AmeenOriginally Posted by samrqandi
It's sad that people continue to beat a dead horse
AmeenOriginally Posted by samrqandi
It's sad that people continue to beat a dead horse
Ibrahim al-Harbi said, ‘I heard Ahmad Ibn Hanbal say, ‘If you love that Allah should keep you upon that which you love, then remain upon that which He loves, and the good is in the one who sees no good in himself.”
Refer to al-adab shariah (2/31) by Ibn Muflih
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.
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.