Sign In
Register
Help
some of you may have been following http://muslimmatters...roups-of-kalam/ where Yasir Qadhi has been as per usual attacking the ash'aris. There were some useful replies there from sidi Abu Adam.
This is an old post of Yasir's with some comments to follow from shaykh Gibril and others:
Yasir Qadhi said:
Salaam Alaikum
The relationship between the schools of legal thought and the schools of theology is a very lengthy topic, and one that is worthy of more attention. I honestly think it would be a great dissertation topic!
Briefly though, one needs to realize that the four great Imam all lived in different time periods. Hence, their fiqh was dependant on their contextual setting and amount and type of knowledge accessible to them (as you all have studied in the Code Evolved insha Allah). Also, their statements pertaining to aqeedah were likewise influenced.
Now, enough quotes exist from the four Imams that proves that they all held the same creed in Asma wa al-Sifaat (in fact, in all issues of theology, except for a finer detail of Iman where one of them held a different opinion). However, the quantity of these quotes varies greatly. The earlier Imams (i.e., Abu Hanifa, Malik and Shafi'ee) were not surrounded by Mu`tazilah nor was there any major threat from them. However, Imam Ahmed witnessed the peak of their power, and was put in the limelight. Hence, the sheer quantity of quotes narrated from him cannot be compared to the other three.
This, of course, influenced the followers of these four Imams accordingly. Many of the Mu`tazilah were actually Hanafi in their fiqh, one of the reasons being that there were not too many quotes from Imam Abu Hanifa that could be used against them. Also, it is narrated that some of the earliest people who were influenced by Jahm were some of the students of Abu Hanifa (none of them famous - Imam Ahmad mentions this in his al-Radd Ala al-Jahmiyyah). However, all of the famous students of these Imams, and their students after them, were upon the pure Sunni creed, and spoke against kalaam and its influence. The muttawatir narrations from these Imams and their students against kalaam is not denied by anyone - as we quoted in class even al-Ghazali in his Ihya is forced to acknowledge this, that there is ijmaa amongst the early generations regarding the prohibited nature of kalaam. Hence, the earliest Shafi'ees and Malikis were all upon the pure Sunni creed (also called at that time the Ahl al-Hadith). A simple perusal of the tabaqat works of the madhabs will clearly show this (such as Tabaqat al-Shafi'eeya al-Kubra of al-Subki - the first volumes are full of people known for their pure Sunni theology). Of them is the main student of al-Shafi'ee, al-Muzani (d. 264 A.H.), who has a printed work on theology upon Sunni doctrines. Another is Ahmad b. Umar b. Surayj (d. 306 A.H.), who was called 'the second Shafi'ee' because of his importance in the madhab. He has numerous statements refuting kalaam doctrines, so much so that a later Shafi'ee who was upon the theology of kalaam (al-Isafari`ini, of the sixth century) said, 'We'll take his opinions in fiqh but not in theology.' Also the famous al-Khatib al-Baghdadi (d. 463 A.H.) has numerous quotes which show his theology, as well as much criticism of kalam. Many of the standard source works of theology were written by Shafi'ees, including those of al-Darimi, Ibn Khuzaymah (d. 311) and al-Lalakai (d. 418). Thus almost all early adherents to the madhab were upon pure Sunni doctrines (although a few were not)
This is even more pronounced in the Maliki madhab. One of the most famous works of Maliki fiqh is the one by Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani, the introduction to this Maliki fiqh manual contains his creed, which is the same as the creed that I taught you all in class.
One of my close friends was attending a lecture by perhaps the most famous representative of kalaam theology in America. This person mentioned that the doctrines of 'modern Wahhabis' (sic) were first formulated by Ibn Taymiyyah. In the course of his lecture he also recommended Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani's work as a primary source of Maliki law. So after the lecture, my friend managed to get through his body-guards and asked him, "You recommended the work of Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani - surely you must be familiar with his Muqaddimah which is exactly the same theology that Ibn Taymiyyah preached, and also modern adherents to pure Sunni creed." He replied, "Well, Ibn Abi Zayd wrote this work when he was very young, and he recanted from this theology later on in his life." To which my friend said, "I don't even want to ask you where this supposed recantation is or which other book of theology he wrote which shows he changed his views (I add: there is nothing of the sort), the very fact that Ibn Abi Zayd had such a theology in 350 A.H. clearly shows that this theology which you have ascribed to Ibn Taymiyyah existed centuries before him!" To which this person could not give any response.
Likewise the famous Maliki scholar Ibn Abd al-Barr (d. 436) has clear refutations of the theology of kalaam and affirmed all the Attributes and rejected ta`weel. In fact the Murabitun who ruled over the entire region of al-Maghreb in the 4th century of the hijrah were clearly upon the pure Sunni theology, so much so that the 'infamous' burning of the Ihya of al-Ghazali occurred because of them and in their time. It was only later, at the advent of the 'Muwahhidun' and Ibn Tumart, where kalaam ideology was forced upon the region (brutally - read the books of history to see the plunder and killing that occurred against Sunnis who were accused of being 'anthropomorphists', and realize that this is centuries before Ibn Taymiyyah still!). This was a turning point for the adherents of the Maliki school in terms of theology.
Similarly, kalaam beliefs spread amongst other schools as well, and various governments patronized a specific madhab and theology, which usually led to the spread of that school of thought and aqeedah. (As a side point, those who are always critical of the influence of 'petro-dollars' on the spread of a certain creed seem to ignore than this was the case throughout the centuries of Islam -well, perhaps not 'petro-dollars' per se but monetary incentives, the building of madrassahs, and the popularization of certain positions and scholars, all were primary factors in the spread of other creeds and even fiqh madhabs). There were some specific dynasties and universities that sponsored Ash`arite theology in particular, and these factors were a primary reason for the 'infiltration' of this theology into the Shafi'ee school.
Of course, with regards to Hanbalis, because of the sheer quantity of quotes from Imam Ahmad, it was well-nigh impossible for any person to ascribe himself to Ahmad and still be upon the beliefs of kalaam. There were a few exceptions, the most notable of them being Ibn al-Jawzi and his mentor Ibn Aqil. But by and large, throughout the centuries Hanablis have traditionally been affirming all Attributes and refuting the people of kalaam. Many are the 'skirmishes' that have occurred between them and others. As the other schools were gradually influenced by kalam, this led to the somewhat incorrect misnomer of ascribing pure Sunni theology to the Hanbali madhab, i.e., 'Hanbalite theology'. Ibn Taymiyyah, after he wrote his Wasitiyyah, was told by the court that tried him that if he were to claim that this creed represented the Hanbali school, and not all of Sunni Islam, he would be let off and no 'charges' would be filed. At this he raised his voice, and shouted out in his deep voice to the entire audience, 'This is not just the creed of Imam Ahmad, or of anyone greater or lesser than him, rather this is the theology of the Quran and Sunnah, and what the pious predecessors have unanimously agreed upon…'
In any case, to summarize: all of the four Imams (in fact all of the pious predecessors) were upon the pure theology of Sunni Islam. Various historical factors, particularly in the 5th century of the hijra and onwards, contributed to the gradual acceptance of kalaam creed amongst some of the schools of fiqh, and this in turn helped to spread these beliefs amongst the masses, until in our times many assume that kalaam theology is in fact pure Sunni theology. This gradual infiltration can easily be historically documented, and of the easiest ways to do so is to list the creeds of the earliest scholars of all legal schools, and then see how these creeds evolved over time. Another indication is to look at the books written over the centuries (see the partial list I gave you in your notebook). However, out of all the legal schools, generally the Hanbali school proved impenetrable, primarily because Imam Ahmad was the last of the four, and had the most explicit quotes about theology in general and Asma wa al-Sifat in particular, hence it was almost impossible to ascribe to him in legal theory while following kalaam theology.
And Allah knows best…
The relationship between the schools of legal thought and the schools of theology is a very lengthy topic, and one that is worthy of more attention. I honestly think it would be a great dissertation topic!
Briefly though, one needs to realize that the four great Imam all lived in different time periods. Hence, their fiqh was dependant on their contextual setting and amount and type of knowledge accessible to them (as you all have studied in the Code Evolved insha Allah). Also, their statements pertaining to aqeedah were likewise influenced.
Now, enough quotes exist from the four Imams that proves that they all held the same creed in Asma wa al-Sifaat (in fact, in all issues of theology, except for a finer detail of Iman where one of them held a different opinion). However, the quantity of these quotes varies greatly. The earlier Imams (i.e., Abu Hanifa, Malik and Shafi'ee) were not surrounded by Mu`tazilah nor was there any major threat from them. However, Imam Ahmed witnessed the peak of their power, and was put in the limelight. Hence, the sheer quantity of quotes narrated from him cannot be compared to the other three.
This, of course, influenced the followers of these four Imams accordingly. Many of the Mu`tazilah were actually Hanafi in their fiqh, one of the reasons being that there were not too many quotes from Imam Abu Hanifa that could be used against them. Also, it is narrated that some of the earliest people who were influenced by Jahm were some of the students of Abu Hanifa (none of them famous - Imam Ahmad mentions this in his al-Radd Ala al-Jahmiyyah). However, all of the famous students of these Imams, and their students after them, were upon the pure Sunni creed, and spoke against kalaam and its influence. The muttawatir narrations from these Imams and their students against kalaam is not denied by anyone - as we quoted in class even al-Ghazali in his Ihya is forced to acknowledge this, that there is ijmaa amongst the early generations regarding the prohibited nature of kalaam. Hence, the earliest Shafi'ees and Malikis were all upon the pure Sunni creed (also called at that time the Ahl al-Hadith). A simple perusal of the tabaqat works of the madhabs will clearly show this (such as Tabaqat al-Shafi'eeya al-Kubra of al-Subki - the first volumes are full of people known for their pure Sunni theology). Of them is the main student of al-Shafi'ee, al-Muzani (d. 264 A.H.), who has a printed work on theology upon Sunni doctrines. Another is Ahmad b. Umar b. Surayj (d. 306 A.H.), who was called 'the second Shafi'ee' because of his importance in the madhab. He has numerous statements refuting kalaam doctrines, so much so that a later Shafi'ee who was upon the theology of kalaam (al-Isafari`ini, of the sixth century) said, 'We'll take his opinions in fiqh but not in theology.' Also the famous al-Khatib al-Baghdadi (d. 463 A.H.) has numerous quotes which show his theology, as well as much criticism of kalam. Many of the standard source works of theology were written by Shafi'ees, including those of al-Darimi, Ibn Khuzaymah (d. 311) and al-Lalakai (d. 418). Thus almost all early adherents to the madhab were upon pure Sunni doctrines (although a few were not)
This is even more pronounced in the Maliki madhab. One of the most famous works of Maliki fiqh is the one by Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani, the introduction to this Maliki fiqh manual contains his creed, which is the same as the creed that I taught you all in class.
One of my close friends was attending a lecture by perhaps the most famous representative of kalaam theology in America. This person mentioned that the doctrines of 'modern Wahhabis' (sic) were first formulated by Ibn Taymiyyah. In the course of his lecture he also recommended Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani's work as a primary source of Maliki law. So after the lecture, my friend managed to get through his body-guards and asked him, "You recommended the work of Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani - surely you must be familiar with his Muqaddimah which is exactly the same theology that Ibn Taymiyyah preached, and also modern adherents to pure Sunni creed." He replied, "Well, Ibn Abi Zayd wrote this work when he was very young, and he recanted from this theology later on in his life." To which my friend said, "I don't even want to ask you where this supposed recantation is or which other book of theology he wrote which shows he changed his views (I add: there is nothing of the sort), the very fact that Ibn Abi Zayd had such a theology in 350 A.H. clearly shows that this theology which you have ascribed to Ibn Taymiyyah existed centuries before him!" To which this person could not give any response.
Likewise the famous Maliki scholar Ibn Abd al-Barr (d. 436) has clear refutations of the theology of kalaam and affirmed all the Attributes and rejected ta`weel. In fact the Murabitun who ruled over the entire region of al-Maghreb in the 4th century of the hijrah were clearly upon the pure Sunni theology, so much so that the 'infamous' burning of the Ihya of al-Ghazali occurred because of them and in their time. It was only later, at the advent of the 'Muwahhidun' and Ibn Tumart, where kalaam ideology was forced upon the region (brutally - read the books of history to see the plunder and killing that occurred against Sunnis who were accused of being 'anthropomorphists', and realize that this is centuries before Ibn Taymiyyah still!). This was a turning point for the adherents of the Maliki school in terms of theology.
Similarly, kalaam beliefs spread amongst other schools as well, and various governments patronized a specific madhab and theology, which usually led to the spread of that school of thought and aqeedah. (As a side point, those who are always critical of the influence of 'petro-dollars' on the spread of a certain creed seem to ignore than this was the case throughout the centuries of Islam -well, perhaps not 'petro-dollars' per se but monetary incentives, the building of madrassahs, and the popularization of certain positions and scholars, all were primary factors in the spread of other creeds and even fiqh madhabs). There were some specific dynasties and universities that sponsored Ash`arite theology in particular, and these factors were a primary reason for the 'infiltration' of this theology into the Shafi'ee school.
Of course, with regards to Hanbalis, because of the sheer quantity of quotes from Imam Ahmad, it was well-nigh impossible for any person to ascribe himself to Ahmad and still be upon the beliefs of kalaam. There were a few exceptions, the most notable of them being Ibn al-Jawzi and his mentor Ibn Aqil. But by and large, throughout the centuries Hanablis have traditionally been affirming all Attributes and refuting the people of kalaam. Many are the 'skirmishes' that have occurred between them and others. As the other schools were gradually influenced by kalam, this led to the somewhat incorrect misnomer of ascribing pure Sunni theology to the Hanbali madhab, i.e., 'Hanbalite theology'. Ibn Taymiyyah, after he wrote his Wasitiyyah, was told by the court that tried him that if he were to claim that this creed represented the Hanbali school, and not all of Sunni Islam, he would be let off and no 'charges' would be filed. At this he raised his voice, and shouted out in his deep voice to the entire audience, 'This is not just the creed of Imam Ahmad, or of anyone greater or lesser than him, rather this is the theology of the Quran and Sunnah, and what the pious predecessors have unanimously agreed upon…'
In any case, to summarize: all of the four Imams (in fact all of the pious predecessors) were upon the pure theology of Sunni Islam. Various historical factors, particularly in the 5th century of the hijra and onwards, contributed to the gradual acceptance of kalaam creed amongst some of the schools of fiqh, and this in turn helped to spread these beliefs amongst the masses, until in our times many assume that kalaam theology is in fact pure Sunni theology. This gradual infiltration can easily be historically documented, and of the easiest ways to do so is to list the creeds of the earliest scholars of all legal schools, and then see how these creeds evolved over time. Another indication is to look at the books written over the centuries (see the partial list I gave you in your notebook). However, out of all the legal schools, generally the Hanbali school proved impenetrable, primarily because Imam Ahmad was the last of the four, and had the most explicit quotes about theology in general and Asma wa al-Sifat in particular, hence it was almost impossible to ascribe to him in legal theory while following kalaam theology.
And Allah knows best…
> (none of them famous - Imam Ahmad mentions this in his *al-Radd Ala
> al-Jahmiyyah*).
This "Radd" is a spurious book which Imam Ahmad never authored. This
is stated explicitly by Imam al-Dhahabi in Siyar A`lam al-Nubala' (9:
503) who squarely disagrees with his teacher Ahmad ibn Taymiyya on
this point among several others.
However, all of the famous students of these Imams, and
> their students after them, were upon the pure Sunni creed, and spoke
against
> *kalaam* and its influence. The *muttawatir* narrations from these
Imams and
> their students against *kalaam* is not denied by anyone - as we
quoted in
> class even al-Ghazali in his *Ihya* is forced to acknowledge this,
that
> there is *ijmaa* amongst the early generations regarding the
prohibited
> nature of *kalaam*.
This is tamweeh and perversion of the words of the Imams and Hujjat
al-Islam, whose wording and intent is that the *non-sunni* kalam is
condemned, not the kalam of the defenders of truth. We cited many
fatwas of the early Ash`aris as well as others such as Imam al-Shatibi
to that effect in our chapter on Imam Ahmad in The Four Imams.
Hence, the earliest Shafi'ees and Malikis were all upon
> the pure Sunni creed (also called at that time the *Ahl al-Hadith*).
A
> simple perusal of the *tabaqat* works of the madhabs will clearly
show this
> (such as *Tabaqat al-Shafi'eeya al-Kubra *of al-Subki - the first
volumes
> are full of people known for their pure Sunni theology).
Shaykh al-Islam, al-Taj Ibn al-Subki's Tabaqat al-Shafi`iyyat al-Kubra
is, from beginning to end, a principal reference-book of Sunni Kalam.
If he were to hear this gobbledigook he would rank it among Akadheeb
al-Hashwiyya. Anyone familiar with his works will understand who and
what is meant.
Of them is the main
> student of al-Shafi'ee, al-Muzani (d. 264 A.H.), who has a printed
work on
> theology upon Sunni doctrines.
No such work on theology was authored by al-Muzani, who was
notoriously weak in theology and was ordered by his teacher Imam al-
Shafi`i not to approach it. Al-Muzani only wrote books in Fiqh, such
as those listed by al-Dhahabi in his Siyar:
- al-Mukhtasar
- al-Jami` al-Kabir
- al-Jami` al-Saghir
- al-Manthur
- al-Masa'il al-Mu`tabara
- al-Targhib fil-`Ilm
- al-Watha'iq
As for the book printed in 1995 in Madina by Maktabat al-Ghuraba' al-
Athariyyah under the title Sharh al-Sunna and attributed to al-Muzani,
al-Dhahabi shows no knowledge of it in his Siyar and `Uluw, and even
Nasir al-Albani in Mukhtasar al-`Uluw was forced to admit that its
chain of transmission up to Imam al-Muzani contains unknowns.
Another is Ahmad b. Umar b. Surayj (d. 306
> A.H.), who was called 'the second Shafi'ee' because of his
importance in the
> *madhab*. He has numerous statements refuting *kalaam* doctrines,
Such as this one?: "I never saw a student of fiqh work in kalam and
succeed: he lost fiqh yet he will not attain true knowledge of kalam!"
This is straight from the teaching of Imam al-Shafi`i to al-Muzani and
is in fact an implicit declaration of the difficulty of kalam for most
people.
It is a testament to the superficiality of Wahhabis that they adduce
such statements as anti-kalam rhetoric. How do they explain that the
principal Fiqh student of Ibn Surayj, Ibn Khafif (who was also a
direct student of Imam al-Ash`ari) went on to become a principal
mutakallim?
so much so
> that a later Shafi'ee who was upon the theology of *kalaam* (al-
Isafari`ini,
> of the sixth century) said, 'We'll take his opinions in fiqh but not
in
> theology.'
Another two untruths. The scholar who said this was the Shafi`i Faqih
Abu Hamid al-Isfarayini (344-406) who is considered one of the
Mujaddids of the fourth century (together with Ibn al-Baqillani and
al-Su`luki).
Secondly, he never mentioned theology in the above statement; rather,
he proclaimed himself Ibn Surayj's imitator but only "in the externals
of fiqh, not the delicate matters" (al-raqa'iq). He means by that the
madhhab of Ibn Surayj in ZUHD, in which the latter authored numerous
books, and he was the peerless admonisher (wa`iz) of his time.
Also the famous al-Khatib al-Baghdadi (d. 463 A.H.) has numerous
> quotes which show his theology, as well as much criticism of
*kalam*.
Subhan Allah, all agree that al-Khatib al-Baghdadi was an Ash`ari
including al-Dhahabi. Our teacher Dr. Nur al-Din `Itr wrote in his
edition of the Rihla (p. 48):
"He [al-Khatib] upheld the *school of the Salaf as it really was, not
as some erratic people in our time understand it* to be. The latter
are in fact *arrogant wranglers who cannot tell the difference*
between the Salaf's committal of the actual knowledge of these matters
to Allah Most High, their holding His Transcendence above whatever
anthropomorphism the terms may suggest, and, on the other hand, the
anthropomorphism of the ignorant Karramiyya!"
Many
> of the standard source works of theology were written by Shafi'ees,
> including those of al-Darimi, Ibn Khuzaymah (d. 311) and al-Lalakai
(d.
> 418).
The Shafi`i Imams themselves (including al-Bayhaqi, al-Ghazali, and
al-Razi) warned against them, so how can they be "standard"??
The one standard book whose authority even the anthropomorphists are
forced to accept is Imam al-Bayhaqi's al-Asma' wal-Sifat. As for the
above, they were not in the hands of people and even the scholars
generally avoided them (but for Taymiyyans) until petro-dollars
brought them out of marginality and into the mass book market.
Along with Abu Ja`far Ibn Abi Shayba's Kitab al-`Arsh, the Kitab al-
Sunna attributed to `Abd Allah ibn Ahmad, and Abu Ya`la's Ibtal al-
Ta'wilat, among the notable early troves of anthropomorphist
forgeries are `Uthman ibn Sa`id al-Darimi's books against Bishr al-
Marrisi, Ibn Khuzayma's Tawhid, al-Barbahari's Sharh al-Sunna, and al-
Harawi al-Ansari's doctrinal books.
Along with Ibn al-Qayyim's Ijtima` al-Juyush al-Islamiyya and Ibn
Taymiyya's Sharh Hadith al-Nuzul, among the notable later troves are
Ibn Qudama's `Uluw, al-Dhahabi's `Uluw and `Arsh, and Ibn Taymiyya's
Fatwa Hamawiyya.
All of these books are promoted in heretical circles today although
the Sunni Imams warned against them and/or their authors, such as:
- al-Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn al-Salah, and Ibn `Abd al-Salam concerning
the innovators among the Hanbalis;
- al-Bayhaqi, Ibn al-Jawzi, and al-Razi concerning Ibn Khuzayma's
book;
- Abu Muhammad al-Tamimi, Ibn al-`Arabi al-Maliki, and Ibn al-Jawzi
concerning Abu Ya`la's book;
- Abu Ishaq al-Shirazi, Abu Bakr al-Shashi, and Ibn al-Athir
concerning al-Barbahari;
- al-Ghazali, Ibn al-Subki, Ibn Hajar, and al-Sakhawi concerning al-
Harawi al-Ansari's books;
- al-Taqi al-Subki, Ibn Jahbal, al-Taqi al-Hisni, Ibn al-Zamalkani,
al-Ikhmimi, Abu Hayyan, al-Haytami, and many others concerning Ibn
Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim's books;
- and al-Kawthari concerning `Abd Allah ibn Ahmad and al-Darimi's
books.
> One of my close friends was attending a lecture by perhaps the most
famous
> representative of *kalaam* theology in America. This person
mentioned that
> the doctrines of 'modern Wahhabis' (sic) were first formulated by
Ibn
> Taymiyyah. In the course of his lecture he also recommended Ibn Abi
Zayd
> al-Qayrawani's work as a primary source of Maliki law. So after the
lecture,
> my friend managed to get through his body-guards and asked him, "You
> recommended the work of Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani - surely you must
be
> familiar with his *Muqaddimah* which is exactly the same theology
that Ibn
> Taymiyyah preached, and also modern adherents to pure Sunni creed."
He
> replied, "Well, Ibn Abi Zayd wrote this work when he was very young,
and he
> recanted from this theology later on in his life." To which my
friend said,
> "I don't even want to ask you *where* this supposed recantation is
or which
> other book of theology he wrote which shows he changed his views (I
add:
> there is nothing of the sort), the very fact that Ibn Abi Zayd *had*
such a
> theology in 350 A.H. clearly shows that this theology which you have
> ascribed to Ibn Taymiyyah *existed *centuries before him!" To which
this
> person could not give any response.
By "this theology" the above-speaking Wahhabi means Ibn Abi Zayd's
statement "bi-dhatih" in the mention of istiwa' in his Risala. Observe
how they (a) reduce all Islamic theology to this one issue and (
ignore the fact that Ibn Taymiyya's student himself declared time
after time that the phrase "bi-dhatihi" is a BID`A, whether `Uthman
ibn Sa`id al-Darimi or Ibn Abi Zayd or Ahmad ibn Taymiyya say it. Men
are known by the truth, not the truth by men.
> Likewise the famous Maliki scholar Ibn Abd al-Barr (d. 436) has
clear
> refutations of the theology of kalaam and affirmed all the
Attributes and
> rejected ta`weel.
Here the best antidote is Imam Ibn al-Jawzi's analysis in Sayd al-
Khatir (Beirut: Dar al-Arqam ed. p. 67):
<<I am truly astonished at an Andalusian man called Ibn `Abd al-Barr
who wrote a book called al-Tamhid in which he said that the hadith of
the descent to the nearest heaven "provides evidence that Allah is on
the Throne, for if He were not so, there would be no meaning to the
statement: 'He descends'." Now this is the statement of a man who is
ignorant of the knowledge that pertains to Allah Most High. He has
extrapolated from his senses whatever he knows about the descent of
material bodies and has made an analogy between it and the Deity. It
is a far cry between the like of these and the adherents of Prophetic
reports! Truly they have spoken in the worst terms ever used by those
who practice figurative interpretation (al-muta'awwilun), then they
have turned around and blamed the scholars of kalam!
<<Know, O seeker of right guidance! that reason and the transmitted
evidence have long since provided us with two solid principles. Apply
them to the totality of the Prophetic narrations. As for the
transmitted evidence, it consists in the saying of Allah Most High
{there is nothing whatsoever like unto Him} (42:11). Whoever firmly
understands this will never describe Him in patently sensory terms.>>
In fact the Murabitun who ruled over the entire region of
> al-Maghreb in the 4th century of the hijrah were clearly upon the
pure Sunni
> theology, so much so that the 'infamous' burning of the *Ihya* of
al-Ghazali
> occurred because of them and in their time.
See how they love to mention the burning of the Ihya, as if their
entire knowledge of Maliki history consists in this one hiccup in time
- and they studiously avoid mentioning the details as well.
a side
> point, those who are always critical of the influence of 'petro-
dollars' on
> the spread of a certain creed seem to ignore than this was the case
> throughout the centuries of Islam -well, perhaps not 'petro-dollars'
*per se
> *but monetary incentives, the building of *madrassahs*, and the
> popularization of certain positions and scholars, all were primary
factors
> in the spread of other creeds and even fiqh *madhabs*). There were
some
> specific dynasties and universities that sponsored Ash`arite
theology in
> particular, and these factors were a primary reason for the
'infiltration'
> of this theology into the Shafi'ee school.
Al-hamdu lillah, we all agree that Wahhabi `aqida has spread through
petro-dollars.
> i.e., 'Hanbalite theology'. Ibn Taymiyyah, after he wrote his
*Wasitiyyah*,
See my edition of the Radd of Imam Ibn Jahbal on Ibn Taymiyya for the
position of the Jumhur of Ahl al-Sunna as well as the Hanbalis
regarding him and his `Aqida.
May Allah preserve you and us from the deviances past and present
posing as true doctrine. However, we submit to the Divine Decree that
we cannot force people to be guided and we have observed that in some
cases the dall and mudill actually deserve one another. Imam al-Nawawi
mentioned in his commentary on the hadith of Nasiha on the question of
qadar, it is a foregone conclusion we can, in reality, do nothing
about: {yu'faku `anhu man ufik}. (51:9) So we present our proofs then
we leave them with their delusions. Wal-Hadi Huwa Allah.
Was-Salamu `ala man ittaba`a al-Huda.
GF Haddad
---------------------------------------
In relation to what was mentioned by Yasir Qadhi as follows I will also add a useful comment of Sidi Hatim Damra:
>
>
> It was only later, at the advent of the 'Muwahhidun' and Ibn
Tumart, where kalaam ideology was forced upon the region (brutally -
read the books of history to see the plunder and killing that
occurred against Sunnis who were accused of
being 'anthropomorphists', and realize that this is centuries before
Ibn Taymiyyah still!). This was a turning point for the adherents of
the Maliki school in terms of theology.
>
>
> End of Qoute from Yasir Qadhi
>
http://aslein.net/en...wtopic.php?t=41
".... the discipline or study of aqida/kalam was definitely present
in Maghrib before Ibn Tumart, An-Nasiri says in "Al-Istiqsa", a book
written on the history of Islam in Maghrib: "The Ash'ari madhab had
been present before the time of Ibn Tumart". By the time Al-
Murabiteen came into power, the Ashari aqida was very present in the
area, Ibn Tawit At-Tanji says in the introduction of "Tarteeb Al-
Madarik" about the heavy presence of the Ash'ari school during the
time of the early Murabiteen: "The Maghribi Ash'ari school had
complete knowledge of debate, Usool Ad-Din, and Kalam according to
the way of Abul Hasan Al-Ash'ari. The books of the Ash'aris in Kalam
were well known and studied amongst the scholars of Maghrib". So
obviously if this was the case, then Ashari Kalam had to have spread
there before the Murabiteen, if it had been this present early on
during the Murabiteen dynasty.
Also, Ibn Tumarts claim that the discipline of kalam/aqida was not
present in Maghrib at his time is not completely true, Al-Kansusi
says in regards to this claim in his book "Al-Qadi Iyad", the
following: "Ibn Tawit refuted Ibn Tumarts claim that the people of
Maghrib did not have any knowledge of the discipline of kalam". .... "
MultiQuote
