Philosophers and Heretics: Aristotle, Augustine, the Sabeans, Mu’tazilites, and Ash’ari Claims of Orthodoxy

Bring Down the Walls

We’re going to start bringing down the walls (of deception) in this article, inshaa’Allaah, but first we need to make some clarifications. When we use the word “Ash’arite Heretics” you must remember that “Ash’ariyyah” is of types, and is not a monolithic, uniform creed. What we mean by “Jahmite Ash’arite Heretics” are the contemporary followers of those who cut off and had little connection with al-Ash’ari himself and took the Ash’arite way into the direction of the Jahmiyyah, Mu’tazilah and the Philosophers and they are al-Juwayni (d. 478H), al-Ghazali (d. 505H), al-Razi (d. 606H) and al-Amidee (d. 631H). This is the “engine” and “core” of today’s Ash’arites.Now these scholars, we consider them to have been misguided, astray, in opinion, in areas of belief and approach – even if some of them are said to have recanted at the end of their lives, abandoning Kalaam – yet that is between them and Allaah [and we ask Allaah to pardon them], and their misguidance is what needs to be pointed out, since a large portion of the ummah inherited it from them. Whilst they may be excused for being caught up in something that can be said to be a fitnah that enveloped the Ummah and caught many a righteous god-fearing scholar, and they are now bygone, the point is that there is no excuse for today’s Jahmite Ash’aris in following those scholars in their errors. The Ash’arites strengthened in following the usool of the Jahmiyyah since the time of al-Razi and for this reason they were refuted appropriately with the title “Bayaan Talbis al-Jahmiyyah.”

So today’s Ash’arites have no connection with al-Ash’ari (d. 324H) himself and likewise no connection to the Early Ash’aris like Ibn Mahdi al-Tabari (d. 380H) and al-Baqillani (d. 403H). Read this article for more details on this subject

• The Levels and Ranks of Ash’arism or Those To Whom It is Ascribed – An Important Classification And Exposition of the Contemporary Jahmites Posing as ‘Asharis’ – (see here)

However, there are two layers by which this inner core and central machinery is concealed and attachments and associations are made to either of these two layers so as not to reveal the filling in the middle.

Hence, you will see the contemporary Ash’arites associating with the first lower layer, Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’ari

, despite the fact that they rely upon NONE of his existent works written towards the end of his life, such as al-Mujiz, Risalah ilaa Ahl al-Thaghar, al-Maqaalaat, and al-Ibaanah in knowing how his creed evolved towards that of Ashab al-Hadith at the end of his life. So it is just mere use of the name. This is very different to the likes of Abu Bakr al-Ismaa’eelee, and Abu Uthman al-Sabuni and others who were amongst those who on account of what was in the book al-Ibaanah, sometimes displayed association with al-Ash’ari

, and that association was on the basis of what he manifested of agreeing with Imaam Ahmad at the end of his affair. So take note of this crucial matter and beware of the trickery and deception of the conniving Jahmites of today posing as “Ash’arites.” Likewise they are not really into al-Baqillani

 that much either for reasons that become clear from the many articles we have on him on this site (see here). So this is the lower layer.

The second upper layer which conceals the filling in the middle is that made up of al-Qurtubi, al-Nawawi and Ibn Hajar. Now these Scholars did not delve into the heretical kalam but they were convinced of the conclusions of the Mutakallimin without really knowing the inner realities, and thus, they tried to merge their knowledge of hadith, with these conclusions, and thus you will see strange things from them. They censured the Mutakallimin for indulging in that Kalaam, and speech of al-ajsaam and al-a’raad, and for what they made to the be the first obligation (al-nadhar wal-istidlaal) and the likes [see this article about Ibn Hajar, al-Nawawi and al-Qurtubi on this matter], yet they spoke with ta’wil and tafwid, having considered the conclusions of the Mutakallimin to be correct. This is because they grew up in an environment and era where this was the only way known, and they considered the conclusions of the Mutakallimin to be the truth, and they did not truly distinguish between the sayings of the various factions (and this is clear in the writings of Ibn Hajar especially), and so merged between those conclusions and what was found in the ahaadeeth. They would often speak of the way of the Salaf through this particular orientation and influence, although at times they would clearly acknowledge that the way of the Salaf was different to what they held (see this example and this one from al-Qurtubi). Hence, this upper layer is ideal for confusing people and presentng a “good” face for pseudo-Ash’ariyyah and for calling the people to it. And what they are doing is lending credibility to the way of al-Juwayni, al-Ghazali, al-Razi and al-Aamidee through the expertise of the likesof al-Nawawi and Ibn Hajar in the field of hadith. The Ash’ariyyah they are really calling to is not that of Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’ari, since they no longer have any knowledge-based connection to al-Ash’ari himself, not even to the Kullabi period in his life. Rather, it is the Ash’ariyyah of tajahhum, i’tizal and Falsafah, that of al-Juwayni, al-Ghazali, al-Razi and al-Aamidee – the inner core, the machinery, and the filling.In this article we will be taking a glance at a research paper (an example of many, at a cost of $40 per paper to us) to get an idea of the true roots and origins of the theology of the Mutakallimun (speculative theologians), meaning the condemned Ahl al-Kalam, and they are the Jahmiyyah, the Mu’tazilah, the Rafidi Hishamiyyah Mujassimah, the Kullaabiyyah, the Karraamiyyah Mujassimah, the Ash’ariyyah and the Maturidiyyah. These are all Kalaam groups they are all on the same side of the fence as it relates to the foundation of their theology, ‘ilm al-kalaam. The worst of the Mujassimah were actually ‘ilm al-kalaam groups, the Jahmite Ash’aris kept that hidden from you for a long time!

Due to copyright rules and terms of purchase we can’t make the whole PDF available for download, so we will just quote relevant sections.

Here is the cover page:

The paper is dealing with monopolar theism and dipolar theism in the background of the ontological argument (a proof used to demonstrate the existence of God). The question of monopolar theism and dipolar theism, to put it in the simplest terms possible, is whether God is a remote, unattached, immutable, unresponsive being (monopolar), or is He is responsive, interacting with His creation (dipolar). This is the course of the discussion, but we just want to highlight certain areas of the paper to allow us to compare between what is cited regarding those Greek Philosophers and from those Christians who were affected by their philosophy in trying to formulate a proof for God. The author of the paper is discussing the philosophical views of a modern Christian writer who is critiquing the “classical theism” of the Greek Philosophers. Bear in mind that Christians are “Mujassimah” and “Mushabbihah“, they make permissible upon Allaah that which is baatil, such as that He is a “suffering” God and that this is from the discussed “dipolar” theism which opposes the monopolar theism represented in the Greek Philosophers and those following their way. However, leaving all that aside, what concerns us from this paper is the characterization of the classical theism which came from the Greek Philosophers, and we’ve chosen to do it from third party, research papers so that there can be no accusations of mischaracterizing anything.A Brief History of the Theology of Ahl al-Kalaam

Remember, that the proof of huduth al-ajsaam (origination of bodies) was taken by al-Ja’d bin Dirham from the Sabean star and idol-worshipping pagan disbelievers, the remnants of the Sabeans to whom Ibrahim (alayhis salaam) was sent and they were versed in the Platonic and Aristotelian philosophies. Amongst them were those who still believed in the origination of the universe. In order to demonstrate and argue the case, they devised this proof of huduth al-ajsaam, and this was based upon their study of the natural sciences, of the observable universe, upon the philosophical terms, classifications and introspection that came from the likes of Aristotle, and in particular the classification of his Ten Categories, (al-Maqulat al-Ashar) which were the linguistic foundations for his syllogistic and deductive logic to validate the truth and falsehood of propositions. So the language of al-jawaahir, al-ajsaam (substances, bodies) and al-a’raad (their incidental attributes) was the underlying language and foundation for this proof. As a result of this, the Sabeans used to practice “negative theology” which means to affirm only negatives for Allaah which is to say, “Allah is not this, nor that, nor this, nor that…“, and this was to avoid Tajseem for Allaah and to maintain His “transcendence” and the likes. In reality, their belief in the divine simply followed the theism of Plato and Aristotle. Al-Ja’d bin Dirham brought this into the Ummah and ta’teel (divestment) was innovated. Al-Ja’d was trying to remain consistent with this proof, which means Allaah’s Names, attributes and actions must be denied, since a) names implying attributes, and b) attributes and c) actions have been used as evidence that the bodies they reside in or are said of, are originated.

Hence, he claimed Allaah did not speak to Moses because according to the proof this would a haadithah (event, occurrence) in Allaah’s essence, which is only said of bodies (ajsaam). Likewise, Allaah did not take Ibrahim as His friend, again for the same reason. Likewise affirming hearing, seeing, power, life, will, face, hands, istiwaa and so on are tajsim, they necessitate Allaah is a body, because they are attributes and actions.

This theology was taken up by the Jahmiyyah who promulgated it in the Ummah. Then it was taken up by Amr bin Ubayd for the Mu’tazilah during the time of Abu Hanifah who spoke against it. By the third century (after 200H), the Mu’tazilah had refined this proof a great deal and they put the Ummah to trial with the saying that the Arabic Qur’an is created, which was a belief necessarily required by the proof of huduth al-ajsaam. Imaam Ahmad subdued and overcame these nasty heretics, and the people at large turned away from the Mu’tazilah, seeing their demise. Then came Ibn Kullab who tried to debate these Jahmiyyah and Mu’tazilah with Kalaam and fell prey to their doubts regardign Allaah’s actions. After him came al-Ash’ari who had left the Mu’tazilah to support the way of Ibn Kullab just after the beginning of the fourth century (300H), but neither of these two considered this proof to be obligatory, which explains why they (and the very early Kullaabi Ash’aris) were closer to Ahl al-Sunnah in their views.

But when al-Baqillani came along, he made this proof of huduth al-ajsaam integral to what he saw as his own support and formalization of the way of al-Ash’ari, and he reproduced it in detail in his book al-Tamhid, all of it being identical more or less to its treatment by the Mu’tazilah,and he declared it obligatory (waajib) upon everyone. Desipte this, he still held fast to many of al-Ash’aris positions. However, when all of the Ash’arites after him spoke of this proof – and it is found in all of their books – they eventually realized that this proof is flawed. Debates had raged between them and the Philosophers and when the Later Ash’aris realized this proof is corrupt, flawed and can equally be used to prove that the universe is eternal (which was referred to some of them as takaafu’ al-adillah, equality in evidences), they hastened to protect themselves and conceal this vulnerability in their theology by incorporating other proofs which actually originated with the very Philosophers they were debating with, the proofs of tarkib (composition) and takhsis (specification). The Ash’arites incorporated these into their own theology (leading to a hybridization of Kalaam and falsafah) and very unscrupulously began to use them in their polemics against Ahl al-Sunnah. Now this last point is a whole different subject and inshaa’Allah we will follow up on this in other articles where we will, by Allah’s permission, take our infamous sandal (see towards the end of this article here) and slap that intellectual cripple and mental spastic, Abu Adam Naruiji till he is black and blue inshaa’Allaah, to make an example and sign out of him, and as an announcement to all other other intellectual fraudsters that the sandal will be pursuing them too in due course, by Allaah’s permission.

In Cloud Cuckoo Land

If you have grasped the history above, you will understand why today’s Ash’arites are the most intellectually and mentally confused, garbled, bewildered, confounded people you will ever come across, who in their wild and drunken stupor, stumble onto blogs, forums, muttering “not a jism, not a jawhar, not an ‘arad, not in jihah, not in makaan, not in tahayyuz, not below, not above, not inside, not outside…” – and they don’t realize they are following the foundations of theology of the Greek and Sabean star and idol worshipping pagan disbelievers, not the revealed Books and sent Messengers – may Allaah guide these lost and poor souls, ameen. You have to excuse even the students of knowledge amongst them, because they are just as bewildered, its not just exclusive to the common folk, even their Shaykhs are bewildered. You see as history developed after the Mutakallimun found this newfangled approach, thinking they just came upon a treasure by which to defend the truth, books were written and a whole theology was buit upon it and Islam itself was now dependent upon this [flawed, corrupt] proof. So many a generation were brought up on it and this continued in succession to this day. Unfortunately those today who have had their minds affected with this Kalaam, cannot see outside of the box they are stuck in.

Yeah, but what about ….

Scholars like al-Bayhaqi, al-Qurtubi, al-Nawawi, Ibn Hajar?! This is no doubt a question that arises, and this is the truth of the matter: There were a category of Scholars who never actually delved into Kalaam, al-ajsaam wal-a’raad (bodies and their incidental attributes), huduth al-ajsaam (arguing for the origination of bodies through the presence of attributes and actions in them), al-juzz alladhee laa yatajazzaa’ and al-Jawhar al-Fard (the indivisible particle), al-arad laa yabqaa zamaanayn (an incidental attribute does not last two instants of time) and all that other useless unnecessary speech, the condenmed ilm al-kalaam, which was taken DIRECTLY from the Mu’tazilah (be in absolutely no doubt about that at all, it is a FACT – see here as an example). However, they were led to believe in the correctness of the conclusions of those Mutakallimin who did delve into it. And this is understandable because when you also had amongst the Ahl al-Kalaam the Rafidi Hishaamiyyah Mujassimah and the Hanafi Karraamiyyah Mujassimah [who were saying Allaah is a body, in flesh and bones, or He must be a body to have attributes, and other statements like this] then these Scholars believed in the correctness of the conclusions of those Mutakallimin, even if they did not actually delve into Kalaam like those Mutakallimin did. Then, because they were mostly attached to hadeeth, they tried to reconcile between those conclusions they held to be valid and what they found in the hadeeth and aathaar. And you see this from the likes of al-Bayhaqi and then much later, al-Qurtubi, al-Nawawi who were with the Mutakallimin. And likewise Ibn Hajar, who is a category on his own. Also in this category is al-Qadi Abu Ya’laa, because he also held the validity of the usool of Ibn Kullaab regarding Allaah’s chosen actions [what the Mutakallimin deny as hawaadith (events, occurrences)], but he also made excessive ithbaat (affirmation) for Allaah based on fabricated narrations, then he tried to reconcile between that Kalaam he was influenced by and those ahaadeeth he affirmed and entered into tafwid. The end result was that there were the later scholars who wrongly thought the way of the Salaf was ta’wil and tafwid on account of the propagation of the way of the Mutakallimin, particularly the Ash’arites between the sixth to eighth centuries (500H-700H) and so they approached the hadeeth and aathaar with this perception. However, because they never actually delved into Kalaam you will not see from these scholars the deep-rooted Kalaam like what was seen from al-Baqillani, al-Baghdadi and al-Juwayni, and likewise that Falsafah [and sometimes zandaqah] in opinion and speech that came from the likes of al-Ghazali and al-Razi (both got diseased reading the books of Ibn Sina) and al-Aamidee – and these later ones are the actual Scholars who consolidated and standardized the theology that all later Ash’arites are upon, the Jahmi, I’tizaali, Falsafi Ash’ariyyah, far removed from what al-Ash’ari

 was upon. The likes of al-Bayhaqi, Ibn Hajar, al-Nawawi and al-Qurtubi are used as embellishments to deceive the onlooker. But they only assumed the correctness of those conclusions and approached the Qur’an and Hadith upon this incorrect perception. Be in no doubt about that, and when they wish to call people to their belief, they present this upper layer to the people…

With this history – and this is indeed the reality of the affair – it is no longer permissible for any contemporary Jahmite Ash’ari to argue for the correctness of his way, rather his way is baatil (as will be clear by the end of this article), and trying to attach oneself to and use the names and writings of these scholars (al-Bayhaqi, al-Qurtubi, al-Nawawi, Ibn Hajar) is nothing but pure deception – since it is haraam to follow the error of a scholar once that error is established and once historical fact is known and proven.

Moving on now, this is the opening of the paper:

Commentary

Theism (belief in a God) was spoken of by the Greek Philosophers who were pagans, disbelievers in Allaah, far, far away from Prophethood, and who spoke without light and guidance, and all of their speech in this field was essentially a mirage, nothing pure abstactions, and they ended up with an idea of a God whose existence is really only in the mind, not an actualy true and real existence in external reality. This “perfect, immutable (unchanging) transcendent being” of the Greek Philosophers affected the theology of the mutakallimeen from the Jews, Christians and Muslims.

With respect to the Muslims, whilst the Mutakallimin (Jahmiyyah, Mu’tazilah, Ash’ariyyah, Maturidiyyah) argued with the Philosophers (al-Kindin, a-Farabi, Ibn Sina) on the issues of the eternity of the universe, prophethood, resurrection, their ideas on the divine, as in the actuality of Allaah, overlapped with each other (see here for an example between al-Ghazali and Ibn Sinaa), and this was because the Mutakallimin unfortunately accepted certain premises in the language and foundations of debate which were used in their argument for the universe being originated against those Philosophers. As a result of this they were forced to adhere to its necessities (lawaazim), and so each faction (Jahmiyyah, Mu’tazilah, Ash’ariyyah, Maturidiyyah) held on to what it believed were the binding necessities of this proof. The disputes between the Jahmiyyah, Mu’tazilah, Ash’ariyyah are really only secondary disputes on this matter, after their agreement on the foundation. As a result, their belief in Allaah and their theological language became similar in many respects to that of the Greek Philosophers even if they debated and fought them on the issues of the eternity of the universe, resurrection, and prophethood. It was this Kalaam, this particular proof of huduth al-ajsaam (and not the genus of kalaam), that the Salaf, like Abu Hanifah, Malik, Shaafi’ee and Ahmad severely condemned and declared its practitioners as heretics.Inshaa’Allaah we have some articles in the pipeline proving that Abu Hanifah (d. 150H) and his student Abu Yusuf al-Ansari, and Abu Abdullah al-Shaybani, and likewise Abu Ja’far al-Tahawi are free and innocent of that follower of Bishr al-Mareesee al-Hanafi al-Jahmee known as Abu Mansur al-Matureedee and likewise, the Maturidiyyah who spuriously attribute their Jahmi, Mu’tazili derived Kalaam theology to Abu Hanifah (rahimahullaah). Keep an eye open at Maturidis.Com

Later in the article we have:

Commentary

The saying “without body, parts and passions” is transposed onto the saying of the Mutakallimin, “He is not a jism, jawhar, ‘arad” and as for “passions”, what they mean are attributes such as love, pleasure, anger and the likes, and this is based upon two of Aristotle Categories called action (fi’l, yaf’al) and affection (infi’aal, yanfa’ilu) – [see opening of this article]. You see these Mutakallimin failed to understand the limits of reason in that whilst reason can establish the existence of a Creator, it cannot then be used to be the judge as to how that existence is except through revelation and what Allaah informs about Himself. However, they transgressed, and allowed themselves to be poisoned by aspects of the theism of those Greek Philosophers, even if they differed with them on other matters [whether the universe is eternal or not, is resurrection real, is revelation real, is prophethood real]. As a result they let reason invalidate the details of revelation, even if they had used that same reason to affirm it in priniciple – and this was from the greatest of their follies.The Reality of the Kalam Theologist is Self-Falsification:

An illustration here is that of a man called Zayd who testifies about another man, Abdullah, that he is truthful and does not lie. Then he testifies that Abdullah has lied. This now becomes a revilement and complete invalidation of his (Zayd’s) first testimony and his second one. Both his (i.e. Zayd’s) first and second testimony are now no longer obligatory to accept because he has contradicted and discredited his own testimony. And this is the case with the Mutakallimūn, they used reason to establish the truth of the Qurʾān and the prophethood of Muḥammad (alayhis salaam), and then they used the same reason to claim what has come in the revealed texts is tashbīh, tajsīm and plain manifest kufr upon how the natives of the language who are being addressed would have understood upon what is normal in their linguistic usage. This is like Zayd testifying to the truthfulness of Abdullah, and after completing this testification, saying Abdullah has lied in what he has informed and that the truth is in the speech of other than him. To be true to sound, uncorrupted reason (aql), once they had established the veracity of revelation and prophethood (as they claim), being true to that reason necessitates that you now submit – in the details of what Allaah is described with – to the authority of that very revelation whose veracity and absolute truthfulness you have just proven and argued for! It is not for your reason (aql) to subsequently challenge it and claim its language is tajsim and tashbih and needs to be distorted in order to establish the true and real Tawhid and tanzih, as they claim, because by saying this, you have actually invalidated your own reason (aql). And this tanzih they are speaking of is that “immutable transcendence” which is but the abstract theism of the Greek and Sabean Philosophers and their theological language about what is divine and what is not and their language of “negative theology”. In this case you’ve just falsified yourself and destroyed your argument, and made yourself a laughing stock – and inshaa’Allaah, we will demonstrate in a separate forthcoming article how Ibn Sina – who was shrewder than the Mutakallimin, even if he was a great disbeliever and more misguided – gave these Mutakallimin such a beating and pasting in argument, they’ve still not recovered from it till today and they still can’t answer it.

The moral of this story:

If you are going to enter a custard-throwing contest in a closed room with a gathering of Jahmites, Mu’tazilites, Karraamiyyah and the Philosophers, and you agree upon the premise and foundation that you are going to combat them by using custard, its next to impossible to come out without any custard on you, and its stupidity, when you walk out it with custard on your face, hands and clothes and then claim “Hey, there’s no custard on me, I was not affected.” So you get the picture here, in the wider context of this article, in other words “Hey I’m debating with those atheist Philosophers using their platform, their language, their philosophy, and I’m devising a proof (huduth al-a’raad fil-ajsaam) using what are essentiallly their tools and their language and honestly, it hasn’t and won’t affected my theology one bit!” Yeaah…. right! Nutcase, you need to check in to the AA right here, right now, and get your affliction seen to straight away! You will know that al-Shaafi’ee said, “No one entered into kalām and prospered” and likewise Imaam Ahmad said, “Whoever takes to kalām will never prosper and whoever takes to kalām will not escape from tajahhum (adopting the ūsūl of the Jahmiyyah)” and to put this in a way any Jahmite Ash’arite wannabe pretender can understand, “No one entered a custard-throwing fight and came out unscathed” or “No one dipped into the water and came out dry!“

The innovation of ta’weel (which is really tahrif) was devised by the Jahmiyyah, Mu’tazilah to invalidate parts of the revelation that clashed with their proof of huduth al-ajsaam. And then when this proved unsatisfactory (to the Ash’arites who inherited it from them through Bishr al-Mareesee), they innovated tafwid and ascribed it to the Salaf, wrongly taking many of the statements of the Salaf made in the era of their battle with the Jahmiyyah and Mu’tazilah, decontextualizing them, and then fabricating a madhhab called that of Tafwid, and ascribing it to the Salaf. And all the scholars who came afterwards, affected by them, wrongly thought this was the way of the Salaf, when in reality the way of the Salaf was ithbaat (affirmation) of the meanings indicated by the texts and negation of knowledge of the kaifiyyah and negation of tashibh and tamthil.

Later, there ocurrs:

Commentary

These phrases here “eternal, immutable, transcendent” constitute the same language of the Mutakallimin, and what they mean here is to deny Allah’s names, attributes, and His actions (upon the varation between them) and likewise to deny He is above His creation, above His Throne, and likewise to deny that He speaks with actual speech and to deny that He will be seen in the Hereafter with the vision of the eyes. The word “immutable” means not subject to change (taghyir), and this means denial of action (fi’l) and affection (infi’aal) in accordance with Aristotle’s Categories. This is the basis of the rejection of Allaah’s chosen actions (sifaat fi’liyyah, af’aal ikhtiyaariyyah), they consider them to be from the imperfections of created bodies.

So they opposed what is established in revelation on account of the reason (aql) of a kafir, mushrik, worshipper of stars and idols, and then claimed this is tanzih (transcendence), but this is the tanzih of Aristotle and His likes, it is not the tanzih of the Prophets, Messengers and Ahl al-Sunnah from this Ummah which is the denial of any likeness and resemblance from whatever He affirmed for Himself – and not the very negation of what He affirmed for Himself on account of a corrupt, impure, diseased ‘aql (intellect).As for the attributes that Allaah has affirmed for Himself such as pleasure and anger and love and the likes, then they are tied to His will and power, and He chooses to be angry, or pleased and His anger and pleasure is not like the involuntary anger and pleasure of the creation and thus affection (infi’aal) in this sense is denied for Allaah, but it is not denied that Allaah becomes pleased and angry according to His will. And what we see in the language of the star and idol-worshipping Greek Philosophers of “immutability”, “transcendence” and the likes is all from the perspective of denying Allaah has actions tied to His will and power, [in addition to denying His attributes]. This of course is the origin of the saying of the Jahmiyyah, Mu’tazilah, Ash’ariyyah and Mu’tazilah that hawaadith (events, occurrences) are negated from Allaah. As we have said earlier, if reason (‘aql) establishes the existence of Allaah and the veracity of revelation, and we do not deny it can, then it is from this very reason, that this reason submit to the revelation in knowing Allaah, as in His names, attributes and actions and accept that with full submission. Thus, there is a difference between reason proving He “exists” and between reason being the judge of what He subsequently can and can’t be – that is only the role of revelation – even if we accept that reason can very limitedly affirm some of what Allah is described with (life, knowledge, power, will, mercy, wisdom and the likes).

So we see here the true and real foundations of the speech of the Mutakallimin, and you will see this orientation and this particular choice of words – and an example of this is how Hamza Yusuf distorted the creed of al-Tahawi to be in line with this particular version of theism which is shared between the Philosophers and the Mutakallimin – even if wars raged between them on separate issues like the universe being eternal or originated, resurrection and prophethood. You will also see this choice of language very clearly from these people, the likes Hamza Yusuf, Nuh Keller, Naruiji and other Jahmites of the era, and don’t be surprised that most of these people are often Christian converts coming from a background of Western philosophical heritage which prides itself upon the Greek philosophy that shaped it so much. In fleeing from Christianity, they were unable to escape the shackles of that classical Greek theism which led them to something of excess in denying for Allaah what He and His Messengers (alayhim as salaam) affirmed for Him.

So the point here is that do not let that historical enmity between them (Philosophers and Ahl al-Kalaam) blind you into not seeing that in reality, they are united in how they actually speak about Allaah. Pay attention to this (and see an example of it here between al-Ghazali and Ibn Sina) you will find little difference between them in the foundations of their speech regarding Allaah, rather,their differences are only in subsidiary details in that regard. This is also why that as centuries went by, the Ash’arites [and Maturidis] in particular no longer considered the Mu’tazilah to be their enemies, and they saw no harm in hybridizing their Kalaam with Falsafah when they saw the flaws in their proof of huduth al-ajsaam and when they saw that both kalam and Falsafah actually have the same objectives. This is said by the likes of al-Taftazani (d. 791H) in his book Sharh al-Maqaasid. Rather, they turned all of their enmity towards Ahl al-Sunnah, the followers of revealed Books and the sent Messengers.

Later in the article we have:

Commentary

We see here that Christians were also affected by the “classical theism” of the Greek Philosophers in the process of trying to prove God’s existence through the same language and tools of those Philosophers. And when they came into contact with this philosophical heritage, and tried to prove Allaah’s existence upon the language and terminology of the Philosophers, they inevitably began to speak with the same type of theism. Consider the statement above:

In the Summa Theologica this monopolar idea is given its most rigorous form. The whole section from Q.3. Art.i to Q.II. Art.4. is designed to prove that as Self-subsistent Being, God is without body, without imperfection, without limit, without mutability, without temporality, without parts.

Now where you have heard this particular language of “negative theology” (sifaat salbiyyah) and choice of words before? In any of the revealed books? Upon the tongues of any of the sent Messengers? From Abu Bakr, ‘Umar? From the Muhajireen? The Ansar? The Companions? The Tabi’een? Abu Hanifah? Imam Malik? Imaam Ibn al-Mubaarak? Imam al-Shafi’i? Imaam Ishaaq bin Raahuyah? Imam Ahmad? Imam al-Bukhari? Imam Muslim? The Salaf? No you heard it from kafirs like al-Ja’d bin Dirham, al-Jahm bin Safwan and Bishr al-Mareesee. You heard it from the Jahmiyyah and Mu’tazilah, and their later tail-ends the Ash’ariyyah and Maturidiyyah. You heard it from kafirs like Ibn Sina and then you read it in the books of al-Ghazali and al-Razi and others. And thus it was pronounced and articulated so eloquently in those great, lofty and momentous words:

Which translates:

Or how can the shoots (sprouts) of the Mutafalsifah (referring to the Mutakallimin), and the followers of the Hindus and Greeks, the inheritors of the Magians, the Pagans, the misguided of the Jews and Christians and Sabeans, and their likes and similar be more knowledgeable of Allaah than the inheritors of the Prophets, the people of the Qur’an and Eemaan?

So when you see Christian theology (of those who were affected by Classical Greek Theism) having this resemblance in language to the theology of the Mutakallimin (who took the proof of huduth al-ajsaam from the Sabean star and idol-worshipping pagan disbelievers, who themselves were the sprouts and shoots of the Greek philosophers) – then you should finally awake O Jahmite Ash’ari who has been deceived and hoodwinked – from your slumber and Intoxication.

Later in the article we have:

Here we have the foundation of one of the usool of the Mutakallimin which is their rejection of what they call “hawaadith” (events, occurrences) for Allaah, and by which they mean Allah’s chosen actions. To those star and idol-worshipping pagan disbelievers upon their abstract ideas of what is perfect, divine, immutable, transcendent, Allaah making istiwaa over His Throne after creating the creation is a defect. To them, Allaah ordering the Angels to prostrate to Adam after creating him is a defect. To them, that Allaah spoke to Moses direct after having not spoken to Him is a defect. To them, Allaah having taken Ibrahim as a friend after the non-existence of the creation and of Ibrahim is a defect. To them, Allaah’s displeasure with a disbeliever, after being pleased with Him as a believer, and likewise, Allaah’s Pleasure with a believer after His displeasure with him as a disbeliever is a defect. All these are ideas “which belong to the supposed defective side of the polar disjunction are summarily ruled out as having no place in a true definition of theism” – meaning, they have no place in the theism of the Greek and Sabean star and idol-worshipping pagan disbelievers who corrupted the deen of the Mutakallimin, and likewise in the deen of the Mutakallimin themselves.An important clarification needs to be made here regarding the Karraamiyyah, who said that Allaah can acquire attributes after not having them, even though He had the capability over them previously. So they permit that Allaah can acquire speech, and hearing and seeing when He wishes and that events (hawaadith) are permissible in the essence of Allaah. Now this is a type of change which is rejected and which implies imperfection, and this opposes the creed of Ahl al-Sunnah that Allaah has never ceased having all of His attributes. However, they affirm the truth that is in the Book and the Sunnah that Allaah has actions tied to His will and power – and it is this firmly established truth and reality that the Jahmiyyah, Mu’tazilah, Ash’ariyyah and Maturidiyyah are trying to deny upon the foundations and principles of their proof of huduth al-ajsaam whose roots lie in the Greek and Sabean star and idol-worshipping pagan disbelievers.

So this is the foundation of the rejection of the Jahmiyyah, Mu’tazila, Ash’ariyyah and Maturidiyyah that Allaah does not have actions tied to His will, that He did not make istwaa over the Throne, rather istiwaa is isteelaa (conquered) or it is an act He creates in the Throne, not an act established with His self. And Allaah’s speech is not His speech, He either does not have speech [Jahmiyyah] or it is created speech in others which is said to be His speech metaphorically [Mu’tazilah], or it is just Kalaam Nafsee an “immutable, eternal, singular, indivisible” meaning in the self [Ash’ariyyah, Maturidiyyah]. And as for the Qur’an in our presence it is makhluq, Muhdath, maj’ul, maf’ul (created, originated, manufactured, made). And Allaah does not become angry or pleased, rather this just means His intent to punish or reward, in eternity. So you get the idea … and from this you understand the origins of the ta’wil of the Jahmiyyah and Mu’tazilah which is really tahrif (distortion) and this is what Bishr al-Mareesee al-Hanafi al-Jahmee compiled together, and this was what Abu Mansur al-Matureedee was harvesting over there beyond the river, spuriously calling it the Tawil of Ahl al-Sunnah. And all of this was to deal with those problematic texts that clashed with the Greek-Sabean derived kalam theology that they made the foundation of their deen.This much is enough for the sincere seeker of truth, so we invite all Ash’arites in all corners of the globe. Let go of that tiresome, worn-out, pretentious theology you are holding on to and do not let the fact that there were Scholars who got caught up in it in the centuries gone by deceive you, because once the fact of history is known and the hujjah is established, there is no excuse for remaining upon that baatil. Repent to Allaah, abandon this theology, abandon this heretical Kalaam and hybridized Falsafah that you are upon today, return to the Book and the Sunnah, return to the creed of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah, return to the creed of the Salaf of the first three generations which is ithbaat (affirmation of meanings indicated by the texts) with the true tanzih which is negation of likeness (tamthil) and resemblance (tashbih) and denial of knowing how (kayf) and abandoning tahrif (disguised as ta’wil).

Conclusion and Summary

There is a crucial point in this article which may be missed by readers and hence it is important to note that one should not be deceived by the historical conflict between the Mutafalsifah (Philosophers) and the Mutakallimin (Theologians). For sure debate raged on whether the universe is eternal or not, about resurrection, about revelation and about prophethood – but let that not blind you from the fact that they are all pretty much united in how they speak about Allaah, because that speech, that theism, is necessitated and required of them by the underlying language and terminology they are all agreed upon. And for this reason you see both the Philosophers and the Mutakallimin converging on certain matters and considering them to be the absoluate truth, such as reason precedes and is decisive over revelation (al-Razi’s “Universal Principle”) and that the truth regarding Allaah is what lies in the language of the Philosophers and Mutakallimin that Allaah is not a body, not a substance, not an incidental attribute, not in direction, not in place, not in spatial occupation, not above, not below, not within, not without… and NOT in the language of the revealed Books and sent Messengers who came with nothing but presumptions of Tajseem and tashbeeh so as not to scare off those dumb commoners from faith (see here from al-Ghazali and also here from al-Razi and also here from Ibn Sina) – and there are numerous other matters too.

Paper Background: Predication, Immutability, the Ten Categories

Before we move on to the paper, a few things need to be clarified. The author will be discussing the issue of predication and immutability. Predication is simply to assign a quality, attribute or property to a thing. And immutability means the inability to change, to not undergo any type of change. Now Aristotle spoke a lot about the issue of predication, and this was a linguistic discussion, however, this was integrally tied to his syllogistic logic, by which the truthfulness of propositions is evaluated. A proposition is simply to say “A is B”, such as “the tea is hot.” You have probably heard of this before, its like this:

All A’s are B’s
X is an A
Therefore X is a B

So since the truth and falsehood of propositions was integral to attaining knowledge to Aristotle, the issue of predication in the language, as in assigning qualities and properties to things, was discussed in detail by Aristotle. Likewise, he also laid down what are known as his Categories, which is known as al-Jawhar wal-Arad (substance and incidental attribute) or al-Maqulat al-Ashar (the ten categories). The intent of Aristotle here was to comprehensively categorize everything that can take the place of a subject and a predicate in a proposition. In the proposition “the tea is hot“, the “tea” is the subject and “is hot” is the predicate. So he came up with ten categories and everything in the universe is either a substance (jawhar, jism) or nine incidental attributes, and incidental attributes are found only in substances. All of this created the framework upon which his logic and philosophy could be built. These ten categories are presented below:The first category deals with “what something is”:

1. substance (jawhar)

The rest are incidental attributes (a’raad, also referred to as “accidents”) which deal with “how it is”:

1. quantity (al-kam) – dimensions and measurable features, length, breadth, width and so on
2. quality (al-kayf) – perceived characteristics, color, shape, and so on.
3. relation (al-idaafah) – how a substance is in relation to others, above, below, right, left and so on.
4. place (al-ayn) – where it is
5. time (mataa) answering “when?” – temporal characteristics of the substance
6. position (al-wad’) – how a substance’s parts are ordered in relation to each other
7. action (yaf’al) acting – what a substance is doing
8. affection (yanfa’il) a substance being acted upon
9. having (al-mulk) – what the substance has on

Once this is clear, what we need to understand is that these aspects of Aristotle’s philosophy already affected those amongst the Sabeans, Jews and Christians before it affected the Muslims. And so what we are going to do here is look at the theology of a Jew and a Christian before Islam came (we will look at the Sabeans in a separate article altogether). One is Philo (20BC-50CE) was a Jew from Alexandria who was present around the time Eesaa (alayhis salaam), and the second is Augustine of Hippo (d. 430CE), a Christian. Now, you will see a stark resemblance between the language of their theology and the usool of the Mu’tazilah and the Ash’ariyyah, in fact its identical. the ilm al-kalaam, of the Ahl al-Kalaam is not so original. Rather, it’s simply the second-hand, used and abused toy of the past nations (Sabeans, Jews, Christians). Unfortunately, when it came into the hands of the Mutakallimin (Jahmiyyah, Mu’tazilah, Ash’ariyyah, Maturidiyyah), they took it and lapped it up like a kid does a ice-cream, not realizing that there has been many a nation, or scholastic whose already “been there, done that.” So pay attention, we will be discussing predication, immutability and negating Aristotle’s ten categories from Allaah – which is essentially what the deen of the Mutakallimin is founded upon – as opposed to the way of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah, which is:To affirm for Allah what He and His Messenger affirmed for Him without ta’teel (which include tafwid), takyif, tamthil, tahrif (which includes ta’wil) and tashbih, and there is not any tashbih in anything that the revealed texts affirmed for Him by consensus of the Imaams of the Salaf.

So let us now proceed to the paper itself:

Philo, Predication and Immutability

Discussed first is Philo (the Jew of Alexandria) predication and immutability.

The author begings by pointing out how theists of religions used conceptual tools forged by pagan Greek Philosophers to contstruct their theologies. He mentions how some amongst them found this deplorable. This is parallel to how the people of the Sunnah and Jamaa’ah likewise found this deplorable from the Jahmiyyah, Mu’tazilah [and Ash’ariyyah] who were guilty of using the exact same conceptual tools. This, as the author points out, necessitated that there was some part of religious belief for which these conceptual tools were either necessary or helpful. He treats these conceptual tools like a Trojan horse. After this opening, the author takes two or three pages to go into some detail on the theory of predication and we don’t really need to go into that, we are just interested in the effect of these theories, terms etc. upon Philo and Augustine. So he first discusses Philo:

We see here the statement that the “property” of God is that He is the unchanged, and this is an ambiguous statement. For Allaah has never ceased possessing all of His attributes, so in that regard He is not subject to change. Yet Allaah also has actions tied to His will and power, and Allaah never ceased to be the doer of whatever He wills, and these actions are established with His essence, and this [meaning, the issue of both attributes and actions] is what the Theologians, be they Jews, Christians or Muslims (from the Mutakallimin) were debating about and trying to philosophically arrive at the truth regarding what God can or cannot be described with in order to maintain what they believe is unicity in His essence.

Again what they mean by God being unchangeable, is the same as what the Mutakallimin refer to when they negate attributes and actions (which they refer to as a’raad, incidental attributes and hawaadith, events).In refutation of the Jahmiyyah, Mu’tazilah, Allaah never ceased having all of His attributes, and His attributes are eternal, along with His essence, and multiplicity of attributes [considerd by the Jahmiyyah, Mu’tazilah as a’raad] does not mean multiplicity of the essence. And likewise, in refutation of the Ash’ariyyah, Maturidiyyah, Allaah never ceased being one who does whatever He wills, having actions tied to His will and power, and actions established with His essence [considered by all the Mutakallimin, Jahmiyyah, Mu’tazilah, Ash’ariyyah, Maturidiyyah, as hawaadith] does not necessitate that Allaah himself is Muhdath (originated).

However, what Philo stated above that “it is impossible for the essence of God to have been understood at all by any creature” is true, since no one knows the reality of Allah’s dhaat (essence).

We now come to look a particular problem raised by “predicating” (assigning) to Allaah more than one property, and here we see the shubhah that was found amongst the Mu’tazilah and also those Philosophers ascribing to Islam regarding tarkib (composition) which they used to deny the attributes, and which the later Jahmite Ash’arites used to deny the sifat khabariyyah.

What is being said here is actually very similar to the doubt of the Mu’tazilah in that if you assign any property to Allaah, then this means there are two components to Allaah, and thus multiplicity of properties, qualities, attributes necessitates multiple eternal entities along with Allaah. However, if it can be said that the attributes are nothing but Allaah”s essence itself, then you resolve that problem, and thus, Allaah’s hearing is but His essence, and likewise seeing, life, knowledge, will, power and so on. This was one of the ways the Mu’tazilah tried to deal with this issue and the other way was to say that the attributes of Allaah are other than Allaah, meaning that which is created, from His creation, just like we say, “Messenger of Allaah”, “House of Allaah”, “She-camel of Allaah”, and thus, when we say, “Speech of Allaah”, it means what He creates in others of speech, but it is metaphorically said to be His speech.So the intent here is that the likes of Philo thought they could use the tools of pagan Greek Philosophers to maintain what they believed to be the unicity and immutability of Allaah. But there is a difference here between Philo and the Mutakallimin from Islam (Jahmiyyah, Mu’tazilah, Ash’ariyyah, Maturidiyyah), in the sense that what the Mutakallimin were motivated by in devising their theology was the proof of huduth al-ajsaam (origination of bodies through presence of attributes and actions within them), which came to them from the Sabean Philosophers, who themselves had used the conceptual tools of the Greeks.

They made this proof to be the ultimate truth withoutt which Allaah’s existence could not be established, and then they were forced to adhere to all its binding necessities (lawaazim), that is deny Allaah has names, attributes and actions so that He is not a body like the originated bodies. All the Jahmiyyah, Mu’tazilah, Kullaabiyyah, Ash’ariyyah and Maturidiyyah were fighting each other over was what can and cannot be rejected without clashing with this proof and what mechanisms can be used (ta’wil, tafwid) in order to reconcile the revealed texts that pertain to the attributes with this proof.

So Philo’s use of these conceptual tools is not from the same angle as that of the Mutakallimin, however the intent here is to simply show how the concepts and philosophy of a pagan disbeliever, a worshipper of stars and idols influenced and corrupted the beliefs of many a nation before the Mutakallimin of Islam ever set foot on earth by hundreds of years and that when they came along, all they were inheriting were there broken toys of the Sabeans, Jews and Christians before them who had already had their fun and games, in fact, they had had fun and games played over them.

Now this is where it gets juicy, lets discuss Augustine, and you have to seclude yourself, and pay good attention here:

Augustine on Divine Immutability, Incidental Attributes [Accidents] and Aristotle’s Ten Categories

The author then discusses Augustine’s theology:

Just read that again and pay attention to what you see:

As Augustine puts it slightly later,

in created and mutable things what is not said according to the substance remains to be said according to the accident. For all things happen by accident to them [omnia enim accidunt eis], which can be either lost or diminished – both quantities and qualities – along with what is said [in relation] to something – as friendships, relationships, servitudes, similitudes, equalities, and things of this kind – and positions, states, locations, times, actions, and passions.

The list is a famous one – the ten predicables canonized by Aristotle in the Categories (l^b25-2^a4) and the Topics (I, 9, 103^b20-24). Augustine’s maneuver is to lump together the nine categories other than substance, counting them all as accidents.

You have to really appreciate the significance of what you have just read (and what you will read further below). What you have just read above is the foundation of al-Ja’d bin Dirham and the Jahmiyyah claiming Allaah never took Ibrahim as a friend (with khullah), and that Allaah never spoke to Moses with speech that Moses heard, and that the Qur’an we have is makhluq, Muhdath (created, originated), and that Allaah does not perform al-istiwaa, and that there is no Lord “above” the creation or or “above” His Throne. Seriously, it can’t be stressed enough. This is like a bombshell. We don’t know how to put it. Let’s try:Shaykh Agustine of Hippo, the Great Christian Mutakallim of the Pre-Islamic era

Now a whole book could be written here, and there is not enough space in article for us to say and explain everything we would like to. But for now, we see here the deen of the Ash’arites preceded by OVER 500 YEARS at least – that’s half a millenium. So here we have a Christian, affected by the concepts of Aristotle, arguing for the immutability and unicity of Allaah through the negation of accidents (incidental attributes, a’raad) from Allaah, using Aristotle’s Ten Categories.This is identical to the theology of the Mutakallimin, from the Jahmiyyah, Mu’tazilah, Ash’ariyyah, Maturidiyyah, with the difference that the Mutakallimin were drawn, or actually forced into using this type of language (of “negative theology”), because they all adopted the proof of huduth al-ajsaam (origination of bodies) in order to argue for Allaah’s existence. They considered this proof to be something without which Islam cannot be defended and Allaah’s existence cannot be proven. Then they were forced to abide by its necessities (lawaazim), and its necessities are to deny from Allaah the ten categories of Aristotle, whose language this proof was based upon. This proof was devised by the Sabean Philosophers who alongside turning to star-worship, still believed the universe was originated. Hence, the language of “Allaah is not a jawhar (substance), not a body (jism), not in place (makan), not in location (jihah)” and so on, this became the language of Tawhid to the Jahmiyyah, Mu’tazilah, Ash’ariyyah and Maturidiyyah. And this was also the language of Augustine, the Christian “Mutakallim” at least 500 years earlier.So JahmiteAsh’ari folks! Please, how long are you going to continue in your fraud? Don’t deceive yourself, you can’t falsify history. At least admit that the roots of your theology is based upon the language of a pagan Greek disbeliever, star and idol-worshipper, which came to you through the books of the Mu’tazilah because you took the proof of huduth al-ajsaam from them, and they took it from the Jahmiyyah, and they took it from al-Ja’d bin Dirham, and its in all your books:

Go and check your books:Refer to al-Ashʿarī (d. 324H) in al-Lumaʿ Fi al-Radd ʿalā Ahl al-Zaygh (this was when he had recently left the Mu’tazilah, in his later books like Risālah ilā Ahl al-Thaghar, he considered this proof an innovation), then al-Bāqillānī (d. 403H), in al-Tamhīd al-Awā’il, then ʿAbd al-Qahir al-Baghdādī (d. 429H) in Kitāb Uṣūl al-Dīn, then al-Isfarāyīnī (d. 471H) in al-Tabṣīr Fil-Dīn, then al-Juwaynī (d. 478H) in Kitāb al-Irshād and also al-Shāmil Fī Uṣūl al-Din, then al-Ghazālī (d. 505H) in al-Iqtisād Fī al-Iʿtiqād, and also Tahāfut al-Falāsifah, then al-Shahrastānī (d. 548H) in Nihāyah al-Aqdām, then al-Rāzī (d. 606H) in Muḥaṣṣal Afkār al-Mutaqaddimīn wal-Muta’akhkhirīn and also Kitāb al-Arbaʿīn Fī Uṣūl al-Dīn, then al-Ījī (d. 756H) in al-Mawāqif Fī ʿIlm al-Kalām. The proof of huduth al-ajsaam is in all their books. IT IS THE ULTIMATE FOUNDATION OF THEIR THEOLOGY. However, when its falsehood became apparent to some of the later ones amongst them, they started incorporating other proofs, the proof of tarkib (composition) and the proof of takhsis (specification) into their works – and both are taken from the Philosophers themselves – in order to cover their backs and to hide that vulnerability. Others were not smart enough to realise the flaw in huduth al-ajsaam, so they remained upon it, defending it. And this is why you will see that intellectual cripple and mental spastic called Abu Adam Naruiji using the proof of takhsis (specification), little does this pretentious fool know that this is the proof of Ibn Sina and that this cunning kafir formulated this proof in order to corrupt the proof of huduth al-ajsaam for the Mutakallimin, and that’s an altogether separate article, one in which the sandal of Abdullah bin Abi Ja’far (see here) will be polished and made ready for this Jahmite pretender.

Thus, what you find above from Shaykh Augustine [the pre-Islamic era “Ash’ari” Mutakallim], is the foundation of the deen of the Ash’ariyyah [and Jahmiyyah and Mu’tazilah] who deny what they call hawaadith (events, occurrences) and by which they mean Allaah’s chosen actions (Sifaat Fi’liyyah, Af’aal Ikhtiyaariyyah).And upon the language they inherited from those star and idol-worshipping pagan disbelievers upon their abstract ideas of what is perfect, divine, immutable, transcendent, to the Ash’ari Mutakallims [that includes the pre-Islamic Era Christian and Jewish ones] Allaah making istiwaa over His Throne after creating the creation is a defect, because it implies [to quote directly from St. Augustine the Christian Ash’ari Mutakallim], “positions, states, locations, times, actions.” To them, Allaah ordering the Angels to prostrate to Adam after creating him is a defect. To them, that Allaah spoke to Moses direct after having not spoken to Him is a defect. To them, Allaah having taken Ibrahim as a friend after the non-existence of the creation and of Ibrahim is a defect. To them, Allaah’s displeasure with a disbeliever, after being pleased with Him as a believer, and likewise, Allaah’s Pleasure with a believer after His displeasure with him as a disbeliever is a defect. All of this implies mutability (taghyir, hawaadith) in Allaah’s essence.And this is why the Mutakallimin turned and assaulted the revealed texts firstly with ta’wil which innovated by the Jahmiyyah and Mu’tazilah and transmitted into the ummah by the Grand Master of ta’wil, Bishr al-Mareesi al-Hanafi al-Jahmi, and then taken up by the Ash’ariyyah. Then they realized it is baatil and entails much speculation and lying upon Allaah, so they innovated tafwid and ascribed it to the Salaf based on narrations they decontextualized and which in reality against the Jahmiyyah, Mu’tazilah, such as their saying, “Pass them on as they have come“, and negating tafseer (explanation), ma’naa (meaning), sifah (attribute), hadd (definition), kayf (how) – [see this article] – and likewise the saying of al-Shaafi’ee, “I believe in Allaah and what came from Allaah, upon the intent of Allaah, and I believe in the Messenger of Allaah, and what came from the Messenger of Allaah, upon the intent of the Messenger of Allaah“, and this was said by al-Shaafi’ee in the era of the Jahmites and Mu’tazilah whose hallmark was ta’wil, so he invalidated their falsehood and affirmed that he believes in what came from Allaah and His Messenger upon their intent, which means, the meaning present in the text, and this is the muraad (intent) of Allaah and His Messenger, no doubt, and as for those making ta’wil, they were lying about the muraad (intent) of Allaah. So those Ash’arites who considered ta’wil to be baatil because it entails lying upon Allaah, chose the path of tafwid, upon their misunderstanding of these statements the Salaf were making in refutation of the Jahmiyyah and Mu’tazilah.

Then all the Ash’arites who came after tried to reconcile all of this and found it hard to really pin something on to the Salaf, because it would be absurd, so the best they came up with was that the way of the Salaf was generally tafwid (of the meanings), but that they dabbled in a bit of ta’wil here and there as they saw fit. And this is a slander upon the Salaf, but this is the best these later Jahmite Ash’arites could come up with, with their minds corrupted by that ilm al-kalaam they had been playing with, the used leftovers of the nations gone-by.

This, O Muslim, is the ilm al-kalaam that the Salaf condemned, and this is the ilm al-kalaam of the Jahmiyyah, Mu’tazilah, Kullaabiyyyah, Ash’ariyyah and Maturidiyyah. The Salaf did not condemn the genus of kalam (as in defence of the truth through the Book and the Sunnah and sound reasoning), rather they condemned this speech of al-ajsaam and al-a’raad and speaking about Allaah’s Names, attributes and actions through this Kalaam, through the proof of huduth al-ajsaam and what follows on from it. So reflect upon the saying of Abu Haneefah in the era of the Jahmiyyah and Mu’tazilah, as reported in Dhamm ul-Kalām wa Ahlihī of Abu Ismāʿīl al-Harawī (4/213-214), with his isnad:

Nuh al-Jāmiʿ said: I said to Abū Hanīfah: What do you say about what the people have innovated of speech regarding al-aʿrād and al-ajsām? He said, “(Nothing but) the sayings of the Philosophers. Upon you is (to follow) the narrations and the path of the Salaf, and beware of every newly-invented matter, for it is an innovation.”

Free and innocent is Abu Hanifah (rahimahullaah) from that fraudulent, spurious ascription of Abu Mansur al-Maturidi and the Maturidiyyah to him in terms of the their creed, for their creed is a product of the Greeko-Sabean, Jahmite, Mu’tazilite, derived proof of huduth al-ajsaam and its binding necessities, all of which is based upon the language of al-ajsaam and al-a’raad. Watch Maturidis.Com for an exoneration of the honour of Abu Hanifah from its defilement by these heretics who have deceived the Ummah for many a century gone by.

And likewise you will now truly fathom the saying of Ibn Surayj as-Shafi’ee (d. 306H) who said, as narrated from him by Abu Ismaa’eel al-Harawi in “Dhamm ul-Kalaam” and as mentioned by Ibn Taymiyyah in “Bayaan Talbees al-Jahmiyyah“:توحيد اهل العلم وجماعة المسلمين أشهد أن لا اله الا الله وان محمدا رسول الله وتوحيد اهل الباطل الخوض في الأعراض والأجسام وانما بعث النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بانكار ذلك

The Tawheed of the people of knowledge and the jamaa’ah of the Muslims is “I testify none is worthy of worship except Allaah (alone) and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah“. And the Tawheed of the people of falsehood is disputing about al-a’raad (incidental attributes) and al-ajsaam (bodies) and the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was sent with the rejection of that.

The Prophets and Messengers were sent to abolish all false speech, and the speech of the wandering Philosophers, Poets, worshippers of stars, and all other species of misguided strayers, and to affirm His Names and Attributes and His Uloohiyyah (the two areas in which mankind strayed, deviated and innovated). So the Prophet was sent with a rejection of that, and you will then also understand the saying of Allaah, the Most High:

 سُبْحَانَ رَبِّكَ رَبِّ الْعِزَّةِ عَمَّا يَصِفُونَ وَسَلَامٌ عَلَى الْمُرْسَلِينَ وَالْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ 

 Glorified be your Lord, the Lord of Honour and Power! (He is free) from what they attribute unto Him! And safety, peace be upon the Messengers. And all praise is due to Allaah, the Lord of the Worlds. (37:180-182) 

This is an amazing short passage. A whole paper can be written on these three verses alone.In short, Allaah has freed and exonerated Himself from everything He is described with which is false [in relation to both His Uloohiyyah and al-Asmaa wal-Sifaat], and whatever did not come from Him, and this is the saying of all the wandering, straying deviants from those of the abrogated religions and the Philosophers and star-worshippers and their likes. It is also a repudiation and rejection of what the Mutakallimin (Jahmiyyah, Mu’tazilah, Ash’ariyyah, Maturidiyyah) describe Him through the use of “negative theology” which they inherited from the Sabean star and idol-worshipping disbelievers through the proof of huduth al-ajsaam. Then Allaah stated that security, peace is upon His Messengers, and this means that in everything His Messengers brought of His names, attributes and actions, then there is safety, and they brought nothing but the truth, and there is nothing objectionable in any of that, and His Messengers were the most knowledgeable of the creation with respect to Him, and they conveyed knowledge of Him in the most-eloquent way, and they were most sincere in wishing guidance for their people. So these three qualities, that they are a’lam (most knowledgeable), afsah (most eloquent), and ansah (most sincere), means that their way was the a’lam (most erudite), ahkam (most precise), and aslam (most safe) – and with that the claim of the JahmiteAsh’ari Maturidi, lying deceiving, surmising, self-aggrandizing self-righteous bigots is rendered the greatest falsehood and greatest of affronts to Allaah and His Messenger, for their saying necessitates that the heritage of the pagan Greek and Sabean Philosophers is ahkam and a’lam over what the Messenger of Allaah brought! And this is the reality of their saying, except that they are the greatest of cowards, and they wish to protect themselves from the scorn of the people, just like the Mu’tazilah used to try and protect themselves from the scorn of the people through concealment, trickery and deception.

And then consider the affront of Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (d. 505H) in his book Iljaam al-Awaam, for he says that the language that Allaah and His Messenger chose is not the real truth, rather it is nothing but tajsim and tashbih and that the real truth lies in their language which they inherited from the Greek and Sabean star and idol-worshipping disbelievers, that of al-ajsaam and al-a’raad, but then he excuses Allaah and His Messenger by saying that since the Arabic language was not fit to carry and express the eloquent truth, and since the average person was too dumb to understand the real truth (which is their “negative theology”), then it was necessary for Allaah and His Messenger to use such language, even if it gave the presumption of tajsim and tashbih, so as not to make those dumb commoners flee from faith. To have a majority (of dumb commoners) believing in Allaah, even if it be through this way, is far better than having the majority turning atheists and only having a handful of elites (meaning their arrogant selves) believing in Allah through the real truth (i.e. through the language of the Philosophers and Mutakallimin). So it was a necessity – and such is the saying of al-Ghazali, to the letter – go and read it all in all its repugnance and filth right here, and then don’t be surprised to see that kafir, Ibn Sina (d. 429H), who is supposed to be an enemy of the Mutakallimin saying the exact same thing, and he said it before these As’harites, and they took it from him, take a look right here.And if this shocks and surprises you, then you should know – as we explained in our previous article – how the Mutakallimin (Jahmiyyah, Mu’tazilah, Ash’ariyyah, Maturidiyyah) are actually united with the Philosophers (like al-Farabi, Ibn Sina, who were following the thought of the Greek Philosophers) as it relates to the issue of belief in Allaah, in that the real truth lies in the language of al-ajsaam and al-a’raad, and what is necessitated by it, even if they differed on the details. But as for their real contention, that is something different, the issue of the eternity and origination of the universe, and resurrection and prophethood and revelation, and this was where the real battle was, because the Philosophers saw them using a corrupt flawed proof (huduth al-ajsaam). So do not be an ignoramus on this matter, otherwise those heretics will easily deceive you into thinking they were the saviours of Islam, when all they did was to open up the door wide for the enemies of Islam who let loose their vanities upon the Islamic texts, beliefs and rulings.

Shaykh Augustine of Hippo, the “Ash’ari” Mutakallim of the Pre-Islamic Era and the Negation of a’raad (Incidental Attributes) and Hawaadith (Events, Occurrences)

Next the author spends some time covering a chapter that Shaykh Augustine, the Mutakallim, had written regarding the negation of a’raad (incidental attributes, accidents) from God. Its a lengthy piece, so we don’t want to waste space quoting it all, we will simply provide a summary of it all here, so basically Shaykh Augustine, the pre-Islamic era Christian Mutakallim, the forerunner of the Ash’arites, he explains that incidental attributes or accidents (a’raad) are of three types:

The first are “inseparable accidents” which do not separate from the essence, and he gives the example of the black colour of the feather of a raven. The black color is inseparable and it only expires when the raven dies and turns to dust. The second are “separable accidents”, and he gives the example of the blackness of a man’s hair which can turn white, not by virtue of it being separable, but by virtue that its blackness is merely an incidental property. The third are “accidents with degrees” and this means the variation in a particular quality, or attribute, such that it has gradations, degrees. Now this third type is really an overlap of the previous two, and it refers to those qualities which can be diminished or increased. So Shaykh Augustine denies all of these a’raad (incidental attributes, accidents) from God.

The thing to note here is that there are some meanings which are certainly correct. Take for example, Allaah’s knowledge and power, does it have degrees? Of course not, it is absolute, all-inclusive. So this is certainly rejected, but when the Mutakallimin (the Jewish, Christian and Muslim ones) resorted to using these types of conceptual tools, language and classifications in trying to describe Allaah or to negate for Allaah, they rejected much of the truth along with it.And so they rejected His names, attributes and His actions (upon the differences between themselves as to what they considered was binding from the proof of huduth al-ajsaam) because they wrongly considered that this knowledge that relates to bodies (ajsaam) and incidental attributes (a’raad) is such that the necessities (lawaazim) arising from them as it relates to this universe, are also applicable to Allaah, the Most High. To illustrate, if something created is said to be “above”, then it necessitates that it must be a body (jism), since being “above” can only be said of “bodies”. They held that the same necessities apply to Allaah, such that if it is said about Allaah that He is “above” [something Allah Himself says, and His Prophets and Messengers said, and the Righteous Salaf had consensus on], then the same necessities (lawaazim) must also apply to Him, and this would therefore mean He is a body (jism) and hence this must be rejected and all the texts pertaining to this matter, must be interpreted figuratively. However, what they have done here is to make a false analogy for Allaah, for they fell into qiyas al-shumul (analogy by inclusion) in that they included Allaah within all the bodies, such that whatever lawaazim (necessities) apply to created bodies, must also apply to Him, if that language is also used for Him. And this is clearly false. Upon that basis, they used this conceptual language in order to decide what can and cannot be ascribed to Allaah. And this is a false type of analogy, and this is the foundation of their misguidance.Now if you are wondering again about the likes of al-Bayhaqi, Abu Ya’laa, al-Qurtubi, al-Nawawi and Ibn Hajar. As we already explained, there were Scholars who were attached to the Qur’an and Hadith, and engrossed in those sciences. They did not delve into Kalaam, but they considered the conclusions of the Ahl al-Kalaam to be correct, and so they adopted those conclusions. However, they never liked Kalaam, and you will see them censuring it (see that from al-Qurtubi, al-Nawawi, and Ibn Hajar in this article), and they did not enter into all that huduth al-ajsam, and al-Jawhar al-Fard, and so on like those Mutakallimin. However, when they saw the Mutakallimin refuting the true and real Mujassimah and Mushabbihah, who were also Ahl al-Kalaam, like Hisham bin al-Hakam al-Rafidi, he was a Mutakallim, upon that ilm al-kalaam of huduth al-ajsaam and al-ajsaam and al-a’raad, and likewise the Hanafi KarraamiyyahMujassimah, they too were upon this very ilm al-kalaam. So they considered the conclusions of those Mutakallimin to be true and then they tried to reconcile between those conclusions and the ahaadeeth of the Messenger. And because they saw those Mutakallimin taking the path of ta’wil or tafwid or both, they considered that to be acceptable and they wrongly presumed it was the way of the Salaf. So they erred in this matter. And as for Abu Ya’laa, he got affected by the Mutakallimin, on the subject of Allaah’s chosen actions (Af’aal Ikhtiyaariyyah), which they called hawaadith (events) and tried to deny them, and likewise he exaggerated in ithbaat (affirmation) and he was not like those repugnant Mujassimah from the Ahl al-Kalaam, be they Raafidites of Hanafi Karraamites, but he erred from the angle of affirming fabricated narrations and bringing disrepute upon himself, and allowing himself to be censured and maligned.

So when this is clear and this is apparent, it is not longer permissible for any Ash’arite to use any of these Scholars as a justification to remain upon an incorrect creed, and remember that these names they use of al-Bayhaqi, al-Qurtubi, al-Nawawi and Ibn Hajar, they only use them as a front, what they are really calling to is the “Heretical Ash’ariyyah”, that of al-Juwayni, al-Ghazali, al-Razi and al-Aaamidee. It is not what Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’ari was upon at the end of his life when he transitioned away from the usool of Ibn Kullaab and adopted the creed of Imaam Ahmad, and it was for this particular creed that some scholars either spoke well of his book al-Ibaanah (like Abu Uthmaan al-Sabuni) or may have ascribed to him, like they would have ascribed to any other Imaam of the Sunnah when they saw what he manifested of the truth and ascription to Imaam Ahmad, and this would include people like Abu Bakr al-Ismaa’eelee and others.

From the above two paragraphs, you will come to understand the grand deception of today’s Ash’arites and how they rely upon people’s ignorance of the fact that there are different types of “Ash’aris” so to speak, and that they use certain names only as a front, and what they are really calling to is nothing but a creed founded upon the language of al-ajsaam and al-a’raad and that was the very ilm al-kalaam that the Salaf severely condemned and declared its practitioners as diseased heretics. So we exonerate the likes of al-Qurtubi, al-Nawawi, and Ibn Hajar from that, for they never indulged in that Kalaam like those Mutakallimin did, but they lived in an era, growing up whilst this was considered in their lands to be the truth, and so they thought the conclusions of these Mutakallim were the truth, and so they are not to be put alongside those heretical Ash’arites who hybridized Tajahhum, I’tizaal and Falsafah with the Kullaabi original that even al-Ash’ari himself transitioned away from.

End of Part 2. Coming next inshaa’Allaah, Part 3 which is very very interesting and exciting!

Paper Background: Predication, Immutability, the Ten Categories

We already covered this in the Part 2, but since it is crucial to understanding the matter, we are reproducing it here. The author discussed the issue of predication and immutability. Predication is simply to assign a quality, attribute or property to a thing. And immutability means the inability to change, to not undergo any type of change. Now Aristotle spoke a lot about the issue of predication, and this was a linguistic discussion, however, this was integrally tied to his syllogistic logic, by which the truthfulness of propositions is evaluated. A proposition is simply to say “A is B”, such as “the tea is hot.” You have probably heard of this before, its like this:

All A’s are B’s
X is an A
Therefore X is a B

So since the truth and falsehood of propositions was integral to attaining knowledge to Aristotle, the issue of predication in the language, as in assigning qualities and properties to things, was discussed in detail by Aristotle. Likewise, he also laid down what are known as his Categories, which is known as al-Jawhar wal-Arad (substance and incidental attribute) or al-Maqulat al-Ashar (the ten categories). The intent of Aristotle here was to comprehensively categorize everything that can take the place of a subject and a predicate in a proposition. In the proposition “the tea is hot“, the “tea” is the subject and “is hot” is the predicate. So he came up with ten categories and everything in the universe is either a substance (jawhar, jism) or nine incidental attributes, and incidental attributes are found only in substances. All of this created the framework upon which his logic and philosophy could be built. These ten categories are presented below:The first category deals with “what something is”:

1. substance (jawhar)

The rest are incidental attributes (a’raad, also referred to as “accidents”) which deal with “how it is”:

1. quantity (al-kam) – dimensions and measurable features, length, breadth, width and so on
2. quality (al-kayf) – perceived characteristics, color, shape, and so on.
3. relation (al-idaafah) – how a substance is in relation to others, above, below, right, left and so on.
4. place (al-ayn) – where it is
5. time (mataa) answering “when?” – temporal characteristics of the substance
6. position (al-wad’) – how a substance’s parts are ordered in relation to each other
7. action (yaf’al) acting – what a substance is doing
8. affection (yanfa’il) a substance being acted upon
9. having (al-mulk) – what the substance has on

Once this is clear, what we need to understand is that these aspects of Aristotle’s philosophy already affected those amongst the Sabeans, Jews and Christians before it affected the Muslims. And so what we are going to do here is look at the theology of a Jew and a Christian before Islam came (we will look at the Sabeans in a separate article altogether). One is Philo (20BC-50CE) was a Jew from Alexandria who was present around the time Eesaa (alayhis salaam), and the second is Augustine of Hippo (d. 430CE), a Christian. Now, you will see a stark resemblance between the language of their theology and the usool of the Mu’tazilah and the Ash’ariyyah, in fact its identical. the ilm al-kalaam, of the Ahl al-Kalaam is not so original. Rather, it’s simply the second-hand, used and abused toy of the past nations (Sabeans, Jews, Christians). Unfortunately, when it came into the hands of the Mutakallimin (Jahmiyyah, Mu’tazilah, Ash’ariyyah, Maturidiyyah), they took it and lapped it up like a kid does ice-cream, not realizing that there has been many a nation, or scholastic whose already “been there, done that.” So pay attention, we will be discussing predication, immutability and negating Aristotle’s ten categories from Allaah – which is essentially what the deen of the Mutakallimin is founded upon – as opposed to the way of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah, which is:To affirm for Allah what He and His Messenger affirmed for Him without ta’teel (which include tafwid), takyif, tamthil, tahrif (which includes ta’wil) and tashbih, and there is not any tashbih in anything that the revealed texts affirmed for Him by consensus of the Imaams of the Salaf.

We can now continue with the paper, from where we left off in the previous article, it might be a good idea to review that article first.

The Pre-Islamic Era, Jewish and Christian “Ash’ari” Mutakallims, Shaykh Philo of Alexandria and Shaykh Augustine of Hippo, Preceding the Theology of the Mutakallimin by Hundreds of Years

So here, this is an interesting and exciting part of this series, so lets drive straight in, so take a seat, relax, let it sink in:

Notes and Commentary

We need to comment on this piecemeal:

What Philo and Augustine saw.

After discussing the use of the theory of predication and Aristotle’s categories and being manifested in the theology of both Philo and Augustine with respect to the issue of immutability (not being subject to change), he is now summarizing and presenting the actual details of their theology, things that they agreed upon.

He makes an observation:

Philo and Augustine never abandoned Aristotle’s theory of predication, even though they saw that the case of God’s immutability tested the resources of that theory. They used the theory to describe a being who, ironically, does not fit the metaphysical assumptions on which the theory rests. Aristotle’s theory applies most clearly to substances, the concrete individuals of our ordinary experience, of which biological specimens are the clearest examples. Such substances have essences (specified by genus and differentia), perhaps idia, and certainly accidents, the latter features being involved in accidental change and due, most typically, to the vagaries of the matter composing the substance.

God, however, is a metaphysically simple being, his simplicity being entailed by the notions that he is completely independent of and sovereign over all things.

What he is essentially saying is very close but not identical to what Ahl al-Sunnah say in that Allah’s essence is unlike all other essences. Hence, to make those conceptual tools (meaning the use of Aristotelian Metaphysics) to be the framework and platform for discussing the One whose essence can never be understood, and is unlike these essences and their necessities, cannot really be a source of sure knowledge, rather it is speculation.And we gave an example before, to illustrate the error of these Mutakallimin (the Jewish, Christian and Muslim ones), and so we said that what these Mutakallimin are really saying is that:

If something created is said to be “above”, then it necessitates that it must be a body (jism) that occcupies space, since being “above” can only be said of “bodies”. They held that the same necessities apply to Allaah, such that if it is said about Allaah that He is “above” [something Allah Himself says, and His Prophets and Messengers said, and the Righteous Salaf had consensus on], then the same necessities (lawaazim) must also apply to Him, and this would therefore mean He is a body (jism) and hence this must be rejected and all the texts pertaining to this matter, must be interpreted figuratively. However, what they have done here is to make a false analogy for Allaah, for they fell into qiyas al-shumul (analogy by inclusion) in that they included Allaah within all the bodies, such that whatever lawaazim (necessities) apply to created bodies, must also apply to Him if that same language is also used for Him. So they equated Him with all other bodies in terms of the rules, laws and necessities pertaining to the language of description. And this is baatil (false) for Allaah’s essence is unlike all essences, and if Allaah says He is “above” and that He will “come, arrive” on the Day of Judgement then those lawaazim applying to created bodies do not apply to Him at all.

So in essence, they made tashbih in the very theoretical basis of their speech, of their Kalaam.

They are in reality the Mushabbihah, they made tashbih first, in the very theoretical basis of their speech, and then were forced to treat what Allaah described Himself with as tajsim and tashbih. And Allaah is exonerated and purified from what they say.

And it is for this reason that the truth in the revealed Books and from the sent Messengers is to say “We believe in whatever Allaah and His Messenger affirmed for Him, without takyif and tashbih.” And as for the saying of misguided god-forsaken wandering strayers, from the Greek and Sabean star and idol-worshipping pagan disbelievers and their conceptual tools and philosophies and Kalaam, then the Believers are not in need of it!

He then says:

The following minimum core to the doctrine of God’s simplicity can be found in both Philo and Augustine.

Now you’ve got to close the door, avoid all distractions and sit down here:

Between the Ilm al-Kalaam of Shaykh Philo the Jew, Shaykh Augustine the Christian – Founded Upon the Conceptual Tools of Aristotelian Metaphysics – and the Ilm al-Kalaam of the Jahmite Ash’ari Heretics Claiming Orthodoxy

So here is that theism, broken down into four points:

(A) God has no physical extension or spatial parts. If he did, he would not be simple, and he would be dependent on the parts for his being as he is.

This is identical to the theology of the Jahmiyyah, Mu’tazilah, Ash’ariyyah, Maturidiyyah. It is to speak of Allaah through negations, by negating Jismiyyah (embodiment) from Him. And that is what is in the above statement. It is identical to what you find in the books of the Mu’tazilah and Ash’ariyyah. Its a denial that Allah is a composite body with spatial extension. For the Mutakallimin of Islaam, this language is based upon their definition of al-Jawhar al-Fard (the indivisible particle, atomism) which they define as something with no spatial extension – until it combines with another indivisible atom, when it becomes a body (jism), hence anything with extension and bulk is a body (in spatial occupation). The Mu’tazilah were the ones who incorporated Atomism into the proof of huduth al-ajsaam, and to help you understand why:The Indivisible Particle

Recall that the proof of huduth al-ajsaam (origination of bodies) argues that the presence of attributes and incidental attributes or actions in or by bodies proves that they must be originated. But then because not all bodies have the same incidental attributes, as there are very many (color, taste, height, width, depth, texture, motion, rest, combination, separation and so on), the Mutakallimin tried to find such incidental attributes that would be common to all bodies. So they came up with what they called the four akwaan (states of being), sukun (rest), harakah (motion), combination (itjimaa’), iftiraaq (separation). Further, to make it easier to apply this proof to the entire universe, meaning all bodies, they introduced the idea of Atomism. Which is that the entire universe is made of identical particles, and the only thing that makes each thing unique and separate is its incidental attributes. Thus, fire, water, wood, hair, jelly and your custard pie, is all made of identical atoms, the different qualities present in those atoms is what makes each thing what it is. With the introduction of this theory by the Mu’tazilah, they really streamlined the proof of huduth al-ajsaam, and made it easier to argue the case for the universe being originated, because if incidental attributes are found in bodies at the atomic level, and all bodies are the same (tamaathul al-ajsaam) then the entire universe (upon their demonstration of huduth al-ajsam) can be said to be originated with a single stroke, and no need to start wrangling around with all those different types of a’raad (incidental attributes) which cannot be said of all bodies. It’s like simplifying equations, why have long complex equations when you can simplify them a great deal and make them much neater and more presentable. Same thing here.

The Ash’ariyyah are the Effeminates of the Mu’tazilah

The Ash’ariyyah took this proof wholesale from the Mu’tazilah and they opposed al-Ash’ari

 in this, because al-Ash’ari

 in the latter part of his life and in his later books declared it an innovation. But those after him opposed his way, and incorporated it into their theology. So this is why you see the Ash’arites using this same language of bodies and their incidental attributes (al-ajsaam, al-a’raad) and speaking of things with bulk, dimension and so on. Because they made this proof to be the foundation of their religion, they were forced to speak about Allaah, with its language.

Coming back to the quotation above:

What Philo and Augustine are really saying is found in the last part of that sentence, “he would be dependent on the parts for his being as he is” and this means that God is free of all those attributes which require Jismiyyah (embodiment, being a body) to exist. Again keep in mind, Aristotle’s categories, and keep in mind how Tawhid to the Mutakallimin became one in which the nine categories (a’raad) besides substance (jawhar) had to be negated from Allaah in order to maintain what they presumed to be Tawhid, which in reality is the Tawhid of the Philosophers, not the Tawhid of the Messengers. They [Philosophers and the Mutakallimin and the Mutakallimin amongst themselves] just disputed with each other about subsidiary issues about the names, attributes and actions, whilst being united that the truth does in fact lie in this language, not in the language of the revealed texts which contain nothing but tajsim and tashbih for the benefit of the dumb commoners who would not accept faith unless they were spoken to in this language. So in reality, the hearts of the Jahmiyyah, Mu’tazilah, Ash’ariyyah, Maturidiyyah resemble and share with the hearts of the Philosophers, and it is little wonder that after centuries of wrangling around, the later Ash’arites decided to hybridize kalam with falsfah and found no problem in incorporating aspects of it into their books. In fact, al-Taftazani (in Sharh al-Maqaasid), justifies it by saying that the objective behind both kalam and Falsafah is to arrive at the truth and so there is no harm in using a bit of this and a bit of that.

So this first statement is the foundation of the rejection of the attributes by the Philosophers and the Mu’tazilah, and the Ash’arites affirmed some attributes for the essence, and so the Philosophers and Mu’tazilah declared them Mujassimah because this would necessitate Allaah is a body (in order to have attributess) from one angle, and also from another, it necessitates Allaah is composed, since multiplicity of meanings in the essence (i.e. having attributes) meanings multiplicity of essences.And we should point out again, that the reason for the likes of Philo and Augustine speaking with this type of language is not the same as the reason for the Mutakallimin in Islam. The Ahl al-Kalam in Islam did not just go out and say “Hey, let’s use Aristotle’s conceptual tools”, when Aristotle is actually an enemy to them. But when they adopted this proof of huduth al-ajsaam which came into the Ummah from the Sabeans of Harran, through al-Ja’d bin Dirham, and al-Jahm bin Safwan, and then to the Mu’tazilah and Ash’ariyyah and Maturidiyyah, and they saw that there was no other way to prove the universe is originated and has an Originator, they were FORCED to speak by its necessities, and thus, we see their language being no different to that of Philo, Augustine and the Sabeans and others in their theism, and all of them used the conceptual tools of the Greek Philosophers, even if the routes through which they fell into this were entirely different.

The Proof of Tarkib (Composition)

Also in this statement above from the author, is an indication of the proof of tarkib (composition) of the Philosophers, that of negating parts, and the later Ash’arites, when they saw that the proof of huduth al-ajsaam was corrupt, they adopted this proof. It was Ibn Sina who originated this proof as part of his proof of imkan and wujub (possible and necessary existence). This is the reasoning of the Philosophers and the Mu’tazilah to deny the attributes (multiple meanings in the essence means separate entities or components, and this means composition). Just as it was used by the Ash’arites to reject Allaah’s uluww, His being above His Throne. So you see they all take from the same foundation and try to combat Ahl al-Sunnah with it, in their own way, and its origin is not from the revealed Books or sent Messengers, rather it is origin is the aql of a pagan disbeliever, worshipper of stars and idols, one who corrupted many a nation and its theology, hundreds of years before these tail ends of the likes of Philo and Augustine appeared in this ummah. We speak of the resemblance between them here purely in terms of their sharing with each other in these conceptual tools, we can consider them the tail-ends of those from previous religions who also had their Kalaam, and disputed about their Lord, albeit in the presence of a corrupted scripture – unlike the Mutakallimin who dispute about their Lord whilst the scripture is present, pure and unalderated.

So if you go and look in all the books of the Ash’arites (we made a list of all the major ones in Part 2), you will see this language. They spoke of bodies, their incidental attributes, and then were forced to use this same language in negating for Allaah, and they wrongly thought this was the Tawhid with which they had been commanded.

Then the author said:

(B) God has no temporal parts. There are no stages to his career, no past, no future. Instead, he is eternal, enjoying the fullness of his life all at once.

Here in (B), and also in (C) we are moving into what are called hawaadith (events), the issue of events in time. The first part of their theology above in (A) relates to negation of incidental attributes requiring a body for their existence, so the Mu’tazilah treated everything (whether it is an attribute, like hearing, seeing) or an action (istiwaa, pleasure, anger) as being an ‘arad (incidental attribute). They never distinguished between a’raad (incidental attributes) and hawaadith (events). It was the early Ash’arites who following Ibn Kullaab, denied Allaah’s chosen actions which they considered hawaadith (events, occurrences). So what we are seeing in (B) is the negation of hawaadith which is the crux of the Ash’ari and Maturidi schools of heresy.What Philo (a Jew) and Augustine (a Christian) agree upon is what al-Ja’d bin Dirham brought into the Ummah after his brain was fried and roasted by the Sabeans of Harraan. He said, Allaah never spoke to Moses direct, and nor did He take Ibrahim as His friend.

And the saying of the Qur’an being created, it was taken by al-Ja’d bin Dirham from the Jews, their Rabbis, who said the Torah is created, and they also held this view upon the same conceptual tools of al-ajsaam and al-a’raad, and we can see it in the theology of Philo, the negation of hawaadith (events, occurrences). So this was the saying of the Jews, their Rabbis and it is all founded upon the conceptual tools of Aristotle, so just as this pagan disbeliever worshipper of the stars corrupted the deen of nations gone by, then likewise he corrupted the deen of the Mutakallimin, except that they simply did not realize it.

So to them, the Qur’an cannot be Allaah’s speech because it is many different meanings, letters and words, it would mean events in Allaah’s essence, necessitating He is a body like the bodies. Hence, the Jahmiyyah said Allaah does not have speech, it is something He creates, and the Mu’tazilah said Allaah does have speech, but it is something created and can be said to His, just like we say “Allaah’s Messenger”, “Allaah’s house”, “Allaah’s she-camel”, so it is Allah’s speech but metaphorically speaking. And the Kullaabiyyah Ash’ariyyah said Allaah has Kalaam (an eternal meaning in the self, immutable, singular) but Allaah is not able to speak as and when He wills. They did this in order to find a middle path between the Jahmiyyah and Mu’tazilah and Ahl al-Sunnah, trying to affirm the attribute (with the innovation of kalam nafsee) but denying hawaadith (events) for Allaah. So they agreed with the Jahmiyyah and Mu’tazilah in reality, and pretended to agree with Ahl al-Sunnah through plays with words.

So the meaning of this part (B) [and also (C) further below] is that Allaah cannot have successive actions in that He made istiwaa after creating the heavens and earth, and that He created the Throne before He created the Preserved Tablet, and that He created the heavens and earth fifty-thousand years after writing down all the decrees, and that He ordered the Angels to prostrate after creating Adam, and that He will arrive and come on the Day of Judgement and that His speech to Moses is other than His speech to Muhammad which are other than His speech on the Day of Judgement to the Believers, or to the inhabitants of Hellfire and so on. This is what is meant, and this is one of the usool of the Jahmiyyah, Mu’tazilah, Ash’ariyyah and Maturidiyyah. As we can see it preceded them by 800-900 years (in Shaykh Philo) and 400-500 years (in Shaykh Augustine).

Now as for the reason they did this, in order to prevent Allaah from being subject to time and events as they claim in order to deny embodiment (Jismiyyah) from Him, then this is all ambiguous speech, and it is a topic that bewilders the mind, and they delved it into and this is why some of them got their brains fried and roasted and at the end of their lives lamented over it, and they could not work out which proof was stronger, the universe being originated or being eternal.

Then the author said in outlining the next component of their theology:

(C) God has no accidental attributes. Feature (A) excludes from God all accidental attributes whose exemplification requires embodiment. (C) says something stronger than (A) if there are accidents whose exemplification does not require embodiment. It would be natural to think that, say, knowing that Adam sinned is just such an accident, exemplified by a purely spiritual God. I shall not defend the view here, but I believe that a defender of God’s simplicity can argue cogently that although Adam’s having sinned is contingent and God knows it, those facts do not confer an accidental property on God.

This again is on the subject of hawaadith (events, occurrences), and whatever was said regarding (B) applies here, since both features (B) and (C) are actually regarding the same topic, and it is what the Mutakallimin refer to as hawaadith (events, occurrences), and by this they reject that Allaah has actions tied to His will and power, such as istiwaa, love, pleasure, anger and the likes.

We also see here the author alluding to a distinction between incidental attributes requiring embodiment (Jismiyyah) and incidental attributes not requiring embodiment. And this kind of represents the point of contention between the Mu’tazilah and the Ash’ariyyah in that how can you affirm attributes which you claim do not necessitate embodiment, like knowledge, hearing, seeing, wish, power, speech, and yet deny others upon the argument they necessitate embodiment (Jismiyyah). The same is said by all factions who were consistent in their positions, be that the Philosophers, Jahmiyyah and Mu’tazilah who denied all attributes and actions consistently, or be that Ahl al-Sunnah who affirmed all attributes and actions without takyif and tahrif consistently. The author gave an example pertaining to Allah’s knowledge to illustrate how someone (who holds onto this theologyof Philo and Augustine) might justify separating between (A) and (C) without this quality (of knowledge) being considered an accidental property. In any case, Shaykh Philo and Shaykh Augustine are clearly denying – upon the language of al-ajsaam and al-a’raad – that Allaah has incidental attributes requiring embodiment and incidental attributes as a whole.This is the foundation of the Mutakallimin rejecting what Allaah affirmed for Himself in the revealed texts of actions tied to His will and power, and for this the Salaf waged war against the Jahmiyyah and Mu’tazilah, and this battle culminated in the issue of the Qur’an being created – which was fought over this very principle, since the true underlying issue was that of Allaah’s chosen actions – which they denied, as had Shaykh Philo (leading to the saying that the Torah is created), and likewise Shaykh Augustine. So this battle raged until Imaam Ahmad subdued those Heretics.

But then along came Ibn Kullaab, entered into this matter, tried to debate the equivalents of those Philoites and Augustinites in this ummah (i.e. the Jahmiyyah and Mu’tazilah), and he was unable to answer them on the issue of Allaah’s speech, and their doubt that this necessitates events in Allaah’s essence according to them. So he refuted them on everything else, Allaah’s uluww and sifat khabariyyah (face, hands, eyes) but could not refute them on this matter. So he innovated the doctrine of kalam nafsee having been forced to reject Allaah has actions tied to His will and power, and then he had to apply this principle consistently and uniformly, so therefore he had to reject other attributes like al-istiwaa

, love, pleasure, anger as being tied to Allaah’s will, and he took a certain approach in dealing with these attributes, as did the al-Ash’ari

 who followed his doctrine after leaving the Mu’tazilah. So they said Allaah’s istiwaa is not an action of Allaah, but an action that takes place in the Throne

, and they said pleasure and anger are synonymous with Allaah’s wish (iraadah) or that they are eternal attributes just like life, knowledge, power and the likes. So they took the very approaches towards Allaah’s chosen actions that the Mu’tazilah took towards Allaah’s attributes, which is saying Allaah’s attributes are synonymous with His essence or separate from His essence.

Then the author mentions the fourth feature:

(D) God has an essence, but his essence is not a combination of genus and differentia. If it were, then he would be metaphysically complex and dependent on the genus and differentia for his being what he is.

This language is also from Aristotle, that of genus (a family of things) and differentia (specific elements in that family which have unique definitions). Again, this type of innovated negation not brought by the Prophets and Messengers is a foundation for the Mutakallimin for denying for Allaah what He affirmed for Himself.In essence, we can say Shaykh Philo of Alexandria was a Jahmite, Mu’tazilite, as was Shaykh Augustine of Hippo, also a Jahmite, Mu’tazilite. And we see here the amazing resemblance between this and the ilm al-kalaam of the Ahl al-Kalaam. This is what the Salaf condemned, this particular ilm al-kalaam of al-ajsaam and al-a’raad (not the genus of Kalaam which can involved defending the truth by the Book and the Sunnah and sound uncorrupted reason). The ilm al-kalaam of the Mutakallimin is founded upon the corrupted reason of a pagan, disbeliever, worshipper of stars and idols, a wandering strayer who corrupted what the Greeks were upon, let alone the Sabeans, Jews, Christians and Muslims. And the Ash’arites are the followers of this ilm al-kalaam, as we have proven in Part 2, in that we see the language of al-ajsaam and al-a’raad as part of the proof of huduth al-ajsaam found in all of their books and it is the very foundation of their theology. The later ones realized its corruption and started including other proofs in their works as well, that of tarkib (composition) and takhsis (specification) which ironically are taken from the very Philosophers they were trying to refute!

So the hujjah is established and it is not possible for any Ash’ari to remain upon his falsehood, and following scholars who came and went, who were clearly in error in what they entered into, is no longer an excuse – it is not permissible to use the likes of al-Bayhaqi, al-Qurtub, al-Nawawi, Ibn Hajar and their likes, because we have already explained how and why they fell into what they fell into. So when that matter becomes clear, there is no longer that excuse of using the speech of those scholars, so all that is required now is for you to announce your repentance, abandon that false theology and all its associated language and to speak with nothing but the pure Book and the Sunnah in both affirmation and negation.

This is the fourth part of a series. Please be sure to read Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3, each of them have an introduction containing background information which is essential reading. There are five parts in total, Part 4, Part 5.

Paper Background: Predication, Immutability, the Ten Categories

We already covered this in the Part 2, but since it is crucial to understanding the matter, we are reproducing it here. The author discussed the issue of predication and immutability. Predication is simply to assign a quality, attribute or property to a thing. And immutability means the inability to change, to not undergo any type of change. Now Aristotle spoke a lot about the issue of predication, and this was a linguistic discussion, however, this was integrally tied to his syllogistic logic, by which the truthfulness of propositions is evaluated. A proposition is simply to say “A is B”, such as “the tea is hot.” You have probably heard of this before, its like this:

All A’s are B’s
X is an A
Therefore X is a B

So since the truth and falsehood of propositions was integral to attaining knowledge to Aristotle, the issue of predication in the language, as in assigning qualities and properties to things, was discussed in detail by Aristotle. Likewise, he also laid down what are known as his Categories, which is known as al-Jawhar wal-Arad (substance and incidental attribute) or al-Maqulat al-Ashar (the ten categories). The intent of Aristotle here was to comprehensively categorize everything that can take the place of a subject and a predicate in a proposition. In the proposition “the tea is hot“, the “tea” is the subject and “is hot” is the predicate. So he came up with ten categories and everything in the universe is either a substance (jawhar, jism) or nine incidental attributes, and incidental attributes are found only in substances. All of this created the framework upon which his logic and philosophy could be built. These ten categories are presented below:The first category deals with “what something is”:

1. substance (jawhar)

The rest are incidental attributes (a’raad, also referred to as “accidents”) which deal with “how it is”:

1. quantity (al-kam) – dimensions and measurable features, length, breadth, width and so on
2. quality (al-kayf) – perceived characteristics, color, shape, and so on.
3. relation (al-idaafah) – how a substance is in relation to others, above, below, right, left and so on.
4. place (al-ayn) – where it is
5. time (mataa) answering “when?” – temporal characteristics of the substance
6. position (al-wad’) – how a substance’s parts are ordered in relation to each other
7. action (yaf’al) acting – what a substance is doing
8. affection (yanfa’il) a substance being acted upon
9. having (al-mulk) – what the substance has on

Once this is clear, what we need to understand is that these aspects of Aristotle’s philosophy already affected those amongst the Sabeans, Jews and Christians before it affected the Muslims. And so what we are going to do here is look at the theology of a Jew and a Christian before Islam came (we will look at the Sabeans in a separate article altogether). One is Philo (20BC-50CE) was a Jew from Alexandria who was present around the time Eesaa (alayhis salaam), and the second is Augustine of Hippo (d. 430CE), a Christian. Now, you will see a stark resemblance between the language of their theology and the usool of the Mu’tazilah and the Ash’ariyyah, in fact its identical. the ilm al-kalaam, of the Ahl al-Kalaam is not so original. Rather, it’s simply the second-hand, used and abused toy of the past nations (Sabeans, Jews, Christians). Unfortunately, when it came into the hands of the Mutakallimin (Jahmiyyah, Mu’tazilah, Ash’ariyyah, Maturidiyyah), they took it and lapped it up like a kid does a ice-cream, not realizing that there has been many a nation, or scholastic whose already “been there, done that.” So pay attention, we will be discussing predication, immutability and negating Aristotle’s ten categories from Allaah – which is essentially what the deen of the Mutakallimin is founded upon – as opposed to the way of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah, which is:To affirm for Allah what He and His Messenger affirmed for Him without ta’teel (which include tafwid), takyif, tamthil, tahrif (which includes ta’wil) and tashbih, and there is not any tashbih in anything that the revealed texts affirmed for Him by consensus of the Imaams of the Salaf.

We can now continue where we left off in the previous article discussing the use of the conceptual tools of predication and the ten categories (al-maqulat al-ashar, al-jawhar wal-‘arad) of Aristotle by Philo of Alexandria (d. 50CE) and Augustine of Hippo (d. 430CE). In the previous article we saw what is more or less an identical treatment of theism between Philo, Augustine, and the Mutakallimin from Islam, with identical language. We also pointed out that the route and reason through which these factions (a Jewish Scholar, a Christian Scholar and the Mutakallimin) came to use these conceptual tools were different, even if in the end result, their theological language was the same. For the Ash’arites, they inherited the proof of huduth al-ajsaam (the origination of bodies) through the Mu’tazilah, who took it from the Jahmiyyah. And this was entered in to the Ummah by al-Ja’d bin Dirham who took it from the Sabeans of Harraan, and likewise he took the saying of the Qur’an being created from the Jews (whose theology was already affected by the conceptual tools of Aristotle and who were already saying that the Torah is created).

Shaykh Philo Judaeus, the Jewish Mutakallim, Using Aristotle’s Conceptual Tools To Negate Hawaadith (Events) From Allaah

The author of the paper said:

The issues of Allaah’s chosen actions (sifaat fi’liyyah, af’aal ikhtiyaariyyah), that Allaah is doer of whatever He wills, is the underlying issue being discussed here, and Philo preceded the Ash’arites by about 900 years and the Jahmites and Mu’tazilah by about 750 years in this matter, using the same language of al-ajsaam and al-a’raad.

There are a number of issues to think about here, all of which are raised by the above paragraph, from them:

How the Mu’tazilah and Ash’ariyyah tried to treat the problem of Allaah’s actions so as to avoid “events” (hawaadith) in Allaah’s essence. So they said that the fi’l (action) is the maf’ul (the result of the act) and there is not in any reality a fi’l (act) established with the faa’il (doer).Note: The actions of Allaah are not like our actions, and we are establishing that there are three separate matters, the faa’il, the fi’l and the maf’ul – and Imaam al-Bukhaaree refuted this Mu’tazilee, Kullaabee (and Ash’ari) principle when he brought evidences from the Qur’an to show that Allaah distinguished between Himself, his act of creating and the actual creation itself (in his book Khalq Af’aal al-Ibaad). So Ahl al-Sunnah affirm “actions” for Allaah and that they are established with His essence, without that meaning that when Allaah performs actions, they must be like ours.

But this is how the Mutakallimin tried to deal with Allaah’s attributes (the Mu’tazilah) and actions (Kullaabiyyah Ash’ariyyah). Hence, the Ash’arites said al-istiwaa is an act that takes place in the Throne, it is not an act established with Allaah Himself.

Another approach that was taken was to say that the problematic attributes of action are in fact eternal. Hence, love, pleasure, anger are eternal attributes like life, knowledge, power and so on. And this was to avoid ascribing “events” to Allaah, so these are not tied to Allaah’s will and power any more. This was the approach of Ibn Kullab.

Another approach was to make some of those attributes of action synonymous with an eternal attribute like wish (iraadah). So the Ash’arites said Allaah’s Pleasure and anger are simply Allaah’s intent to reward and punish respectively. This was the approach of al-Baqillani.

All of this was to avoid sequential activity, to deny that Allaah has actions tied to His will and power, because that would mean that these actions are hawaadith (events) and this would clash with the proof of huduth al-ajsaam (arguing that the bodies of the universe are originated because they have events, contingencies). The motive for the Mutakallimin in this was that they did not consider it possible for their proof of huduth al-ajsaam to be falsifiable, they considered it to be the absolute truth, and thus they took these approaches towards the revealed texts and opposed the Book, the Sunnah and the consensus of the Salaf.However in the revealed texts, Allaah states that He made istiwaa after creating the heavens and earth, and that He created the Throne before He created the Preserved Tablet, and that He created the heavens and earth fifty-thousand years after writing down all the decrees, and that He ordered the Angels to prostrate after creating Adam, and that He will arrive and come on the Day of Judgement and that His speech to Moses is other than His speech to Muhammad which are other than His speech on the Day of Judgement to the Believers, or to the inhabitants of Hellfire and so on.

And none of this means He is originated, since whether or not a thing is originated or not is based upon whether it was preceded by non-existence. Not upon whether attributes or actions are established with it. But this was the false premise upon which the Jahmiyyah, Mu’tazilah, Ash’ariyyah based their proof for the origination of bodies [they took this from the Sabeans, they are covered in the next article] and so they had to remain true to its lawaazim (binding necessities) which the Jahmiyyah did (reject everything), and the Mu’tazilah did (reject everything but affirm names only on the surface), but the Ash’arites took the path of contradiction affirming some attributes and denying others, and then inventing ludicrous principles when unable to counter-argue through pure reason, in order to justify that stance such as al-‘arad laa yabqaa zamaanayn, the gist of which is that Allaah’s attributes are eternal, never perishing, but as for the attributes in all created things, they are constantly perishing and being recreated at every indivisible instant of time. Thus, if we say that the smallest indivisible unit of time is one thousand trillionths of a second, then according to the Ash’arites, the color of your keyboard, the hotness of your tea, and the attributes of everything in the universe have perished one thousand trillion times and have been recreated one thousand trillion times in just one second. And this was to argue against the Mu’tazilah as to why they (the Ash’arites) affirm attributes for Allaah, when they are nothing but a’raad (incidental attributes) according to the Mu’tazilah.

Returning to the issue, a man is originated not because he is hearing, seeing, speaking (i.e. because he has attributes) or that he has actions which he performs which are different to each other (i.e. because he has actions), but rather, because he was preceded by non-existence. Thus everything that emanates from him or is found in him, of attributes and actions, takes that same ruling. As for Allaah, then He possesses attributes and performs actions, and His actions are not all performed pre-eternally, as some of the Mutakallimin claim (the Maturidiyyah), for this would necessitate upon them to speak with the eternity of the universe or something from it.This is because there are certain actions Allaah has spoken of which cannot have taken place except with the existence of His creation, and we can give two prominent examples, first the saying of Allaah:

 لَقَدْ سَمِعَ اللّهُ قَوْلَ الَّذِينَ قَالُواْ إِنَّ اللّهَ فَقِيرٌ وَنَحْنُ أَغْنِيَاء 

Allaah has indeed heard the saying of those who said, “Indeed Allaah is poor and we are rich”! (Aali Imraan 3:181)

And also the following verse:

 قَدْ سَمِعَ اللَّهُ قَوْلَ الَّتِي تُجَادِلُكَ فِي زَوْجِهَا وَتَشْتَكِي إِلَى اللَّهِ وَاللَّهُ يَسْمَعُ تَحَاوُرَكُمَا إِنَّ اللَّهَ سَمِيعٌ بَصِيرٌ 

Indeed Allaah has heard the statement of she (Khawlah bint Tha’labah) that disputes with you (O Muhammad) concerning her husband (Aus bin As-Saamit), and complains to Allaah. And Allaah hears the argument between you both. Verily, Allaah is All-Hearer, All-Seer. (Al-Mujadilah 58:1)

From these verses Allaah has affirmed, in the past tense, and with the particles “qad” (denoting completion of an act) and “laqad” (denoting completion of an act with emphasis) – that He heard (sami’a) the saying of she who disputes and of the saying of the Jews, and also affirmed in the present tense that He hears (yasma’u) the discussion (of she who disputes).

Thus if one tries to affirm all the actions Allah has affirmed for Himself as being pre-eternal actions, then they must require the creation, which means the creation had to exist eternally with Him. The entire Qur’an is filled with examples of such a nature, and it is not possible to sustain such a position (that all Allah’s actions are a single action in pre-eternity) as it necessitates a broad rejection of much of the speech of Allaah and His Messenger.

Sidepoint: As for the saying of the Maturidiyyah who claim to affirm actions for Allaah and that “Allaah’s actions are not created” then what they mean by this is that all of Allaah’s actions are lumped together into one attribute called takwin (formulation, creation) which is eternal. This was just a rational attempt to try and reconcile between the proof of huduth al-ajsaam and the affirmation of actions for Allaah and in holding this view, they simply took the same approach as the Mu’tazilah did with the attributes (all are synonymous with the essence) or as the Kullaabiyyah Ash’ariyyah did with the actions [like istiwaa, pleasure, anger, love] (all or actions that take place in the creation, or are synonymous with iraadah, or are eternal like life, power, knowledge]. So the Maturidis simply said Allaah does have actions, but they are all a single action called takwin, and it is one eternal attribute of His essence. The aim of all of them was to find ways to remain consistent with this proof of huduth al-ajsaam.

Hence, the Throne was created before the Preserved Tablet. And the heavens and the earth were created after the Preserved Tablet, and Allaah made istiwaa over the Throne after creating the heavens and the earth. And all of these are actions established with Allaah’s essence, and Imaam al-Bukhaaree refuted the principle of Ibn Kullaab in his Kitab al-Tawhid in the Sahih by proving from the Qur’an, that there is fi’l (act), faa’il (the doer of the act) and maf’ul (that which results from the act) as a refutation of those who denied Allaah has actions established with His essence. And in reality, it is not possible resolve the whole argument of the eternity or origination of the universe [between the Philosophers and the Mutakallimin – which arose because the Mutakallimin denied Allaah’s chosen actions upon the proof of huduth al-ajsaam] except by affirming Allaah has actions tied to His will and power and this is what is plain and manifest in the Book, the Sunnah and the irrefutable consensus of the Salaf – unfortunately rejected by the Jahmiyyah, Mu’tazilah, Ash’ariyyah, Maturidiyyah – all for the sake of what fundamentally originates from the ‘aql of a pagan disbeliever, worshipper of the stars and idols who corrupted the deen of the Sabeans, Jews and Christians, let alone the deen of the Mutakallimin.

Shaykh Augustine of Hippo, the Christian Jahmee, Mu’tazilee on Tarkib (Composition), the Attributes and the Essence

Later in the paper we see:

In this passage we see the issue of tarkib (composition) used by the Philosophers and Mu’tazilah to deny Allaah has attributes which are additional to His essence. When the later Ash’arites, particularly al-Razi (d. 606H) saw the flaw in the proof of huduth al-ajsaam and its underlying premises, he incorporated this proof in order to argue against Ahl al-Sunnah on the issue of al-‘uluww and al-istiwaa.

Also we see in this passage the approach of the Mu’tazilah in trying to deal with the attributes and multiplicity in Allaah’s essence. They had one of two approaches, the first is to claim the attributes are synonymous with Allaah’s essence, as in they are Allaah’s essence (and that is what Shaykh Augustine is saying above). The second is to say that His attributes are whatever is external to His essence. Thus, His mercy is only the manifestation of mercy in creation, not that He has mercy as an attribute, and likewise with the other attributes. So they used a combination of these two approaches to deny Allaah’s attributes as attributes of the essence. We see in the above the Shaykh Augustine is taking first approach that all of Allaah’s attributes are His essence.The KullaabiyyahAsh’ariyyah borrowed both of these approaches from the Mu’tazilah in relation to Allaah’s chosen actions. Thus, Allaah’s Kalaam which is the Qur’an is something separate, created, and did not originate with Allaah as speech (qawl). Then they innovated the doctrine of Kalaam Nafsee as their way of affirming Kalaam in such a way so as to counter the arguments of the Mu’tazilah. Baatil (Allaah only has the innovated attribute of Kalaam nafsee) to defend baatil (Allaah does not speak according to His will and power). Likewise, we see this approach in their saying that Allaah’s istiwaa is actually an act that takes place in the Throne, not that it is an action of Allaah. And likewise when they made the attributes of pleasure, anger, love to be synonymous with Allaah’s wish (iraadah). So the methodology used by the Mu’tazilah in relation to the attributes, was borrowed by the Ash’ariyyah in relation to the actions.

Closing Notes

We can now make some closing notes regarding this specific paper which has spanned three parts (see the first and second):

ONE: The conceptual tools of Aristotle in particular, such as his theories of predication and his ten categories (al-jawhar wal-‘arad, al-ajsaam wal-a’araad, al-maqulat al-ashar) had already affected the theology of nations prior to Islam, such as the Sabeans, Jews and Christians. We see language and approaches used by the likes of Philo Judaeus (d. 50CE) and Augustine (d. 430CE) which are identical to the language of the Mutakallimin and their particular methodological approaches. Except that the Mutakallimin never set out to use Aristotle’s conceptual tools as may have Philo and Augustine. Rather, they were forced into thinking and speaking about Allaah in that manner because they adopted the proof of huduth al-ajsaam (origination of bodies) to prove the universe is originated. This proof was devised by the Sabeans of Harran, as remnants of them still believed in the universe being created. This came to al-Ja’d bin Dirham with his interactions with them and likewise his interactions with Jews from whom he took the saying that the Qur’an is created and that Allah is not above the Throne

. As we have indicated, the Jews were already upon that theology of negating a’raad and hawaadith (in other words, they already had “tajahhum” and “i’tizaal” with them) – that’s the reason why they said the Torah is created – and this is what al-Ja’d bin Dirham brought into the Ummah, and al-Jahm bin Safwan

 took it from him and popularized it.

TWO: What entered into the ummah is nothing but the used and broken toys (originally made in Greece) that the Jews and Christians had been playing with aforetime, between 500 to 900 years earlier (in the case of Philo and Augustine), but these Mutakallimin (of this ummah) thought that these toys were the best thing since the horse-wheel-cart, and thought they could aid the religion with them, not knowing that the Jews and Christians had already preceded them in getting their hands on these toys. And how appropriate is the saying of Allaah’s Messenger (alayhis salaam) at this point, “You shall certainly follow the ways of those who came before you...”

THREE: The Mu’tazilah came, incorporated the notion of the indivisible particle (Atomism) into it to refine and simplify the proof, and upon all of this they unleased the tribulation of the Arabic Qur’an being created. It was upon the ‘aql of a pagan disbeliever, worshipper of stars and idols, and “Jahmites” amongst the Jews (Philo and others, then later, Abaan, Talut, Labeed) [and Christians], that these Mutakallimin unleashed this calamity upon the Ummah until Imaam Ahmad stood in the face of these heretics and subdued them, having to endure the afflictions through four different leaders, over many long years.

FOUR: When the people abandoned the Mu’tazilah and they lost respect in the hearts of the people and the rulers no longer supported them, along came Ibn Kullaab and his faction. He debated with the Jahmiyyah and Mu’tazilah, aided something of the truth, but they confused him on the issue of the sifat fi’liyyah, in particular as it relates to the issue of the Qur’an. So he was forced to agree with something of their usool and had to negate all of Allaah’s chosen actions, those tied to His will and power. However, Ibn Kullaab did not believe this proof of huduth al-ajsaam to be the ultimate truth, nor that it was obligatory, and this is why he was close in most of his views with Ahl al-Sunnah. The only distinguishing feature was his denial of Allaah’s chosen actions. Then when al-Ash’ari left the Mu’tazilah, he took the way of Ibn Kullab and although as a Mu’tazili he believed huduth al-ajsaam to be the foundation for the entire religion, in his post-Mu’tazili days he considered it an innovation. Unfortunately, when al-Baqillani (d. 403H) came, and he is the person who really formalized the Ash’ari madhhab, he opposed al-Ash’ari and laid down this proof for the Ash’arites, taking it wholesale from the Mu’tazilah. These were two very unfortunate incidents in history, Ibn Kullaab getting confused by the usool of the Jahmiyyah, after debating them with pure reason, and al-Baqillani opposing al-Ash’ari in the issue of this proof, which unfortunately, laid down the path for the Later Ash’aris to be forced to recede into the doctrines of the Jahmiyyah and Mu’tazilah (by having to remain consistent with all of its lawaazim, binding necessities), even if al-Baqillani himself was closer to al-Ash’ari and had much better views on al-uluww and the sifat khabariyyah. However, whatever Allaah decrees and whatever He wills He does. The above also explains the amazing perspicacity of Imaam Ahmad (rahimahullaah) in his severe rejection against the likes of Ibn Kullaab, al-Karaabeesee, and al-Muhaasibee. He knew that the door they opened is simply a small crevice, a crack, that would eventually lead, over time, to the people being drawn back into that kufr which is the saying that the Qur’an is created, and how insightful he was indeed – see the Ash’arite Scholars themselves admit this is what they believe (here, here, here, here and here) in agreement with the Mu’tazilah. It is for this reason he is the greatest of the Imaams of the Sunnah without dispute, and it is for this reason that today’s Ash’arites make veiled attacks upon him through a variety of deceptive approaches which are too long to mention here.

FIVE: We see how the Ash’arites inherited [through the Jahmiyyah and Mu’tazilah] the ‘aql, the conceptual tools, in their theology, of a pagan disbeliever, worshipper of stars, despite being opponents to his followers like al-Farabi and Ibn Sina who were following the beliefs of Aristotle of the eternity of the universe, rejection of resurrection and rejection of prophethood. However, even though they fought these zindeeqs on these subject areas, they actually concurred with them in that the true and real language for describing truthfully what Allaah is and is not, lies in this language of al-ajsaam wal-a’raad and not in what Allaah and His Messenger revealed, which was only for the dumb commoners, so as to not to make them flee from faith. This viewpoint is explicit in both al-Ghazali and al-Razi (see here and here) and they simply followed Ibn Sina in that (see here), having got diseased by his books al-Shifaa and al-Ishaaraat.Next in this series, we will address the theology of the Sabeans of Harran, and see the same theology based upon negation of attributes, which is the foundation of the speech of al-Ja’d bin Dirham, al-Jahm, the Jahmiyyah, Mu’tazilah and later the Ash’ariyyah, and is the foundation of the ilm al-kalaam, which is speech about al-ajsaam and al-a’raad.

In the first four parts of this series we look at the influence of the conceptual tools of Aristotle upon the Jews, Christians and the Mutakallimin ((see Part 4, Part 3, Part 2, Part 1). We established that there is to be found in the theology of the likes of Philo Judaeus (d. 50CE), Augustine of Hippo (d. 430H), and the likes of Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274H) that which is identical, to the letter and word, to that which is found in the language of the Jahmiyyah, Mu’tazilah, Ash’ariyyah and Maturidiyyah. In particular it is the language of al-ajsaam and al-a’raad, and issues related to predication of attributes, qualities and actions, and maintaining indivisibility and immutability (absence of change) as the desired Tawhid, and then purifying Allaah (making tanzih) of everything that opposes this Tawhid of al-Jawhar wal-‘Arad, even if it be what Allaah and His Messenger affirmed for Him. It might be a good idea to familiarize yourself with the introductory background information that is provided in one of those earlier articles, because with that background you will benefit much more from the contents of the articles of this series, including this one.

We also pointed out that the Mutakallimin never deliberately set out to use this language or these conceptuals tools, but that they fell prey to them because of the proof of huduth al-ajsaam which they made to be the unfalsifiable truth and something which Islam itself depends upon. Then they were forced to adhere to its lawaazim (binding necessities), which means the negation of all of Aristotle’s ten categories from Allaah, which explains their language:

He is not a jism (body), nor a jawhar (substance), nor an ‘arad (incidental attribute) nor above, or below, or in direction (jihah), or in place (makaan), or in spatial occupation (tahayyuz), nor does He act (with acts attributed to His essence), nor is He affectionate (be pleased, angered, or love), he does not have limits, nor temporal parts …. and so on.

This is called “negative theology”, describing Allaah only with negative assertions, and this was what previous nations, like the Sabeans, were upon. They were influenced in this by the philosophy of the Greeks. So we want to follow up those previous articles today by having a brief look at these Sabeans of Harraan.These materials are taken from our forthcoming book, The Creed of the Kullaabi Ash’arites, to be published in due course by Allaah’s permission (see here for excerpts).

Again we are going to make use of a third party source, a paper published on the Sabeans of Harraan.

This paper is more to do with how the Sabeans of Harraan acquired what is called “The Classical Tradition” what this refers to is the philosophy and heritage of the early civilizations like the Greeks, Zoroastrians, and prominent individuals like Ptolemy, Euclid and others, and it is not focused on the theology of the Sabeans in particular, but there is a citation in there through al-Kindi.

Here it is:

This is straightforward, and it is the foundation of al-Ja’d bin Dirham and the Jahmiyyah and Mu’tazilah in denying the attributes and the foundation of the Ash’ariyyah and Maturidiyyah in denying some of Allaah’s attributes and His actions tied to His will and power. Since the attributes in the things caused are evidence of their being originated [upon the proof of huduth al-ajsaam which was first used by these Sabeans and then taken up by all the Mutakallimin as the foundation of their creed], then Allaah cannot be described with them. And Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’ari affirms that this proof of al-ajsaam and al-a’raad originates with the Philosophers:

And that by which he (alayhis salaam) used to seek evidence through his reports is more clear and apparent in indication than the indication of [the proof] of al-aʿrāḍ which the Philosophers, those who followed them from the Qadariyyah [i.e. the Mu’tazilah], and the people of innovation who deviated from the [the way of] Messengers depended upon in deducing evidence… But those [philosophers] who affirmed the recency of the universe and an originator for it sought proof [for this] through the [evidence of] al-aʿrāḍ and al-ajsām due to their rejection of the Messengers and their rejection of the permissibility of their arrival (i.e. being sent).

Refer to Risālah ilā Ahl al-Thaghr (taḥqīq, ʿAbd Allāh al-Junaydī, Maktabah al-ʿUlūm wal-Ḥikam, 2nd edition, 2002), p. 185, 191. This book of al-Ash’ari is mentioned by Ibn Asaakir in Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari (see p. 136).

These Philosophers al-Ash’ari is speaking of are the Sabeans, since amongst them were those who believed in the universe being originated and they devised this proof. When they devised this proof, they rejected all attributes for Allaah and described Him only in negatives “He is not a body (jism), He does not have attributes (a’raad), He is not this, He is not that…” and so on, and hence the characterization of their belief by al-Kindi as:

The world has a cause who has never ceased to be, who is one, not manifold, who cannot be described by means of attributes which apply to the things caused.

Something similar is also mentioned by Ibn al-Nadim in al-Fihrist, he says:

And their saying that Allāh is one (wāhid), no attribute (sifah) is incumbent upon Him and no binding predicate is permitted to (be said of) Him and no syllogisms can be imposed upon Him , as occurs in [the book of Aristotle] Metaphysics…

Refer to Ibn an-Nadīm, Al-Fihrist, Section nine, part one, ‘A Description of the Chaldean Harranians Known as the Sabeans.’ Al-Fihrist was translated into English by Bayard Dodge in two volumes (London, 1969).

Also, the above statement of al-Ashʿarī regarding the origins of the proof of ḥudūth al-ajsām is to be understood in light of the fact that al-Ashʿarī abandoned the way of the Muʿtazilah and eventually considered this approach of ḥudūth al-ajsām to be an innovation and inferior to the way of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) in demonstrating his own truthfulness and the truthfulness of what he brought.However, al-Ashʿarī never considered this proof to be false in and of itself due to his shortcoming in seeing its corruption and whilst he considered it an innovation and discouraged it, he never refuted it. He simply considered it extremely long winded, too intricate, with too many differences of opinion even on its basic premises, and that the Prophets never called to this way, hence it is an innovation. But those who came after him, particularly al-Bāqillāni, opposed al-Ashʿarī and included it within his works, making it integral to the school and its treatment was pretty much taken entirely from the Muʿtazilah.

The point of evidence, however, in the above quote is that al-Ashʿarī affirms that this method of demonstrating that the universe is originated has its origins with the Philosophers themselves, and they are the Sabean Philosophers from whom al-Jaʿd and al-Jahm took their doctrines. The reference to the Qadariyyah in the above quote is a reference to the Muʿtazilah, these two terms were synonymous in that time because the Muʿtazilah championed and promulgated the innovation pertaining to al-Qadar. After the Sabean Philosophers, the Jahmiyyah and Muʿtazilah, this approach was taken up by the Ashʿariyyah, Māturidiyyah and also the Mujassimah, Mushabbihah who are the Karrāmiyyah and the Rāfiḍah like the followers of Hishām bin al-Ḥakam.As for the proof of ḥudūth al-ajsām in all of the books of the Ash’arites:

Refer to al-Ashʿarī (d. 324H) in al-Lumaʿ Fi al-Radd ʿalā Ahl al-Zaygh (this was when he had recently left the Mu’tazilah, in his later books like Risālah ilā Ahl al-Thaghar, he considered this proof an innovation), then al-Bāqillānī (d. 403H), in al-Tamhīd al-Awā’il, then ʿAbd al-Qahir al-Baghdādī (d. 429H) in Kitāb Uṣūl al-Dīn, then al-Isfarāyīnī (d. 471H) in al-Tabṣīr Fil-Dīn, then al-Juwaynī (d. 478H) in Kitāb al-Irshād and also al-Shāmil Fī Uṣūl al-Din, then al-Ghazālī (d. 505H) in al-Iqtisād Fī al-Iʿtiqād, and also Tahāfut al-Falāsifah, then al-Shahrastānī (d. 548H) in Nihāyah al-Aqdām, then al-Rāzī (d. 606H) in Muḥaṣṣal Afkār al-Mutaqaddimīn wal-Muta’akhkhirīn and also Kitāb al-Arbaʿīn Fī Uṣūl al-Dīn, then al-Ījī (d. 756H) in al-Mawāqif Fī ʿIlm al-Kalām. The proof of huduth al-ajsaam is in all their books. IT IS THE ULTIMATE FOUNDATION OF THEIR THEOLOGY. However, when its falsehood became apparent to some of the later ones amongst them, they started incorporating other proofs, the proof of tarkib (composition) and the proof of takhsis (specification) into their works – and both are taken from the Philosophers themselves – in order to cover their backs and to hide that vulnerability. Others were not smart enough to realise the flaw in huduth al-ajsaam, so they remained upon it, defending it.

And you can see some examples from the Mu’tazil, al-Qadi Abdul-Jabbar,, and also al-Baqillani (d. 403H), al-Baghdadi (d. 4299H), and al-Juwayni (d. 478H) in this article:

• Aristotelians Anonymous: 1st Workshop – Admitting Your Creed Is Built Around Aristotle’s Maqoolaat Is the First Step to Recovery – (see here)

Shaykh al-Islam bin Taymiyyah said in Minhāj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah (8/5):

There was no one from the Companions or Tābiʿīn who sought evidence for the origination of the universe through the [proof] of ḥudūth al-ajsām, or who established the origination of bodies with the evidence of aʿrāḍ (incidental attributes) and motion and rest, and that the bodies require them and are not separable from them and that whatever does not precede originated events, must itself be an event, and building this upon the issue of [the negation that] events have no beginning. The first from whom this speech appeared in Islām after the first century was from the direction of al–Jaʿd bin Dirham and al-Jahm bin Ṣafwān, then it was taken up by the associates of ʿAmr bin ʿUbayd [the Muʿtazilah] …

Closing Notes and Conclusions

We can bring this series to a close now, and much has already been said, we can just re-iterate the facts.

The conceptual tools of Aristotle corrupted many a nation aforetime, from the Sabeans, Jews and Christians, and they used these tools in their theology. The Mutakallimin in Islam also spoke with the same language of those earlier ones in describing their Lord, but they did not initially set out to do so. Rather, they were forced to do so when they adopted the proof of huduth al-ajsaam which came into the Ummah through al-Ja’d bin Dirham, al-Jahm bin Safwan

 and the Jahmiyyah and Mu’tazilah. It was later taken up by the Ash’arites and the Maturidiyyah. Then they were forced to abide by all of its lawaazim (binding necessities) which is to reject all names, attributes and actions for Allaah. However, they then differed on these lawaazim and exactly what can and cannot be affirmed or denied for Allaah whilst remaining consistent with this proof. This is the real nature of the difference between the Jahmiyyah, Mu’tazilah, Ash’ariyyah and Maturidiyyah. Further, they are united with the Philosophers (like Ibn Sinah, al-Farabi and others) that the real truth lies in what is proven by reason (aql) and not what is in the revealed texts (which is nothing but tajsim and tashbih) and what the Mutakallimin actually mean here is the proof of huduth al-ajsaam. Whenever they say, “reason proves this” or “reason denies that”, what they really mean is that the proof of huduth al-ajsaam confirms or denies this. So they made this the foundation of their speech concerning their Lord. But whilst they were forced to agree with the type of the language of the Philosophers and Sabeans in describing their Lord, they differed with them and fought them on the matters of the origination or eternity of the universe, revelation and prophethood.

Unfortunately, they used corrupt, flawed, defective tools (the ilm al-kalaam, that of al-ajsaam and al-a’raad which the Salaf condemned) and as a result they did more harm than good. This is because the proof of huduth al-ajsaam is itself corrupt and flawed and can be used to prove the universe is eternal. For this reason the later Ash’arites, the shrewd ones amongst them, when they cottoned on to this, started to diversify in order to cover their backs, and once again all they did was to borrow the proofs of the Philosophers, the proof of tarkib (composition) and the proof of takhsis (specification). Both of these were laid down by Ibn Sina (d. 429H) who is supposed to be the arch-enemy of the Mutakallimin, and he was indeed a shrewd and nasty zindeeq, far smarter than the Ash’arites, he gamed them good and proper, as we will outline in a separate article inshaa’Allaah, but we see here, how the Ash’arites just went deeper and deeper into the abyss. Eventually Kalaam was simply hybridized with Falsafah.

Today what we have are deluded, intellectually-bankrupt, mightily confused, pseudo-intellectuals, posing as “Ash’aris” and this would include the learned amongst them who conceal the truth from their followers, people like Hamza Yusuf, Nuh Keller and their likes. When this is the condition of these people, what then do you expect of the average Ash’arite?So we make du’a for the average Ash’arite, who ascribes to al-Ash’ari with good intention, who is sincere, and is wishing to arrive at the truth, we ask Allaah to guide them, to cleanse them from this impurity of Kalaam [the specific Kalaam condemned by the Salaf upon which the theology of the Jahmiyyah, Mu’tazilah, Ash’ariyyah and Maturidiyyah is based upon entirely], it is a disease, a virus, and it’s extremely hard to let go of that baatil once it catches you. So we ask Allaah to guide them to the truth. Ameen. As for the shayaateen amongst them, and there are indeed wicked shayaateen amongst them who are not sincere at all, rather they are pleased with baatil and even if all the proofs and evidences were sitting on their noses, their bigotry, envy, hatred and other diseases of the heart would prevent them from accepting the truth themselvess, and likewise prevent them from directing those whom they have sway over to the truth. So Allah is watchful over them and we ask Allaah to guide them or break their backs. Ameen.

Finally, all praise is due to Allah who grants succes in following the revealed Books and sent Messengers in affirming for Him what He and His Messengers affirmed for Him without takyif and tamthil and tahrif and ta’til, and all praise is due to Allaah who saves from following the Greek and Sabean star and idol worshipping pagan disbelievers, their conceptual tools of al-ajsaam and al-a’raad, their language in theism and their “negative theology” all of which does not fulfil the objective and does nothing but destroy the mind, and as the Salaf said, whoever entered into Kalaam, never prospered and lost his reason (aql).