The Ash’aris In the Scales of Ahl us-Sunnah – Translator’s Preface

The Ash’aris

In the Scales of Ahl us-Sunnah

Shaykh Abu Uthman Faisal bin Qazar al-Jasim

© Copyright SalafiManhaj 2008

URL: www.SalafiManhaj.com

E-mail: admin@salafimanhaj.com

Important Note:

The following document is an on-line book publishing of www.SalafiManhaj.com. This book was formatted and designed specifically for being placed on the Web and for its easy and convenient distribution. At the time of this e-book publishing, we are not aware of any other book similar to it, in terms of its translation from its original Arabic source. Since this book was prepared for free on-line distribution we grant permission for it to be printed, disbursed, photocopied, reproduced and/or distributed by electronic means for the purpose of spreading its content and not for the purpose of gaining a profit, unless a specific request is sent to the publishers and permission is granted.

The Ash’aris

In the Scales of Ahl us-Sunnah[1]

Shaykh Abu Uthman Faisal bin Qazar al-Jasim

Translated by ’AbdulHaq ibn Kofi ibn Kwesi Addae ibn Kwaku al-Ashanti

Prepared for the Web by Abu Nusaibah ( www.asha3ira.co.cc )

CONTENTS

3 Translator’s Preface

18 Affirming the Attributes of Allah Does Not Necessitate Tashbeeh with His Creation

- 39 Establishing the Principle from Abu’l-Hasan al-’Ash’ari

- 41 The ’Asharite Opposition to the Salaf in this Matter

48 Explanation of the Reality of the ’Aqeedah Ascribed to Abu’’l-Fadl at-Tamimi

57 The Ijma that Allah is Above His Creation and Over His Throne with His Essence

87 The Permissibility of Asking “Where is Allah?”

92 The Claim that the Salaf Made Ta’weel and Answering Such Claims

- 93 The Claim that Ibn ’Abbas (radi Allahu ’anhu) Made Ta’weel of al-Kursi

- 96 The Claim that Ibn ’Abbas (radi Allahu ’anhu) Made Ta’weel of the Coming of the Lord

- 97 The Claim that Ibn ’Abbas (radi Allahu ’anhu) Made Ta’weel of the Wording “Eyes”

- 99 The Claim that Ibn ’Abbas (radi Allahu ’anhu) Made Ta’weel of the Wording “Hand” (al-

Yad):

- 102 The Claim that Ibn ’Abbas (radi Allahu ’anhu) Made Ta’weel of the Texts of “The Face”

(al-Wajh)

- 103 The Claim that Ibn ’Abbas (radi Allahu ’anhu) Made Ta’weel of the Word “The Shin” (as-

Saq)

- 104 The Claim that Mujahid, ad-Dahhak, ash-Shafi’i and al-Bukhari Made Ta’weel of the

Word “The Face” (al-Wajh)

- 109 The Claim that Sufyan ath-Thawri Made Ta’weel of al-Istiwa’

- 110 The Claim that Imam Malik Made Ta’weel of the Attribute of Nuzool

- 112 The Claim that Imam Ahmad Made Ta’weel of the Attribute of the Coming of Allah

- 117 The Claim that al-Bukhari Made Ta’weel of the Attribute of Laughter

119 The Imams’ Innocence of the ’Asharite Creed

- 119 Imam al-Hafidh al-Hujjah Muhammad bin Isma’eel al-Bukhari (d.. 256 AH/CE)

- 124 Imam Abu Ja’far Muhammad bin Jareer at-Tabari (d.. 310 AH)

- 132 Imam al-Hafidh Abu’l-Hasan ’Ali bin ’Umar ad-Daraqutni (385 AH/995 CE)

- 134 Al-Hafidh Abu Nu’aym Ahmad bin ’Abdillah al-Asbahani (d.. 430 AH/1039 CE)

- 137 Shaykh ul-Islam al-Imam Abu ’Uthman Isma’eel bin ’AbdurRahman as-Sabuni (d..449

AH/CE)

- 142 Imam al-Hafidh al-Mufassir ’Imaduddeen Abu’l-Fida’ Isma’eel bin Katheer (d.. 774

AH/1373 CE)

149 Invalidity of the Claim that the ’’Ash’aris are the Majority of the Ummah

Translator’s Preface

Indeed, all praise is due to Allah, we praise Him, we seek His aid, and we ask for His forgiveness. We seek refuge in Allah from the evil of our actions and from the evil consequences of our actions. Whomever Allah guides, there is none to misguide and whoever Allah misguides there is none to guide. I bear witness that there is no god worthy of worship except Allah and I bear witness that Muhammad is the servant and messenger of Allah.

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ اتَّقُواْ اللّهَ حَقَّ تُقَاتِهِ وَلاَ تَمُوتُنَّ إِلاَّ وَأَنتُم مُّسْلِمُونَ

[آل عمران : 102[

“O you who have believed, fear Allah as He should be feared and do not die except as Muslims (in submission to Him).”

{ąli-Imran (3): 102}

يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ اتَّقُواْ رَبَّكُمُ الَّذِي خَلَقَكُم مِّن نَّفْسٍ وَاحِدَةٍ وَخَلَقَ مِنْهَا زَوْجَهَا وَبَثَّ مِنْهُمَا رِجَالاً كَثِيراً وَنِسَاء وَاتَّقُواْ اللّهَ الَّذِي تَسَاءلُونَ بِهِ وَالأَرْحَامَ إِنَّ اللّهَ كَانَ عَلَيْكُمْ رَقِيباً

[النساء : 1[

“O mankind, fear your Lord, who created you from one soul and created from it its mate and dispersed from both of them many men and women. And fear Allah through whom you ask things from each other, and (respect) the wombs. Indeed Allah is ever, over you, an Observer.”

{an-Nisa (4): 1}

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَقُولُوا قَوْلاً سَدِيداً [الأحزاب : 70]

يُصْلِحْ لَكُمْ أَعْمَالَكُمْ وَيَغْفِرْ لَكُمْ ذُنُوبَكُمْ وَمَن يُطِعْ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ فَقَدْ فَازَ فَوْزاً عَظِيماً [الأحزاب : 71]

“O you who have believed, fear Allah and speak words of appropriate justice. He will amend for you your deeds and forgive your sins. And whoever obeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly attained a great attainment.”

{al-Ahzab (33): 70-71}

To proceed:

This is a partial translation of the recent outstanding work al-’Asha’irah: Fi Meezan Ahl is-Sunnah by the respected Shaykh Faisal bin Qazar al-Jasim (hafidhahullah). The original book is some 824 pages and this translation is a meagre effort to transmit just some of it for the benefit of the English reader. I had the opportunity to ask Shaykh Faisal during his most recent trip to the UK in May 2008 CE on what chapters he suggests I translate for a summarised translation project, so with that in mind I undertook what the Shaykh and myself concurred would be of most use in light of the most common ’Ash’ari creedal discrepancies. Some other brothers and myself hope finish a more complete translation of this vital work which will be available for publication, may Allah help us in this. Many of the recent works by Shaykh Faisal have been introduced by a variety of well-known and respected scholars. For his book Tajreed ut-Tawheed (Kuwait: al-Mabarah al-Khayriyyah li Uloom il-Qur’an wa’s-Sunnah, 1428 AH/2007 CE) was introduced and commended by Imam ’Abdullah bin ’Abdul’Azeez al-’Aqeel, who is regarded by many as being the Imam of the Hanabilah at present. While Shaykh Faisal’s book Usool Shaykh Bin Baz fi’r-Radd ’ala’l-Mukhalif [The Principles of Shaykh Bin Baz in Refuting the Opposer] (Beirut: Dar ul­Basha’ir al-Islamiyyah, 1429 AH/2008 CE) was introduced by al-’Allamah, Dr Salih al-Fawzan and Shaykh ’Abdul’Azeez as-Sadhan.

This book on the ’Ash’ari creed was also introduced by ten scholars however I have not translated their introductions in order to keep this translation brief. In any case the following scholars introduced the book:

v Shaykh and Professor, Dr Muhammad bin ’AbdurRazzaq at-Tabataba’i (Kuwait) – from the Sharee’ah College in Kuwait

 Shaykh Muhammad bin Hamd al-Hamood an-Najdi (Kuwait) – head of the Academic Panel, Jam’iyyah Ihya Turath al-Islami.

 Shaykh and Professor, Dr Muhammad bin ’AbdurRahman al-Maghrawi (Morocco) – Professor of Higher Islamic Studies at al-Qarawiyyeen University in Morocco and head of the Jam’iyyat ud-Da’wah ila il-Qur’an wa’s-Sunnah.

 Shaykh and Professor, Dr Sa’ood bin ’Abdul’Azeez al-Khalaf (Saudi Arabia) – head of the ’Aqeedah Department, College of Da’wah and Usool ud-Deen, Islamic University of Madeenah and head of the Jam’iyyat ul-’Aqeedah in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

 Shaykh Mashhoor Hasan ąl Salman from Jordan

 Shaykh and Professor, Dr Muhammad Ahmad Lawh (Senegal) – from the African College of Islamic Studies in Senegal.

 Shaykh, Dr Ahmad Shakir al-Junaydi (Egypt) – Professor of Islamic ’Aqeedah and deputy director general of Ansar us-Sunnah al-Muhammadiyyah.

 Shaykh and Professor, Dr Abş ’Abdul’Azeez an-Nşrustani (Pakistan) – director of the Jami’at al-Athariyyah [Athari University] in Peshawar, Pakistan.

 Shaykh ’AbdulHadi Wahbi (Lebanon) – head of Jam’iyyat us-Siraj ul-Muneer in Beirut.

 Shaykh, Dr Sa’duddeen bin Muhammad al-Kubbi (Lebanon) – director of the Bukhari Islamic Institute and head of the Centre of Islamic Research in Lebanon.

In the mid 1990s evidence-laden works by the Salafis stifled the spread of the ’Asharite-­Mu’tazilite dialectic in the West. Efforts at that time by the likes of the brother Aboo Rumaysah, Salafi Publications (Abu Iyyad Amjad Rafeeq in particular) and their works Mountains of Knowledge and Foundations of the Sunnah, and by others demonstrated to English-speaking audiences the abundant evidences invalidating the ’Ash’ari creed. More recently, the Salafi brothers of Sunni Press have also conducted outstanding research in presenting detailed evidences and studies discounting ’Ash’ari polemic and dialectic.[2] It is hoped that some of the work by Sunni Press can be published and printed for a wider reading audience.

It will be evident within this translation that the ’Asha’irah are particularly unconvincing in terms of ’aqeedah and thus their arguments have been found wanting. This is due to a number of reasons which can be summed up with the following:

 The neutrality deficit within much contemporary ’Ash’ari writing, to the extent that their writing assumes a polemical standing as opposed to a critical academic survey of ascertaining the correct ’aqeedah. So Shaykh Faisal al-Jasim demonstrates in this work for example that in many cases the two ’Ash’ari authors who he critiques throughout the book[3] totally neglect any referral to certain extant creedal works and continue as if nothing has even been written. This kind of approach seems to maintain partisan loyalties and is far from academic impartiality.

 The adamant ’Ash’ari assertion, which serves as more of an argumentum ad nauseam, that Salafis are anthropomorphists. It is plain from the works which Salafis utilise in ’aqeedah that nothing of the sought is found therein and there are abundant rejections of tamtheel, tajseem and tasbheeh, as there are refutations of ta’teel, ta’weel and tafweedh.

 The ’Ash’ari agreement with the Mu’tazilah in many of their interpretations of the texts and their agreement with them regarding Allah’s Speech not being comprised of letters and sounds.

 The ’Ash’ari agreement with the Jahmiyyah in regards to Allah’s Attributes, this agreement with them is exemplified in the writings of Zahid al-Kawthari, who even defended Jahm bin Safwan! His excessive statements and even takfeer of scholars will be studied in a future paper.

 The contemporary ’Ash’ari claim of a “Salafi conspiracy to tamper with classical texts” in order to further Salafiyyah. This preposterous assertion is probably the epitome of such contemporary ’Ash’ari intellectual bankruptcy and polemic. So after it is demonstrated that the ’Asha’ris have a contrary approach to ’aqeedah in light of the Qur’an, Sunnah, Ijma of the Salaf and creeds of the Imams of the early generations – the final evasion becomes: “Actually, we don’t trust your sources, they have been tampered with!” Nuh Keller, who has written a variety of rather obscurantist and polemical articles, even attempted to demonstrate this in a rather haphazard attempt to prove this contention.[4]

Yet it is apparent that to claim that there has been an intentional “Salafi conspiracy to tamper with texts” would mean that somehow the Salafis (from the 19^th century or 1980s – according to their non-concurring dates of when Salafiyyah became popularised) would had to have had access to a vast range of manuscripts, collections and folios to tamper with, and this is obviously implausible.

One latest example of this inadequate comprehension of ’aqeedah is the fact that only recently have some Western ’Ash’ari teachers admitted that there is such a thing as the “Salafi” or “Athari” ’aqeedah, even though this has been emphasised in the West for the last fifteen years. Indeed, it seems that this recognition of the Salafi ’aqeedah has more to do with the current ecumenical zeitgeist among some Muslims as a front for “unity”, in light of recent events affecting Muslim communities in the West, more than it has to do with a serious critical evidence-based investigation of the correct ’aqeedah as documented from the Salaf. The dearth of evidences is just one issue which causes many to disregard the ’Asharite creed and its speculative-rhetorical approach.

Of late however, for a variety of reasons, there has been an increase in ’Ash’ari polemic and its dialectic is resurfacing. Leading the way in this regard have been the following ’Ash’ari apologists who have authored and translated a variety of polemical tracts:

 G.F Haddad – the “Mureed” of Hisham al-Kabbani (the deputy of Nazim Qubrusi head of a peculiar brand of the Naqshbandi Sufi cult).[5] Kabbani can be witnessed here performing a “dance”[6] See:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=618545744089582463&q=Kabbani+ sufi+dhikr and http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=r_YYpDRknjU&feature=related and: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ncQi1FGYL9U&feature=related

 ’Abdullah bin Hamid ’Ali – a proponent of a polemical variety of Maliki fiqh parochialism. Originally hailing from Philadelphia, he has recently assumed a teaching position with the Zaytuna Institute in Santa Clara, California.

 TJ Winter (Abdul-Hakim Murad) – a Cambridge University Professor of Divinity Theology.

 Abu Layth ash-Shafi’i[7]

 Abu Ja’far al-Misri al-Hanbali[8]

 The Marifah.net website[9] - their work attempts to present the ’Ash’ari creed in a more academic manner yet the arguments presented are still inconclusive in aiding the ’Ash’ari creedal position. I will refer to the website’s key papers which support the ’Ash’ari position within the footnotes of this work.

 And others.

Much of their writing however has demonstrated a distinct lack of academic impartiality not to mention falling short in terms of intellectual consistency. The lack of academic neutrality which has led to such intellectual bankruptcy and ahistoricity on the part of some contemporary ’Ash’aris is not adequate, especially considering the fact that they are deemed by some quarters as being “intellectual” and “scholarly”. Manifestly however, when it comes to writing about the Salafis and issues related to creed, impartiality and objectivity, which are the hallmarks of professional academic writing, totally go out of the window. This rather haphazard and unsophisticated approach is a form of cognitive bias, resulting from bigoted and biased partisanship.[10] It is also a form of intellectual denial on the part of the contemporary ’Ash’aris and Maturidis.

Let’s take a recent remark made by TJ Winter (Abdul-Hakim Murad) in the introduction to the Cambridge Companion to Classical Islamic Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), p.10: [11]

Certainly, it is intriguing that the Hanbali alternative in most places represented no more than a small fringe, just as the Hanbali definition of Shari’a remained the smallest of the rites of law. The iconic hard-line champion of this school, Ibn Taymiyya…is not conspicuous in the catalogues of Islamic manuscript libraries;[12] his current renown is a recent phenomenon. Ibn Taymiyya was, indeed, imprisoned for heresy, a relatively unusual occurrence, and it would be hard to imagine Muslim society, or its rulers or scholars, punishing more philosophical thinkers like Ghazali, or Razi, or Taftazani, in the same way. ‘Hard’ Hanbalism offered a simple literalism to troubled urban masses, and occasionally won their violent, riotous support, but the consensus of Muslims passed it by.

An exquisite illustration of such contemporary ’Ash’ari academic obscurantism littered with selective perception and then topped off with a dash of polemical exuberance to boot! Let’s deconstruct this intellectual irregularity and ahistorical reading of events: First of all, what Winter has done here is to regurgitate what Dr Yahya Michot calls the “Ibn Taymiyyah myth” which seeks to portray Ibn Taymiyyah as some sort of “big baddie” who is responsible for all things negative within the Muslim world today. There is no doubt that such an assessment is simplistic and, as Dr Yahya Michot has stated, is also too general to claim that Ibn Taymiyyah is not “conspicuous in the catalogues of Islamic manuscript libraries” as there has not been a detailed corpus of Ibn Taymiyyah’s works compiled based on the manuscripts around the world, let alone a thorough survey of where Ibn Taymiyyah has been highlighted within the manuscripts.[13]

Secondly, historically it was the other way round! Murad (Winter) in his writings neatly skips over any referral whatsoever of how the ’Ash’ari speculative theological system came to the fore. In fact, the ’Ash’aris were rebuked for their views before they attained dominance and were regarded as a heretical fringe fraternity. MacDonald also notes, in following Ibn Taymiyyah, adh­Dhahabi and Ibn ul-Mabrad, that the ’Ash’aris were rebuked “from the pulpits of mosques”[14] and that many ’Ash’aris fled Baghdad and Persia as a result. For the ’Ash’ari creed only gained dominance after the Abbasid minister Nidham al-Mulk came into power and established institutions (Nidhamiyyah) wherein the Asharite speculative-rhetorical creed could be instructed, al-Ghazali at one point was the head of the institution.[15] Hye states:

Nizam al-Mulk founded the Nizamite Academy in Baghdad in 459 AH/1066 CE for the defence of Asharite doctrines. It is under his patronage that Abu al-Ma’ali ’Abd al-Malik al-Juwaini got the chance of preaching the Ash’arite doctrine freely.[16]

So in the year when William the Conqueror and his Norman armies took control of England suppressing the Anglo-Saxon English, Nidham ul-Mulk and the ’Ash’aris were taking control of Islamic educational institutions in the Muslim state and suppressing the Hanbalis. Surely Winter should be aware of this? Such a denial and lack of referral to this historical event by the contemporary ’Ash’aris is but one example of their intellectual denial. The Abbasid support of Ibn al-Qushayri, an ’Asharite rhetorician, led to disturbances within Baghdad with the majority of the Hanbali orientated public rejecting the newly fangled ’Ash’ari creedal system. This event has been referred to in Islamic history as the Fitnah Qushayriyyah and at this point the Hanbalis were suppressed by the state which had succumbed to ’Ash’arite creedal dialectic. Ibn Katheer mentions this event in al-Bidayah wa’n-Nihayah and states that Ibn al-Qushayri, along with some others, wrote to Nidham ul-Mulk accusing the Hanabilah of tajseem (anthropomorphism) and other things. This caused a commotion which led to a mob of ’Asharites physically attacking one of the Hanbali Shaykhs, Shareef Abu Ja’far bin Abi Musa, at his masjid wherein one was killed and others injured. Not to mention the fact that al-Juwayni and Nidham ul-Mulk were close friends and reciprocates in religio-political outlook[17], so does this sound familiar? Indeed, Ibn ’Asakir in his Tabyeen Kadhib al-Muftari, who was writing at the height of the ’Ash’ari inquisition (in the sixth Islamic century) never at all in his writings claimed that the ’Ash’aris were the majority as the contemporary ’Ash’aris try to use as a proof. Rather, he merely argued that the arguments were correct yet accepted that they were a minority. Note that Ibn ’Asakir was writing in refutation of al-Ahwazi who argued that the ’Ash’aris were a newly fangled fringe group which had heretical beliefs. The famous Muslim historian al-Maqrizi stated in his monumental work Khutat:

The madhdhab of Abu’l-Hasan al-’Ash’ari spread in ’Iraq from around 380 AH and from there spread to Sham. When the victorious king Salahuddeen Yusuf bin Ayyub took control over Egypt, his main judge Sadruddeen ’AbdulMalik bin ’Isa bin Darbas al-Marani and himself were adherents to this school of thought. The madhdhab was also spread by the just ruler Nuruddeen Mahmood bin Zinki in Damascus. Salahuddeen memorised a text authored by Qutbuddeen Abu’l-Ma’ali Mas’ood bin Muhammad bin Mas’ood an-Naysaburi and this (’Ash’ari) text was then studied and memorised by Salahuddeen’s offspring. This gave prominence and status to the madhdhab (attributed) to al-’Ash’ari and was taken on board by the people during their rule.[18] This was continued by all of the successive rulers from Bani Ayyşb (the Ayyubids) and then during the rule of the Turkish kings (Mamluks).

Abu ’Abdullah Muhammad bin Tumart, one of the rulers of al-Maghrib (Morocco), agreed with this (’Ash’ari) trend when he travelled to al-’Iraq. He took the ’Ash’ari madhdhab on board via Abu Hamid al-Ghazali and when Ibn Tumart returned to al-Maghrib he caused a clash[19] and began to teach the people of the land the ’Ash’ari madhdhab and instituted it for the people. When he died ’AbdulMumin bin ’Ali al-Misi succeeded him and was referred to as the ‘leader of the believers’, him and his sons seized control of Morocco and were named the “Muwahhiddun” (‘the montheists’). This is how the Muwahhidun state came to fruition in Morocco and they shed the blood of all who opposed the ’aqeedah laid down by Ibn Tumart, who they viewed as being the infallible Mahdi.[20] Look how many were killed during that the numbers of which can only be enumerated by Allah, Mighty and Majestic, this is well known within the history books.

This was the reason for the spread of the madhdhab (attributed to) al-’Ash’ari and how it spread within the Islamic lands. This is to the extent that all other madhahib (of Sunni ’aqeedah) have been forgotten and people are ignorant of if to the extent that today there exists no other madhdhab (of Sunni ’aqeedah) contrary to it! Except for the madhdhab of the Hanbalis who follow Imam Abu ’Abdullah Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Hanbal (radi Allahu ’anhu), for they were upon the way of the Salaf and did not view that any form of figurative interpretation be made about Allah’s Attributes. So after seven hundred years after the Hijrah the actions of the Hanbalis became famed in Damascus due to Taqiuddeen Abu’l­’Abbas Ahmad bin ’AbdulHakam bin ’AbdusSalam bin Taymiyyah al-Harrani. He supported the madhdhab of the Salaf and exerted great efforts in refuting the madhdhab of the ’Asha’irah and he strongly criticised them as well as the Rafidah and Sufiyyah.[21]

Thirdly, the “rites of law” (i.e. madhahib) and their spread, was due to power and politics as is evident from even a brief historical survey. The idea that the madhahib were spread around the Islamic world by a mere “unbroken chain of transmission” that was “handed down traditionally” is a romantic ahistorical reading of events. For example, al-Maqrizi in Khutat Misr notes:

The people of Ifreeqiyyah (Africa) mostly used to follow the Sunnah and the athar. Then the Hanafi madhhab took over and then after that, the Maliki madhhab; the latter ones following earlier ones in the playing of the companions of desires and self-interest.

All the people of the nations which the companions conquered used to be described with the name ‘Ahl ul-Hadeeth’, as Abş Mansoor ’AbdulQadir ibn Tahir at-Tamimi al-Baghdadi said in his book Usool ud-Deen (vol.1, p.317):

It is clear that the people of the lands of ar-Rum, al-Jazeerah, ash-Sham, Adharbayjan (Azerbaijan), Bab ul-Abwab (Darband/Derbent)[22] and others which were conquered were all upon the madhhab of the Ahl ul-Hadeeth. Also the inhabitants of the lands of Ifreeqiyyah, Andalus and all the countries behind the Western Sea, were from the Ahl ul-Hadeeth. Also the people of the lands of al-Yaman upon the Zanj coastline (Zanzibar) were all from the Ahl ul-Hadeeth.[23]

Al-Maqrizi also notes in al-Khutat (vol.3, p.333):

Most of Ifreeqiyyah (Africa) was upon the Sunnah and athar, until ’Abdullah ibn Farrookh Abu Muhammad al-Farisi came with the Hanafi madhhab, then Asad ibn al-Furat ibn Senan became the judge of Ifreeqiyyah, upon the Hanafi madhhab. When Sahnoon ibn Sa’eed at-Tanukhi took judgeship of Ifreeqiyyah, the Maliki madhhab spread amongst them. Then al-Mu’izz ibn Badees made all of the people of Ifreeqiyyah adhere to the Maliki madhhab and leave everything else. So the people of Ifreeqiyyah (Africa) and the people of al-Andalus were turned to the Maliki madhhab right up until today, due to the desire of the rulers and their desire for the world. So the judgements and rulings in all those towns and villages were not given except by one who had ascribed themselves to the fiqh of the Maliki madhhab…

This is also mentioned by the historians Ibn ul-Atheer in al-Kamil fi’t-Tareekh and Ibn Khallikan in Mawasim ul-ądab. Ibn Hajar mentions in Raf’ ul-Isr, as does as-Sakhawi in ath-Thighar al-Bassam that:

Ibn ’Uthman ad-Dimishqi al-Qadi was the first one to bring the Shafi’i madhhab into ash-­Sham and he took over the judgeship of Dimishq, ruling by it. He was followed by those who succeeded him and he used to give a reward of 100 deenars to the ones who memorised Mukhtasar ul-Muzani.

In Tabaqat as-Subki, al-I’lan wa’t-Tawbeekh and Shadharat adh-Dhahab (vol.3, p.51) it is mentioned:

The Shafi’i madhhab was spread beyond the river (to Transoxania) by Qaffal ash-Shashi. He died in the year 365 AH (1005 AH).

In the Tareekh of Ibn Khallikan, in the second volume, under the biography of an-Nasir Salahuddeen Yusuf ibn Ayyub, it says:

When the state of Ayyubiyyah was set up in the 5^th century AH (from circa 1010 CE) in Misr, the madhhabs were revived by building schools for its jurists and other means. The Shafi’i madhhab was given big favours to make it known and the judges were chosen from it because it was the madhhab of the country. Banu Ayyşb were all Shafi’iyyah, except ’Isa ibn al-’Adil.

Al-Maqrizi thus states in al-Khutat (vol.3, p.344):

When the naval empire of the Turks succeeded it, its authorities were also Shafi’i. It continued acting by judging according to the Shafi’iyyah law until the Sultanate of Malik adh-Dhahir Baybaras brought in judges from all four: they were Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki and Hanbali. This continued until the year 665 AH (1267 CE), until there remained no madhhab in all of the Muslim lands except the four madhhabs and the creed of al-Ash'ari which was all taught to its people in the schools, the Khawanik (Sufi hospice), prayer rooms and retreats (for the Sufis) in all the Islamic states. Enmity was shown to the ones who were partisan to anything else and they were criticised. None would be appointed as judges, nor would anyone’s witness be accepted, nor would their proposals be accepted, nor would they be accepted as Imams or teachers – if they did not blindly follow any one of the four madhhabs! The jurists of these countries gave the ruling, throughout this period, that it is an obligation to adhere to these madhhabs and that anything else was forbidden. This is the state of affairs up to today.[24]

Fourthly, the ’Ash’aris foundation of Kalam was attacked and condemned by Shafi’i scholars such as adh-Dhahabi, Ibn Katheer, Ibn Hajar and as-Suyşti all condemning the very kalam which Murad (Winter) refers to as enlightened “philosophical thought”. How on earth Murad manages to construe that al-Ghazali, ar-Razi and Taftazani in some way represent the beliefs of the Salaf is beyond us, hence the fragility of contemporary ’Ash’arite logic.

As for Shaykh ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) being “imprisoned for heresy” then exactly the same accusation was levelled against Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (rahimahullah) who was also accused of heresy by the prevailing heretical Mu’tazilah rulers and their intelligentsia. Imam Malik (rahimahullah) was also imprisoned, beaten and had his beard shaven off by the rulers for holding onto his positions. So the mere fact that Shaykh ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah was imprisoned and accused of heresy is understandable considering the fact that the ’Ash’ari creed by the time of Ibn Taymiyyah was becoming more established. It must also be emphasised that even though the ’Ash’ari inclined intelligentsia had incited the arrest and imprisonment of Shaykh ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah the Damascene populace loved him.

As for Hanbalism in some way nurturing “troubled urban masses” and winning their “violent, riotous support” then this can equally be applied to the spread of the Maliki-’Ash’ari[25] school within north-west Africa with the self-proclaimed “Mahdi” Ibn Tumart (d. 1128 CE) and ’AbdulMumin (d. 1163 CE), who both rebelled and overthrew the al-Murabitun. Also with the hardcore Hanafism exemplified in the Muridism of Imam Shamil of Daghestan (d. 1871 CE) or with the Afghan Taliban Tasawwuf teachers. Not to mention the stringent Shafi’ism found within Sham and al-Azhar, which extols the virtue of the Khalaf over the virtue of the Salaf. So Hanbalism in Islamic history has not had a monopoly on “simple literalism” and “violent, riotous support” from “troubled urban masses”, as TJ Winter (Abdal-Hakim Murad) may have us believe. Such ahistoricity therefore is but an example of Orientalism within Western ’Asharite garb and Winter has unfortunately become renowned for his essentialism[26] when writing about Salafis generally and Saudi Arabia in particular. This method allows polemics to take priority over discussion and argumentation and thus Winter has been rather reluctant to present his contentions when faced with the prospect of directly engaging the Salafis in a reasoned and neutral fashion.[27]

It is also obvious that despite their attempts they are evidently unable to draw upon referral to the Salaf for their creed, instead referring to those who were only influenced by aspects of the ’Ash’ari dialectic or obscure scholars about whom little is known, like Qadi Ibn Jahbal. This is to emphasise that while Shaykh ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah is critiqued those contemporaries of him were evidently not to the same meticulous academic level attained by Shaykh ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah).

The contemporary ’Ash’aris also like to refer to Ibn al-Jawzi as if he was in complete harmony and agreement with them. Further investigation however reveals that Ibn ul-Jawzi strongly criticised Abu’l-Hasan al-’Ash’ari for delving into kalam (speculative-rhetorical discussion). Not only did Ibn ul-Jawzi in his book Sayd ul-Khatir criticise al-’Ash’ari but also Ibn ul-Jawzi again condemned al-’Ash’ari in his book al-Muntadham saying:

He was born in 260 AH. He delved into kalam, and was upon the madhdhab of the Mu’tazilah for a long time. He then decided to oppose them and proclaimed a doctrine which muddled up people’s beliefs and caused endless strife. The people never differed that this audible Qur’an is Allah’s Speech, and that Gabriel descended with it upon the Prophet – Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him. The reliable imams declared that the Quran is eternal, while the Mu’tazilah claimed that it is created. Al-Ash’ari then agreed with the Mu’tazila that the Quran is created and said: ‘This is not Allah’s Speech. Rather, Allah’s Speech is an Attribute subsisting in Allah’s Essence. It did not descend on the Prophet, nor is it audible.’ Ever since he proclaimed this belief, he lived in fear for his life for opposing the orthodox community (Ahl us-Sunnah), until he sought refuge in the house of Abu al-Hasan al-Tamimi fearing his assassination. Then some of the rulers began to fanatically follow his madhab, and his following increased, until the Shafi’is abandoned the beliefs of al-Shafi’i and instead followed al-Ash’ari’s doctrine.[28]

Ibn Katheer also highlights Ibn ul-Jawzi’s strong censure of the ’Ash’aris in al-Bidayah wa’n­Nihayah (Beirut: Maktabah al-Ma’arif), vol.11, p.206. Al-’Ash’ari however did finally retract and his later writings on creed: Maqalat ul-Islamiyyeen, Risalah ila Ahl ith-Thaghr and al-Ibanah ’an Usool id-Diyanah are testimony to his rejection of speculative-rhetorical discussion and his conformity with the creed of the Salaf.[29] The contemporary ’Ash’aris however have been hesitant to refer to these sources due to the clear agreement with Salafiyyah contained within these works by Abu’l-Hasan al-’Ash’ari. In some instances it has been asserted by some Orientalists and ’Ash’aris that these works were merely authored to please the Hanabilah or to deceive them, yet this is unlikely as he was an honest scholar who did not present two-faces in regards to an essential subject such as Islamic theology.

The ’Ash’aris therefore have been found wanting in terms of recognising the correct ’aqeedah as inherited from the Salaf, so for instance some contemporary ’Ash’aris have either admitted to the existence of the Salafi/Athari ’aqeedah (from whence in the mid 1990s they criticised it!?), or some of them are utilising obscure works to discredit the Salafi ’aqeedah. As for some of the more sinister facets of the ’Ash’ari dialectic then this includes the belief that the Qur’an is created yet that this only be taught within private instruction or within a teaching environment. This in itself is the most clear example of the ’Ash’ari agreement with Mu’tazili beliefs and methods in approaching the Islamic texts.

For this series into contemporary ’Ash’ari polemic we plan to embark on a look at the claim that the majority of the Shafi’i scholars were ’Ash’ari and it will be evident that while some of the later Shafi’i fuqaha were ’Ash’ari the early Shafi’i scholars on the other hand and those Shafi’i scholars who witnessed the development of the ’Ash’ari-Mu’tazili dialectic – were totally opposed to the Asharite creed and did not hold the same beliefs and ideas about Allah’s Attributes, the Qur’an and many other important aspects of belief. Also for the series we also plan to present a paper regarding Imam al-Muzani (rahimahullah) and what he mentioned in his Sharh us-Sunnah which runs contrary, or at least very differently, to what has been constructed by latter Shafi’i-’Ash’aris and contemporary “Shafi’i” polemicists. Any suggestions, recommendations or advice can be forwarded to the salafimanhaj.com team. In terms of the citations and references in this translation then I have provided the full details of the works used by Shaykh Faisal for the benefit of any wishing to conduct further research based on anything mentioned in this translation.

---

[1] Summarised and abridged from Faisal bin Qazar al-Jasim, al-Asha'irah fi Mizan Ahl us-Sunnah: Naqd li-Kitab Ahl us-Sunnati al-’Asha’iratu: Shahadatu ’Ulama il-Ummati wa Adillatuhum [The Ash’aris in the Scales of the People of Sunnah: A Critique of the Book ‘The ’Ash’aris are Ahl us-Sunnah: The Testimony of the Scholars of the Ummah and their Evidences’]. Kuwait: al-Mabarah al-Khayriyyah li Uloom il-Qur’an wa’s-Sunnah, 1428 AH/2007 CE. The copy of the book that was used for this translation was personally given to the translator (’AbdulHaq al-Ashanti) by Shaykh Faisal Jasim (hafidhahullah) while he was in the UK in May 2008 CE and permitted the translator to undertake translating sections of it.

[2] Refer to: http://z3.invisionfree.com/sunnipress/index.php?showforum=11 Recently, Abu Zubayr Saleem “al-’Azzami” also conducted some useful refutations of the ’Asha’ris, yet his ’aqeedah in regards to iman, kufr, takfeer could be improved as could his etiquette with the Salafis and their scholars.

[3] The reader of this translation will thus notice that Shaykh Faisal al-J.sim throughout the book refers to quotes by “the two authors” and he intends by this the two ’Ash’ari authors who authored the book claiming that the ’Ash’aris are Ahl us-Sunnah. This book was entitled Ahl us-Sunnati al-’Asha’iratu: Shahadatu’Ulama il-Ummati wa Adilatuhum, yet Shaykh Faisal does not mention the names of the two authors and suffices with referring to them as just “the two authors”. I have not yet found the names of the two ’Ash’ari authors yet in any case this is unimportant as their arguments are the usual ’Ash’ari arguments and logical fallacies that are replete within ’Ash’ari polemical writings.

[4] As can be seen in an article written in the mid 1990s entitled Reforming Classical Texts by Masud Khan from Aylesbury, which was a question put to his teacher, Nuh Keller. Such a question would be of little benefit to Khan who cannot access the classical texts in the original Arabic language in any case, so it would be perhaps better to actually study Arabic first before accusing Salafis of the very serious crime of tampering with and purposefully covering up what is found within books which may oppose them. Just one example which indicates that this is incorrect is that fact that writings and manuscripts of books of those who wrote against Imam Muhammad ibn ’AbdulWahhab are still extant to this day within Saudi libraries. The works of Ahmad bin ’Ali ash-Shafi’i al-Qabbani for example are to be found in the library of Imam Muhammad ibn Saud University in Riyadh. This demonstrates that the opposing arguments have been preserved in order to rebut them and shows that the followers of Imam Muhammad ibn ’AbdulWahhab did not totally destroy, desecrate and ransack the works, writings and books of their opposers. Qabbani had two writings against Muhammad ibn ’AbdulWahhab, the first was a copy in his handwriting of a book entitled Kitab Rad ad-Dalalah wa Qama’ al-Jahalah by another scholar called Ahmad Barakat ash-Shafi’i al-Azhari at-Tandatawi. While the second is entitled Kitab Naqd Qawa’id ad-Dalal wa Rafd ’Aqa’id ud-Dullal which is a response to a letter sent by Imam Muhammad ibn ’AbdulWahhab to the ’Ulama in Basra.

[5] Interestingly, other strands of Naqshbandiyyah make takfeer of Nazim Qubrus.! Not even tabdi’ or tadleel but takfeer! As occurred from Sameer al-Kadi ar-Rifa’i., another Naqshabandi leader who is vying with Nazim for control of the cult.

[6] Is it any wonder why there is an emphasis on following the manhaj of the Salaf?!

[7] http://seekingilm.com

[8] http://www.htspub.com

[9] www.marifah.net

[10] One example of this can be seen in a question posed to Nuh Keller in the mid 1990s by Mas’ud Khan of Aylesbury; the question was entitled ‘Was Imam Ahmad an anthropomorphist as claimed by the Salafis?’ Yet it is evident that this is an excellent example of a Straw man argument. Khan exaggerates and distorts (and that’s putting it mildly!) the Salafi position and puts words into the Salafis’ mouths claiming that they’ve forwarded an argument which they haven’t actually made. Furthermore, within the answer Keller claims that Kitab us-Sunnah is falsely ascribed to ’Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Hanbal yet provides no evidence whatsoever, this is not adequate for serious scholarship and research.

[11] It can be referred to here: http://assets.cambridge.org/97805217/85495/excerpt/9780521785495_excerpt.pdf

[12] ²This ahistorical claim has been assessed thoroughly here: http://salafimanhaj.com/pdf/SalafiManhaj_PledgeContradiction pp.4-15

[13] I had the opportunity to ask Dr Yahya Michot this question on Friday 18^th July 2008 at a lecture on Ibn Taymiyyah held at London’s City Circle. Dr Yahya is currently regarded as the main Western specialist in the works of Shaykh ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah and has written a wealth of material on him largely in French. He does have four works in English one which has been published and the other three are due for publication later in 2008. His book Muslims under non-Muslim Rule: Ibn Taymiyya on fleeing from sin, kinds of emigration and the status of Mardin (Oxford and London: Interface Publications, 2006) is a translation and study of Ibn Taymiyyah’s fatwa on Mardin and Dr Yahya corroborates exactly as Shaykh, Dr Khalid al-Anbari did in his book The Impact of Man-Made Laws and in the audio lectures Politics in Light of Islam (which can be downloaded from salafimanhaj.com). Dr Yahya has also conducted research detailing how many of the modern-day takfeeris have totally mis-read and misused Ibn Taymiyyah’s fatawa in that they have taken Ibn Taymiyyah’s fatawa regarding the Mongols and applied them to the rulers of the Muslim lands, again corroborating what the Salafi scholars have highlighted for years. Dr Yahya currently teaches classical Arabic and Islamic theology at Oxford University and is due to hold a position at the Hartford Seminary in America.

[14] D.B. MacDonald, Development of Muslim Theology, Jurisprudence and Constitutional Theory (London: George Routledge and Sons, 1903), p.212. There will be more mentioned about this in detail within the last chapter of this translation.

[15] M.H. Zuberi, Aristotle and Al-Ghazali (Delhi, India: Noor Publishing House, 1992), pp.29-30

[16] M.H. Zuberi, Aristotle and Al-Ghazali (Delhi, India: Noor Publishing House, 1992), pp.29-30 ³ M.A. Hye (2004), “Asharism” in M.M. Sharif (ed.), A History of Muslim Philosophy (Wiesbaden, Germany: Otto Harrassowitz, 1963-6), vol.1, p.242

[17] M.R. Hassan (2004), “Nizam al-Mulk Tusi” in MM Sharif (ed.), op.cit., pp.747-774

[18] Furthermore, the ’Ash’ari in Egypt during that time were active against the Fatimiyyah Rawafid who were ruling over Egypt, as a result the institution of a formal creed was a move to quell the development of the Rawafid within Egypt and Sham. The Fatimid-Shi’a built al-Azhar University and when Salahuddeen defeated the Fatimids their teachings were replaced with what the ’Ash’aris there had codified.

[19] Ibn Tumart, after debating with the scholars of Fez, was deemed to be a radical and was thus imprisoned for his beliefs and views at the bequest of the Mur.bit (Almoravid) ruler at the time ’Ali bin Yusuf.

[20] Ibn Tumart actually declared himself to be a descendent of the Prophet (sallallahu ’alayhi wassallam) and the Mahdi while he was promoting the ’Asharite creed in Morocco and North Africa and rebelling against the Murabitoon Muslim leaders!

[21] Al-Maqrizi, al-Khutat: al-Mawa’idh wa’l-I’tibar bi Dhikr il-Khutat wa’l-Athar (Cairo: Maktabah ath-Thaqafiyyah ad-Deeniyyah, n.d.), vol.4, p.192

[22] Or ‘Derbend’, written and pronounced as ‘Derbent’ in Russian, it is a town in Daghestan on the Western shore of the Caspian Sea that was known to the Arabs. See Houtsma, Van Donzel (eds.) E.J. Brill’s First Encyclopaedia of Islam: 1913-1936 (Leiden, Netherlands: EJ Brill: 1993), p.940. Derbent is the southern most city in Russia which is thought to be the oldest city in the whole of Russia. Derbend was known as the ‘Caspian Gates’ in the West and Bab ul-Abwab (‘The Gate of Gates’) in the Arabic-speaking Islamic world, but its name has always been linked to ‘gates’ of a fortress. The name “The Gate of Gates” originates in the fact that Derbend consisted of thirty north-facing towers which stretched for 40 kilometres between the Caspian Sea and the Caucasus Mountains. The immense wall had a height of up to twenty meters and a thickness of about 10 feet (3 m) when it was in use. It was built by Yazdegird the Second of the Sassanid-Persian Empire (in circa 440 CE) and was attacked by the Armenians and Albanians in their rebellion in 450 CE. Kisra the First strengthened it during his reign (531-579) in order to keep out the Gokturks. Some historians have confused the fortress walls with the Gates of Alexander which he built as a barrier in the Caucasus to prevent the non-Greeks of the north attacking the south. Some historians still maintain that the fortress built by Kisra may have had earlier foundations built by the Achaemenid Persian Empire (550–330 BCE), these were later conquered by the Greeks so the fortress may have been reinforced by agents of Alexander’s empire. Darband (Derbent) is not to be confused with the four other towns today that have the name ‘Darband’. One town/district in Tajikistan; a village next to Tehran in Iran; a town in Western Baluchistan and the other a village in the Mansehra District in North-Western Pakistan.

[23] See Shaykh Ahmad ibn Muhammad ad-Dehlawee al-Madanee, A History of the People of Hadeeth (Birmingham: Salafi Publications, Ramadan 1425AH/December 2005), p.38

[24] See Shaykh Ahmad ibn Muhammad ad-Dehlawee al-Madanee, op.cit., p.80-86.

[25] I say “Maliki-’Ash’ari” because Ibn Tumart was an ardent ’Ash’ari who endeavoured to institute its creed within Africa and al-Andalus. Many Maliki fuqaha were not ’Ash’ari, refer to an interesting piece by Shaykh Mashhoor Hasan on this topic here: http://salafimanhaj.com/pdf/SalafiManhaj_RefuteAsharees.pdf

[26] Generalised statements which are asserted that make no reference to possible variations.

[27] He has also played a role in asserting a sort of “vetted British Islam” and just one example of the move towards such “vetted Islam” can be witnessed in Mur.d’s (Winter’s) ‘Muslim Songs of the British Isles’!? This is an odd attempt to formulate and develop a type of expression which is not seen as subversive for the native population of the UK. The site can be seen here: http://www.britishmuslimsong.co.uk/harmonia.htm along with Abdal Hak.m Mur.d’s own vocal song contribution to this rather peculiar ballad of ‘Islamic expression’. To also see his “Muslim choir” see: http://www.britainusa.com/WebGalleries/MPE/pages/A_Muslim_Choir.htm

[28] Ibn al-Jawzi, al-Muntadham (Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, 1995 CE), vol. 8, p.219 Refer to: http://hanbalis.com/index.php/Ibn_al-Jawzi#Ash.E2.80.99ari_theologians

[29] Shaykh Faisal al-J.sim quotes much from these works as will be seen within this translation.