PDA

View Full Version : "Ash'ari refutation"- please respond to it



Ibn Umaysh
12-04-2005, 05:36 PM
As salamu aalikum

I found this on another forum. Please answer the relevant claim in the light of Ash'arism.



A Refutation of the Ash'arees
by Shaykh Abű Ammâr Yasir al-Qadhî

The Ash'arees are a group that take their 'aqeedah, and their name, from the teachings of Aboo al-Hasan Alee ibn Isma'eel al-Ash'aree (d. 324 A.H.).

With regards to the kalaam of Allaah, the Ash'arees brought forth an 'aqeedah that was unknown to the salaf. They claimed that Allaah does posses the Attribute of Speech, and that the Qur`aan was the kalaam of Allaah, and in this they agreed with the Ahl as-Sunnah. However, they explained this attribute in a unique way, for they claimed that Allaah's kalaam was an 'internal' kalaam - a kalaam that could not be heard by anyone. They equated it with the concept of thinking, and stated that, just as the thoughts of men are a type of speech that cannot be heard, likewise the kalaam of Allaah is an internal speech that cannot be heard. Therefore, they claimed that Allaah does not speak with sound, and that his kalaam does not consist of words or letters. They further stated that Allaah's kalaam is not related to His Will; in other words, according to the Ash'arees, Allaah is continually speaking, and will always be speaking - He does not speak when He wishes. They further claimed that the kalaam of Allaah is in fact one meaning, and cannot be divided into parts. This led them to claim that the Torah, Injeel and Qur`aan are all in fact 'expressions' of the same kalaam, but the actual kalaam of Allaah is without any language, and is of the same meaning. Therefore, according to them, the essence of the Torah, the Injeel and the Qur`aan is the same. Since they claimed that Allaah's kalaam is an internal kalaam, they then followed up this principle by stating that the actual text of the Qur`aan is created, but the kalaam of Allaah is not. The Arabic Qur`aan, according to the Ash'arees, is not the actual kalaam of Allaah, but rather an 'expression' of the kalaam of Allaah.

Imam Aboo Haamid al-Ghazaalee (d. 505 A.H.), one of the leaders and expounders of this 'aqeedah, wrote,

"Allaah speaks without words, sounds and letters...and His Speech is the Speech of the mind (i.e., internal speech). Just as the speech of the mind has no sound or words, so His Speech has no sound or words."

The primary principle that led the Ash'arees to distort many of Allaah's Names and Attributes is that they wished to remove all resemblance between Allaah's Names and Attributes, and between those of the creation. This principle, which in essence is correct, was taken by the Ash'arees to an extreme. They used their intellect and logic to decide which of Allaah's Names and Attributes gave some type of resemblance, or anthropomorphic qualities, and those Names and Attributes which did not. Based on this classification, they then interpreted those Names and Attributes which they felt gave anthropomorphic qualities contrary to their literal, understood meanings, thinking that by doing this they were removing any fear of resemblance between Allaah and His creation. In reality, their over-zealousness to free the Names and Attributes of Allaah from resembling those of His creation led them to deny and distort many of His Names and Attributes. They used their intellect as the criterion to understand Allaah's Names and Attributes. Whatever they felt was not befitting to Allaah, even if Allaah Himself had affirmed it, they interpreted until it satisfied their intellect.

As Aboo Haamid al-Ghazaalee, wrote,

"All that is found in the traditions (the Qur`aan and sunnah) (concerning the attributes of Allaah) is examined. Then, if the intellect can agree with it, it becomes obligatory to believe in it...But as for those (attributes) which are deemed by the intellect to be impossible, then it becomes obligatory to interpret what has been found in the traditions (the Qur`aan and sunnah), for it is not imaginable that the traditions will contain something that contradicts the intellect. As for the hadeeth which contain characteristics of resemblance (of Allaah between His creation), then most of them are not authentic, and those that are authentic are not explicit, but rather can be interpreted."

Therefore, they took their intellect to be their criterion to accept and understand the Attributes of Allaah, so whatever their intellect agreed with, they accepted, and whatever their intellect could not understand, they rejected or re-interpreted. And had they believed in them, without asking, "How?" or "Why?" it would have been better for them. However, they neglected a very crucial point, and that is that Allaah, all Glory be to Him, is more aware of His Names and Attributes than His creation is, and Allaah is more eloquent than any of His creation is. Therefore, it is not appropriate to re-interpret any Name or Attribute that Allaah (or the Prophet (e)) has described Himself with, merely because our minds cannot comprehend the actuality of an Attribute. They also neglected the fact that it is not possible to compare Allaah's Attributes and to try to understand them by making analogies with the attributes of the creation. Imaam al-Barbahaaree (d. 329), one of the scholars of the salaf, said: May Allaah have mercy upon you! Know that speculative speech about the Lord, the Most High, is a newly invented matter, and is an innovation and misguidance. Nothing is to be said about the Lord except what He has described Himself with in the Qur`aan, and what the Messenger of Allaah (e) explained to the Companions...No one says about the attributes of Allaah, "How?" or "Why?" except one who has doubts about Allaah. The Qur`aan is the kalaam of Allaah, His Revelation and Light...

Yet, the Ash'arees delved into concepts that could not be understood by men, and tried to reason the actuality of the Attributes of Allaah.

To illustrate this example, with regards to the attribute of kalaam, the Ash'arees reasoned that the one who speaks must speak with sound and breath, and these are created. In addition, they argued that speech must come from a combination of organs, such as the tongue, throat and mouth, but Allaah is free of these. They also reasoned that words, composed of letters, can never be eternal, since one letter follows another, and has a specific place in each word. Therefore, since each letter is sequential, following the one before it, it cannot have existed from eternity. Therefore, according to them, it was not possible for Allaah's kalaam to be with sound, or for Allaah's kalaam to be composed of words and letters, for if it were, it would be created.

It can be seen, then, that the Ash'arees used their logic to distort clear, explicit concepts in the Qur`aan and sunnah, by first comparing the Attributes of Allaah to those of the creation, and then reasoning that, since Allaah is not like His creation, these Attributes must have a different meaning. Had they only understood that Allaah is Unique, and there is nothing similar to Him, and that it is not possible to understand Allaah's Attributes by comparing them to those of the creation, it would have saved them from falling into the error of denying these Attributes.

As for their belief that the kalaam of Allaah is without sound, this contradicts the proofs that were given in the previous section from the Qur`aan, sunnah and statements of the salaf. The presumption that sound must come from organs is a presumption based upon the characteristics of humans. Therefore, it is not necessarily true for all objects. Allaah, all Glory and Praise be to Him, has made the Heavens and the Earth speak, for they responded to His Command and"said, 'We come, willingly!'" (41:12), and Allaah, all Glory and Praise be to Him, will make the skins of the disbelievers speak on the Day of Judgement, "And they (the disbelievers) will say, 'Why did you (our skins) testify against us?' They will say, 'Allaah has caused us to speak, as He causes all things to speak...'" (41:21). Allaah caused these objects to speak, yet these objects do not have the organs that humans need to speak. Is not Allaah, the one who created all things, capable of speaking as He wishes? Imaam Ahmad (d. 241 A.H.) stated, "As for their claim (meaning the claim of the Jahmiyyah, which was later taken by the Ash'arees) that sound can only occur from a combination of the throat, and lips, and tongue, then did not Allaah say to the Heavens and Earth "'Come willingly or unwillingly!' They both said, 'We come, willingly!'" (41:12). And did not Allaah say, "And We subjected the mountains and the birds to glorify Our praises, along with (Prophet) Dawood" (21:79). Do these people presume that they (i.e., the mountains, the Heavens and the Earth) glorified with a throat, and lips, and tongues?! And how about when a disbeliever's limbs will testify against him... Do you think that they will testify with throats, lips and tongues?! Nay, rather Allaah will make them to speak, as He wishes, without any throat or lips or tongues!"

Therefore, to claim that if the kalaam of Allaah were with sound, it would entail giving these characteristics to the Creator, cannot be accepted, for it is an analogy of Allaah with man, and this is improper. Abdullaah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 290 A.H.) said, "My father (Imaam Ahmad) said, 'The hadeeth of Ibn Mas'ood states that when Allaah Speaks, a sound is heard which sounds like (the moving of) a chain over a rock. And this (hadeeth) is denied by the Jahmiyyah. These people are disbelievers, they wish to cause confusion and deceive the people. Whoever presumes that Allaah does not Speak is a disbeliever! Verily, we will continue to narrate these hadeeth as they came to us!" In this narration, Imaam Ahmad is stating that any person who denies the fact that Allaah speaks with a sound is of the Jahmiyyah. In another narration, Abdullaah said, "I asked my father: Some people are claiming that Allaah does not speak with a sound." Imaam Ahmad replied,

"Nay! Allaah speaks with a sound, and the only people who deny this are the Jahmiyyah. They wish to confuse the people and deny (the Attributes of Allaah)."

Imaam as-Shahrastaanee (d. 548 A.H.), while discussing the historical development of the various sects related to the kalaam of Allaah, wrote,

"Then (Aboo al-Hassan) al-Ash'aree came, and invented a third opinion, and claimed that all sound must be created. And with this (opinion), he contradicted the consensus (ijmaa') before him, for he claimed that what we recite is not the actual kalaam of Allaah. And this (belief) is the essence of innovation."

In addition, if the Ash'arees maintain that the kalaam of Allaah is without sound, then the following points must be answered:

1) If the kalaam of Allaah is without sound, then what did Moosa hear when Allaah spoke to Him? If they respond that Allaah created a sound, and caused Moosa to hear that created sound, then this means that this created object stated, "O Moosaa, Verily, I am your Lord...Verily, I am Allaah, there is not god save me, so worship Me..." (20:12-14). Therefore, if they state this, it implies that this created object claimed to be Allaah, and asked Moosa to worship it! However, if they state that it was the actual kalaam of Allaah, then it must be asked, "How then did Moosa hear it if you claim that Allaah's kalaam is without sound?" The scholars of the Ash'arees have not been able to provide a satisfactory response for this.

2) If the kalaam of Allaah is without sound, then what special status do those prophets whom Allaah spoke to gain? In other words, what is the superiority of Moosa over the other prophets if he did not hear the kalaam of Allaah? The Qur`aan mentions that one of the blessings that certain prophets have been given is that Allaah spoke to them directly: "These are the Messengers! Some of them We blessed (with a higher status) over others. Some of them Allaah spoke to..." (2:253). Also, if Allaah speaks to a prophet, but that prophet cannot hear him, then of what difference is this type of inspiration to the other types of inspiration? Allaah says,

"It is not possible for any human being that Allaah should speak to him, unless it be by Inspiration, or from behind a veil, or (that) He sends a Messenger to reveal what He will by His Permission. Verily, He is the Most High, Most Wise" (42:51)

This verse mentions different types of inspirations. If, according to the Ash'arees, the kalaam of Allaah cannot be heard, then when Allaah speaks from 'behind a veil,' how is this different from the other forms of inspiration?

3) If the kalaam of Allaah is an 'internal' kalaam, similar to the 'speech' of the mind, then what is the difference between the Knowledge ('ilm) of Allaah, and His Speech. Allaah has described Himself with both of these characteristics in the Qur`aan. If the Speech of Allaah cannot be heard, and is an internal Speech, then this implies that it is the same as the Attribute of Knowledge.

There is another point that the belief of the Ash'arees implies, and this is a very dangerous implication: Just as the attribute of speech is a noble attribute, its opposite, muteness, is a characteristic that is not desired, nor is it considered praiseworthy. It is well known that the one who is mute is not like the one who speaks. Therefore, to claim that Allaah does not possess the attribute of speech (or to interpret it away as the Ash'arees do) is in reality blasphemous, as this then implies that the Creator is mute, yet Allaah is free of all attributes of imperfection. In fact, this principle of faith was one of the most powerful arguments that the prophets used to deny the worship of other than Allaah! The stories of Ibraheem and Moosaa clearly show this.

The Story of Ibraheem
Ibraheem's story with the idols is well known: Ibraheem destroyed all of the idols of his people except the largest one. When his people discovered this, they questioned him as to whether he was the culprit.

Ibraheem answered, as mentioned in the Qur`aan,

"'Rather, this one, the largest of them, did it! (Why don't you) ask them, if they can speak!' So they turned to themselves, and said, 'Verily, you are the wrong-doers (since you left the idols unguarded).' Then they turned to themselves (again) and (responded), 'You know very well (O Ibraheem) that these (idols) do not speak' (Abraham) replied, 'Do you then worship besides Allaah objects that can neither profit you nor harm you? Fie to you, and upon that which you worship besides Allaah! Have you no sense?!'" (21:63-67)

In these verses, Ibraheem showed his people that their idols were not worthy of worship, primarily because they could not speak. After they themselves acknowledged this, Ibraheem rebuked them, and asked them, "Have you no sense?!" meaning, "How can an object that cannot even speak be worthy of worship?" Notice that Ibraheem was referring to a speech that could be heard, for Ibraheem's people did not answer Ibraheem with the belief of the Ash'arees, "Our god speaks, but a speech that is not heard - an internal speech of the mind!" for they understood what Ibraheem meant!! This is why they turned to themselves, and realised the foolishness of their actions, and could only reply with the feeble response that everyone knew that their idols could not speak!

The Story of Moosa
Likewise, when the Children of Israa`eel took the calf that they had built as an object of worship, they were reprimanded in the Qur`aan. Allaah says,

"Did they (those who worshipped the calf) not realise that it (the calf) could not respond to them with a (single) word, nor did it have any power to harm or benefit them?" (20:89)

In another verse, Allaah says,

"And the people of Moses made in his absence, out of their ornaments, the image of a calf that made a sound (like the mooing of a cow). Did they not realise that it could not speak to them, nor guide them to the (straight) path?" (7:148)

In these two verses, Allaah reprimanded the Children of Israa`eel for worshipping the calf, since the calf was not a perfect object, and one of the clearest indications that it was not worthy of worship was that it could not speak! Even though the calf made noises, it was not capable of intelligent speech.

Therefore, these two stories show that muteness and incoherent speech are attributes that do not befit the Creator, and thus the people of Ibraheem and Moosaa were rebuked for taking gods that were mute. Yet, the Ash'arees, thinking that they were removing all negative attributes from Allaah, in reality equated the Creator with the attributes of these idols, and thus fell into the same error as the people of Moosa and Ibraheem did with regards to the attribute of speech! This is why Haaroon ibn Ma'roof (d. 231 A.H.), one of the scholars of the salaf, said, "Whoever presumes that Allaah does not speak, then in reality he is worshipping idols."

The Ash'arees also claim that the kalaam of Allaah is not related to His will, which implies that Allaah does not speak when He wishes to, but rather He is continually speaking. The fact that Allaah's kalaam is related to His Will (in other words, Allaah Speaks when He wishes to Speak) is clearly shown in the Qur`aan. Allaah says, "Verily, His Command, whenever He intends a thing, is only that He says, 'Be!' - and it is" (37:82). In this verse, Allaah clearly shows that His kalaam is related to His Will, for whenever Allaah intends a thing, He says to it "Be!" which proves that Allaah Speaks when He wishes. Likewise, Allaah states, "And when Moosa came to Our appointed time and place, and his Lord spoke with him..." (7:143). This verse shows that Allaah spoke to Moosa after Moosa had arrived to the meeting point; not before it, nor after it - once again proving that Allaah speaks when He wishes. The Ash'arees also claim that the kalaam of Allaah is all the same meaning, and cannot be divided into parts. This principle then leads them to state that the Qur`aan, Torah and Injeel are in essence the same, and they only differ in their expressions and languages. If this were the case in reality, then the Qur`aan, Torah and Injeel, when translated into one language, should be the same, since their essence is the same. However, it is well known that each of these three books differs from the other greatly.

In addition, if the kalaam of Allaah cannot be divided into parts, and is one whole concept, then this raises a problem that the Ash'arees must solve. The following conversation between one of the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah, Aboo Nasr as-Sijazee (d. 444 A.H.) and one of the scholars of the Ash'arees will prove interesting:

Aboo Nasr said to the Ash'aree, "What do you say when Allaah spoke to Moosa? Did he understand all of the kalaam of Allaah (i.e., if the kalaam of Allaah cannot be divided into parts, then did Moosa hear all of the kalaam of Allaah)?"

The Ash'aree hesitated a little, and questioned, "What do you intend by this question?" Aboo Nasr responded, "Forget what I intend, and respond to my question!" but the Ash'aree refused to respond until Aboo Nasr told him what he meant by this question.

Aboo Nasr then responded, "What I intend is as follows: If you respond to my question by stating that Moosa understood all of the kalaam of Allaah, then this implies that there is not a single kalaam of Allaah except that Moosa comprehended it, and this is blasphemy and disbelief (for this would imply that Moosa had been given all of the knowledge of Allaah)... but if you do not say this, then you are forced to state that Allaah made Moosa comprehend some part of His kalaam, and by this statement you have caused yourself to fall into the same thing that you pretend to run away from, and that is the belief that Allaah's kalaam can be divided. You also claimed that one who says that the kalaam of Allaah can be divided is a disbeliever, yet you have been forced to say it yourself. Therefore, your opponent will be the victor over you, since he believed in what was stated in the Qur`aan and sunnah, (which came) from Allaah and His Messenger (e), but you refused to submit to them, and instead claimed that it was obligatory to turn to your intellect (to understand these concepts). Yet, your intellect has forced you to agree with the revelation (in that the kalaam of Allaah can be divided into parts), and in the process you have humiliated yourself!"

The Ash'aree responded, "This requires some time for me to think," and left the conversation.

In other words, if the kalaam of Allaah is one essence, and cannot be divided into parts, then when Allaah spoke to Moosa, did Moosa hear all of the kalaam of Allaah? If so, then this implies that Moosa gained all the knowledge of Allaah, and this is not possible. However, if this is not so, then this implies that Moosa understood a part of the kalaam of Allaah, which is what the Ahl as-Sunnah believe.

The final point that will be discussed is in fact the most dangerous consequence of the belief of the Ash'arees. Since the Ash'arees claimed that Allaah did not actually speak the Qur`aan with a voice that is heard, and that His kalaam is not in any language, and not composed of words and letters, they then had to answer a number of questions, including: "Where did the Qur`aan that is present amongst us originate from? And what, then, is the Arabic Qur`aan, with its words and letters?"

In other words, since the Ash'arees claimed that Allaah's kalaam could not be heard, then from where did the Qur`aan come from? And who was the first to recite it? And if, as the Ash'arees claim, the kalaam of Allaah is not in any language, and neither is it composed of words and letters, then what is the relationship of the Qur`aan, which is in Arabic and composed of words and letters, with the kalaam of Allaah?

Concerning this point, the Ash'arees were forced to admit that the Qur`aan is not the actual kalaam of Allaah (since it is in Arabic, and composed of words and letters), but instead an 'expression' (Ar. 'hikaayah', or ''ibaarah') of the kalaam of Allaah. As to who (or what) was the first to actually 'express' it, the Ash'arees differed amongst themselves into a number of opinions, all of which are equally blasphemous! Most of them stated that the Qur`aan was first created in the Lauh al-Mahfoodh (in other words, the Arabic words of the Qur`aan did not exist until they were created by Allaah in the Lauh al-Mahfoodh), thus explicitly claiming that the Qur`aan was created; others stated that Allaah made Jibreel understand the meaning of the Qur`aan, and Jibreel was the first to verbalize it, thus making the Qur`aan the speech of Jibreel; yet others stated that the Qur`aan was inspired in meaning and first spoken by the Prophet (e), thus making the Qur`aan the speech of the Prophet Muhammad (e).

In other words, the Ash'arees were forced to admit that the Arabic Qur`aan is not the actual kalaam of Allaah, and that it is created. This is due to the fact that they differentiated between what they called an 'internal kalaam' of Allaah, which is without language, sound and words, and between the actual Qur`aan, which is in Arabic, recited and heard, and composed of words. This 'internal kalaam' of Allaah, according to them, is not created, but the Qur`aan, since it is only an 'expression' of the 'internal kalaam', and not the actual kalaam of Allaah, must be created.

Thus, the Ash'arees explicitly state and believe that the Qur`aan is created, even though they then follow up this statement with the phrase, "...but the kalaam of Allaah is not." As one of their most famous scholars, Ibraheem al-Baajooree (d. 1277 A.H.), wrote, "The belief of the Ahl as-Sunnah (intending the belief of the Ash'arees) is that the Qur`aan, meaning the internal kalaam (of Allaah) is not created, but the Qur`aan, meaning the one that we recite, is created."

Therefore, in essence, the Ash'arees agreed with the Jahmiyyah and the Mu'tazilah that the Qur`aan is created.

It must be asked: When all of the scholars of the salaf vehemently spoke against those who believed that the Qur`aan was created, and even accused them of disbelief, were they referring to this concept of 'internal kalaam' that the Ash'arees invented, or where they referring to the Qur`aan that is well known to all Muslims? And when Imaam al-Lalikaa`ee (d. 418 A.H.) quoted over five-hundred scholars of the salaf stating that the Qur`aan is the kalaam of Allaah, and not created, did any of these scholars differentiate between this 'internal kalaam' and the actual Qur`aan, and state that the Qur`aan is only an 'expression' of this 'internal kalaam'?

The answer is very clear: none of the salaf preached or believed the doctrines that the Ash'arees invented, and none of them differentiated between an 'internal kalaam of Allaah' and the Qur`aan. What the salaf were referring to when they said that the Qur`aan is the kalaam of Allaah, and that the Qur`aan is not created, is the actual Qur`aan, and not an imaginary and invented 'internal kalaam'. None of them, not even a single scholar (before Aboo al-Hasan al-Ash'aree and his teacher Ibn Kullaab), mentioned this concept of an 'internal' kalaam, and differentiated between it and the actual Qur`aan! The salaf are all quoted as saying, "The Qur`aan is the kalaam of Allaah, not created," yet the Ash'arees state, "The Qur`aan is only an expression of the kalaam of Allaah, and is created"!! 'Are these two examples the same? Alhamdulillaah; but most of them do not know!" (39:29).

.
Conclusion
The Attributes of Allaah as mentioned in the Qur`aan and sunnah are absolutely Unique. These Attributes are understood literally (in the case of the Attribute of kalaam, that Allaah Speaks, whenever He wishes, with a sound, in different languages, and this Speech is composed of words and letters, and is not created), but the actuality and 'how-ness' of these Attributes are not delved into, and any negative similarity between these Attributes and the attributes of the Creation are negated (in the case of this Attribute, that the speech of the creation is created, but the Speech of Allaah is not.). Understanding these Attributes 'literally' does not mean understanding them in the manner that they are found in the creation, or comparing them with the attributes of the creation; rather, it means affirming the linguistic meaning of that Attribute in a manner that befits the Creator, and will never be understood by mankind.

The beliefs and deviations of the Ash'arees are all based upon their anthropomorphic understanding of the Attributes of Allaah. If they had only understood that the Attributes of Allaah cannot be compared to the attributes of the creation, nor are they based upon the attributes of the creation, they would not have had to resort to try to 'rationalise' these Attributes to remove this supposed anthropomorphism from them. The Ash'arees also failed to realise that, in their over-zealousness to remove this imaginary anthropomorphism that they believed existed in the Qur`aan and sunnah, they ended up comparing Allaah's Attributes with the attributes of inanimate objects.

The Ash'arees are an example of how deviation occurs when the proper Islaamic methodology is not followed; they wished to refute the beliefs of the Mu'tazilah and the Jahmiyyah, and affirm the Attributes of Allaah, but since they were so influenced by the principles of Greek logic and rationalism, they ended up agreeing with the beliefs of the same groups that they sought to refute, and stated that the Qur`aan is created. In conclusion, the scholar of the sunnah, Imaam Muhammad ibn al-Hassan al-Aajurree (d. 360) stated:

Therefore it is essential that Muslims fear Allaah, and teach each other the Qur`aan...and not argue over it. And they should know that it is the kalaam of Allaah, not created. So if a Jahmee argues with them, and says, "It is created!" or says, "The Qur`aan is the kalaam of Allaah!" and stops at that (i.e., a Waaqifee), or says, "My recitation of the Qur`aan is created!" (i.e., a Lafdhee), or says, "The Qur`aan is only an 'expression' of what is in the Lauh al-Mahfoodh!" (i.e., an Ash'aree), then the ruling with regards to such a person is that he be left, and not talked to, nor prayed behind, but rather warned against. And upon you, O Muslim, are the narrations from the Prophet (e), and the narrations from the Companions after him, may Allaah be pleased with them, and the statements of the Successors, and the scholars of the Muslims. And leave debating (about the religion by using your intellect), and useless argumentation, and contention! And whoever is upon this path, then I hope for him all good from Allaah...

Ibn Umaysh
12-04-2005, 08:08 PM
I wanted to know the answer if anyone had it...

faqir
12-04-2005, 08:12 PM
Asalamu alaykum,

The position of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah is detailed by Shaykh G.F. Haddad below:




THE UNCREATEDNESS OF THE
DIVINE SPEECH
THE GLORIOUS QUR'AN

(see also: Ibn `Arabi on Uncreatedness of Qur'an )

by GF Haddad ©



Al-Hamdu lillah for the favor of Islam and the honor of right Belief. May Allah bless and salute our Master Muhammad and his Family and Companions.

This posting sums up the doctrine of the massive majority of the Muslims, namely the People of the Sunna and the Congregation, concerning the pre-existent, pre-eternal, beginningless, and uncreated nature of the Divine Speech Allah Most High has named al-Qur'an, as held by the Salaf al-Salihun and as formulated by the two Masters, Imam Abu al-Hasan al-Ash`ari and Imam Abu Mansur al-Maturidi and their respective schools.

The position of Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama`a differs fundamentally on this matter with that of the rest of the Muslim sects, especially with that of the now defunct Mu`tazila. The position of the Shi`a is indentical with that of the Mu`tazila, who denied not only the Pre-existent status of the Divine Speech, but of all the Divine Attributes for they considered that they are the same as the Essence.

Ahl al-Sunna agree one and all that the Qur'an is the pre-existent, pre-eternal, uncreated Speech of Allah Most High on the evidence of the Qur'an, the Sunna, and faith-guided reason.

In a rare instance of classic kalâm reasoning, Imam Malik gave the most succint statement of this doctrine:

"The Qur'an is the Speech of Allah, the Speech of Allah comes from Him, and nothing created comes from Allah Most High." Narrated by al-Dhahabi in Siyar A`lam al-Nubala' (Dar al-Fikr ed. 7:416).

Hafiz Abu al-Qasim Ibn `Asakir said in Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari (Dar al-Jil ed. p. 150-151):

"The Mu`tazila said: 'the Speech of Allah Most High is created, invented, and brought into being.' The Hashwiyya, who attribute a body to Allah the Exalted, said: 'The alphabetical characters (al-hurűf al-muqatta`a), the materials on which they are written, the colors in which they are written, and all that is between the two covers [of the volumes of Qur'an] is beginningless and pre-existent (qadîma azaliyya). Al-Ash`ari took a middle road between them and said: The Qur'an is the beginningless speech of Allah Most High unchanged, uncreated, not of recent origin in time, nor brought into being. As for the alphabetical characters, the materials, the colors, the voices, the elements that are subject to limitations (al-mahdűdât), and all that is subject to modality (al-mukayyafât) in the world: all this is created, originated, and produced."

Hafiz Abu Bakr al-Bayhaqi said in al-Asma' wa al-Sifat (al-Kawthari ed. p. 265; al-Hashidi ed. 2:18) with a sound chain:

"Something Ibn Shaddad had written was handed to Abu Bakr al-Marwazi which containing the phrase: "My pronunciation of the Qur'an is uncreated" and the latter was asked to show it to Ahmad ibn Hanbal for corroboration. The latter crossed out the phrase and wrote instead: "The Qur'an, however used (haythu yusraf), is uncreated."

"In another sound narration, Abu Bakr al-Marwazi, Abu Muhammad Fawran [or Fawzan], and Salih ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal witnessed Ahmad rebuking one of his students named Abu Talib with the words: "Are you telling people that I said: 'My pronunciation of the Qur'an is uncreated'?" Abu Talib replied: "I only said this from my own." Ahmad said: "Do not say this - neither from me, nor from you! I never heard any person of knowledge say it. The Qur'an is the Speech of Allah uncreated, whichever way it is used." Salih said to Abu Talib: "If you told people what you said, now go and tell the same people that Abu `Abd Allah [Imam Ahmad] forbade to say it."" End of al-Bayhaqi's narration in al-Asma' wa al-Sifat (Kawthari ed. p. 265-266; al-Hashidi ed. 2:18). This is a sound narration also found in Salih ibn Ahmad's book al-Mihna (p. 70-71), Ibn al-Jawzi's Manaqib al-Imam Ahmad (p. 155), and Ibn Taymiyya in Majmu` al-Fatawa (12:360, 12:425).

The Proof of Islam and Renewer of the Fifth Hijri Century, Imam Abu Hamid al-Ghazzali said in his "Foundations of Islamic Belief" (Qawa`id al-`Aqa'id) published in his Rasa'il and his Ihya' `Ulum al-Din and partially translated in Shaykh Nuh Keller's Reliance of the Traveller and by Mrs. Ahmad Darwish on the Mosque of the Internet:

"The Qur'an is read by tongues, written in books, and remembered in the heart, yet it is, nevertheless, uncreated and without beginning, subsisting in the Essence of Allah, not subject to division and or separation through its transmission to the heart and paper. Musa - upon him peace - heard the Speech of Allah without sound and without letter, just as the righteous see the Essence of Allah Most High in the Hereafter, without substance or its quality." End of al-Ghazzali's words.

And Imam al-Tahawi said of the Qur'an in his "Creed of Abu Hanifa and his Companions": "It is not created like the speech of creatures."

Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal was detained and lashed for twenty-eight months for refusing to say that the Qur'an was created. In his stand for the sake of the pure and undefiled Religion he was compared to Abu Bakr al-Siddiq's unwavering stand with regard to the Arabian tribes who committed apostasy after the Prophet left this life. May Allah be well-pleased with them and make them pleased.

Someone on the SRI forum mentioned the following syllogism:

Allah says that He is the creator of everything
The Qur'an is a thing
Therefore the Qur'an Is created.
...
If you want to prove that the Qur'an is uncreated
you will first have to prove that
the Qur'an is not a thing. Can you do that?
No.

But elsewhere in the thread the same person states:

So Allah is called a thing in the Qur'an.

Therefore he admits that there is an exception to the false reasoning stated above, but in a separate place than where he brought it up.

He also stated his denial of the reality and pre-eternity of the Divine Attributes, subsuming them into the Essence:

Coming back to the main point. If someone believes that anything is eternal other than God (existed from ever) he/she has committed shirk; made a partner with God.

Yet elsewhere he affirms one such attribute. Meaning, not according to his rule that the attribute IS God, but predicating the attribute to God as a distinct reality in contradiction of his former denial, committing shirk by his own principle:

[...] Truth is an attribute of God.

Then he immediately annuls the reality of the attribute he just mentioned:

Other than God both Truth and Evil don't really independently exist.

So then (1) - according to him - Allah categorically created all things and both the Qur'an is a thing and Allah is a thing; and (2) - according to him - it is shirk to hold anything to be eternal other than God, even an Attribute of His such as Truth; for (3) - according to him - such attributes, anyway, "don't really independently exist."

Of course he extirpates himself by adding {There is nothing like unto Him}. So he has shown that there is at least One Exception - Subhan Allah! - to his supposed axiom, and he found that exception stated in the Qur'an. He himself has shown that it can be misleading - and horrendously so - to cite certain verses in isolation of others in the matter.

But he claims that it is apostasy to make more than this single exception:

Yet you are making TWO exceptions. This is against the creed of Pure Islam.

If you make more than ONE exception what prevents you from making Three, four or more exceptions?

However, we Sunnis hold there are as many exceptions to the phrase "Allah has created everything" as there are Divine Attributes, and that to speak of any of His Attributes as created, is kufr.

The `Aqida of the People of Truth is:

sifaatu-l-Laahi laysat `ayna dhaatin
The Attributes of Allah are neither the very Essence,

wa laa ghayran siwaahu dha-nfisaali
nor other than Himself, nor separate.

sifaatu-dh-Dhaati wa-l-af`aali turran
And all the Attributes of the Essence and of the Acts

qadiimaatun masuunaatu-z-zawaali
are pre-existent and without end.

[From the poem Bad' al-Amali by the Maturidi master, Siraj al-Din `Ali ibn `Uthman al-Ushi (d. 569).]

Another argument the objector brings forth is:

The Qur'an is created. The Qur'an is refers to itself as Muhdath in verses 21:2 and 26:5

And this is an outright lie, for the Qur'an refers to "a new/fresh reminder" (dhikr) in the indefinite in both verses, not "to itself" as falsely claimed. This would have been immediately noticeable if he had only cited the translations that he pretended to adduce.

He also made false claims based on his deficient knowledge of the Qur'an:

The Qur'an says that it is From/By the Knowledge of God but it doesn't say that it IS the Knowledge of God therefore even this view is non-Qur'anic and it is a belief without burhaan which Allah has not given any Sultaan or permission to believe in.

This is false, the Qur'an most explicitly states {wa ma-khtalafa ahlu-l-kitaabi illaa min ba`di maa jaa'ahum MIN AL-`ILM} and {wa man hajjaka min ba`di ma jaa'aka MIN AL-`ILM} among other verses equating Divine Revelation with "The Knowledge". This was pointed out by Imam Ahmad in many places, notably his first reply to the Devils who interrogated him on the issue, as cited below. So to believe that the Qur'an is the Speech of Allah - and there is no disagreement over this from the Shi`is - is to believe that it is the Knowledge of Allah, though not necessarily all His Knowledge.

The objector also said some more enormities about the Qur'an and the Heavenly Books:

The Qur'an is applicable only from the time of the Prophet until the end of time. It is applicable in places humans can live.

If the truth was otherwise then there would be no need for the Taurah, Zaboor and Injeel. If the truth was otherwise the Qur'an should have come down with Adam but it didn't.

The truth is, as Allah is my witness and yours, that the Qur'an is the uncreated Speech of Allah to the worlds in which He mentions the taking of the Covenant from all the Prophets and their Communities and the all-encompassing witness of the Seal of Prophets over them; that the Torah is the uncreated Speech of Allah; the Zabur is the uncreated Speech of Allah; and the Injil is the uncreated Speech of Allah. And the Heavenly Books shall surely stand witness for or against all those who wrote in this thread on the Day of Judgment.

How well Imam al-Shafi`i spoke when he said:

"My ruling concerning the practicioners of kalâm is that they be flogged, then seated upon a camel and paraded among the clans and the tribes while a herald proclaims: 'This is the reward of those who abandon the Book and the Sunna in order to take up kalâm!'" I.e. to take up false reasonings and speculations in the guise of defending the Book and the Sunna instead of sticking faithfully to the latter. He also said: "Every mutakallim according to the Qur'an and Sunna possesses diligence, while every other type is delirious."

It was correctly mentioned that al-Shafi`i declared to a man who spoke of the Qur'an as created: "You have just committed disbelief." The man in question was the Mu`tazili-turned-Jabri, Hafs al-Fard of Basra. It is established that al-Shafi`i entered into kalâm disputations with this Hafs over the issue of the creation of the Qur'an until he declared Hafs a disbeliever, and he used to nickname him "Hafs the Isolated" Hafs al-Munfarid as a word-play on his name of Fard. Hafs had tried unsuccessfully to make `Abd Allah ibn `Abd al-Hakim and Yusuf ibn `Amr ibn Yazid debate him before al-Shafi`i accepted and defeated him. See on this: Ibn `Asakir, Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari (1404 ed. p. 338-340) and al-Lalika'i, Sharh Usul I`tiqad Ahl al-Sunna (2:252-253).

The objector also stated about his supposed method:

I don't want to hear the opinions of Malik or Buyuti. Tell me what the Qur'an says. Tell me what the Messenger of Allah said (saws).

It seems he thinks he is stating what the Qur'an says and rejecting imitation; but he actually misunderstands the Qur'an in pure imitation - unwittingly or not - of the enemies of the Qur'an. For he has used two of the exact same weak arguments used against Imam Ahmad and the other Mountains of Islam by the underlings of Caliph Harun al-Rashid's sons al-Ma'mun the scholar (198-218) and the near-analphabet al-Mu`tasim (218-227), and the latter's profligate son al-Wathiq (227-232), abetted by his Mu`tazili vizier Ibn Abi Du'ad and a certain Barghuth ["Gnat"] al-Jahmi.

He states: I don't want to hear the opinions of Malik or Buwayti. But Malik or Buwayti's juridical and doctrinal stands are based on a Mujtahid Mutlaq's understanding of the Qur'an and Sunna. Whereas that person's use of the English meanings of the Qur'an on the Internet - Ma Sha' Allah - is that of a layman, or less. So we have a choice between following the Imams, or following at best a layman. How do ye judge?

Mujtahid Mutlaq = Qualified for absolute independent juridical exertion, i.e. to apply legal reasoning, draw analogies, and infer rulings from the evidence independently of the methodology and findings of the Sunni schools, through his own linguistic and juridical perspicuity and extensive knowledge of the texts.

Allah have mercy on al-Buwayti and give him the highest ranks in Paradise! He died in 231 in jail, bound in chains in Iraq for refusing to say that the Qur'an was created. May Allah have mercy on him and on all the scholars of Ahl al-Sunna and give them the merits of their detractors.

Yes, a Nobody can quote Qur'an, just like Imams Ahmad and al-Buwayti can quote it. However, the understanding of the Mujtahid Mutlaq compared to that of the Nobody is like the soaring eagle compared to a one-day gnat, although both can be said to fly.

I must also say that his protestation against the opinions of the scholars is a hollow one coming from a Shi`i, for Shi`is are notorious for their slavish imitation of their Imams' opinion, not bothering even to check the validity of transmission of a given opinion to a purported authority. That is why he is able to reject the Sunni doctrine of Imam Ja`far al-Sadiq in this matter even as he claims, "Our beliefs are based on what the 12 Imams of the Ahlul-bayt taught and endorsed as authentic Islam."

Yes, in addition, somewhere in the thread, he himself happily quotes from Imam Ja`far ibn Muhammad (al-Sadiq) to make a point! Then he declaims: "Why can't you base your argument on the Qur'an, Sunnah and Reason. Why must you bring the opinion of someone in the 10th century as a support?" So we are to put forward a Duodeciman Shi`i's partial understanding of the Qur'an, biased abuse of the Sunna, and deficient reasoning before examplars of the Qur'an and Sunna such as the Mujtahid Imams and Awliya' except, of course, when we mean a Twelver-Imam? - Although, to top the irony, Imam Ja`far al-Sadiq is authentically reported to hold that the Qur'an is uncreated, as indicated by Brother Ismaeel; here is the report:

Al-Bayhaqi in al-Asma' wa al-Sifat (chapters on the Divine Attribute of Speech, al-Hashidi ed. 1:600 #534) narrated with his chain ["isnaduhu hasan"] from Ja`far ibn Muhammad, from his father, from `Ali ibn al-Husayn who said: "The Qur'an is neither creator nor created, but it is the Speech of the Creator." I remember reading the report in Qadi `Iyad's al-Shifa' as well.

The objector claims to stick fast to the Qur'an, but his likes reject and belie the Qur'an when it praises the First and Foremost of the Muhajirun and Ansar! And he claims to stick to the Sunna when his likes pick and choose among the most authentic narrations what they want and reject what they want according to their lusts; rejecting Sayyidina `Ali's affirmation of wiping (mash) on the khuff, and his confirmation of the cancellation of mut`a to name but two fundamental examples - both reports as sound and clear as the sun, and the first one is mutawatir.

He stated concerning the noble Sahaba:

did all the Sahaba enjoin what is good and forbid what is wrong?
No.

It must be understood that in reality this is an attack upon the Lord of the worlds, as if reproaching him for choosing unworthy Companions for the Seal of His Prophets! wallahu al-musta`an. And did the Prophet make any distinctions when praying for his Companions when he said: "O Allah! have mercy on the Ansar and the Muhajirin!" the day they were digging the Trench before the battle of the Clans? Undoubtedly, such phrases as "did all the Sahaba enjoin what is good and forbid what is wrong? No" shall come as millstones around the neck of their speakers on the Day of Judgment, when they shall be facing the Sahaba - and the Prophet - in shame. And Allah Most High might ask them: What business did you have reviling the men and women I chose as Companions for My Most Beloved, Most Respected, Most Praised Servant??

Hear now the ironclad responses given to the Shayatin who were torturing him, given by the Imam of the Sunna as narrated by his son Salih ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal in al-Dhahabi's Siyar (9:478) and Ibn al-Subki's Tabaqat al-Shafi`iyya al-Kubra (2:46-47):

Questioner: What do you say about the Qur'an?
Ahmad: And you, what do you say about the Knowledge of Allah Most High?
Another questioner: Did not Allah say: {Allah is the Creator of all things} (13:16), and is not the Qur'an a thing?
Ahmad: Allah also said: {Destroying all things} (46:25), then it destroyed all except whatever Allah willed.
Another questioner: {Never comes there unto them a new reminder from their Lord} (21:2). Can something new be anything but created?
Ahmad: Allah said: {Sâd. By the Qur'an that contains the Reminder} (38:1). "The" reminder is the Qur'an, while the other verse does not say "the".
Another questioner: But the hadith of `Imran ibn Husayn states: "Allah created the Reminder."
Ahmad: That is not correct, several narrated it to us as: "Allah wrote the Reminder."
[Al-Bukhari, Sahih, book of the Beginning of Creation: "Allah was when there was nothing else than Him, and His Throne was upon the water, and He wrote in the Reminder (al-dhikr) all things, and He created the heavens and the earth."]
They cited the hadith of Ibn Mas`ud: "Allah Most High did not create a garden of Paradise nor a fire of Hell nor a heaven nor an earth more tremendous (a`zam) than the verse of the Throne (2:255)."
[Narrated by Sa`id ibn Mansur, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn al-Daris, al-Tabarani, al-Harawi in his Fada'il, and al-Bayhaqi in Shu`ab al-Iman, as stated by al-Suyuti in al-Durr al-Manthur. Al-Tirmidhi in his Sunan mentions Sufyan ibn `Uyayna's explanation whereby this is because the garden, the fire, etc. are all created as opposed to the Qur'an.]
Ahmad: The creating here applies to the garden, the fire, the heaven, and the earth. It does not apply to the Qur'an.
Another questioner: The narration of Khabbab states: "I admonish you to approach Allah with all that you can; but you can never approach Him with something dearer to Him than His speech."
[Narrated by al-Hakim (2:441) who declared it sound - al-Dhahabi concurred - and by al-Bayhaqi in al-Asma' wa al-Sifat with two sound chains (1:587-588 #513-514).]
Ahmad: And that is true.

For the sake of completion on this topic I will append the additional proofs already cited by Cbun in message <8o2mle$d2l$1/at/samba.rahul.net>, with slightly modified spelling and style:

Allah says, {Verily, His Command, when He intends a thing,
is only that He says to it, 'Be!' and it is!} - Yasîn 82

Ibn `Uyayna explains, "Allah has differentiated his
Creation from his Command. His command is "Be" (Kun)."

Allah says, {Verily! Our Word unto a thing when We intend
it, is only that We say unto it: "Be!" and it is.} - Surah An-Nahl 40

Shaykh `AbdulQadir al-Jilani (Rahimahullah),*
explaining that the word of Allah is not created says,
"Allah (subhanehu Wa ta'ala) said, {Verily! to him
(belongs) the creation and the Command}; (Allah) has
differentiated his Creation from his Command, If His
Command which is "Be" (Kun) that He creates His creation
(with) is created it would be a repetition that has no
benefit - as if He (Allah) said 'Verily! to him (belongs)
the creation and the creation'; Allah (subhanehu Wa ta'ala)
is far removed from doing such a thing."
From the book Al-Ghunya li-Talibiy Tariq al-Haqq, volume 1 page 59

* I replaced Rahmatullahi `alayh with Rahimahullah, for I heard my Shaykh say that the former is used for the `Awamm - the general public of the Muslims - while the latter is used for the Khawass - the elite.

Allah bless and greet our Master Muhammad, his Family, and all his Companions.

Hajj Gibril
GF Haddad ©

Abul Hasan
12-04-2005, 09:48 PM
:salam:

May i say that Yasir Qadi is not considered reliable, let alone being a Shaykh according to his own "Salafi" brethren. This man is paraded on "Islam Channel" as some sort of scholar. He is not a Hujjah for real Sunni's, and has sent out confusion over the satellite. Proof on what the "Salafiyya" say about this individual:

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

The following is from one of the well known pseudo-Salafi forums:

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

The people of madinah (who studied with him) and interacted with him know best this person as the "people of makkah know best its streets" as the saying goes.

1. His close friend, teacher, Jamal Zarabozo, a harakee follower of safar and salman who affirms tawheed al-haakimiyyah (no one has seen any open tawbah from him to date). Some of the tendencies of Zarabozo are found in Qadhi, like finding fault with al-Albani and his fiqh and accusing others of making taqleed of him.

2. Connection to al-Hidayah, some people who are upon ikhwanee manhaj and manhaj of tamyee' in the UK, and who are closely linked to the hardcore Ikhwaanee Jamaate Ahle Hadis.

3. He was confused about safar and salman originally before seeing the light, then was confused about ihyaa at-turaath also. he admitted to Shaikh ar-Ruhailee that his manhaj is weak, and this his nature. He is confused about the deviations in the fundamentals of the manhaj, which is something dangerous especially in these times when all deviations come from issues of manhaj.

4. He read a book by abdur-rahmaan mahmood on hukm bi ghayri maa anzalalllaah which he thought was excellent, and the miskeen does not know that this man is a qutubee who praises sayyid qutb and uses the same doubts as the takfiris in this book. so in his jahl of the manhaj issues of our time, he is easily susceptible to doubts and being convinced by those who he is ignorant of.

5. He is being propped up by his Ikhwaanee friends al-Hidayah, and this is fitnah for the people because this man is jaahil of manhaj.

6. He wrote his book on riyaa as an introspection excercise, since he had a problem with it, and many brothers noticed his "big head". So its strange to see that al-Hidayah are causing more fitnah for his man by propping him up, making him subject to more internal problems.

7. He tried to claim that the reason why others speak about him is due to jealousy. This is a great lie. This is how he deceives those people in the West who don't know any better. He himself admitted to Shaikh ar-Ruhailee that he is weak in manhaj, showing that the concern and criticisms upon him were correct.

8. In the States he is always on the platforms of the harakees, whenever you see events and conferences or gatherings, then look carefully at who invites him and who he shares platforms with and you see clearly he is with the harakees those who do not cease to be upon the manhaj of the qutubees or turaathees or others from ahl il-ahwaa.

9. Qadhi is just one in a group of similar people who gained prominence in dawah during times of confusion in manhaj, they might have knowledge in certain areas, but they are totally ignorant of manhaj issues, and hence a fitnah for the people. Similar to bilal philips and zarabozo and others.

10. A person who is clearly upon the sunnah and is clear in his manhaj and in his implementation of it, but who is not so great in knowledge is far better than one with lots of knowledge but who remains confused and ignorant in manhaj, because this one will become a head of misguidance when he presents himself to people.

11. He is upon the manhaj of tamyee'.

12. Have heard that when he is in the UK he is with Suhaib Hasan and with the Ikhwaanees of Ahle Hadeeth, and drives around with them, escorting them or being escorted with them. This makes his manhaj clear.

The salafees should beware of this man because he might not be vocal now, while he is being raised and promoted by his Ikhwaanee managers at al-Hidayah so that he is widely accepted amongst the Salafees, but when he reaches this position, he will come out with the real manhaj that he is concealing and his dislike of the Salafees will be more open. This is the way of all of the people of hizbiyyah and the Salafees should not be stung hole from the same hole over and over again.

If you cannot speak arabic do not refer to his tapes or books, but stick to the materials and tapes of clear du'aat like who are in the states and elsewhere. And finally, this is nothing personal, but it is to do with manhaj and to do with the deen.

This message was edited by Abu.AbdirRahman.R on 12-22-02 @ 12:13 PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------


If you wish to see a more detailed article against him then PM me for the link as i don't want to promote these pseudo-Salafi sites here.

Wassalam

Mossy
12-04-2005, 10:15 PM
Any comments on the refutation sidi?

jinnzaman
12-04-2005, 11:40 PM
This article is rather easy to refute. There are three ways to attack it: 1. attack its definitions (especially its definition of 'innovation' 2. attack its structure (point out where teh author's argument contradicts itself on pivotal points) and 3. expand the depth of argument (the article simplifies aqeedah excessively. you need to bring in texts that show how the authors account of kalam fails when other contradictory evidences are brought in).

The only really strong point that the author brings up is that the Ashari aqeedah is 'different' from the aqeedah of the salafus saleh. I haven't seen a really good document that illustrates how the Ashari aqeedah is, in essence although not in form, the aqeedah of the salafus saleh.

I think the best thing to attack is the claim that Asharis utilize logic over textual evidences. The point is that in situations where the evidences contradict one another, the use of reason would be obligatory to determine which evidence takes precedence since one cannot make a decision that one evidence is stronger than another in an arbitrary manner. At least thats what Imam Juwayni says pertaining to the Shariah in his 'conclusive proofs for the principles of beliefs.'

samrqandi
13-04-2005, 12:02 AM
assalaamu alaikum,

i feel well sleepy yaasir al-qadi and his attempts are just the same old attempts made by the opponents.

i had a few notes on the kalaam issue which you can read i will paste them below as well they need revising and improving:

al-kalaam, the kalaam of Allah is an eternal one and ever lasting attribute. Its is the attribute by which Allah orders, prohibits, promises and threatens, it is not similar to the speech of others. When we say eternal we say that it exists without a beginning, when we say threaten we do not mean parts of Allah do this because Allah does not exist in parts. This is in contrast to our speech, hence when we say bismillah, there is a sound coming out from our voice box, also coming from the lips is the pronunciation of the letter ba and before the letter ba was said there was no letter ba. Hence it has a beginning, therefore when we say bismillah it has a beginning, middle and an end, which is composed of parts. When we speak, some of us may order, prohibit, threaten and so on, referring back to the kalaam of Allah, it does not have a beginning since Allah does not have a beginning. Imam abu hanifa said in his fiqh ul-akbar:

ويتكلم لا ككلامنا ونحن نتكلم بالآلات والحروف والله تعالى يتكلم بلا آلة ولاحروف.

wa yatakallamu la kakalaameenaa nahnu natakallamu bil’asswate minal kharajee wal hurufee wallahu mutakallimun bilaa aaleetin wa laa harrfin.

We believe that nabi musa heard the kalaam of Allah without it being letters or sounds just as the believers in the heaven will see Allah in the hereafter without Allah being joharr (particles or body) and aa’radd (the attribute of a body e.g. movement, colour, size etc). When the believers see Allah in the hereafter it will be without a shape, form body etc. referring to nabi musa, the letters and sounds are aa’radd and Allah is not attributed with aa’radd. Hence when nabi musa heard the kalaam it was neither Arabic, syric, Hebrew nor was it another language because languages are created and formed with sounds, rather Allah enabled nabi musa to understand, also Allah created in the ear of nabi musa to understand the kalaam. Just as Allah will give the believers special eyes in the hereafter to see him in the hereafter, but not in the way creation is seen. The mushabiha (they resemble Allah to creation) say that Allah attributed himself with kalaam in the qur’an which is true and to deny this is kufr. Then they say that the kalaam means sounds and letters. This is plain nonsense since it goes against the Arabic language according to the linguists; kalaam refers to everything that conveys a meaning. Examples include; the signs which we see at the end of a city are a kalaam because we understood from the sign that we are entering or leaving the city, and the sign does not have letters or sounds. Also the mehraab in the mosque is called a kalaam because it is, as if it is telling us the direction of the qibla. Also when someone decides that they want to do something and are thinking, hence an idea crosses their mind, this is also called a kalaam in the Arabic language. In the Arabic language there is a common expression ‘qala bee ra’sehee’ (he said with his head). One of the famous Arab poets called al-akhtal (a lot of the Arabic language is based upon his poetry) said;

‘Truly the speech is in the heart and the utterance is a sign of what is in the heart’

The so-called salafis (mushabiha) say they follow the salaf, but in fact they contradict them. There is a narration where umar once went to a place with abu bakr to give a speech, umar prepared for the speech of what he was going to say, but abu bakr did not prepare anything for the speech. So when they arrived umar wanted to speak as he prepared for it, but abu bakr said sabr. Thereafter abu bakr started to talk about all the topics umar revised and prepared for, thereafter umar said I prepared the speech in my heart.

The asharees practice tanzihi and are munaazee, they do not resemble the creator to the creation at all. The stance of ahlus sunnah, when we say subhanallah, also means that we are exalting Allah from the creation. We avoid all expressions that would evoke similarities between Allah and the creation. In regards to the word kalaam, there is a word shared e.g. we have a kalaam and Allah has a kalaam, but this is linguistically but the meanings are completely different. The mutazila did not say that the kalaam is similar to ours but rather denied it, with this they belied the qu’ran because Allah said;

وكلم الله موسى تكليما
‘Allah spoke to musa with his eternal kalaam’

Because of this debate the whole knowledge was known as ilmul kalaam. This went so fierce that some of the great imams were tortured e.g. imam ahmad. The mutazilah asked him to agree with them because they said Allah does not have a kalaam, but humans have it. In that period the mutazilah had links with ma’moon, however he didn’t believe everything they said. There were three leaders known for their harshness to imam ahmad. Eventually one of the Abbasids stopped it; they also tortured imam abu hanifa. The wahabies say that there are hadeeths, that say Allah is attributed with sa’wat and it is mentioned in bukhari. Hafidth al-bayhaqi said that there isn’t one single authentic hadeeth that says that allah as attributed with so’wat. However imam al-bukhari does refer to a hadeeth with so’waat and says ‘yud kharu an fulaan’, ibn hajar asqalani says in his muqadima to fath ul bari, that this means that the hadeeth is weak because it does not have a isnad mu’tassil (continuous chain). Hence u cannot use it as evidence also imam bukhari never said that it was saheeh.

Imam bukhari said ‘al-quran kalaamullahi ghairoo makhlooq, wa al-fathnah wa qiratunah makhluqa’ (al-quran is the kalaam of Allah and it is not created as for the recitation and the expressions, we say they are created). The mushabiha spread many lies about imam al-bukhari in his home town because of these rumors, he left his home town and moved far away and died in that far village. It is said that light is to appear on his grave, people who have done a ziyarah of his grave could see the light and those who did evil came to his grave and repented.

Muawiyah
13-04-2005, 05:40 AM
hmmm these people dislike Suhayb sahib son of Maulana Abdul Ghaffar Hasan?

Abul Hasan
13-04-2005, 11:26 AM
I wanted to know the answer if anyone had it...


:salam:

Insha'allah, i will post what Imam al-Izz ibn Abdas Salam had to say about this in his victorious refutation of the pseudo-Hanabila in his time. This is the Imam of the Ash'ari's who was epitomised with the grand status of: "Sultan al-Ulama" by his students like: Imam Ibn Daqiq al-Eid. Needless to say, the likes of ibn Taymiyya and many of his ardent admirers today hate the findings of Shaykh ibn Abdas Salam; though the late al-Albani praised him.

The excuse that the Albani'ites spread today is that Nasir al-Albani didn't know the full reality of Imam ibn Abdas Salam's aqeeda, but the likes of Ibn Taymiyya & Co did - so the Jarh Mufassar takes precedence over the general Ta'dil to them! Mashallah! If they truly believe in that principle then let them see and admit that the Jarh Mufassar on Ibn Taymiyya is far more overwhelming over the last 7 centuries than the general Ta'dil from literally 100+ major Ulama and many books!

Anyway, the vast majority of Ulama admired al-Imam Ibn Abdas Salam and had no major issues over his Aqeeda...

Wassalam

Abul Hasan
13-04-2005, 11:32 AM
hmmm these people dislike Suhayb sahib son of Maulana Abdul Ghaffar Hasan?



:salam:


This has gone on for years! They even got tape recorded assaults on Suhaib from the late Muqbil of Yemen. And back around 1999 one of the notorious pseudo-Salafi's literally punched Suhaib Hasan in the face and broke his glasses in their so called Masjid al-Tawhid in London! That character with the knock out punch was an ex-boxer by the way I hear! Subhanallah...

Masjid "Tawhid" has seen its fair share of trouble in the past - this is the reality of pseudo-Salafism in some parts of the UK. May Allah keep us safe from their fitna. Amin

Abdur_Rahman
13-04-2005, 01:10 PM
:salam:

May i say that Yasir Qadi is not considered reliable, let alone being a Shaykh according to his own "Salafi" brethren. This man is paraded on "Islam Channel" as some sort of scholar. He is not a Hujjah for real Sunni's, and has sent out confusion over the satellite. Proof on what the "Salafiyya" say about this individual:

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

The following is from one of the well known pseudo-Salafi forums:

-:salam:
akhi, this is from salafitalk.net this is nothing new, if you're not upon their agenda this what'll happen and who is the person who even made this statements, I mean posting a information from a "Talk" Forum isn't the key

Allahu alim

Abdur_Rahman
13-04-2005, 01:12 PM
This article is rather easy to refute. There are three ways to attack it: 1. attack its definitions (especially its definition of 'innovation' 2. attack its structure (point out where teh author's argument contradicts itself on pivotal points) and 3. expand the depth of argument (the article simplifies aqeedah excessively. you need to bring in texts that show how the authors account of kalam fails when other contradictory evidences are brought in).
:salam:

:insh: akhi, please do post the rebuttal. To wipe away any mistakes.

Abdur_Rahman
13-04-2005, 01:30 PM
:salam:


This has gone on for years! They even got tape recorded assaults on Suhaib from the late Muqbil of Yemen. And back around 1999 one of the notorious pseudo-Salafi's literally punched Suhaib Hasan in the face and broke his glasses in their so called Masjid al-Tawhid in London! That character with the knock out punch was an ex-boxer by the way I hear! Subhanallah...walaykim asalam astaghrillah akhi, this is sad indeed


Masjid "Tawhid" has seen its fair share of trouble in the past - this is the reality of pseudo-Salafism in some parts of the UK. May Allah keep us safe from their fitna. Amin
Ameen

also has this masjid changed for the better?

talib al-habib
13-04-2005, 05:06 PM
salam

sorry, slightly off topic - i'm not very familiar with the internal politics of our Salafee brethren.

Harakees?
Qutubees?
Ikhwaanees?
Turathees?
the manhaj of tamyee'?
hizbees?
etc, etc

Have I been missing something?

I remember something that Sh AHM said once (something to this effect), 'the Ahl as-Sunna have been around for 14 centuries and have 4 madhabs; the psuedo-Salafis have been around for about 150 years and they have hundreds of splinter groups in Egypt alone!'

A building with weak foundations will collapse upon itself sooner or later. Allah says, 'And say: the truth has come, and falsehood has perished; lo, falsehood is ever bound to perish.'

was salam
talib

faqir
13-04-2005, 05:31 PM
add to that

suroorees
madkhalis
etc
etc

Abdur_Rahman
13-04-2005, 09:08 PM
Also Habashees
Hadadees
Ghulatee

it all rhymes :D

poor
29-03-2007, 06:16 AM
jeez

al-Athareee
30-03-2007, 03:01 AM
:salam:

May i say that Yasir Qadi is not considered reliable, let alone being a Shaykh according to his own "Salafi" brethren. This man is paraded on "Islam Channel" as some sort of scholar. He is not a Hujjah for real Sunni's, and has sent out confusion over the satellite. Proof on what the "Salafiyya" say about this individual:

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

The following is from one of the well known pseudo-Salafi forums:

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

The people of madinah (who studied with him) and interacted with him know best this person as the "people of makkah know best its streets" as the saying goes.

1. His close friend, teacher, Jamal Zarabozo, a harakee follower of safar and salman who affirms tawheed al-haakimiyyah (no one has seen any open tawbah from him to date). Some of the tendencies of Zarabozo are found in Qadhi, like finding fault with al-Albani and his fiqh and accusing others of making taqleed of him.

2. Connection to al-Hidayah, some people who are upon ikhwanee manhaj and manhaj of tamyee' in the UK, and who are closely linked to the hardcore Ikhwaanee Jamaate Ahle Hadis.

3. He was confused about safar and salman originally before seeing the light, then was confused about ihyaa at-turaath also. he admitted to Shaikh ar-Ruhailee that his manhaj is weak, and this his nature. He is confused about the deviations in the fundamentals of the manhaj, which is something dangerous especially in these times when all deviations come from issues of manhaj.

4. He read a book by abdur-rahmaan mahmood on hukm bi ghayri maa anzalalllaah which he thought was excellent, and the miskeen does not know that this man is a qutubee who praises sayyid qutb and uses the same doubts as the takfiris in this book. so in his jahl of the manhaj issues of our time, he is easily susceptible to doubts and being convinced by those who he is ignorant of.

5. He is being propped up by his Ikhwaanee friends al-Hidayah, and this is fitnah for the people because this man is jaahil of manhaj.

6. He wrote his book on riyaa as an introspection excercise, since he had a problem with it, and many brothers noticed his "big head". So its strange to see that al-Hidayah are causing more fitnah for his man by propping him up, making him subject to more internal problems.

7. He tried to claim that the reason why others speak about him is due to jealousy. This is a great lie. This is how he deceives those people in the West who don't know any better. He himself admitted to Shaikh ar-Ruhailee that he is weak in manhaj, showing that the concern and criticisms upon him were correct.

8. In the States he is always on the platforms of the harakees, whenever you see events and conferences or gatherings, then look carefully at who invites him and who he shares platforms with and you see clearly he is with the harakees those who do not cease to be upon the manhaj of the qutubees or turaathees or others from ahl il-ahwaa.

9. Qadhi is just one in a group of similar people who gained prominence in dawah during times of confusion in manhaj, they might have knowledge in certain areas, but they are totally ignorant of manhaj issues, and hence a fitnah for the people. Similar to bilal philips and zarabozo and others.

10. A person who is clearly upon the sunnah and is clear in his manhaj and in his implementation of it, but who is not so great in knowledge is far better than one with lots of knowledge but who remains confused and ignorant in manhaj, because this one will become a head of misguidance when he presents himself to people.

11. He is upon the manhaj of tamyee'.

12. Have heard that when he is in the UK he is with Suhaib Hasan and with the Ikhwaanees of Ahle Hadeeth, and drives around with them, escorting them or being escorted with them. This makes his manhaj clear.

The salafees should beware of this man because he might not be vocal now, while he is being raised and promoted by his Ikhwaanee managers at al-Hidayah so that he is widely accepted amongst the Salafees, but when he reaches this position, he will come out with the real manhaj that he is concealing and his dislike of the Salafees will be more open. This is the way of all of the people of hizbiyyah and the Salafees should not be stung hole from the same hole over and over again.

If you cannot speak arabic do not refer to his tapes or books, but stick to the materials and tapes of clear du'aat like who are in the states and elsewhere. And finally, this is nothing personal, but it is to do with manhaj and to do with the deen.

This message was edited by Abu.AbdirRahman.R on 12-22-02 @ 12:13 PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------


If you wish to see a more detailed article against him then PM me for the link as i don't want to promote these pseudo-Salafi sites here.

Wassalam



this is idiocy from two angles

1. Im thinking you don't know , but he has sanaad straight back to he prophet salallahu alaih iwa sallam. unlike those cultivated on the ijaazah fraud for the desire of being accepted, salafis on the other hand don't uze their ijaazah as liscence to talbis

2. the so called "jarh" that was displayed about him are from people who are themselves mudtarib, and from ghulaat haddadiyyah, according to the salafis.

so what on earth does this have anything to do with he correctness or baatil of his arguement despite his takhreej from already established reports form the past within context.

3. thrirdly, after review, and after someone who aquaints themselves with the kalaam of the actual phiosophers and that which is intended and how the 'ashari" polemmic against them develped and their reasoning in refutation of them, one comes to understand that you current asharis have absolutely no basis as to matter of kalaam and have no idea what these terms meant and how they were used by the mutakalimeen, hence your lack of fahm stands out and is parraded as "the ignorance and deception of salafis" when in fact such notions are fuel with jahil murakaba of what you claim to adhere to.


Insha'allah, i will post what Imam al-Izz ibn Abdas Salam had to say about this in his victorious refutation of the pseudo-Hanabila in his time. This is the Imam of the Ash'ari's who was epitomised with the grand status of: "Sultan al-Ulama" by his students like: Imam Ibn Daqiq al-Eid. Needless to say, the likes of ibn Taymiyya and many of his ardent admirers today hate the findings of Shaykh ibn Abdas Salam; though the late al-Albani praised him.


I don't nor do any salafis dont as well. , so yes it was needless to say


[This has gone on for years! They even got tape recorded assaults on Suhaib from the late Muqbil of Yemen. And back around 1999 one of the notorious pseudo-Salafi's literally punched Suhaib Hasan in the face and broke his glasses in their so called Masjid al-Tawhid in London! That character with the knock out punch was an ex-boxer by the way I hear! Subhanallah...

Masjid "Tawhid" has seen its fair share of trouble in the past - this is the reality of pseudo-Salafism in some parts of the UK. May Allah keep us safe from their fitna. Amin/QUOTE]

who told you they were salafi the actual sense

[QUOTE] remember something that Sh AHM said once (something to this effect), 'the Ahl as-Sunna have been around for 14 centuries and have 4 madhabs; the psuedo-Salafis have been around for about 150 years and they have hundreds of splinter groups in Egypt alone!'


complete ignorance of even the understanding of "splitting from the jama'ah"

that fact that he says "14 centuries" is proof in the wahm of your shaykh.

anyways, carry on having fun in that which does not benefit you

UaHuSsain
30-03-2007, 03:09 AM
Would anybody be able to reccomend any books about Aqeedah Ashar'iah? My knowledge is extremely limited and I would like to read some general books about this and Aqeedah Maturidiah as well. Jazzakullah Khair, wassalam.

loveProphet
30-03-2007, 10:26 AM
jeez
cheese:)

jinnzaman
31-03-2007, 02:38 AM
Would anybody be able to reccomend any books about Aqeedah Ashar'iah? My knowledge is extremely limited and I would like to read some general books about this and Aqeedah Maturidiah as well. Jazzakullah Khair, wassalam.

Sunnipath offers a wonderful course teaching Jawharat at Tawheed.

Shaykh Ninowy's school offers ijazehs in Aqeedah Nasafiyyah.