‫ذم اﻟﻜﻼم ﻓﻲ زﻋﻢ ﻗﻮل اﻟﺘﻤﺎم‬

Eibnnvm.Lbmbbn!Gj!
[bnj!Rbxmj.Ubnbbn

Disparaging the Nonsense of the Alleged Ideal Saying

A partial reply to the book ‫ام‬#$%‫'('& ا‬% )*+,- ./012%‫*)ت ا‬456 ‫)م‬72%‫ل ا‬09%‫ ا‬which means
“The Ideal Saying Regarding the Distinguished School of the Salaf in
Affirmation of Tafweed” and a complete reply to the unfounded madhaab of
Tafweed al-M’anawiyyah

Author and Translator: Bassam Zawadi

Compiler and Editor: Ali Boriqee
Source: Multaqa Ahlul-Hadeeth
Published by: al-Mustaqeem Publications
This page is left intentionally blank
 Editor’s Introduction

Wal-Hamdulillah I am pleased to compile this great source of information

brought together by an esteemed colleague of mine Ustaadh Bassam Zawadi
hafidhahullah. I feel as if I am oppressing the issue of equating myself as a peer
to him by even acquainting myself as a colleague of his for he is above and
beyond my level of learning and understanding.

It should be noted that the following material is satirical not on the part of
Bassam, rather the satirical nature of the information really is laid more at the
doorstep of the absurd arguments presented by the Ash’ari scholar who presents
his arguments against Ahlu-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah. We believe that the people of
the Sunnah will greatly benefit from the following review of this work bi
idhnillah.

I have slightly edited the content for corrections or additional phrases to explain
the content. While the main author is Bassam Zawadi, I, Ali Boriqee, will be
providing supplemental information that accords to the topic being discussed. I
will make the distinction between my words and that of the author by
highlighting my name as Ali Boriqee’s response which will act as a supplemental
response along with Bassam’s. Otherwise, generally it should be understood that
the generality of the material is that of Bassam Zawadi’s.

Author’s Introduction

This material will be dedicated to reviewing and critiquing the book ‫)م‬72%‫ل ا‬09%‫ا‬
‫ام‬#$%‫'('& ا‬% )*+,- ./012%‫*)ت ا‬456. This book is fairly recent (with the second edition
being published in March of 2010) and has received commendations by the likes
of Dr. Yusuf Al Qaradawi, Taqi Aal-Uthmaani, and others. Many Asharis both in
the Arabic and English internet realm are bragging about this book with great
pride. It is supposed to be the most comprehensive and well researched book on
the topic of Tafweedh promoting the Ashari side of the debate.
This is good actually, since if we take care of the arguments found in this book,
we would have taken care of almost everything that they have got to offer on this
subject.

The Text

Issue 1: The Ash’ari Understanding of Affirming the Dhaahir Vs the Salafi

Understanding of Affirming the Dhaahir and the Ash’aris ignorance in
juxtaposing the topic of inquiring about the meaning as tantamount to
inquiring about the kayf without their realization of this merger.

From pages 60 to 62 the author argues that when Salafis argue that God's
attributes such as yad are literal, yet at the same time we nullify that yad means
organs, then Salafis are being self contradictory and unreasonable. This is
because (according to him) in Arabic, the haqqiqi (literal) meaning of yad is an
organ. So to say that Allah's yad is haqqiqi, yet not an organ is non-sensical.

It appears that this is nothing more than a difference in semantics. It appears that
the author is including the "nature" of yad under it's "meaning", while what we
do is include it's "nature" under it's modality or kayfiyyah and not under it's
meaning.

When we say that Allah's yad is literal, what we mean is that His yad actually
and in reality exists. That an actual and not metaphysical attribute of Allah exists.
We believe that the Essence of this yad corresponds to the Essence of Allah. What
is the Essence of Allah? Well we don't know, hence we don't know the Essence of
Allah's yad.

Also, Abul Hassan Al Ashari in his Ibaanah said...

“If it is said,

‘Why do you deny that His saying;

 “Do they not see that We have created for them what Our Own Hands have
created.” [36:71]

And His saying:

“Whom I have created with my Own (Two) Hands.” [38:75]

are majaaz (metaphorical)?’

To him it is said,

‘The ruling concerning the speech of Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, is that it is
taken upon its dhaahir (apparent) and haqeeqah (real) meaning. Nothing is
removed from its dhaahir (apparent) meaning to majaaz (a metaphorical) one,
except with a proof…

Likewise, the saying of Allaah, the Mighty and majestic:

“Whom I have created with My Own (Two) Hands.” [38:75]

Its dhaahir and haqeeqah meaning is affirming Yadain (Two Hands of Allaah). So
it is not permissible to alter it from the dhaahir meaning of Yadain to that which
our opponents claim, except with a proof…

Consequently, about His saying:

“Whom I have created with My Own (Two) Hands.” [38:75]

It is obligatory to affirm Two Hands for Allaah, the Most High, in its haqeeqah
(real) meaning, not with the meaning of ni’matayn (two bounties of Allaah).’

_____________________________________________________________________

Ali Boriqee’s Response

Salafi argument
 The meaning of the word yad when applied to Allah is that it is an attribute of Allah
that subsists in His essence and has performed the function of creating Adam and
will perform the function of rolling the heavens and the earth on the Day of
Judgment and has performed other functions. This is a real and literal attribute in
the sense that it exists in reality.

Ash'ari Mufawwid Argument

This is not meeting the conditions of providing a meaning to a word. We also agrees
that Allah has a yad that performs these functions, but that we don't know the
meaning of the word yad, for it could be Allah's power, mercy or something that we
don't know.

Mufawwid also said that

We negate the literal meaning of the word and by "literal" we mean an organ.

Salafi response

When we affirm "literal" we mean real in existence and actual.

Muffawid Ash'ari response

We have failed to provide a meaning of the word yad. "organ" is meaning and not
kayfiyyah and that kayfiyyah has to be related to something we could imagine. So for
example, the Prophet said that we can't imagine what is in store for paradise, yet the
Qur'an talks about rivers. We don't know the kayfiyyah of the paradise river, but
we know its meaning since we could relate it to something that we know. However,
with Allah's yad, then I ask, what are we relating it to?

Conclusive question for Salafis

What is the meaning of the word "yad" when ascribed to Allah? Give me a
definition. I always see Salafis saying that we know the meaning, but not the
 kayfiyyah, but I never see a Salafi actually providing the meaning (the only instance
I have seen is for istiwaa).

Now, here is my response on behalf of Ahlu-Sunnah

Says Abu Hasan al-Qushayree, the one responsible for the tumult he has caused
to the Muslims in the Islamic history known as "Fitnah al-Qushayriyyah"
So he says

“How is it possible for one to say that there exists in Allah’s Book, that which cannot be
known by the creation, and none knows its meaning (ta’wil) except Allah? Is this not
from the greatest of slanders against prophet-hood, to suggest that the Prophet –
SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam did not know the meaning (ta’wil) of the texts pertaining to
the Attributes of Allah Ta’ala, and called the people to know what cannot be known?
Doesn’t Allah say ‘(we’ve sent it down) in clear Arabic language’? Otherwise, according
to what they claim, they should say Allah lied when He said: ‘in clear Arabic language’,
since they do not know (the meanings). Otherwise, where is this ‘clearness’ (as expressed
in the Quran)?

If it was in the language of the Arabs, how can he claim that this is something the Arabs
do not know?”

He also says:

“To attribute to the Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam – that he called to a Lord,
described with Attributes that are incomprehensible, is something heinous, which no
Muslim can imagine! For ignorance with respect to Attributes leads to ignorance with
respect to that which is described (i.e. Allah). And the saying of one who says: ‘His rising
is an Attribute of His self, the meaning of which is incomprehensible; the Hand is an
Attribute of His self, the meaning of which is incomprehensible; the Foot is an Attribute
of His self, the meaning of which is incomprehensible is simply camouflaging modality
(takyif), anthropomorphism (tashbih) and a call to ignorance… If the opponent now says:
‘The apparent meanings (dhawahir) have no interpretation (ma’na) at all’, then that is
to render these texts defunct, and there was no benefit in these texts reaching us,
for they are all useless, which is impossible… This is also contrary to the
Madhab of the Salaf who believed in passing them on upon their apparent
meanings ('ala dhawahir)”.
Recorded in Ithaf Sadat al-Muttaqin 2/110

My personal address to the Ash'ari Mufawwid

1. The first contention of the Mufawwid is

This is not meeting the conditions of providing a meaning to a word. We also

agrees that Allah has a yad that performs these functions, but that we don't know
the meaning of the word yad, for it could be Allah's power, mercy or something
that we don't know.

Then what you are seeking in reality is a "hadd" i.e. a definition, and in the
shariah, there is a difference between m'ana (meaning) and hadd (definition).

This is because the apparent meaning of yad is yad, and to quarantine it i.e.
"define" it into one of these things is providing a hadd for it since the meaning of
hadd (definition) in the shariah is
"A definition is to include and exclude from the object being defined"

What the mufawwid is actually performing here is that he is transforming "kayf"

and passing it on as "m'ana". If it was Allah's power, Mercy, etc, then Allah would
have SAID SO which brings us back to the statement of al-Qushayree, his own
Imaam in his creedal madhaab.

So when he says "this is not meeting the conditions for providing a meaning" just
substitute the word "meaning" with "kayf" and we have a more accurate reality.
This is because meanings are known irrespective of subject, But in the manner in
which it is (known) will only be known based on who the "subject" is being
referred to with such an attribute.

2. The Mufawwid said

We negate the literal meaning of the word and by "literal" we mean an organ

We ask this Mufawwid, if "organ" is the meaning of hand, then do you negate the
"hands" of Angels? Do Angels even have organs?
This is the stump that the mufawwid dead ends upon.

The "primary" meaning of "yad" is organ WHEN THE SUBJECT IS HUMANS.

However, when the subject is something else, that primary meaning is no longer
relevant or even valid because the actual subject has changed.

3. Muffawid contention

We have failed to provide a meaning of the word yad. "organ" is meaning and not
kayfiyyah and that kayfiyyah has to be related to something we could imagine. So
for example, the Prophet said that we can't imagine what is in store for paradise,
yet the Qur'an talks about rivers. We don't know the kayfiyyah of the paradise
river, but we know its meaning since we could relate it to something that we
know. However, with Allah's yad, then I ask, what are we relating it to?

Incorrect! What we have failed to provide is the nature of yad, not meaning.
When "YAD" is being discussed between a stretch of various SUBJECTS, then
saying "organ is meaning" is an academic dishonesty because organ, when all
subjects are being discussed with regards to yad, is actually
"modality" (kayfiyyah) and not mere meaning.

Yes, Kayfiyyah has to be related to something we could imagine, but when we

have no imagination of the subject, then we do not negate that there is a
kayfiyyah, we just negate the knowledge of it.

Therefore his question

"with Allah's yad, then what are we relating it to"

Is an inapplicable question and it is a question that is equal or similar to the

question "How did Allah istiwaa" which essentially brings me back to my initial
contention which is that what this Muffawwid is seeking is the modality (kayf) of
the Attribute Yad rather than the meaning.

In other words, he is basically saying the same question as the questioner told to
Maalik "How did Allah istawaa" only with a different choice of words.
We CAN'T relate it to anything because we have nothing to relate to Allah and
we were prohibited from doing this, and no one on the planet has called our
inability to do so as "having no meaning" for this makes no sense to anyone.

Lastly

4. Addressing the conclusive question

What is the meaning of the word "yad" when ascribed to Allah? Give me a
definition. I always see Salafis saying that we know the meaning, but not the
kayfiyyah, but I never see a Salafi actually providing the meaning (the only
instance I have seen is for istiwaa)

Yad is Yad. Hand. Thats the meaning, just as istawaa ala is rising or ascending.
What else is there to say?

This is another problem, the seeker is seeking a hadd (definition) which is

different than "m'ana" in the shariah. We are not to "define" the Attributes
because this would constitute going into t'awil which may essential entail tahreef
or t'ateel, all based on the action of takyeef, which is by asking for a definition of
Yad.

More importantly, definitions that exist in the human experience are definitions
pertinent to humans. We don't have definitions applicable to aliens, angels, jinn,
etc. So if we do not have definitions for any of these creatures, then how in the
world could people require us to provide a definition of Yad for Allah which
essentially brings us BACK to the statement of al-Qushayree and the rest of the
salaf who used to say that we affirm them and pass them on WITHOUT
MODALITY.

This is our creed and this is our methodology.

And may Allah guide us all to His straight path, Ameen

Back to main text

_____________________________________________________________________
Issue 2: Ash’ari confusion between affirmation of Attribute as being
synonymous with affirming organs which then results to their initial
ignorance with regard to inquiring about the kayf under the auspices of
inquiring about the meaning.

On page 68, the author states that the definition of Jaariha (i.e. organ) is an
instrument or device or mechanism used to gain and perform acts.

Then on page 70 he quotes Ibn Taymiyyah as nullifying organs used for eating
and drinking such as the kidney and spleen, however Ibn Taymiyyah said that
unlike those, Allah has the yad, which is used for performing acts. And
obviously this is something clearly taught in the Qur'an since Allah used His yad
to create Adam and will use His yad to roll up the heavens and the earth.

Now the argument of the author is that:

- Ibn Taymiyyah ultimately views Allah's yad as an organ because.......

- An organ is that which is used to perform acts

however.......

- The Salaf denied that Allah has organs

so.........

- Ibn Taymiyyah went against the Salaf.

Okay let's get some things straight here....

Point number 1.......

Shaykh ibn Taymiyyah in his letter to Hamah quotes Abi Sulayman Al Khattabi
who said that Allah's yad is not like the organs of us human beings and Ibn
Taymiyyah approves of this statement.

‫ة‬09%‫<; ا‬%‫?>= ا‬- ‫ إن‬: ‫ل‬09B )>(%‫و‬، E(1>% F‫) ا‬G2*4‫)ت أ‬1I J+ )7B5K )GG*L‫) أ‬-‫ و‬#M6‫ و‬N7O‫; و‬/ )>'P ‫ذا‬5K"[
J2%‫)ر ا‬M6S‫)ع وا‬7OS‫;ي وا‬/S)6 )GG*VB W‫ارح و‬0Y )GB‫ل إ‬09B W‫ و‬، Z'?%‫ ا‬#M*%‫ وا‬N7(%‫?>= ا‬- W‫[ و‬7?>%‫أو ا‬
J1B \Y‫ وو‬، )G6 ‫<& ورد‬P02%‫ن ا‬S ; ‫)ت‬1M%‫*)ت ا‬456 \Y‫) و‬7B‫ل إ‬09%‫ إن ا‬: ‫ل‬09B‫?^ و‬1'% ‫ارح وأدوات‬0Y J+
‫ `_م‬E'` ‫ا‬,+ "‫)ت‬1M%‫ ا‬a/‫)د‬b‫ أ‬JK &'(%‫ل ا‬0P ‫ى‬#Y ‫ا‬,+ ='d‫ و‬، ‫ء‬JL E'f7` g<% F‫ن ا‬S )G>d E<*V2%‫ا‬
. J6)hi%‫ا‬
J'<d)7Oj‫ ا‬#$6 J6‫^ أ‬f- Z+‫;د‬d =Mk/ W l- ‫)ء‬7'?%‫ ا‬l- E>- ‫ا‬0kB ^9B ;P J6)hi%‫ه ا‬#`‫ي ذ‬,%‫_م ا‬$%‫ا ا‬,+‫و‬
‫ " و " ذم‬l/#n)(%‫>)زل ا‬- " \b)I ‫وي‬#G%‫<^ ا‬d)7O‫ إ‬J6‫_م أ‬Oj‫ ا‬p<L‫ي و‬qr(%‫)ر ا‬7d l6 =<k/ ‫)م‬-j‫وا‬
‫)م‬-‫ي إ‬#7>%‫ ا‬#*%‫*; ا‬d l6 #7d J6‫ وأ‬JB06)M%‫)ن ا‬7fd J6‫_م أ‬Oj‫ ا‬p<L‫& و‬I0/ ‫ أن‬l- #GL‫ أ‬0+‫_م " و‬$%‫ا‬
.‫_م‬Oj‫ ا‬p<L ‫ـ `_م‬+‫] ا‬Z+#<t‫ب و‬#vw‫ا‬

Point number 2........

The author goes on to refute himself. He said on the bottom of page 70 that the
reason why the scholars denied that Allah has organs is because organs are seen
as something deficient to have. That is because, if you don't have the organ, then
you can't perform that function. However, Ibn Taymiyyah affirmed no such
thing, which implies any such thing. I mean the author himself on page 73 even
quotes Ibn Taymiyyah himself saying that Allah's yad is not an organ!

Point number 3.........

The definition of Jaariha (i.e. organ) that the author puts forward requires some
more attention. For instance, Imam ad-Daarimi in his response to al-Maarisi
denied that we would view Allah's attributes as organs:

،‫)ء‬xd‫ارح وأ‬0Y )G<K ‫ن‬07+02/ ZGB‫ أ‬:F‫)ل ا‬P )76 y>-zw‫ ا‬،F‫)ت ا‬1M6 l/#9w‫ء ا‬Wz+ ='d {?<>V| )-‫وأ‬
}B‫) أ‬- )G>- ‫ن‬02*f/ )7B‫ إ‬،)G6 ‫;ون‬/#/ )76 ‫>)س‬%‫ ا‬Z'd‫ أ‬l- }B‫ وأ‬،ً_€)6‫{ زورا ً و‬%‫ ذ‬JK ZG<'d }<d‫; اد‬9K
‫ارح‬0Y ‫ن‬0d;/ W‫ و‬،Zّ'O‫ و‬E<'d F‫'ّ= ا‬I E%0O‫ ور‬F‫>= ا‬d )- W‫) إ‬G<K ‫ن‬07+02/ W‫ و‬،‫ب‬,$- E6‫ و‬،^h?-
...ZG<'d }%09| )7` ‫)ء‬xd‫وأ‬
Yet ad-Daarimi was known for his affirmation of Allah's attributes. So that means
that ad-Daarimi wouldn't have understood organs to simply mean "something
used to perform an act", but rather had the deficient qualities associated with the
word in mind and then negated it.

Furthermore, an organ is commonly understood as constituting a "part" of a

whole. As if it is a structural unit as such and Ibn Taymiyyah has clearly denied
that Allah is composed of parts assembled together.

Hence, I don't believe that the author has successfully pushed forth his argument
in this regard. The Qur'an clearly talks about Allah using His "yad" to do certain
acts and we have clear statements from the Salaf affirming the reality of the yad.
Hence, the negation of organs needs to be understood differently than from what
the author is proposing.

Issue 3: The Methodology of Negation

On page 73, surprisingly the author displays his unfamiliarity with the Qur'an.
He said that the Qur'an no where denies that Allah eats. Perhaps, Surah 5:75
slipped his mind or perhaps he never understood it's implications?

As for Allah getting sick, thirsty, etc. then these are well known deficiencies
obvious to everyone, which we should negate for Allah. These aren't as obvious
as "bodies", which requires much more knowledgeable people to articulate for
the laity or other things, which might be deficient in only a subjective sense (i.e.
negative in one's perception and opinion, but not the other) and when it comes to
these cases we must be cautious of negating them for Allah when Allah hasn't
negated them from Himself. This is what scholars like Shaykh ibn Baz had in
mind when they said that we should only negate what Qur'an and Sunnah
negates.
Issue 4: The relationship between Allah’s Fingers and His Yad

On page 74, the author discusses how some Salafis said that there is a
relationship between Allah's fingers and yad.

_______________________________________________________________

Ali Boriqee’s compilation

Imaam al Bukhari (rah) in his Saheeh - “Book of Tawheed” brings forth the
following Chapter:

=%)?| F‫ل ا‬0P ‫)ب‬6

‫<;ي‬6 }9'‚ )w

[Chapter: The Words of Allah Ta’ala {..What I Created with Both My Hands} -
38:75]

al-Imaam al-Bukhari (rah) brings together 5 narrations [Ahadeeth] within this

Chapter, which - according to him - are relevant [applicable] to the Ayah /
Chapter Heading [above]:

[Hadeeth 507]
“...The Prophet said, "Allah will gather the believers on the Day of Resurrection
in the same way (as they are gathered in this life), and they will say, 'Let us ask
someone to intercede for us with our Lord that He may relieve us from this place
of ours.' Then they will go to Adam and say, 'O Adam! Don't you see the people
(people's condition)? Allah created you with His Own Hands”

[Hadeeth 508]
“...Allah's Apostle said, "Allah's Hand is full, and (its fullness) is not affected by
the continuous spending, day and night.."

[Hadeeth 509]
“...Allah's Apostle said, "On the Day of Resurrection, Allah will grasp the whole
Earth by His Hand, and all the Heavens in His right, and then He will say, 'I am
the King." Abu Huraira said, "Allah's Apostle said," Allah will grasp the Earth..."
[Hadeeth 510]
“...A Jew came to the Prophet and said, "O Muhammad! Allah will hold the
heavens on a Finger, and the mountains on a Finger, and the trees on a Finger,
and all the creation on a Finger, and then He will say, 'I am the King.' " On that
Allah's Apostle smiled till his premolar teeth became visible, and then recited:--

'No just estimate have they made of Allah such as due to him....(39.67) 'Abdullah
added: Allah's Apostle smiled (at the Jew's statement) expressing his wonder and
believe in what was said."

[Hadeeth 511]
“...A man from the people of the scripture came to the Prophet and said, "O Abal-
Qasim! Allah will hold the Heavens upon a Finger, and the Earth on a Finger and
the land on a Finger, and all the creation on a Finger, and will say, 'I am the King!
I am the King!'

[ref: Saheeh al-Bukhari – Volume 9, Kitaab al-Tawheed, Hadeeth 507 / 508 /

509 / 510 / 511]

So, Imaam al-Bukhari (rah) understood these narrations as a

'reference' [characteristic] of the Divine Attribute: “Hands” [the quoted Ayah]..
i.e. Grasp / Hold, being Full and ‘Finger’ - that is why he ‘specifically’ collated
them into this Chapter [Both His Hands] and cited them under the “Book of
Tawheed”

We ‘Accept’ what Allah aza wajall and His Messenger sal-Allahu Alayhi wa-
Sallam have relayed to us re: the Divine Attributes – on face value - and do Not
delve into the Finer Details [Kayf, Modality, Exact Nature etc].

Another narration that mentions Allah’s ‘Fingers’ in relation with Allah’s ‘Palm’:

‫ َج‬#َ i َ َK gِ ْ7V%‫ا‬ ‡ yَ َ ْ d ‫َاءَى‬#َ2ˆَB )َB;ْ `ِ =‡ 2ˆ َb ِ‰ْ*ˆM%‫ا‬

Š ‫ َ_ ِة‬I َ lْ dَ ‫;َا ٍة‬tَ َ‫ ذَات‬Zَ '‡ Oَ
َ ‫ و‬Eِ ْ<'َ dَ ُ‡F‫'‡= ا‬I َ ِ‡F‫لُ ا‬0Oَ ُ ‫َˆ> ‡) ر‬d gَِ *ُ2ˆ ْb‫ا‬
)َ >ˆ%َ َ‫َ)ل‬9َK Eِ |ِ 0ْ Mِ
َ 6 )َd‫ َد‬Zَ '‡ O
َ ) ‡7َ'َK Eِ |ِ _َ I
َ JِK َ‫ز‬0‡ َrَ|‫ َو‬Zَ '‡ Oَ َ ‫ و‬Eِ ْ<'َ dَ ُ‡F‫'‡= ا‬I
َ ِ‡F‫لُ ا‬0Oَ ُ ‫'‡= ر‬Mَ َ K ‫ َ_ ِة‬M%)ِ ‡ 6 َ‫•ب‬0ُfˆَK )ً?/ِ#O َ
^ِ ْ<'‡ %‫ ا‬lْ -ِ ُ} ْ7ُP J•Bَ‫;َاةَ أ‬vَ %ْ ‫ ا‬Zْ $ُ ْ >ˆdَ Jِ>(َ َ *ˆ َb )َ- Zْ $ُ ُ4;• َbُ ŽˆO
َ J•Bِ‫َ) إ‬-َ‫َ)لَ أ‬P Z‡ ُ4 )َ >ˆْ<%َ ِ‫ َ^َ إ‬2ˆَ1ْB‫ ا‬Z‡ ُ4 Zْ ُ 2ˆْBَ‫َ ) أ‬7َ` Zْ $ُ •K)Mَ
َ - =َ'dَ
‫ َر ٍة‬0I ُ ِl( َ ْbَ ‫ أ‬JِK =َ%)َ?َ|‫ |َˆ*َ)ر ََك َو‬J•6#َ 6ِ )َBَ‫ذَا أ‬5ِ َK ُ}ْ'9َ ْ fˆَ2ˆO)َ
ْ K Jِ|_َ I َ JِK ُ}(َ ْ ?َ>ˆَK Jِ% ‫ •; َر‬Pُ )َ- ُ}ْ<'‡ Iَ َ ‫ ْتُ و‬Žˆ•َ
‡ 0َ2ˆَK
 yَ
َ ْ 6 Eُ ‡1`َ َN•َ َ ‫ و‬Eُ ُ 2ˆْ/َ‫أ‬#َ َK َ‫َ)ل‬P )ً4_ََ 4 )َG%َ )َP •‫ أ َ ْدرِي رَب‬Wَ ُ}ْ'Pُ =َ'dْ َ S‫ا‬
ْ ُ ‘ََ ْw‫ ا‬Zُ Mَ ِ 2ˆْiَ/ Zَ <ِK َ‫َ)ل‬P •‫ˆ*‡< َْ{ رَب‬%َ ُ}ْ'Pُ ;ُ ‡7 َkُ- )َ/ َ‫َ)ل‬9َK
Zَ <ِK َ‫َ)ل‬P •‫ˆ*‡< َْ{ رَب‬%َ ُ}ْ'Pُ ;ُ ‡7 َkُ- )َ/ َ‫َ)ل‬9َK ُ}ْK#َ dَ ‫ْ ٍء َو‬JL َ Š^ُ` Jِ% =‡' َrَ 2ˆَK ‡Jَ/;ْ َ4 yَ َ ْ 6 Eِ ِ'ˆِ-)َBَ‫ َد أ‬#ْ َ6 ُ‫َ ;ْت‬Yَ‫ ‡= و‬2ˆ َb ‡Jَ12ِ `َ
;ِ Y
ِ )(ََ ْw‫ ا‬JِK ‫س‬0ُ ُ ' ُrْ%‫َ)تِ وَا‬d) َ7 َrْ%‫َ= ا‬%ِ‫;َام ِ إ‬Pْ َ S‫ا‬ ْ ُJVَ ْ - ُ}ْ'Pُ l‡ +ُ )َ- َ‫َ)ل‬P ِ‫‡)رَات‬1$َ %ْ ‫ ا‬JِK ُ}ْ'Pُ =َ'dْ َ S‫ا‬ ْ ُ ‘ََ ْw‫ ا‬Zُ Mَ ِ 2ˆْiَ/
^ِ ْ<'‡ %)ِ6 ُ‫ َ_ة‬M%‫َا‬
‡ ‫ ََ_م ِ و‬$%ْ ‫ ا‬y ُ ِ%‫‡?َ)م ِ َو‬h%‫ْ?َ) ُم ا‬€ِ‫'ْ}ُ إ‬Pُ Zَ <ِK Z‡ ُ4 َ‫َ)ل‬P ِ‫َ)ت‬+‫ُو‬#$ْ َ ْw‫ ا‬JِK ‫ ِء‬0•ُ ُ 0%ْ ‫ˆ*َ)غُ ا‬Oِ ْ ‫َاتِ َو إ‬0'َ M%‫ا‬‡ ;َ ?ْ َ6
Jِ> َ7 َbْ#َ|‫ َو‬Jِ% #َ 1ِ vْ َ| ‫ِ َوأ َ ْن‬y`ِ )(ََ ْw‫ُ \‡ ا‬bَ‫َاتِ و‬#$َ ْ >ˆُ ْw‫ َْك ا‬#َ|‫َاتِ َو‬#ْ<i َ %ْ ‫?ْ^َ ا‬Kِ {َُ %َŽˆOَْ ‫ أ‬J•Bِ‫ إ‬Z‡ Gُ '‡ %‫ُ^ْ ا‬P ْ^O َ َ‫َ)ل‬P ‫<َ) ٌم‬Bِ ‫‡)س‬ ُ >ˆ%‫وَا‬
ِ‡F‫لُ ا‬0Oَ ُ ‫َ)لَ ر‬P {•َ *ˆ ُb =َ%ِ‫•بُ إ‬#9َ ُ/ ^ٍ َ7َd ‡\ ُbَ‫{ و‬Šَ *ˆ ِkُ/ lْ -َ ‡\ ُbَ‫ُ ˆ* َ‡{ و‬b {َُ %َŽˆOَْ ‫نٍ أ‬0ُ 2ˆْ1-َ #َ ْ<tَ Jِ>‡K0َ َ 2ˆَK ٍ ‫م‬0ْ Pَ [َ َ >ˆْ2ˆKِ َ‫َو إِذَا أ َ َردْت‬
)َ+0 ُ7‡'?َ َ| Z‡ ُ4 )َ+0Oُ
ُ ‫َ) ْدر‬K ”• َb )َG‡Bِ‫ إ‬Zَ '‡ Oَ
َ ‫ و‬Eِ ْ<'َ dَ ُ‡F‫'‡= ا‬I َ
 

Sayyidina Mu’adh ibn Jabal (RA) narrated: One morning, Allah’s Messenger
was held back from us from the salah of fajr till we nearly saw the sun peeping
out. He
came out quickly, the iqamah  was called for the salah and Allah’s Messenger
(SAW) led the salah. He made it brief. When he had finished, he called out to us
in a loud voice, saying, “In your rows as you were.” Then he turned to us and
said: Indeed, I will tell you now what held me back from you this morning. I got
up during the night, performed ablution and offered salah as much as I could:
but, during the course of it, I dozed and was overcome by sleep. Suddenly, I saw
my Lord, the Blessed and the Exalted in the best of forms. He said, "O
Muhammad!” I said, “Here I am, my Lord!” He asked, “What do these angels
nearer to Me argue about?” I said, ‘I do not know.” He asked it three times and I
saw him put His Palm between my shoulder-blades, and I felt the coolness of
His Fingers between my breasts and everything became clear to me and I
gained knowledge. Then He asked, "O Muhammad!” I said, “Here am I, my
Lord”! He asked, “What do the angles nearer to Me argue about?” I answered,
“About al-kaffarat.” He asked, “What are they?” I said, “Taking footsteps to the
mosque (for congregational salah), sitting in the mosques even after the salah
and performing ablution well even when it is difficult,” He asked, “What else (do
they argue) about?” I said, “Feeding food, gentle speech, and observing salah by
night while people are fast asleep.” He said, “Ask (for anything).” I supplicated:
'O Allah! I ask You for (ability to do) good deeds, and to shun the disapproved,
and for love of the poor, and that You should forgive me and have mercy on me,
and when You decide to put a people to trial, take me away without a trial. And I
ask You for Your love and love of those who love You, and a love of deeds that
bring (me) near to Your love.'
Allah’s Messenger (SAW) concluded (by saying), “This is true. So, study it and
then learn it.”
Sunan at-Tirmidhi: Hadeeth 3246
Imaam at-Tirmidhi (rah) said: ‘This is a Hasan Saheeh Hadeeth’
This was also narrated by Ahmed  22170

The above narration also seems to draw a ‘relationship’ between “His Palms”
and “His Fingers” – on its Apparentness.

Repelling a Jahmi doubt as raised by the Imaam of the Ash’aris, Imaam ar-
Raazi

Says, ar-Raazi

In regards to the hadeeth "The heart of the believer is between two fingers from the
fingers of the Most Gracious (Rahmaan)", Imam Razi argued that we must take it
metaphorically when he said:

It is inevitable that we make Ta'weel of this narration, because we all know that
we don't have in our chests fingers that our hearts are between. (Asaas Al
Taqdees li-Raazi, page 82)

However, this goes against the position of the Salaf who used this narration to
affirm that Allah has fingers [Abdullah ibn Ahmad, Al Sunnah , (1/264) and Ibn
Khuzaymah, Kitab al Tawheed, (1/178).]

Also, Shaykh Uthaymeen in his Al Qawaaid al Muthlaa, on page 51 refutes this

argument by saying:

‫ل‬0'k'% Z+0- a/;k%‫ إن ا‬:‫)ل‬9/ =2b )G% [O)7- ‫ن‬0$| ‫) أن‬G>- y?*I‫ إ‬y6 ‫ آدم‬J>6 ‫ب‬0'P ‫ن‬0` l- ‫م‬q'/ W
‫;ر‬6 :‫)ل‬9/‫ و‬.‫رض‬S‫ ا‬W‫)ء و‬7(%‫ ا‬g7/ W 0+‫رض و‬S‫)ء وا‬7(%‫ ا‬y6 #i(- ‫)ب‬k(%‫ا ا‬,GK .‫ه‬#+)˜ ld EK#I \r<K
W‫[ و‬9<9b l7b#%‫ ا‬N6)I‫ أ‬l- y?*I‫ إ‬y6 )G'` ‫ آدم‬J>6 ‫ب‬0'9K ،)7G><6‫) و‬G><6 )- ;d)*| N- [>/;w‫[ وا‬$- y6
.‫ل‬0'b W‫[ و‬O)7- {%‫ ذ‬l- ‫م‬q'/

It is not necessary that for the heart of the son of Adam to be between two fingers
that there must be tangency between them until it is said: The hadeeth is illusive of
incarnation, thus we must negate the dhaahir of its meaning.
 The clouds are made subservient between the heavens and the earth, yet it doesn't
touch the heavens and the earth (he is alluding to Surah 2:164). And it is also said:
Badr is between Mecca and Madinah with a distance between themselves. Similarly,
the hearts of the sons of Adam are all between between two fingers from the fingers of
the Most Gracious in reality (haqeeqah) and this neither necessitates tangency nor
incarnation.

A Common Doubt of the Jahmiyyah: There is no explicit statement from the

Righteous Salaf affirming the "Finger" as an Attribute of the Dhaat of Allah

Hammad bin Zayd (died 179 AH) said:

;/‫ ز‬l6 ‫)د‬7b ‫)ل‬P

‫'[؟‬iB ‫ دارك‬JK‫ أ‬:E% ^<P ^Y‫^ ر‬f- [<7Gr%‫^ ا‬f-
‫ص؟‬0‚ )G'K :^<P .Z?B ‫)ل‬P
‫?& ؟‬O )G'K :^<P .W :‫)ل‬P
‫ب ؟‬#` )G'K :^<P .W :‫)ل‬P
‫ع ؟‬,Y )G'K :^<P .W :‫)ل‬P
‫^؟‬I‫) أ‬G'K :^<P .W :‫)ل‬P
‫ دارك‬JK ['iB _K ^<P W ‫)ل‬P
‫ رب؟‬Z$% :ZG% ^<P [<7Gr%‫ء ا‬Wz+
‫؟‬Z'$2/ :^<P .Z?B :‫ا‬0%)P
‫; ؟‬/ E'K :^<P .W :‫ا‬0%)P
‫;م ؟‬P E'K :^<P .W :‫ا‬0%)P
‫" ؟‬#$‫ ('& إ‬:)*+ ., :‫ا‬./0+
‫\ ؟‬xv/‫•= و‬#<K :^<P .W :‫ا‬0%)P
.Z$% ‫_ رب‬K :^<P .W :‫ا‬0%)P

Source: Sharh madhahib Ahl Assunnah by Ibn Shaheen (died 385 AH), and the
narration's chain is sahih

Imam Yahya bin Sa'eed Al-Qattan ( died 198 Hijri)

Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Hanbal said:
Z<+‫ا‬#6‫ إ‬ld ‫ر‬0M>- ld ›7dW‫ ا‬ld ‫<)ن‬1O a/;k6 ;<?O l6 =<k/ )>4 );7b‫)م أ‬-j‫ (ا‬F‫ ا‬E7b‫ ر‬J6‫?} ا‬7O
N*I‫'= أ‬d ‫ات‬07(%‫({ ا‬7/ F‫ أن ا‬Z'O ‫ و‬E<'d F‫'= ا‬I J*>%‫ ا‬ld F‫*;ا‬d ld ‫*<;ة‬d ld
"12 &3#$45 6*72 )38 9*: ;5‫& وأرا=; أ‬350$45 6*72 @*A2 )38 B‫& ا‬CD‫; ر‬5‫ل أ‬0+
0F6G‫'@ آ‬I @J‫@ أ‬KD 03#$‫ ا‬03#$‫أ‬

Source: Kitab As-Sunnah Imam Abdullah bin Ahmad, and the sanad is sahih

Imam Uthman ad-Darimi (died 280 Hijri)

He has a long chapter on Allah's fingers, replying to Bishr al Mirrisi who denied
them and made tawil of them and this is found in his book Naqd bishr al-Maarisi

Ibn Khuzaimah (died 311 Hijri) in his book At-Tawheed:

E?6)I‫'= أ‬d )G<'d )-‫رض و‬S‫ات وا‬07(%‫>)ؤه ا‬4 ^Y‫ و‬E7O‫= ا‬%)?|‫ |*)رك و‬F‫()ك ا‬-‫ إ‬#`‫)ب ذ‬6
F‫^ ا‬Y‫; أ‬P‫ و‬E9'‚ ‫)ت‬1I E|‫)ت ذا‬1I l- ‫ء‬JL E*V/ ‫ أن‬ld‫ و‬E9'‚ N6)IŽ` E?6)I‫ن أ‬0$| ‫ أن‬ld )>6‫^ ر‬Y
‫ب‬0Y‫;ل و‬6 ^?r/‫>;ه و‬d {kx<K E?7(<K E|)1I l- g<% )76 E|#xk6 ‫*)رئ‬%‫• ا‬%)i%‫& ا‬I0/ ‫ أن‬ld E<*B ‫;ر‬P
E'n)9% )*r?|‫) و‬9/;M| ‫ه‬,Y‫ا‬0B ‫) |*;و‬$k• E6 Z'$2w‫'= ا‬d \xv%‫ وا‬#<$>%‫ا‬
E2%)O#6 ‫;ق‬M- l-z- [1M%‫ه ا‬,G6 J*>%‫& ا‬M/ W

Then he mentions hadith about Allah's fingers,

‫ أن‬Z+02<K ‫‚*)ر‬S‫ ا‬y6 &<%Ž2%‫ ا‬JK )>2d)>I l(k/ W‫ و‬Z'?%‫ ا‬#k2/ Z% l7- Z+02/ )7+02- ^?'K #$6 06‫)ل أ‬P
E27?B‫ و‬F‫; ا‬7k6 )B;>d 0+ {%,` g<%‫) و‬7+#*‚ ‫)د‬x/ ;<?O J6‫ أ‬#*‚‫ و‬#7d l6‫ ا‬#*‚ ‫)د‬x/ ‫د‬0?(- l6‫ ا‬#*‚
‫اء‬0O #*i%‫ ا‬JK )- ='d E?6)I‫'= أ‬d #*i%‫ ا‬JK #`‫) ذ‬- {(7/ _d‫^ و‬Y F‫?>)ه أن ا‬7K ‫د‬0?(- l6‫ ا‬#*‚ )-‫أ‬
[v'%‫ ا‬JK ‫م‬0G1- 0+‫ء و‬JV%‫'= ا‬d .*9%‫ ا‬#<t N6)IS‫'= ا‬d ‫()ك‬-j‫ن ا‬S ‫رض‬S‫ ا‬#<t ‫رض‬S‫ ا‬F‫^ ا‬/;*| ^*P
#<t ‫رض‬S‫ ا‬F‫*;ل ا‬/ Z4 ‫ل‬09B‫ء و‬JV%‫'= ا‬d .*9%‫ ا‬#<t N6)IS)6 ‫ء‬JV%‫'= ا‬d ‫()ك‬-j‫ن ا‬S )G6 )>*€0‚ J2%‫ا‬
‫ات‬07(%‫رض وا‬S‫ ا‬#<t ‫رض‬S‫م |*;ل ا‬0/ E%0P JK E'/q>| Z$k- JK E<*B ='d ‫)ب‬2$%‫ل ا‬q>- )B#*‚‫) أ‬7` ‫رض‬S‫ا‬
‫ة‬q*‚ )G?7r<K )G%;*/ =%)?| F‫ أن ا‬Z'dŽK ‫رض‬S‫ ا‬#<t ‫رض‬S‫^ ا‬/;*| [1I =1hMw‫ ا‬E<*B ‫()ن‬% ='d y6‫و‬
=•‫ ر‬#7d l6‫ ا‬#*‚ JK #*‚ )7` ,Ÿ><b )G<'d .*9<K ‫;ة‬b‫وا‬
)- ='d JB)?w‫[ ا‬k<kI [26)4 )G'` [4_f%‫‚*)ر ا‬S)K ‫;رى‬i%‫?<; ا‬O J6‫ أ‬#*‚ JK Z'd‫) أ‬7` )+‫)ء‬1$B‫) وا‬7G>d F‫ا‬
)><6

Then right after he has a chapter titled:

^Y ‫ و‬qd F N6)IS‫*)ت ا‬4‫)ب إ‬6
In which he speaks more about Allah’s Attribute of His Fingers.

Issue 5: The Ash’ari Clandestine Attempt to Pass off the Scholars of the Khalaf
AS the Salaf.

From page 78 till 82 the author cites Imam Al Ghazali, Ibnul Jawzi, Imam ash-
Shaatibi, Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani, Badru-Deen, Imam al-Qurtubi and Shahrastaani in
an attempt to show that there were scholars who said that the Sifaat should not
be taken upon the dhaahir.

Yet, all of these scholars are from the khalaf period. Why on earth are you
quoting scholars from the khalaf period, when the title of your book is
attempting to show that this was the position of the Salaf???

I mean, wasn't Imam Abul Hassan al-Ashari from amongst the Salaf? Yes he was.
Didn't he say that Sifaat should be taken upon their dhaahir? Yes he did!!! You
can refer to issue 1 above.

So why are you leaving the statement of someone from the Salaf and then opting
ahead with speech from the khalaf? Or perhaps you believe Abul Hassan is from
amongst the mushabiha? No, I don't think you would dare say that.

Or perhaps you want to call into the question the authenticity of the attribution
of the book Al Ibaanah to him? Well if you do, then good luck refuting this
http://www.asharis.com/creed/series/...al-ibaanah.cfm

Issue 6: Nuzool (Divine Descent)

Next, he raises the issue regarding the Descent (Nuzool) of Allah. Anyone who
has read the book Sifat Al Nuzool Al Ilaahi wa rad Al Shubuhaat Hawlaha by
Abdul Qaadir Al Ja'eedi, will have no problems dealing with the points that the
author put forth.
However, there is one thing that I want to comment on. The author on page 87
said that according to the Arabic language, the meaning of the word descent
implies two things: 1) Transition from high to low (which we agree) and 2) The
emptying of the above space and the occupation of the below space

This is where the author goes wrong. Point number 2 has to do with kayfiyyah
(modality). He keeps making the mistake of forcing the modality into the
meaning.

Issue 7: More on the Ash’ari Shubha of Yad being an “organ”

On page 116 the author is citing al-Kubaysi who said that we as human beings
only know the hand to be a component of a body, hence if you say that Allah's
yad is a component, then this is wrong. And if you say that it's not a component,
then that means that you have changed the meaning of yad to something we
don't know
It's very sad to see these kinds of arguments. These people prefer their limited
logic over clear scripture. Not only that, their logic is very poor.

Why not be consistent and say. "we can't imagine Speech unless it's in letters and
sounds so that means that we don't know what Speech means for Allah", yet
Asharis affirm Speech for Allah. Why the inconsistency? Why can't they simply
say that for creation, a yad is a component, but for Allah we don't know how the
yad is subsisted in Allah's Essence?
Issue 8: The Weakness of al-Kubaysi’s Arguments

On the same page (116) al-Kubaysi gives a very weak argument.

He said that if you study the Qur'an carefully, you would realize that for
attributes such as Knowledge and Seeing, Allah clearly attributes them to
Himself. For example, Allah says "And know that Allah has Knowledge of all
things" (Surah Al Baqarah, 231) and "And know that Allah Sees what you
do" (Surah Al Baqarah, 233) and he argues that the same applies to Will, Hearing,
Power, etc.

However, he argues that the same is not for yad, 'ayn, etc. He says that the
Qur'an only mentions them in passing and not as a core or main issue in the
verse. For example, the Qur'an doesn't say "And know that Allah has two yads"
for instance.

This is a weak argument for a number of reasons.

1) Who said that Allah must speak in a certain way in order to affirm something
for Himself? Whom from the scholars had said such a thing?

2) Also, how come the inconsistency? The author himself admits that only
"most" (\'tŽK) of the attributes He believes in are communicated in this fashion.
So why then do you affirm those that are not communicated in that fashion?

3) When Allah told Adam that He created him with His yad, was that something
"just in passing"? When the Prophet peace be upon him sought refuge in Allah's
wajh (face), did the Prophet peace be upon him only mention it just for the sake
of it?

There are additional ways to demonstrate the weakness of this argument, but the
above should suffice inshallah.
Issue 9: More on the Shubha of Allah’s Yad in Reply to al-Gharasi

On page 118 he cites Muhammad ibn Saalih al-Gharasi as saying that it doesn't
make sense for Salafis to say "yad unlike our yad", because the original meaning of
yad in the Arabic language means "organ". So if Salafis say "yes we agree that yad
for Allah is not an organ" then this doesn't make sense (according to him)
because then the "yad" of Allah would have no correlation whatsoever to our
yad. So basically it's as non-sensical as saying "yad unlike our teeth". However, if
our intention is to only negate the actual description, but not the original
meaning then the statement would make sense, but the problem is that the
original meaning of yad still entails it's an organ and organs must be negated for
Allah. It would basically be the same as saying that Allah "forgets, but unlike our
forgetfulness or gets sick unlike our sickness".

The problem with the author is his erroneous assumption that the original
definition of yad entails it being an organ. Rather, the original meaning of the
word yad is that it's a feature belonging to one that could perform certain
functions (such as grasping for instance).

Now when we are discussing this word in regards to the creation, then yes we
say that it's a physical limb or organ that is a component of the body, which is
separable (i.e. a hand could be removed from one's body by cutting it off). So this
is HOW the yad belongs to the creation.

However, when we talk about Allah, we don't involve ourselves with HOW the
Yad belongs to Allah. We don't say that it's a separable part/component of Allah.
No, rather we say that it's an inseparable attribute of Allah, which subsists in His
Essence and suits His Majesty and does perform certain tasks (such as grasping
and whatever else the Qur'an and Sunnah alludes to).

Now here, one might object and say "we dare you to show us any dictionary that has
defined yad the same way you just have", however what these people forget to
realize is that dictionaries are written for us human beings in order to better
relate and understand these words. Sometimes the how/kayfiyyah is introduced
into the definition of the word in order to help the person better understand. [Ali
Boriqee: This was discussed in the first issue between the convolution of the Ash’aris
regarding m’ana and tahdeed i.e. definition, which leaves the realm of m’ana and enters
the realm of kayf]
We have to remember that Allah is the exception to the general rule. There is no
"Allah dictionary" around. These dictionaries that exist are for us human beings
to understand the meanings of words that we use everyday. By reading the
Islamic sources, we could figure out what the meaning of His attributes are by
seeing how they are used in context and by the functions that they perform (if
they perform any functions that is, unlike Sifaat fi'liyah which are functions in
and of themselves) and by seeing how the Salaf Al Saalih understood them
(when applicable like in the case of Istiwaa' where we have clear narrations from
the Salaf regarding it's meaning).

___________________________________________________________________

Ali Boriqee’s Response

What needs to be understood by the readers here is the clear and open tamtheel
(anthropomorphism) that the Ash’aris practice for Allah Azawajaal. The Ash’ari
movement has a ridiculous form of inconsistent double standards, may Allah
guide them and us.

On the one hand, they charge the people of the Sunnah and the Jama’ah with
anthropomorphism, which they like to use the term “tashbeeh” for, but the
terminology of the salaf that was employed was “tamtheel”and not “tashbeeh”
for there is a semantical difference which will be covered in the next issue bi
idhnillah. So they charge us with this anthropomorophism for merely affirming
the wordings of the revelation. However the smokescreen here is their claim to
“purify” Allah Azawajal (tanzih) from such heresy. The problem here is that in
the route of their tanzih, they have subjected Allah and His Attributes to the
creational properties of the creation.

In other words, The reason why they are denying an actual Hand (Yad) for Allah
is because they have subjected the perception of Yad to a human organ, and
because of this faulty methodology whereby they have failed to distinguish Allah
from the creation, they then continue to negate the Yad of Allah as being His
actual Yad, instead of negating the likeness of Allah’s Yad to the yad of humans.
In short, the Salaf’s performance of Tanzih was to Purify the Creator from
comparing His likeness to the creation. However the Ash’ari route to Tanzih is a
strange phenomenon that makes no sense. In their format of tanzih, they
compare Allah’s existence of His Attributes to the creation, and then from that
standpoint going forward, they deny these Attributes for Him, because in their
view, the wording of the revelation is itself tashbeeh and therefore kufr.

Yes, you have read correctly, in the Ash’ari school of dogma, the mutakalim
Imaams of the Ash’aris have viewed that to believe in the apparent wordings of
the Qur’an as it was stated by Allah is from the principles of kufr and to believe
in them is straight kufr. Therefore what they are saying is that Allah revealed
kufr instead of guidance.

Issue 10: Ash’ari ignorance on the Arabic terminologies of tashbeeh and

tamtheel

On page 136 the author argues that one cannot say that it's okay to make
tashbeeh of Allah, but not tamtheel. He says tamtheel and tashbeeh are the same
thing.

The author has a valid perspective, for it seems to be a matter of semantics. For
instance, Shaykh Al Uthaymeen and others understood tashbeeh to be something
like "A human being has knowledge, similarly Allah has Knowledge too", which
they saw as okay, but forbade tamtheel which would be saying "The knowledge
of the human being is like the Knowledge of Allah".

So this is how some scholars made the distinction between tasbheeh and
tamtheel and this is nothing more than a difference in semantics.
One can refer to the words below from Abdul-Aziz ar-Raajihi (student of Bin
Baz), Ibn Uthaymeen, and Saalih aali-Shaykh on this topic, and the topic is
discussing the difference between tashbeeh and tamtheel from a purely
grammatical standpoint proving that there is a connotative difference.

p<V%‫ ال ا‬‰%)I y7<f?%‫= ا‬kY‫ا‬#%‫ ا‬q/q?%‫*; ا‬d [-_?%‫<*{ ا‬r/...^<f72%‫ وا‬E<*V2%‫ ا‬y6 ‫ق‬#1%‫ا‬

=kY‫ا‬#%‫ ا‬q/q?%‫*; ا‬d [-_?%‫<*{ ا‬r/...^<f72%‫ وا‬E<*V2%‫ ا‬y6 ‫ق‬#K

‫<^؟‬f72%‫ وا‬E<*V2%‫ ا‬y6 ‫ق‬#1%‫) ا‬- :‫ل‬09/ ،Z$<%‫ إ‬F‫ ا‬l(b‫أ‬

،)7G><6 •<P‫ق د‬#K ‫>)ك‬+ ،E<*V2%‫ ا‬0+ ^<f72%‫ وا‬،^<f72%‫ ا‬0+ E<*V2%‫ ا‬،‫)ن‬6‫)ر‬92-
،E% ^<f- W F‫ إن ا‬:‫)ل‬9<K ،E% ^<f- W F‫ص أن ا‬0M>%‫ ا‬JK ‫ورد‬
ُN<ِ7(%‫ا‬
‡ 0َ +ُ ‫ْ ٌء َو‬JL َ <%َ (:‫)ل‬P -=%)?|- F)K ،^<f72%‫ وا‬E<*V2%‫ ا‬y6 ‫ق‬#K ‫>)ك‬+ ‫ن‬0$/ ;9K E<*V%‫) ا‬-‫أ‬
َ Eِ ِ'ˆْfˆِ7`َ gْ
Z+#1` E*V%‫ه ا‬0Y‫ و‬l- EY06 ‫ق‬0'iw‫ ا‬E*V/ W F‫ إن ا‬:[<7Gr%‫} ا‬%)P )w ‫ا‬,G%‫ و‬،E% E<*L W :^9/ Z%‫ ) و‬#<Mَ ِ *ˆ%‫ا‬
،[7nS‫ا‬
ld Nh9%‫>; ا‬d E*V%‫ ا‬0+‫ و‬،E*V%‫ ا‬l- ‫ع‬0B ‫*)ت‬4‫ إ‬l- ;6 W :‫)ل‬P ‫{؟‬%,` &<` :‫ا‬0%)P .Z|#1` :‫)ل‬P ;7b‫)م أ‬-j‫ا‬
[K)•j‫ ا‬ld )G2?hP ‫ذا‬5K ،‫;رة إرادة‬P #M6 N7O Z'd F ‫*)ت‬4‫ إ‬:_f- ‫)ل‬9/ )7><b ، <Mi2%‫[ وا‬K)•j‫ا‬
‫ا‬,+ l$% ‫`)ن‬#2V/ ،‫ق‬0'iw‫;رة ا‬P‫• و‬%)i%‫;رة ا‬P :‫;رة‬P ،‫ق‬0'iw‫ ا‬Z'd‫• و‬%)i%‫ ا‬Z'd ^7V/ Z'?%‫)ر ا‬I ‫)ص‬M2‚W‫وا‬
‫ذا‬5K ،‫)رج‬i%‫ ا‬JK ‫)ر‬I ،‫*)ه‬2LW‫ زال ا‬،F‫ ا‬N7O ،F‫;رة ا‬P ،F‫ ا‬Z'd :}'P }1•‫ذا أ‬5K ،l+,%‫ ا‬JK ‫اك‬#2LW‫ا‬
.‫اك‬#2LW‫)رج زال ا‬i%‫ ا‬JK ‫ وإذا `)ن‬،‫اك‬#2L‫ ا‬E<K ‫)ر‬I l+,%‫ ا‬JK ‫`)ن‬
‫د‬0Y‫^ و‬7V/ ‫ا‬,+ ‫د‬0Y‫¡ و‬1% ،‫د‬0Y‫ و‬:}'P ‫ذا‬5K ،‫)ص‬M2‚W‫[ وا‬K)•j‫ ا‬ld NhP ‫؟ إذا‬l+,%‫ ا‬JK ‫ن‬0$/ =2-‫و‬
‫ا‬,+ l$%‫ و‬،‫)ص‬M2‚W‫[ وا‬K)•j‫ ا‬ld }?hP {BS ،‫ق‬0'iw‫ ا‬Z'd‫• و‬%)i%‫ ا‬Z'd Z'd ،‫ق‬0'iw‫د ا‬0Y‫• وو‬%)i%‫ا‬
‫ إن‬:‫ل‬09/ ‫ي‬,%)K ،‫ء‬JV%‫د ا‬0Y‫ و‬#$B‫ا أ‬,+ l+,%‫ ا‬JK ‫اك‬#2LW‫ا ا‬,+ }*f/ Z% l-‫ و‬،l+,%‫ ا‬JK 0+ )7B‫اك إ‬#2LW‫ا‬
‫ا‬,+‫ و‬،‫)ص‬M2‚W‫[ وا‬K)•j‫ ا‬ld Nh9%‫>; ا‬d ‫د‬0Y0%‫ ا‬#$B‫?>)ه أ‬- E*V%‫ه ا‬0Y‫ و‬l- EY06 ‫ق‬0'iw‫ ا‬E*V/ W F‫ا‬
EY06 ‫)ت‬P0'iw‫^ ا‬4)7/ W -=%)?|- F‫ إن ا‬:‫)ل‬9<K ،^<f72%‫ وا‬E<*V2%‫ ا‬y6 )P#K #*2?/ ‫ا‬,+‫ و‬،F‫د ا‬0Y0% ‫)ر‬$B‫?>)ه إ‬-
EY0%‫ا ا‬,+‫ و‬،EY‫*)ت و‬4‫ إ‬l- ;6 W ،‫ه‬0Y0%‫ ا‬l- EY06 ‫)ت‬P0'iw‫ ا‬E*V/ W F‫ إن ا‬:‫)ل‬9/ W l$% ،^<f72%‫ه ا‬0Y‫ و‬l-
;6 W ،‫ء‬JV%‫ه ا‬0Y‫ و‬#$B‫?>)ه أ‬- EY0%‫ا ا‬,+ #$B‫ أ‬l- ‫ن‬S ،‫)ص‬M2‚W‫[ وا‬K)•j‫ ا‬ld Nh9%‫>; ا‬d l+,%‫ ا‬JK ‫ن‬0$/
JK W ،l+,%‫ ا‬JK ‫ن‬0$/ )7B‫ا إ‬,+‫ و‬،‫)ص‬M2‚W‫[ وا‬K)•j‫ ا‬ld Nh9%‫>; ا‬d [G6)Vw‫ ا‬0+‫ و‬E*V%‫ ا‬l- ‫ع‬0B ‫*)ت‬4‫إ‬
.Z?B ،‫)رج‬i%‫ا‬

) y>-‫ ز‬J6‫ أ‬l6W [>(%‫ل ا‬0I‫ح أ‬#L ( =kY‫ا‬#%‫ ا‬q/q?%‫*; ا‬d [-_?%‫<'[ ا‬xK

y7<f?%‫ ا‬‰%)I l6 ;7k-

 ‫)ت؟‬1M%‫)ء وا‬7OS‫ ا‬JK ^<f72%‫ وا‬E<*V2%‫ ا‬y6 ‫ق‬#1%‫) ا‬-

W‫ و‬،&/#k| #<t l-" :‫ل‬09B ‫ أن‬Jv*>/ ‫ا‬,G%‫ و‬،‫ق‬#K )7G><6 ‫)ت‬1M%‫)ء وا‬7OS‫ ا‬JK ^<f72%‫ وا‬E<*V2%‫ ا‬:E%096 ‫)ب‬YŽK
."E<*V| W‫ و‬،&<<$| W‫ و‬،^<h?| W‫ و‬،^/‫و‬Ž| #<t l-" :‫ل‬0P ‫;ل‬6 ،"^<f7| W‫ و‬،&<<$| W‫ و‬،^<h?|

:‫ر‬0-S =%‫<^ أو‬f72%)6 #<*?2%)K

g<% :^9/ Z%‫ و‬،}‫)ل‬f-S‫ ا‬F ‫ا‬06#x| _K{ ،}‫ء‬JL E'f7` g<%{ :=%)?| E%0P JK ‫آن‬#9%‫¡ ا‬1'% •K‫ا‬0w‫ ا‬EB‫ أ‬:ًW‫أو‬
.‫*)ه‬LS‫ ا‬F ‫ا‬06#x| _K :‫)ل‬P W‫ء و‬JL EG*V`

،ً )ˆG<*V| =7(/ ‫)ت‬1M%‫*)ت ا‬4‫>)س إ‬%‫ ا‬.?6 ;>?K ،E7GK JK ‫>)س‬%‫'& ا‬2i/ ً )ˆ1I‫)ر و‬I E<*V2%‫ أن ا‬:ً )ˆ<B)4
}%)P‫ "و‬:‫)ف‬V$%‫ه ا‬#<(1| JK ‫ي‬#Vi-q%‫ ا‬:‫ل‬09/ )7` [%q2?w‫>; ا‬d {%‫; ذ‬r2K ،ً )ˆG*V- F [1I }*4‫ أ‬l- EB07(/‫و‬
.[d)7r%‫(>[ وا‬%‫^ ا‬+‫; أ‬M9/‫ و‬،"[G*Vw‫ا‬

y21I l- )>- )- EBS ،‰M/ W ‫ق‬0'iw‫)ت ا‬1I‫• و‬%)i%‫)ت ا‬1I y6 ‫_ق‬€j‫'= ا‬d E<*V2%‫ ا‬J1B ‫ أن‬:ً )ˆf%)4
‫ب‬#'%‫ و‬،Z'd ‫()ن‬B£% ،ً_f- Z'?%)K :[G6)Vw‫ ا‬l- ‫ع‬0B ‫اك‬#2LW‫ا ا‬,+‫?>= و‬w‫^ ا‬I‫ أ‬JK ‫اك‬#2L‫) ا‬7G><6‫ و‬W‫ إ‬y226)4
.ً )ˆ9'h- ً )ˆ<1B J1>| ‫ أن‬‰M<K ^<f72%‫) ا‬-‫ أ‬،‫)ن‬/02(/ W l$% ،=>?w‫^ ا‬I‫ أ‬JK )`#2L)K ،Z'd EB)k*O

^` ='d ً )ˆ<1>- g<% E|)1I‫ و‬F‫)ء ا‬7O‫ أ‬JK ^/‫و‬Ž2%‫ن ا‬S ،&/#k| #<t l- ^6 ^/‫و‬Ž| #<t l- :‫)ل‬9/ _K ً )ˆx/‫وأ‬
¡1'%‫ف ا‬#I 0+‫& و‬/#k2%‫ ا‬0+ J1>w‫) ا‬7B‫ وإ‬،#<(12%‫?>= ا‬76 0+‫} و‬6)4 ^/‫و‬Ž| 0GK ^<%;%‫ ا‬E<'d ‫) دل‬- ^6 ،‫)ل‬b
ZG>7K ،E|)1I‫ و‬F‫)ء ا‬7O‫ أ‬l- ‫ا‬02*4‫ا وأ‬01B )7<K ‫ا‬01'2‚‫ ا‬l/,%‫<^ ا‬h?2%‫^ ا‬+‫ أ‬N>I )7` ،^<%‫ د‬#<v6 ‫ه‬#+)˜ ld
ZG>-‫ و‬،)G'` ‫)ت‬1M%‫ ا‬J1B‫)ء و‬7OS‫*} ا‬4‫ أ‬l- ZG>-‫ و‬،‫)ت‬1M%‫ ا‬#f`‫ أ‬J1B‫)ت و‬1M%‫ ا‬.?6‫)ء و‬7OS‫*} ا‬4‫ أ‬l-
.J1B W‫*)ت و‬456 F‫& ا‬M| W :‫)ل‬9K J1B ^`‫*)ت و‬4‫ `^ إ‬J1B l- ZG>-‫ و‬،)G'` ‫)ت‬1M%‫)ء وا‬7OS‫ ا‬J1B l-

.‫)ت‬1M%‫)ء وا‬7OS‫ ا‬l- E(1>% E2*4‫) أ‬- ^` =%)?| F ‫ن‬02*f/‫ا و‬,+ l- ‫ن‬0Ÿ/#6 [>(%‫^ ا‬+‫وأ‬

‫)ظ‬1%S‫ام ا‬q2%‫ وا‬،‫ن‬0%‫و‬z/ :^9/ Z%‫ و‬،}E?•‫ا‬0- ld Z'$%‫ن ا‬0K#k/{ :E%0P JK &/#k2%‫م ا‬,6 >%‫)ء ا‬Y ;9K {%,`‫و‬
.‫ى‬0P‫; وأ‬L‫ع أ‬#V%‫ ا‬JK ‫)ء‬Y )- ‫ن‬S ،‫ى‬#‚‫)ظ أ‬1%‫;اث أ‬b‫ إ‬l- =%‫(>[ أو‬%‫)ب وا‬2$%‫) ا‬G6 ‫)ء‬Y J2%‫<[ ا‬d#V%‫ا‬

‫ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ ــــــــــ‬

.‫)ت‬1M%‫)ء وا‬7OS‫)ب ا‬6 - ‫ول‬S‫'; ا‬rw‫ ا‬y7<f?%‫ ا‬‰%)I ;7k- p<V%‫^ ا‬n)O‫)وى و ر‬2K ‫ع‬07r-
 :[<hO‫ا‬0%‫<;ة ا‬9?%‫ح ا‬#L JK p<V%‫ آل ا‬‰%)I p<V%‫ ا‬#`‫ذ‬

‫'[ أو‬-)` [1I JK ‫ء‬JV'% _4)7- ‫ ُء‬JV%‫?^ ا‬rُ/ ‫<^ أن‬f72%‫ ا‬، E<*V2%‫ ا‬ld &'2i/ ^<f72%‫ أن ا‬0+‫ و‬: E<*>| )>+*
، ['-)` [1I JK ‫)ت أو‬1M%‫ ا‬N<7Y JK ;%)‚ ^f- ;7k- ‫; إذا `)ن‬%)‚ ^f- ;7k- : ‫ل‬09B ، )G'` ‫)ت‬1M%‫ ا‬JK
. )-)7| E'4)7/ J>?/ ‫م‬#$%‫ ا‬JK ;%)‚ ^f- ;7k-
. ‫)ت‬1M%‫ ا‬.?6 JK ‫[ أو‬1M%‫ ا‬.?6 JK ‫اك‬#2L‫ ا‬JGK [G6)Vw‫) ا‬-‫أ‬
. ^<f72%‫ ا‬l- NO‫ أو‬E<*V2%‫ا ا‬0'?Y J>?/ ، ‫)ت‬1M%‫ `^ ا‬JK ‫)ء أو‬7'?%‫ ا‬.?6 ‫)ل‬P
. E<*V2%‫ ا‬l- NO‫<^ أو‬f72%‫?^ ا‬Y ‫)ء‬7'?%‫ ا‬.?6 J>?/
0+ ‫ي‬,%‫ ا‬E<*V2%‫ ا‬E6 ‫ن‬0>?/ )7B5K [d)7r%‫(>[ وا‬%‫^ ا‬+‫)ء أ‬7'?%‫ص ا‬0MB JK Jِ1ُB ‫ إذا‬، E<*V2%‫ ا‬J1B ‫ن‬5K ‫ا‬,G%‫و‬
. ^<f72%‫ا‬
. ‫)ت‬1M%‫ ا‬JK ['4)7w‫'[ أو ا‬-)` [1I JK ['4)7w‫ا‬
E% _d‫^ و‬Y F)K ، ‫اك‬#2LW‫ن ا‬02*f/ ZGBS ZG% ‫ادا‬#- g<% ‫ا‬,+ ‫ن‬5K =>?w‫ء ا‬qY JK ‫اك‬#2L‫ ا‬0+ ‫ي‬,%‫ ا‬E<*V2%‫) ا‬-‫أ‬
N7O ‫ق‬0'i7'%‫ و‬N7O
. =>?w‫ء ا‬qY JK‫¡ و‬1'%‫ ا‬JK ‫اك‬#2L‫>)ك ا‬+‫و‬
. •%)i%)6 E9'?| [GY ld &'2i/ ‫ق‬0'iw)6 E9'?| a<b l- l$% [v'%‫ ا‬JK ‫وف‬#?- ‫?>)ه‬- N7(%)K
‫;ون‬/#/ ZGB5K E<*V| #<t l- ^<P ‫<^ وإذا‬f7| W‫<<& و‬$| #<t l-‫)ل و‬P )7` )>+ ‫)ت‬1M%‫ ا‬JK ‫ل‬09B )>B5K ‫ا‬,G%‫و‬
‫اه‬. ^<f72%‫ ا‬E6 ‫;ون‬/#/‫ و‬E<*V2%‫ن ا‬01>/ ZGB‫)ء أ‬7'?%‫>; ا‬d ^7?2(- ‫ا‬,+‫<^ و‬f72%‫ ا‬E<*V2%)6
[G6)Vw‫ ا‬E6 ‫اد‬#/ ;P‫ و‬E%)?K‫ وأ‬E|)1I‫)ءه و‬7O‫ أ‬JK F‫ ا‬E*V/W ‫ق‬0'iw‫ل ا‬09>K ['4)7w‫ ا‬E6 ‫اد‬#/‫'• و‬h/ ;P E<*V2%)K
,)E<K ‫)ل‬$L‫ا‬W ‫ا‬,GK ‫ا‬,$+‫ و‬N7O E% F‫ وا‬N7O E% _f- ‫ق‬0'iw‫?>= أي(أن ا‬w‫^ ا‬I‫ أ‬JK [G6)Vw‫ه أي ا‬#I)9%‫ا‬
.Z'd‫ أ‬F‫وا‬

Issue 11: Ash’ari Claim That the Attributes are Mustashaabih

On page 154, he makes the attempt to cite scholars who said that the verses on
Allah's attributes are Mutashaabih.

Asharis will give this quote from Imam Shafi' in which he says that the verse on
Allah's istiwaa' is a mutashaabih verse...

Imam Shafi`i (d. 204) in his small treatise entitled al-Fiqh al-akbar said: "Whoever
says: al-Rahmanu `ala al-`arsh istawa, it is said to him: This verse is one of the
 mutashabih (ambiguous matter) concerning which one is perplexed to give an answer,
and the same is said regarding similar verses."

So they will confuse you and make you think that “well since it is mutashaabih,
then we don't know the true meaning, thus we make tafwid" However, as it is nicely
explained below, mutashaabih is of different types and can apply to verses in
which the meaning is known, but not the 'howness'

____________________________________________________________________

Athari Response

How do we understand quotes from various Imams where they understood the
texts about the sifaat to be of the mutashaabihaat?

There is nothing wrong with those quotes. Even Ibn Taymiyya says in is al-
Musawwada in Usul al-Fiqh that the verses pertaining to the Sifat are from the
Mutashabihat. The problem is in the understanding of the term ‘mutashabihat’
itself, and the different categories of it.

Take, for example, Ibn Muflih and al-Mardawi, and you will see that they’ve
categorized the mutashabihaat, exactly as Ibn Taymiyya categorized them in his
al-Musawwada, as both were heavily influenced by Ibn Taymiyya.

The first type they mention is al-Ishtirak al-Lafdhi, i.e. when a word has two
equally possible meanings. For example, the word Qur’ in Arabic refers to the
menstrual period, as it also equally refers to the period between two menstrual
periods.

The second type is ijmal, i.e. when Allah makes a general statement without
mentioning the necessary specific details, such as ‘…and give its due (zakah) on the
day of its harvest’, where we are literally ordered to give Zakah that is due on
crops, but the amount due is not mentioned, and therefore, that makes this verse
a mutashabih. Similarly, the Hanbali scholars, including Ibn Taymiyya, regarded
the texts about Allah’s Attributes to be from the Mutashabihat, i.e. we literally
believe that Allah Rose over the Throne, but the exact nature thereof remains a
Mutashabih.
Secondly, the Mutashabih is not something we can never find out the true
meaning of. Rather, even if a particular text on its own, due to its ambiguity is
regarded to be mutashabih, other evidences from the Quran, the Sunnah or even
Qiyaas can clear that ambiguity to various extents.

For example, the above quoted verse: ‘…and give its due (zakah) on the day of its
harvest’, on its own is Mutashabih, because Allah did not specify how much
Zakah to give. However, the Sunnah clarifies this Mutashabih, that 10% on
naturally irrigated crops, and 5% on manually irrigated crops.
Likewise, Allah’s statement: ‘The day when the Shin will be revealed, and they are
called to prostrate, they would not be able to’, is Mutashabih, for number of reasons,
most famous of them being: it is not clear whose Shin exactly is Allah referring
to? His own? Or someone else’s?

However, the Sunnah clarifies this Mutashabih by explicitly stating that when
Allah will reveal His Shin, all those who would prostrate to him on this earth
shall prostrate, while the backs of the hypocrites would be made straight and
they will try to prostrate but fall flat on their faces.

This, one would only realize if he had formally studied Usul al-Fiqh, and hence,
another reason why the unqualified should not delve in issues they are ignorant
of.

From this we conclude two main points:

1. The Mutashabih includes verses pertaining to ‘Aqida as well as Fiqh. There are
no verses pertaining to Fiqh, except that we either recognize them as nass
(explicit texts) or dhahir (literal/obvious meanings), i.e. we always know what
they mean, even if they are from the mutashabih. If such texts pertaining to
Fiqh are from the first category of the mutashabih, then we know multiple
meanings, yet cannot pin-point which meaning is intended, which is why they
are mutashabih.
2. If they are, however, from the second category, then there is only one meaning
we know, but due to the ijmal, the generality of the phrase/context, we cannot
determine the exact nature, magnitude or reality thereof, which is why such
verses of Fiqh are mutashabih. Do note that in both of these categories, verses
do have meaning(s), and likewise, the mutashabih verses related to ‘Aqida are
not treated any differently.
Having established the above, the verses related to the Attributes of Allah must
either be of the first category, i.e. al-Ishtirak al-Lafdhi with no dhahir; or the
second category with either nass or dhahir, but with unknown reality due to
ijmal, or generality of the phrase/context. Therefore, as an example, the verse ‘…
and give its due (zakah) on the day of its harvest’ is a nass (clearer than a dhahir), yet
it is still counted from the second category of the mutashabih, due to ijmal, i.e.
the generality of the text without any mention on the amount due on the crops.
Similarly, in ‘Aqida, the verses about Allah’s elevation upon His creation have
the dhahir meaning, which the Ash’aris do not deny and in fact explicitly negate
the dhahir, which is why it cannot be from the first category of mutashabih, i.e.
al-ishtirak al-lafdhi. Hence, it can only be from the second category of the
mutashabih, where either the nass, or the dhahir is known, yet the reality, nature
or magnitude of it remains unknown due to ijmal.

Another important point to note is what al-Qadhi Abu Ya’la notes about Imam
Ahmad, is that the Imam regarded the Muhkam to be verses which do not need
any explanation, while he regarded the Mutashabih to be verses that need
explanation. This is clear from the title of his book: al-Radd ‘ala al-Jahmiyya wal-
Zanadiqa fi ma shakku fi hi min Mutashabih al-Qur’an wa Ta’awwaluhu ‘ala
Ghayri Ta’wilihi, meaning: Refutation of the Jahmite Zanadiqa, with respect to
what they doubted from the Mutashabih of the Quran, and interpreted it
contrary to its true interpretation.
In this book, Imam Ahmad quotes verses with respect to the Quran, the Speech
of Allah and Allah’s literal elevation and explains, what he calls, the Mutashabih
of the Quran, giving the literal interpretations and refuting the interpretations of
the Jahmites.
Another interesting thing to note in this book is that Imam Ahmad regards the
verse: ‘There is none like unto Him’ from the Mutashabih. Surely, one cannot
deduce from it that Imam Ahmad did not know what this verse meant? Or that
perhaps, he couldn’t pin-point the dhahir of this verse? Rather, he classified this
verse as a Mutashabih due to ijmal, the generality of the text, which all the
deviant sects use against each other; Jahmis against philosophers, who use it
against the Mu’tazila, who use it against the Ash’aris, who use it against us, and
we use it against the Karramiyya, etc, due to the obvious generality of the verse.
Here it seems we can conclude, that the Ash’aris and the Hanbalis mutually
agree that the verses pertaining to Attributes are from the mutashabihat, and also
have a dhahir, for if there was no dhahir to these verses, there will be no pressing
need for the Ash’aris to negate it.

Hanbalis and the Ash’aris then differ. The Hanbalis affirm the dhawaahir, while
the Ash’aris negate the dhawaahir, and treat the verses like Alif-Lam-Meen;
while some of them fall into contradiction by classifying such verses from the
first category (al-Ishtirak al-lafdhi) with no dhahir, yet, they still insist on
negating the dhahir!

Lastly, we end with the conclusive statement on this subject, and that is from the
vast array of sources propounding the orthodox creed i.e. that athari creed, all
who submit to the over arching orthodoxy of our creed are in agreement that the
subject regarding the Sifaat of Allah Subhaanahu wa ta’Ala are muhkaam in its
meaning, in the sense that we know what the texts mean, and it is mutashaabih
in nature. This is further proof regarding the direct correlation between this
subject and our methodology concerning tafweed and why we make tafweed of
“how” the Attributes of Allah are whereas we have no foundation or proof to
support the unwarranted and illogical idea of making tafweed of the very
meanings of these Sifaat to Allah which is the very mother subject of this entire
document.

This is even to the extent that even the early Maturidi scholars affirmed in
agreement with the Atharis all of whom are in opposition to the pseudo
“Ash’ari” sect. An example comes from the likes of Imaam Abu Bakr As-Sarkhasi
(d. 483 AH), a leading Hanafi of his era in his "Usool" (vol.1 page 200) in which
he says

)200 ‫ ص‬/ 1 ‫ (ج‬- ‫ع‬0*h7'% •K‫ا‬0- J(‚#(%‫ل ا‬0I‫أ‬

=%)?| F‫ ا‬B )- ='d ;<%‫ وا‬EY0%‫{ ا‬%,`‫^ و‬h*/ W‫^ و‬IS)6 Z'?%‫ ا‬JK ‫;ح‬9/ W &I0%‫= ا‬%‫ إ‬NY#/ )7<K E6)V2%‫وا‬
‫م‬0'?w‫^ ا‬IS‫ ا‬E6 ^h*/ _K E6)V2w‫ ا‬l- {%‫<[ ذ‬1<`‫م و‬0'?- ‫آن‬#9%‫ ا‬JK
[>(%‫^ ا‬+‫= وأ‬%)?| F‫)ت ا‬1I Z+‫)ر‬$B56 ['h?- ‫ا‬0B)$K ^IS‫وا ا‬#$B‫ أ‬ZG<'d [<1<$%‫*)ه ا‬2LW F‫ ا‬ZG%,‚ [%q2?w‫وا‬
‫زوا‬0r/ Z'K [<1<$%‫ ا‬0+‫ و‬E6)V2w‫ ا‬0+ )7<K ‫ا‬01P0|‫> و‬%)6 ‫م‬0'?w‫^ ا‬IS‫ ا‬0+ )- ‫ا‬02*4‫ أ‬F‫ ا‬Z+#MB [d)7r%‫وا‬
)-‫>) و‬6‫>; ر‬d l- ^` E6 )>-‫ن آ‬0%09/ { ‫)ل‬9K Z'?%‫ ا‬JK yiO‫ا‬#%‫ ا‬E6 =%)?| F‫& ا‬I‫) و‬7` {%‫'\ ذ‬h6 ‫)ل‬v2LW‫ا‬
} ‫*)ب‬%S‫ا ا‬0%‫ أو‬W‫ إ‬#`,/
Basically he is essentially saying that what is known to us in the Qur’an
regarding the mutashabihaat is that what we understand from this is in terms of
its kayfiyyah, and he says nothing about it relating to its “meaning” despite what
Ash’aris would have its victims believe.

Issue 12: The Contradiction Between T’aweel and Tafweed

It's ironic how on pages 159, 160 & 164 the author quotes Imam Al Juwayni, Ibn
Qudamah & Imam Ar-Razi as supposedly saying that there is an Ijmaah
supporting Tafweed.

But wait a minute...... don't Asharis believe that ta'weel is a valid view and that
some of the Salaf adhered to it? Isn't the author indirectly saying that those
Asharis who hold to ta'weel are violating the Ijmaa'? If he says no and that he
doesn't agree with Juwayni, Razi and Ibn Qudamah...... well then why is he
quoting them then? He can't have his cake and eat it.

It's funny how at the end of page 162 he cites Ibn Qudamah saying that there is
an Ijmaa' of the Sahabah against ta'weel!!! Yet, he as an Ashari accepts ta'weel as
a valid position within the Ashari school of thought!

____________________________________________________________________

Ali Boriqee’s Response

In further commenting on the words stated above by Bassam, the Ash’ari school
of dogma as we find it today in particular, is of the most contradictory of all the
madhaabs that exist and their contradictions surpass the jahmiyyah and the
m’utazilah.

The original ash’aris, that is before their madhaab was jahmified by Ibnul-
Juwaynee and later on ar-Raazi, were not proponents to tafweed and as we have
highlighted in prior pages, we have brought Abul-Hasan al-Qushayri, the
leading Ash’ari mutakalim of his era, who refuted the concept of tafweed bil-
m’ana.

Secondly, you cannot have t’aweel in light of tafweed or tafweed in light of

t’aweel. This is where people unaware of the plots of innovators may not be
familiar with and fall pray to false propaganda. If you follow the madhaab of
t’aweel, then this is a direct antithesis of tafweed. Why? because tafweed is to
relegate any type of meaning that could be derived from the ayaah back to Allah
Azawajal. If you adopt tafweed bil-m’ana as your madhaab of understanding,
then this intrinsically “should” prevent you from accepting any “t’aweelaat” that
anyone is going to give for these ayaat. But Alas, the neo-jahmis in the gown of
Abul-Hasan al-Ash’ari’s name are unable to differentiate the light from dark.

So, since some of these individuals recognized this contradiction, they came up
with a new principle. This principle is that they make tafweed generally and
perform t’aweel where necessary. In other words, generally they will make
tafweed of the meaning while in certain cases, they will opt for interpreting what
these ayaah can mean.

So now the question comes as to what basis does this method find approval in
the shariah. What is the guideline for determining what warrants no t’aweel and
the ayaah must be made with complete tafweed and which ayaat warrants
t’aweel. The answer is that there is no formal system sanctioned by the shariah
that allows people to do this for the Qur’an. As for the Ash’aris, then the
guideline that allows them to do this is based on their conception. For them, all
of the ayaat are to be made tafweed on with regards to its meaning (bil-m’ana).
So the ayaat that warrant t’aweel are those ayaat that they have deemed to be
problematic i.e. those ayaat that contain tashbeeh (anthropomorphism) and thus
t’aweel is made for them because in their view, it is necessary to purify the
Creator from these non-divine qualities and anthropomorphism from God’s
actual words.
Issue 13: Ash’aris Using Fiqhul-Akhbar

On page 169, he cites Abu Hanifa from Fiqh Al Akbar. If we were to assume for
the sake of argument that Abu Hanifa authored this book, I find it interesting
why the author didn't comment on the fact that Abu Hanifa claimed that if one
were to make ta'weel of yad to mean power or mercy then that would constitute
negation of the attribute and that this is the path of the Mu'tazilites. So when
Salafis say that the Asharis are like the Jahmites when they negate the attribute
by their process of ta'weel, then Salafis might have a point there don't they not?

____________________________________________________________________

Ali Boriqee’s Response

This behavior is typical of Ash’ari polemics. Generally, we as ahlu-Sunnah, have

scientific proofs that the book is ascribed to Abu Hanifa by a subsequent Hanafi
Imaam who came after and was not originally authored by Abu Hanifa. From the
most conclusive of proofs are the fact this book contains language of kalaam
stances that was not formulated in the time of Abu Hanifa until much later into
the 3rd century after the hijrah thereby solidifying that this could not have been
authored by him rahmatullahi alayh.

However, this work accords and finds itself more in congruity with the Salafi
aqeedah than it does the Ash’ari aqeedah, and the example Bassam gave above is
a perfect demonstration among many other points which destroy kalaam
theological stances.
Issue 14: the Ash’ari Attempt to Use Sufyaan ath-Thawri for Tafweed

On page 169, he puts forth a narration from Sufyaan ath-Thawri, however here

288 :a/;k%‫ ا‬ZP‫ر‬

، l(k%‫ ا‬l6 ‫د‬0?(- )B‫ أ‬، F‫*; ا‬d l6 ‫)در‬9%‫*; ا‬d )B‫ أ‬، E6)2` JK ‫ر‬0M>- J6‫ أ‬l6 =<k/ )B#*‚‫ع) أ‬0h9- a/;b(
: ‫ل‬09/ ، =<k/ }?7O ، ‫;وري‬%‫*)س ا‬d )B ، ‫)د‬/‫ ز‬l6 ;7k- l6 ;7b‫) أ‬B‫ أ‬، J6‫) أ‬B‫ أ‬، ‫>;ه‬- l6 ‫)ب‬+0%‫*; ا‬d )B‫أ‬
y-;9%‫ ا‬N•0- JO#$%‫ ا‬a/;b ^f- a/‫)د‬bS‫ه ا‬,+ ، ‫<)ن‬1O )6‫) أ‬/ : ‫)ل‬9K ، )ً?<`‫ل و‬ŽO‫;ي و‬d l6 )/#`‫;ت ز‬GL
)G>- ‫ون‬#(1/ W a/‫)د‬bS‫ه ا‬,+ ‫وون‬#/ ، #?(-‫ و‬، ‫ري‬0f%‫ وا‬، ;%)‚ J6‫ أ‬l6 ^<d)7O‫ `)ن إ‬: ‫)ل‬9K ، ‫ا‬,+ 0kB‫و‬
. )ً Ÿˆ<L

It says that the chain is disconnected.

However even if we were to assume that the chain is saheeh, Sufyaan ath-Thawri
only said "Nothing is to be explained of it" and this could possibly be in reference to
the kayfiyyah.

____________________________________________________________________

Ali Boriqee’s Response

This would seem to be the correct understanding because adh-Dhahabee, Ibn

Taymiyyah and many other Imaams of the Athari school cite him in an authentic
chain where he explained that the explanation of the ayaat of Sifaat is that “Its
explanation is it’s recitation”
Issue 15: The Ash’ari Attempt to Use Imaam Maalik For Tafweed

On page 170, he attempted to show that Imam Malik made ta'weel of Allah's
Nuzool

There are two narrations from Imam Maalik that he supposedly did Ta’weel of
the Allah’s descent.

First narration is from Habib ibn Abi Habib

Second narration is from Mutariff ibn Abdullah

Saalih said that he mentioned this to Yahya ibn Bakeer who said that he didn’t
hear this from Imam Maalik. [Al Sayr (8/105), and Ibn Abdul Birr mentioned it
in his Tamheed (7/143) and Al Qaadi mentioned it in his Tarteeb Al Madaarik
(2/44)]

Refuting the First Narration

As for the first narration… the scholars have agreed on the fact that Habib ibn
Abi Habib is worthy of condemnation.

Abdullah ibn Ahmad reported from his father: He is not trustworthy. He used to
lie and not be trusted.

Abu Daawud said: He was one of the biggest liars amongst the people.

Abu Haatim said: His hadith are abandoned.

Ibn Hibban said: All his hadith are forgeries

Al Nisaa’ee said: He is abandoned, all his hadith from Maalik and others are
forgeries.

Ibn Al ‘Aadee said: All his hadith are forgeries.

See Al Jarh wal Ta’deel (3/10), Al Majrooheen (1/265), Al Du’afaa’ wal
Matrookeen lil Nisaa’ee (page 90), Al Kaamil li ibn ‘Aadee (2/820), Tahzheeb Al
Tahzheeb (2/181-182), Taqreeb Al Tahzheeb (page 150)

Refuting the Second Narration

GF Haddad posed the following argument:-

This is confirmed by Imam Malik's statement: "It is our Blessed and Exalted Lord's
command which descends; as for Him, He is eternally the same, He does not move or
go to and fro," (7Narrated from Habib ibn Abi Habib by al-Dhahabi in Siyar A`lam
al-Nubala' (8:418), but al-Dhahabi himself reported in Mizan al-I`tidal (1:452) that
all of Ibn Abi Habib's narrations are forged. This is an extreme statement in light of
Ibn `Abd al-Barr's mention of Habib in al-Tamhid (24:177) as merely weak, and he
adds: "His reports from Malik are full of mistakes and condemned matters."
However, Ibn `Abd al-Barr in al-Tamhid (7:143) also narrates this report from
Habib, then goes on to narrate it from Mutarrif with a sound chain, adding: "It
is possible that the matter be as Malik said, and Allah knows best." The
"Salafis" reject the report because of Habib's weakness, but Mutarrif's
chain does not contain him.)
although it is established that Malik forbade discourse of any kind about the hadiths
of Allah's attributes, preferring not to interpret the hadiths of descent one way or
the other and that he said about them: "Let them pass without entering into
modality."( 8As mentioned by al-Tirmidhi in his Sunan (Book of zakat, hadith
"Verily, Allah accepts the zakat and takes it with His right Hand..."), Ibn al-Jawzi
in his Daf` Shubah al-Tashbih (p. 195-196), al-Dhahabi in Siyar A`lam al-
Nubala' (al-Arna'ut ed. 8:105), Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani, al-Jami` (p. 124), and
others.)

GF Haddad is pulling a fast one. He forgets to inform the reader that two of the
narrators in the Mutarrif chain are weak.

It contains Muhammad ibn Ali Al Jabali and Jaami’ ibn Suwaada.

As or Muhammad ibn Ali, Al Khateeb and Ibn Hajar said that he was an
extremist Shia.
See Tarikh Baghdad (3/101) and Al Mizaan (3/658) and Al Lisaan (5/303).

As for Jaami’ ibn Suwaada it is said that he was a weak narrator.

Ibn Hajar said: Al Daaraqtuni narrated a hadith for him in Gharaa’ib Maalik….
and he said: The hadith is forged and Jaami’ is weak.

Lastly, all of this contradicts Imam Maalik's well known position of not trying to
interpret the modality of Allah's attributes. We respect Imam Maalik by not
believing that he contradicted himself like this.

____________________________________________________________________

Ali Boriqee’s Response

For anyone desiring to go further into the issue of the jarh of these narrators and
why these narrations are at the very least, extremely weak or even fabricated,
then the following takhreej provided by Abou Tourab can be followed.

Ibn Abdul-Barr Says in his at-Tamheed

^<'%‫ ا‬a'4 =9*/ yb )<B;%‫)ء ا‬7(%‫= ا‬%‫<'[ إ‬% ^` =%)?|‫>) |*)رك و‬6‫ل ر‬q>/ ":‫)ل‬9G'%‫ل ا‬0O‫ة أن ر‬#/#+ J6‫ أ‬ld
^9>%‫[ ا‬GY l- }6)4 a/;b ‫ا‬,+ E% " #1tŽK JB#1v2(/ l- E<hdŽK J>%Ž(/ l- E% \<r2OŽK JB0d;/ l- ‫ل‬09<K
‫ رواة‬l-‫<= و‬k/ ‫) رواه‬7` ‫ا‬,$+ {%)- ld ‫واة‬#%‫ ا‬#f`‫ رواه أ‬E2kI JK a/;k%‫^ ا‬+‫'& أ‬2i/ W ‫>)د‬Oj‫ ا‬‰<kI
‫ق‬#€ l- ‫ل‬09>- a/;b 0+‫[ و‬7'O )6‫ أ‬#`,/ W #tS‫ ا‬F‫*;ا‬d J6‫ أ‬ld ‫)ب‬GL l6‫ ا‬ld {%)- ld E/‫و‬#/ l- Ž€0w‫ا‬
‫ش‬#?%‫'= ا‬d ‫)ء‬7(%‫ ا‬JK ^Y‫ و‬qd F‫'= أن ا‬d ^<%‫ د‬E<K‫] و‬...[ J*>%‫ ا‬ld ‫?;ول‬%‫ أ‚*)ر ا‬l- ‫ة‬#<f` ‫ه‬0Y‫ة وو‬#|‫ا‬02-
JK ^Y‫ و‬qd F‫ إن ا‬ZG%0P JK [<7Gr%‫[ وا‬%q2?w‫'= ا‬d ZG2rb l- 0+‫[ و‬d)7r%‫} ا‬%)P )7` ‫ات‬07O N*O ‫ق‬0K l-
='d l7b#%‫^ ا‬Y‫ و‬qd F‫ل ا‬0P {%‫ ذ‬JK •k%‫^ ا‬+‫ ) أ‬7 ( ‫ه‬0%)P )- [kI ='d ^<%;%‫ش وا‬#?%‫'= ا‬d g<%‫)ن و‬$- ^`
=%‫ى إ‬02O‫ ا‬Z4 E%0P‫ و‬N<1L W‫ و‬J%‫ و‬l- EB‫ دو‬l- Z$% )- ‫ش‬#?%‫'= ا‬d ‫ى‬02O‫ ا‬Z4 ^Y‫ و‬qd E%0P‫ى و‬02O‫ش ا‬#?%‫ا‬
12 \<h%‫ ا‬Z'$%‫?; ا‬M/ E<%‫ إ‬E7O‫ |*)رك ا‬E%0P‫ و‬11 _<*O ‫ش‬#?%‫= ذي ا‬%‫ا إ‬0v26W ‫ إذا‬E%0P‫ د‚)ن و‬J+‫)ء و‬7(%‫ا‬
‫رض‬S‫ ا‬Z$6 &(i/ ‫)ء أن‬7(%‫ ا‬JK l- Z2>-‫)ل أأ‬P‫*^ و‬r'% E6‫'= ر‬r| )7'K =%)?| E%0P‫و‬

E<'d ‫ي‬,%‫ وا‬E<K ‫>)زع‬2%‫>)س ا‬%‫ ا‬#f`‫; أ‬9K ")<B;%‫)ء ا‬7O =%‫= إ‬%)?|‫ل |*)رك و‬q>/" : a/;k%‫ا ا‬,+ JK E%0P )-‫وأ‬
JK ‫ل‬09%‫ن وا‬01<$/ W‫ و‬a/;k%‫ا ا‬,G6 ‫ن‬0P;M/‫ و‬F‫ل ا‬0O‫)ل ر‬P )7` ‫ل‬q>/ ‫ن‬0%09/ ZGB‫(>[ أ‬%‫^ ا‬+‫[ أ‬7n‫ر أ‬0G7Y
 EB‫) أ‬x/‫ أ‬#4S‫^ ا‬+‫ أ‬l- ‫م‬0P ‫)ل‬P ;P‫;ة و‬b‫{ وا‬%‫ ذ‬JK [rk%‫ء وا‬Jrw‫اء وا‬02Oj‫<[ ا‬1<` JK ‫ل‬09%)` ‫ول‬q>%‫<[ ا‬1<`
g<% ‫ا‬,+ ‫ا‬0%)P‫ون و‬#‚‫ آ‬ZG>- ‫ه‬#$B‫ه وأ‬#<t‫'{ و‬- \|)` ) 52 ( \<*b ld {%‫ وروى ذ‬E27b‫ل ر‬q>|‫ه و‬#-‫ل أ‬q>/
E% ‫)ل‬P ‫ا‬#-‫ي إذا أراد أ‬,%‫*)ر ا‬r%‫'{ ا‬w‫= ا‬%)?|‫)ر و‬G>%‫'<^ وا‬%‫ ا‬JK ‫;ا‬6‫ن أ‬Wq>/ ‫ن‬W‫ا‬q/ W E27b‫ه ور‬#-‫ن أ‬S ‫ء‬JV6
l6 ;7k- ‫; روى‬P‫?)ل و‬2w‫ ا‬#<*$%‫ ا‬0+ W‫ إ‬E%‫ إ‬W ‫)ء‬L =2- ‫)ء‬V/ l- E27b#6 2i/‫)ء و‬L }P‫ أي و‬JK ‫ن‬0$<K l`
{%)- ld ‫ف‬#h- )>4;b ‫)ل‬P #M76 ‫ادة‬0O l6 N-)Y )>4;b ‫)ل‬P ‫وان‬#<9%)6 y7'(w‫)ت ا‬94 l- ‫ و`)ن‬J'*r%‫ ا‬J'd
‫^ أن‬72k/ ;P‫ه و‬#-‫ل أ‬q>2/ {%)- ‫)ل‬9K )<B;%‫)ء ا‬7O =%‫'<^ إ‬%‫ ا‬JK ‫ل‬q>/ F‫ إن ا‬a/;k%‫ ا‬ld ^ŸO EB‫ أ‬gB‫ أ‬l6
)- #f`‫ه أي أ‬#-‫ أ‬l- {%‫[ وذ‬6)r2Oj‫ وا‬01?%)6 ‫)ؤه‬xP‫ و‬E27b‫ل ر‬q>2| EB‫?>= أ‬- ='?G'%‫ ا‬E7b‫{ ر‬%)- ‫)ل‬P )7` ‫ن‬0$/
Z'd‫ أ‬F‫} وا‬P0%‫{ ا‬%‫ ذ‬JK {%‫ن ذ‬0$/

Jam’i bin Suwaada says in his Kashful-Hadeeth

83 ‫ص‬/ 1 ‫ ج‬a<fk%‫& ا‬V$%‫ا‬

Z4 E2K‫ ا‬EBŽ` J*+,%‫)ل ا‬P yY‫و‬q%‫ ا‬y6 N7r%‫ ا‬JK ^€)6 #*i6 ‫)س‬/‫ إ‬J6‫ أ‬l6 ‫ آدم‬ld ‫ادة‬0O l6 N-)Y ]185[
‫ا‬,+ ‫)ل‬P Z4 N-)Y ld ‫>)ده‬O56 ‫)ت‬d0•0w‫ ا‬JK ‫زي‬0r%‫ ا‬l6 a/;k%‫ا ا‬,+ #`‫; ذ‬P‫= و‬G2B‫ ا‬N-)Y ‫>)د‬O56 ‫ه‬#`‫ذ‬
=G2B‫ل ا‬0Gr- N-)Y‫ع و‬0•0-

Ibn Hajr in Lisaanul-Mizaan

93 ‫ص‬/ 2 ‫ان ج‬q<w‫()ن ا‬%

)>4 ‫>) آدم‬4;b ‫)ل‬P E2K‫ آ‬EBŽ` yY‫و‬q%‫ ا‬y6 N7r%‫ ا‬JK ^€)6 #*i6 ‫)س‬/‫ إ‬J6‫ أ‬l6 ‫ آدم‬ld ‫ادة‬0O l6 N-)Y ]375[
y>4‫ ا‬l6 §/‫و‬q| JK JV- l- )d0K#- E>d F‫ ا‬J•‫ة ر‬#/#+ J6‫ أ‬ld [7'O J6‫ أ‬ld ‫ي‬#+q%‫ ا‬ld \n‫ ذ‬J6‫ أ‬l6
EO‫ب رأ‬#x/ ‫ أن‬F‫'= ا‬d )9b ‫ `)ن‬y>4‫ ا‬y6 •/#1| JK =V- l-‫>[ و‬O ‫*)دة‬d [7'` ^$6‫ة و‬0h‚ ^$6 F‫)ه ا‬hd‫أ‬
&%Ž6
‫?*)س‬%‫ ا‬l6 ^<d)7O‫ إ‬l6 ;7k- •/#€ l- ‫)ت‬d0•0w‫ ا‬JK a/;k%‫ا ا‬,+ ‫زي‬0r%‫ ا‬l6 ‫ج‬#‚ Z>GY l- ‫ة‬#iI
;7k- l6 J'd }K#d )-‫ا و‬,+ N-)Y ld E<91%‫; ا‬7b‫ أ‬l6 ;7k- l6 J'd ld ‫)ت‬9f%‫)ظ ا‬1k%‫; ا‬b‫راق و`)ن أ‬0%‫ا‬
ld J*G'%‫ ا‬y(k%‫ ا‬l6 ;7b‫ أ‬ld ‫*)د‬d l6 #<+‫ ز‬ld E>d yGY‫ و‬l- )f/;b {%)- \n‫ا‬#t JK J>hP‫;ار‬%‫ ا‬E% ‫وروى‬
[>r%‫^ ا‬+‫ أ‬E%Ž(<K [><GY l- ^Y‫>[ ر‬r%‫;‚^ ا‬/ l- #‚‫ آ‬E?K‫ ر‬#7d l6 ld NK)B ld {%)- ld Z$k%‫ ا‬l6 {'w‫*; ا‬d
;*d ‫ا‬,`‫ •?<& و‬N-)Y‫^ و‬€)6 a/;k%‫ ا‬J>hP‫;ار‬%‫ ا‬y9<%‫ ا‬#*i%‫<>[ ا‬GY ;>d ‫ل‬09<K W ‫ل‬09<K ‫ب‬,?/ ;b‫ أ‬J96 ^+
Z$k%‫ ا‬l6 {'w‫ا‬
In al-Mughni Fi Dhu’afaa, it says

146 :‫ ص‬1 :‫)ء ج‬1?x%‫ ا‬JK J>vw‫ا‬

JB;w‫• ا‬/‫*<\ زر‬b J6‫ ا‬l6 \<*b 1287
a/;k%‫ ا‬Nx/ ‫ داود `)ن‬06‫)ل أ‬P‫ب و‬,$/ ‫; `)ن‬7b‫)ل ا‬P {%)- \|)`

Imaam an-Nasaa’i says in his Dhu’afaa wal-Matrokeen in volume 1 p.34

34 :‫ ص‬1 :‫ ج‬Jn)(>'% y`‫و‬#2w‫)ء وا‬1?x%‫ا‬

a/;k%‫وك ا‬#2- {%)- \|)` \<*b 161

Ibn Hajr further says in Taqreebu-Tahdheeb in volume 1 p.150

150 :‫ ص‬1 :‫\ ج‬/,G2%‫\ ا‬/#9|

06‫ أ‬E6,` ‫وك‬#2- ‫زوق‬#- ^<P‫ و‬Z<+‫ا‬#6‫ إ‬E<6‫ أ‬ZO‫; وا‬7k- )6‫)ء أ‬-#v%‫{ ا‬%)- \|)` ‫ي‬#Mw‫*<\ ا‬b J6‫*<\ أ‬b 1087
‫?[ ق‬O)2%‫ ا‬l- y2n)-‫ة و‬#Vd JB)74 [>O ‫)ت‬- [d)7Y‫داود و‬

Ibn Taymiyyah explains in Sharh Hadeeth an-Nuzool in p.31

E?•0- JK ¨(6 ;P )7` . {%,` #-S‫ ا‬g<%‫('& ; و‬%‫ا ا‬09K‫ وا‬ZGB‫ن أ‬0d;/ ‫ء‬Wz+‫و‬
Z'?%‫^ ا‬+‫)ق أ‬1|)6 ‫اب‬,` ‫ا‬,+ l$% ; \<*b J6‫ أ‬l6 \<*b E*|)` •/#€ l- }/‫{ رو‬%)- ld [/‫ه روا‬,+ ‫ت‬#`‫{ ذ‬%,`‫و‬
EK#?B W l- )+‫>)د‬O‫ إ‬JK‫ و‬#*%‫*; ا‬d l6‫) ا‬+#`‫ى ذ‬#‚‫• أ‬/#€ l- }/‫ ورو‬. {%)- ld E'9B ZG>- ;b‫*^ أ‬9/ W ^9>%)6

adh-Dhahabi says in Siyar A'lâm an-Nubala volume 8 p.105

105:‫ ص‬8:‫>*_ء ج‬%‫_م ا‬d‫ أ‬#<O

J>4;b \<*b J6‫ أ‬l6 \<*b )>4;b ‫ب‬0/‫ ا‬l6 ‰%)I )>4;b ‫()ن‬b l6 ‫)رون‬+ l6 ;7k- )>4;b ‫;ي‬d l6‫)ل ا‬P‫و‬
‫)ل‬9K #<$6 l6 =<k<% {%‫ت ذ‬#`,K ‰%)I ‫)ل‬P ‫ول‬q/ W Zn‫;ا‬K 0+ )-ŽK ‫ه‬#-‫= أ‬%)?|‫>) |*)رك و‬6‫ل ر‬q>2/ ‫)ل‬P {%)-
{%)- l- E?7O‫ أ‬Z%‫ و‬F‫ وا‬l(b
 a/‫)د‬b‫ أ‬ld E%ŽO EB‫ أ‬Z'(- l6 ;<%0%‫[ ا‬/‫ روا‬F‫ ا‬E7b‫{ ر‬%)- ld ‫ظ‬01kw‫ر وا‬0GV- \<*b‫) و‬k%)I ‫ف‬#d‫ أ‬W }'P
\<*b [/‫} روا‬kI ‫ن إن‬W0P {%‫ ذ‬JK ‫)م‬-£% ‫ن‬0$<K #<(1| _6 ‫)ءت‬Y )7` )+#-‫)ل أ‬9K ‫)ت‬1M%‫ا‬

Issue 16: The Ash’ari Attempt to Use Muhammad bin Hasan ash-Shaybaani for
Tafweed

On page 171 he puts forth two narrations from Muhammad ibn Hassan Al
Shaybani.

Seeing the comments made by the muhaqqiq Badr bin Abdullah Al Badr on Ibn
Qudamah's book Dham At-Ta'weel (pages 11-12) on this narration, I am not too
sure of it's authenticity.

But regardless, it's all a matter of how one interprets the narration. I would
recommend seeing how Shaykh Abdul Azeez Al Raajhi explained it over here
http://audio.islamweb.net/audio/inde...audioid=227038 [Ali Boriqee: I was
unable to retrieve the audio from the website]

Also, Shaykh Al Islam ibn Taymiyyah in Majmu’, Volume 5, page 50 commented

on the statement of Muhammad ibn Hassan (assuming he said it) saying that
when he said “without tafsir”, he was referring to the tafsir of the Jahmiyyah:

‫ أن‬#*‚‫ وأ‬،‫)ع‬7Yj‫ا ا‬,+ ='d =$b ;P‫ و‬،‫)ء‬7'?%‫ ا‬l- )7G29*€‫{ و‬%)-‫[ و‬1<>b J6‫ أ‬ld ,‚‫ أ‬l(k%‫ ا‬l6 ;7k-
l/,%‫'[ ا‬h?w‫<[ ا‬7Gr%‫ ا‬#<(1| E6 ‫" أراد‬#<(1| #<t l-" :E%0P‫ و‬،)7n‫*) أو دا‬%)t [<*'(%‫ر ا‬0-S)6 E1M| [<7Gr%‫ا‬
.‫*)ت‬4j‫ ا‬l- ‫ن‬0?6)2%‫[ وا‬6)kM%‫ ا‬E<'d ‫) `)ن‬- ‫_ف‬i6 ‫)ت‬1M%‫ ا‬#<(1| ‫ا‬0d;26‫ا‬

____________________________________________________________________

Ali Boriqee’s Response

This is a valid point of contention that we draw up against the Ash’aris. When
the salaf employed the phrasal clause “without tafseer”, it is a statement against
them and for them, and this is the case from two different angles

Angle 1: No t’aweel means that Ash’ari concoctions that they like to identify as
“plausible” interpretations for the attributes is therefore a violation of the shariah
of the salaf, which is basically the shariah of Islam.

Angle 2: T’aweel, in the language of the salaf within doctrinal matters, to carry
over a meaning beyond its apparent meaning. Therefore, according to their own
views, merely accepting the apparent meaning of the Attributes in the language
it is conveyed in has nothing to do with giving it a t’aweel. Therefore the creedal
stances employed by salafis is outside the fold of “without tafseer” because our
understanding regarding the Attributes of Allah are based on the apparent
meanings conveyed in the revelation, and those meanings through the purview
of the salaf are not t’aweel. Therefore, when some of the salaf have employed the
phrasal clause “without tafseer” then
a. It has nothing to do with us as the people of the sunnah
b. The correct understanding in how they employed this speech is aimed towards
interpreting them beyond its apparent meaning and the people of the sunnah
i.e. the Salafis, do not perform this, Ash’aris do.

Therefore, in conclusion, even utilizing these narrations is an absolute refutation

of Ash’aris from every angle and is an exoneration of the Salafis from every
angle.

Issue 17: The Ash’ari Attempt to Use Wak’i ibnul-Jarrah for Tafweed

On page 172, he appeals to a narration by Waki' ibn Al Jarraah where he said in

regards to the Sifaat "They explaining nothing of it".
However, if we go to another narration from Waki' found in Kitab Al Sunnah for
Abdullah ibn Ahmad, Volume 1, page 267 with a Saheeh Isnaad, we see that
Waki' was actually speaking about the Kayfiyyah (i.e. explaining nothing in
regards to the Kayfiyyah):

F‫د "إن ا‬0?(- l6‫ ا‬a/;b ^f- : J>?/ ، ‫ا ؟‬,` Zَ % : W‫ا ؟ و‬,` &<` : ‫ل‬09B W‫)ءت و‬Y )7` a/‫)د‬bS‫ه ا‬,+ Z'(ُB
\'P" :‫)ل‬P Z'O‫ و‬E<'d F‫'= ا‬I J*>%‫ أن ا‬a/;b‫" و‬.. N*I‫'= أ‬d ‫*)ل‬r%‫ وا‬Nُ*ˆI‫'= أ‬d ‫)وات‬7(%‫?^ ا‬r/ ^Y‫ و‬qd
a/‫)د‬bS‫ه ا‬,+ l- )+0kB‫)ن" و‬7b#%‫ ا‬N6)I‫ أ‬l- y?ُ*ˆI‫ أ‬y6 ‫ آدم‬l6‫ا‬

Issue 18: The Ash’ari Attempt to Recruit Imaam ash-Shaafi’ee for their
Despicable Madhaab

On pages 172-173 he cites Imam Al Shafi', it's a shame he didn't bother citing this
crucial statement of Imam Al Shafi' where he affirms two yads for Allah, qadam,
wajh, etc.

qd F‫)ت ا‬1I ld ^ŸO ;P‫)ل و‬P EMB )- ‫)ري‬V?%‫\ ا‬%)€ J6‫[ أ‬/‫ روا‬l- J?K)V'% ‫ب‬0(>w‫)د ا‬92dW‫ء ا‬qY JK
F‫'= ا‬I E<*B )G6 #*‚‫ و‬E6)2` )G6 ‫)ء‬Y ‫)ت‬1I‫)ء و‬7O‫= أ‬%)?|‫ |*)رك و‬F " : ‫)ل‬9K E6 l-z/ ‫ أن‬Jv*>/ )-‫^ و‬Y‫و‬
J*>%‫ل ا‬0P ‫>;ه‬d ‰<kI‫ و‬E6 ‫ل‬qB ‫ان‬#9%‫[ ان ا‬rk%‫ ا‬E/;% }-)P ^Y‫ و‬qd F‫ ‚'• ا‬l- ;b‫ ا‬N(/ W E2-‫ ا‬Z'O‫ و‬E<'d
^Y‫ و‬qd F)6 #K)` 0GK E<'d [rk%‫ت ا‬0*4 ;?6 {%‫& ذ‬%)‚ ‫)ن‬K EK_‚ ‫?;ل‬%‫ ا‬E>d ‫) روى‬7<K Z'O‫ و‬E<'d F‫'= ا‬I
، #$1%‫[ وا‬/‫;را‬%)6 W‫^ و‬9?%)6 ‫;رك‬/ W {%‫ ذ‬Z'd ‫ن‬W ^Gr%)6 ‫ور‬,?7K #*i%‫[ ا‬GY l- E<'d [rk%‫ت ا‬0*4 ^*P )-ŽK
E%096 )><7/ E% ‫)ن ] وأن‬2€0(*- ‫;اه‬/ ^6 [ : ^Y‫ و‬qd E%096 l/;/ E% ‫ وأن‬N<7O EB‫^ ا‬Y‫ و‬qd F‫{ ا‚*)ر ا‬%‫ ذ‬0kB‫و‬
: E%0P‫ ] و‬EGY‫ و‬W‫{ ا‬%)+ ‫ء‬JL ^` [ : ^Y‫ و‬qd E%096 )GY‫ و‬E% ‫ ] وأن‬E><7<6 ‫)ت‬/0h- ‫ات‬07(%‫ [ وا‬: ^Y‫ و‬qd
)G<K ^Y‫ و‬qd ‫ب‬#%‫ ا‬Nx/ =2b( : Z'O‫ و‬E<'d F‫'= ا‬I E%096 )-;P E% ‫ام ] وأن‬#`W‫_ل وا‬r%‫{ ذو ا‬6‫ ر‬EY‫= و‬9*/‫[و‬
0+‫^ و‬Y‫ و‬qd F‫ ا‬J9% EB‫ ( أ‬: ^Y‫ و‬qd F‫*<^ ا‬O JK ^2P ‫ي‬,'% Z'O‫ و‬E<'d F‫'= ا‬I E%0P‫ و‬. Z>GY J>?/ ) E-;P
‫ر‬0dŽ6 g<% EB‫ وأ‬، {%,6 Z'O‫ و‬E<'d F‫'= ا‬I F‫ل ا‬0O‫ ر‬#*i6 )<B;%‫)ء ا‬7(%‫= ا‬%‫<'[ ا‬% ^` ¨*G/ EB‫ ) وأ‬E<%‫{ ا‬kx/
ZG6‫ون ر‬#/ y>-zw‫ر وأن ا‬0dŽ6 g<% Z$6‫ر وان ر‬0d‫ أ‬EB‫)ل ا‬9K ‫)ل‬Y;%‫ ا‬#`‫ ( اذ ذ‬: Z'O‫ و‬E<'d F‫'= ا‬I J*>%‫ل ا‬09%
l- )- ( : Z'O‫ و‬E<'d F‫'= ا‬I E%096 )?*I‫ أ‬E% ‫*;ر ) وأن‬%‫<'[ ا‬% #79%‫ون ا‬#/ )7` Z+‫)ر‬M6Ž6 [-)<9%‫م ا‬0/ ^Y‫ و‬qd
)G6 E1I‫ وو‬E(1B )G6 F‫& ا‬I‫ و‬J2%‫ ا‬JB)?w‫ه ا‬,+ ‫ وأن‬، ) ^Y‫ و‬qd l7b#%‫ ا‬N/)I‫ أ‬l- y?*I‫ أ‬y6 0+ W‫'\ ا‬P
‫ وان‬E<%‫ ا‬#*i%‫)ء ا‬G2B‫?; ا‬6 W‫; ا‬b‫) أ‬G'Gr6 #1$/‫[ و‬/‫;را‬%‫ وا‬#`,%)6 {%‫ ذ‬E9b ‫;رك‬/ W Z'O‫ و‬E<'d F‫'= ا‬I E%0O‫ر‬
E29<9k6 E?-)O ='d " [B0>/;%‫*} ا‬Y‫)ع "و‬7(% ‫ ا‬JK ‫;ة‬+)Vw‫)م ا‬9- ZG1%‫ ا‬JK ‫م‬09/ ‫ا‬#*‚ {%,6 ‫ارد‬0%‫`)ن ا‬
E<*V2%‫ ا‬J1>B‫)ت و‬1M%‫ه ا‬,+ }*fB l$%‫ و‬Z'O‫ و‬E<'d F‫'= ا‬I F‫ل ا‬0O‫ ر‬l- N7O‫ و‬l/)d l7` E<'d ‫)دة‬GV%‫وا‬
" ..……… ] #<M*%‫ ا‬N<7(%‫ ا‬0+‫ء و‬JL E'f7` g<% : ‫)ل‬9K ‫ه‬#`‫= ذ‬%)?| E(1B ld {%‫= ذ‬1B )7`

____________________________________________________________________

Ali Boriqee’s Response

The basic summary of this quote above from Imaam ash-Shaafi’ee is that he
initiates the discussion by charging the one who differs in opposition to the
revealed law regarding the topic of Asmaa wa Sifaat after having the evidences
proven to be established is an outright infidel. He then goes on to affirm literally
the two Yads for Allah, His Qadam, His Wajh and goes on to describe our belief
in them upon its literal reality (bihaqeeqi) and our attestation of them and that
we don’t liken Him to creation in doing so.

From a logical standpoint, I find it absurd to try to incorporate ash-Shaafi’ee into

the orbit of Ash’ari dogma particularly considering that the entire persona of ash-
Shaafi’ee was based on everything antithetical to what Ash’arism stands for.

As for the second narration that this Ash’ari tried to use to support his dogmatic
theory, it seems after my cursory reading of the subject that he was citing the
commonly quoted athar of his in which Shaafi’ee was known to have said “I
believe in everything Allah said upon the intent of Allah and I believe in everything the
Messenger salallahu alayhi wa salam said upon the intent of the Messenger of Allah
salallahu alayhi wa sallam”

Logically speaking, this athar of his is disconnected from Ash’ari dogma and it
takes a mind filled with fantasy to try to make a connection. The only remoteness
that this athar has in coping with anything related to Ash’arism is the fact that
the very essence of this athar destroys the foundations of Ash’arism from top to
bottom because Sunnism as espoused by Salafis is the enumeration of everything
Allah said upon the intent of Allah and everything the Messenger alayhi salatu
salam said upon the intent of the Messenger of Allah.
As for one of the most brilliant explanations of this athar, Allaamah Muhammad
bin Saalih al-‘Uthaymeen says the following

:•J?K)V%‫)م ِ ا‬-ِj‫ `_ ُم ا‬Eُ َ >ˆ ‡7xَ

َ | )-
:J|Ž/ )َ- •J?K)V%‫)م ِ ا‬-ِj‫ `_ ُم ا‬lَ ‡7xَ َ |
. ٍ&/ِ# ْkَ| W‫ و‬، ٍ 9ْ َB Wَ‫ و‬، ‫) َد ٍة‬/ِ‫ ز‬#ِ <t lْ -ِ ُF‫) أرا َدهُ ا‬- ='d ِy*ُ w‫ ا‬Eِ 6ِ )2` JK =َ%)?| ِF‫ ا‬ld ‫) َء‬Y )76 ‫) ُن‬7/ِj‫ ا‬-1
ُ‫) أرا َده‬- ='d Zَ '‡ O‫ و‬Eِ <'d ُF‫'‡= ا‬I ِF‫لِ ا‬0O‫ˆ> ‡ ِ[ ر‬O ُ JK Zَ '‡ O‫ و‬Eِ <'d ُF‫'‡= ا‬I ِF‫لِ ا‬0O‫ ر‬lْ d ‫) َء‬Y )76 ‫) ُن‬7/ِj‫ ا‬-2
. ٍ&/#k| W‫ و‬، ٍ 9ْ َB W‫ و‬، ‫)د ٍة‬/‫ ز‬#ِ <t lْ -ِ Zَ '‡ O‫ و‬Eِ <'d ُF‫'‡= ا‬I ِF‫لُ ا‬0O‫ر‬
='d Eِ ِ%0O‫ِ ور‬F‫ ا‬ld ‫) َء‬Y )76 lْ -ِ zْ ُ/ Z% ZG>- ;ٍ b‫ ‡ن `^‡ وا‬S ‫< ِ^ ؛‬f72%‫ ِ^ ا‬+‫ ِ^ وأ‬/‫و‬Ž2%‫ ِ^ ا‬+‫'= أ‬d ‫_م ِ ر ”د‬$%‫ا ا‬,+ JK‫و‬
. )1(‫< ِ^ زَادُوا‬f72%‫^َ ا‬+‫ وأ‬، ‫ا‬0Mَ ُ 9َB ^ِ /‫و‬Ž2%‫^َ ا‬+‫ ‡ن أ‬5K ‫ ؛‬Eِ ِ%0O‫ِ ور‬F‫ا ِد ا‬#-

My sketchy translation is as follows

What is the (implied) content of the speech of Shaafi’ee
As for the content of his speech, then there are two forms (of it)
1. To have faith upon what has come from Allah the Most High in the clear Book
based on the intent of Allah without adding to it and without subtracting from
it and without distorting it
2. To have faith upon what has come from the Messenger of Allah salallahu
alayhi wa sallam in the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah salallahu alayhi wa
sallam based on the intent of the Messenger of Allah salallahu alayhi wa
sallam without adding to it, without subtracting from it, and without
distorting it

[Comment: Ibn Uthaymeen is basically covering ALL angles of approach with

regard to Shaafi’ees statement, and the three things that are done with the intent
of Allah in the revelation or the Messenger in the revelation is either to add
content to their intent or to subtract from what they intended or to alter what
they intended since these are all the forms of deviations that occur in Islam, it is
due to one of these three avenues.]

As with regards to this speech (of Shaafi’ee) then it is a refutation against the
people of t’aweel (i.e. the Ash’aris and other kalaam proponents) and the people of
tamtheel (i.e. NOT the Salafis particularly because the speaker of this statement is non
other than a Salafi Imaam of whom we follow in our creedal stances which would mean
that we have other people in mind with regards to the people of tamtheel); because each
and every one of them did not believe in what came from Allah and His
Messenger upon the intent of Allah and His Messenger; So then the people of
t’aweel reduced (what was intended i.e. through negation), and the people of
tamtheel added to it.

Issue 19: The Ash’ari attempt to Recruit Abu Ubayd al-Qaasim into the Ranks
of the Muffawida

On page 174, he puts forth a narration for Abu ‘Ubayd Al Qaasim bin Salaam
where he says that no tafsir is made regarding the narrations on Sifaat.

However, if we look at another narration from Abu ‘Ubayd, we know that the
tafsir he was referring to was the tafsir of the kayfiyyah:

!"#$%‫ؤ)( وا‬#%‫! ا‬+ ‫وى‬#ُ) ‫ي‬/%‫ب ا‬12%‫ ا‬#3‫ـ) وذ‬6 224 .‫م (ت‬9" :; <"1=%‫?> ا‬2ُ@ A;‫ل أ‬1D
،‫ء‬1GH%‫ ا‬IJK) ‫ أن‬M2D 1N;‫ن ر‬13 :)‫ وأ‬،‫ه‬#?Q ‫ب‬#D‫ و‬،‫ده‬12@ ‫ط‬AND :T 1N;‫ ر‬UVW‫ و‬،XT>=%‫ ا‬YWAT‫و‬
.Z)‫د‬1[\‫ه ا‬/6 ‫ه‬12]‫ وأ‬،^D ^D :‫ل‬A=_+ 1`?+ aT>D Mb‫ و‬c@ U;‫ ر‬Yd) e_[ fJ_Gg h <N`b ‫وأن‬
1i>N@ !6‫ و‬،jk; eJ@ <`dk; ‫ء‬1`=l%‫ وا‬Z)>V%‫ب ا‬1Vm‫ أ‬1`JG[ ‫ح‬1Vm Z)‫د‬1[\‫ه ا‬/6« :‫ل‬1=+
' *ُ, ! :-./0 ‫؟‬234 567‫؟ و‬89:0 ;4‫ و‬567 :M?D ‫ إذا‬:$%‫ و‬،1`?+ Upi h I[
!‫ا و‬$% &(َ
» .‫*(&ه‬, ‫ًا‬:>‫ أ‬-.@AB

He also puts forth a narration from Abu ‘Ubayd where he said “We don’t seek
meanings for them” in order to show that Abu ‘Ubayd supported tafweed of
meaning.

Two responses to this are in order here.

First of all, the authenticity of this narration needs to be proven. Al Bayhaqi

claims that Abu Sulayman Al Khattabi said that Abu ‘Ubayd said this. However,
Al Bayhaqi was only four years old when Al Khattabi died in 388 A.H. So who
told Al Bayhaqi that this is what Al Khattabi said? Furthermore, Abu ‘Ubayd
died in 224 AH, while Al Khattabi was born around 80 years later. So how did Al
Khattabi know that Abu ‘Ubayd said this?

Secondly, if we assume that the narration is authentic, then when Abu ‘Ubayd
said “we don’t seek meanings for them”, by “meaning” he could be referring to its
kayfiyyah. Someone may think that this is an ad hoc explanation, however the
following example shows that when the meaning is asked for, what comes to
mind is the kayfiyyah:

<$;‫ ر‬e%‫ون إ‬#qNg <$i‫ (إ‬:<J"‫ و‬a?J@ r‫ ا‬eJm r‫ل ا‬A"‫ل ر‬AD‫ و‬،()‫ؤ‬#%‫! ا‬+ r‫> ا‬2@ :; #)#b :@‫و‬
‫ا‬$% C.@9 -9 ! >%1s 1;‫ أ‬1) :aHJtT !+ Mb‫ ر‬a% ‫ل‬1=+ ،)‫>ر‬2%‫( ا‬J?% #G=%‫ ا‬e%‫ون إ‬#qNg 1G3
D9‫! و‬UJ)‫! و‬a; Mk+ 1T MuT e%‫ إ‬UbA[‫! وأ‬v?2w‫ ;ـ‬U`2]‫ أ‬1T :‫ل‬1D‫ و‬،‫د‬#[‫ و‬xdy+ ‫؟‬E,:3F‫ا‬
‫!ء‬p; a?+ <J$_) ‫ أو‬،Z)>V%‫ ا‬a; ‫ء‬1b ‫ي‬/%‫ل ا‬A=%‫ا ا‬/6 ‫وز‬1t) ‫ أن‬a% ‫ز‬At) :T‫ا؟ و‬$% 567 ‫ري‬:,
r‫ ا‬eJm r‫ل ا‬A"‫ ر‬:@ Z)>V%‫_< ا‬kG" ‫ إذا‬،aN)>; {K_"‫ وا‬aHli al" :T h‫ إ‬aHli ‫ء‬1=Jg :T
<_$J6 ‫ا‬AJklg <% ‫ وإن‬،<_GJ" a?+ ‫روا‬1Gg <%‫ه و‬AG_k2g‫< إن ا‬$i|+ ،a?+ ‫ا‬A@>_2g h‫ و‬،‫ه‬Ak2g1+ <J"‫ و‬a?J@

____________________________________________________________________

Ali Boriqee’s Response

A similar unintended convolution regarding he semantics of this phrasal clause

can be seen with a statement made by al-Juwayni in which he says about the
Madhab of the Salaf in his last work he wrote after his repentance, al-‘Aqida al-
Nidhamiyya – published by al-Kawthari:

“The Imams of the Salaf believed in abstaining from interpretation (ta’wil) and passing
the literal meanings of the texts as they have come (ijra’ al-dhawahir ‘ala mawaridiha),
while relegating (tafweed) the meanings to the Lord Most High”

In this passage, "meaning" was used twice, and each time it was used, its obvious
meaning points at a different meaning to each other

1. Passing the literal (apparent) meanings of the texts as they have come
Our creed is that we believe "in what has come to us". Here, al-Juwainee uses
dhaahir, which is understood as the apparent or obvious meaning,

2. While in the second usage of the term meaning he says “while relegating the
meanings to the Lord.”

It does not logically make sense in the realm of reason to employ the same
concept on two different occasions and have a different methodology for each
one, UNLESS of course if each occasion is different from the other.

In other words, al-Juwainee is saying

"Pass the apparent meanings as they come" and then turns around and says
"Relegate those meanings to Allah"

A person like al-Juwainee does not make an inherently contradictory statement

unless the "meaning" described in the second is different than the "meaning"
described in the first.

So the statement "passing the apparent meaning as it has come" means exactly what it
says. We affirm the apparent, obvious, dhaahir meaning. So Yad (Hand) means
Yad, Wajh (Face) means Wajh, Eyes means Eyes. Rising means Rising, Foot means
Foot, etc.

So if we affirm these as the meaning, then when al-Juwainee states

"While relegating the meanings (tafweedh) to the Lord"

Then the most obvious understanding that comes out of this is its nature, its
kayfiyyah. That is the essence and reality of the Imaams of sunnah saying
"ijra’ al-dhawahir ‘ala mawaridiha, bila kayf"

i.e.

"We pass the apparent meanings as they have come, without how"

that is the true athari Sunni creed that we hold. That is, we AFFIRM the dhaahir
and relegate the nature to Allah.
Issue 20: The Poor Ash’ari Attempt to Use Yahya bin Ma’een Into the Ranks of
the Muffawwida

On page 175 he puts forth a narration for Yahya ibn Ma'een. Too bad he "forgot"
to put forth this narration for him as well:

:)E/#r+ 233 :‫ ( ت‬F‫ ا‬E7b‫ ر‬y?- l6 =<k/ ‫)م‬-j‫ا‬

‫)د‬92dW‫ح ا‬#L ));/#/ )- ^?1/ ‫ب‬#6 l-‫) أؤ‬B‫ أ‬: ^9K .‫ل‬q>/ ‫ب‬#6 #1`‫) أ‬B‫ أ‬: ‫ل‬09/ J7Gr%‫?} ا‬7O ‫ (( إذا‬:‫)ل‬P
)206/3/3( Eh6 l6W ‫ى‬#*$%‫[ ا‬B)6j‫) ا‬151/7( #*%‫*; ا‬d l6W ;<G72%‫ ا‬، )502/3( Jn)$%_%

[Translation by Ali Boriqee: “It was said, when you hear a jahmi say, ‘I disbelieve in
a Lord that descends’, then say (reply back with) ‘I believe in a Lord that does what He
Wills” -Sharh al-‘Itiqaad of al-Laalikaa’i, Ibn Abdul-bar in at-Tamheed, and in al-
Ibaanatul-Kubra of Ibnul-Batah]

Obviously when the Jahmi said "I disbelieve in a Lord that descends", he is referring
to literal descent and Yahya bin Ma'een replies back "I believe in a Lord who does
what He wants" and subhannallah that is the response we continue to use today
against people who use the same kinds of arguments.

____________________________________________________________________

Ali Boriqee’s Response

This argument was a perfect demonstration of how Bassam correlates an

opposing argument relevant to the contention of the Ash’aris. You see, in the
book, the Ash’ari is attempting to use Yahya bin Ma’een as a proponent to
tafweed bil-m’ana. So Bassam brings forth this narration as a refutation of
applying tafweed bil-m’ana to Yahya bin Ma’een because the very content is a
direct antithesis to it. Why?

Well, as he said, when a jahmi, or those infected with tahajjum among the
Ash’aris, claim to disbelieve or negate “Nuzool” for Allah Azawajal, it obviously
points to the literal reality of the action. It makes no sense to assume that they
were speaking “metaphorically” in terms of their forms of negation, otherwise
what is the use of their negative theology. The point of negative theology is to
deny the affirmative actuality of theology. So when they go about with their
denials, it is to deny the actual reality of the Attribute. In response to this denial
of the actual reality of the Attribute, Yahya bin Ma’een makes his creedal stance
known by explaining that he has faith in a Lord that does (meaning Allah’s
Actions actually occur and exist and are not figments of the imagination) what
He Wills.

Therefore, this narration can be used as proof to refute the idea that Yahya bin
Ma’een was a mufawwid of the Ash’ari rite.

Issue 21: The Absurd Attempt of the Ashaa’irah to Recruit Imaam Ahmad into
the Ranks of the Mufawwidah

On page 175 he puts forth the "no meaning and no kayf" statement of Imam
Ahmad, which sister Um Abdullah has addressed very well.

To know the Aqeedah of Imam Ahmad, you would definitely want to read his
book Al Radd 'Ala Al Jahmiyyah

Ironically on page 177 he admits that Imam Ahmad said that the meaning of
Istiwaa' is elevation! Is this author thinking straight?
____________________________________________________________________

Ali Boriqee’s Response

It is not very strange to see the Ash’aris recruit exemplary figures among Ahlu-
Sunnah into the ranks of their repudiated madhaab as a means of giving it some
form of legitimacy. This is typical of the methodology of the innovators. This is
contrary to the people of the Sunnah who do not find reason to legitimize
themselves. The realm of our scholarship is the entire sector of the ulema and
some are marginalized as being from the adherents to heterodox madhaabs.
At any rate, they find no shame in recruiting Imaam Ahmad to their ranks,
however the testified and verified creed of Imaam Ahmad is in direct conflict
with the very premise of tafweed bil-m’ana as is espoused by the Ash’ari author
of this book, in which this document is a direct response to it.

As was provided from the takhreej and translation by Um Abdullah M. here is a

reference in the Kitaabus-Sunnah by Abdullah ibn Ahmad (1/280) in which
Abdullah bin Ahmad said:

"I asked my father (i.e. Imam Ahmad) about a people who say: ‘when Allah talked to
Musa, he didn’t speak with sound.' My father said: «Indeed your Lord spoke with
sound, these narrations are to be narrated as they have come.»"

This is a nuclear catastrophe for the claim of tafweed bil-m’ana towards Imaam
Ahmad in specific and the madhaab of tafweed by the Ash’aris in general. Why?

Allah did not convey that He spoke with “Sound” when revealing to us that He
spoke to Musa, is this not correct? Of course. Why is this the case? It is because it
is already understood “bi dhaahiratan” i.e. apparently. In other words, when
Allah said that He spoke to Musa, it is already understood that the apparent
meaning is that He spoke to Him with Sound, in a point in time, with letters, and
in a manner in which Allah’s Speech can be heard. All of that is understood by
the mere recital of the aayah (4:164)

! ً#$ِ&'ْ)َ+ ٰ-./ُ
َ 1 ُ23‫ ا‬5َ &2 6َ ‫َو‬

Allah does not need to say that His speech has sound in order to understand that
His Speech contains sound.

However, according to the warped Ash’ari concept of tafweed and their narrow
and deficient understanding of how the salaf employed the phrase “pass them on
as they have come, without how” then Imaam Ahmad performed a clear violation of
the shariah by insinuating that Allah’s Attribute of Speaking was given a
“meaning” by saying that it means “with sound”.

However, Ahmad destroys this warped and corrupt theory of theirs by

remarking on a final clause found in the narration above. He says
Indeed your Lord spoke with sound, these narrations are to be narrated as they have come

So here, what does Ahmad prove. Ahmad proves beyond a shadow of a doubt
that the basic “dhaahir” meaning of the ayaat of Sifaat are synonymous of
“leaving the narrations as they have come” and he does not include the
dhawaahir of these ayaat as entering into the domain of violating the principle of
“without how”.

So Ahmad bin Hanbal

• Affirms meanings to the Sifaat of Allah, and these meanings are technically
“extra-correlated” meanings as they have NOT been orally recited in the
revelation since the meanings are already embedded in the recitation, just as
Ibn Uyainah and ath-Thawri said.
• He does not even consider that affirming these meanings constitute a direct
violation of “pass them on as they have come, without how”, rather Ahmad views
that affirming these meanings is a direct application and the living spirit of the
concept and practice of “pass them on as they have come, without how”

Furthermore, our sister Um Abdullah M brings forth the following information

There is a narration attributed to Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him)
which shows him saying:
«In the hadiths that are narrated: ”Allah descends to the heaven of this world“ or ”Allah
will be seen on the Day of Judgment“, and whatever is similar to these hadith – we
believe in them and trust them without how (kayfa) nor meaning, and we do not reject
any of it …. etc. »

Assuming that this narration is authentic, the meaning of his words: «and no
meaning» means: no meaning except what is apparent in the hadith.

What leads us to this conclusion is that this narration was reported to us with a
different wording in Ibn Al-Battah’s book “Al-Ibaanah Al-Kubrah” and Ibn
Qudamah’s book “Tahreem Al-Nadhar fi Kutub Al-Kalam”, which show Imam
Ahmad saying:
“Without how, nor meaning except what Allah described Himself with”.
There is a narration by Imaam al-Laalikaa’i in his Sharh Usool ‘Itiqad Ahlus
Sunnah Wal Jamaa’ah” (1/157-158). In this work, Imaam al-Laalikaa’i brings
forth the narration attributed to Ahmad

Belief in seeing Allah on the Day of Judgment just as authentically narrated by the
Prophet –sallallahu alayhi wa sallam-, and the Prophet –sallallahu alayhi wa sallam- saw
his Lord as is authentically reported about him. Qatadah reported from Ikrimah on the
authority of Ibn Abbas and Al-Hukm ibn Abban narrated it from Ikrimah on the
authority of Ibn Abbas and Ali ibn Zayd narrated it from Yusuf ibn Mahran on the
authority of Ibn Abbas, and the hadith to us is taken upon its apparent meaning as
it came from the Prophet–sallallahu alayhi wa sallam-; speculation regarding it is an
innovation, but we believe in it just as it has come, upon its apparent meaning,
and do not debate anyone about it.

However this chain is weak So this should be noted for the record, that this
narration should not be used to prove that Ahmad said this narration wallahul-
Alim.

What further solidifies the fact that the Ash’aris have not only warped, but
raped, the concept of “pass them on as they have come” is the fact that Imam
Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) said the phrase: “Leave it as it has come”
in regards to other hadiths other than the attributes, and it is not conceivable to
assume that he relegated the meaning of those hadiths too. Some of these
narrations are:

- Imam Ahmed was once asked about the statement of the Prophet -–sallallahu
alayhi wa sallam- to Ali (may Allah be pleased with him):”Whoever I was a
mawla (i.e. friend, defender) to, then Ali is their mawla.“ He said: «Do not talk
about this, leave the hadeeth as it came.» (“As-Sunnah” by Abu Bakr al-Khallal
(2/346) with an authentic chain)

- Abu Bakr Al-Marrudhi said: I asked Abu Abdullah (Imam Ahmad) about the
statement of the Prophet –sallallahu alayhi wa sallam- to Ali –May Allah be
pleased with Him-, ”You are to me like Haroon was to Musa“ what is the
explanation of this? He said: «Be quiet about this, do not ask about it, the report is as it
came.» (“As-Sunnah” by Abu Bakr al-Khallal (2/347) with an authentic chain)
If one were to account for the views of Imaam Ahmad in fiqh and then to
correlate them with these narrations, one then understands from a birds eye view
that what Ahmad was gearing towards the application of this phrase on any
aspect of the shariah, whether it be aqeedah or fiqh, is the distortion of the
shariah i.e. tahreef, or a false tafseer. Therefore, when Ahmad and the salaf
employed the phrase “pass it on as they have come” then it does not mean “do
not affirm the apparent and obvious meaning” as the misguided innovators
among the Ashaa’irah would have us believe.

Issue 21: the Ash’ari Attempt to Recruit Imaam at-Tirmidhee into the
Mufawwida

On page 177, he tries to speak about the aqeedah of Imam Al Tirmidhi

____________________________________________________________________

Athari Response

In his famous Jami`, more popularly known simply as Sunan at-Tirmidhi, Imam
at-Tirmidhi, who died in the year 279 after Hijrah, lists the following authentic
narration (no. 662):
Abu Hurairah narrated that Allah’s Messenger (sall Allahu `alaihi wa sallam)
said:
Indeed Allah accepts charity, and He accepts it with His Right (Hand) to nurture
it for one of you, just like one of you would nurture his foal, until the bite (of
food) becomes as large as Uhud. The Book of Allah, the Mighty and Sublime
testifies to that: (He accepts repentance from His worshippers, and accepts
charity.) [At-Tawbah 9:104.] And: (Allah will destroy ribaa and will give increase
for charity.) [Al-Baqarah 2:276.]
[Abu Isa] said:
This hadith is hasanun sahih. It has been reported from Aishah from the Prophet
(sall Allahu `alaihi wa sallam) similarly.

at-Tirmidhee further says

‫ب |*)رك‬#%‫ول ا‬qB‫)ت و‬1M%‫ ا‬l- ‫)ت‬/‫وا‬#%‫ ا‬l- ‫ا‬,+ E*V/ )-‫ و‬a/;k%‫ا ا‬,+ JK Z'?%‫^ ا‬+‫ أ‬l- ;b‫ وا‬#<t ‫)ل‬P ;P‫و‬
‫ا‬,$+ .&<` ‫)ل‬9/ W‫ و‬Z‡+0َ َ 2ˆُ/ W‫) و‬G6 l-z/‫ا و‬,+ JK ‫)ت‬/‫وا‬#%‫*} ا‬f| ;P ‫ا‬0%)P )<B;%‫)ء ا‬7(%‫= ا‬%‫<'[ إ‬% ^` =%)?|‫و‬
‫ل‬0P ‫ا‬,$+‫_ `<& و‬6 )+‫و‬#-‫ أ‬a/‫)د‬bS‫ه ا‬,+ JK ‫ا‬0%)P ZGB‫*)رك أ‬w‫ ا‬l6 F‫*; ا‬d ‫<<>[ و‬d l6 ‫<)ن‬1O ‫{ و‬%)- ld ‫روي‬
^Y‫ و‬qd F‫ ا‬#`‫; ذ‬P‫ و‬E<*V| ‫ا‬,+ ‫ا‬0%)P‫)ت و‬/‫وا‬#%‫ه ا‬,+ ‫ت‬#$BŽK [<7Gr%‫) ا‬-‫[ وأ‬d)7r%‫(>[ وا‬%‫^ ا‬+‫ أ‬l- Z'?%‫^ ا‬+‫أ‬
^+‫ أ‬#(K )- #<t ='d )+‫و‬#(1K ‫)ت‬/ª‫ه ا‬,+ [<7Gr%‫} ا‬%‫و‬Ž2K #M*%‫ وا‬N7(%‫<; وا‬%‫ ا‬E6)2` l- N•0- #<t JK
)7B‫] إ‬E/0+‫ [را‬Z<+‫ا‬#6‫ إ‬l6 •kO‫)ل إ‬P‫ة و‬09%‫>) ا‬G+ ;<%‫?>= ا‬- ‫ا إن‬0%)P‫<;ه و‬6 ‫'• آدم‬i/ Z% F‫ا إن ا‬0%)P‫ و‬Z'?%‫ا‬
‫ا‬,GK N7O ^f- ‫ أو‬N7(` N7O ‫)ل‬P ‫ذا‬5K N7O ^f- ‫ أو‬N7(` N7O ‫; أو‬/ ^f- ‫; `<; أو‬/ ‫)ل‬P ‫ إذا‬E<*V2%‫ن ا‬0$/
W ‫ا‬,GK N7(` W‫ و‬N7O ^f- ‫ل‬09/ W‫ل `<& و‬09/ W‫ و‬#M6‫ و‬N7O‫; و‬/ =%)?| F‫)ل ا‬P )7` ‫)ل‬P ‫) إذا‬-‫ وأ‬E<*V2%‫ا‬
#<M*%‫ ا‬N<7(%‫ ا‬0+‫ء و‬JL E'f7` g<% : E6)2` JK =%)?| F‫)ل ا‬P )7` 0+‫) و‬G<*V| ‫ن‬0$/

More than one of the people of knowledge have spoken about this hadith, and
the narrations that resemble it about the Attributes and the Descent of the Lord,
Blessed and Most High, every night to the lowest Heaven.
They said: The narrations about these are affirmed and to be believed in without
misinterpreting them nor saying how.
It has been reported like this from Malik [bin Anas], Sufyan bin Uyainah,
Abdullah bin Al-Mubarak; they would say about these hadiths: They are
conveyed without saying how. This is the view of the people of knowledge
among Ahl As-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah.

As for the Jahmiyyah, they reject these narrations and they say that this is
tashbeeh. And in other places in His Book, Allah, Blessed and Most High is He,
has mentioned the Hand, the Hearing, the Seeing, so the Jahmiyyah misinterpret
these Ayat and give them interpretations other than the interpretations of the
people of knowledge. They say that Allah did not create Adam with His Hand,
and they say the meaning of Hand is merely power.
Is-haq bin Ibrahim said: “Tashbeeh (resembling/likening Allah to creation) is to
say: ‘Hand like a hand” or ‘Similar to a hand’, or ‘Hearing like a hearing’ or
‘Similar to a hearing’, so if one says: ‘Hearing like a hearing or similar to a
hearing’, then this is Tashbeeh. But if one says like Allah –The Exalted- said, Yad
(Hand), Sam` (Hearing), and Basar (Sight), without saying: how, or saying: like a
hearing or similar to a hearing, then this is not tashbeeh.” It is merely as Allah,
Blessed and Most High be He said: (There is nothing like Him, and He is the All-
Hearing, the All-Seeing.) [Ash-Shura 42:11].

This is the end of what Imam at-Tirmidhi said after that hadith, and Abu `Isa is
at-Tirmidhi.

Furthermore, Imaam at-Tirmidhi brings forth in his Sunan the following

Many narrations have been narrated from the Prophet –sallallahu alayhi wa
sallam- such as this, ones that mention ru’yah, the people seeing their Lord (in
the Hereafter), and the mentioning of the Foot (of Allah), and other similar
things. The way of the scholars such as Sufyan Al-Thawri, Malik ibn Anas, Ibn
Al-Mubarak, Ibn `Uyaynah, Wakee`, and others regarding this is that they
narrated these things, and then said: “These hadiths are to be narrated, we
believe in them and it is not to be said: ‘How ?’.” And this is the position that
Ahlul Hadeeth have chosen, to narrate these things as they have come, believe in
them without explaining them, nor thinking about them, and it is not to be said:
‘How?’ This is the path that the scholars have chosen. And the meaning of the
statement in the hadith ”He will make Himself known to them“(yu`arrifuhum
nafsahu) is that He will appear unto them.”

What has just happened here? Imaam at-Tirmidhee, after affirming the fact that
“we don’t explain them” has just explained that the meaning of the hadeeth “He
will make Himself known to them” means “that He will appear to them”

How strange! This is similar to the clarification provided for Ibnul-Juwaynee as

covered in issue 19 above. Either Imaam at-Tirmidhee was contradicting himself
OR at-Tirmidhee did not make synonymous the affirmation of the basic apparent
meanings of the revelation regarding the sifaat with “explaining them”.
Obviously if at-Tirmidhee explained that the hadeeth of “He will make Himself
known to them” to mean that “He will appear to them”, then he clearly does not
liken the idea that affirming these reports and what they apparently mean as
equal to “giving a tafseer” to them.

This would then follow that when Imaams like at-Tirmidhee, and other Atharis
said “without explaining them”, then what they mean by this statement is to
explain them beyond their apparent meanings, by giving false interpretations
that are not within the boundary of the stated text. Well, the only group that does
exactly this feat are the kalaam based groups, the Ash’aris being among them.

This report above in the Sunan of at-Tirmidhee is the antithesis of the doctrine of
tafweed bil-m’ana. This is an absolute refutation of the Ash’ari mufawwida, not
the Atharis.

Issue 22: The Ash’ari Attempt to Recruit al-Humaydi into the Ranks of the
Mufawwida

Regarding the al-Humaydi citation he put forth on page 173, I just wanted to
point out that Shaykh al-Albaani alluded to the possibility of this narration not
being authentic due to the weakness of Abu Taahir in the chain (see Mukhtasar al
'Uluw, page 180, narration no. 207)

____________________________________________________________________

Ali Boriqee’s Response

Its amazing although unsurprising as to what lengths the Ash’aris are willing to
go for the legitimization of their mahdaab, that they would slander Imaam al-
Humaydi with being an advocate of their corrupt beliefs. This is what he says in
his Usoolu-Sunnah on the topic at hand

And (affirming) what is stated in the Quran and the Hadith such as: “The Jews say
Allah’s Hand is tied up” (5:64). And such as, “And the heavens will be rolled up in His
Right Hand” (39:67) And what is similar to this from the Qur’an and the Hadith. We do
not add to it nor explain it. We stop where the Quran and Sunnah stop, and we say, “The
Most Merciful rose over the Throne” (20:5). And whoever claims other than this is a
Jahmi and a denier of Allah’s Attributes.

Ash’aris on the other hand don’t stop where the Qur’an and Sunnah stop, they
continue into the realm of denial. They do not say that Allah rose over the
Throne, they say that this means something else, a clear t’aweel, in opposition to
their own alleged adherence to tafweed bil-m’ana.
Issue 23: The Ash’ari Attempt to Recruit Abu Naasr as-Sijzi ash-Shaafi’e Into
the Ranks of the Mufawwida

On pages 178-179, the author cites Ibn Surayj. It's extremely disappointing that
the author didn't cite him in full and I believe that it's either possibly due to 1)
Deception or 2) Incompetence.

I will do husn al dhann and assume it's due to reason no. 2. The author fails to
realize how citing Ibn Surayj fully is problematic for him.

In order for you to see the full citation for Ibn Surayj, download the book l6‫)م ا‬-j‫ا‬
=%)?| F‫)ت ا‬1I JK [%)O‫§ ور‬/#O authored by JB‫ا‬#GV%‫ ا‬J'd l6 ;?O ‫ر‬02`;%‫ا‬. The citation
extends from page 28 (according to Acrobat reader) until page 51.

After you read the full citation, what do we observe?

Well, Ibn Surayj considered the 'ayn, ghadab, love, hatred (see page 30), wajh (see
page 32) as attributes (you know this because on page 34 he says E|)1I l- {%‫ ذ‬#<t‫و‬
[9'?2w‫)ا‬. If you continue reading on page 35 you would see the same for qadam,
laughter, fingers, etc. and even Sifaat fi'liyah on page 36 such as Nuzool. On page
41 we see that Ibn Surayj affirms that Allah speaks in letters and sounds.

I mean how much more Salafi can Ibn Surayj get? Asharis don't believe the
aforementioned are attributes!

As for the argument regarding why Ibn Surayj said we can't translate the Sifaat
into different languages, see the footnotes of JB‫ا‬#GV%‫ ا‬J'd l6 ;?O ‫ر‬02`;%‫ ا‬from the
bottom of page 47 until page 48.

Furthermore, Ibn Surayj made this applicable to everything he said and that
includes things that Asharis themselves affirm and claim to know the meaning of
such as Ibn Surayj's mentioning of the descent of the Qur'an to the samaa' al
dunya (page 43) and Allah's love of patience (page 44) and many other examples.
All this clearly shows that Ibn Surayj was against delving into the kayfiyyah and
not actual meanings.

Issue 24: The Scandalous Ash’ari Attempt to Recruit Ibn Khuzayma into the
Ranks of the Mufawwida

Now this is when you really have to doubt EITHER the scholarship or honesty of
this author. On page 179 he is trying to quote Ibn Khuzaymah to show that Ibn
Khuzaymah supported tafweed.

I mean this does nothing but show that this author is only interested in picking
statements when read in isolation might appear to support his view, in contrast
to actually finding out what people really believed.

Did this author ever bother reading Kitaab Al Tawheed by Ibn Khuzaymah?
Doesn't this author realize that many Asharis declared Ibn Khuzaymah as an
anthropomorphist? One only has to type in Z(rw‫[ ا‬7/q‚ l6‫ ا‬in the google search
box and see these vile accusations.

____________________________________________________________________

Ali Boriqee’s Response

I would also add to this the fact that had he been a muffawwid in the pure
ash’ari rite, then he would have never affirmed anything he said in his Kitaabu-
Tawheed. Along with this would be the fact that the dajjal al-Kawthari would
have never called him a pagan for authoring this book.
Issue 25: the Ash’ari Attempt to Recruit Imaam al-Barbahaari into the Ranks of
the Mufawwida

On page 181, he appeals to Imam Al Barbahaari.

Imam Al Barbahaari is condemning those who make tafsir out of their desires. Of
course Salafis don't object to this. [Ali Boriqee: Actually this is our bone of
contention with Ash’aris in which they produce their tafsir because it is out of their
desire, and more importantly, it does not accord to the language of the Arabs. In essence,
their tafsir is in reality the performance of tahreef by which t’ateel is the final result.]

Imam Al Barbahaari spoke about how the Jahmis would ask "why" and "how" in
regards to Sifaat:

‫ا‬0?•‫ وو‬،#4S‫ا ا‬0`#|‫؟ و`<&؟ و‬Z% :‫ا‬0'‚‫د‬ŽK ،^Y‫ و‬qd ‫ب‬#%‫ ا‬JK ‫وا‬#$K ZGB‫ أ‬:[<7Gr%‫_ك ا‬+ ‫)ء‬Y )7B‫ إ‬EB‫ أ‬Z'd‫وا‬
#-S‫ ا‬Z+#h•‫ وا‬،•'i%‫وا ا‬#1`‫ و‬،#1` EB‫= أ‬1i/ W ،ً )ˆB)<ِd #1$%)6 ‫)ءوا‬rK ،ZG/‫'= رأ‬d l/;%‫ا ا‬0O)P‫ و‬،‫<)س‬9%‫ا‬
^<h?2%)6 ‫ا‬0%)P =2b

He also spoke about how Jahmis would employ such tactics when it comes to the
ahaadith on ru'ya and nuzool:

،J7GY EB‫ أ‬Z'd)K ،Z'O‫ و‬E<'d F‫'= ا‬I F‫ل ا‬0O‫)ر ر‬4‫ آ‬N7O ‫ إذا‬F‫ ا‬Z«?B lkB )B‫ إ‬:‫ل‬09/ ^Y#%‫?} ا‬7O ‫وإذا‬
N7O ‫ إذا‬،E+q>/‫ و‬F‫ ا‬Z«?/ EB‫ أ‬Zdq/ 0+‫ و‬،[7'$%‫ه ا‬,G6 E?K;/‫ و‬Z'O‫ و‬E<'d F‫'= ا‬I F‫ل ا‬0O‫ ر‬#4‫د أ‬#/ ‫; أن‬/#/
‫ أن‬F‫ ا‬Z«?B )B‫ إ‬:‫)ل‬P ‫؟! وإذا‬Z'O‫ و‬E<'d F‫'= ا‬I F‫ل ا‬0O‫ ر‬#4‫د أ‬#/ g<'K‫ أ‬.‫ه‬#<t‫ول و‬q>%‫ ا‬a/;b‫[ و‬/‫ؤ‬#%‫ ا‬a/;b
[P0(%‫ ا‬l- ‫>)س‬%‫ر ا‬0G7Y ‫ن‬5K ،‫ء‬Wz+ ‫ر‬,b)K ،‫ه‬#<t l- F)6 Z'd‫ أ‬EB‫ أ‬Zd‫; ز‬9K N•0- =%‫ إ‬N•0- l- ‫ول‬q/
ZG>- ‫>)س‬%‫ر ا‬,b‫ و‬،‫)ل‬k%‫ا ا‬,+ ='d Z+#<t‫و‬

The author unfortunately leaves out statements from Imam Al Barbahaari such
as these:

E7'd l- 0'i/ W ‫)ن‬$- ^$6 E7'd‫ى و‬02O‫ ا‬EL#d ='d‫ و‬،=1‚‫ وأ‬#(%‫ ا‬Z'?/ ،=G2>- _6 #‚‫ وآ‬،=2- _6 ‫>) أول‬6‫ر‬
‫)ن‬$-
Al Barbahaari says that Allah did Istiwaa' on the Throne, while His Knowledge is
everywhere.

He also said that we would see Allah with our very eyes:

‫)ن‬7Y#| W‫)ب و‬rb _6 ZG*O)k/ 0+‫ و‬ZGO‫)ر رءو‬M6Ž6 ^Y‫ و‬qd F‫ون ا‬#/ [-)<9%‫م ا‬0/ [/‫ؤ‬#%)6 ‫)ن‬7/j‫وا‬

Note: In another variant instead of ‫)ر‬M6Ž6, it's ydŽ6.

Imam Al Barbahari also said:

‫)ل‬P )7` ،ZGO‫ رءو‬ydŽ6 ،‫>()ء‬%‫ ا‬Z4 ،‫)ل‬Y#%‫ ا‬Z4 ،‫اء‬#•S‫>[ ا‬r%‫ ا‬JK =%)?| F‫= ا‬%‫ إ‬#«>/ l- ‫ أن أول‬Z'd‫وا‬
،)E2/‫ رؤ‬JK ‫ن‬0-)x| W ،‫*;ر‬%‫<'[ ا‬% #79%‫ون ا‬#| )7` Z$6‫ون ر‬#2O Z$B‫ (إ‬:Z'O‫ و‬E<'d F‫'= ا‬I F‫ل ا‬0O‫ر‬
#1` ‫)ره‬$B‫ وإ‬،\Y‫ا وا‬,G6 ‫)ن‬7/j‫وا‬

And the phrase ZGO‫ رءو‬ydŽ6 seems to be there across all variants.

Would Asharis ever agree with such statements???

Issue 26: More on the Ash’ari Distorted View of The Salaf’s Statement “Its
Recitation Is Its Tafseer”

I apologize for going back to page 172. The author made an argument regarding
the "it's recitation is its tafsir" bit.

However, what the author fails to understand is that "it's recitation is its tafsir"
means that it is what you understand when reciting, without any extra
explanation (i.e. upon its dhahir). It means that it's already clear linguistically.
Imam Al Dhahabi said on page 532 of his "Al 'Uluww":

")+#<(1| )G|‫اء‬#P" :‫ه‬#<t‫<)ن و‬1O ‫)ل‬P )7`‫ و‬،"‫م‬0'?- ‫اء‬02OW‫ "ا‬:&'(%‫)ل ا‬P )7` ،‫)ب‬hi%‫[ ا‬%W‫ د‬#<t )G% ^/‫و‬Ž| W
ZGP)1|‫ ا‬N- ،&'(%‫\ ا‬+,- 0+ ‫ا‬,+‫ و‬،&/#k2%‫^ وا‬/‫و‬Ž2%‫• ا‬/)x- )G6 =v2*/ W [v'%‫ ا‬JK [k•‫<>[ وا‬6 )GB‫ أ‬J>?/
E|)1I JK W‫ و‬E|‫ ذا‬JK W E% ^f- W ‫*)ري‬%‫؛ إذ ا‬EY06 #V*%‫)ت ا‬1I E*V| W )GB‫ˆ) ً أ‬x/‫أ‬

[translation by Ali Boriqee: “It is not an explanation which is made by way of other
than the indication of the speaker, (rather) it’s like the Salaf said “the Istawaa is known”,
and like Sufyaan and what others have said ‘Its recital is its tafseer’, the meaning of
which is that it is crystal clear in the language and does not point to a problematic
interpretation or distortion; and this was the madhaab of the salaf. With them is total
agreement on this (issue) and there is absolutely no anthropomorphism (with regards to
the) Attributes in the legislation by (any) direction. Then there is no likeness to al-Baaree
(Allah) neither in His Self or in His Attributes”]

Tafsir would be giving more explanation and elaboration than what is already
understood from the linguistic meaning when reciting the ayah. Usually it would
mean getting into the kayfiyyah and I have already shown examples of this.

Also, what refutes his claim that if it is only believing in the wording with no
understanding of the general meaning of the ayah, then that would mean that
this would apply to other attributes in the Quran, which Asharis affirm upon its
dhahir such as the attribute of life, knowledge, will, ability ..etc. because Imam
Sufyan said that this is applied to all attributes in the Quran and he made no
exceptions.

____________________________________________________________________

Ali Boriqee’s Response

I would further add two points

One, we follow the principle that the Athari Imaams have highlighted such as
Imaamul-Haafidh Abu Bakr al-Khateeb who said that “Speech concerning the
Attributes is considered speech concerning the Essence” meaning that whoever talks
about Allah’s Attributes are speaking about Allah. Likewise this principle entails
that ALL of Allah’s Attributes are treated equally, whether it be His Actions, His
Speech, or His intrinsic Qualities like Life, Hearing, Seeing, etc.

So when any of the Imaams like Sufyaan ath-Thawree, Ahmad bin Hanbal, or
anyone of the Salaf spoke on a particular Attribute, their words are applicable to
all of the Attributes of Allah as they did not adopt contradictory policies towards
them as the Ash’aris have done.

Two, thee is a newly formed ignorant movement among the kalaam movement,
particularly in the English oriented population, who developed a newly
concocted theory that the principle of tafweed bil-m’ana is that there is no kayf.
This is simply absurd and reflective of atheism. The Salaf’s rejection of delving
into the kayf was not to negate that there is no such thing as a “kayf” to Allah’
Attributes, but rather their rejection of delving into the matter was with regard to
the fact regarding the impossibility of the human mind to comprehend the
matter and a waste of time since they considered whatever Allah did not burden
us to know the ramifications of, then delving into the topic of it becomes a waste
of time. Adding to the fact that it ventures into the prohibited because speech
about Allah, without knowledge, is among the greatest of human crimes against
Allah after shirk.

Issue 27: The Ash’ari Attempt to Incorporate Ibn Hibban Into the Ranks of the
Muffawwida

On pages 182-184 he cites Ibn Hibban. Although, I find no objections in a general

sense to what he cited from Ibn Hibban as long as they are interpreted correctly, I
am personally not sure what Ibn Hibban's aqeedah is.

One Salafi brother says he is from Ahlus Sunnah and appeals to a Masters thesis
done on Ibn Hibban's beliefs to support that view.

Allah knows best.

____________________________________________________________________

Ali Boriqee’s Response

It is unclear to me as well what was the madhaab of Ibn Hibban. The point I
would make here is exactly what Bassam made earlier, and that is that the title of
the book by the author is to prove the methodology of tafweed through the Salaf.
Ibn Hibban was not from the Salaf. So in case somehow it is proven that Ibn
Hibban avocated tafweed bil-m’ana, that does nothing to address the
fundamental problem that he is not from the salaf and therefore what he says
does not contravene the doctrine of the salaf nor is it as authoritative as the salaf.

However, from husn adh-dhaan, Ibn Hibban was a Haafidh of hadeeth and an
aider of the Sunnah and among ahlul-hadeeth, so if he was a muffawwid, he is
excused, but the major stress here is on the word “if”, for the most likely scenario
is that he is not and rather he is merely a victim in a long line victims of Ash’ari
distortions.

Issue 28: The Ash’ari Attempt to Recruit Abu Bakr Isma’eeli Into the Ranks of
the Muffawwida

ON page 185, he appeals to Abu Bakr Al Ismaa'ili and I am scratching my head

trying to think what this author is trying to prove.

He citing Abu Bakr saying that we shouldn't delve into the kayfiyyah, which is
something that we already agree with.

The ironic thing is that on page 186 the author goes on to cite Abu Bakr Al
Ismaa'ili as saying that we will see Allah with our eyes (ZG><dŽ6 qd‫^ و‬Y EB‫و‬#/ l$%‫!!!)و‬
But this is something that Asharis would condemn!!!!!!
Also, if one reads the book 'Itiqaad Ahlusunnah by Abu Bakr Al Ismaa'ili (with
tahqeeq by Jamaal Azzoon), you could go to page 42, point no. 23 and see how he
affirmed nuzool without kayfiyyah.

Now why would he do that? I mean he's not just wasting his time affirming
meaningless words of ahaadith. He is clearly saying this in response to Ahlul
Bid'ah.

At most, Asharis could only say that this aqeedah on Sifaat is not 100% clear and
that Salafis and Asharis are at a neutral stand off.

Issue 29: The Ash’ari Attempt to Use al-Kalabaadhi

Again and again and again this author amazes me as I keep seeing him citing
people who hurt his cause.

On page 186 he cites the sufi Al Kalabaadhi who said that the majority of
scholars recognized that Allah's COMING and NUZOOL are ATTRIBUTES!!!!!!!

But HOLD ON....... I thought Asharis don't affirm these sifaat al fi'liyah!!!?????

Also, I found a wonderful quote for Al Kalabaadhi where he affirms that Allah's
wajh and yad are ATTRIBUTES and are HAQEEQI:

‫)ء‬/#*$%‫[ وا‬7$k%‫ وا‬Z'k%‫ وا‬q?%‫ة وا‬09%‫;رة ا‬9%‫ وا‬Z'?%‫ ا‬l- ‫ف‬0I0- )G6 0+ ، [9<9k%‫'= ا‬d ‫)ت‬1I F ‫ا أن‬0?7Y‫وأ‬
E|‫) أن ذا‬7` ،#+‫ا‬0Y W‫اض و‬#d‫ أ‬W‫()م و‬YŽ6 }(<% )GB‫ وأ‬، ‫_م‬$%‫[ وا‬Ÿ<Vw‫رادة وا‬j‫<)ة وا‬k%‫;م وا‬9%‫وت وا‬#*r%‫وا‬
،‫)ر‬M6S‫)ع وا‬7OS)` g<% [9<9k%‫'= ا‬d ‫;ا‬/‫) و‬GY‫ا وو‬#M6‫?) و‬7O E% ‫ وأن‬، #+0Y W‫ض و‬#d W‫ و‬Z(r6 g<%
W‫ و‬0+ J+ }(<% )GB‫ا أ‬0?7Y‫اء وا‬qY‫ أ‬W‫)ء و‬xd‫ أ‬W‫ارح و‬0r6 }(<%‫ و‬F‫)ت ا‬1I )GB‫ا أ‬0?7Y‫ه وا‬0Y0%‫;ي وا‬/S‫وا‬
‫ه‬#<t
Yes, he said that they are not organs and limbs, which we agree with as
previously explained. Rather, he affirms their reality. Also, if he didn't know their
meaning, then how could he say that they are attributes? How would he know
the nature of the construct state when attributed to Allah, unless he knew the
meaning of these attributes?

ِ There are Asharis who say that you could affirm it as an attribute, despite not
knowing it's meaning. Okay fine, I will grant you that. I will grant you that this is
what Al Kalabaadhi meant for the sake of argument and for other scholars if you
like.

But remember, that you are doing this at the cost of exposing how weak your
theology is. How could you in your right mind affirm something to be an
attribute for Allah when you don't even know what it means?

____________________________________________________________________

Athari Response

Provided by Saheefa.org

Important Principle
al-Mudaf (construct state) is of two main types:
• al-Mudaf depicting possession
• al-Mudaf not depicting possession

The first type, includes examples such as: Kalam Allah, ‘Ilm Allah, Qudrat Allah
(Allah’s Speech, Allah’s knowledge and Allah’s power)
The second type, includes examples such as: Ka’bat Allah, Naaqat Allah (Allah’s
Ka’bah, or Allah’s she-camel)

This shows that not everything that is attributed to Allah in Idafa is necessarily
His Attribute, for we all know that Ka’ba and the she-camel is NOT Allah’s
Attributes.

So how do we know whether the Mudaf such as Kalam, Ka’ba, ‘Ilm, Naaqah, etc,
is actually Allah’s Attribute or not?
We only know this by knowing the meaning of the Mudaf.
Hence, because we know the meaning of Kalam, and know also that it does not
exist independently, the fact that it is an Attribute to Allah makes Kalam Allah’s
Attribute.

On the other hand, because we know the meaning of Ka’bah, and therefore we
know that it exists independently, we know that Ka’bah is NOT Allah’s Attribute.

Face

Now bearing this principle in mind, one can only Attribute a Wajh to Allah, if he
knows what Wajh means. If he does not know what Wajh means, then he has no
authority to attribute it to Allah, for Wajh Allah could easily be the second type of
mudaf, like Kab’at Allah.

No scholars can attribute a Wajh to Allah, if they do not know what Wajh means.
Wajh could mean face, as it could also mean a direction.

The scholars could only attribute a Wajh to Allah, if wajh means ‘face’.
They cannot attribute a ‘wajh’ to Allah if it means direction.

Therefore, if the scholars affirm wajh as Allah’s Attribute, they have no choice
but to believe that Wajh means a face, and this is what they believed.

A good way of looking at this is to say,

Whosoever held a similitude for Allah from His creation has committed
disbelief [kufr], whosoever disputes what Allah has attributed for Himself has
committed disbelief [kufr], there is absolutely no similitude [tash'bih] in what
Allah taala has described Himself or His messenger; so, whosoever affirms [the
attributes] for Allah ta`ala [just] as they have been mentioned in the [qur'anic]
verses, and in the authentic reports – that is befitting the Majesty of Allah ta’ala
and negates all flaws from Allah ta’ala has truly struck the path of guidance.

But what the mainstream Ash’aris say is quite different. They insist on negating
the literal meaning. They say: Yes, Allah has attributed something called ‘wajh’ to
himself, but what this means we do not exactly know, although we are certain
that it does not refer to wajh literally.
Shin
Ash’aris will argue this point by trying to say,

Let us now take what you say is an attribute of Allah – Shin.

The literal meaning of Shin in the language is:
“The front part of the leg below the knee and above the ankle.”
Now how can you say that by applying a “literal meaning” one does not
contradict the “without modality and definition” principle that you claim to be
upon?

This is incorrect.
Shin is in and of itself the literal meaning, otherwise, Shin itself will be
meaningless.
If in Arabic someone says: inkasarat saaquhu, it literally means: His shin broke.
i.e. Shin is the literal meaning itself.

The same statement could be made in relation to a Jinn, i.e. ‘his shin broke’, but is
their shin like ours, composed of blood, flesh and bones, between the knee and
foot? Allah knows best. However, the meaning of Shin is known.

When they say: ‘The front part of the leg below the knee and above the ankle’, is
the Hadd – or the definition of Shin with respect to human beings, something
which Ahlus Sunnah does not affirm.

Rather, we constantly state that our affirmation of Allah’s Attributes like Face
and Hands is the affirmation of existence (wujud), and not affirmation of any
definition (tahdid). Just as we literally believe that Allah exists, without giving
his existence any definition. Hence, Allah’s Hands are no different to His
existence.

It shuold be pointed out though, that the reason why the latter Ash’aris negated
Wajh, ‘Ayn, etc and made ta’wil thereof, is due to Kalami principles that negating
composition, divisiblity and multiplicity of eternal.

A Maturidi scholar (Zabidi al-Hanafi, d.~1200AH) mentioned,

 Your saying, ‘we take it by its literal meaning, and it is incomprehensible’ is
contradictory in itself. If you take by its literal meaning, then ‘as-saq’
mentioned in Suratal-Qalam (ayah 42), is a ‘shin’ which is a part made up of
flesh, bones, muscle, and nerves. If you take by that the literal meaning, then
you have committed blasphemy, and if you deny it, then how do you claim to
take by the literal meaning?

The great Shafi’i traditionist al-Khattabi (d. 388AH) said about the texts
pertaining to Allah’s Shin,

This Hadeeth is one where our scholars dreaded saying something, so they
passed it on in accordance with the literal meaning of the wording (fa ajrawhu
‘ala dhahiri lafdhihi). They did not explore the depths of its meaning, in
accordance with their Madhab of ceasing to give tafseer to anything the
essence of which is not encompassed with knowledge (al-Asma wal-Sifat, al-
Bayhaqi)

Again, to emphasize, the proper principle is to accept the apparent meaning

(dhahir) and to negate the modality (kayf).

Issue 30: The Ash’ari Attempt to Recruit al-Khataabi Into the Ranks of the
Muffawwida

On page 186 he cites Abu Sulaymaan Al Khattabi who said that the yad is an
attribute. I personally believe that Al Khattabi was an Ashari, despite what other
Salafis might say.

The criticism I put forth against Al Kalabaadhi would also apply here and for any
"Ashari" affirming attributes for Allah when he doesn't even know the meaning
of those attributes.

________________________________________________________________________

Ali Boriqee’s Response

I’ve covered this in an old work titled “Tanzih of the Shafi’ee Madhaab from the
Ash’ari Heretics”

al-Bayhaqi records in al-Asma' wa'l-Sifat p.445

“This Hadith (i.e. the narration of the Attribute of al-Nuzûl) and what looks similar from
the Narrations of the Attributes, then the Madhhab of the Salaf concerning them is to
believe (al-imân) in them and to carry them upon their apparent meaning (‘ala dhâhirihâ)
and negating the how-ness (al-kayfiyyati) from them.”

al-Khattabi continues further elaboration in Ma’alim al-Sunan 4:304 and al-

Bayhaqi in al-Asma' wa'l-Sifat p.446 records it as well, in which he said

“[I say:] And this (i.e. the Attributes) is from the knowledge which we’ve been
commanded to believe in according to its apparent sense (bi-dhâhir), not to lift
up the curtain for [reaching] its hidden meaning. And it is from the ambiguous
passages: Allah, the Exalted, mentioned in His Book, for He said {He is it Who
revealed upon you the Book, from it the Clear Verses, they are the Mother of the
Book, and other the Ambiguous Verses} the rest of the Ayat. The Muhkam of it is
to know its real sense and to act [accordingly] (al-‘ilm al-haqîqi wa’l-‘amal) and
the Mutashabih is to believe it and to have knowledge of its apparent sense (al-
imân wa’l-‘ilm al-dhâhir) and to entrust its hidden sense (batin) to Allah, the
Mighty and Majestic.. and the saying in all of that with the scholars of the Salaf is
what we’ve said.”

One could not be more “Salafi” on this issue as this.

al-Dhahabi records in his al-‘Uluww, see its Mukhtasar p.207 in a lost work of al-
Khataabi, which was his last work, called “al-Ghunya an al-Kalaam wa Ahlih”
where he says

“As for what you have asked me concerning the sayings on the Attributes and that which
has come in the Book and the authentic Sunan with regards to them, then the Madhhab of
the Salaf was to affirm them (ithbât) and take them upon their apparent meanings (‘ala
dhâhiriha), and to negate Tashbîh and how-ness from them.”
al-Khataabi also says as recorded by al-Bayhaqi in al-Asma' wa'l-Sifat p.364

The principle is: every Attribute which the Book has come with or has been authenticated
by consecutive reports or is transmitted by a single route, and it has a basis in the Book
or it comes from one of its meanings, then we speak by it and take upon its apparent
meaning (‘ala dhâhiriha) without asking how.”

There is a report from Haafidh 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.

We say that there is nothing here fundamentally at odds with the Salafi creed,
even if al-Khataabi remarked on the errors of some of what may be understood
to be some of the hanaabilah who over did their affirmation, which is in and of
itself an issue of perspective. It should be noted here that this “t’aweel” that he
applies here is NOT the Ash’ari t’aweel. The reason why is because he qualifies
this t’aweel by the attributes of “being derived according to the known meanings
of the foundations of the religion” i.e. the Arabic language and the shariah, and
the schools of the scholars i.e. the Salaf. The Ash’ari format for t’aweel does not
carry these attributes, rather they are harmonious with the t’aweel of the
M’utazilah. Imaam Ibnul-Juwaynee agrees to this as he himself attested that the
madhaab of the Ash’aris is not really different than the madhaab of the
M’utazilah. So this is a known admission of heresy on the part of an Ash’ari for
the Ash’ari school.

However, what is interesting is that it has been reported by some of the scholars
that al-Khataabi abandoned this rather perspective view of those whom he was
criticizing and certain stances that seemed to agree with the Ash’aris and they
note this due to his authorship opf his last work, which we’ve mentioned above.

Imam Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali rahimahullah said in his sharh of sahih al-Bukhari
(Fath al-Bari):

. - E'+‫_م وأ‬$%‫ ا‬ld [<>v%‫ ا‬- JK E2%)O‫ ر‬JK J6)hi%‫ه ا‬#`‫{ ذ‬%,`
، E>d NY‫; ر‬9K y7'$2w‫[ ا‬9/#€ •K‫ا‬0/‫{ و‬%‫& ذ‬%)i/ )7- E*2` l- #<f` JK E-_` l- ,‚z/ )- ‫'= أن‬d ‫;ل‬/ ‫ا‬,+‫و‬
. [9/#h%‫ه ا‬,+ ‫ت‬0*4 ='d J>*- 0+ )7B‫)ت إ‬1M%‫ ا‬l- #<f` J1B ‫ن‬5K

-and al-khattabi also mentioned it in his letter- alGhunya 'an al-Kalam wa Ahlih
and this proves that what is taken against him from a lot of his sayings in his
books that go against that and agree with the way of the mutakalimeen, he has
retracted from….”

One more quote from al-Khataabi should suffice, and this one is pertaining to
Allah’s actual aboveness over His Throne.

Al-Khattabi said: When the Muslims say "Allah is on the Throne", it does not mean
that He is touching it, or placed in it, or positioned in a direction; rather He is
separate from His creation. We only said [that He is on His Throne] because the
text came as such, so we said it but we negated modality from it, as "there is
nothing like Him, and He is The Hearing, The Seeing". (A'laam 'l-Hadeeth Sharh
Saheeh 'l-Bukhari, 2/1474)
This statement is the epitome of the Salafi doctrine on this issue, and by
extension, the entirety of the subject of al-Asmaa wa Sifaat.

Nevertheless, what we wish to establish here is that in no way and in any sense
and in any stretch of the imagination was al-Khataabi an advocate of tafweed
according to the Ash’ari rite even prior to switching towards a more harmonious
Athari position. He was a fully fledged Athari.

Issue 31: Using Abul-Hilaal Hassan al-Askari

On pages 188-189 he cites Abu Hilal Al Hassan Al Askari making ta'wil and then
he said that this shows that affirming the dhaahir is prohibited.

However, as I pointed out [in a previous issue above], the author provides
statements of scholars elsewhere, which would prohibit such ta'weel!!!

________________________________________________________________________

Ali Boriqee’s Response

This is essentially a red herring. What does citing someone making t’aweel have
to prove with regards to the validity of tafweed, if anything it would lead to a
lack of support for it, not a promotion of it.
Issue 32: the Ash’ari Attempt to Use Abu Bakr al-Baqilaani for Tafweed

On page 189, he cites Abu Bakr Al Baqillani.

________________________________________________________________________

Ali Boriqee’s Response

There are two things here.

One, the author is doing a horrible job in trying to keep in line with the motive
embedded in the title of his own book. What is the use of using Abu Bakr al-
Baqilaani when firstly, he was not from the salaf, and secondly, he was an
Ash’ari. The point, according to the title of the book, is to validate your heresy
using the Imaams of the Salaf, who were not Ash’ari and were anti-kalaam.

Secondly, The author digs himself into a deeper hole because the original
Ash’aris like al-Baqalaani were anti-tafweed. In other words, no ash’ari will be
able to use the mountains and original thinkers of their own madhaab to purport
tafweed because they either repudiated tafweed directly, as is the case with Abul-
Hasan al-Qushayri, or their doctrine was to such an extent with regards to the
literal affirmation of some of the sifaat, that it is antithetical and impossible for
them to have accepted tafweed bil-m’ana based on their ithbaat of the attributes.

Issue 33: The Case of Abu Amr ad-Daani

On pages 191-193 he cites Abu Amro Al Daani and this is yet another example of
him citing scholars that hurt his own cause.

He cites Al Daani saying that Allah is above the heavens and that we shouldn't
delve into kayfiyyah. So what???? Salafis agree with that!!!

But there are more interesting points to note regarding this scholar.
If we go to Abu Amro Al Daani's book ‫ل‬0I‫)دات وأ‬92dW‫ ا‬JK [>(%‫^ ا‬+‫\ أ‬+,w [<K‫ا‬0%‫[ ا‬%)O#%‫ا‬
‫)ت‬B)/;%‫ا‬, we could observe some interesting things.

For example, on page 22 of his book he cites Muqaatil ibn Sulayman and Imam
Malik as saying that Allah's knowledge is with us while He is above the heavens.
Now someone may try to argue that the narration of Imam Malik is weak, while
Muqaatil is an anthropomorphist. However, that is missing the point and the
reason for that is because we are only concerned with Abu Amro Al Daani at the
moment and he clearly appears to have cited those narrations in agreement with
their meaning and implications (which clearly illustrate's Allah elevation).

Also, see page 28, narration no. 23, where Al Daani cites a narration clearly
illustrating Allah's 'Uluww.

Furthermore, on page 39 he said that Allah will be seen with our eyes (‫ى‬#/
‫)ر‬M6S)6). He says the same thing on page 44 as well. However, we have to be fair
and mention that he qualifies his statement by saying "with no hadd".

Issue 34: the Outrageous Attempt of the Ash’aris to Recruit Imaam as-
Saboonee Into the Ranks of the Muffawwida

Again, the author hurts himself. He quotes Abu Uthmaan Al Saabooni on pages
193-194.

The very citation that he provides shows that Abu Uthmaan affirmed pleasure
and anger as attributes for Allah. Do Asharis agree with this?

Also, he cites Abu Uthmaan as saying that the Salaf took the Sifaat on their
dhaahir!!!! He tried to insert his own presuppositions to explain this away, but
his explanation is simply ad hoc and unwarranted.
If you refer to the Wasiya of Abu Uthmaan you would observe that Abu Uthman
discouraged delving into the kayfiyyah and not the meaning. Rather, he affirmed
the dhaahir of the Sifaat and even affirmed attributes, which Asharis don't affirm
like the attribute of laughter. He said in his Wasiya:

Z$6‫= { إن ر‬%)?| E%0P JK , E6)2` JK E><6 )7` E<'d ‫ى‬02O‫ ا‬,EL#d ='d 02(- =%)?|‫ و‬EB)k*O F ‫; أن‬GV/‫• و‬
='d ‫ى‬02O‫ { ا‬E%0P‫ و‬,)54 :‫اف‬#dS‫ش }(ا‬#?%‫'= ا‬d ‫ى‬02O‫ ا‬Z4 ‫)م‬/‫[ أ‬2O JK ‫رض‬S‫ات وا‬07(%‫ي ‚'• ا‬,%‫ ا‬F‫ا‬
^9B )7<K )7<'(| Z'O‫ و‬E<'d F‫'= ا‬I ‫ل‬0O#%‫ وا‬,#‚‫)ت أ‬/‫ آ‬JK ,)59 :‫)ن‬P#1%‫ا }(ا‬#<*‚ E6 ^Ÿ(K l7b#%‫ش ا‬#?%‫ا‬
ld [<1<$%‫ إذ ا‬,E2<1<` ‫*)ت‬4‫= إ‬%‫*<_ إ‬O E7+‫ أو و‬E7GK‫ و‬E'?1% E'?r/ ‫ أو‬,E<'d ‫اءه‬02O‫<& ا‬$/ ‫ أن‬#<t l- ,E>d
[<1>- )>6‫)ت ر‬1I
:‫اء‬02OW‫<[ ا‬1<` ld E%ŽO l- ‫اب‬0Y JK E>d F‫ ا‬J•‫ ر‬gB‫ أ‬l6 {%)- F‫*; ا‬d 06‫ه أ‬#Md JK y7'(w‫)م ا‬-‫)ل إ‬P
l- ‫ه‬0Y#‚‫ أ‬,)9/;B‫ وأ˜>{ ز‬,[d;6 E>d ‫ال‬z(%‫ وا‬,\Y‫ وا‬E6 ‫)ن‬7/j‫ وا‬,‫ل‬0Gr- &<$%‫ وا‬, ‫م‬0'?- ‫اء‬02OW‫(( ا‬
)) ;r(w‫ا‬
J1>/ W E<*B ‫()ن‬% ='d‫ و‬,E6)2` JK E(1B )G6 &I‫ و‬J2%‫ ا‬,='?%‫)ت ا‬1M6 ‫ف‬0I0- =%)?| F‫; أن ا‬GV/‫• و‬
E|‫ ذا‬E*V| W )7` ,y606#w‫)ت ا‬1I E*V| W E|)1I ‫ إن‬: ‫ل‬09/ ^6 ,E9'‚ ‫)ت‬1M6 E% )G*L ;92?/ W‫ و‬,)G>- )Ÿ<L
‫ا‬#<*` ‫ا‬0'd [G*Vw‫'[ وا‬h?w‫ل ا‬09/ )7d F‫= ا‬%)?| ,y4;kw‫ذوات ا‬

! F‫ل ا‬0O‫ ر‬ld }kI J2%‫‚*)ر ا‬S‫ وا‬E%_Y ^Y ‫*)رىء‬%‫ت ا‬0M$ 6:‫ وردت (; ذ‬J2%‫)ت ا‬/ª‫ ا‬JK {'(/‫• و‬
En‫ا‬02O‫ وا‬,‫ه‬P*5 ‫ آدم‬S'G‫ و‬,‫م‬0CT/‫ ا‬UV )'W ;( B‫ن ا‬0*J‫ وإ‬,YV0*Z/‫م ا‬.2 ‫ب‬6/‫];ء ا‬V ‫ت‬02^: ,)G6)6
‫م‬0/ E<Y)>/ l- ='d &>$%‫ ا‬N•‫ وو‬,‫ى‬0r>%‫ وا‬,_A1/‫ وا‬,)>/;%‫)ء ا‬7O =%‫<'[ إ‬% ^` E%‫و‬qB ‫‚*)ر‬Ž`‫ و‬,EL#d ='d
,)+;>O [kI ;?6 ,)GGY‫'= و‬d )G2/‫ و روا‬,)G%0*P l- l/;%‫[ ا‬7n‫ وأ‬, ‰%)M%‫('& ا‬%‫('{ ا‬- ,)+#<t‫ و‬,[-)<9%‫ا‬
)- ‫>)ب‬2Y‫ وا‬,)G<K E<*V2%‫<<& وا‬$2%‫)د ا‬92d‫)ء ا‬9|‫ وا‬,)G% Z<'(2%‫ وا‬,)G6 •/;M2%‫ وا‬,0F6F0W @'I 0F‫اد‬62‫وإ‬
[6)kM'% E6 #r/ Z%‫ و‬,)B)h'O E6 F‫ل ا‬q>/ Z%‫ و‬,#$>2(/ ^/‫و‬Ž26 )G1/#k| ‫) أو‬G%0*P ‫ك‬#|‫ و‬,)+‫د‬#6 ‫ل‬09%‫= ا‬%‫دي إ‬z/
‫()ن‬% yk%)M%‫('& ا‬%‫ وا‬y?6)2%‫وا‬

In his book Aqeedatul Salaf Ashaabul Hadeeth he said that the verses on Istiwaa
are to be taken upon their dhaahir:

E6 •hB )7` &`6I @'I ‫ات‬.Ca "#a b.( @/03J‫=& و‬0A#a B‫;ون أن ا‬GV/‫ و‬a/;k%‫ ا‬M6‫_=> أ‬k)‫و‬
،‫ش‬#?%‫'= ا‬d ‫ى‬02O‫ ا‬Z4 ،‫)م‬/‫[ أ‬2O JK ‫رض‬S‫ات وا‬07(%‫ي ‚'• ا‬,%‫ ا‬F‫ ا‬Z$6‫^ (إن ر‬Y‫ و‬qd E%0P JK E6)2`
:;d#%‫رة ا‬0O JK E%0P‫) و‬EB‫?; إذ‬6 l- W‫ إ‬N<1L l- )- ،#-S‫ ا‬#6;/
 ‫ى‬02O‫ ا‬Z4( ‫)ن‬P#1%‫رة ا‬0O JK E%0P‫ش) و‬#?%‫'= ا‬d ‫ى‬02O‫ ا‬Z4 ،)GB‫و‬#| ;7d #<v6 ‫ات‬07(%‫ ا‬NK‫ي ر‬,%‫ ا‬F‫(ا‬
‫رة‬0O JK E%0P‫ش) و‬#?%‫'= ا‬d ‫ى‬02O‫ ا‬Z4( ‫;ة‬r(%‫رة ا‬0O JK E%0P‫ا) و‬#<*‚ E6 ‫ل‬ŽO)K ،l7b#%‫ش ا‬#?%‫'= ا‬d
‫ب‬#%‫ن ا‬0P;M/‫ و‬E6 ‫ن‬0>-z/‫ و‬،=%)?| F‫ ا‬E2*4‫) أ‬- {%‫ ذ‬l- E% ‫ن‬02*f/ )‫ى‬02O‫ش ا‬#?%‫'= ا‬d l7b#%‫ (ا‬:E€
‫ه‬6F0W @'I &=‫و‬6C2‫ و‬،‫ش‬#?%‫'= ا‬d En‫ا‬02O‫ ا‬l- =%)?|‫ و‬EB)k*O E9'€‫) أ‬- ‫ن‬09'h/‫ و‬،‫ه‬#*‚ JK E%_Y ^Y
F‫ ا‬#*‚‫) أ‬7` )‫*)ب‬%S‫ ا‬0%‫ أو‬W‫ إ‬#`,/ )-‫ و‬،)>6‫>; ر‬d l- ^` ،E6 )>-‫ (آ‬:‫ن‬0%09/‫ و‬،F‫= ا‬%‫ إ‬E7'd ‫ن‬0'$/‫و‬
.E6 ZG<'d =>4ŽK ،ZG>- E<•‫ ور‬،{%‫ن ذ‬0%09/ ZGB‫ أ‬Z'?%‫ ا‬JK yiO‫ا‬#%‫ ا‬ld =%)?|

He also said that we must take the dhaahir of the narrations regarding Nuzool:

‫ول‬q>6 E% E<*V| #<t l- ،)<B;%‫)ء ا‬7(%‫= ا‬%‫<'[ إ‬% ^` =%)?|‫ و‬EB)k*O ‫ب‬#%‫ول ا‬qB a/;k%‫)ب ا‬kI‫*} أ‬f/‫و‬
،E<%‫ إ‬E<K ‫ن‬0G2>/‫ و‬،Z'O‫ و‬E<'d F‫'= ا‬I F‫ل ا‬0O‫ ر‬E2*4‫) أ‬- ‫ن‬02*f/ ^6 &<<$| W‫<^ و‬f7| W‫ و‬،yP0'iw‫ا‬
F‫= ا‬%‫ إ‬E7'd ‫ن‬0'$/‫ و‬،‫ه‬6F0W @'I ‫ه‬#`,6 ‫ارد‬0%‫ ا‬‰<kM%‫ ا‬#*i%‫ون ا‬#7/‫و‬

When the author speaks about the coming of Allah, he makes it clear that what is
to not be interpreted is the kayfiyyah:

^+( :^Y‫ و‬qd E%0P JK l/‫ر‬0`,w‫|<)ن ا‬j‫ء وا‬Jrw‫ ا‬#`‫ ذ‬l- ،E6)2` JK E7O‫ ا‬qd F‫ ا‬E%qB‫) أ‬- ‫ن‬02*f/ {%,`‫و‬
.))1I )1I {'w‫{ وا‬6‫)ء ر‬Y‫ (و‬:E7O‫ ا‬qd E%0P‫[) و‬$n_w‫)م وا‬7v%‫ ا‬l- ^'˜ JK F‫ ا‬ZG<|Ž/ ‫ أن‬W‫ون إ‬#«>/
)<B;%‫)ء ا‬7(%‫= ا‬%‫ل إ‬q>/ EB)k*O F‫<_ن أن ا‬Y ^+‫= أ‬%‫ إ‬J'<d)7Oj‫ ا‬#$6 J6‫ أ‬p<V%‫[ ا‬%)O‫ ر‬JK ‫أت‬#P‫و‬
‫ أن‬W‫ون إ‬#«>/ ^+( :^Y‫ و‬qd F‫)ل ا‬P ;P‫ و‬،Z'O‫ و‬E<'d F‫'= ا‬I ‫ل‬0O#%‫ ا‬ld #*i%‫ ا‬E6 ‰I )- ='d
c5 ‫)ء‬Y )- ='d E'` {%,6 l-zB‫)) و‬1I )1I {'w‫{ وا‬6‫)ء ر‬Y‫ (و‬:‫)ل‬P‫)م) و‬7v%‫ ا‬l- ^'˜ JK F‫ ا‬ZG<|Ž/
‫ي‬,%‫ ا‬ld )>11`‫ و‬،&CeD‫ أ‬0V @/‫ إ‬0f*gK=0( ،)3( _/‫ ذ‬Y*M*: 0f/ h#2 ‫=& أن‬0A#a ‫ء‬0` .'( ،9*:
‫ أم‬l+ ‫)ت‬7$k- ‫)ت‬/‫ آ‬E>- ‫)ب‬2$%‫'<{ ا‬d ‫ل‬qB‫ي أ‬,%‫ ا‬0+( :^Y‫ و‬qd E%0P JK E6 )B#-‫; أ‬P )>` ‫ إذ‬E6)V2/
،E'/‫و‬Ž| ‫)ء‬v26‫>[ وا‬21%‫)ء ا‬v26‫ ا‬،E>- E6)V| )- ‫ن‬0?*2<K ¬/‫ ز‬ZG60'P JK l/,%‫) ا‬-ŽK ‫)ت‬G6)V2- #‚‫ وأ‬،‫)ب‬2$%‫ا‬
)‫*)ب‬%S‫ ا‬0%‫ أو‬W‫ إ‬#`,/ )-‫>) و‬6‫>; ر‬d l- ^` E6 )>-‫ن آ‬0%09/ Z'?%‫ ا‬JK ‫ن‬0iO‫ا‬#%‫ وا‬،F‫ ا‬W‫ إ‬E'/‫و‬Ž| Z?/ )-‫و‬

Even reading the narrations he cites right after makes it even more clearer.

He affirmed that we would see Allah with our eyes and that this is the position of
Ahlus Sunnah:

1T eJ@ a?%‫ون إ‬#qN)‫ و‬،I%‫ر‬-JKLK e%1kg‫رك و‬12g <`;‫ون ر‬#) XNT~•‫( أن ا‬NH%‫ ا‬M6‫`> أ‬p)‫و‬
Asharis like GF Haddad claim that Abu Uthmaan Al Saabooni were Asharis, but
clearly as we have seen, he doesn't really seem like it.

_______________________________________________________________________

Ali Boriqee’s Response

I say this is because as-Saboonee was never an Ash’ari, rather he was an athari of
the Shafi’ee rite, rahmatullahi alayh.

Issue 35: The Ash’ari Attempt to Recruit Ibn Abdul-Barr Into the Ranks of the
Muffawwida.

On page 196 the author actually has the nerve to appeal to Ibn Abdul Barr.

I mean, even the Ashari GF Haddad said of Ibn Abdul Barr:

His literalist bend is evident in doctrine, and "Salafîs" are fond of quoting his
apparent attribution of place, direction, and...
Ibn Abdul Barr's anti-ashari stance is too well known. This author is clearly just
cherry picking and isolating statements of scholars to make it appear as if they agree
with his theology.

It's enough for me to only present this statement from Ibn Abdul Barr:

“Ahlu Sunnah are agreed in affirming all the Attributes of Allaah which are related in
the Qur’aan and the sunnah, having eemaan (faith) in them and understanding them
‘alal-haqeeqah (in a real sense) not ‘alal-majaaz (metaphorically).

How they are is not to be asked. However the Jahmiyyah, the Mu’tazilah, and the
Khawaarij all deny them (1) and do not carry them ‘alal-haqeeqah; claiming that whoever
affirms them has made tashbeeh (resemblance), and they claim that whoever recites them
(as they are) is a mushabbih (a person who likens Allaah to the creation)”
[At-Tamheed of Ibn 'Abdul-Barr, 7/145]

Also, if you read this book ‫)ن‬7/j‫<; وا‬b02%‫ ا‬JK #*%‫*;ا‬d l6‫)م ا‬-j‫<;ة ا‬9d, it discusses Ibn
Abdul Barr's creed in detail and you could see how he was Salafi in his beliefs in
Sifaat.

The author's citation Ibn Abdul Barr on the laughter attribute means nothing.
Scholars could make mistakes, what matters is their manhaj.

Issue 36: the Ash’ari Attempt to Recruit Haafidh Abu Bakr al-Khateeb al-
Baghdaadee into the Ranks of the Muffawwida

On page 198, he appeals to Al Khateeb Al Baghdadi, but I have no idea how the
citation supports tafweed al ma'na or any other anti-Salafi notions.

______________________________________________________________________

Ali Boriqee’s Response

Says the Imaam, Allaamah, Haafidh Abu Bakr al-Khateeb

"as for the discussion concerning the Attributes then indeed the madhhab of the
salaf pertaining to that which is reported in the authentic sunan, was to affirm them
and leave them upon their apparent meaning (ala dhaahiriya) while negating the
kayfiyyah and tashbeeh from them. And a group rejected them and nullified that which
Allaah, the free from defect, had affirmed. And another group from those that affirmed
them examined them and fell into a type of tashbeeh and takyeef, and the desired objective
is to travel the middle path between these two matters for the religion of Allaah is
between the two extremes.

And the basis of this is that the discussion concerning the Attributes is a branch
of the discussion concerning the Essence of Allaah (dhaat) taking an identical
path in both of them. So when it is known that affirming the Lord of the
Universes is only affirming the existence not affirming the kayfiyyah, then
likewise affirming the Attributes is affirming their existence not affirming
limitation or takyeef.

So when we say: Allaah, the Exalted has a Hand, and Hearing, and Seeing, then these
are Attributes that Allaah has affirmed for Himself and we do not say: the
meaning of hand is Power (Qudra) and neither do we say: the meaning of
Hearing and Seeing is Knowledge and neither do we say that they are limbs/
organs, and neither do we liken them to the hands, hearing, and seeing that are
organs. Rather we say: what is obligatory is to affirm them because they are to be stopped
at (in terms of kayfiyyah) and obligatory to negate tashbeeh from them due to the saying
of Allaah, ‘there is nothing like Him, He is the Seeing and the Hearing’ and His saying,
‘there is nothing like Him’"

adh-Dhahabee record this in his al-‘Uloow and is found in Mukhtasir

al-‘Uloow(pg. 47+, pg. 272) in which he is quoting from a work of Abu Bakr al-
Khateeb that is still in manuscript form which is titled “al-Kalaam alaa as-Sifaat”

There are tremendous benefits and principles utilized in this quote as it pertains
to the pure Athari creed. There are likewise so many refutations of the cult-like
deductions typical to immature youngsters by which Ash’ari propagandists in
their forums are refuted through. One example, among several in this quote, is
the fact that Haafidh al-Khateeb here is pointing out to these heretics that our
ithbaat of these sifaat does not entail affirming or giving them a “how” rather our
ithbaat is centralized to its existence and factual reality. Likewise is the fact that
our ithbaat is not synonymous with the affirmation of bodily organs, parts, or
other absurd deductions pseudo Ash’ari propagandists have conjured up with
regard to the orthodox creed.

However, more importantly, is the direct proof related to the subject matter of
this document, which is that there is no way on earth that Haafidh al-Khateeb
could have advocated tafweed bil-m’ana in light of the fact that he clearly affirms
above that the Attributes of Allah are to be understood based upon its dhaahir
meanings. For someone to accept the fact that the Attributes are to be understood
on its dhaahir is a direct antithesis of m’anawi tafweed.
Issue 37: The Ash’ari Attempt to Recruit Ibn Mandah Into the Ranks of the
Muffawwida

On page 200 he appeals to Abdur Rahman bin Muhammad bin Mandah. Nothing
in the quote refutes the Salafi stance, since bin Mandah is only denying organs
for Allah.

It's interesting to note however, that bin Mandah's father was purely Salafi and
he authored Al Radd 'ala Al Jahmiyyah. You could tell he was Salafi, especially
when the Asharite GF Haddad says:

This is confirmed by Abû Nu`aym's doctrinal criticism of Ibn Mandah when it is

known that the latter narrated anthropomorphist views and his authoring al-Radd
`alâ al-Hurûfiyya

His son was Salafi like him. He authored a book called ‫ف‬#b Z%‫ل ا‬09/ l- ='d ‫د‬#%‫ا‬

He says in his book that the innovator (i.e. Asharis) say that Alif Laam Meem are
not part of the Qur'an:

‫آن‬#96 g<% ‫>;ه‬d Z<w‫_م وا‬%‫& وا‬%S‫[ وا‬7'` ‫[ أو‬/‫[ آ‬9<9b ;>d ‫آن‬#9%‫ وا‬#Vd )Z‫ـ‬%‫ـ (ا‬6 ‫ل‬09/ ‫;ع‬2*w‫وا‬

He also said that the innovator (i.e. Asharis) views the letter as created:

[P0'i- [/‫آن آ‬#9%‫ف ا‬#b ‫ى‬#/ ‫;ع‬2*w‫وا‬

He also says:

‫آن‬#9%‫ ا‬l- ‫ف‬#k%‫ ا‬J1>/ ‫*;ع‬%‫^ ا‬+‫ أ‬l- ‫‚*)ر‬S)6 #2(| l-‫و‬

And:

g<% )B‫آ‬#P )G6 ‫أ‬#9B )B‫آ‬#P =7(| [P0'i- )K‫و‬#b ‫)ب‬2$%‫?^ ا‬Y ;9K ‫آن‬#9%‫ ا‬l- W ‫)ب‬2$%‫ ا‬l- ‫ف‬#k%‫ى ا‬#/ ‫;ع‬2*w‫وا‬
.‫)ب‬2$%‫{ ا‬%,6

And:
 ‫)ز‬rw‫[ ا‬9<9b‫)زا و‬r- yB‫آ‬#P ‫>;ه‬d ‫آن‬#9%‫)ر ا‬I ;9K ‫)ب‬2$%‫{ ا‬%‫ى ذ‬0O ‫آن‬#P =%‫وف إ‬#k%‫ه ا‬,G6 #<V/ ‫;ع‬2*w‫وا‬
‫ق‬0'i- ‫>;ه‬d
.)P0'i- ‫;ع‬2*w‫اه ا‬#/ ‫ي‬,%‫ا ا‬,+ #<t )B‫آ‬#P ‫ف‬#?/ W a/;k%‫\ ا‬b)I‫و‬

ٍ We also know that he affirmed the Nuzool of Allah literally. We know this
because he took the view that Allah leaves the Throne when he does Nuzool.
Shaykh ibn Taymiyyah mentions this opinion of his in Majmu' Al Fataawa,
Volume 31, pages 132-135 and also disagrees with him (i.e. so yes he made a
mistake regarding Allah leaving the Throne, but the point is that he viewed the
Nuzool to be literal and that proves he is not an Ashari):

;7k- l6 F‫*;ا‬d J6‫ أ‬l6‫ ا‬l7b#%‫*;ا‬d ZO)9%‫ ا‬06‫>& أ‬I ;P‫ و‬،E>- ‫ش‬#?%‫ ا‬0'‚ l«/ [>(%‫ ا‬Jd;/ l7- [1n)€
.)6)2` {%‫ ذ‬JK ‫>;ه‬- l6‫ا‬
.{%‫ل ذ‬09/ l- ='d #$>|‫ و‬،0'i/ W W‫ و‬،0'i/ ‫ل‬09| W ،&9| [1n)€‫ و‬-
‫ش‬#?%‫ ا‬E>- 0'i/ W‫ل و‬q>/ EB‫('& إ‬%‫ر ا‬0G7Y ‫ل‬0P :‫اب‬0M%‫ وا‬-.JO;9w‫ ا‬J>v%‫*;ا‬d ¡K)k%‫ل ا‬0P ‫ا‬,+‫و‬

Ibn Mandah (both father and son, but we were talking about the son here) were
far from being Asharis.

Issue 38: The Ash’ari Attempt to recruit Abu Mudhaffar as-Sam’aani Into the
Ranks of the Muffawwida

On page 204 he cites Abu Al Mudhfir al Sam’aani, however the citation shows
nothing anti-Salafi.

As a matter of fact, if one were to refer to his commentary he would observe that
he..

Affirms the face for Allah in commentary on Surah 2:115 & 6:52.
Affirms the coming of Allah in commentary on Surah 2:110 and 89:22 .

Affirms elevation for Allah in commentary on Surah 6:18

Affirms the hand for Allah in commentary on Surah 5:64

Affirms Istiwa for Allah in commentary on Surah 7:54 and 20:5

_____________________________________________________________________

Ali Boriqee’s Response

The reader should remember here that there is a major dichotomy between how
Ash’aris understand the concept of “affirming the Attributes” versus the Sunni
concept of “Affirming the Attributes”. In the orthodox Sunni Tradition,
“affirming the Attributes” is to understand them according to its apparent/
obvious meaning and then to negate takyeef and tamtheel. In the Ash’ari
paradigm, affirming the Attributes is merely a statement that is stated but has no
reality or depth to it. It is tantamount to rejection in all but name. That is because
the Ash’ari method is to “negate the dhaahir”, which is essentially negating the
Attribute, and then to affirm something else, some far fetched concept as being
the “plausible” understanding of the Attribute, which is essentially absurd.

So when we, the Muslims, say “we affirm the Attributes” then it means that we
affirm the dhaahir meaning of whatever is in question. When the Ash’aris say
“we affirm the attributes”, it is basically hot air, but what it definitely does not
mean is to affirm the dhaahir, for that is the first notion that is rejected under the
Ash’ari premise of ithbaat. And because of this, this is essentially a nullification
of the Attribute in all but name.
Issue 39: The Ash’ari Attempt to Recruit Haafidh al-Baghawee Into the Ranks
of the Muffawwida

On page 206 he cites Imam Al Baghawi. The author erroneously assumes that
mutaashaabih means that we don't know it's meaning (we have addressed this
before).

As a matter of fact, if one were to refer to his commentary he would observe that
he..

Affirms Istiwa for Allah in commentary on Surah 7:54

Affirms the coming of Allah in commentary on Surah 2:110

Affirms the hand & face for Allah in commentary on Surah 5:64

Affirms elevation for Allah in commentary on Surah 6:18

Affirms we will see Allah with our eyes in 6:103

______________________________________________________________________

Ali Boriqee’s Response

Says Shaykhul-Islam Haafidh al-Baghawee the following

The Finger is an Attribute from amongst the Attributes of Allaah, and likewise
everything of this nature that occurs in the Book and Sunnah, for example the Face
(Wajh), Eye (Ayn), Hand (Yad), Leg (Rijl), Coming (Ityaan and Majee), and the Descent
to the Lowest Heaven, His Rising over His Throne, Laughter (Dahk), Joy (Farh)…so
these and their likes are Attributes of Allaah in which it is obligatory to have faith in, and
to leave them upon their apparent meanings turning away from ta’weel and distancing
from tashbeeh, with the belief that none of the Attributes of the Creator resemble anything
from the attributes of the creation, just as His Self does not resemble the selves of the
creation. Allaah said, ‘there is nothing like Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing’ And
it was upon this that the salaf of this nation, and the scholars of the Sunnah were upon,
they accepted them all with faith and stayed away from tamtheel and ta’weel. And they
relegated the knowledge (of their kayfiyyah) to Allaah…"
This is cited in ‘al-Mu’jam al-Lateef’ (no.66) of adh-Dhahabee who quotes from
him with his own chain of narration. See also ‘Sharh as-Sunnah’ (1/168+) of al-
Baghawee

Very prolific, very clear, and most notably, very anti-Ash’ari as well as anti-
Muffawwid. This quote from al-Baghawee is a complete violation of the doctrine
of tafweed al-m’anawiyyah invented by medieval ash’aris.

Issue 40: The Ash’ari Attempt to Recruit Abdul-Qaadir al-Jilaani Into the
Ranks of the Muffawwida

On page 215 he appeals to Abdul Qaadir Al Geelani.

I wonder why he never bothered to quote Al Geelani's clear words disagreeing

with Asharis:

‫م‬#Y‫ وأ‬Žh‚‫\ وأ‬B‫ أذ‬lw #1v<K ، ‫)ء‬L )7`‫)ء و‬L &<` )<B;%‫)ء ا‬7O =%‫<'[ إ‬% ^` JK ‫ل‬q>/ =%)?| EB‫(( وأ‬
@f3C5 , ، =>(k%‫)ء ا‬7OS‫ ا‬E% 0+ W‫ إ‬E%‫ إ‬W ، ='dS‫ ا‬J'?%‫)ء |*)رك ا‬V/‫*)ده و‬d l- ‫)ر‬2i/ lw =Md‫و‬

. ] 1 / 74 ‫><[ ص‬v%‫)) [ ا‬ M,&@NO‫وا‬ Y/iK3j‫& ا‬KI‫ اد‬0V @'I &5‫ا‬.k‫ و‬YCD6/‫ول ا‬i=

_______________________________________________________________________

Ali Boriqee’s Response

This attempt is worse than someone clutching at straws. There are no words to
describe this buffoonery. Shaykh Abdul-Qaadir says

"It is essential to carry the Attribute of al-Istiwa' (Allaah’s Ascending) by His Essence
over the Throne. Istiwa' does not mean sitting (qu'ud) and touching (mumassa), as the
Mujassimah and Karramiyyah say, nor does it mean highness ('uluww) and grandeur
(rifa') as the Ash'ariyyah say; nor does it mean conquering (istila') or domination
(ghalaba), as the Mu'' tazilah say. Nothing of this has been reported in the Law
(shari'ah). Nor has this been related from any of the Salaf al-Salih, from the Companions
and the Followers, or from the Ashab al-Hadith. Rather it is reported from them that they
carried al-Istiwa' with its apparent meaning"

(Source: Abd al-Qadir al-Jili, Ghunya p. 50)

This is not just anti-Ash’ari and anti-tafweed, this is Jihad against Ash’arism and
tafweed al-m’anawiyyah. Not only does he say that it is to be affirmed according
to its apparent meaning, he clearly explains that the apparent meaning IS that He
istawaa over the Throne bi dhaatih i.e. with His own actual Self. He as well
identifies ths Ash’aris by name, categorizing hem among the heretics that he cites
along with them like the mujassimah and karaamiyya and the m’utazila. he
further distinguishes them all to be in an entirely different platform than the
Ashaabul-Hadeeth, the saved sect.

Issue 41: The Ash’ari Attempt to Recruit Haafidh Abu Amr Ibnus-Salah Into
the Ranks of the Muffawwida

He appeals to Ibn Salah on page 226. I tried hard to get my hands on this book
[O‫•) و درا‬#d y1%)iw‫'= ا‬d ‫د‬#%‫<;ة و ا‬9?%‫ ا‬#/#9| JK ‫_ح‬M%‫ ا‬l6‫)م ا‬-W‫§ ا‬G>- on the internet,
which expounds in greater detail on the aqeedah of Ibn Salah, however I was
unable to find it.

I'm not taking the author's word for it that Ibn Salah was an Ashari or a
supporter of that school of thought. The first quote he provided for him isn't
problematic at all, however the quote he gave from Badr Al Deen might be
problematic.

____________________________________________________________________

Ali Boriqee’s Response

I was unable to find an extract concerning the doctrine of Abu Amr himself, but I
do have a synopsis of his creed by a muhaqiq who did some research on the
issue.

;<9?%‫ ا‬JK ‫_ح‬M%‫ ا‬l6‫[ ا‬-_?%‫§ ا‬G>-

، ;?6‫ و‬E*kI‫ و‬E%‫'= آ‬d‫ و‬F‫ل ا‬0O‫'= ر‬d ‫(_م‬%‫_ة وا‬M%‫ وا‬F ;7k%

‫)م‬-j‫ أن ا‬0+‫ و‬E7'd‫) أ‬76 E2*YŽK F‫ ا‬E7b‫_ح ر‬M%‫ ا‬l6‫)م ا‬-j‫<;ة ا‬9d ld ^•)KS‫ة ا‬0‚S‫; ا‬b‫ أ‬J>%ŽO ;9K
‫ي‬#?LS‫;ي ا‬-ª‫ ا‬l- ‫ع‬q2B‫ي ا‬,%‫ ا‬0+‫• و‬h>w‫[ وا‬1('1%‫_م وا‬$'% ً )ˆ-‫(>[ ذا‬%‫)ب وا‬2$%)6 {(72- §G>w‫ ا‬J1'O
JK J?K)V%‫ ا‬JY#$%‫)م ا‬-j‫<;ة ا‬MP ='d \2` ‫ي‬,%‫ ا‬0+‫ و‬E2<6 E-q%‫_م وأ‬$%‫) ا‬G<K ‫;رس‬/ ‫[ `)ن‬O‫;ر‬- #<*$%‫ا‬
.?6 ‫)ه‬-‫ي ر‬,%‫ ا‬0+‫ و‬265/3 ‫)وى‬21%‫ وا‬1291/2 0'?%‫)) ا‬a/;k%‫)ب ا‬kI‫(>[ وأ‬%‫^ ا‬+‫<;ة أ‬9d ‫ه‬,+(( : [>(%‫ا‬
l6‫_م ا‬Oj‫ ا‬p<L ‫)ل‬P ;P‫اء و‬02OW‫ت وا‬0M%‫ف وا‬#k%)` ‫)ت‬1M%‫ ا‬.?6 ^/‫و‬Ž| .K‫ ر‬EBS ‫ي‬0Vk%)6 [/#?LS‫ا‬
;<1| W [<?7(%‫[ ا‬%‫د‬S‫ إن "ا‬E%0P ‫) رأى‬w EB‫_ح أ‬M%‫ ا‬l6‫و ا‬#7d J6‫ أ‬p<V%‫ ا‬ld ‫;ث‬k/ [9f%‫; `)ن ا‬P‫ ((و‬: E<7<|
)-‫ ((وأ‬:#<f` l6‫)ل ا‬P‫ و‬488-487/8[<7Gr%‫ ا‬g<*'| ‫<)ن‬6))‫_م‬Oj‫<^ ا‬h?| ‫ا‬,+ :‫)ل‬P‫{ و‬%‫'= ذ‬d E>?% "y9<%‫ا‬
‫)ء‬G91%‫)ت ا‬9*€))EBŽL l- .t )76‫ ور‬-‫ازي‬#%‫ ا‬J>?/-E<'d ً_*9- l$/ Z'K ‫_ح‬M%‫ ا‬l6 l/;%‫ ا‬J9| p<V%‫ا‬
.[?O‫ وا‬E7b‫ ر‬F‫ ا‬E7b‫ ر‬E|)>(b ‫ر‬0k6 JK ‫ر‬07v- 0GK ‫)م‬-j‫ ا‬E<K ¨'t )-‫ و‬258/2 [<?K)V%

J+)+‫[ و‬$*V'% )G?K#6 E|;d‫[ وو‬d0*h- #<v%‫)ث ا‬k6S‫; ا‬b‫ أ‬l- )G|‫ر‬0I ‫>;ي أوراق‬d ‫)•^ أن‬1%‫ا ا‬,G% ‫ت‬#`‫وذ‬
JK &'(%‫)ء ا‬7'd ‫د‬0GY" ‫ان‬0>?6 ‫راه‬02`‫[ د‬%)O‫ ر‬l- ‫رة‬0M- ‫وراق‬S‫ وا‬، )G6 N1>/ ‫ أن‬F‫ل ا‬ŽO‫)ت أ‬9K#w‫ ا‬JK
}?Y‫; ر‬P‫ و‬، JB‫ا‬#GV%‫ ا‬J'd ab)*'% )‫ـ‬+ 699-600 ‫<)ت‬K‫ي(و‬#rG%‫ ا‬N6)(%‫ن ا‬#9%‫)" ا‬G>d ‫)ع‬K;%‫<;ة وا‬9?%‫ ا‬#/#9|
JK‫ و‬، -;?6 E%)7`j ¨VB‫ أ‬Z%-[/#?LS‫[ ا‬/#f`‫ى أ‬0d‫ د‬JK ًW)9- \2`‫) `>} أ‬7><b E>- ‫;ت‬12O‫ وا‬ak*%‫ا ا‬,G%
)G<K ‫ل‬,6 ;P‫;ا ً و‬Y ‫ة‬q<72- [%)O#%‫ه ا‬,+ l$%‫ه و‬#<t‫ و‬g-)i%‫()دس وا‬%‫ن ا‬#9'% ^n)O‫;ة ر‬d ;Y0/ ‫ع‬0•0w‫ ا‬g1B
)€0hi- ‫ال‬q/ W )Gx?6 NY‫ا‬#w NY‫; ر‬P‫ و‬#M?%‫ ذاك ا‬JK [>(%‫^ ا‬+‫[ أ‬7n‫ `_م أ‬N*2| JK ً )ˆO07'- ً ‫;ا‬GY ab)*%‫ا‬
‫اءات‬#9%‫<[ وا‬6#?%‫ ا‬p<L ‫)ل‬fw‫*<^ ا‬O ='d ‫ه‬#`‫ ورد ذ‬l7-‫ و‬، ^<M12%)6 ZG>d Z'$| 24 ZG>- ً )ˆ-)-‫ إ‬45 #`‫; ذ‬P‫و‬
‫)م‬-j‫ وا‬J?K)V%‫)س ا‬6‫ در‬l6‫ وا‬J1>k%‫ازي ا‬#%‫ ا‬#1«w‫ ا‬l6‫ وا‬، ‫>;ي‬$%‫ ا‬l/;%‫)م |)ج ا‬V%‫(>; ا‬-‫<[ و‬1>k%‫ ا‬p<L‫و‬
•K0- ‫)م‬-j‫ وا‬J?K)V%‫) ا‬Y‫ا‬#P l6 ^<'‚ l6 &O0/ ‫)ج‬rk%‫ ا‬06‫¡ أ‬K)k%‫ وا‬J?K)V%‫ ا‬#7d l6 ;7b‫ارزم أ‬0‚ p<L
‫;د‬d‫زي و‬#‚)*%‫ ا‬#Ghw‫ ا‬l6 ;<?O ¡K)k%‫ وا‬J(>?%‫?; ا‬O‫ أ‬l6 ;7k- ‫;ن‬d J•)P‫;ادي و‬v*%‫<; ا‬%0%‫ ا‬l6‫ ا‬l/;%‫ا‬
)G<21-‫?<[ و‬K)V%‫ ا‬p<L‫ و‬J?K)V%‫ ا‬J/0i%‫'<^ ا‬i%‫ ا‬l6‫)ة ا‬x9%‫ ا‬J•)P‫_م و‬dS‫'[ ا‬6)>k%‫[ ا‬O‫)د‬9w‫[ ا‬7nS‫ ا‬l-
ZG% #1t‫= و‬%)?| F ZG7b‫(>[ ر‬%‫[ ا‬7n‫ أ‬l- Z+#<t‫ و‬JO;9w‫[ ا‬7?B l6 ;7b‫ أ‬l6 ;7b‫?*)س أ‬%‫ ا‬06‫• أ‬V-‫ د‬JK
.l/;%‫م ا‬0/ =%‫ إ‬ZGrG>- =12P‫ ا‬lw

JK ‫ي‬#rG%‫ ا‬N6)(%‫ن ا‬#9%‫ ا‬JK &'(%‫)ء ا‬7'd #Mb Jd‫ أد‬W J>B5K E<'d‫ ((و‬: Efk6 [/)GB JK ab)*%‫)ل ا‬P ;P‫و‬
، E<K ›<?/ ‫ي‬,%‫ن ا‬#9%‫ ا‬l- ‫ء‬qY JK {%‫?^ ذ‬1/ ‫) أن‬B;b‫ أراد أ‬0%‫ و‬، ‫)ن‬$76 [60?M%‫ ا‬l- ‫ا‬,+ ‫ن‬5K ‫*)ب‬%‫ا ا‬,+
 Z+‫د‬0GY N<7r6 ‫)م‬wj‫ وا‬، ‫)ء‬7'?%‫ء ا‬Wz+ #Mb JK [v%)6 [60?I ;Y0% ، J-_Oj‫ ا‬Z%)?%‫)ء ا‬kB‫ أ‬N<7Y JK‫و‬
)G1'|‫) و‬+;9K =%‫) أدى إ‬7- ، ‫*)ت‬$>%‫ ا‬Z«d‫<[ أ‬7'?%‫ ا‬E|‫وا‬#f6 }'b ، ‫;م‬92- ^-)` ‫ن‬#96 {%)6 )7K ، ZG|)1>M-‫و‬
#<M92%‫ وا‬، ^9w‫; ا‬GY 0+ E27'd )- ‫ن‬Ž6 #P‫ أ‬JB5K {%‫ ذ‬N-‫ و‬En)7'd ‫د‬0GY l- #<f` ‫ •<)ع‬J2%)6‫ و‬، )Gd)<•‫و‬
ً )ˆ€0hi- ‫ال‬q/ W )G>- ً ‫ا‬#<f` ‫ن‬5K ، ‫ن‬#9%‫ا ا‬,+ JK &'(%‫)ء ا‬7'd .?6 ‫د‬0GY ;?6 )7<K )><%‫^ إ‬M| ;P‫ و‬، ^I)b
)){%‫ ذ‬#(</ ‫ أن‬F‫ل ا‬ŽO‫ر أ‬0G«%‫ر وا‬0>%‫ ا‬#«2>

.•K0w‫ ا‬F‫ˆ) ً وا‬x/‫ر أ‬0>%‫{ ا‬2%)O‫ى ر‬#| ‫ أن‬F‫ ا‬0d‫) أد‬B‫وأ‬

Basically in a nutshell, the author alleviates him of the accusation that he was
other than sunni, and by sunni what is understood is “athari” or “salafi”. He
quotes reasons like Ibn Taymiyyah has used his creed in his “Bayaan Talbees al-
Jahmiyyah.

Issue 42: The Ash’ari Attempt to Use Imaam al-Qurtubee for Tafweed

On page 229, he appeals to Imam Al Qurtubi.

______________________________________________________________________

Ali Boriqee’s Response

Just to mention for the record, that I personally believe that with all of these latter
day scholars, the author should rename the title of his book by changing one
word. He should switch “salaf” with “khalaf” and it would be much more
understandable in connecting the content of the book with its title.

Secondly, the case of Imaam al-Qurtubee is extremely interesting. al-Qurtubee’s

situation was unlike many of the scholars that have preceded. The political
landscape during his stay in Andalus was under the threat of Ash’ari intellectual
terrorism which was instigated by the terrorist Ibn Tumart, the dajjaal of the
ummah who claimed to be the mahdi.

Because of this environment, al-Qurtubi made logically incapable statements that

could ever be said by a scholar on his very own intellectual desire. In other
words, these statements were can only be understood by the premise that he
made them under duress. I’ll conclude this point with offering a quote from al-
Qurtubi and explaining the ramifications of this quote.

Imam al-Qurtubi RA said:

“The most correct of these opinions, although I do not adopt it or choose it for myself!, is
the opinion which numerous Quranic versus and narrations agreed on reporting: Allah
SWT is over His throne, as He mentioned in His book, and His Prophet’s sayings,
without a howness, He is separate from His creation. This is the opinion of the righteous
predecessors as reported by the trustworthy.” (Aqaweel al-Thiqaat 1/132).

Notice how he rahimahullah, admits that the Quran, Sunnah, and Salaf say that
Allah Subhaanahu wa ta’Ala is above His throne, but that he does not adopt this
opinion.

Imaam as-Safaareeni al-Hanbali affirms that this was a very strange thing to say
here

J*€#9%‫'= `_م ا‬d )9<'?| )..[<>(%‫ار ا‬0BW‫ ا‬‰n0% ( E6)2` JK - ‫ـ‬+ 1188‫ ت‬- J>/‫)ر‬1(%‫[ ا‬-_?%‫)م ا‬-W‫)ل ا‬9K
: E<'d F‫[ ا‬7b‫ر‬

[%W‫ ود‬E<'d [<B‫آ‬#9%‫)ت ا‬/ª‫ ا‬#K)«26 ‫ف‬#2d‫ ا‬EBS \r?%‫[ ا‬/)t )E6 ‫ل‬0P‫ أ‬W }>` ‫ (وإن‬:=%)?| F‫ ا‬E7b‫ ر‬E%0P JK‫" و‬
E6 ‫ل‬0P‫ أ‬W }>` ‫ ( وإن‬: ‫ل‬09/ ‫ أن‬E'f- l- •<'/ &<$K E<'d ‫‚<)ر‬S‫ ا‬‰%)M%‫('& ا‬%‫^ ا‬/0?|‫ و‬E<%‫[ إ‬/0*>%‫‚*)ر ا‬S‫ا‬
، ‫ل‬07?w‫ ا‬E<'d ‫ي‬,%‫ب ا‬qk%‫ول وا‬W‫<^ ا‬d#%‫; ا‬92?- EB0`‫ و‬،[/0*>%‫ ا‬a/‫)د‬bS‫<[ وا‬B‫آ‬#9%‫ت ا‬WW;%‫ ا‬N- ) ‫)ره‬2‚‫ أ‬W‫و‬
=%)?| F‫)د وا‬k%j‫*;ع وا‬%‫اء ذوي ا‬#2K‫()د وإ‬1%‫¬ وا‬/q%‫^ ا‬+‫ أ‬gn)O‫()د ود‬k%‫ ا‬gn)O‫ د‬l- ‫) ‚)ف‬7B‫ إ‬E'?%‫و‬
" •K0w‫ا‬

In one instance, al-Qurtubee is stating what the view and creed of Islam is, and
then outwardly advocates that he does not subscribe to it. Only someone who is
either a
1. Munafiq or apostate could say this
OR
2. Someone who seems to be politically (in this case religiously) coerced to say
something as strange as this.

It was al-Qurtubee's way of affirming the true madhaab of the Muslims while at
the same time saving himself from the political pressure of the local jahmis.

Ustaadh Ayman Bin Khalid has the following response after some reflection on
his part and states

After reading it again, I believe I found out the real motive behind that statement,
which should not be taken as normal, because it shows a high intelligence and smart
way of handling a situation by al-Qurtubi.

Scholars of Islam, including the Qurtubi (F‫ ا‬E7b‫)ر‬, were known of following the truth
regardless because admitting not following that is known to be a way whereby their
piety and religiousness are compromised.

Al-Qurtubi's stance in this statement has two sides; the correct opinion that he stated
and the opinion he is upon (which he admits not being the correct one); both
statements are interlinked and lined next to each other for a reason.

Now, before proceeding to the real motive behind having these two statement together,
we should keep the following fact, which Sh. Haitham mentioned: During his time,
declaring the view (which he referred to as the most correct opinion) would endanger
whoever says it. Thus, many used to hide their views accordingly, which is allowed in
cases of life threat.

The Imam handled in this two sides of the formula; himself and people. He saved
himself (by hiding his view) and saved people too at the same time (by telling them
what is the correct opinion to follow). So, he took responsibility of the knowledge he
acquired as he stated the truth and so educated the masses so he does not deviate
anyone else should he had said otherwise.

This is why all scholars used to emphasize "follow what we say and do not follow
our actions". This slogan is known and acted upon to ensure that people follow the
right thing because scholars actions are not infallible as they may slip or make a
mistake or a sin or even do something for a particular reason that others did not know.
 I find this amazing, alhamdullah.

So, in ending off with this point, it is highly controversial to use Imam al-Qurtubi
to prove a doctrinal point for the advocacy of Ash’arism because of this political
fact.

Secondly, it becomes even further inaccurate to use al-Qurtubi, because even in

his explanation of the islamic doctrine, he outlines the way of the salaf to be the
following

)َG|ِ )َ*ˆْ45ِ 6ِ [‡K)َ$%ْ ‫ وَا‬Zْ +ُ ‫ا‬0ُ9َhَB ْ^َ6 , {َِ %َ,6ِ ‫ َن‬0ُ9h

ِ ْ >ˆَ/ Wََ ‫َ[ و‬Gِrˆ%ْ ‫ِ ا‬Jْ1َ>ˆ6ِ ‫ َن‬0ُ%0ُ9َ/ Wَ Zْ Gُ ْ >ˆdَ ‡F‫َ ا‬J•َ ِ ‫َو‡ل ر‬S‫ا‬ ْ &َ'(%‫ا‬ ‡ ‫ ْ; `َ) َن‬Pَ ‫َو‬
. [َ9<ِ9 َb ELْ#dَ =َ'dَ ‫َى‬0َ2ˆOِ ْ ‫ ا‬Eُ ‡Bَ‫ أ‬‰ِ%)M%‫ا‬‡ &َ'(%‫ا‬ ‡ lْ -ِ ; َbَ ‫ أ‬#ِ$ْ>ˆُ/ Zْ %َ ‫ َو‬. E'Oُ ُ ‫َتْ ر‬#َ*ˆ‚ ْ َ ‫ َوأ‬E6)َ 2ˆِ` َ•َhَB ) َ7َ` =َ%)َ?َ| َِ•F
Eُ َ7 ِbَ‫ِ{ ر‬%)َ- َ‫َ)ل‬P . E2َ9<ِ9 َb Zَ'?ْ ُ| Wَ Eُ ‡B5ِ َK ‫َاء‬02ِ O ْ ِW‫<‡[ ا‬1ِ ْ<`َ ‫ا‬0ُ'Gِ َY ) َ7‡Bِ‫ َو إ‬, E|)َP0ُ'i ْ -َ Zَ«dْ َ ‫ أ‬Eُ ‡Bَ ِS {َِ %َ,6ِ ‫ْش‬#?َ %ْ ‫‚ ‡ ا‬ُ ‫َو‬
[َd;ْ 6ِ ‫َا‬,+َ lْ dَ ‫َال‬z(%‫َا‬ Š ‫ و‬, ‫ل‬0ُG ْrَ- َ&ْ<$َ %ْ ‫ وَا‬- [َv'Š %‫ ا‬JِK Jِ>?ْ َ/ - ‫م‬0ُ'?ْ -َ ‫َاء‬02ِ O ْ ِW‫ ا‬: ‡F‫ا‬

"And the Salaf of the very first times - may Allaah be pleased with them all - never used
to negate direction (al-jihah) for Allaah and nor did they used to express this (negation).
Rather, they, and all of the others, used to speak with its affirmation for Allaah, the Most
High just as His Book has spoken about it and just as His Messengers informed of it.
And not a single one of the Salaf denied that his ascending (istawaa) the Throne was real
and true (haqeeqah) (as opposed to metaphorical, majaaz). And Allaah specified the
Throne with istawaa because that is the greatest of all His creation. However they
assumed ignorance only of the exact nature (kaifiyyah) of istiwaa, for the true nature of
that is not known. Imaam Maalik said, ‘Istiwaa is known…’, meaning in the language,
‘…its true nature is unknown and asking about it is an innovation."

This explanation from al-Qurtubi is extremely anti-Ash’ari and more importantly,

anti-tafweed (m’anawi).
Issue 43: The Appeal to Ahmad bin Hamdaan bin Shabeeb al-Hanbali

On page 230 he appeals to Ahmad ibn Hamdan bin Shabeeb Al Hanbali. The
quote he cites isn't clearly anti-Salafi.

If you refer to ibn Hamdan's book l/;%‫ل ا‬0I‫ أ‬JK yn;2*w‫[ ا‬/)GB, you would observe
that on pages 26 and 27 he argues that the letters of the Qur'an are not created
and that Allah spoke with letters and sounds (something Asharis don't agree
with). He says that the one who says that the Qur'an is an expression (‫*)رة‬d) of
Allah's speech (like you find several Asharis doing) has made a mistake and
demonstrated his ignorance. Also, on page 34 he said that we will see Allah with
our eyes.

However, on page 25 he appears to view love and hate of Allah the same way
Asharis do. At the end of page 31, he says not to take the Sifaat on the dhaahir.
On pages 32-33, he says certain things that give me the impression that he is a
Salafi and other things, which don't.

In a nut shell, I'm not too sure where to place ibn Hamdan.

______________________________________________________________________

Ali Boriqee’s Response

Ibn Hamdaan is among the ranks of the fringe group of hanbalis who was
mudtarib (shaky, flip-flopping) with regards to the topic of Asmaa wa Sifaat just
as Ibnul-Jawzi and a minute number of other hanbalis were.

Harris Hammam says the following about him

The conclusion is that his methodology was Mudtarib, hence none from the following
trio (Tafweed, Ta'weel or Ithbat) can be attributed to him. He's that type of scholar
where every single one of his statements has to be assessed individually. There are
tones of things in that book Ash`aris wouldn't even like to touch.

Just because Ibn Hamdan did Tafweed in one place does not make Tafweed 'a Madhhab
of the Salaf' as the author is making it out to be.
It should also be noted that the author is completely left the era of the salaf from
which legitimacy is derived from and has left that era at least 30 issues ago
towards the beginning of this document.

Issue 44: Employing Ibn Jahbal al-Jahmi and adh-Dhahabee

On page 232, he appeals to Ibn Jahbal.

On page 236, HE HAS THE NERVE to try and bring Imam Al Dhahabi to his
side.

______________________________________________________________________

Ali Boriqee’s Response

These are two absurd and drastically opposed examples. On the one hand, the
author used Ibn Jahbal, a clear jahmi innovator who fought against Ibn
Taymiyya’s Sunni creed and on the other hand, he actually has no shame in
using adh-Dhahabee to somehow prove the validity and adh-Dhahabi’s alleged
employment of tafweed bil-m’ana. In one instance you have a medieval jahmi
like ibn Jahbal being used as a proof for tafweed. This has absolutely no
authoritative tone to it for anyone who is Muslim. In another instance, an anti-
muffawwid is used to promote tafweed. These examples are the epitome of
pulling a red herring.

Issue 45: The Ash’ari Attempt to Recruit Ibn Katheer Into the Ranks of the
Muffawwida

On page 242, he appeals to Ibn Kathir.

____________________________________________________________________
Ali Boriqee’s Response

Ibn Katheer, explicitly stated his so-called “anthropomorphic” beliefs in al-

Bidaya wal-Nihaya, in conformity to Ibn Taymiyya:

“In this month [i.e. Dhil-Hijja], on a Thursday the 27th, the two brothers of Shaykh Taqi
al-Din [Ibn Taymiyya]: Sharaf al-Din and Zayn al-Din were called from the prison to
attend a session with the deputy of the Sultan Sallar. Ibn Makhluf al-Maliki [Ibn
Taymiyya’s arch enemy] also attended, and they all discussed extensively. Sharaf al-Din
managed to defeat the Maliki Qadhi with textual proofs, evidences and knowledge, and
further highlighted his errors in several issues where the latter had made false claims. The
discussion was on the issue of Allah’s Throne, speech and descent”

So here we have Ibn Katheer, explicitly agreeing with Ibn Taymiyya via his
brother on the issue of Allah’s Throne, Speech and Descent, and explicitly
disagreeing with the Ash’ari-Maliki Qadhi

Moreover the son of Ibn al-Qayyim and Ibn Katheer had rift over a teaching
position. It seems Ibn Katheer implied that the dislike for him is due to his
Ash’ari roots. This is why Ibn al-Qayyim’s son said to him: No would ever
believe you that you are an Ash’ari. It is impossible. This statement only
consolidates the fact that Ibn Kathir was famous for fanaticism for Ibn Taymiyya,
such that none would ever even think for a second that he was an Ash’ari!
Towards this historical reality, the Shafi’i-Ash’ari biographies all seem to concede
with this, too. The only people to hallucinate on this issue by insinuating that Ibn
Katheer became an ash'ari is none other than these pseudo ash'aris that came 700
years later claiming a reality that none of the shaf'i'ees conceded to about Ibn
Katheer.

Further information which proves that Ibn Katheer i free from Ash’arism and it is
free from him are the following

An Ash’ari doubt to insinuate that he was Ash’ari could be a quot that is taken
from as-Subki’s "Tabaqat ash-Shafi' iyya" volume 10 page 398 that a condition to
teach at the house of hadith "Al-Ashrafiyya" was to be ash' ari in 'aqida and that
apparently Imam Ibn Kathir occupied the post of professor at this house of
Hadith in the month of Moharam in the year 772H.
The historian Al-Fasi (d. 832) writes in his Ta’rif Dhawil ‘Ula in biography of al-
Dhahabi:

“It has reached me that al-Dhahabi refused to take up the teaching position at
Dar al-Hadeeth al-Ashrafiyya in Damascus because he was not an Ash’ari. This is
when the position was vacated due to the death of the previous teacher al-Hafidh
Jamal al-Din al-Mizzi. Al-Mizzi himself did not attain the position until he
testified for himself that he is an Ash’ari, for that was the stipulated condition for
the teacher therein. This indicates the richness of al-Dhahabi’s religiosity and
piety, for it was also possible for him to testify for himself that he is an Ash’ari
and take up the position, and that wouldn’t have affected him, in that he does
not have Ash’ari beliefs.” (page 50)

This quote from al-Fasi is very important, and from this we deduce:

1) One of the reasons why Ash’ari Madhab spread. Basically, you’re jobless if
you’re not an Ash’ari.
2) al-Dhahabi was not an Ash’ari, and refused to call himself one just to attain the
position as a teacher
3) al-Mizzi was the greatest Muhaddith of his time and a beloved friend of Ibn
Taymiyya who was also tested like Ibn Taymiyya.
4) Even though al-Mizzi was not an Ash’ari, he believed it permissible to
testifying that he is an Ash’ari – intending by that the Ash’ari of al-Ibana, and not
the Ash’ari of Ibn Furak, al-Juwayni, etc.
5) Ibn Kathir was, like al-Mizzi and al-Dhahabi, not an Ash’ari. However, like al-
Mizzi, but unlike al-Dhahabi, he testified for himself that he is an Ash’ari to take
up the vacated position at Ashrafiyya.

If one truly wants to know Ibn Kathir’s stance with respect to Ibn Taymiyya and
Ash’arism, then let him read Ibn Kathir’s al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya, and see for
himself what exactly was his stance towards the ‘aqida and works of Ibn
Taymiyya.

For instance, with respect to al-Hamawiyya, he mentioned that Ibn Taymiyya

had a debate over his Hamawiyya with a group of scholars and he silenced them
all. al-Hamawiyya is an attack on Ash'aris in particular.
For instance, read his account of the tribunal set up for Ibn Taymiyya’s al-
Wasitiyya. One of the first Ash’aris to challenge Ibn Taymiyya was Safi al-Din al-
Hindi (al-Razi’s student), who was supposedly the most leading Ash’ari of the
day! And guess how Ibn Kathir describes it:

“al-Shaykh Safi al-Din al-Hindi attended and debated with Shaykh Taqi al-Din
[Ibn Taymiyya] extensively,however, his waterwheel was up against an ocean!!”

How does Ibn Kathir describe the end of this debate?

“Then the meeting was ended, having accepted ‘Aqida [al-wasitiyya] to be
correct. The Shaykh returned to his house in great veneration and respect. It has
also reached me that the common folk carried candles [in veneration of Ibn
Taymiyya] from Bab al-Nasr to al-Qassa’in, as they commonly do at such
occasions”

What does Ibn Kathir think of Ibn Taymiyya’s opponents?

“There was a group of jurists who were envious of Shaykh Taqi al-Din due to his
good relations with the government, him taking the lead in ordering the good
and forbidding evil, the general obedience people showed to him, the increasing
number of his followers, and his eagerness to defend the truth, along with his
knowledge and actions”

How does Ibn Kathir describe the third tribunal set up to discuss al-
Wasitiyya?“Then a third tribunal was set up on the seventh of Sha’ban in the
Citadel, and the gathering showed contentment over the aforementioned ‘aqida
[al-wasitiyya]”

How does he describe Ibn Sarsari’s return (who was Ibn Taymiyya’s enemy
and one of the main instigators) to Damascus and his reappointment as a
judge?
“He [Ibn Sarsari] returned to Damascus [from Egypt] on Friday the sixth of Dhil-
Qi’da, while people’s hearts were full of hate and abhorrence for him”

Ibn Kathir’s anti-Ash’ari view on Allah’s throne, speech and descent:

“In this month [i.e. Dhil-Hijja], on a Thursday the 27th, the two brothers of
Shaykh Taqi al-Din [Ibn Taymiyya]: Sharaf al-Din and Zayn al-Din were called
from the prison to attend a session with the deputy of the Sultan Sallar. Ibn
Makhluf al-Maliki [Ibn Taymiyya’s arch enemy] also attended, and they all
discussed extensively. Sharaf al-Din managed to defeat the Maliki Qadhi with
textual proofs, evidences and knowledge, and further highlighted his errors in
several issues where the latter had made false claims. The discussion was on the
issue of Allah’s Throne, speech and descent”

Ibn Kathir’s view on the impotency of Ibn Taymiyya’s enemies:

“They then assembled on Sunday by a royal decree through out the day.
However, none attended from the judges, but only a large number of jursists…
When they requested that the judges should attend, they made excuses, some of
them saying that they are unwell, while others made other excuses, for they
knew that Ibn Taymiyya is fully equipped with various sciences and proofs, and
that none of those present can challenge him”

So Ibn Katheer is clearly not an Ash’ari, and one could easily say he was anti-
Ash’ari. Despite these facts, the pseudo Ash’aris have the nerve to say that the
following material by Ibn Katheer reflects his ash’arism. He said

،)Gh(6 N•0- ‫ا‬,+ g<% ً ‫;ا‬Y ‫ة‬#<f` ‫ت‬W)9- ‫)م‬9w‫ا ا‬,+ JK ‫''>)س‬K } ‫ْش‬ ِ #?َ %ْ ‫'َ= ٱ‬dَ ‫َى‬ ْ Z‡ ُ4 { :=%)?| E%0P )-‫وأ‬
ٰ 0َ2ˆO‫ٱ‬
;7b‫ وأ‬J?K)V%‫?; وا‬O l6 a<'%‫ري وا‬0f%‫ وا‬Jd‫وزا‬S‫{ وا‬%)- ‰%)M%‫('& ا‬%‫\ ا‬+,- ‫)م‬9w‫ا ا‬,+ JK {'(B )7B‫وإ‬
E<*V| W‫<<& و‬$| #<t l- ‫)ءت‬Y )7` )+‫ار‬#-‫ إ‬0+‫ و‬،ً )ˆf/;b‫ˆ) ً و‬7/;P y7'(w‫[ ا‬7n‫ أ‬l- Z+#<t‫ و‬E/0+‫ را‬l6 ‫)ق‬kO‫وإ‬
‫ و‬E9'‚ l- ‫ء‬JL EG*V/ W ،F‫ ا‬ld J1>- yG*Vw‫)ن ا‬+‫= أذ‬%‫*)در إ‬2w‫ ا‬#+)«%‫ وا‬،^<h?| W‫و‬
} #ُ <Mَ
ِ *ˆ%ْ ‫ُ ٱ‬N<ِ7(%‫ٱ‬
‡ 0َ +ُ ‫=ْ ٌء َو‬L َ <%َ {
َ Eِ ِ'ˆْfˆِ7`َ gْ

“...people have many positions on this matter, and this is not the place to present
them at length. On this point, we follow the position of the early Muslims (salaf)
—Malik, Awza‘i, Thawri, Layth ibn Sa‘d, Shafi‘i, Ahmad, Ishaq ibn Rahawayh, as
well as others among the Imams of the Muslims, ancient and modern—namely,
to let the verse pass as it has come, without saying how it is meant (bi la takyif),
without any resemblance to created things (wa la tashbih), and without
nullifying it (wa la ta‘til), and the literal outward meaning (dhahir) that comes to
the minds of anthropomorphists (al-mushabbihin) is negated of Allah, for
nothing created has any resemblance to Him: "There is nothing whatsoever like
unto Him, and He is the All-hearing, the All-seeing"

However this is a problem with ash'ari ignorance

There is no tafweed in the above for the only tafweed recognized above is to
relegate the nature of the attribute, not the meaning that is apparently
understood.

The words of Ibn Katheer above can be summoned in a number of points

1. That he is relaying what the salaf believed in which consists of the following

a. To let the verse pass as it has come. Of course the basic understanding of that
is if Allah said He istawaa over the Throne, then guess what, He istiwaa over
the Throne. The phrase 'let it pass on as it has come" is refuting the Ash'aris who
did not "let it pass as it has come" rather they made "tafweed bil m'ana" of these
ayaah and then they made 't'awil" where necessary to these ayaah. How does
"let it pass on as it has come' sound logically connected with making tafweed of
its meaning. Your not passing it on, your relegating it to Allah.

b. While negating tashbeeh (accepted of course)

c. without t'atil
d. and the literal outward meaning (dhahir) that comes to the minds of
anthropomorphists (al-mushabbihin) is negated of Allah

That is why adh-Dhahabee said in his al-‘Uluw:

“The latter ones from the speculative theologians (ahl al-nadhar, i.e. Ash’aris) invented
a new belief, I do not know of anyone preceding them in that. They said: ‘These
attributes are passed on as they have come and not interpreted (la tu’awwal), while
believing that the literal meaning is not intended (dhahiruha ghayr murad).’

This follows that the literal meaning (dhahir) could mean two things:

First; that it has no interpretation (ta’wil) except the meaning of the text (dilalat al-
khitab), as the Salaf said: ‘The rising (al-Istiwa) is known’, or as Sufyan and others
 said: ‘Its recitation is in fact its interpretation (tafseer)’ – meaning, it is obvious and
clear in the language, such that one should not opt for interpretation (ta’wil) or
distortion (tahrif). This is the Madhab of the Salaf, while they all agree that they do not
resemble the attributes of human beings in any way. For the Bari has no likeness,
neither in His essence, nor in His attributes.

Second; that the literal meaning (dhahir) is what comes to imagination from the
attribute, just like an image that is formed in one’s mind of a human attribute. This is
certainly not intended, for Allah is single and self-sufficient who has no likeness. Even
if He has multiple attributes, they all are true, however, they have no resemblance or
likeness”

So it becomes clear from the two close comrades and fellow students of Ibn
taymiyyah that what Ibn Katheer says in the fifth point mentioned in his tafseer
is that what is negated from Allah of the dhaahir "is that which coms in the
minds of the anthropomorphists" and not that when it is taken on its apparent
meaning then that is by default tajseem, whih is why adh-Dhahabee
commented that there could only be two impression of tajseem.

So casting the two together, what Ibn Kathir is negating is the second point
mentioned by adh-dhahabee, not he first.

2. And then mentions a primary rule intended to refute both the negators and the
mujassimah, that being that there is nothing like Him.

Issue 46: The Ash’ari Attempt to Recruit Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali Into the Ranks
of the Muffawwida

On page 246, he appeals to Ibn Rajab Al Hanbali.

I would have to admit that the citation he provides shows that Ibn Rajab inclines
towards the Ashari view.
However, there are also statements, which show that Ibn Rajab didn't.

For instance, he said as reported in his Fathul Baari (not to be confused with Ibn
Hajar's), Volume 7, pages 230-231 that it was the Jahmites who viewed the
dhaahir of the hadeeth to indicate tashbeeh and they resorted to ta'weel:

l- ُ‫ أول‬E6)kI‫ّ ) وأ‬7ْGY ‫ن‬S ،[<7Gr%‫= ا‬%‫[ إ‬k<kM%‫ ا‬a/‫)د‬bS‫)ت وا‬/ª‫ه ا‬,+ ^/‫و‬Ž| ‫ن‬0*(>/ &'(%‫و`)ن ا‬
J+‫?<[" و‬hP [%‫) "أد‬+ّ07O J2%‫ل ا‬09?%‫[ ا‬%‫د‬Ž6 ‫ص‬0M>%‫ه ا‬,+ E<'d }ّ%‫) د‬7d ٌ‫ّه‬q>ُ- =%)?| F‫ أن ا‬ZG>d #G2L‫ا‬
}ّ%‫) د‬- ‫ا‬0'*9K ،‫ت‬W)<i%‫'= |'{ ا‬d )G<K )- ‫ا‬0•#?K ،‫)ت‬G6)V2w‫ ا‬J+ [>(%‫)ب وا‬2$%‫)ظ ا‬1%‫ا أ‬0'?Y‫ و‬،‫)ت‬7$kw‫ا‬
[%q2?w‫ ا‬l- ‫_م‬$%‫^ ا‬+‫& أ‬n‫ا‬0€ #n)O {%‫'= ذ‬d ZG9K‫ ووا‬،ZG7dq6 E<1B ='d }ّ%‫) د‬- ‫ وردّوا‬،ZG7dq6 E|0*4 ='d
)76 l-‫ آ‬lw- {%‫ ذ‬l- ‫ا‬0ّ92L‫ وا‬،‫ و•_ل‬Z<(r|‫ و‬E<*V| [>(%‫)ب وا‬2$%‫ ا‬E<'d ّ‫;ل‬/ )- #+)˜ ‫ا أ ّن‬07d‫ وز‬،Z+#<t‫و‬
F)6 ‫)ن‬7/j‫ ا‬ld )G6 ‫ون‬#ّ1>ُ/ ،F‫'= ا‬d ‫ا ٌء‬#2K‫ ا‬J+ ^6 ‫)ن؛‬h'O l- )G6 ُF‫لَ ا‬qB‫) أ‬- ‫)ء‬7O‫ أ‬-E%0O‫'= ر‬d F‫ل ا‬qB‫أ‬
EB‫ وأ‬،‫ز‬0r2%‫ وا‬NO02%‫)ب ا‬6 l- - ‫)ره‬V2B‫ وا‬E|#f` N- - {%‫ ذ‬l- [>(%‫)ب وا‬2$%‫ ا‬JK ‫) ورد‬- ‫ا أ ّن‬07d‫ وز‬.E%0O‫ور‬
g>ِY l- 0+‫ و‬،ِ‫ة‬#ّGhُ w‫ ِ[ ا‬7$kw‫?[ ا‬/#V%‫ ا‬JK ِ ‫;ح‬9%‫اب ا‬06‫ أ‬Z«d‫ أ‬l- ‫ا‬,+‫ و‬،‫*?;ة‬2(w‫[ ا‬v'%‫)زات ا‬r- ='d ^7kُ/
ZGِ'ˆ7b‫ و‬،[9<9k%‫)ز دون ا‬rw‫ وا‬NO02%‫'= ا‬d ‫>)ر‬%‫>[ وا‬r%‫?)د وا‬w)` ‫بِ ؛‬0<ُv%‫ ا‬ld ‫‚*)ر‬j‫ص ا‬0MB
َ [<>€)*%‫ْ ^ ا‬7 َb
.‫_م‬Oj‫ ا‬l/‫ د‬ld ‫وق‬#- E'` ‫ا‬,+‫ و‬،{%‫^ ذ‬f- ld JG>%‫ وا‬#-W‫ص ا‬0MB

Also, in his book &'i%‫'= ا‬d &'(%‫ ا‬Z'd ^xK he said that the Mu'tazilites denied that
Allah speaks in a way that could be heard [i.e. with a sound] (like Asharis) since
if He did then that would mean that He has a body (according to the
Mu'tazilites) and Ibn Rajab said that the Salaf agreed that these people were from
Ahlul Bid'ah:

E<*V2'% ‫>;ه‬d E-‫ا‬q'2OW {%‫ ذ‬l- [>(%‫)ب وا‬2$%‫ ا‬E6 ‫) ورد‬7- ً ‫ا‬#<f` =1B l- )7+;b‫ أ‬y7(P =%‫ء إ‬Wz+ Z(9>/‫و‬
)7(Y ‫)ن‬$% N7(/ ‫ `_م‬E% ‫ `)ن‬0% ZG%0P‫ و‬:[GY JK W‫ى إ‬#/ W EBS )7(Y ‫)ن‬$% ‫ رؤي‬0% [%q2?w‫ل ا‬09` yP0'iw)6
ZG?/;*| ='d &'(%‫• ا‬1|‫; ا‬P‫<[ و‬7Gr%‫[ وا‬%q2?w‫• ا‬/#€ ‫ا‬,+‫ و‬:[G*V%‫ه ا‬,G% ‫ه‬01>K ‫اء‬02OW‫= ا‬1B l- ZG9K‫ووا‬
.l/#‚Ž2w‫ ا‬l- a/;k%‫(>[ وا‬%‫= ا‬%‫(\ إ‬2B‫ ا‬l7- #<f` ‫ر‬0-S‫ ا‬.?6 JK ZG'<*O {'O ;P‫ و‬ZG'<'x|‫و‬

ِ Also, in his book Z$k%‫م وا‬0'?%‫ ا‬N-)Y he said that we will see Allah with our eyes:

‫ة‬#‚ª‫ ا‬JK ً )ˆB)<d F‫= ا‬%‫ إ‬#َ «‡ >ˆ%‫{ ا‬%‫ا ُء ذ‬qY ‫) َن‬$K

Despite this, I'm not confident where to place Ibn Rajab.

______________________________________________________________________

Ali Boriqee’s Response

Ibn Rajab was not an Ash’ari. There are plenty of examples why this is so, but
Iwish to explore a much more fundamental polemic which exposes the utter
heresy of Jahmi Ash’arism and at the same time exonerating Ibn Rajab from their
egregious ideology.

)- ‫ وأن‬- Zَ '‡ Oَ َ - ‫ل‬0O#%‫ ا‬E6 ‫)ء‬Y)7- =9'2- E'` {%‫ن أن ذ‬07'?<K ،‫ن‬Ž7/W‫ وا‬Z'?%‫^ ا‬+‫) أ‬-‫وأ‬
َ ‫ و‬Eِ ْ<'َ dَ ُF‫'‡= ا‬I
،E>- W‫;ى إ‬G%‫ ا‬J9'2% ^<*O W EB‫ وأ‬،E>d ‫;ول‬d W‫ و‬،E<'d ;/q- W ‫ي‬,%‫• ا‬k%‫ ا‬0GK E6‫ ر‬ld {%‫ ذ‬l- E6 ‫)ء‬Y
JK g<% EB‫وأ‬
،E(1>% F‫ ا‬E2*4‫) أ‬- ^` ^6 ،^<k2(- ‫ أو‬،E<*V| ‫ أو‬#1` ‫ه‬#+)˜ )- [k<kM%‫ ا‬E%0O‫>[ ر‬O W‫ و‬F‫)ب ا‬2`
‫ء‬JL E'f7` g<% F‫) أن ا‬7$K ،E>d ^<f72%‫ ا‬J1B N- E|0*4 ‫)د‬92d‫\ ا‬r/ ،ٍ‫;ق‬I‫• و‬b EB5K ،E%0O‫ ر‬E% E2*4‫أوأ‬
E|)1I JK {%,$K ،E|‫ ذا‬JK

The most significant portion of the text is when he says that “and there is nothing
in the book of Allah or in the authentic Sunnah of his messenger, whose Dhahir is Kufr or
Tashbih".

Well, of course, this seems normal think to any sane Muslim. It would be absurd
to agree with the idea that apparent meanings of the Qur’an or the Sunnah
would entail kufr, specifically the kufr of tashbeeh. As simple as this sounds,
unfortunately this is yet another issue in which jahmi ash’ari diverge form the
viewpoint of Islam and the Muslims.

According to the Ash’ari as-Sanoosi as he states in his Umm al-Barahin that the
Usool of Kufr are six. The sixth one he lists is “Adhering to the apparent meanings
(dhawaahir) of the Book and the Sunnah alone in fundamentals of creed without
comparing them with rational proofs and definitive shar’i principles.”

Due to this corrupted principle, he says the following in Sharh al-Kubra,

“As for those who claim that the path from the beginning to know the truth is the Book
and the Sunnah and all else is prohibited, then the response is that their authority is only
known by way of rational consideration. Also, they contain many apparent meanings
(dhawaahir) which if one were to believe them, he would be guilty of disbelief – according
to some – and innovation.”

This is a fundamental crux of Ash’ari doctrine and is the basis for why the
approach to t’aweel or tafweed is employed, is to negate the dhawaahir and the
reason why the apparent meanings of the text are to be rejected through negation
and tafweed is because in their view, these meanings constitute kufr of tashbeeh.

So while Ibn Rajab may have given t’aweel in the ash’ari tradition to some of the
Sifaat, he was fundamentally anti-Ash’ari in Usool as well as in the affirmation of
most of the sifaat that the pseudo Asharis argue, similar to their Jahmi
predecessors, that affirming them constitute tashbeeh.

Issue 47: The Use of Ibn Hajr al-Asqalaani

Just because Ibn Hajar slightly leaned towards the Ashari view on a number of
Allah's attributes that in no way means that he was an Ashari himself. The Ashari
school of thought discusses a wide range of issues ranging from the concept of
eemaan, Sifaat, and other matters. In no way did Ibn Hajar agree with them on
all of these issues.

I highly recommend a book called ‫ي‬#?LS‫\ ا‬+,w‫ ا‬l- ‫م‬qb l6‫& ا‬P0-, where on pages
15-19 he illustrates that Ibn Hajar was not an Ashari.

I also highly recommend the following excellent articles by brother Abu Iyaad
discussing the issue.

______________________________________________________________________

Ali Boriqee’s Response

On a general note, Ibn Hajr al-Asqalaani is not to be considered an authority for

Ahlu-Sunnah regarding the topic of the Aqeedah on Asmaa wa Sifaat. The reason
for this is that he does take to interpreting some of the Attributes upon the way
of the Ash’aris, which is not sanctioned according to the orthodox precepts of
Ahlu-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah. Therefore, when the Ash’aris use him as a reference
for their creed, their citation of him is useless from the general Sunni perspective.
However, be that as it may, what is also true, is that he was not particularly
“Ash’ari” in the pure Ash’ari rite. One may ask, why? The reason is because to be
an Ash’ari is to surrender to the fundamental guidelines as promulgated by
Kalaam theology. When we look at the nature of Ash’arism from this angle, then
we understand that Ash’arism is much more than simply “interpreting the
Attributes” through t’aweel since merely making t’aweel is the resultant effect
(lawaazim) of the madhaab and is not the cornerstone of Ash’arism. The
cornerstone of Ash’arism is primarily based on the concept of Hudoothul-
Ajsaam. Hence, While Ibn Hajr al-Asqalaani did make t’aweel concerning some
of he Attributes, he as well take a hardcore stance in refuting the mutakalimoon
for kalaam theology. Another issue that marks the cornerstone of Ash’ari dogma
is the issue of Nadhr wa Istidlaal (observation and inference) concerning the
existence of Allah and then acquaintence. Through this doctrine, the Ash’aris
developed a concept of “there is no taqleed in aqeedah”. From this, we find
ignorant and belligerent fools advocating this statement not actualizing how the
Ash’ari mutakalimeen intended with this statement of theirs.

However, despite all of this and without getting sidetracked into proving that
Ibn Hajr refuted the Ash’ari Mutakalimeen for their kalaam theology, the very
crux of this document is thevery crux of the initial book by the Ash’aris to
support Tafweed al-M’ana. So in this topic, the author of this work tries to prove
Ibn Hajr’s Ash’arism but fails to prove Ibn Hajr’s view regarding tafweed al-
M’ana. Well, here is Ibn Hajr’s view regarding the topic and how it
fundamentally disagrees with Tafweed al-M’ana.

&َ'(%‫ا‬‡ [َ9/ِ#َ€ ‫ أ َ ‡ن‬l‡ َ«Gُ ‡Bَ ِS ‫ ٍ ؛‬Zˆ<9ِ َ 2ˆ( ْ ُ7ِ6 gْ َ <%َ Zَ$ ْbَ ‫'َ& أ‬i َ %ْ ‫َ[ ا‬9/ِ#َ€‫ َو‬Zَ 'َ Oَْ ‫('َ& أ‬%‫ا‬ ‡ [َ9/ِ#َ€ َ‫َ)ل‬P lْ -َ ‫ْل‬0Pَ ‫ه‬#ْ<tَ َ‫َ)ل‬P‫َو‬
JِB)َ?-َ ‫َاج‬#i ْ 2ِ Oِ
ْ ‫َ ا‬J+ِ &َ'i َ %ْ ‫َ[ ا‬9/ِ#َ€ ‫ َوأ َ ‡ن‬، {َِ %َ‫ ذ‬JِK Eْ9Kِ #ْ<tَ lْ -ِ a/ِ; َkْ%‫ْآن وَا‬#9ُ %ْ ‫َ)ظِ ا‬1%ْ َ Žˆ6ِ ‫َ )ن‬7/ِj‫ا‬ ْ ‫‡د‬# َrُ-
JِK ‫َى‬0dْ ;‡ %‫('َ& وَا‬%‫ا‬ ‡ [ِ 9َ /ِ#َh6ِ ^ْG َrْ%‫ ا‬yَْ 6 ^ِn)َ9%ْ ‫َا ا‬,+َ َN َ7 َrَK، ‫َ )زَات‬rَ ْw‫َاع ِ ا‬0ْBَŽˆ6ِ )َG9ِn)َ9 َb lْ dَ [َK‫ُو‬#Mَ ْ ْw‫ص ا‬0MŠ ُ >ˆ%‫ا‬
Eُ %َ Z<ِ«?ْ ‡ 2ˆ%‫َ[ ا‬/)َt JِK‫ َو‬، =َ%)َ?َ| ِ‡Fَ)ˆ6ِ •<ِ'ˆَ/ ) َ7ِ6 [َK#ِ ?ْ َ ْw‫َ[ ا‬/)َt JِK &َ'(%‫ا‬ ‡ ْ^َ6 ، l‡ َ˜ ) َ7َ` #ْ-َS‫ا‬ ْ gْ َ <%َ ‫ َو‬، &َ'i َ %ْ ‫َ[ ا‬9/ِ#َ€
Nْh9َ %ْ ‫ ا‬Eُ >ِ$ ْ7ُ/ Wََ ‫َاد و‬#ُ ْw‫ ا‬0َ +ُ Eُ %‡‫َو‬Žˆَ 2ˆَ/ ‫ِي‬,%‡ ‫ َ ‡ن ا‬Žˆ6ِ )ً94ِ ‫'َ& وَا‬i َ %ْ ‫• ا‬/ِ#َ€ {ََ 'O َ lْ -َ gْ َ <%َ ‫ َو‬، ‫َا ِد ِه‬#ُ ِw Z<ِ'ˆ(‡ْ 2ˆ%‫ ِه وَا‬#ِ -ْ َ ِS ‫ع‬0xُ ُ i%ْ ‫وَا‬
، Zْ' ِ?ْ%‫& ا‬/ِ#?ْ َ|‫ل َو‬Wَْ ;2ِ Oِ ْ ‫ُورَة أ َ ْو ا‬#• َ lْ dَ &/ِ#?ْ ‡ 2ˆ%‫ ا‬JِK ‫َادُوا‬qَK Zْ' ِ?ْ%‫ ا‬JِK Zْ G%ْ0Pَ )‡-َ‫ َوأ‬، E'/ِ‫ْو‬Žˆَ| [ِ ‡kMِ ِ 6

"..the saying of the one who said: the way of the Salaf is safer and the way of the Khalaf is
wiser is not correct, because he thought that the way of the Salaf is only the belief in the
Lafdh (words\letters) of the Quran and Hadith without having understanding of it (its
meaning) , (and) the way of the Khalaf is to derive the meanings of the texts that are
turned away from their haqaa’iquha (realities) with different types of majaz (figurative
meaning); so the one who said this combined between the ignorance of the way of the
Salaf and the claiming of the way of the Khalaf, and it is not like he thought/assumed. The
Salaf had utmost knowledge of what befits Allah, and had the utmost glorification and
submission to His commands...."

The above was translated by Um Abdullah M. and I improved it with adding

words to clarify context.

What does Ibn Hajr say here. Here he identifies a crooked belief formulated by
the Ash’aris regarding the way of the salaf was safe but their way was wiser.
What is interesting here is that Ibn Hajr highlights that this belief assumed by
Ash’aris was formulated because as he highlights, they (meaning the Ash’aris
who came up with this absurdity) considered that the “safeness” was in merely
affirming the “lafdh” of the words of the Qur’an without having understanding
of it. That is the very basis of tafweed al-ma’ana which is to simply affirm the
words and to disregard any meaning for it under the clause that you relegate
whatever meaning it has to Allah Subhaanahu. Thus the entire synopsis here
provided by Ibn Hajr is a direct refutation of this atrocious belief of the Ash’aris

He clearly makes known that the khalaf formed meanings of these texts that are
way beyond its true reality with different types of figurative speech. Then he
affirms that the Salaf had knowledge of its meanings, which is a direct violation
of adherence to tafweed al-m’ana.

So for the Ash’aris to use Ibn Hajr to support Ash’arism is academic dishonesty
at best and to even go further to say that he supports tafweed al-m’ana is a
complete farce at best.
Issue 48: the Ash’ari Attempt to Incorporate Imaam as-Safareeni into the
Ranks of the Muffawwida and the Ash’aris

On page 260, he appeals to al-Saffarini, however please refer to "Creed of al-

Saffarini – ‘Apples and Oranges’ Returned" by Abu Zubair, which could be
found on the bottom of the page over here at saheefah.org/aqeedah/a202

Issue 49: Regarding Ahmad as-Sawi, Shawkaani, and al-Aloosi

On pages 263 & 264 he appeals to Ahmad ibn Muhammad al Saawi, Imam
Shawkaani & Al Aloosi.

Ahmad ibn Muhammad al Saawi

In hawaashee tafsir al jalalayn, in his commentary on Surah 7:54, he admits that

the way of the Salaf regarding istiwaa is “istiwaa according to Allah’s Majesty”
and then he claims that only after 500 A.H. did people start to perform ta’weel.

Again, someone could interpret his statement to mean that he supported tafwid.

Imam Shawkaani

Despite there being great good in him such as his refutations to the Qubooria, he
had some issues with Allah’s names and attributes such as making ta’weel of
Allah’s face, His coming, etc.

However, he took the position of the Salaf in affirming the Istiwaa. See his
commentary on Surah 7:54.

Al Aloosi

In his commentary on Surah 7:54 (the verse on istiwaa) he admits that the
position of the Salaf is to take it in its apparent meaning (dhaahir), but he said
that he prefers the way of the khalaf and did ta’weel instead. One reason he said
that he did this is because it was more logically satisfying in that it is closer to
rational evidence (aqrab ela al daleel al aqlie)

In his commentary on Surah 28:88, he admits that the position of the Salaf
regarding Allah’s face is

“It is an attribute that we affirm for Allah, we don’t get into its howness or
meaning.”

Then in his commentary on 55:26-27 he openly admits that the way of the Khalaf
was to make Ta’weel of face to mean Allah’s Essence.

______________________________________________________________________

Ali Boriqee’s Response

The above appeal of the author of this work in which this document is dedicated
towards is essentially irrelevant for our purpose for a couple of reasons

1. These scholars come almost 8 centuries after the very last remnant of the salaf.
Thus the author has failed miserably to utilize the actual salaf as a reference
point for the advocacy of tafweed bil-m’ana, which essentially means that
what came after in support of it is irrelevant IF the purpose of this work is to
prove this concept within the era of the salaf.
2. The author has utilized authoritative figures who do not represent the Athari
(orthodox) stance. For example, al-Aloosi al-Hanafi from what we have come
across was Maturidi, and as such the performance of t’aweel and as well as
tafweed (as he came much much later when the kalaam madhaabs combined
t’aweel and tafweed into an acceptable kalaam theory) is already expected and
of no inherent value. As for ash-Shawkaani, he has had many shades of his life,
even possibly more than Abul-Hasan al-Ash’ari rahmatullahi alayh. With
regards to the Aqeedah of Asmaa wa Sifaat, Shawkaani had flip flopped on a
number of topics just as Ibnul-Jawzi has, which makes what they have to say
irrelevant in relation to the people of the Sunnah and the Jama’ah because part
of following scholars is following qualified scholarship within a field. In a
subject like aqeedah, altering opinions or having contradictory principles
inherently contains greater problems than in the realm of fiqh. Asfor Ahmad
 bin Muhammad as-Sawi, I have not come across much from his speech
concerning the matter and there is no ability to comment here.

Issue 50: On al-Mubrakafuree (author of Tuhfatul-Ahwadhi)

On page 267, he appeals to Al Mubaarakfuri.

According to this book N-)Y ‫ح‬#V6 ‫ذي‬0bS‫[ ا‬1k| E6)2` JK ErG>-‫ري و‬01`‫*)ر‬w‫;ث ا‬kw‫[ ا‬-_?%‫ا‬
‫ي‬,-#2%‫ا‬, it appears that Al Mubaarakfuri did indeed make some mistakes in Sifaat
where he contradicted his own manhaj.

Issue 51: On Taahir bin Aashoor

On pages 276 he appeals to Al Taahir ibn Al Aashoor.

In his commentary on Surah 7:54 he admits that the Salaf took the Istiwa literally
(haqeeqa) and that they knew the meaning of the word.

Then he claims that the later Asharees came and made ta’weel of the word and
he gave examples like istilaa as one of their metaphorical interpretations.

______________________________________________________________________

Ali Boriqee’s Response

This is a blow to the Ash’aris in general and specifically to the author of the
work. If Taahir bin Aashoor confirmed that the salaf took istawa haqiqi style and
that they knew the meaning of the word, then this destroys tafweed bil-m’ana
absolutely, and the fact that it comes from Taahir bin Aashoor makes it a double
edged sword that cuts through Ash’ari dogma on both sides.

Moreover notice how, according to Bassam’s reading of Taahir bin Aashoor’s

tafseer of the aayah, he further confirms that the Ash’aris came and took a
different path than the path he confirmed was from the salaf. He confirms that
the Ash’aris adopted the M’utazili tafseer of the aayah as being “istilaa”.

Issue 52: The Ash’ari Corruption of Imaam Maalik’s statement and Hidden
Atheism of Ash’aris

From pages 287-289 he talks about the Imam Malik statement "Istiwa is known,
but it's kayfiyyah is unknown" and tries to argue which variant of the narration
is actually authentic and he also comments on the meaning of "ghayru ma'qul".

Then continuing on until page 299 he tries to show that we must deny that Allah
has a kayfiyyah (he's not saying that we should deny knowing what the
kayfiyyah is, no rather he is saying that Allah doesn't have a kayfiyyah unless
you define kayfiyyah as "reality").

It's interesting to point out that on page 298 he cites Imam Al Qurtubi as saying
that the kayfiyyah of Istiwa is unknown. That is basically an indirect admission
of Al Qurtubi that there is a kayfiyyah and the author fails to realize it!

______________________________________________________________________

Ali Boriqee’s Response

It is becoming harder as we move along this work without laughing at the
absurd and defunct thought process typical to Ash’ari thinking. So we ask Allah
to guide them and us towards His straight path and Pleasure.

Before commenting on the issue regarding the various directions of the narration
from Imaam Maalik, there is something quite interesting that Bassam commented
about above, and that is that according to what Bassam read, the author on page
299 argues that the Muslims must deny that Allah has a kayfiyyah (a how). This
statement would have been utter atheism had the author not protected his heresy
by making the exception that kayfiyyah can only be affirmed if it is regarding the
“reality”.

This is essentially abdurd because as the Athari Imaams have commented, they
stated that one of the prime directives regarding how we understand Allah is
that all speech concerning the Attributes is in essence speech concerning the
“Essence” (dhaat) of Allah. Thus the principle employed for one is applicable to
all, which means Allah the Divine and the Creator. So the Ash’aris who follow
this line of reason (not all of them do) are stuck in a conundrum here.
If you affirm a kayfiyyah for Allah Himself but not for His Attributes, then this is
essentially utter Jahmism as espoused by the M’utazilah. This is essential a denial
of the Attributes and a mere affirmation of Allah. Basically Allah is Attributeless,
which is a direct replica of the creed of the M’utazilah. So Ash’aris are essentially
M’utazilah.

On the other hand, if Ash’aris declare tthat there is no kayf on absolute terms,
then this is essentially atheism, positive atheism, but atheism. If there is no kayf
(reality) for Allah or His Attributes, then Allah is simply a figment of the
imagination. This is the very basis of what atheism is.

Now, moving towards the laughable distortion of Imaam Maalik’s affirmation of

knowing the meaning and denying knowledge of the kayf of the Attributes.

In one of the narrations of Imaam Maalik, it has the reading regarding how we
understand it and it says “ghayr maqul”. This ghayr maqul was atrociously
understood by some ignorant Ash’aris to mean “impossible” or “non-existent”.
Now, the context of my claim of it being atrocious is not by way of Arabic
language, but by way of what it is implied or obvious in application of it towards
Imaam Maalik’s statement.
From the language, in al-Qamoos Al Muheet it states:

‫ دُون‬E`‫درا‬56 ُ^9?%‫ ‡ ا‬2‚‫) ا‬- JK ak*/ Z'd 0+ ،‫ت‬W09?w‫ ا‬Zُ 'ِd /ِ^9?%)6 W‫إ‬ ُ ;ُ| W J2‡%‫?)رفُ ا‬w‫ ا‬: ُ‫َت‬W0ُ9?ْ َ w‫ا‬
‡ ‫ْرك‬
.ُ‫َاه‬0 ِO

and likewise

‫ْ^ُ ؛‬9?َ %‫ ا‬:-.{َِ *'ْ 9َ 6ِ Eُ 'ُ 9ِ ?ْ | )َ- :- .‫?ـ‬1- : ُ‫ل‬0ُ9?ْ َ w‫ا‬

Thus, with this definition to say ghayr ma'qul would mean that you can't
comprehend the matter with your aql.

Al Ghani states:

.2 ." ٍ‫ل‬0ُ9?ْ -َ #ُ ْ<tَ " . ُ^ْ9?َ %‫ ا‬Eُ 'ُ َ*ˆ9ْ َ/ ٍ‫اب‬0I

َ =َ'dَ ‫ َ`_َ ٌم‬: " ٌ‫ل‬0ُ9?ْ -َ ‫" َ`_َ ٌم‬.1 .) َ^َ9dَ lِ- .N1-( .]‫ [ع ق ل‬.‫ ـ)ت‬:‫ ج‬- ٌ‫ل‬0ُ9?ْ -َ
... ‫َابِ أ َ ْن‬0M%‫ا‬
‡ lَ -ِ gْ َ <%َ : "ُE َ7ُ 2ˆVَ َ <%َ "
ْ / ‫لِ أ َ ْن‬0ُ9?ْ َ ْw‫ ا‬lَ -ِ gْ

Then according to this definition, it would mean that the matter is impossible.

It appears that Imam Malik was going for the first meaning and not the second. If
he was going for the second meaning (i.e. saying Istiwa is impossible) then that
would basically mean that He denied this action for Allah. However, that is not
the case as we all know because none of the Maaliki scholars understood Imam
Maalik to do so.

Now, the only issue here is that al-Ghani’s work is a contemporary work and it is
argued that this ibaarah (expression) was not applied or even existent in the early
era. Adding to this is the fact that this expression is an aami (non scholastic)
expression and would have been impossible for someone like Maalik, who
employed proper fusha Arabic absolutely, would have employed it, again if it
had existed in his time.

So now, the contention here is whether this statement from Maalik that it is
“ghayr maqul” to mean “impossible” or “outside of comprehension”.
Now, here is the problem if we applied the meaning of “impossible” to Maalik’s
statement “ghayrul-maqul”

If "Ghayr Ma`qool" means "impossible," then Imaam Maalik asked us to believe

in something impossible!! Look at his statement in light of their tahreef:

"Al-Istiwaa' is known, the 'how' of it is impossible, the belief in it is obligatory,

and asking about it isBid`ah."

Islam comes with and requires us to believe in what is maharaatul-uqool i.e.

what bewilders/puzzles the mind, but Islam did not come with or require us to
believe in mahalaatul-uqool i.e. what is impossible for the mind.
For example, the issue of Qadr is what bewilders the mind because we have a
deficient understanding of it, yet we know fundamentally regarding Allah’s
power over it i.e. knowledge of what was, what is, what will be, and what would
have been had He allowed it to be. However, despite its amazing and
bewildering nature because we can;t really grasp the scope of its nature, it is not
impossible, hence it is from the requirements of faith. This is the creed of Ahlu-
Sunnah wal-Jama’ah and is the basis from which Imaam maalik as well operated
from. So it is impossible for Maalik to have judged that we are to believe in
something impossible.

However, it was argued that this deduction from their tahreef of Imaam Maalik’s
statement i.e. of it meaning impossible, is that the Ash’aris wouldn't attribute the
impossibility to the Istiwaa, but to the kayfiyyah. So they are saying that the
Istiwaa has no kayfiyyah.

There is only one problem to this. The subject matter is the existence of Allah’s
istawaa, and not the “kayf”. Why? because to say that the action of Allah was or
is “impossible” is basically denial of the Attribute and/or the Action. To say that
the kayf is “impossible” is essentially saying that there was or is no istawaa.
Now, this impossibility would have to further qualified by saying “ impossible
for the mind to comprehend its nature”. If that is the meaning, then this is
essentially the wahhabi, salafi, athari, sunni meaning to begin with. However if
they say that istawaa has no kayf, then this is essentially saying that there was no
istawaa.
Issue 53: On Allah Having a Hadd (limit)

From pages 302-309, he has a discussion regarding whether Allah has a hadd.

_____________________________________________________________________

Ali Boriqee’s Response

Ash’aris like to quote a statement made by Imaam at-Tahawee in our Athari

textbook “Aqeedatu-Tahawiyyah”. Here is the statement

38. He is beyond having limits placed on Him, or being restricted, or having parts or
limbs. Nor is He contained by the six directions as all created things are.

This is essentially the only quote that they cherish as their own and the rest of the
text is irrelevant, including at-Tahawee’s literal affirmation of Allah being above
His Throne which he mentions later in point 51 if my memory serves me correct.

This is the problem with Ash’ari dialectic. These people are essentially
Aristotelians, and they are trying to understand an Athari text through Greek
pagan concepts.

The narrations that came from the salaf like Imaam Ahmad, Ibnul-Mubarak, and
other Athari giants of Ahlu-Sunnah all affirmed a Hadd (limit) for Allah.

Ahlu-Sunnah accept both what at-Tahawee stated and what the narrations
dictate.

Here is the difference

Hadd (limit)------>Tahawiyyah= limitations within the concept of "inability" or

“lacking”.

Hadd (limit)------> narrations= limit with the concept of His "being" bi dhaatih.
The first one is talking about limits with regards to trying to impugn Allah with
some kind of incapability because limit in one of its meanings is or entails
incapability or deficiency.

However, hadd with respect to Ahmad bin Hanbal and the rest of the Athari
Imaams of Ahlu-Sunnah, he was specifically referring to the fact that Allah's
actual being, Dhaat, actually has a limit. In this application of “limit”, it entails
the meaning of rejection of omnipresence i.e. that He is everywhere and not that
there is a deficiency in Allah wa iyaadhubillah. If He was without limit in this
regard then that would make Allah’s being to encompass everything as His being
would be infinite forever. That would mean His being extends beyond the
Throne into the realm of creation and consume it. It is essentially the cornerstone
of the idea that Allah is fi kulli makaan (everywhere)

An example of this is like using "ar-Rahman". While the Rahma of ar-Rahman is

without limit (unlimited) and there is no limit to His Rahma, He Himself, ar-
Rahman is not unlimited, He is not encompassing everything that exist. To say
that Allah has no limit in His Being is to say that Allah is everywhere (fi kulli
makaan) and this is essentially the creed of the Jahmiyyah, and the esoteric
pantheist Sufis.

Now, a common doubt that cane be raised by the mutakalimoon and their
sympathizers is the following narration of our shaykh Ibnul-Qudamah
rahmatullahi alayh in which he records in his Dhamm al-Ta'wil, Volume 1, page
23:

J?K)V%‫} ا‬%ŽO ‫)ل‬P ‫)ن‬7<'O l6 N<6#%‫>) ا‬4;b ‫ داود‬J6‫ أ‬l6 #$6 06‫) أ‬BŽ*B‫' أ‬iw‫?*)س ا‬%‫ ا‬l6 ;7k- )>4;b
‫)م أن‬+‫و‬S‫'= ا‬d‫= و‬%)?| F‫^ ا‬f7| ‫ل أن‬09?%‫'= ا‬d ‫ام‬#b ‫)ل‬9K =%)?| F‫)ت ا‬1I l- ‫)ت‬1I ld E>d F‫ ا‬J•‫ر‬
='d‫<¨ و‬k| ‫ أن‬#€‫ا‬0i%‫'= ا‬d‫• و‬7?| ‫ أن‬#n)7x%‫'= ا‬d‫ و‬#$1| ‫س أن‬01>%‫'= ا‬d‫ و‬Nh9| ‫ن أن‬0>«%‫'= ا‬d‫;ه و‬k|
E<*B ‫()ن‬% ='d ‫ أو‬E6)2` JK E(1B E6 &I‫) و‬- W‫^ إ‬9?| ‫ل أن‬09?%‫ا‬

Muhammad bin Abbass– Abu Bakr bin Abi Daawood (I believe he is the scholar
from Al Sijistaan)– al Rabie bin Sulaymaan–Imam Al Shafi:

It is forbidden for minds to represent Allah. It is forbidden for the imagination to conceive
limits for Him. It is forbidden for speculation to presume anything about Him. It is
forbidden for souls to think about His Essence. It is forbidden for consciences to deepen
reflection about Him. It is forbidden for thoughts to grasp other than what He described
Himself with, as conveyed by His Prophet (peace be upon him).

Here, ash-Shafi’ee, if it is authentic, is speaking hadd within the context of

deficiency, restrictions or definement . This has nothing to do with Ahmad’s
affirmation of hadd, because the context of their angle is different.

Also, the pseudo Ash’aris might be adept to bring forth the following statement
from Ibnul-Qudaamah’s Lum’atul-‘Itiqaad

[/)t W‫; و‬b _6

without giving confines and limits.

Q1. What is the meaning of this point of Imaam ibn Qudaamah rahimahullaah?

Answer by Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan.

This means that we do not say how the Attributes of Allaah subhaanahu wa ta’aala are,
such that we mention confines and limits for them, and say how they are. This is not a
part of our knowledge nor is it within our ability to do so.
For no one knows the confines and limits of the Attributes, nor how they are, except for
Allaah subhaanahu wa ta’aala.

Here, al-Fawzan is essentially explaining that this word is understood through

assigning a definition to Allah for this is a major way we would be limiting
Allah. So again, this has nothing to do with affirming hadd in the Imam Ahmad
tradition in response to the idea that He encompasses everything.

This should suffice as the topic is not essentially related to tafweed and we desire
to keep this predominately about tafweed.
Issue 54: Affirmation of Abu Hasan al-Ash’aris Authorship of al-Ibaanah Fi
Usool ad-Diyaanah

It's interesting to note that on page 356, the author indirectly affirms that Abul
Hassan Al Ashari is the author of Al Ibaanah.

_____________________________________________________________________

Ali Boriqee’s Response

al-Ibaanah and al-Maqalaat al-Islamiyeen were both written by al-Ash’ari during

his third and final stage of his life, the Sunni-Athari creedal stage. In other words,
these works were written by him as being a fully fledged Athari Sunni, and not
as an Ash’ari where he mixed the idea of Ibnul-Kullab with sunnism, nor when
he was a M’utazili mutakalim.

The modern day pseudo Ash’aris that perpetrate their fraudulent ideology on
forums and websites have took it upon themselves to challenge the authorship of
this work to al-Ash’ari and they did so with absolutely no academic integrity.
Every scholar under the sky, both Sunni and even the Ash’aris have admitted
that he was the author of al-Ibaanah.

Issue 55: The Way of the Salaf was Safer but the Way of the Khalaf is Wiser

On page 418, the author said that during the time of khalaf the bidah of the
Jahmis and Mu'tazilites appeared, hence the scholars required rational and
logical refutations to them. He said that this is why the khalaf were more wise
and more knowledgeable than the Salaf (at least in this regard).

Is the author completely ignorant of historical facts? How can he say that the
Jahmis and Mu'tazilites appeared during the time of the khalaf? Doesn't he know
anything about history? Nothing about the tribulations of Imam Ahmad?
Nothing about the statements of the salaf condemning the Jahmis by name and
condemning 'Ilm al Kalaam? Nothing about the Caliph Al Ma'mun and how he
supported the Mu'tazilites?

My oh my what a horrendous and inexcusable historically fallacious statement to

utter!

He also tries to quote ibn Taymiyyah to show that ibn Taymiyyah said that it's
possible that this statement "The Salaf Were Safer, and Khalaf Were More
Knowlegeable and Wiser" could be true, however in many published copies of
Shaykh Al Islam's Al-Hamawiya there is a line attributed to him wherein he
states that the statement "The Salaf Were Safer, and Khalaf Were More
Knowlegeable and Wiser" could possibly be true (if interpreted in a particular
way):

‫)ء‬7'?%‫ ا‬.?6 l- ‫;رت‬I ‫?*)رة إذا‬%‫ه ا‬,+ }B)` ‫ وإن‬، Z$b‫ وأ‬Z'd‫'& أ‬i%‫[ ا‬9/#€‫ و‬Z'O‫('& أ‬%‫[ ا‬9/#€ ‫ أن‬l-
ً )ˆk<kI =>?- )G6 J>?/ ;P

However, as ‫اع‬q+ ‫اد‬zK ;7k- &/#L said in his tahqeeq of Shaykh Al Islam's Al-
Hamawiya on page 31, footnote #9 this statement is not found in any of the two
manuscripts we have for Al Fatwa Al-Hamawiya, nor have the scholars who
transmitted this fatwa included this bit.

Furthermore, Ibn Hajr says in his Fath al-Baaree the following

&َ'(%‫ا‬‡ [َ9/ِ#َ€ ‫ أ َ ‡ن‬l‡ َ˜ Eُ ‡Bَ ِS ‫ ٍ ؛‬Zˆ<9ِ َ 2ˆ( ْ ُ7ِ6 gْ َ <%َ Zَ$ ْbَ ‫'َ& أ‬i َ %ْ ‫َ[ ا‬9/ِ#َ€‫ َو‬Zَ 'َ Oَْ ‫('َ& أ‬%‫ا‬ ‡ [َ9/ِ#َ€ َ‫َ)ل‬P lْ -َ ‫ْل‬0Pَ ‫ه‬#ْ<tَ َ‫َ)ل‬P‫َو‬
JِB)َ?-َ ‫َاج‬#i ْ 2ِ Oِ
ْ ‫َ ا‬J+ِ &َ'i َ %ْ ‫َ[ ا‬9/ِ#َ€ ‫ َوأ َ ‡ن‬، {َِ %َ‫ ذ‬JِK Eْ9Kِ #ْ<tَ lْ -ِ a/ِ; َkْ%‫ْآن وَا‬#9ُ %ْ ‫َ)ظِ ا‬1%ْ َ Žˆ6ِ ‫َ )ن‬7/ِj‫ا‬ ْ ‫‡د‬# َrُ-
JِK ‫َى‬0dْ ;‡ %‫('َ& وَا‬%‫ا‬ ‡ [ِ 9َ /ِ#َh6ِ ^ْG َrْ%‫ ا‬yَْ 6 ^ِn)َ9%ْ ‫َا ا‬,+َ َN َ7 َrَK ، ‫َ )زَات‬rَ ْw‫َاع ِ ا‬0ْBَŽˆ6ِ )َG9ِn)َ9 َb lْ dَ [َK‫ُو‬#Mَ ْ ْw‫ص ا‬0MŠ ُ >ˆ%‫ا‬
Eُ %َ Z<ِ«?ْ ‡ 2ˆ%‫َ[ ا‬/)َt JِK‫ َو‬، =َ%)َ?َ| ِ‡Fَ)ˆ6ِ •<ِ'ˆَ/ ) َ7ِ6 [َK#ِ ?ْ َ ْw‫َ[ ا‬/)َt JِK &َ'(%‫ا‬ ‡ ْ^َ6 ، l‡ َ˜ ) َ7َ` #ْ-َS‫ا‬ ْ gْ َ <%َ ‫ َو‬، &َ'i َ %ْ ‫َ[ ا‬9/ِ#َ€
Nْh9َ %ْ ‫ ا‬Eُ >ِ$ ْ7ُ/ Wََ ‫َاد و‬#ُ ْw‫ ا‬0َ +ُ Eُ %‡‫َو‬Žˆَ 2ˆَ/ ‫ِي‬,%‡ ‫ َ ‡ن ا‬Žˆ6ِ )ً94ِ ‫'َ& وَا‬i َ %ْ ‫• ا‬/ِ#َ€ {ََ 'O َ lْ -َ gْ َ <%َ ‫ َو‬، ‫َا ِد ِه‬#ُ ِw Z<ِ'ˆ(‡ْ 2ˆ%‫ ِه وَا‬#ِ -ْ َ ِS ‫ع‬0xُ ُ i%ْ ‫وَا‬
،E'/ِ‫ْو‬Žˆَ| [ِ ‡kMِ ِ 6

“..the saying of who said: the way of the Salaf is safer and the way of the Khalaf
is wiser is not correct, because he thought that the way of the Salaf is only the
belief in the Lafz (words\letters) of the Quran and Hadith without having
understanding of it , (and) the way of the Khalaf is to derive the meanings of the
texts that are turned away from their haqiqa with different types of majaz
(figurative meaning); so the one who said this combined between the ignorance
of the way of the Salaf and the claiming of the way of the Khalaf, and it is not like
he thought/assumed. The Salaf had utmost knowledge of what befits Allah, and
had the utmost glorification, obedience to His commands and submission to
what He intended\willed, and the one who took the path of the Khalaf is not
sure that his ta’wil is what is intended, and he can’t be positive of the correctness
of his tawil.”

(Fath al Bari, Book of Tawhid, 1st chapter, 2nd hadith - in its explanation)

Issue 56: the Scandalous Claim that Imaam Ahmad made T’aweel

On page 437, he said that Imam Ahmad made ta'weel of Allah's coming.

______________________________________________________________________

The Athari Response

There are three tangential accounts relevant to this very claim of his alleged
t’aweel

1. The narration about Imam Ahmad supposedly making Ta’wil of ‘Your Lord
will Come…’ is narrated by Hanbal alone, the uncle of the Imam. The Hanbalis
are very cautious when it comes to narrations transmitted by Hanbal alone on
the issues of Fiqh, so how about the issues of Aqida? Many Hanbali Imams
claimed that Hanbal erred while reporting this, for Salih b. Ahmad b. Hanbal was
also a witness to this discussion and trial, but never reported anything of the like
in his account. Furthermore, Hanbal also narrates several times from Imam
Ahmad literally affirming Allah’s descent.
Other Hanbalis affirm this narration and say that he said this to them as a
response to their argument, and not that it was his belief.

Because the Mu’tazilas used the texts about the Quran coming to its reciter on the
Day of Judgement, claiming that the Quran is created.
Hence, Imam Ahmad replied to them saying: Just as you say that its not the Lord,
who will come, it will be His reward, you can likewise say: it is not the Quran
that will come, it will be the reward of reciting it,” and this seems to be the
opinion of Ibn Badran al-DImashqi in his Madkhal.
2. Imaam Ahmad reprimanded soemone who made t’aweel of Allah’s Nuzool.
As recorded by Imaam as-Safareeni after quoting a number of Hanbali
scholars, such as Ibn Hamdan, Ibn al-Banna, al-Qadhi Abu Ya’la and Ibn ‘Aqil,
negating that Allah’s Descent necessitates movement (haraka) or relocation
(intiqal), he then mentions the narration from Imam Ahmad himself, on page
261: ‘Imam Ahmad – may Allah be pleased with him – once heard a person
narrating the Hadeeth of Descent and saying: He Descends without movement
(haraka), relocation (intiqal), or change in state (taghayyur hal). Imam Ahmad
reprimanded him over this and said: ‘Say as the Messenger of Allah –
SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam said it, for he is more jealous over his Lord than
you!’

So it is inconceivable that Imaam Ahmad would reprimand someone for

making t’aweel, and then do it himself.
3. Furthermore, the most explicit of refutation regarding his alleged T’aweel
comes from none other than the Athari Sunni, Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali
rahmatullahi alayh in which he records in his Fath al-Baaree the following

^ٍ 'َ ُ˜ JِK ُ‡F‫ ا‬Zُ Gُ َ<|ِ ْ Žˆَ/ ‫‡ أ َن‬Wِ‫ُو َن إ‬#ُ«>َ/ ْ^َ+ { : E%09` ، N•‫ا‬0- JK a/;k%‫ا ا‬,+ E<'d ‫) دل‬- ='d ‫آن‬#9%‫; دل ا‬P‫و‬
ُ ?َ6 َJ|ِ ْ Žˆَ/ ‫{ أ َ ْو‬Šَ 6‫َ َر‬J|ِ ْ Žˆَ/ ‫ ُ[ أ َ ْو‬$َ nِ _َ w‫ ا‬Zُ Gُ َ<|ِ ْ Žˆَ| ‫‡ أ َن‬Wِ‫ُو َن إ‬#ُ«>َ/ ْ^َ+ { : ‫)ل‬P‫ و‬. ]210: ‫ة‬#9*%‫ ُ[ } [ا‬$َ nِ _َ ْw‫َ )م ِ وَا‬7َv%‫ ا‬lَ -•
.ْ
: ‫?)م‬BS‫ َ•{ } [ا‬6‫َ)تِ َر‬/‫آ‬
. ]22: #r1%‫)ّ ً } [ا‬1I َ {َُ 'َ ْw‫{ وَا‬Šَ 6‫َ ) َء َر‬Yَ‫ { و‬: ‫)ل‬P‫ و‬، ]158
َ ً ّ)1I
‫ه‬#/#9| ='d ‫;ل‬/ ‫ ؛‬ZG>d ‫^ روي‬6 ، E%0%;- ld ‫ه‬0Y#‚‫ أ‬W‫ و‬، {%‫ ذ‬l- ً )ˆŸ<L ‫ن‬0?6)2%‫ ا‬W‫[ و‬6)kM%‫ول ا‬Ž2/ Z%‫و‬
‫؟‬. ‫)ء‬Y )7` ‫اره‬#-‫ وا‬E6 ‫)ن‬7/j‫وا‬
. ‫ه‬#-‫ء أ‬Jr- 0+ : EŸ<r- JK ‫)ل‬P EB‫ أ‬، ;7b‫)م أ‬-j‫ ا‬ld ‫; روي‬P‫و‬
. E>d ^*>b E6 ‫د‬#1| )7- ‫ا‬,+‫و‬
 . E>d #|‫ا‬02w‫وف ا‬#?w‫ ا‬E*+,- ‫ ‚_ف‬0+‫ و‬، ‫) روى‬7<K ^*>b Z+‫ و‬: ‫)ل‬P l- )>6)kI‫ أ‬l7K
. [/‫; روا‬7b‫ أ‬ld ، ^*>b E6 ‫د‬#1| )76 ‫)ن‬2*f/ W E*b)I‫_ل و‬i%‫ ا‬#$6 06‫و`)ن أ‬
. )7+0kB‫|<)ن و‬j‫ء وا‬Jrw‫ ا‬g>Y l- ‫) `)ن‬- ^` ^/‫و‬Ž26 ، E>d [/‫ روا‬0+ : ‫)ل‬P l- ZG/#‚Ž2- l-‫و‬
: ‫)ل‬9K ، ‫آن‬#9%‫ء ا‬Jr76 E9'‚ ='d ‫ا‬0%;2O‫ ا‬ZGBŽK ، ‫آن‬#9%‫ ا‬JK ‫ه‬#˜)B lw ً )ˆ-‫ا‬q%‫{ إ‬%‫)ل ذ‬P )7B‫ إ‬: ‫)ل‬P l- ZG>-‫و‬
. ‫ه‬#-‫ء أ‬Jr- EB‫ أ‬، F‫ء ا‬Jr- JK Z2B‫ن أ‬0%09| )7` : ‫ أي‬، } {6‫)ء ر‬Y‫ { و‬: E%09` ، E6‫ا‬04 ‫ء‬Jr/ )7B‫إ‬
. ‫وي‬#w‫ا ا‬,+ JK {%)(w‫ ا‬‰I‫ا أ‬,+‫و‬
: ‫ق‬#K ‫_ث‬4 ='d ‫ا‬,+ JK )>6)kI‫وأ‬
W ‫ه‬0Y‫ و‬l- ;7b‫ أ‬ld ‫وه‬#`‫) ذ‬76‫ ور‬، ‫)ت‬P0'iw‫ ا‬JK {%‫ازم ذ‬0'6 ‫ح‬#M/‫ و‬، ‫|<)ن‬j‫ء وا‬Jrw‫*} ا‬f/ l- ZG>7K
.E>d )+;<B)O‫ أ‬‰M|
.‫ه‬#-‫ء أ‬Jr- ='d {%‫ول ذ‬Ž2/ l- ZG>-‫و‬
E27«d‫ و‬F‫_ل ا‬r6 •<'/ ‫ء وإ|<)ن‬Jr-0+ : ‫ل‬09/‫ و‬، ‫ه‬#(1/ W‫ و‬، ‫)ء‬Y )7` ‫ه‬#7/‫ و‬، {%‫ ذ‬#9/ l- ZG>-‫و‬
. EB)k*O
. [7nS‫ ا‬l- ‫ه‬#<t‫)ق و‬kO‫ل إ‬0P 0+‫ و‬، &'(%‫ ا‬l- E'*P l-‫ و‬، ;7b‫ أ‬ld ‰<kM%‫ ا‬0+ ‫ا‬,+‫و‬

l- ‫ أول‬E6)kI‫ˆ) ً وأ‬7GY ‫ن‬S ‫<[ ؛‬7Gr%‫= ا‬%‫[ إ‬k<kM%‫ ا‬a/‫)د‬bS‫)ت وا‬/ª‫ه ا‬,+ ^/‫و‬Ž| ‫ن‬0*(>/ &'(%‫و`)ن ا‬
J+ [<?hP [%‫) أد‬+07O J2%‫ل ا‬09?%‫[ ا‬%‫د‬Ž6 ‫ص‬0M>%‫ه ا‬,+ E<'d }%‫) د‬7d ‫ه‬q>- =%)?| F‫ أن ا‬ZG>d #G2L‫أ‬
)- ‫ا‬0'*9K ، ‫ت‬W)<i%‫'= |'{ ا‬d )G<K )- ‫ا‬0•#?K ‫)ت‬G6)V2w‫ ا‬J+ [>(%‫)ب وا‬2$%‫)ظ ا‬1%‫ا أ‬0'?Y‫ و‬، ‫)ت‬7$kw‫ا‬
l- ‫_م‬$%‫^ ا‬+‫& أ‬n‫ا‬0€ #n)O {%‫'= ذ‬d ZG9K‫ ووا‬، ZG7dq6 E<1B ='d }%‫)د‬- ‫ وردوا‬، ZG7dq6 E|0*4 ='d }%‫د‬
. Z+#<t‫[ و‬%q2?w‫ا‬

F‫ل ا‬qB‫) أ‬76 l-‫ آ‬lw {%‫ ذ‬l- ‫ا‬092L‫ وا‬، ‫ و•_ل‬Z<(r|‫ و‬E<*V| [>(%‫)ب وا‬2$%‫ ا‬E<'d ‫;ل‬/ )- #+)˜ ‫ا أن‬07d‫وز‬
F)6 ‫)ن‬7/j‫ ا‬ld )G6 ‫ون‬#1>/ ، F‫'= ا‬d ‫اء‬#2K‫ ا‬J+ ^6 ، ‫)ن‬h'O l- )G6 F‫ل ا‬qB‫) أ‬- ‫)ء‬7O‫ ا‬E%0O‫'= ر‬d
. E%0O‫ور‬
^7k/ EB‫ وأ‬، ‫ز‬0r2%‫ وا‬NO02%‫)ب ا‬6 l- - ‫)ره‬V2B‫ وأ‬E|#f` N- - {%‫ ذ‬l- [>(%‫)ب وا‬2$%‫ ا‬JK ‫) ورد‬- ‫ا أن‬07d‫وز‬
g>Y l- 0+‫ و‬،‫ة‬#Ghw‫[ ا‬7$kw‫?[ ا‬/#V%‫ ا‬JK ‫;ح‬9%‫اب ا‬06‫ أ‬Z«d‫ أ‬l- ‫ا‬,+‫ و‬، ‫*?;ة‬2(w‫[ ا‬v'%‫)زات ا‬r- ='d
ZG'7b‫ و‬، [9<9k%‫)ز دون ا‬rw‫ وا‬NO02%‫'= ا‬d ‫>)ر‬%‫>[وا‬r%‫?)د وا‬w)` ‫ب‬0<v%‫ ا‬ld ‫‚*)ر‬j‫ص ا‬0MB [<>€)*%‫^ ا‬7b
. ‫_م‬Oj‫ ا‬l/‫ د‬ld ‫وق‬#- E'` ‫ا‬,+‫و‬، {%‫^ ذ‬f- ='d JG>%‫وا‬#-W‫ص ا‬0MB

ً )ˆK0‚ W‫ إ‬، E>d ‫روا‬,b‫_م و‬$%‫ ا‬ld )7+#<t‫; و‬7b‫ وأ‬J?K)V%)` ‫_م‬Oj‫[ ا‬7n‫ وأ‬‰%)M%‫('& ا‬%‫)ء ا‬7'd E>/ Z%‫و‬
{%‫ ذ‬y<*| ZG<'d \Y0% #1` )+#+)˜ ='d ‫ص‬0M>%‫^ ا‬7b ‫[ أن‬7nS‫ء ا‬Wz+ Z'd 0%‫ و‬، {%‫^ ذ‬f- JK ‫ع‬0P0%‫ ا‬l-
‫)م‬$bW)6 •'?2/ )7<K [-S‫ن ا‬0kM>/ ‫<& `)ن‬$K ، y7'(w‫[ ا‬k<MB ‫)م‬7| l- {%‫ن ذ‬5K ‫؛‬E>- [-S‫ ا‬#/,k|‫و‬
. ^€)*%‫^ ا‬h6‫ أ‬l- ‫ا‬,+ ، ‫)دات‬92dW‫ل ا‬0IŽ6 •'?2/ )7<K ZG72k<MB ‫ن‬0d;/‫'<[ و‬7?%‫ا‬
Which was translated by Saheefa.org as the following

Hafiz ibn Rajab al-Hanbali states the following in Fath al-Bari (5/97-98), his
commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari (not to be confused with the commentary by
ibn Hajar of the same title): 
 

The Qur’an has given indication of the same meaning as this hadith in a

number of places, such as the verse: “Do they wait except that Allah should come
to them in the shade of clouds along with the angels.” [2:210] And: “Do they wait
except that the angels should come to them or your Lord should come or some of the
signs of your Lord should come.” [6:158] And: “And your Lord shall come with the
angels, rank upon rank.” [89:22]

The Companions and the Successors did not make ta’wil of any of that or
remove it from its indicated meaning. In fact, it is reported from them that
they affirmed them, believed in them, and passed them on as they are. It has
been reported that Imam Ahmad commented, “It is the Coming of His
Command,” but only Hanbal [ibn Ishaq] reports this from him.

Some of our companions (i.e. the Hanbalis) say, “Hanbal [ibn Ishaq] erred in
what he reported, and it contradicts his well-known madhhab which is
extensively reported (mutawatir) from him.” What’s more, al-Khallal and his
companion used to not accept the lone narrations of Hanbal from Ahmad as
(a legitimate) riwaya. 

Some of the later scholars amongst them said, “It is a riwaya from him
making ta’wil of everything that is like “coming” (al-maji’ wal-ityan) and the like.” 

Others said, “He only said that as an argument against them who disputed
him concerning the Qur’an. They used the coming of the Qur’an  (on the Day
of Judgment) as an evidence that it is created. Therefore he said, ‘it is only its
reward that comes,’ as with the verse, ‘and your Lord shall come,’ meaning: as you
yourselves say about Allah’s Coming that it is the Coming of His
Command. This is the clearest way of dealing with this narration. 
Our Companions are of three groups in this issue: Some of them affirm
“coming” (al-maji wal-ityan) and they explicitly affirm what they necessitate
in created beings. They may even attribute that to Ahmad from routes that do
not have authentic chains.

Some of them make ta’wil of it that it refers to the Coming of His Command.

There are still others who affirm it from Ahmad and pass it on as is without
offering an exegesis for it. He will say, “It is a coming (maji wa ityan) that
befits Allah’s Majesty and Greatness, Sanctified is He.

This is what is authentic from Ahmad, and those before him from the Salaf. It
is also the view of Ishaq and the other Imams. 

Furthermore, the Salaf used to attribute the practice of making ta’wil of these

verses and authentic hadiths to the Jahmiyyah, because Jahm and his disciples
were the first ones to be well known for saying that Allah is absolved of the
meanings indicated by these texts based on evidences from the intellects (of
men) which they referred to as decisive evidences (adillah qat’iyyah). These
they deemed to be muhkamaat, while they deemed the words of the Book and
the Sunnah to be mutashabihat. Consequently, they subjected their contents to
those fancies (of theirs). They accepted what they claim their evidences
affirmed while they rejected what they claim their evidences negate. Then the
remaining groups of Ahl al-Kalam, the Mu’tazilah and others, agreed with
them in that.

They claimed that the apparent meanings of the Qur’an and the Sunnah
are Tashbih, Tajsim, and misguidance (dhalaal). From this, they derived
names for those who believe in what Allah revealed to His Messenger for
which Allah has revealed no authority. In fact, they are lies fabricated against
Allah by which they drive people away from having faith in Allah and His
Messenger.

 They claimed that what has been mentioned of that in the Book and the
Sunnah – as plentiful and widespread as (such texts) are – are just examples of
approximate, allegorical speech (al-tawassu’ wal-tajawwuz). They are to be
understood according to farfetched metaphorical explanations. This is one of
the gravest forms of attack on the precise, pure Shari’ah. It is similar to
 the Batiniyyah’s interpretations of the texts concerning unseen matters such as
Resurrection, Paradise, Hellfire as being allegorical and metaphorical rather
than literal. They also interpret the texts of commands and prohibitions in a
similar manner, and all of this constitutes renegading from the religion of
Islam. 

The scholars of the Salaf al-Salih and the Imams of Islam such as al-Shafi’i,

Ahmad, and others only prohibited al-Kalam and warned against it out of
fear of falling into the likes of this. Furthermore, if these Imams had realized
that understanding these texts according to their apparent meaning
constitutes kufr, it would have been obligatory upon them to clarify that and
warn the Ummah, as that is a necessary part of sincerity (nasiha) to the
Muslims. Does it make sense that they would sincerely advise
the Ummah concerning the laws governing deeds and yet neglect to sincerely
advise them concerning fundamental beliefs. This is the worst sort of
falsehood.

Subhaanallah. The words expressed here by Allaamah al-Haafidh Ibn Rajab is

truly from a Rabbaani scholar, one endowed with baseerah and beneficial
knowledge.

Issue 57: The Claim that this Book Addresses Everything that Ahmad bin
Abdur-Rahman al-Qaadhi Raised against the Muffawwida.

On page 441, he utters a lie where he said that he responded in detail to

everything Ahmad bin Abdul Rahman Al Qaadi said in his book Madhab Ahlul
Tafweedh. Anyone who reads this book would know that this is a lie. Just read
pages 356-392 of his book [v<M6 ^<7k2%‫)ت ا‬1M%‫ص ا‬0MB JK ./012%‫^ ا‬+‫\ أ‬+,- and that
would be enough to not fall for any of the arguments in this Ashari's misleading
book.
Issue 58: Typical Ash’ari Hogwash that the Ash’aris were the Majority of he
Ummah

On page 441, he says that the Asharis were the majority throughout the centuries.

______________________________________________________________________

Athari Response

This is a common lie issued by pseudo Ash’aris who know nothing about Islamic
history and is advocated by the liars of their ideologues like Nuh Ha Meem
Keller, G.F. Haddad, Abdul-Haakim Murad, and other callers to their heresy.

As a brief synopsis on my part is the following. It is brief only to keep the

document as brief as possible.

During the first 2 centuries of the newly formed Ash'ari madhaab (300 AH), they
were regarded as a fringe cult in the Muslim world by the rest of the Muslim
masses which ipso facto includes its scholar. In this time period the only Ash’aris
were basically the grand Mutakalimoon like al-Qushayree, Ibn Furak, al-
Baqilaani, Abu Bakr ibnul-Arabi al-Maliki and even al-Ghazaali who came a bit
later. There were two main political power moves that were made in the Muslim
world that significantly changed the entire spectrum of Islamic doctrine.

The first was the reign of terror that wrecked havoc across all of the North
African Continent under the command of one of the greatest terrorists in Islamic
history, Ibn Tumart. He converted the North African Continent to the Ash’ari
creed by force, thereby enforcing the heresy that is Ash'arism in that region of the
Muslim world. To highlight a summar of this event will be too long, the only
thing that is relevant in keeping with the spirit of conciseness is that the “grief”
that the “wahhabis” were alleged to have caused in the Hijaaz or in Yemen
dwarfs in comparison to the terrorism that the Ash’aris have caused the ummah
in various incidents, the terrorism and genocide of Ibn Tumart being one of them.

The second great political move, and one that had more significance, was the
promotion of Nidhaamul-Mulk into the office of power in the east. This basically
covered another portion of the Muslim world i.e. what we know as the Middle
East. When he came to power, he instituted Ash'arism as the only state sponsored
school. All government post were to be occupied by none other than ash'aris and
it dominated the educational and institutional realms. This power move is what I
like to call an old fashion form of "Full Spectrum Dominance" because that is
exactly what happened .This particular event is what truly altered the intellectual
lifeline of Muslim thought forever as it changed the entire scholastic realm of
Muslim theology from orthodoxy to heteredoxy and it packaged the heresy of
this heterodox madhaab as "orthodoxy". It is sort of similar to the Christian
orthodoxation of the pagan Trinitarian doctrine through the commencement of
the Council of Nicea.

So, this all happened prior to an-Nawawi being born. So by the time an-Nawawi
comes in on the scene, the intellectual sphere of Muslim scholar-dome is
dominated by Ash'arism. So it becomes understandable as to why many scholars
became affected with this heretical ideology thinking that it was orthodoxy.

Therefore, it was not like these medieval scholars "choose" Ash'arism in a fair and
balanced decision, rather the dominant world view that was established prior to
them being born was that orthodoxy was Ash'arism, and what was orthodoxy
prior to Ash'arism was anthropomorphism.

However, even in this period, there were many scholars who merely publicly
stated that they were ash'ari, while promoting Sunnism and the refutation of
ash'arism. One such scholar that crosses my mind was Imaam al-Qurtubi. There
was even a narration where he had to run for his life to escape the andalusian
terrorist ash'aris. I wish I could find that quote but I’m unable to find it

So in brief, Ash’arism from its birth, which is literally three hundred years after
the Prophet alayhi salatu salam, remained a fringe cult sect from its genesis up
until around 460 Hijrah when Nidhaamul-Mulk came to power. This is
significant because this was after the completion of the ‘Itiqaad al-Qadri, which
was a tract on the tenants of Islamic creed and methodology and fundamental
fiqh position that was signed in absolute agreement by the Scholars of the
Ummah from the various regions of the Muslim world in the reign of the noble
Khalifa Qaadir billah in the Abbassi period.

Ibnul-Jawzi records the following isnaad in his al-Muntadham whcih took place
in 433 AH, again, this is prior to the rise of Ash’ari state power.
Muhammad bin Nasir narrated to us: Abu al-Husain bin Muhammad bin Muhammad
al-Farraa narrated to us: The Head of the Islamic State, Abu Ja’far ibn al-Qaadir Billah
distributed al-I’tiqaad al-Qaadiri after 430 A.H. It was read from a script. The ascetics
and the scholars had gathered including Abu al-Hasan Ali bin Umar al-Qazweeni, who
wrote his name below this script before the lawyers did so [as signature]. Then the
lawyers wrote their names. Beneath all of this, it was written: “This is the belief of the
Muslims. Whoever contradicts it would have transgressed and disbelieved”. This script is
as follows:

1. A human must know that Allah is Alone and has no partner

2. He did not beget nor is He begotten
3. He has none as an equal to Him
4. He has no wife or child
5. He has no partner in rule
6. He is the First as ever
7. He is the Last as shall be
8. He is All-Powerful over everything
9. He is not unable over anything
10. If He wishes for something, He says: “BE!” and it is
11. He is independent and not in need of anything
12. There is none worthy of worship besides Him, the Alive, the Self-Subsistent
13. Slumber and sleep cannot overcome Him
14. He feeds. He is not fed.
15. He does not feel desolated by being alone, nor does He need the company of
anything.
16. He is independent of everything.
17. Times and eras cannot change Him. How can times and eras change Him
when He is the Creator of times and eras, night and day, light and darkness, the
skies and the earth, whatever creation is in them, the land and the sea, whatever
is in them, and every living, dead and lifeless being!?
18. Our Lord was alone. There was nothing with Him, nor was there a place
encompassing Him.
19. So He created everything through His Power. He created the Throne not out
of any need. Then He set on it however He liked and wished. [This is] not as a
settlement of resting like the creation rests.
20. He is the Regulator of the skies and the earths as well as whatever is in them,
whoever is in the land and the sea. There is no regulator besides Him. There is no
protector besides Him.
21. He sustains them, causes them to become ill, cures them, and gives them
death and life.
22. All of the creation is unable [in front of Him], along with the angels, the
prophets, the messengers and all the creation.
23. He is the All-Powerful with [the attribute of] Power.
24. He is the All-Knowing with eternal Knowledge that is non-acquired.
25. He is the All-Hearing with [the attribute of] hearing.
26. He is the All-Seeing with [the attribute of] seeing.
27. Hearing and Seeing are known [to us] from Him.
28. Nobody in the creation knows the reality of this Hearing and Seeing.
29. He is a Speaker with [the attribute of] speech. It is not through a created
medium like the mediums of creation [when they speak].
30. He is not described with anything apart from what He described Himself
with, or what the Prophet described Him as.
31. Any attribute He described Himself with or His Prophet described him
with, then it is a real/true/literal attribute, not a metaphorical expression of [an
unknown] attribute.
32. A Muslim should also know that the Speech of Allah is uncreated. He spoke
with this very speech. He sent it down to His Messenger on the tongue of Gabriel
after Gabriel had heard it from Him. Gabrile read it to Muhammad, Muhammad
read it to his Companions, and his Companions read it to the Muslims.
33. The Speech did not become created by virtue of the creation reciting it,
because it is the very same speech Allah spoke of.
34. So it is uncreated in any case, regardless of whether it is recited, memorised,
written or heard.
35. Whoever says that it is created in any format, he is a disbeliever, and his
blood would be legal to shed after asking him to repent [and he still does not
repent].
36. A Muslim should know that Faith is saying, action and intention, [i.e.] saying
with the tongue, action with the limbs, and believing in [Faith with the heart].
37. It increases and decreased, [i.e.] it increases with good deeds and decreases
with bad deeds.
38. It has sections and branches. The highest of them is the Kalimah. The lowest
is the removal of obstacles from the path. Shame is a section of Faith. Patience to
Faith is like the head to the body.
 39. A human does not know how his destiny by Allah is written. He does not
know upon what he will die. This is why he should say: “I am a believer if Allah
wills; I hope that I am a believer”. Saying “if Allah wills” or saying “I hope” is
not harmful to Faith, nor would he have become a doubter or a sceptic because
he intends what is hidden from him with this statement insofar as his Afterlife
and his death are concerned.
40. Anything good deed – obligatory, prophetic tradition or optional act –
through which closeness to Allah is achieved and is done for His Face is all out of
Faith and is attributed to Faith.
41. Faith and followed obligations shall never end, because good things do not
end.
42. He must love all the Companions of the Prophet.
43. We should know that they are the best of the creation after the Messenger.
44. The best of them after the Messenger of Allah is Abu Bakr the Truthful, then
Umar bin al-Khattab, then Uthamn bin Affan, then Ali bin Abi Talib – May Allah
be pleased with them.
45. He should testify that Paradise is for the Ten Companions.
46. He should ask for mercy for the wives of the Prophet – peace be upon him.
47. Whoever speaks ill of A’ishah, he has no place in Islam.
48. He should only speak well of Mu’awiyah.
49. He should not dwell in their arguments. He should ask for mercy for all of
them. Allah says: “And those who came after them say: "Our Lord! Forgive us
and our brothers who came before us into the Faith, and do not leave in our
hearts any ill-feeling against those who believed. Our Lord! You are indeed the
All-Kind, the All-Merciful.”. Allah also said regarding them: “And We removed
ill-feelings from their hearts, as they are brothers on raised couches facing one
another”.
50. A Muslim would not be called a disbeliever for leaving out any obligation
except for the obligatory prayer. If one leaves out a prayer without a valid excuse
whilst he is healthy and free [from valid engagement] until the final moment
expires, he would be a disbeliever even if he does not deny its obligation,
because of the Prophet’s saying: “Between the slave and disbelief is abandoning
the prayer. Whoever abandons it, he would have disbelieved”. He would remain
a disbeliever until he expresses regret and repeats it. If he dies before expressing
regret and before repeating the prayer, or he kept this in his heart [without
expressing it], his Funeral Prayer would not be performed, and he would be
raised with Pharoah, Hamaan, Qaaroon and Ubay bin Khalaf. Abandoning other
actions would not bring about disbelief until one denies them.
Everything in red is what the heretics among the Ash’aris have a warped theory
that we, the people of the Sunnah, the Atharis, are the violators of. However that
is only due to their warped and demented theories that are inapplicable to us.
Everything in blue is a direct refutation of the Ash’ari cult and its implications
are violated under the auspices of Ash’ari dogma and this has nothing to do with
our theories being warped or demented, this come directly from the Ash’ari
mutakalimeen.

Furthermore to end with the following text Allaamah ash-Shaykh Muhammad

as-Safareeni the following

A Study of
al-Durra al-Mudhiyya fi ‘Aqidat al-Firqa al-Mardhiyya
(The Luminous Pearl on the Doctrine of Pleasure-endowed Sect)
By al-‘Allama al-Shaykh Muhammad al-Saffarini al-Hanbali

Allah praise be to Allah, who gifted us to Islam and guided us to the path of His
Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam. Surely, without His guidance we would
be in complete loss.

May the peace and the blessings of Allah be upon the Prophet, His companions,
His family and all those who followed them in righteousness until the Day of
Judgement.

Introduction:

Before we begin, it is very important to answer an elementary question, and that

is: what exactly is Orthodoxy in Islam and how is it determined?

A simple answer would be the answer of the Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-
sallam – about the saved sect, that they are upon what the Prophet and his
companions were upon.

This is one of the easiest methods of examining the claims of various groups
claiming for themselves orthodoxy. For example, it is easy for one to have a brief
look at the Mu’tazilite beliefs and realise that it takes root in Greek philosophy
and not in the Sunnah.

However, this simplicity sometimes does not work, especially when, for
example, certain heretical sects claim a large number of following for themselves,
attribute themselves to one or more of the four orthodox schools of Law (fiqh),
and in the due course, distorting history in their favour.

This is when it becomes important for a person to know the historical roots and
circumstances of each of these sects to be able to discern their claim to orthodoxy.

Currently, since there are two main camps in the Muslim world, the Salafis and
the Ash’aris, each of them laying claims to orthodoxy, it is important to briefly
mention their history, tracing their roots to their respective origins, and thereby
establishing whose claim to orthodoxy is more worthy than the other.

Historical Background:

In the beginning of Islam, the Quran and the Sunnah was the ultimate source of
Islamic thought on all aspects of human life. Just as fiqh was deeply rooted in,
and based on the two legal sources, the Qur’an and the Sunnah, theology too
was based on the very same sources without any external influence. This
approach was represented by the bulk of the Prophet’s Companions and their
successors, who formed to constitute what we know and refer to today as:
traditionalism.

The first Islamic century witnessed the emergence of heretical sects such as the
Khawarij, the Shi’ah and the Qadariyya (‘Free-Willers’), and the Jahmites, the
followers of al-Jahm b. Safwan.

The second Islamic century witnessed the emergence of the Mu’tazilites, under
the leadership of Wasil b. ‘Ata. The common story often quoted in the
heresiographical works is that during the confusion caused on the status of a
sinful person in Islam due to the Khawarij, who expelled one from Islam due to
sins, and the Murji’ah, who argued that sins do not affect one’s faith; a person
came to al-Hasan al-Basri to enquire about the orthodox position on a sinful
person, is he or is he not a Muslim?
Before al-Hasan al-Basri could reply, Wasil b. ‘Ata interjected and claimed: ‘Such
a person is not a believer, nor a disbeliever, rather he is of ‘an intermediate rank
between the two ranks (of faith and disbelief)’ (al-manzila bayna al-
manzilatayn)’ Thus, he was expelled by al-Hasan al-Basri from his gatherings.
Wasil b. ‘Ata then began having his own gatherings at a corner of the same
Masjid, which prompted al-Hasan al-Basri to say: la qad i’tazalana Wasil (Wasil
has withdrawn from us), and were therefore known as the Mu’tazila (lit. those
who withdraw).

The Mu’tazili movement marked the emergence of the rationalist movement in

Islam for their use of Greek Philosophy, which became known amongst the Salaf
as ‘Ilm al-Kalam, and received violent attacks. Thus, there appeared two main
theological camps amongst the Muslims, the traditionalist camp that represented
the Salafi school, and the rationalist camp that represented advocates of Greek
philosophy and rationalism.

The rationalist movement received fierce criticisms from the Salaf for its
disregard for the traditions in favour of reason. The movement, however,
spearheaded by the Mu’tazilites, did eventually rise to power for two main
reasons:

1) They managed to gain acceptance and legitimacy for themselves by adhering

to the Hanafi school in fiqh, and thereby, acquiring official posts as judges in
Islamic courts. It was much easier for them to join the Hanafi school than the rest
due to the school’s inclination to rationalism; whereas the rest of the scholars
were ardent followers of the Ahl al-Hadeeth movement, who were always at
odds with the Ahl al-Ra’y for their vigorous use of Qiyas, making it impossible
for the Mu’tazilites to infiltrate their ranks. It is noteworthy that even amongst
the Hanafi school, despite of their struggle, the Mu’tazilites did not receive
approval.

2) Their good connections with the ruling ‘Abbasid Caliphate always placed
them in a favourable position. For instance, the Mu’tazilite leader, ‘Amr b.
‘Ubayd was a close friend of the ‘Abbasid Caliph Abu Ja’far al-Mansur; Abul-
Hudhayl al-‘Allaf was the teacher of the Caliph Ma’mun who instigated the
period of Mihna of the creation of the Quran against Ahl al-Sunnah; al-Nadham
had good relationship with Muhammad b. ‘Ali, one of the ministers under the
‘Abbasid Caliphate; and finally, Ahmad b. Abi Du’ad, the Hanafite jurist was a
supreme judge for Caliph al-Mu’tasim.

Hence, the Mu’tazilites were able to influence the Caliphate in instigating an

inquisition against Ahl al-Sunnah through out the land, which resulted in scores
of scholars acknowledging the creation of the Quran under duress, while the
prisons became over crowded with those who refused. The mosques in Egyp had
inscriptions written on them: There is no God but Allah, the Lord of the Created
Quran.

This period was very critical for it posed a real threat to the very survival of the
traditionalist movement, and it was only due to the staunch and heroic resistance
demonstrated by Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal, that the traditionalist movement won
the day, and hence, he was to be known as the Imam of Ahl al-Sunnah.

After this humiliating defeat, the rationalist movement began to lose ground and
respect amongst the commoners, neither did it enjoy the support it once had
prior to Caliph al-Mutawakkil who restored the traditionalist status.

At the same time, there appeared those who sought to reconcile between the
traditionalist and the rationalist movement, and that was by championing the
traditionalist cause, using the rationalist weaponry.

The first to start this trend was Ibn Kullab. However, his attempt was rendered a
failure since Imam Ahmad issued a decree of boycott against him for practising
Kalam. Such was also the case with some of the early ascetics and Sufis like al-
Muhasibi, who used to have large gatherings of sermons. It only needed one
statement from Imam Ahmad to diminish al-Muhasibi’s status, which caused
him to die in exile with only a hand full to pray over his funeral. Such was the
strength of the traditionalist movement, and the insignificance of the rationalist
movement.

Ibn Kullab’s efforts, however, did not go in vain, for there appeared Abul-Hasan
al-Ash’ari who revived the attempt of reconciling between traditionalism and
rationalism.

Abul-Hasan al-Ash’ari was brought up in a prominent Mu’tazilite household

under the care of an eminent Mu’tazilite theologian Abu ‘Ali al-Jubba’i. For forty
long years he was nourished on the Mu’tazilite version of Greek philosophy and
negative theology, which obviously were to have a lasting effect on his thought.

As to why exactly al-Ash’ari left Mu’tazilism remains obscure, but it is

noteworthy that by this stage, the Mu’tazilites were rapidly losing ground, and
neither did they enjoy the popular support as did the traditionalist. Perhaps, this
could be one of the reasons for al-Ash’ari making a sudden U-turn after forty
years, and turning against the rationalist movement.

Al-Ash’aris efforts, like that of Ibn Kullab were also destined to go in vain, at
least for a century, for the traditionalist viewed al-Ash’ari with much suspicion,
especially for indulging in Kalam. In this regard, al-Ash’ari wrote his final work
called al-Ibana and presented it to al-Barbahari al-Hanbali, the leading
traditionalist of his time, but the latter rejected it point blank.

After the demise of al-Ash’ari, there remained a few number of scholars who
adhered to the Ash’ari school, yet they, far from being prominent, were
constantly attacked every now and then by the scholars of the four schools, and
often cursed publicly on the pulpits, precisely for employing Kalam in theology.
The famous creed authored by the ‘Abbasid Caliph al-Qadir was written and
publicly read to endorse the traditionalist beliefs and attack the rationalist
movement, including the Mu’tazilites and the Ash’arites.

It was only in the 5th Islamic century when the Nidham al-Mulk, a vizier who
favoured the Shafi’is and the Ash’aris, took control and established a network of
colleges that became known after him as Nidhamiyya Colleges, that the
Ash’arites were finally able to breath and propagate their rationalism freely. A
sudden influx of power for the neo-rationalist movement caused many riots in
Baghdad between the traditionalist and the rationalists, now being represented
by the Ash’arites.

The reason why the Nidhamiyya Colleges worked so well in favour of

Ash’arism, is that Nidham al-Mulk had stipulated conditions, making the fiqh
lessons to be exclusively Shafi’i. This was a perfect opportunity for the Ash’arites
to convince their co-madhabists from the Shafi’i school of Ash’arism. However,
their efforts failed due to the opposition they received from the traditionalist
Shafi’is, and hence the Ash’ari struggle for recognition moved to Damascus.
In Damascus there appeared two main Ash’arite propagandists, one before Ibn
Taymiyya, and the other after. The first one being Ibn ‘Asakir al-Dimashqi, and
the other being al-Subki.

Ibn ‘Asakir also made an attempt to gain approval for Ash’arite rationalism from
his Shafi’i colleagues, and to this end he wrote his famous defence of Ash’arism
called: Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari. In this book he presents a laudatory biography
of al-Ash’ari, then lists more than 80 Ash’arite theologians, and finally ends with
a section dealing with problematic reports from al-Shafi’i in particular
concerning the censure of Kalam. Here, Ibn ‘Asakir is obviously addresses his
colleagues from the Shafi’i school and tries convince them that Shafi’i only
opposed the Kalam used by the Qadariyya, and not the science of Kalam itself as
used by the Ash'arite Mutakallims. This effort by Ibn ‘Asakir was also destined to
fail, for the bulk of the Shafi’is remained faithful to traditionalism.

After Ibn ‘Asakir, it was time for Ibn Taymiyya to rock the very foundations of
the Ash’ari world, and champion the cause of the traditionalist movement, which
was to have a lasting affect for centuries to come. If, on one hand, Shafi’is had
Madhab based colleges that were restricted to Shafi’ism, thereby facilitating for
the Ash’aris to win approval of their co-Madhabists; there were, on the other
hand, Dar al-Hadeeth or Colleges for Traditionist studies that were not restricted
to a school of fiqh, and therefore, were attended by followers of the four schools.

This is where Ibn Taymiyya played a pivotal role for he was a professor at Dar al-
Hadeeth, where he had access to Shafi’i students such as al-Dhahabi, Ibn Kathir,
al-Mizzi and others. This strengthened the bond between the traditionalist
amongst the Shafi’is and the Hanbalis, against their common rationalist enemy,
the Ash’arites.

Ibn Taymiyya’s everlasting influence on the Shafi’i traditionalists became an

enormous obstacle for the latter Ash’arite propagandists such as al-Subki. Yet, al-
Subki was well equipped to take up the challenge, which he did by writing his
biographical masterpiece on the Shafi’i scholars, which he called Tabaqat al-
Shafi’iyya. This work, like Tabyin of Ibn ‘Asakir, was also aimed at the Shafi’i
colleagues, but it was a more clever attempt by far.

Unlike Ibn ‘Asakir’s book title which made a clear reference to al-Ash’ari, al-
Subki’s work title was very subtle and therefore appealing to all Shafi’is. In this
work, al-Subki’s major obstacles were not the traditionalists foreign to his school,
but rather they were the traditionalists from his own school. To this end, he did
not spare an opportunity to discredit al-Dhahabi’s status as a great Shafi’i, by
attacking him and describing him as a Hanbalite-Hashawite sympathiser.

However, al-Subki’s attacks on al-Dhahabi eventually fired back at him, for the
latter Shafi’is did not view these attacks in good light, and often mention in their
biographical notes, how kind al-Dhahabi was to his student al-Subki, implying
thereby that al-Subki returned his own teacher’s kindness with rebuke. After al-
Subki, there were no significant attempts to gain acceptance on part of the
Ash’arites, for thereafter, the Shafi’ies kept producing the mutakallims, as well as
the traditionists like Ibn Hajr who were often antagonistic to the
Mutakallmimun.

Hence, the traditionalists efforts have always been geared it keeping the
rationalist Ash’arites out of orthodoxy, whereas the Ash’arite rationalist effort has
always focused on gaining acceptance and an entry to orthodoxy.

This shows that Ash’arite claim to orthodoxy is not a matter of dispute amongst
the Hanbalis and the Ash’arites alone, rather the Shafi’i school itself was divided
as to its legitimacy. Imam Ahmad, on the other hand, was recognised as the
ultimate champion of Sunnah, by the traditionalists from the Hanbalis and the
Shafi’is without doubt, and by the Ash’arites with concealed hesitance. This is
clear from al-Ash’ari’s attempt to gain legitimacy by claiming to be a follower of
Imam Ahmad in al-Ibana.

Such a brief look at history helps us define orthodoxy and further identify who
have more right to lay claim to orthodoxy, and whether or not Ash’arite claim to
orthodoxy has any weight.

Conclusion of the Review

So that's pretty much it. We have looked at several of his mistakes. Also, we
know that there are many statements from the Salaf, which he hasn't addressed.
One could visit the index threads on the Multaqa Ahlul-Hadeeth sticky threads
of the English section and then work his way on to interesting threads and
discussions, which contain plenty of statements from scholars, which were never
addressed by this Ashari author. Hence, his book is far from being
comprehensive in any sense.

In a nutshell, if this is supposed to be one of the best (if not the best) books
defending the position of Tafweed Al Ma'na, then Salafis may rest easy.

From my end, this is the.....

END OF THE REVIEW.

Appendix

Abu Hayaan al-Andalusi Affirms that the Salaf Affirmed the Dhaahir
Meaning of Istawaa

Abu Hayyaan in his Bahr Al Muhit admits that the Salaf took the apparent
meaning of Istiwa in his commentary on Surah 7:54...

&'(%‫ا‬
ّ l- ‫ر‬0G7r%‫م وا‬0P ‫ش‬#?%‫'= ا‬d E|‫ا‬,6 ‫ار‬#92OW‫ ا‬l- ‫ه‬#+)˜ ='d E'7kK ‫ش‬#?%‫'= ا‬d ‫اؤه‬02O‫) ا‬-‫وأ‬
='d )+‫ار‬#-‫) وإ‬G6 ‫)ن‬7/j‫'= ا‬d ‫)ت‬1M%‫ ا‬a/‫)د‬b‫ أ‬JK Z+#<t‫*)رك و‬w‫ ا‬l6‫ وا‬a<'%‫ وا‬Jd‫وزا‬S‫{ وا‬%)-‫)ن و‬B)<1(%‫ا‬
.‫_ت‬/‫و‬Ž| ‫;ّة‬d ='d {%‫ا ذ‬0%ّ‫و‬Ž| ‫م‬0P‫اد و‬#- y<?| #<t l- =%)?| F‫) أراد ا‬-

I took the liberty to translate this where Abu Hayyan says that
“the issue of Allah’s istawaa alal-Arsh was understood upon the apparent meaning
(dhaahiruhu) like istiqraar (settlement/establishment) bi dhaatih i.e. with His Essence
over the Throne as adopted by the majority of the people of knowledge from the salaf like
both Sufyaans (ath-Thawri and Ibn Uyainah), Maalik, al-Awzaa’i, Layth (bin S’ad),
Ibnul-Mubaarak, and other than them concerning the hadeeth of the Sifaat and had
emaan in them and passed them on upon what was intended by Allah the Most High and
without designating a particular intent like the people of t’aweel upon them (the
narrations) from the various interpretations”

This quote from Abu Hayyan in his tafseer essentially obliterates the Ash’ari
contention that the Salaf did not believe that Allah rose over the Throne ‘bi
dhaatih” i.e. with His Essence. He attributes this belief to the salaf and identifies
some of them by name. It further shows that he attributed the belief in believing
it upon its dhaahir meaning which destroys the idea that they adopted tafweed
of the meaning.
Correcting the Saying of “Tafweed” Used by the Scholars from the Distortions
of the Ash’aris

Justice always prevails. Scholars who are fair, unbiased and are scholars of
integrity all agree that Tafwid means Tafwid al-Kayfiyya and not Tafwid al-Mana
like what Abul Hasan Hussain Ahmad al-Muftari is claiming.

This is Shuaiyb al-Arnaut al-Hanafi in his research of Mari ibn Yusuf al-Karmi's
aqawil al-thiqat
Similar was said by Muhammad Anwar Shah al-Kashmiri.

So what just happened here. When the scholars used the term “tafweed” and
even the phrase “wa laa fi m’ani” i.e. without a meaning for it, then it means
“kayfiyyah” it does not mean that they made tafweed by its very meaning due to
the absurdity of what it entails, but unfortunately absurdity is a hallmark of
Ash’arism.

Addressing Ash’ari Doubts 1: The Sifaat of Allah is entirely Mutashabih and

thus the Wahhabis are delving into the Mutashabih and are in violation of the
aayah of Allah in this regard

This claim is a part of, or I should say, the hallmark of Ash’ari ignorance. Here is
the fundamental difference between the ahlul-hadeeth wal-athar as represented
by the Salafi methodology by which the basic Muslim is an adherent to versus
the Ash’ari movement.

Ahlus-Sunnah say “The ayaat of Sifaat are mutashabih in nature (meaning in

“how” it is) and muhkaam in meaning”

Ash’aris say “The ayaat of Sifaat are mutashabih absolutely both in nature and in
meaning.

The kayfiyyah of every Ghayb is from the Mutashabih and there is no point
delving in it.

The meanings of the Ghayb (Sifaat, Qiyamah, Jannah, Ru'yah etc) is NOT from
the Mutashabih.

According to the Ash`aris, the meaning of Sifaat are Mutashabih, but Qiyamah
and Jannah is Muhkam!
Why the distinction? Because they believe the dhaahir of the Sifaat is Kufr; hence
they demote it to Mutashabih.

Then we ask: Is the Wujood of Allah Mutashabih too? Is the Hayah of Allah
Mutashabih too for them? You'll find the answer for them that they are not, as
their Greek `Aql affirms their meanings. However, Rahmah and Istiwaa' are
Mutashabih, because their Greek `Aql cannot tolerate their Zahir meanings to be
Sifaat of Allah.

In short, it is essentially absurd to conclude that the very meanings of Allah’s

characterizations of Himself i.e. the ayaatu-Sifaat, are mutashaabih in its basic
meanings because this includes the name “Allah” and what that name entails.
This is essentially what the corrupt Ash’ari principle necessitates, that Allah
Himself in His very name is Mutashaabih by its very meaning. No! We know
what Allah means and what His name necessitates. The only thing that is
mutashaabih about Allah is His very nature, how He is, that is what is unclear to
us because as He says “No vision can grasp Him”.

To conclude with this work, this document represents some of the most
conclusive counter arguments that debunk the unfounded theories of Ash’ari
dogma on Tafweed bil-M’anawiyyah. Ironically, we have addressed more
arguments and including side issues related to it with preciseness than what the
original author of this “qawlu-tamaam” has done for his work for the promotion
of tafweed allegedly proving it from the salaf, which must be noted that he has
failed miserably to do.

We ask Allah to guide us towards His Pleasure and to His Siraatal-Mustaqeem

Subhaanakallah wa bi hamdik, wa ash-hadu anla ilaha illa ant, was-staghfiruka

wa ‘atoobu elayk.

Asalamu Alaykum Warahmatullah