acknoweldged it as al-Ash'ari's work!!! - but Ibn Furak said at the end of the list: "These are the names pf books which he had written.. up to apart from what he dictated to people but did not identify by name" which means there are books of al-Ash'ari besides the one he mentioned!Plus: In his supplement - indeed no mention of Ibanah - he mentions other books with titles and some without but with description. But this is not a disclaim! Rather is is a proof FOR the Ibanah!!! For the Ibanah is one of his last works, and the first list of Ibn Furak is drawn till the year 320; and the second list, the supplement, is from 320 till 324. EXTRA: Then, if Ibn Furak misses the titles that does not harm to the Ibanah. For al-Risalat al-Istihsan is neither mentioned by Ibn Furak, but it exists with two Isnads in which men like Ibn Mahdi, Ibn al-Ukhuwwa and Abu'l-Futuh al-Isfara'ini - all prominent Ash'arites - are mentioned! Besides, Ibn 'Asakir mentioned the work in his list! EXTRA: Ibn Furak mentions that al-Ash'ari authored some 300 works, then tell me: how many did he list?! Is Ibn Furak contradicting himself?! Thus, there's no proof from Ibn Furak's list to alleg that he didn't write a book under the title al-Ibanah!

FOUR: It sufficient to rely on Ibn 'Asakir's Tabyin for the right ascription of al-Ibanah to al-Ash'ari. He mentioned people before him who knew it, even al-Ahwazi (d.446)! But he mentioned also al-Sabuni (d.449) and his reliance of it. Then there are the Ijazat on al-Ahwazi's book, from the likes of Abu Tahir al-Silafi and Muhammad b. Muhammad b. Taymiyyah and others. Not to mention Ibn Darbas's list with the likes of al-Bayhaqi, Nasr al-Maqdisi and others! Besides, what I've mentioned above from Ibn 'Asakir's words and his observation of it from the Ahl al-Diyanat etc. is sufficient!

FIVE: It is alos appropiate to mention the contemporary al-Barbahari (d.329, five years after the Imam) as Ibn 'Asakir reports; I may add Ibn al-Nadim, the early author of the Fihrist, who mentions a wokr of al-Ash'ari under the title: al-Tabyin 'an Usul al-Din, and we do not exceed clear reason if we say that this is a reference to al-Ibanah 'an Usul al-Diyanah (the titles are pactically the same).

SIX: The manuscripts that are foudn over the world, written in different hands by different kind of people in all kind of works have mentioned it has his work. The Catalogues of Islam, such as Hajji Khalifa and others have never mentioned something about it such as doubt.

SEVENTH: If it is false, then why didn't the opponents of Ibn Taymiyyah in his trial on al-Wasitiyyah as documented by dozens of scholars refuted Shaykh al-Islam's use of it?! Rathe they affirmed it as he stated, and none of them rejected its ascription to al-Ash'ari.

EIGHT: As for the question of tampering which al-Qushayri mentions. This is true: even the Hanabilah say that there's misinformation involved concerning al-Ash'ari! But this doesn't weaken the force of the ascription of Ibanah to al-Ash'ari, as we wouldn't deny the Sunnah to the Prophet when we all know that people forge agaisnt him! a) What Qushayri says is a general saying: he did not specify al-Ibanah. b) What the Shikayah's message is is that statements concerning issues as Kufra al-'Ammah, Prophecy and other controversial matters were the subject of misinterpretation/misinformation, as is well-known that al-Shikayah is produced by him as a consequence of the persecution of the Ash'arites by Hanafites, who opposed them and lied about al-Ash'ari/ash'arites as some historians report. Thus, to proof that there was tampering in the early fifth century and then suggesting that it happened to al-Ash'ari's Ibanah is nothing but creating sophistry! In fact, Haddad allegs here that Ibn 'Asakir's opinions on al-Ibanah, see above, should be throw aside, since he lived in the sixth century and is therefor also 'victim' of a tampered Ibanah. Besides, having no strong proof whatsover ofr this claim this is nothing less than impugning the Hafidh's knowledge and erudite scholarship!

And this is what I've just prepared. And, as i said elsewhere, I'm in a state in which i prepare a rebuttal of Haddad's and other's faulty presentation concerning the Ibanah, al-Ash'ari and the Ash'arites. And what I've posted elsewhere was just a sample of it, just as what I've said here, above, is part of what know; so if I would give the abobe more time and if I would collect and select all the points/proofs/evidences, and weave them better then what I've written above, then it will become clear that what he or any other like him said is wrong - as we've indicated concerning the issue of Eyes in Ibanah, how he misinformed deliberately etc.

[Ibn_Abi_Yala]

My I ask you this:

What do you say about Abu'l-Layth al-Samarqandi's - the Hanafite Maturidi scholar known as Imam al-Huda - statement:

"Belief by way of Taqlid is correct (al-iman bi't-taqlid sahih).. as opposed to the Mu'tazilah and the Ash'ariyyah" ?

If you really believe, again following by way of Taqlid (!!!SubhanAllah, and then he opposes me!), that Taqlid is not permitted - and more then one Maturidi oppose them in this - then what will you say against you fellow Muslim cousins, those who play football and study chemistry and do nothing with Islam except pray, fast etc. but do not indulge in studying their Din to know these kind of things?

[faqir]

Asalamu alaykum Akhi,

Regarding al-Ibanah there are some points to consider:

1) it was from Imam al-Ashari's earliest works [read article below]

2) the various forms of the text that has reached us today cannot be reliably established to be the work of Imam al-Ashari and are corrupted [see G.F. Haddad article above]

The other point to consider is that what is the position of the vast majority of the scholars of the Ashari school of Creed throughout the ages on the issues raised in al-ibanah?

And finally, what is the evidence from the sacred texts for "two eyes" and so on?

Wasalam.

[samrqandi]

Salaam Alaikum

im in a rush since i have to go out, but i have a question for you in fact it was from brother abul hasan:


And while you are at it please provide us a Sahih Isnad back to the Ibana ascribed to Imam al-Ash'ari, and his Maqalat. And why didn't you mention what your Imam: Abu Ali al-Ahwazi had to say about the Ibana and the reason why your Imam al Barbahari refused to acknowledge it! See Siyar a'lam an Nubala and Tabaqat al Hanabila for this, and while you are at it, please tell us all here finally: If you believe that Allah's Messenger - sallallahu alaihi wa sallam - will be seated literally upon the Arsh next to Allah in the Hereafter?!

insha allah i would like to see the daleel for it and your primarly daleel for allah having two eye's.

The real issue is your heavy realiance on ibn taymiya and ibn qayyim i will comment some other time i have to go.

For me if a book has been distorted then i dont take it simple as! forget the samantics :)

wassalaam alaikum

[Ibn_Abi_Yala]

Asalamu alaykum Akhi,

Regarding al-Ibanah there are some points to consider:

1) it was from Imam al-Ashari's earliest works [read article below]

2) the various forms of the text that has reached us today cannot be reliably established to be the work of Imam al-Ashari and are corrupted [see article above]

The other point to consider is that what is the position of the vast majority of the scholars of the Ashari school of Creed throughout the ages on the issues raised in al-ibanah?

Wasalam.

al-Salamu alaikum wa-rahmatullah,

I appreciate your message, as for the points you adressed:

1) there's no single evidence to claim that it was Imam al-Ash'ari's earliest work; I've read through the pd-file fastly, and I didn't consider it much because: a) it opposes well established opinions of scholars such as Ibn 'Asakir, and b) he didn't give sources for many things the author alleged. For example, I responded with "al-Luma' is last book?! Lies exposed about al-Ash'ari!!!" on www.****.org/forum, in which the conclusion is: the Abdullah bin Hamid Ali opposes al-Ash'ari, Ibn Furak and Ibn 'Asakir on the date of al-Luma', so I'm curious how he came to the conclusion that Luma' is agreed to be the last work! If you wish from me a full detailed response to the pdf-file with references I'm willing to write so, Inshallah (of course you can still disagree with anything I've said).

2) there's no clear-cut evidence of tampering of the Ibanah; I've never seen any writer of the past making mention of Ibanah being tampered: not from the early Ash'arites, nor from the Hafidh Ibn 'Asakir - we may say the most knowledgable about the life and works of al-Ash'ari in his time and after for many - nor Ibn al-Subki. Neither Ibn Taymiyyah says so.

Then this issue has two subjects:

a) the subject of the textual differences between the manuscripts of the Ibanah;

b) the subject of the different interpretations of the Ibanah;

As for the first, I'm still working on it; I gathered dozens variant readings, mostly small textual ones - such as on Tamhid, Tasliya etc. They don't matter for a text, for they were copied or left out as the copyist desired - unless it makes a point essential for the argument of the author. The relative few textual difference that can make a point: such as 'Aynan, 'Aynân etc. are so less that I will make clear that: they are either wrong copyist mistakes or not essential to the overal argument of the text. We've made mention of it about Fawqiyyah Mahmud's edition of a passage. These type of variants is common to all pre-modern copies, such as : deletion/addition, digression/summary, explanation/no-explanation etc. The rule in most of these points is: that places where there's no variant reading, such as 90% (or more) of the text of the Ibanah, then they are confirmed and affirmed. And Inshallah I will amde this clear..

As for the second: the fact that someone later disagrees with the text without proof at all - as most disagreement revolves around it by those who incline to suspicion/rejection of the text - then that does no harm to the text itself; and this is a basic rule. So if later-day followers of al-Ash'ari find it repulsive, or just certain passages, then this is no argument against it at all - unless all of them found so, but this is not the case. We therefor must first explain why did the copies of Ibanah generate so long, without anyone rejecting it before? Why did no one reject the suspicious passages on Eye/Eyes/Two Eyes in the Ibanah before? Were they all ignorant of it? Was Ibn 'Asakir ignorant of the fact, while he himself wrote Two Eyes as can be seen in the earliest mss of al-Tabyin and by quotes of other Huffadh? Also questions such as: Why do al-Baqillani and others confirm the controversial passages for so long, without anyone rejecting them? Untill modern times? If these questions aren't answered, and no clear and satisfying explanation been forwarded then there's no case for those who alleg tampering simply because they dont like it by way of their faulty interpretation.

This above answers also partly what you've stated in:


The other point to consider is that what is the position of the vast majority of the scholars of the Ashari school of Creed throughout the ages on the issues raised in al-ibanah?

Then what is their opinion? And if they concur with al-Ash'ari's Ibanah such as al-Baqillani's Tamhid, al-Bayhaqi's Asma wa-Sifat, Ibn 'Asakir's Tabyin - would we also assume forgery/interpolation according to farfetched theories of "two-lines of tampering"???

Then we can also say: so what? If later-day Ash'arites can't digest the contents of the Ibanah, is the Ibanah than tampered with? That's no scholarly research at all. We can respond with: they tampered their own Ash'arite heritage by interpolation, i.e. the way around! The fact is, as mmany indicated: early Ash'arites differ with some later Ash'arites, as al-Ash'ari differs with others. This has been stated literally by Ash'arites themselves, such as al-Ghazali about al-Baqillani and al-Ash'ari. So there's no proof at all in such assertion - let alone for a text of a book, which has other rules to rely upon or to reject it.

Wa-Salamu alaikum.

al-Akh, Moulay Abdallah.

[faqir]

al-Salamu alaikum wa-rahmatullah,

I appreciate your message, as for the points you adressed:

1) there's no single evidence to claim that it was Imam al-Ash'ari's earliest work; I've read through the pd-file fastly,

Asalamu alaykum Akhi,

Please read the pdf file slowly.

As far as I am concerned, there is more evidence to suggest it is than it isn't.




and I didn't consider it much because: a) it opposes well established opinions of scholars such as Ibn 'Asakir,

Eh?


For example, I responded with "al-Luma' is last book?! Lies exposed about al-Ash'ari!!!" on www.****.org/forum, in which the conclusion is: the Abdullah bin Hamid Ali opposes al-Ash'ari, Ibn Furak and Ibn 'Asakir on the date of al-Luma'

Akhi, there is no need to get over-dramatic. They Shaykh is easily accessed via the tariqul-Islam forum - why don't you write to him instead of shouting on some dodgy forum

Here is an example of a question I asked him about this issue - you can do the same - just visit the tariqul islam forum:


Assalamu alaykum Shaykh,

I would greatly appreciate your clarification on the
following:

In the article The Truth About Kitaabul-Ibaanah
Ascribed to Imam Al-
Ash'aree By Abdullah bin Hamid Ali it is stated that
"The followers
of Imam Abool-Hasan Al-Ash'aree – may Allah show him
mercy –are
unanimous about his Kitaabul-Luma' being the last book
written by
him prior to his demise.

However, there is disagreement amongst them as to
whether or not
Kitaabul-Ibaanah `an Usoolid-Diyaanah happens to be
one of his
works.

..........

So if the Ash'arees agree that Kitaabul-Ibaanah was
not the final
work of Al-Ash'aree, then others of a different vein
would beg to
differ. Those others who appeared late in Islamic
history would like
everyone to believe that Kitaabul-Ibaanah was the last
of Al-
Ash'aree's works that constituted his madhhab in its
final form upon
which he died while adopting it. And perhaps the first
to promulgate
this view is Ahmad ibn Taimiyah."



In this regard there are various articles circulated
on the internet
which seem to suggest that the view that Kitabul
Ibaanah was indeed
the final book of Imam al-Ashari according to the
Ulema:


Quote:

[I]"As for those who have ascribed the book al-Ibaanah to
Abu Hasan al-
Ash'ariyy and have testified that it was his last book
concerning
aqeedah then they are numerous and amongst them:

al-Haafidh Ibn Asaakir in Tabyeenul Kadhabul-Muftaree
(p.152) which
is a refutation of al-Ahwaazee,
al-Bayhaqee in al-I'tiqaad (p.31),
Imaam adh-Dhahabee in al-Uluww (no.276) and
Ibn ul-'Imaad in Shadhraat udh-Dhahab (p.303).

Furthermore, Abu Qaasim Abdul Malik bin Eesaa bin
Darbaas [2] (d.
659H) in his book, adh-Dhabb an Abee Hasan
al-Ash'ariyy, mentions
the People of Knowledge who have ascribed this book to
Abu Hasan al-
Ash'ariyy and have testified to it being his aqeedah
which he
embraced at the end of his life and amongst them he
names:

Al-Imaam al-Haafidh Abul-Abbaas Ahmad bin Thaabit
at-Turqee,
Abu Uthmaan Ismaa'eel as-Saaboonee,
Imaam ul-Qurraa Abu Alee Hasan bin Alee bin Ibraaheem
al-Faarisee,
al-Imaam al-Faqeeh Abul-Fath Nasr al-Maqdisee,
al-Imaam al-Haafidh Abul-Qaasim Alee bin Hasan bin
Hibatullaah ash-
Shaafi'ee,
al-Faqeeh Abul-Ma'aalee Majallee,
and al-Haafidh Abu Muhammad bin Alee al-Baghdaadee. "





Could you please clarify if this is indeed the case or
misquotation/
misrepresentation of the position of the Ulema?

JazakAllah khair.

Wasalam.

Ustadh Abdullah's response:

First of all, I have to ask, where is this quote taken
from? Secondly, you should take note of the fact that
the claim that it was the "Aqeedah he died upon" is
the statement made by the person this quote is taken
from. He says,

"As for those who have ascribed the book al-Ibaanah to
Abu Hasan al-
Ash'ariyy and have testified that it was his last book
concerning
aqeedah then they are numerous..."

These are likely his/her words, not the words of
Abul-'Abbaas Ahmad bin Thaabit At-Turqee he listed
afterwards. The same thing goes for his/her prior
claim of those scholars like Ibn Asaakir, Bayhaqee,
Dhahabee, and Ibn Al-'Imaad. The claim that they said
it was his final book, is the claim made by the one
you're quoting from. It would've served us and him/her
better to provide the actual quotes.

Then even if there are actual quotes, we have to
remember that my paper is a reference to the most
widely circulated version of Kitaab al-'Ibaanah, while
there are a number of versions where some things are
mentioned in some that are not mentioned in others. So
if there were any scholars before Ibn Taimiyah who
claimed that it was Ash'ari's final work, they would
definitely not be refering to the version that is
widely available today.

You should also note that he doesn't give actual
quotes. Rather, he gives a list of scholars' names,
the death dates of some of them, and the page numbers
of some of the books they attribute these statements
to.

If I had the actual quotes, I could better answer each
individual statement. But since the writer didn't give
any - and I'd have to have the original Arabic, since
in my experience some of the Salafis have
mistranslated a number of things - I can't go into any
more detail about the claim at the moment.

I hope this helps

Was Salaam

Abdullah

http://lamppostproductions.org




So Akhi, if you have any specific questions then you should address it to that forum and the moderator Khalil Muhsin can forward it to Ustadh Abdullah.





2) there's no clear-cut evidence of tampering of the Ibanah; I've never seen any writer of the past making mention of Ibanah being tampered: not from the early Ash'arites, nor from the Hafidh Ibn 'Asakir - we may say the most knowledgable about the life and works of al-Ash'ari in his time and after for many - nor Ibn al-Subki. Neither Ibn Taymiyyah says so.



Eh? We are talking about the texts that have reached us today.

Have you got a Sahih Isnad to Imam al-Ashari for this text of Kital al-Ibanah that you possess?

- I am not talking about the text that would have reached Ibn Asakir.

If there is no Sahih isnad then how can you rely on it?



And finally, where is the textual evidence from the sacred texts that explicity mentions that Allah ta'ala has TWO eyes? I don't care what you think Imam al-Ashari said - show me the proof and I will believe you if I am convinced.

Wasalam.

[samrqandi]

Salaam alaikum

I would like to make it clear I haven’t got much time to look into this topic about a book and this will be my final post in this thread. in fact i want to stop using the net and continue my studies it just consumes up time on the same issues which are discussed a million times. i have asked questions to a few of my teachers about this so i am waiting for their reply. What’s intellectually sound and proven from the source texts we take that and we have a consistent methodology in aqeeda. For me relying on a pocket full of literalist hanabali’s isn’t sound at all. We follow majorioty! We take the stance of tafweed as primary however if there is a need for taweel then that’s permissible as well.

This issue about the ibana and its ascription to imam abul hasan al-asharee has many possibilities. As the claimants of both parties differ in respect to its ascription to the imam. Ibn abi yala is passionate that it is the work of imam abul hasan al-asharee and that’s the creed whereas the other party namely the asharee’s are vary as to its ascription to imam abul hasan i.e. whether the ibana present today constitutes the same ibana which was ascribed to the imam.

There are many ways in looking at this topic and many views can be formed as can be seen from the posts above. These theories wont stop until yomel aakhir. However some of the theories are far fetched namely that ibn taymiya quoted the ibana why didn’t the asharees call into question his citation of the book, we don’t need to think far but they called into question the imaan of ibn taymiya (and charges of kufr were brought against ibn taymiya as hafidth dhahabi mentions) they didn’t need to go to his citations that point should be made clear. Also the asharees of that time condemned ibn taymiya and his likes and to say they never had a clear understanding of imam abul hasans works is an innovative claim! It also makes other points clear there wasn’t a big deal about the ibana and it wasn’t used as an authoritative book or an aqeeda manual taught in madrasa’s. Hence the debate in that time was on serious polemic topics. Using books of imam asharee which are inline with the asharee stance is sufficient for the asharee’s rather it’s the claimants from amongst the literalist hanbalis who need to provide sanads.

People might differ to my opinions but this is what I say in a few points (or possibilities im not saying these are conclusive):

1. If the book is ascribed to the imam then one thing needs to be understood we do not claim that imam abul hasan was masoom. And everybody can make mistakes. Because the issue im talking about is the ayn and ayun issue since the opinion of aynayn cannot be substantiated through any definitive texts. To continue further he uses ayats and those ayats in Arabic make sense but to translated into English cannot be used as daleel. Since that would be a form of taweel, if people differ with me on this then I am willing to start a new thread on this issue.

2. Or if aynayn is used in the text then he did not mean it in its haqiqan sense the same way the asharee’s understand yadayn etc. since those were the charges brought forth to the hanabali literalists (to use terms literally, physically etc).

3. Somewhere in history some statements have been interpolated into the text. As brother ibn abi yala says him-self that 10% of the text seems to vary, how do we know for certain that its only 10%?

4. There is no qatee daleel as the so-called salafiyyah claim that that’s the aqeeda he died upon otherwise the asharees would have been the first ones to know.

5. We take from what the majority say within the Asharee School since that’s sounder. And there have been isolated opinions in history as that’s inevitable. In addition, we all know that all asharee scholars have sanads going back to imam abul hasan to say that they were ignorant of his creed stands no ground. Since we know that qadi ibn abi yala and other hanbali literalists where condemn whereas imam abul hasan wasn’t. Hence it’s clear that his understanding wasn’t like those of the literalists. In addition what the asharees agree upon is the methodology of imam asharee. Same goes for the method of abul mansur al-maturidi in aqeeda etc.

6. We don’t take from the text and rely on what’s transmitted soundly through asharees themselves through saheeh sanads with no anthromorpists within the sanad.

7. We need a Sahih Isnad back to the Ibana ascribed to Imam al-Ash'ari, and his Maqalat.

8. Imam: Abu Ali al-Ahwazi had many things to say about the Ibana and the Imam al Barbahari refused to acknowledge it! See Siyar a'lam an Nubala and Tabaqat al Hanabila.

9. The ibana is not a text which is taught in asharee madrasa’s from past to present. So using that as the foremost authority on the issue of aqeedah won’t stand its ground, it’s like saying that all the asharees brushed it under the carpet and came up with their own deen. Also the stance that was his last phase in life is also controversial; however what would be sounder (in my opinion) is to say his last stance was that of tafweed.

10. We need qatee daleels proving that Allah has two real eyes, and according to my knowledge you will have problems with this! (using a weak hadeeth wont stand its ground in regards to aqeeda).

To conclude:

If the text is this controversial why use it as a daleel. When the ayats he quotes are in Arabic translating them don’t stand its ground. In addition there are some passages in their that the so-called salafiyyah won’t take. To ascribe something which has doubt in it will be a disservice to the imam. And Allah truly knows best and may Allah guide us all ameen.

Further comment about abu layth as-samrqandi on the issue of taqleed in aqeedah, if you are well acquainted, different imams had slightly different opinions. Like within the Hanafi School there are loads of isolated opinions to give an example one hanafi said that its wajib to recite the niyyah in addition to the niyyah in the heart, like abu hanifa said the two sunnah rakaahs of fajr are wajib. That type of rye doesn’t work in this instance what we do know for sure the hanabalis stressed more to the taqleed of aqeeda than the other schools. To a certain extent taqleed is done in aqeeda but that’s if it’s truly a sound aqeeda text (though this point of mine is not conclusive). The best opt is you take from what the majority say! to start using every single isolated opinion wouldn’t be the advisable option. So follow the majority and that’s the party that Allah is pleased with.

May Allah guide us all ameen and any mistakes are from me and all perfection lies with Allah and Allah truly knows best about the kitab al-ibana.

[Ibn_Abi_Yala]

Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim.

I've copied this from elsewhere - written by myself. I'm not opposed to Imam al-Ash'ari - rahimahullah - nor all the Ash'arites. Rather I do not agree with some of them - such as the Mu'awwilun and Mu'attilun from amongs them. I've translated and posted - partly - this Risalah fi Dabb ' an al-Ash'ari to highlighten some of the facts of the Muhaqqiqin on the life of Imam al-Ash'ari and his theologic beliefs. And this Risalah, written by a student of the Banu 'Asakir and later a Qadi and Khatib in the time of Sultan Salah al-Din al-Ayyubi, is an important source on the Issue of the Ibanah - neglected by some contemporary writers while they are aware of it. It is a defense of Imam al-Ash'ari, rahimahullah, in the same way as the Tabyin al-Kadhib al-Muftari is from the Hafidh Ibn 'Asakir. I hope you will benefit from this article - Insha'Allah.

Subject: Translation of the Risala of Ibn Darbas in Defense of al-Ash'ari.

See for - the Ash'arite author - Abd al-Malik Ibn Darbas al-Shafi'i (d.659): http://s8.invisionfree.com/Sunnah/index.php?showtopic=418
* chapter-headings between [] are mine, incl. all other words in brackets which were necessary to translate the intent of the author;
* text between () are also mine, though they are explanatory additions and could be left out;
* the Qur'anic text has been given in transcription so a few other necessary expressions for fear of misinterpretation;
* I've not incl. the variant readings between the 1901 and 1948 editions, but those will Insha'Allah be given in the footnotes in a later text-publication;
* I've not checked the quoted texts from earlier works, such as the Tabyin of Ibn 'Asakir, al-I'tiqad of al-Bayhaqi etc. though everything quoted by the author is well-known to be correct.

[Introduction]

al-Hamdulillah, and peace upon His servants He selected, especially our Prophet Muhammad, and his family who posses the most complete lineage!

[Part: Ibanah by Imam al-Ash'ari is his Last Testimony]

Thereafter,

Know, O community of brethren, may Allah grant us and you succes to the right religion, and guide us all to te straight path - that the book, al-Ibanah 'an Usul al-Diyanah (The Elucidation of the Principles of Religion), which the Imam Abu'l-Hasan 'Ali b. Isma'il al-Ash'ari authored, is the one on which his affair established with respect to what he professed and took as religion in worshipping Allah, the Sublime and Exalted, after his return from Mu'tazilism, by the Grace of Allah and His Benevolence!

[Part: Any Opinion of Imam al-Ash'ari which Opposes Ibanah is False]

And every saying which is ascribed to him now, and which opposes what's in al-Ibanah, then he turned back from it, and declared himself to be innocent of it in front of Allah, the Sublime.

How can it be otherwise, when he stated in it that the religion with what he worships Allah, the Sublime, and [which] he reports and confirmed as the beliefs of the Companions, the Followers and the Imams of Hadith, who have passed before, and the saying of Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal - may Allah be pleased with all of them. And that it is which the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger points to.

Then is it permitted to say that he turned back from it to something else? Then to what did he return? Did he turn back from the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Prophet of Allah in opposite of what the Companions, the Followers and the Imams of Hadith, those who are pleased, were upon? And [even] while he knew that this was their Madhhab? And we have narrated this from them?!

By my life, how can that which does not befit the general Muslims be ascribed to the Imams of the Religion?! Or can it be said that he was ignorant in the matter [of opinions] in his relating from the Salaf wo have passed, knowing the passage of his life in which he explored the Madhabs and acquainted himself with the sects?! This can not be imagined or suspected by anyone, but only a arrogant profligate one can hold this!

[Part: Ibanah is Confirmed Book of Imam al-Ash'ari]

And the book (i.e. al-Ibanah) has been mentioned, relied upon and confirmed [as coming] from the Imam Abi'l-Hasan [al-Ash'ari], Allah's mercy upon him. And he has been praised for what he has written in it, and they have declared him free from every innovation that has been ascribed to him [thereafter]. And they have quoted from him from his work (al-Ibanah), [like] a community from the Imams from the Fuqaha of Islam, and Imams of the Reciters, and the Hadith-masters, and others then them.

[Part: Abu Bakr al-Bayhaqi Confirmed the Ibanah]

Among them, the Imam, the Faqih and Hafidh Abu Bakr al-Bayhaqi, author of famous works and praiseworthy reports. He depended on it in the book of his [known as] al-I'tiqad. And he reported from him (i.e. al-Ash'ari) in places of his [books], and he didn't mention his work, but that he said in the chapter 'Saying on the Quran' - what the Imam and Hafidh Abu'l-Qasim 'Ali b. al-Hasan b. Hibat Allah al-Shafi'i, known as Ibn 'Asakir, reported to us by way of his reading to us, saying: Abu 'Abdallah Muhammad b. al-Fadl b. Ahmad al-Furawi al-Sa'idi reported to us, by way of his reading to us: the Imam Abu Bakr Ahmad b. al-Husayn b. 'Ali al-Bayhaqi reported, he said:

"And it has been reported from al-Shafi'i, Allah's mercy on him, that what is recited from the Qur'an by our tongues, and what we hear with our ears, and what we write in our scriptures, is Allah's Speech",

he said (i.e. al-Bayhaqi):

"And with its meaning it has been mentioned also by 'Ali b. Isma'il - i.e. Abi'l-Hasan al-Ash'ari, Allah's mercy on him - in his book al-Ibanah".

Then he said (i.e. al-Bayhaqi):

"And Abu'l-Hasan 'Ali b. Isma'il, Allah's mercy on him, said in his book:

'If the speaker says: It has been reported to us that you say that the Speech of Allah is in the Lawh al-Mahfudh, say to him: We say like that, because Allah says { Nay, it is a Noble Qur'an in a well-preserved table} (Bal-huwa Qur'anun al-Majidun fi Lawh al-Mahfudh), for the Qur'an is in a well-preserved table. He is in the breasts of those who received Knowledge, for Allah, the Exalted, says: {Nay, it is a clear Sign in breasts of those who received Knowledge} (Bal-huwa Ayatun bayyinatn fi suduri'l-lladhina utul-'Ilm). He is pronounced by the tongues, for Allah, the Exalted, says: {Do not haste with your tongue in reciting it} (La tuharik bi-hi lisanaka), for the Qur'an is written in reality, memorised in our breasts in reality, recited by our tongues in reality, heard by us in reality, like Allah, the Exalted, said: {Grant him, so that he can hear the Word of Allah!} (fa-ajruhu hatta yusma'u kalam Allah)."

This is the end of what al-Bayhaqi reported from the book al-Ibanah.

And al-Bayhaqi said also in the beginning of this chapter (i.e. Chapter: Saying on the Qur'an), after argumenting from Verses and other then them from what is mentioned in the book al-Ibanah, saying:

"And 'Ali b. Isma'il [al-Ash'ari] has made use of these chapters (fusul)"

[Part: Abu'l-'Abbas al-'Iraqi Confirmed the Ibanah]

And from among them [who made use of al-Ibanah] is the Imam and Hafidh Abu'l-'Abbas Ahmad b. Thabit al-'Iraqi, for he said in the elucidation of the issue of Istiwa from his work - from what has been reported to us, the Imam and Hafidh Abu'l-'Abbas Ahmad b. Thabit reported to us, saying:

"I have seen the Jahmiyyah ascribing the denial (nafy) of the Throne and the interpretation (ta'wil) of al-Istiwa to Abu'l-Hasan al-Ash'ari, but this is not so [as they claim]. All of this is false! They put forth lies against him, for I have read in his book, named al-Ibanah 'an Usul al-Diyanah, proofs from expressions, [which are] only mentioned but in affirming al-Istiwa. And he said in that formulation: "And from the supplications of the People of Islam, all of them, if they desire from Allah, the Exalted, in the revealed decree, they say: 'Oh dweller of the Throne!'" Then he said: 'And from their oaths of swearing is their saying: By Him, He who is veiled by the Seven Heavens!'

this is the end of what he (i.e. Abu'l-'Abbas) quoted, and this is in the Ibanah as he mentioned it.

[Part: Abu 'Uthman al-Sabuni Confirmed the Ibanah]

And from among them is the Imam and Hafidh, al-Ustadh Abu 'Uthman Isma'il b. Abd al-Rahman b. Ahmad al-Sabuni. For he said - what has been reported to us by the sublime Shaykh Abu Muhammad al-Qasim, the son of the Imam and Hafidh Abu'l-Qasim 'Ali b. al-Hasan b. 'Asakir al-Shafi'i, in Bayt al-Maqdis (Jerusalem) - may Allah keep him - in the year 576, he said: My father told me, he said: I heard Shaykh Abu Bakr Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Isma'il b. Muhammad b. Bashshar al-Bushanji, known as al-Kharbawi al-Faqih al-Zahidara, say on the authority of some of his teachers that the Imam Abu 'Uthman Isma'il b. Abd al-Rahman b. Ahmad al-Sabuni al-Naysaburi would not leave to a study-circle for teaching but taking in his hand the book al-Ibanah of Abu'l-Hasan al-Ash'ari, and [al-Sabuni] would make evident his amazement for it, and say:

"Who is it who rejects whats in this book, a explanation of his creed?!"

The Hafidh Abu'l-Qasim Ibn 'Asakir said after this report:

"This is the saying of Imam Abu 'Uthman, and he is from the greatest of the People of Tradition in Khurasan."

[Part: Abu 'Ali al-Ahwazi Confirmed the Ibanah]

And from among them is the Imam of the Reciters Abu 'Ali al-Hasan b. 'Ali b. Ibrahim al-Farisi, for he said..

For the rest of the translated tex - the other half - including footnotes and commentary, see http://s3.invisionfree.com/sunnipress in the future.

wa-Salamu 'Alaikum.

Appendix:

The Chronology of Shaykh Abu'l-Hasan al-Ash'ari (Basra 260-324 Baghdad)

260:

Abu'l-Hasan ' Ali b. Isma'il b. Abi Bishr al-Ash'ari was born; descendant of Abu Musa al-Ash'ari; his father Isma'il died when his son was young; his father ordered his son to the direction of Imam Zakariya al-Saji; his mother remarried with Abu 'Ali al-Jubba'i, leader of the Basran Mu'tazilites, and probably the reason for becoming an Mu'tazili.

260-300 & 300:

al-Ash'ari was 40 years a Mu'tazili, inseperable from his teacher and steph-father Abu 'Ali al-Jubba'i (d.303); he recanted in Basra from Mu'tazilism, publicly, and in the lifetime of his Shaykh, al-Jubba'i, and recanted all his former beliefs and begun attacking them in writing and speech; he also - folowed his father's early advise - started taking the Madhab of the Ahl al-Sunnah from the Imam of the Ahl al-Sunnah in Basra: Imam Abu Yahya Zakariya b. Yahya al-Saji (d.307).

300-324: probably from 300 till ca.307

al-Ash'ari learned besides from al-Saji also from Abu Khalifah al-Jumahi (d.303 or 305) and composed a great Tafsir in which he filled it with traditions from the Ahl al-Sunnah.

ca.310-322:

al-Ash'ari was still in Basra, since Ibn 'Asakir mentions that he never left it untill he went to Baghdad where he stayed for the rest of his life and died; in 315 Ibn Khafif met al-Ash'ari probably (he may have met him already in 300, he could also met him in 319 were he was - again - in Basra), together with 'Amr b. 'Aluyah (d.after 312); the evidence that he was in 322 in Basra is the fact that Abu Sahl al-Su'luki, a student of the Shaykh, began in that year his travel to 'Iraq, and he met him in Basra (and later in Baghdad).

ca.322-324:

al-Ash'ari probably left Basra in 322 for Baghdad; he studied under Abu Ishaq al-Marwazi (d.340) jurisprudence, and thaught others, such as Abu Sahl al-Su'luki, Abu 'Ali Zahir b. Ahmad al-Sarakhsi in Baghdad; he authored the Ibanah in Baghad - before the death of al-Barbahari (d.329) - as adduced by Ibn Abi Ya'la and Abu 'Ali al-Muqri, and as indicated by his own list of works - in his book al-'Amad - where he neglected the mentioning of the book in his catalogue of works written untill 320.

324:

al-Ash'ari died in 324, rahimahullah, in the company of the above mentioned student Abu 'Ali al-Sarakhsi; he was buried in the vicinity of the Imam to whom he testified alliance in the Risalah on Iman and the Ibanah, and confirmed by his followers: Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal.

Wa-Allahu A'lam.

[Abul Hasan]

Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim.

[B]I've copied this from elsewhere - written by myself. I'm not opposed to Imam al-Ash'ari - rahimahullah - nor all the Ash'arites. Rather I do not agree with some of them - such as the Mu'awwilun and Mu'attilun from amongs them.

First of all, I have never come across any Ash'ari scholar deny that al-Ibana was composed by Imam Abul Hasan al-Ash'ari (ra). The dispute is over it being tampered with in time. I have already asked you to explain why Imam al-Bayhaqi - the Ash'ari Shafi'i Imam of his time - knew of the Ibana - but he never affirmed aynayn ("two-eyes") for Allah in his al-I'tiqad or his al-Asma wal Sifat. If you know better than explain this with burhan and not zann.

Secondly, you have admitted that you are not against every Ash'ari Imam - this is something commendable, but now what do you say about Asha'ira like: Imam al-Nawawi and al-Hafiz ibn Hajar al-Asqalani - who have both been attacked lately by your ilk for either making Ta'wil or disseminating it by quoting their predecessors.

What is your stance on the one who explains the following ayat (Qur'an 28: 88): "Kullu Shayyin haalikun illa Wajhahu: Everything shall perish save His Face" - To mean Everything shall perish except Allah's MULK: Dominion?!

Is such a Man an innovating Mu'awwil or a Jahmi Muattil?!

What is your stance on one who says that Allah's Kursi means His Knowledge (Ilmuhu).

Is such a man an innovating Mu'awwil or a Jahmi Muattil?

A simple yes or no shall suffice.

-------------------

Abul Hasan

PS- No need to take this to the rabble rousing forum known as ahya and its ill-mannered wanna be aqeeda "specialists"

[faqir]

:salam:

One of the Forthcoming titles to be published by Amal Press:

http://www.amalpress.com/index.php?l_dis=publications_descr&id=18



The Attributes of God

Description:

Daf' Shubah al-Tashbh is a critique, censure, and refutation of the historical anthropomorphic leanings of some of the Hanbali scholars and learned. At the same time, it is a vindication of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal from the accusations of the anthropomorphism as well as the claim by some Hanbalis, that he adopted anthropomorphic beliefs, similar to theirs. Unmistakably, this work is a polemical commentary on the problematic Qur'anic verses and hadiths that fall under the mutashabih (allegorical and ambiguous) Qur'anic verses and prophetic traditions composed by the author, 'Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Jawzi (d. 597 AH), the author of the well-acclaimed book, Talbis Iblis (The Devils' Deception).

Unlike other books of this genre, this book is significant in that Ibn al-Jawzi offers an incisive critique of scholars of his own school, for which in return, Ibn al-Jawzi was criticised by those Hanbali and Hanbali-leaning proponents.

This book is important for anyone who is constantly indulged in discussions and the study of polemical theology (kalam) and scriptural interpretation (ta'wil), but still have been unable to gain clarity concerning the reality and permissibility of ta'wil of the verses commonly refered to as 'The Attributes Verses' (Ayat Al-Sifat).

The appendix further clarifies the issue of scriptual interpretation, figurative language in both the Qur'an and Sunnah (Majaz), the proper intent behind the statement made by the salaf, & 'bila kayf' (Without 'How' as opposed to 'Without Modality or Description'), and an investigation into the ascription of Kitab al-Ibana to Imam Al-Ash'ari.

Readers who will derive the most benefit from this book are those who have been actively involved in the study of matters of interpretation and polemical theology. It also serves as an indispensable primer into one of the greatest debates that continued throughout much of Islam's medieval period, namely that of understanding the attributes of God.



Anyone read the original?

Wasalam

[Ibn_Abi_Yala]

al_Salamu Alaykum,

I invite you - the scholar Abul Hasan - to my MSN Messenger through [clip-no email addys in the mixed sections]

Salam!

[Abul Hasan]

al_Salamu Alaykum,

I invite you - the scholar Abul Hasan - to my MSN Messenger through [clip-no email addys in the mixed sections]

Salam!

Was-salam ala man ittiba al-Huda

I am not an Alim, and had no say in that ascription given beneath my name here. I do not have MSN, and if you have any valid arguments then answer here or take it elsewhere. The only thing that I and other Ikhwan here find disturbing is the style of language and arrogance used mainly by your friends at sites like ahya. This is the same ahya that was accused of theft by salafi publications! Your own reputation can never hold weight when you post at such bile churning sites like ahya...

[Ibn_Abi_Yala]

I have answers for some.. insha'Allah.

As for the reported style of language and arrogance of others: I'm not responsible for what others say and do, nor have I acknowledged to anyone who my friends are or not..

Let me go one step at the time:

There's no doubt that the Hafidh Abu Bakr al-Bayhaqi did not mention 'aynayn/'aynân in his I'tiqad or Asma wa'l-Sifat - in any of the editions I saw.

But the fact - read it again ('fact') - that it has been transmitted in the writings of Imam al-Ash'ari should not be rejected on the basis of what a later follower wrote (let alone that he never rejected it!).

I'm definitely convinced that al-Ash'ari wrote 'aynayn/'aynân, for the reasons I gave elsewhere. To sum up:

*the most reliable (read: critical) edition in our hands, that of Fawqiyyah H. Mahmud, has mentioned this in more then one place;

*scholars who quoted the Ibanah, such as Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim, al-Dhahabi, Ibn 'Asakir and others have mentioned this too; these scholars - how much you disagree with them - can not be called willful liars or cheaters in this matter (especially when contemporary scholars who opposed some of them did not mention this criticism, for example Ibn Hajar al-Haythami);

*Abu Bakr al-Baqillani - the most important Ash'ari scholar of their early history - was the most knowledgable Ash'ari of his generation (such as Abu'l-Tayyib al-Su'luki, Ibn Furak and Abu Ishaq al-Isfara'ini), and he confirmed these Sifat in more then one book of his; and he was in turn quoted by scholars such as Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Dhahabi and others in confirmation of that;

*Ibn Hazm - and this is also significant in more then one sense - mentioned the issue of Two Eyes and his criticism of it with reference to the Ash'arites! This should have been mentioned by Mr. Haddad for example. Ibn Hazm did not invent these Sifat; rather he found them with the Ash'ariyyah, and he then criticised it - unfairly - and accused them of Tashbih. so the fact that Ibn Hazm knew that they said such is also an important proof for that fact. See the reference provided by Mr. Haddad himself;

To conclude this issue: there's no doubt that Imam al-Ash'ari wrote as such - since the assumption, and nothing more, that tampering has underwent with respect to the Ibanah on this specific theme is improbable from more then one perspective.

As for the contents, then you may agree or disagree. As for my agreement to the fact that there are Sifat al-'Aynayn, then the Qur'an al-Karim affirms al-'Ayni wa'l-A'yunina literally (i.e. My Eye and Our Eyes). We therefore may affirm Eye in the singular and Eyes in the plural. How about the dual? Whoever affirms Eye in the plural sense, then he affirms it also in the singular sense. Then if someone affirms Eye in the dual he affirms them both, since the singular form is included in the dual, and the plural form surrounds the dual. Anyone who affirms Eyes in the plural sense can not deny Eyes in the dual sense, since the former is greater - which means it is included. The affirmation of something lesser in number does not exlude that we affirm the greater.

The criticism of some that: We may only speak by what the Nusus spoke with, then we may say:

The affirmation of the Nusus does not reject the Attributes of Two Eyes, rather it indicates it by the Eye (s) and the Eyes (p). If there was only Eye - and not Eyes (p) - then we may reject this, for the affirmation of one thing does not necessiate the affirmation of more; for example: We affirm Allah's Wajh, but not that He possesses Faces.

The criticism fired at some of the Ahl al-Sunnah - copied from Ibn Hazm - basis itself on the theory of the denial of the existence of the Attributes (al-ta'til wujud al-sifat): they speak as if they affirm the Attributes, but they deny some of them because they claim they adhere to the Nusus. But the Nusus do not reject any of the Attributes He already affirmed for himself - in this case Eye and Eyes. Why did Imam al-Ash'ari speak of Two Eyes? Then he spoke also about Eye and Eyes, and he saw no problem in affirming them both (i.e. those explicitly hold and the one inferred from the apparent texts).

Where the likes of Ibn Hazm - and others who spoke of Ta'til - were more justified in their criticism, is the following example:

Allah has been called al-Qadim by the Ash'arites. Ibn Hazm opposes that and rejects it fiercely for it has no basis whatsoever in any of the Nusus (according to him). In this case he's more justified to say so - but he has it wrong (as his criticism against the Ash'arites).
Yes, there's no al-Qadim in the Qur'an and the Sunan, and yes, al-Qidam is [also] subjected to the created things. But it has more then one meaning, and it is not just the words that count - but also the meaning. Allah, subhanahu wa-ta'ala, did not send His Prophet with mere words, but with a Message compromised of words and meanings. And there's no rejection of any correct meaning simply because the words have not been literally and explicitly mentioned in the Nusus; in fact, if we mean what one person says then the words are not always considered, for the words are only a vehicle for carrying the intented meanings.

al-Qadim, the Eternal, the One that Precedes etc. is a correct meaning for Allah, ta'ala, as indicated - but not literally mentioned or quoted - by the Nusus. An excellent Nass are the Words of Him, 'azza wa-jall, that: He's is the First and the Last {Huwa'l-Awwalu wa'l-Akhir}. In the language of the 'Arabs, these Attributes correspond with a meaning given to al-Qadim, so the scholars do not reject it; rather they affirm it.

To those who say: give me proof from the Texts that there are Two Eyes - how about al-Qadim?! The first claiment has more convincing evidence in favor of his stance since he may say: Allah said that He has Eyes and a Eye, and the Prophet pointed to his two eyes etc. He may even say: No one rejected Two Eyes, untill the 20th century [with the exception of one scholar, Ibn Hazm; addition: 22-03-05, and a few others]. As for the second claiment, then he can not bring out any text in favor of al-Qadim: not from the Qur'an, as the first may do, nor from the Sunnah, as he again may try.

Then the second claiment can also be reproached for other 'Sifat', such as al-Wujud and al-Kawn as adduced by some people like him. And his Attribute of al-Baqa', then He is al-Baqi' - but where is the Nass for the Attribute of al-Baqa'? Then in this way - the way of some philosophers, Jahmites and Ibn Hazm in part of his sayings - there's only confusing and playing with words, neglecting meanings.

As for us - the Ahl al-Sunnah wa'l-Jama'ah, may Allah support them! Ya Rabb! - we do not reject Allah's Names and Attributes. We affirm them all, based on the Qur'an, the Sunnah and the Ijma' of the Sahaba; and the 'Aql - our fitra - does not reject the Attributes of Allah Subhanahu wa-Ta'ala 'ala ma qalu al-muharrifun. And the Naql and 'Aql accept that Allah is al-Qadim, al-Azali etc. in words or meanings. As we accept that Allah's Attributes are uncreated, and therefor Allah's Speech the Qur'an; we do not know any explicit Nass from the Qur'an or the Sunnah in this issue, but at the same time we are not speculative about Allah's Attributes.

Allahu A'lam,

wa-Billahi al-Tawfiq.

[faqir]

:salam:

Akhi, I am a bit confused regarding what you wrote because presumably based on the explanation you gave, it is okay for me to say Allah has three eyes or maybe three thousand eyes as well??

[Ibn_Abi_Yala]

al-Salamu alaikum.

There's no particular indication in the Qur'an, the Sunnah, the Ijma', the sayings of the Salaf or the righteous Khalaf in saying: "He has three Eyes" or "He has three thousand Eyes" or any other saying alike - it is prohibited to speculate about Allah's Attributes.

As for Eye, Two Eyes and Eyes, then there is. For the first and the last there are explicit/literal indications - no one can deny them by misunderstanding. As for the second saying, I gave the evidences either by the evidence itself or by indication. To interpretet the Eyes (plural) in numbers, then you speak without any evidence or indication from sources such I gave above:

- the Quran does not support a multiple number specifically;

- the Sunnah neither;

- the Ijma' also not: even the Hanabilah have never said such;

- the sayings of the Salaf? Never heard;

- that of the righteous Khalaf? Neither - as indicated above;

Then what has been left: Are you a righteous 'alim who's opinion maybe considered? No - I don't think so, so we may leave this.

As for Two Eyes:

- the Qur'an indicates so by speaking about Eyes (plural);

- the Sunnah too in particular ahadith;

- the Ijma'? I haven't seen an expliciti statement concerning this, though I've seen dozen of statements on the Ijma' of 'letting the texts pass as they came' and 'belief without how'etc. ascribed to the Ijma' of the Salaf;

- the sayings of the Salaf and Khalaf? As for the reports on Eyes (plural) - then they indicate enough. As for the righteous Khalaf: Imam al-Ash'ari belongs to this category - Inshallah - as a few other scholars who were well-versed in 'Aqidah.

Maybe you've misunderstand me:

Since we believe Allah has Eyes (plural) its quite permitted to say that He has an Eye; the same counts for Two Eyes. Why? Because this necessiates it by itself.

Then one can argue: since Eyes (plural) necessiates at least three, then we may say: Three Eyes? Then the answer I gave above suffice: You are not one who's opinion can be considered, nor has anyone before said the same - contrary to the issue of Two Eyes.

Then there's also an argument from the language which is very strong: another has written about it an it concerns the noun-variable: when sometimes the plural is said, but the speaker means less. You may look it up in books on Majaz and lexicography.

wa-Allahu A'lam.

[faqir]

:salam:

JazakAllah khair Akhi for taking the time to explain.

I still am not quite sure why you object to three eyes based on the explanation you posted earlier.

Why can't I say three eyes when the evidence you yourself stated that the Qur'an says either eye or eyes (plural) which according to you includes two eyes - I mean, if it includes two then it also includes three, no?

Similarly, I have not come across any particular Hadith which specificially denotes two or three or four eyes - so then if I can say two then why not three or four?

So again, is there any specific reason why I cannot say three eyes but have to say or am even allowed to say two eyes - any explicit definitive text from Qur'an and Sunnah?

If there isn't then surely you cannot object to my saying three or four eyes....

JazakAllah khair.

wasalam.

[Ibn_Abi_Yala]

I have already explained that:

For Two Eyes we have a precedent of the A'immah, for example Imam Uthman b. Sa'id al-Darimi and Shaykh Abu'l-Hasan al-Ash'ari. This has been also textually copied by the later scholars of Islam, incl. al-Baqillani, Qadi Abu Ya'la, Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Saffarini and others.

As for three, four or more. then again, I say: There's no explicit mention of these numbers by anyone before (in fact: you're the first one from whom I've heard it), and therefor we leave it by saying just what has been mentioned before.

[faqir]

I have already explained that:

For Two Eyes we have a precedent of the A'immah, for example Imam Uthman b. Sa'id al-Darimi and Shaykh Abu'l-Hasan al-Ash'ari. This has been also textually copied by the later scholars of Islam, incl. al-Baqillani, Qadi Abu Ya'la, Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Saffarini and others.

As for three, four or more. then again, I say: There's no explicit mention of these numbers by anyone before (in fact: you're the first one from whom I've heard it), and therefor we leave it by saying just what has been mentioned before.


JazakAllah khair bro but if they said that Allah had fourteen eyes would you believe them?

[Ibn_Abi_Yala]

That's a contradicting statement, for I've already indicated: Salaf or righteous Khalaf. Would you think that a righteous one from the Khalaf would speculate about the number of Sifat?!

[faqir]

I don't know Akhi - if the scholars mentioned were here mayb I could aks them directly. But as far as I can see, from what you ave mentioned the only reason I can't say three eyes but I can say two eyes is becuase certain scholars said two eyes and didn't say three or mayb three hundred eyes - that doesn't cut it for me....

[Ibn_Abi_Yala]

I've said:


As for Two Eyes:

- the Qur'an indicates so by speaking about Eyes (plural);

- the Sunnah too in particular ahadith;

- the Ijma'? I haven't seen an expliciti statement concerning this, though I've seen dozen of statements on the Ijma' of 'letting the texts pass as they came' and 'belief without how'etc. ascribed to the Ijma' of the Salaf;

- the sayings of the Salaf and Khalaf? As for the reports on Eyes (plural) - then they indicate enough. As for the righteous Khalaf: Imam al-Ash'ari belongs to this category - Inshallah - as a few other scholars who were well-versed in 'Aqidah.

And I indicated also elsewhere above.

So 'as far as you can see' is not of concern to me; I've only given the evidences at hand which argument what I've said, and basely it is:

* The Quranic Ayat on Eyes in the plural sense, * plus the Understanding of the Scholars of these Attributes mentioned therein, and * some other indications such as the poitning of the Prophet to his two eyes, the sayings of other scholars..

and I say:

wa-Allahu A'lam.

But I know for sure: there's no evidence to speculate about the plurality of Eyes in any definite sense as you have suggested. No one before said 3 or 4 or more. And it is inconceivable that if that was the true measure - and the Sunni Ahl al-'Ilm do measure allah rightly by what they received - they would have neglected to communicate so. So whoever comes now and claims something no one before has said, without any firm understanding of the principal sources, then his claim is: batil.

[faqir]

Akhi, can you post the proof texts - from Qur'an and Sunnah where Allah's two eyes are explicitly mentioned please? Obviously if this proof text explicitly mentions two eyes then three eyes will be out of the question. :)

[Ibn_Abi_Yala]

If I could then I would post so - as many other prooftexts in which many scholars differed in Aqidah, Fiqh, Sira etc. but obviously that's not always possible.

Your request is in fact unfair and illogical.

I've argumented why its unfair and quite unreasonable in the case of al-Qadim. And I can add many more - which I believe you will never deny or cast doubt on concerning its correctness as in the case of al-Qadim.

Its also illogical to say that if there's mention of Two Eyes then three eyes can be automatically be out of the question. Whoever said that? Allah says: "..floating under My Eye" should we follow your faulty reasoning by denying Eyes in the plural sense? Or sionce He says, "Eyes" should we deny Eye in the singular sense? This is of course no argument at all - you should realize that now.

[faqir]

If I could then I would post so - as many other prooftexts in which many scholars differed in Aqidah, Fiqh, Sira etc. but obviously that's not always possible.

Your request is in fact unfair and illogical.

I've argumented why its unfair and quite unreasonable in the case of al-Qadim. And I can add many more - which I believe you will never deny or cast doubt on concerning its correctness as in the case of al-Qadim.

Its also illogical to say that if there's mention of Two Eyes then three eyes can be automatically be out of the question. Whoever said that? Allah says: "..floating under My Eye" should we follow your faulty reasoning by denying Eyes in the plural sense? Or sionce He says, "Eyes" should we deny Eye in the singular sense? This is of course no argument at all - you should realize that now.

So are you saying there is no proof text that explicitly mentions two eyes?

If the answer is yes then why can't I say three eyes if you or any other shaykh can say two eyes?

Anyway Akhi it has been an interesting discussion but I will take leave for now as we seem to be going in circles.

Thank you for your help.

[Ibn_Abi_Yala]

There is evidences and proofs. If you want a quite literal mentioning then I cant find so. But this does not - and I say it again - necessiate that these Attributes exist; quite on the contrary, they exist in proof-texts which indicate its existence.

As for you request if it is permissible to say three eyes, then you should read again what I've said - and you haven't done that well enough, so I think that you are captured by your own short understanding mind which makes you circle in confusion.

Let me say it in "kids' talk":

You may not say Three Eyes because:

a) You are not a scholar who may say so with understanding.

b) You can not claim something like this without being a Mujtahid who's Fadl and stature has been acknowledged as such - so we won't consider your opinion, let alone your saying as such.

c) The absence of a precedent by someone recognized as a righteous scholar who said the same necessiate suspicion of your interpretation - let alone correctness.

d) You failure to understand that anything in the plural necessiate something being at least one or two; since one and two are explicitly said by scholars, ánd more - BUT NOT IN NUMBER - we may say the same.

So three may not be said. Hve you ever seen Abu Bakr al-Baqillani, al-Juwayni, Fakr al-Razi or others for that matter speak of Three Hands? Or Four? Or Five? Or Thousand? They wrote it in three ways: Hand, Two Hands, Hands. If you feel save to say Three - say so, I'm not responsible for your confusion and faulty inferences, motivated by a Nafs which calls to Su'..

wa-Salamu alaikum.

[faqir]

So basically it all comes down to Taqleed on this aspect of Creed. You want me to make Taqleed of these people who you say mention two hands but you don't want to tell me why they [according to you] said two hands or you don't have the ability to do so because you don't know or maybe because this evidence does not exist??? Allahu Alam - I know I won't get a straight answer from you - just "kids talk". If you ever come across the actual daleel post it here, inshaAllah. If there is no daleel which explicitly states two hand then according to your own [flawed] logic there is no reason not to state three hands. I think you are the one who needs to read what you wrote!

[samrqandi]

assalaamu alaikum

ibn abi yala knows himself that his using rye in this matter, including kalaam. He even knows there is no qatee text available to say that Allah has aynayn. Anyway like i said earlier on in this thread that even if some of the scholars mentioned aynayn, we can look at it the way imam hasan al basri interpreted yadayn. Although it is better to stay with what the qur'an extablished on this matter. Imam nawawi defined the method of ahlus sunnah clearly we stay to that we wont have any problems what so ever!But i dont want to go into this matter any further. but what we need to highlight is why doesnt he ibn abi yala continue to say allah also has two shins and two feet.

He makes such remarks; oh well some of the salaf said this and that, we also say the salaf made ta'weel, but that is hard to stomach for some people. then he furthers states: i will explain in kids english, as if his a scholar. The arrogance of people has reached the pinical of mount evarist!

Then what do you see, him always making reference to ibn taymiya and qadi yala, who innovated in matters of creed. Ibn taymiya isnt a reference point for me. Nor do i want to waste time in dicussing his innovations.

I dont know which individual it is, in that hanbali forum, who over reacts in instances and continues to report ijma against the ashari's and even when a sane person looks into the people he qoutes, you will automatically know his ijma is just his hawa!

any mistakes are from me and may allah guide us to the right path ameen!

wassalaamu alaikum

[Ibn_Abi_Yala]

al-Salamu alaikum,

I thought you spoke at last.. some time ago on this matter? Correct me if I'm wrong.

If you deny Allah has Eyes, you deny the Qur'an al-Karim. And Two Eyes is mentioned as such, and explained as such.

Where's your Qat'i t Text of al-Qadim?

Do you like it in this way..? I hope I give you some stuff to 'speculate' about. Cause I don't see - after explaining, I believe, quite correctly - how to convince you of what's right.

I bet you will now feel ashame.. ignorant.. FOR I CAN SWEAR that you will never find any proof for that, anywhere.. nor for many other 'Sifat' types like you make mention off..

.. so go ahead, and circle your way around this request - with excuses and false allegations, sayings, opinion etc.

wa-Salam 'ala man'ittaba al-Huda.

Edited by mod: What do we have to do with the swearing of the likes of you - a layman parading as if he is an Alim par excellence ! - for even the Kuffaar swore that Muhammad - Allah bless him - was not the Prophet of God. Mind your tongue and avoid attacking other members.

[faqir]

err, you believe Allah has a beginning? dude you need some help!

[samrqandi]

Assalaamu^alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu


allahu akhbar, again people make allegations; such words as: ignorant, shameless etc etc.

Let me tell you ibn abi yala: whoever denies el-qur'an el-kareem is a kaafir bila shak. I dont know why you brought up that argument. what you really meant was whoever denies ayun, ayn, yanee its mention in the qur'an then most certianly that person is a kaafir.

For us there isnt a problem with terminology (that should be made clear), i think your missing the point. Then you brought up the issue of Qadim! The problem are these so-called salafi mubtadi's who always have a problem with the ashari's, ranting; qur'an qur'an. When in fact they dont even have a systematic usool when dealing with aqeeda.

I will comment further since im not here to lower anyones esteem. Now ibn abi yala im not intrested in your reverse physcology or the phylosiphical principle; "two sides of the same coin". as is apparent from your mini discourse. Why is it that its the ashari's who are accused of using ta'weel, kalaam etc but when these groups use it themselves its permissable! I think you need to go and re-phrase what you said about speculate rather someone needs to understand and ponder upon what I have said, before unleashing vile words!

I will tell you for sure im not going to waste my time in this thread with this issue. What i said was clear cut!

I dont even spend much time on this forum or any other forum. It should be made clear! You even ask brothers to have a debate via msn. What i can do is arrange a debate (on the entire differences between the ashari's and the so-called salafi's etc) with you and a brother (whose studied the deen), in person and get it recorded. I will find out more about that insha-allah (not offcial as of yet, need to see!).

Any mistakes are from me and may allah guide us all ameen.

(sorry for the typo mistakes brothers and sisters, but i really dont have time to spend on this forum or any other one)

wassalaamu^alaikum

[Abul Hasan]

al-Salamu alaikum,

I thought you spoke at last.. some time ago on this matter? Correct me if I'm wrong.

If you deny Allah has Eyes, you deny the Qur'an al-Karim. And Two Eyes is mentioned as such, and explained as such.

Where's your Qat'i t Text of al-Qadim?

Do you like it in this way..? I hope I give you some stuff to 'speculate' about. Cause I don't see - after explaining, I believe, quite correctly - how to convince you of what's right.

I bet you will now feel ashame.. ignorant.. FOR I CAN SWEAR that you will never find any proof for that, anywhere.. nor for many other 'Sifat' types like you make mention off..

.. so go ahead, and circle your way around this request - with excuses and false allegations, sayings, opinion etc.

wa-Salam 'ala man'ittaba al-Huda.

Edited by mod: What do we have to do with the swearing of the likes of you - a layman parading as if he is an Alim par excellence ! - for even the Kuffaar swore that Muhammad - Allah bless him - was not the Prophet of God. Mind your tongue and avoid attacking other members.


O you who speaks aloud - wait and see what i have got for you to ponder over in excess of 30 pages Insha'allah. The answers are in such works like: al-I'tiqad and al-Asma wal Sifat of al-Bayhaqi...

As for your two eyes claim - then your own guild in aqeeda: Hanabila, have ikhtilaf over this - like Ibn Aqil and ibn al-Jawzi denying it absolutely - but you may say these are not "real" Hanbali's! They were "anti-Ash'ari".... kadha wa kadha... More like it is your get out clause.


Patience will bear the fruit of the tree of Haqq over Batil bi-idhnillah...

[faqir]

Asalamu alaykum Akhi Ibn Abi Ya'la,

I would be interested to know your replies to the following questions, JazakAllah khair, akhi.

i) What is the Salafi [or your] position on one who says that the ayat: Kullu shayin halikun illa wajhuh: Everything shall perish except His face, means: Illa Mulkuhu: Except His Dominion. Is such a man a Jahmi Muattil or a Mubtadi Muawwil whose aqeedah should never be taken from?

ii) What is the Salafi position on one who says that Kursi of Allah means His Ilm (knowledge)?! is he a Jahmi Muattil or Mubtadi Muawwil?

iii) What is the Salafi position on someone who tampers with a Hadith in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad - in order to spread his aqeeda?

Thank you for your replies.

Wasalam.

[Abul Hasan]

:salam:

In continuing with this thread, bi-idhnillah, I will post the arguments of our Shaykh, the Faqih and Aqeeda specialist of Damascus: Wahbi ibn Sulayman Ghawiji al-Albani and his 100+ pages on the problems with the Kitab al-Ibana attributed to Imam Abul Hasan al-Ash'ari - SOON. This will be the second radd on the pseudo-Salafi's who visit here and stir fitna over there on the Ahwa forum.

Wassalam

Abul Hasan
-------------------------------------------------

Here is a short article i found in Arabic explainig a few snippets connected to the issue of tampering in the Ibana, author is unknown to me:




كتاب الإبانة للأشعري

اضاف فيه هؤلاء

و حذفوا بعض المقاطع التي تنزه الله تعالى

و بيننا و بينهم المخطوطات الأصلية

و هم غير موثوقون في النقل و الطبع

و منها هذا المقطع

قال الامام أبو الحسن الاشعري في كتابه " الابانة " المحقق على أربع نسخ خطية ( دار الانصار تحقيق الدكتوره فوقيه ) ص ( 21 ) ما نصه : " وأن الله تعالى استوى على العرش على الوجه الذي قاله وبالمعنى الذي أراده ، استواء منزها عن المماسة والاستقرار والتمكن والحلول والانتقال ، لا يحمله العرش بل العرش وحملته محمولون بلطف قدرته ، ومقهورون في قبضته ، وهو فوق العرش وفوق كل شئ إلى نجوم الثرى ، فوقية لا تزيده قربا إلى العرش والسماء ، بل هو رفيع الدرجات عن العرش كما أنه رفيع الدرجات عن الثرى وهو مع ذلك قريب من كل موجود وهو أقرب إلى العبد من حبل الوريد وهو على كل شئ شهيد " اه* .


وتنبهوا : إلى أن هذه القطعة من " الابانة " محذوفة من أكثر نسخ الابانة التي طبعها سلفية العصر والموجودة في

الاسواق وبأيدي الناس ، وابحثوا عن النسخة المشار إليها وهي متوفرة ومطبوعة

منقول من منتدى الرياحين بقلم الشيخ أبو صالح
ملاحظة قبل البدء: إن كان الأشعري حنبلياً فهذا لا يضره شىء فمذهب أحمد بن حنبل من مذاهب أهل السنة والجماعة وقد ذكر التاج السبكي في طبقاته أن المذاهب الأربعة كانت تتجاذب الأشعري كي تحظى بانتسابه لواحد منها، أما إن كنت تعني بالعودة عودته لمذهب التشبيه والتجسيم فإننا نبرؤه هو وأحمد بن حنبل من هذه المقولة.
عدنا لكتاب الإبانة مرة أخرى ..
قارنت بنفسي قبل نحو خمس سنوات بين ثلاث طبعات للإبانة طبعت في السعودية الأولى من جامعة الملك سعود والثانية من جامعة أم القرى والثالثة من مطبعة الرياض ، وبين نسخة رابعة هي من تحقيق الدكتورة فوقية طبعت في مصر وهي أقدمهن طباعة وأكثرهن تحر للدقة بسبب اعتمادها على أربع نسخ مخطوطة مع العلم أن نسخة الدكتورة فوقية لم تسلم هي الأخرى من السقط والتغيير ولكنها نقلت كل ما وجدته في المخطوطات الأربعة التي حصلت عليها ولم تنزع منها شيئا.
قارنت هذه النسخ المطبوعة من الكتاب مع الجزء الذي نقله الحافظ ابن عساكر من الإبانة في كتابه "تبيين كذب المفتري فيما نسبه إلى الإمام أبي الحسن الأشعري" فوجدت الاختلاف الكبير والبون الشاسع بين هذه النسخ الأربعة وبين ما نقله ابن عساكر، وكذلك وجدت اختلافاً كبيرا فيما بين هذه النسخ المطبوعة بعضها مع بعض، وهذا زاد ما في القلب من أن كتاب الإبانة لم يسلم من حشو الحشوية وتحريف بعض النساخ، واستحضرت قول التاج السبكي في كتابه معيد النعم: آفة الكتب نساخها.
ومما يقدح بصحة ما في كتاب الإبانة المطبوع حاليا أن متقدمي الأشاعرة فضلا عن متأخريهم لم ينقلوا ما ورد في هذا الكتاب عن إمامهم بل نقلوا خلاف ذلك، وكتاب "مقالات الأشعري" لابن فورك خير شاهد على هذا.
إضافة لما ذكرنا فإن في هذا الكتاب المطبوع الآن دعاء لم يقله أحد ممن يعتمد عليه وننزه الإمام أبا الحسن الأشعري عن قوله أو اعتقاد معناه، حتى إن المخالفين الذين يعتمدون على كتاب الإبانة المطبوع الحالي لا يقبلونها نصاً ولا يصرحون بها رغم اعتقاد كثير منهم إياها، ووجودها في الكتاب من أدل الأدلة على تعرض هذا الكتاب للدس والتحريف والحشو.
والعبارة هي: "ومن دعاء أهل الإسلام جميعاً إذا هم رغبوا إلى الله تعالى بالأمر النازل بهم يقولون: يا ساكن العرش- ومن حلفهم جميعا قولهم: لا والذي احتجب بسبع سماوات"، انتهى بحروفه.

وهذا كذب ظاهر تعمّد مفتريه على الإمام أبي الحسن الأشعري نسبة ذلك إليه، لأن الواقع يكذب ذلك فإن هاتين العبارتين لم ينقلا عن إمام ولا عن عالم أنه قال ذلك في دعائه او في حلفه بل ولا عن عوام المسلمين.
فما أجرأ هذا الذي نسب إلى الإمام أبي الحسن هذا الكلام، لا يستحي من الله ولا من المسلمين، فمثل هذه النسخ المطبوعة التي فيها هذا الكلام وما أشبهه فهي مدسوسة على الإمام ابي الحسن، والإمام أبو الحسن من أشهر من عُلم بنفي التحيّز عن الله، وقد صرّح بمنع قول الله بمكان كذا، وإن الله بمكان واحد أو في جميع الأمكنة، وهذا الذي توارد عليه علماء المسلمين الذي تلقوا عنه عقيدة أهل السنة والجماعة والذين تلقوا عنهم وهلمّ جرا.
الخاتمة القاصمة: إن المتكئين على هذه النسخ المطبوعة التي لا ولم تثبت عن الإمام الأشعري بصورتها الحالية، هل يستطيعون ان يأتوا بسند صحيح متصل لهذا الكتاب بصورته الحالية؟ وهم يعلمون ان هذا العلم يروى بالسند، وأن الإسناد من خصائص هذه الأمة، هيهـــــات.
خاتمة الخاتمة: نحن لا ننكر أن الإمام أبا الحسن الأشعري قد ألف كتابا أسماه الإبانة، ولكننا ننكر صورته المطبوعة حالياً للأسباب التي ذكرتها آنفاُ، وهذه النسخ المطبوعة يعتمد عليها المخالفون ويدندنون حولها في نقاشهم معنا في حلهم وترحالهم.
والله من وراء القصد

[faqir]

:salam:

In continuing with this thread, bi-idhnillah, I will post the arguments of our Shaykh, the Faqih and Aqeeda specialist of Damascus: Wahbi ibn Sulayman Ghawiji al-Albani and his 100+ pages on the problems with the Kitab al-Ibana attributed to Imam Abul Hasan al-Ash'ari - SOON.
Wassalam

Abul Hasan

:salam:

JazakAllah khair Akhi!

Looking forward to it :)

[Abul Hasan]

:salam:

JazakAllah khair Akhi!

Looking forward to it :)


:salam:

See the attachment Insha'Allah. Sorry, but because the files are too large to upload in one go here due to upload capacity restrictions I have attempted to post it in 4 files Insha'Allah.

Abul Hasan

PS - Bi-Idhnillah there is one more article to come on this issue of the Ibana, specifically on the Aynayn issue. Patience will bear fruit in the subjugation of falsehood in order to raise the banner of Truth. AMIN.

[Abul Hasan]

Part 2...

[Abul Hasan]

Part 3...

[Mossy]

Sunniforum can host larger files if required. Please pm br Saleel or myself.

[Abul Hasan]

Part 4...

[Mossy]

Uploaded to permanent storage:

http://www.sunniforum.com/media/Problems with Al_Ibana_by_Shaykh Ghawiji.pdf

[Abul Hasan]

:salam:

Enclosed is a defence of claims against Asha'ira by Br. Mithaq. It also examines a few points connected to the Ibana in answer to the pseudo-Salafiyya of this age.

Abul Hasan

[Ibn_Abi_Yala]

Where's the response on al-Ash'ari's Ibanah, al-Maqalat and al-Mujiz?

On al-Baqillani's firm attesting the phrase and belief of Two Eyes?

On Ibn Furak's non-denial of it, together of other Ash'arites?

On in fact Ibn Furak's tolerating the Two Eyes-phrase, from al-Ash'ari, al-Baqillani and from his own reference in the Hadith of {'aynay al-Rahman} in the Mushkil?

On al-Lalika'i's affirmation - and your belying him?

On Ibn 'Asakir's affirmation of the Ibanah and Two Eyes? And that of the scholars after him who quoted Ibn 'Asakir, such as part of the Huffadh I mentioned besides the Ash'arites themselves?

And on the evidence of A'yunina [as Two Eyes] by the Muhaqqiqin? And the absence of the scholars' rejection of it?

Such as that of al-Sharastani's, who possessed the copy of the Maqalat in our hands - wa-Allahu A'lam.

Can you Abul Hasan respond to that, before dragging me into an Ibn Qudama-Tafweed Debate, a debate I'm willing to take part in through the medium of Internet or by your visit and that of the brothers to Amsterdam? [as I've stated before]

So do not digress as you've digressed much, nor weedle your way out of this issue of Eyes vs Two Eyes. For this issue was started in the beginning, and we've never settled our differences or opinions nor have we concluded it in any way, as we've concluded some other small matters.

So keep this thread alive please, untill we both finish our talk on it - Insha'Allah. This is more faithfull.

[Abdur_Rahman]

:salam:

The question I have is why the "heavy emphasis" on Imam Abu Hasan (rahimallah) book for? :confused:

Is Al-Ibanah the book that separates from haqq from batil form various callers?

[faqir]

:salam:

The question I have is why the "heavy emphasis" on Imam Abu Hasan (rahimallah) book for? :confused:

Is Al-Ibanah the book that separates from haqq from batil form various callers?

Good question Akhi. Instead of relying on a book that in its present form cannot be attributed to Imam Ashari RH, why not bring it back to the root sacred texts if it is of such a major concern to some whether we believe Allah has "two eyes" or not?

As the saying goes: "Truth isn’t weighed by men. Rather, men are weighed by the truth."

[Abdur_Rahman]

Good question Akhi. Instead of relying on a book that in its present form cannot be attributed to Imam Ashari RH, why not bring it back to the root sacred texts if it is of such a major concern to some whether we believe Allah has "two eyes" or not?

:salam:

Well that's the thing everyone is giving two different answers some people say it is, some say it isn't.

It's sad though that we beat each other over the head because of a different opinion. If the scholars opinion is valid according to quran and authentic ahadith, what's the fuss about?

[Ibn_Abi_Yala]

As the saying goes: "Truth isn’t weighed by men. Rather, men are weighed by the truth."

Wasn't it you who said that only Abul Hasan is competent enough to speak on matters concerning things we have differences in, adding 'correct me if I'm wrong'? Or was it another?

Any way:

Imam al-Ash'ari's book al-Ibanah is not the Furqan of al-Haqq and al-Batil. But that's not the issue or relevant for now.

I like to emphasis that my argument in favour of the phrase Two Eyes in the Ibanah is more solid then that of Abul Hasan's denial of it - and that of others. I've empasized this here and elsewhere, drawing arguments from all parties and different directions, both rational as textual.

I do not claim to be a scholar - as this forum claims for him - rather I claim that we all have to follow the Qur'an, the Sunnah, the Salaf and the righteous righ leaded Khalaf from among the Sunni scholars. And Imam al-Ash'ari made clear in that particular book, i.e. al-Ibanah (The Clarification), that he articulated the credal views of the people of the Qur'an, the Sunnah and its followers. He made it clear that it is the 'speech of the Ashab al-Hadith wa'l-Sunnah' in that work and elsewhere.

So the Ibanah speaks for the Ashab al-Hadith wa'l-Sunnah, who are but nothing then the Salaf and Khalaf of the Ahl al-Sunnah: and they surely are - without any doubt whatsoever - the People of al-Haqq. And whoever opposes them, such as the Mu'tazilah and others who deny Two Eyes, Two Hands, the Face etc. then the author of The Clarification identifies them with the people of al-zaygh and batil opinions.

May Allah let us die with the beliefs of the Ibanah.

Amin.

[Abul Hasan]

Where's the response on al-Ash'ari's Ibanah, al-Maqalat and al-Mujiz?

On al-Baqillani's firm attesting the phrase and belief of Two Eyes?

On Ibn Furak's non-denial of it, together of other Ash'arites?

On in fact Ibn Furak's tolerating the Two Eyes-phrase, from al-Ash'ari, al-Baqillani and from his own reference in the Hadith of {'aynay al-Rahman} in the Mushkil?

On al-Lalika'i's affirmation - and your belying him?

On Ibn 'Asakir's affirmation of the Ibanah and Two Eyes? And that of the scholars after him who quoted Ibn 'Asakir, such as part of the Huffadh I mentioned besides the Ash'arites themselves?

And on the evidence of A'yunina [as Two Eyes] by the Muhaqqiqin? And the absence of the scholars' rejection of it?

Such as that of al-Sharastani's, who possessed the copy of the Maqalat in our hands - wa-Allahu A'lam.

Can you Abul Hasan respond to that, before dragging me into an Ibn Qudama-Tafweed Debate, a debate I'm willing to take part in through the medium of Internet or by your visit and that of the brothers to Amsterdam? [as I've stated before]

So do not digress as you've digressed much, nor weedle your way out of this issue of Eyes vs Two Eyes. For this issue was started in the beginning, and we've never settled our differences or opinions nor have we concluded it in any way, as we've concluded some other small matters.

So keep this thread alive please, untill we both finish our talk on it - Insha'Allah. This is more faithfull.


When you Oh one who made Tabdi on me, called me derogatory names like: Abu Qabih, used words like "****" (as even others noted from your vile fingers), used foul abuse, pretend to be sincere, and learn to write with adab you will be responded to if Allah wills.

You are the one who started this Ibana fitna here by initially digressing onto Qadim when it wasn't called for... so do not try to deceive the people here. You have not shown with sincerity the ways that Ayn and Aynayn have come down in the various editions of the Ibana, nor told your ahwa readers what manuscript(s) was used for Ibn Asakir's Tabyin by Husamud-Din al-Qudsi, and why did you leave off the other places in the Ibana where Ayn is mentioned?!

Why did you leave of the fact that the Ash’arite Hafiz ibn Hajar in Fath al Bari quoted al-Suhrawardi who only affirmed Ayn and not in the dual, and if it was the Mu'tamad position of the Asha'ira, then Ibn Hajar would have said so in some way in Fath al-Bari... Not even the Ash’arite al-Nawawi is known to us as an affirmant of Aynayn..

For us, it is enough that the Qur'an doesn't affirm Aynayn categorically, nor Allah's Nabi (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam), nor the 4 Main Imams from the Salaf, let alone any Sahabi to our knowledge. Those who had al-Ibana like: al-Bayhaqi and Abu Uthman al-Sabuni - I didn't see them affirm Aynayn anywhere let alone claim it to be Imam al-Ashari's view. We have the aqeeda's of numerous Imams from al-Salaf but very few are on record as affirming Aynayn, so do not make it look that the Jumhur Ulama of al-Salaf hold your view.

So this is an indirect answer to al-Lalika’i who affirmed his personal view in a heading in the Sharh (and go and check if your reference is meticulous again) on Aynayn, then i didn't see him prove it conclusively - And this is al-Lalika'i who transmitted a number of creeds in that Sharh - and I didn't see him name just one from the Salaf affirming Aynayn with a Sahih Isnad back to them! And if you really admire him then show the world the 2 narrations on the Saaq and the Kursi and its Ta'wil that I never saw him condemn in anyway in his Sharh Usul I'tiqad Ahlus Sunna wal Jama'a!!

As for ibn Furak, he had the Maqalat and the Mu’jiz – so why didn’t he say that al-Ash’ari believed in Aynayn? We have the Aqeeda of ibn Khafif – the direct student of al-Ash’ari – so why didn’t he affirm Aynayn?! We have the Aqeeda of Abu Bakr al Isma’ili the Hafiz (listed as an Ash’ari by ibn Asakir in the Tabyin) – and why didn’t he affirm Aynayn? And how about other Ash’ari Imams whose aqeeda is known, like: al-Taftazani, al-Iji etc – why didn’t they affirm Aynayn?!

While you are at it may be you can explain why after more than a month you and your foul mouthed ahwa buddies failed to answer our 3 simple questions?! What do you fear if the truth is with you Oh claimants to al-Salaf?!

And no matter what deviations ibn Hazm may have fallen into (as ibn Taymiyya himself claimed against him) the man is taken as an authority on Ijma by many Ulama, and if there was any kind of Ijma on this view on Aynayn then he wouldn't have missed it. Even the Hanabila do not agree in totality on Aynayn as you know very well, so can the claimants even quote Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal on this, or anyone besides al-Darimi and ibn Khuzayma from the first 3 centuries of al-Islam?! Which major commentator to the Qur'an or Sahih al-Bukhari affirmed Aynayn?!

And let us not forget, Ibn Khuzayma's friend and greater Mufassir than he: Imam Ibn Jarir al-Tabari is not known to us as being an affirmant of Aynayn in his Tafsir or his aqeeda...


We will stick with Dalil al-Qat'ie, rather than Dalil al-Khitab. We don't make absolute taqleed like your folk when it is a point of aqeeda. In the mean time I have no time for pretenders to Islamic scholarship from the style of writing that your adepts have adopted in this age from the rabble and the riff-raff, the Hashwiyya that Imam ibn Asakir mentioned in his Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari, and those who eat the flesh of our scholars - as it is poison - just as Ibn Asakir mentioned.


Let the reader not be deceived by this person calling himself ibn Abi Yala here and there as he writes with abhorrent language which is full of insincere insults and jibes at his ahwa forum with his buddies who use similar styles of arrogant declarations. And, by the way let the liars take note that this "Salafist" is not I or anyone known to me so don't disturb us with these baseless and crass accusations! We have already seen a lie by your colleague at ahwa: Zulfiqaar Ali - who still needs to prove from his sources that I even talked let alone met GF Haddad when he was in the UK recently.

I wonder if Ibn Abi Yala ever studied with any major Alim and can he even narrate the whole Qur'an with a Muttasil Sanad, or how about the Muwatta and the Sihah Sitta, or how about the Musnad of Ahmad ibn Hanbal?!

Hasbinallah wa ni'mal wakil ni'mal Mawla wa ni'mal Nasir

[Abul Hasan]

So the Ibanah speaks for the Ashab al-Hadith wa'l-Sunnah, who are but nothing then the Salaf and Khalaf of the Ahl al-Sunnah: and they surely are - without any doubt whatsoever - the People of al-Haqq. And whoever opposes them, such as the Mu'tazilah and others who deny Two Eyes, Two Hands, the Face etc. then the author of The Clarification identifies them with the people of al-zaygh and batil opinions.

May Allah let us die with the beliefs of the Ibanah.

Amin.


So we say: that according to the last statement of al-Ghuzayli, the one's who deny Aynayn are people of Zayg (deviation) and batil opinions to him based on his selected readings of some manuscripts of al-Ibana.

By this he has no choice but to apply it also to Ibn Hazm, ibn Aqil and ibn al-Jawzi - who all denied Aynayn explicitly. And I am sure that most Sunni's here do not affirm Aynayn, just as our Imams Abu Hanifa, Malik, al-Shafi'i, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, let alone the Imam who mentioned our accepted creed: Abu Ja'far al-Tahawi - were ever known to have affirmed Aynayn bila kayf wala ma'na! We may also add Imam al-Maturidi as well for good measure.

We have already posted our Shaykh Wahbi's examination of the Ibana and its problems, and other little posts in arabic here - so we don't need to make any further kalam for now. But let us just mention this for those who are not beguiled with folly so easily:

Your adopted name sake, Ibn Abi Ya’la al-Hanbali mentioned in his Tabaqat the following with his Isnad (under the biography of al-Barbahari) - as a brother mentioned elsewhere:


قرأت على علي القرشي عن الحسن الأهوازي قال: سمعت أبا عبد الله الحمراني يقول: لما دخل الأشعري إلى بغداد جاء إلى البربهاري فجعل يقول: رددت عل الجبائي وعلى أبي هاشم ونقضت عليهم وعلى اليهود والنصارى والمجوس وقلت لهم وقالوا وأكثر الكلام في ذلك فلما سكت قال البربهاري: ما أدري مما قلت قليلاً ولا كثيراً ولا نعرف إلا ما قاله أبو عبد الله أحمد بن حنبل قال: فخرج من عنده وصنف كتاب "الإبانة" فلم يقبله منه

“When al-Ash’ari came to Baghdad he went to al-Barbahari and began telling him: ‘I have refuted al-Jubba’i and Abu Hashim and have shown the error of the Jews and the Christians and the Zoroastrians; I said (thus and so) and they said (thus and so)’ and he went on at length in this vein. When he stopped talking; al-Barbahari said: ‘I don’t know what it is you have said, neither the short of it nor the long of it. We only recognise what has been said by Abu Abdullah Ahmad ibn Hanbal.’ Al-Ash’ari then left him and wrote the Ibana, but (al-Barbahari) did not accept it from him…”

This same story was recalled by al-Dhahabi in his Siyar a’lam an-Nubala and he did not dispute the stories authenticity, let alone question why al-Barbahari refused to accept the Ibana!

Example: Talking about Aynayn, the editions do not all affirm Aynayn and there are variations; this is why I question the fact that those earlier Imams like al-Bayhaqi and al-Sabuni who had the Ibana at hand never affirmed Aynayn in their books of Aqeeda (like: the formers: I'tiqad, Asma wal Sifat, and the latters Aqeeda Ashab al-Hadith and his creedal points in the Wasiyya found in Ibn al Subki's Tabaqat al Shafiyya al-Kubra). I never saw al-Baqillani affirm Aynayn by saying that this is what he culled from Imam al-Ash'ari's books, or the same from any Ash'ari who may have been attributed with holding Aynayn in their creedo. And if someone knows better then please do quote it...

Once again, this is implicit evidence that the early Hanabila had a problem with the Ibana, and it was centuries later after what we may say is none other than tampering being done to it, that some people found it more palatable to quote in order to bolster their claims!

Note also, that Ibn Abi Ya’la al-Hanbali quoted this narration in his Tabaqat without invalidating the authenticity of the Isnad or the contents of the text, and in it was an attempt by him to show up al-Ash’ari and raise the rank of al-Barbahari as the real follower of Imam Ibn Hanbal. It is well known that in the Ibana and elsewhere, Imam al-Ash’ari claimed that he was on the way of Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal; so let the wise one consider why al-Barbahari refused the Ibana.


Of course, some will now say that the above report is not Sahih, it has problems with the sanad etc, despite ibn Abi Ya'la al-Hanbali and al-Dhahabi mentioning it with some sort of approval of its validity!


---------

Abul Hasan

[samrqandi]

Assalaamu^alaikum

jazak-allah khairan aakhi Abul Hasan, the problem with these; want to be scholars, is that they keep changing their usool on matters. In one instance they will state that what is a qowl (of some scholar) when we have the qur'an wa sunnah. Then in the other instance its sheer taqleed of a qowl, this is what i was trying to state previously, that these people dont have any consistancy in their methodology. Allah protect us from their misguidance ameen!

that event of imam al-ashari meeting barbahari, is clear that was also mentioned in the first few pages of the arabic book you posted as well brother alhamdulillah.

As for the ayaats used on this matter including the ahadeeth, then there is no evidence supporting their view apart from qouting this weak report:

‘Ataa’ has narrated from Aboo Hurayrah (ra) from the Prophet (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) said, “When the slave stands in Prayer, he stands between the Two Eyes of ar- Rahmaan…” (Narrated by Ibn al-Qayyim in As-Sawaa’iq Al-Mursalah (256))

This tradition is regarded as extremely weak by some of their own so-called muhadiths: scholars: Naasir ad-Deen Al-Albaani said in As-Silsilah Al-Dha’eefah (1024), “Dha’eef Jiddan”. Also narrated by Al-‘Uqaylee in Al-Dhu’afaa’ (pg. 24), and Al-Bazzaar in his Musnad (553 – Kashf Al-Astaar). And Ibn al-‘Uthaymeen also declared it Dha’eef in his long Sharh to Al-‘Aqeedah Al-Waasitiyyah (1/313-314).

We all know that da'eef reports are not taken as a point of aqeeda!

As of ibn abi yala's also used kalaam, in one instance this groups blast people of kalaam and then in another instance they use it, where is their principles!

That should be enough!

Kitaab ul ibana is problamatic, i think he doesnt understand that point, he keeps on re-ittirating the same things again and again. And abul hasan is right in terms of the mujtahid imams they did not discuss this matter, but ibn abi yala seems so adament so why not bring out a qatee text to end it.

wassalaamu alaikum

Allah guide us all to the straight path ameen!

[faqir]

:salam:

Brother Ibn Abi Ya'la, I did not say what you ascribe to me but nonetheless I do believe Sidi Abul Hasan has competently refuted you time and time again. :)

[maturidi sufi]

as-salaam `alaykum

Also if you see the attribute of "Yad" or "Hand" is affirmed by Ahl Sunnah but not "two hands." May be few scholars did say "Two Hands" but Ahl Sunnah follows majority. On the same lines we say about "Ayn" or "Eye" as an attribute and not "Aynain" or "Two Eyes."

"IBN ABI YALA" you said Sultan al-Ulama Ibn Abdus Salam reported difference of opinion concerning "Two Eyes" but from which book are you quoting ? Is the book you are quoting is authored by Imam ibn Abdus Salam or some third party orientalist ?

[Ibn_Abi_Yala]

as-salaam `alaykum

Also if you see the attribute of "Yad" or "Hand" is affirmed by Ahl Sunnah but not "two hands." May be few scholars did say "Two Hands" but Ahl Sunnah follows majority. On the same lines we say about "Ayn" or "Eye" as an attribute and not "Aynain" or "Two Eyes."

"IBN ABI YALA" you said Sultan al-Ulama Ibn Abdus Salam reported difference of opinion concerning "Two Eyes" but from which book are you quoting ? Is the book you are quoting is authored by Imam ibn Abdus Salam or some third party orientalist ?

Go to my Refutation of Abul Hasan on the Yahoo-group. There you will find the scans of 'Izz' s Qawa'id al-Ahkam.

[Ibn_Abi_Yala]

As for Abul Hasan and his friends..

They surely know the following facts:

a) That al-Ash'ari himself affirms Two Eyes, as stated in his works and quoted by others from his works and referred to by others as his statement, as I've shown continually. If this didn't exist, or if there were quotes from later Ash'arites from his works which mention Eyes or Eye then you and your buddies would have mentioned this first and firmost! Since these evidences do not exist, only some indirect points argued by you and your folk in nullification of this, you realise in what for position you are. To refresh your minds: al-Ash'ari, al-Baqillani, "Ibn Furak (indirectly)", al-Juwayni, al-Sharastani, al-Amidi, Ibn 'Abd al-Salam, Ibn 'Asakir and others.

b) Abul Hasan also knows quite well in what for posiyion he manoevred himself when speaking about the so-called 'probability' of al-Baqillani's affirmation: I confronted him with FIVE works. Admit your faulty understanding and say: Nay, its certain he affirmed them!

c) Then I spoke on Two Eyes: You all know that whoever affirms Eyes in the multiple affirms it necessarily in the singular and dual form! What's difficult to understand from that? Is it a form of obstinence to affirm such a reasoning? If A'yun means is Eyes in the multiple, then the scholars inferred from this the affirmation of both Eye and Two Eyes - as this is plain without being a Mujtahid.

d) Abul Hasan has never given any evidence contra to those who affirm Two Eyes - he simply quoted scholars with whom he find some fault in some way. In fact, he quoted Ibn Hazm while he rejected his opinion in the same article he wrote! This is a huge contradiction. But this is not the point, nor will I emphasis your big fault here. What I will emphasis is that you could not adduce one single Ash'arite in rejection of it. In fact, you mentioned the silent argument of some Ash'arites, while if you read the Ash'arites manuals better then - Ghuzayli - you would have knew that the Ash'arites affirm Two Eyes in their important works of 'Aqidah and Kalam. In fact, Ibn Furak himself mention the above mentioned Hadith - which is weak indeed, and the earliest author who mentioned it is Imam Muhammad b. Nasr al-Marwazi as I shall make clear elsewhere including its routes etc - and he had time and oppurtunity to reject its content; but you know (?) he did not. See page 258 of 1985 edition by Musa Muhammad 'Ali.

e) As for al-Qadim - it was not digression from my part. I simply drew an analogy with 'Aynayn. Since the former has not been mentioned literally as a Name of Allah in an authentic text, neither the latter according to your same analogy. So proving one thing without 'Nass' and denying another thing with 'Nass' is unfair. When you boldly claimed that I didn't do my homework well-enough, I could only assume that you thought that I was so stupid enough to make a claim without reading and studying it. Since I've read about it - incl. what the Habashish and others said in both booklets as internet - I knew how big your mistake was. al-Qadim is not authentically reported, nowhere. What has been authentically reported are statements of al-qadim as an ascription (idafa) to Allah or to other things, incl. statements of different 'Ulama (of which I have an collection in one of my notes and which I will send to you Insha' Allah). So there was no digression at all. There was however much digression from you to which I responded. So, if you can mention an authentic evidence of al-Qadim I will certainly accept that and retract my belief I had - in sincerity - concerning it; untill that, let me point out your mistake.

f) I've pointed clearly that Ibn 'Abd al-Salam affirmed Two Eyes in his written book al-Qawa'id - and I shall translate and analyse it in my article on the Ash'arites who affirmed Two Eyes. Salafist and you have made a fundamental mistake by misreading the passages, so I've scanned them [see the previous report]. Its quite clear that if you read the whole chapter, and my refutation of Abul Hasan, you will know that I'm right. And how else, when 'Izz was an student of Sayf al-Din al-Amidi and he affirmed it in his fundamental books of Usul al-Din! Besides, al-Amidi ascribed it to al-Ash'ari himself!!!

g) I've pointed also out that you distorted the Maqalat passage of al-Ash'ari, by connecting the Ashab al-Hadith with the Mujassimah, while its plain that they were treated seperated as I've showed in my translation!

h) I pointed also your distortion of Ibn Kullab falsely understood 'rejection' of Two Eyes. This is a real distortion, clear for any reader. So I ask you again why?

i) Then you got busted quite evidently on al-Lalika'i! If I made that mistake you and your friends would have scandalized that from all roofs. Its clear that you made a 'reading' mistake or claimed without looking into the books carefully, as you've done with 'Izz's book; so Lalika'i's chapter becomes - as a consequence of your failure to recognize it - a 'personal opinion' and not of the people who are the Ahl al-Sunnah. It would be more fair if you admit your mistake here and elsewhere, as I do to my friends and foes.

That is enough to point out for now.

So Abul Hasan you see how the Haqq overcomes the Batil, even when some claims after reading all this,


I do believe Sidi Abul Hasan has competently refuted you time and time again. :D

then any reader would only see that this statement is a cry of despair and a disillusion after mentioning the real facts.

If you and your brothers are really sincere, then they would have corrected you and you would have corrected them in their mistakes - as some do with us.

wa-Salamu' alaikum

[samrqandi]

Assalaamu^alaikum

Summary of this issue:

This issue is going round in circles, lets face the facts there is no ijma on this issue, there is no clear daleel on this issue, YOU and I know this as well.

As for some of the ulema that state aynayn, then I will tell you that YES there were some ashari’s that did state aynayn, like Imam al-Haramayn in his kitaab ul irshad when he says: aynayn, yadayn wa wajh and he discusses these matters and how to answer the mujassima and hashwiyyah. Imam haramayn states whilst discussing the issue of ayn that its generally agreed to that the literal meaning is abandoned to. And then discusses the ayat about ayun and the boat of nuh and does clear ta’weel of the ayat about the boat being placed in a position where angels surround it etc. Then the imam continues talking about wajh and comes to a part and states how to quote the qur’an to answer the hashwiyyah. I will give u a few examples that imam haramayn gives, He quotes to ayaats and states the gross mistake the hashwiyyah (so-called salafiyyah of today) will commit if they were to take these verses literally:

"Allah is with you, wherever you are" وَهُوَ مَعَكُمْ أَيْنَ مَا كُنتُمْ} } Suratal-Hadid ayah 4

“There is no conversation among three people but that he is the forth of them, nor five but he is the sixth” مَا يَكُونُ مِن نَّجْوَىٰ ثَلاَثَةٍ إِلاَّ هُوَ رَابِعُهُمْ وَلاَ خَمْسَةٍ إِلاَّ هُوَ سَادِسُهُمْ Qur’an 58:7

I mentioned earlier on in this thread that some of the ulema did state aynayn but its how they looked at it (not the same way as the mushabiha, so qouting izz ibn abdus salaam etc doesnt help your cause) and as for the stance of ayn and ayun then that’s SOUND and STRONGER, however its you, who are making the big fuss out of it.

Yaqool Hafidth Abdur-rahman ibn Jawzi al-hanbali (ibn jawzi has said): wa haza ibtada3 laa dalilahum 3alahu (this statement is an innovation since there is no evidence for the issue [of two eye’s]). this is taken from Daf Shuba al-tashbeeh by hafidth ibn jawzi. The imam stated this whilst answering the statement of ibn khuzaymah. allah truely knows best!

Then you went on to mention that ayun is plural in its meaning hence the dual form can be established from this, that’s your basic underlying principle and logic, but then somebody can also add that its plural hence Allah can have more than two, so why not more, you see what I am trying to articulate? And I seen your answer to that it wasn’t saheeh for sure, because what you started to say is no this is what the scholars of said, I mean would that be a sound answer to some people the typical response is NO! another response that I seen was: that Allah has to have two eyes since having one his disabled, the typical counter argument will be what about one shin. And this kind of debate never ends.

You want to also evaluate that daeef tradition, why dont you bring up all the evidences used in this field [from qur'an wa sunnah] maybe we can look at them together insha-allah.

You further stated making an analogy from qidam and then asked about where is the justice i.e. that there is no nass qatee for that. Now if you thought for one second you would have realised that all the statements of the salaf you quote state we read the ayats and assign the how-ness to Allah. Why don’t you abide by that? But then you go on to mention some of the quotes of the ashari imam’s, when most or all of them did ta’weel. You talk about contradictions when you are the biggest contradiction!

Then your people what do they state that non of the salaf made ta’weel, now I ask why do they LIE about that, where is the JUSTICE there, where is the sincerety? Such as: sa’eed ibn jubayr, hasan al-basri, al-bukhari, ibn abbas etc.

You try to attack my integrity by talking about sincerety, you need to control your mouth, since you have no adab and i am being serious! I would really like to know which shayookh you have sat with because surely they must have had adab

I will rest my case here since, it’s the same thing that is being discussed and truly Allah knows best who is the all knowing and all wise. Allah guide us all and forgive our sins ameen

[Abdur_Rahman]

Allah guide us all and forgive our sins ameen
Ameen
:jazak:

It's sad that people continue to beat a dead horse :rolleyes:

[Abul Hasan]

:salam:

You hit the nail on the head akhi Samrqandi! Ibn Abi Yala is still going round and round in circles. You know i had said in the past that i had prepared a Risala in radd of him (done in about 40 pages to date). But after i read his extreme Ta’assub and vile words like him calling me: Abu Qabih, I was advised by a Shaykh not to bother posting my second article which was written to deal in greater depth this issue; as he would probably show even greater oppression in his arrogant tone of replying. Hence, i decided to postpone that until a time calls for it – for they will not probably benefit from it these days - wallahu a’lam. Anyway, even if someone could produce names from the Asha'ira affirming Aynayn - how does it affect us?!

We know very well that Asha'ira are the enemies of the Mushabbiha /Hashwiyya and vice-versa, so the way they understand certain creedal points connected to the Sifat is not usually the rough shod way of their opponents.

He talks about al-Amidi being the teacher of ibn Abdas Salam - so because the teacher may have affirmed Aynayn then by that logic the student must have too! So, let us see: He claims that Ibn Furak must have also been on the Aynayn path, so does that mean his student and greater authority in Hadith: al-Bayhaqi must have affirmed Aynayn?! No way... And I hope he can quote from the Mujarrad Maqalat al-Ash'ari of ibn Furak when he writes up his so called findings..

Or how about the fact that Imam ibn Daqiq al-Eid was a student of Ibn Abdas Salam's - so he too must have been on Aynayn?! Ibn Daqiq was a Mufawwid and also made Ta'wil at times! Or let us say this for good measure: Ibn Khuzayma who affirmed Aynayn was a teacher to Ibn Hibban - so he must have been on Aynayn?! Not at all O Sunni! We know ibn Hibban was chased out of town by the Hashwiyya (as al-Dhahabi and ibn Hajar knew to mention), and he even made Ta'wil in his Sahih (I have a quote where he said that al-Saaq is al-Shidda from his Sahih)... Or how about this type of logic: Ibn Khuzayma was a good friend to al-Tabari - so the latter must have been on Aynayn?! Rather, i know of no where from the writings of al-Tabari affirming Aynayn.

The gist is - if an Imam doesn't affirm Aynayn explicitly, then it is patently clear that he does not affirm Ayn in the dual but merely affirms it as it is mentioned in the Kitab wal Sunna - bila Kayf wala Ma’na, unless there is strong proof to suggest otherwise...

We know that ibn Abi Yala has already admitted that al-Bayhaqi does not affirm Aynayn anywhere in his books - and never forget that al-Bayhaqi had the works of al-Ash'ari - like his al-Ibana, as he must have had full access to much of what ibn Furak left behind also. So how is it that al-Bayhaqi doesn't affirm it explicitly if that was al-Ash’ari’s mu'tamad qawl?!

I have said similar with Abu Uthman al-Sabuni who had the Ibana - but I never saw him affirm Aynayn. Extending this type of logic Ibn Abi Yala used, must also question the sincere reader to ask: If al-Ash'ari affirmed Aynayn then how is it that his student: Ibn Khafif didn't appear to do so in his short Aqeeda available today?!

Now, the Ibana mentions that it was in line with the way of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, so if that be the case - why did the likes of al-Ghuzayli ignore the story of al-Barbahari not accepting the Ibana? And i read this Egyptian distorter: Amr Abdal Mun'im affirming the story of al-Barbahari and al-Ash'ari...

The question also arises: If the Ibana is in line with Imam ibn Hanbal's aqeeda, then why is it that these Hashwiyya can not bring forward a single Sahih chain back to Ibn Hanbal affirming Aynayn? I say the same about the 3 Imams: Abu Hanifa, al-Shafi'i, Malik, nay all the Salaf (besides: al-Darimi and ibn Khuzayma).

The Hashwiyya have translated Sharh al-Sunna ascribed to al-Barbahari by ibn Abi Ya'la al-Hanbali in his Tabaqat, into English - and if al-Barbahari was the Imam of the Hanabila in his age in Baghdad, then why is it O Hashwiyya that this man did not affirm Aynayn in that work, or say it was the Aqeeda of Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal (ra)? We have today al-Sunna of Abu Bakr al-Khallal - did he affirm Aynayn - and ascribe it to ibn Hanbal - when we know he took from those who took from Ibn Hanbal directly?!

I am not interested in just names and opinions if it is not a solid case - especially where there exists definite Ikhtilaf on Aynayn, and never has there been Ijma on this. I asked above why the Hashwiyya do not quote 2 cases of Ta'wil of the Saaq and the Kursi as in Lalikai's Sharh - why do they not mention this if they have nothing to fear? I also said that Lalikai's position is his personal view - and I never saw him say with a single Sahih sanad that anyone from the Salaf held this view on Aynayn. Can ibn Abi Yala explain if he got his reference correct with the 1st printed edition – or what edition was he using?

Talking about al-Baqillani - never did i deny his position on Aynayn, but i did dispute that Ibn Abdas Salam affirmed this, as I also still dispute that al-Ash'ari held to this - and this is al-Ash'ari who came and resided in Baghdad from Basra - and we did not see the Imam of Baghdad in later times, like: Ibn al Jawzi even mention the notion that Imam al-Ash'ari himself affirmed Aynayn – when he – ibn al-Jawzi negated Aynayn (see below)! Rather the name of ibn Khuzayma – who was alive in al-Ash’ari’s time, was mentioned as someone who was incorrect on Aynayn like Abu Ya’la al-Farra al-Hanbali!

I have said and say with additions - the same about other Asha'ira not affirming Aynayn in their creeds in print: like that of Abu Bakr al-Isma'ili the Hafiz, Abu Nuaym al-Isfahani, then later one's like: Ibn Battal the Maliki whose Sharh is in print on Sahih al-Bukhari today and al-Hafiz ibn Hajar used it often in his Fath al-Bari, and i also said that al-Hafiz quoted al-Suhrawardi affirming Ayn - but not in the dual... Nor did we see Ibn Hajar affirming Aynayn, let alone those before him like: al-Nawawi, al-Ghazali, Fakhrud-Din al-Razi, Qadi Iyad or Abu Bakr ibn al Arabi - all acclaimed to be Ash’arites by many...

Then we may add others like: al-Bajuri, al-Laqqani, al-Taftazani, al-Iji, and how about the two Subki's? And which major Ash’ari from this age affirmed Aynayn in their writings?! And Shaykh Tajud-Din al-Subki clearly mentioned in his Tabaqat that these Mujassima had even cut up the words of Imam al-Nawawi's Sharh on Sahih Muslim in his time with their wilful tampering. This is the same al-Subki that praised the Tabyin of ibn Asakir. If these people were so bold to do that, then imagine what they may have done with the works of other Asha'ira. We still haven't seen a satisfactory reply from the Hashwiyya on why there is a paragraph on Istiwa in some manuscripts of the Ibana and not in others. Nor have we seen them show fully all the ways that Ayn is mentioned in the various editions we have in print and manuscript today... The same applies to the Tabyin of ibn Asakir - they need to tell us the manuscripts used by Husamud-Din al-Qudsi and why that set he used doesn't affirm Aynayn unlike the one's he depends on when quoting from al-Ibana. Or how is it that these people run away from our 3 simple questions time and time again and want us to give them hints by mentioning the places where the answers can be found before they dare answer?! The questions are general to their Manhaj and ours. Subhanallah. They talk about debating us, and accuse us of cowardice - blah blah blah... They fool no one but blind their own spiritually bankrupt eyes further. They accuse me of being bold but then think it is fine and not bold in using crass language like: “crap” and distorting my name from Abul Hasan to “Abu Qabih” – Nifâq is the key word here.

I am not going to waste my time for nothing - especially since i have more articles in the pipeline to present here. So, to date I have left for perusal the research of our Shaykh: Wahbi Ghawiji on the Ibana here for anyone to download and read, as well as other snippets in Arabic. I'll just close up for now with something i had included but not released to date (which was going to be part of the lengthier radd to ibn Abi Yala mentioned above):


------------------------------------------------------
A brother got this quote from a manuscript in Princeton University, USA:

Shaykh Abul Qasim al-Ansari (d. 512 AH) in his Sharh al-Irshad (folio 112) quoted al-Baqillani as saying:

“I do not think that taqleed has any valid function in the fundamentals of Tawhid; what is to be followed is the rationally probative evidence, not the companion’s of one’s Madhhab.”

Using this statement will cause us to choose the Haqq, even if a man like al-Baqillani was to affirm “two eyes” for Allah using rationale alone, as there is no direct evidence to affirm “two eyes” for Allah, but mere conjecture.

Let us quote two of the Hanabila that are not admired by many of those on your path when it comes to the Sifat of Allah. You may say they are no authorities for you on this issue, but there opinion can not be rejected if it is the Haqq. The first is al-Hafiz ibn al-Jawzi, whose Daff Shubuh al-Tashbih is only rejected by a handful of Hanabila, where as those Sunni Imams like Shaykh Zakariyya al-Ansari and his teacher: Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani and his two teachers: Hafiz Nurud-Din al-Haythami and Hafiz Zaynud-Din al-Iraqi all transmitted Ibn al Jawzi’s book and not one of them is on record in rejecting or disparaging its contents.

The second is Abul Wafa Ibn Aqil the polymath who is said to have compiled Kitab al-Funun in some 700 volumes. Your colleagues try to make out that ibn al Jawzi and ibn Aqil were at times anti-Ash’ari, and in doing so apply this divertory tactic in order to divert the reality of the aqeeda of the deviance of the likes of these three Hanabila: Abu Ya’la, Ibn Hamid and al-Zaghunui!

If Imam al-Ash’ari and his school were truly believers in the concept of “two eyes” for Allah, I have no doubt that Ibn al Jawzi would have attacked them for this, as well as his predecessor: Ibn Aqil.

Hafiz Ibn al Jawzi in his Kitab Akhbar al-Sifat (Swartz edition) quotes Imam Abu Sulayman al-Khattabi (d. 388 AH) as saying:

“Do not ascribe attributes to God except by reference to the Qur’an or to reliable reports, that is, reports based on the Qur’an or prophetic sayings whose genuineness is beyond question. What is in conflict with these (two sources) should not be ascribed (to God) or should be interpreted (yuta’awwal) in accordance with the principles (usul) agreed upon by competent authorities (ahl al-ilm), along with a rejection of anthropomorphism (tashbih)…”

In his Ma‘alim al-Sunan he stated, concerning the narrations of the divine Attributes:

The people of our time have split into two parties. The first [the Mu‘tazila and their sub-groups] altogether disavow this kind of hadith and declare them forged outright. This implies their giving the lie to the scholars who have narrated them, that is, the imams of our religion and the transmitters of the Prophetic ways, and the intermediaries between us and Allah’s Messenger. The second party [the anthropomorphists] give their assent to the narrations and apply their outward meanings literally in a way bordering anthropomorphism. As for us we steer clear from both views, and accept neither as our school. It is therefore incumbent upon us to seek for these hadiths, when they are cited and established as authentic from the perspectives of transmission and attribution, an interpretation (ta’wîl) derived according to the known meanings of the foundations of the Religion and the schools of the scholars, without rejecting the narrations outright, as long as their chains are acceptable and narrators trustworthy.

Ibn al Jawzi in Akhbar al-Sifat said (point 40):

“In the same category are the following verses: ‘…In order that you might be reared under My (watchful) eyes.’ And ‘build an ark under Our eyes.’ The expression ‘Under Our eyes’ is taken by (some) exegetes to mean ‘under our command’ (amr)’, and by others to mean ‘under Our oversight (mar’an minna).’ Abu Bakr b. al-Anbari pointed out that among the Arabs the plural (pronoun) is sometimes used even when the referent is singular; hence, one may say: ‘We travelled to Basra (when one really means ‘I travelled to Basra’).’ This use of the plural derives from the practice of kings who are in the habit of saying ‘our command’ or ‘our prohibition.’ The Qadi (Abu Ya’la) maintained that ‘eye’ is an attribute added to the divine essence (za’ida ala dh-dhat). Already before him Abu Bakr b. Khuzayma said, in connection with the above verses: ‘Our Lord has two eyes by which He sees.” Ibn Hamid said: ‘We must believe that God has two eyes.’ This view, however, is an innovation for which there is no justification in scripture. (Champions of this view) attribute two eyes to God only through a kind of inferential reason (Dalil al-Khitab) based on the Prophet’s (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) statement: ‘He is not one eyed.’ These words, however, were meant only to deny that imperfection of any sort can be ascribed to God….”

In points 217-219, ibn al Jawzi said:

In the Sahihs of Bukhari and Muslim there is a tradition from Anas b. Malik in which it is reported that the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) said while discussing (the signs of) the Antichrist (dajjal): “He will have one eye (a’war), but your Lord is not one-eyed.”

The Ulama maintain that the chief aim of this saying is to assert that God cannot be described in any way that might imply imperfection, for being one-eyed is obviously an indication of imperfection. The Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) did not mean to ascribe to God bodily organs, for there is nothing praiseworthy in the attribution of such to God.

Ibn Aqil said: “The ill informed sometimes assume that since (the Prophet) denied that God is one eyed He meant to establish by a kind of inferential reason (dalil al-khitab) that God has two eyes. This is a serious misunderstanding (of the saying), for by denying that God is one-eyed (the Prophet) merely intended to negate (the possibility of) imperfection in Him….

----------------------

So this is enough to show that we need not make Taqleed like al-Baqillani said, nor take up a point as aqeeda if it is Weak or Shadh. And what did al-Ghuzayli say about al-Baqillani and Taqleed?! This goes to show there is no Ijma on this issue of the Aynayn, not even within the Hanbali School that al-Ghuzayli claims to admire.. Can he quote a Hanbali before the time of Qadi Abu Ya'la al-Hanbali, or even: Ibn Batta, al-Barbahari, al-Khallal, al-Marwazi, Abdullah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Salih ibn Ahmad, Hanbal ibn Ishaq or others affirm Aynayn?!

Let the reader read what i have said in totality on this issue before he attempts to reply, for there is no real need to go around in circles playing mental gymnastics. What al-Ghuzayli did in his so called radd was summarise my alleged quotes in the main – and not quote paragraph by paragraph as I did in my initial 28 piece put up here. Do they hope to confuse the readers? They only confused the beguiled. Let the sincere one’s read my whole document and compare and contrast my style, arguments and language to al-Ghuzayli’s to see who is closest to the Haqq. Wallahu a'lam.

Wassalam

Abul Hasan

Ps – As a side note, al-Ghuzayli is quick and harsh to use the word “lie” for us, but turns a blind eye when his comrades in Fitna lied against me and others here. Like the one who obsessedly watches over us but then spread the clear cut lie about me and GF Haddad and Ijazat from his so called “trusted friends”! The same goes for AR Qadri – who claimed I took Ijaza from Shaykh al-Fadani – when I never said this ever, here or anywhere on the net, or how about this majhûl: Ibn Adam and the way the comedy unfolded between “Salafist” and his detractors at Ahwa.org. How vicious and childish these people are. May Allah keep us safe from their tongues and hands. Amin.