[faqir]

as-salamu `alaikum

EDIT: FOR A BIOGRAPHY OF IMAM IBN KULLAB SEE THIS POST

I recently came across this on pseudo-asharis dot com :

Ash-Shahrastani on al-Ash'ari and the Kullaabiyyah

This is from pages 105-106:



This translates as:


As for the Salaf who never resorted to ta'weel (figurative interpretation), and nor drew near to tashbeeh, then amongst them [are]: Malik bin Anas (radiyallaahu anhumaa), when he said, "Al-Istiwaa is known and the kaifiyyah is unknown, having faith in it is obligatory, and asking about it is an innovation". And [also] the likes of Ahmad bin Hanbal (rahimahullaah), Sufyan ath-Thawree and Dawud bin Aliyy al-Asfahaani, and whoever followed them.
Until the time came upon [the likes of] Abdullaah bin Sa'eed al-Kullaabi [d. 240h], Abu al-Abbaas al-Qalaanisi [contemporary of al-As'hari], and al-Haarith bin Asad al-Muhaasibee [d. 243H]. They were from the generality of the Salaf, except that they practised ilm ul-kalaam (theological, philosophical speculation), and they aided the beliefs of the Salaf with philosophical proofs, and fundamental [cognitive] evidences. Some of them authored [works] and others taught. [Until] there occurred a debate between Abu al-Hasan al-As'hari and his [Mu'tazili] teachers on an issue amongst the issues pertaining to "as-salaah wal-aslah" [an issue pertaining to whether Allaah is obligated or not to do what is best for His servants], so they disputed. And al-Ash'ari united with this faction [the Kullaabiyyah], so he supported their saying through the methodologies of speculative theological [discourse], and then that became a madhhab for Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah [meaning, the Ash'aris], and then the label of "Sifaatiyyah (Affimers of the Attributes)" transferred to the Ash'ariyyah.

This is interesting as there is no mention of a supposed second 'repentance' of Imam al-Asha'ri. This is what is, in fact, seen in the books of all the major historians - mention of his leaving the doctrine of the mu'tazila and then that is it - no new 'repentance'.

To quote Shaykhs al-Sinan and al-Anjari:

Quote

Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ash‘arī held the views of ‘Abdullāh b. Sa‘īd b. Kullāb, al-Qalānisī, and al-Muḥāsibī; and all of them were upon the path of the Salaf and the Sunna. This is found in all of the books of history that mentioned Imām Abū al-Ḥasan’s biography: Tārikh Baghdād of Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfi‘īyya of al-Subkī, Shadharāt al-Dhahab of Ibn ‘Imād, al-Kāmil of Ibn Athīr, Tabyīn Kadhib al-Muftarī of Ibn ‘Asākir, Tartīb al-Madārik of Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ, Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfi‘īyya of Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba, Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfi‘īyya of al-Isnawī, al-Dībāj of Ibn Farhūn and Mir’āt al-Jinān of al-Yāfi‘ī, and others. All of them were unanimous that Imām Abū al-Ḥasan was upon the way of the Salaf and Sunna after he repented from the doctrine of the Mu‘tazila.

Further details are in the book AHL AL-SUNNA: THE ASH‘ARĪS - THE TESTIMONY OF THE SCHOLARS AND THEIR PROOFS which is going to be a sunni publications release soon insha'Allah. A nice account of this repentance can be read here.

Anyway, it would be good to bring some more info on Ibn Kullab into this thread insha'Allah - more to follow.

p.s. an interesting quote from al-milal wal-nihal: واحتاط بعضهم أكثر احتياط حتى لم يقرأ‏:‏ اليد بالفارسية ولا الوجه ولا الاستواء ولا ما ورد من جنس ذلك‏
http://www.al-eman.c...ID=241&CID=4#s1
i.e. don't read yad, wajh, istiwa in farsi out of carefulness

[faqir]

It seems that al-Ash'ari was not the only one to take from Ibn Kullab. al-Hafidh Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani [rh] says in al-Fath al-Bari : volume 1 page 323

قال الحافظ ابن حجر في فتح الباري(1/323
مع أن البخاري في جميع ما يورده من تفسير الغريب إنما ينقله عن أهل الفن كأبي عبيدة والنضر بن شميل والفراء وغيرهم، وأما المباحث الفقهية فغالبها مستمدة له من الشافعي وأبي عبيد وأمثالهما، وأما المسائل الكلامية فأكثرها من الكرابيسي وابن كلاب ونحوهما .اهـ

A rough translation:

Although al-Bukhari in all he reports in commentary of rare words, he reports it from specialists of this subject like Abu 'Ubayd, an-Nadr ibn Shamil, al-Faraa and others.

And concerning matters of Fiqh, he takes most of it from ash-Shafi'i, Abu 'Ubayd and their like.

And concerning matters of Kalam, he takes most of it from al-Karabisi, Ibn Kullab and their likes.

[faqir]

so what do the scholars say about Ibn Kullab? I will share some excerpts from quotes mentioned elsewhere and in the book referred to above insha'Allah..

Al-Subki said:

السبكي: وابن كُلاّب على كل حال من أهل السنة الطبقات 2/300

Ibn Kullab is from Ahl Al-sunnah .. (Al-Tabaqat 2/300)

al-Hafiz Ibn `Asakir quotes Imam Ibn Abi Zayd saying:

We know of no one who has accused Ibn Kullāb of innovation. What has reached us is that he closely follows the Sunna and takes it upon himself to refute the Jahmīyya and other innovators…

Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba said: “He was one of the major theologians and he was from Ahl al-Sunna.....

Jamāl al-Dīn al-Isnawī said: “He was one of the major theologians and he was from Ahl al-Sunna…

Imām al-Dhahabī said: “The man is the closest of the theologians to the Sunna; nay, he is among their debaters.’

There are more quotes in the book mentioned above but insha'Allah they will be given at another time - perhaps as a preview for marifah.net

[muslim_analyst]

I think you took that quote from this article http://www.asharis.c...e-mutazilah.cfm

Anyway,
question 1: how reliable is Shahrastani ?


question 2: Can you please be kind enough to post what Imam Ahmed ibn Hambal shaybani said about ibn kullab

[faqir]

muslim_analyst, on 27 October 2009 - 07:43 AM, said:

question 2: Can you please be kind enough to post what Imam Ahmed ibn Hambal shaybani said about ibn kullab

This is answered in Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr's biographical notice for al-Karābisī which was reproduced in the upcoming Sunni Publicatioin AHL AL-SUNNA: THE ASH‘ARĪS - THE TESTIMONY OF THE SCHOLARS AND THEIR PROOFS:

Quote

There was a strong friendship between him [al-Karābisī] and Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, but when the former opposed the latter regarding the Qur’ān, their friendship turned into enmity. Both of them would speak badly about the other. This is because Aḥmad used to say: “Whoever says that the Qur’ān is created is a Jahmī; whoever says that the Qur’ān is the speech of Allah but does not say that it is un-created or created is Wāqifī [hesitant]; and whoever says: ‘My pronunciation of the Qur’ān is created’ is an innovator.” Now, al-Karābisī, ‘Abdullāh b. Kullāb, Abū Thawr, Dāwūd b. ‘Alī, and their rank used to say that the Qur’ān spoken by Allah is an attribute among His attributes and can not be created; the recitation of the reader and his speaking with the Qur’ān is his own acquisition and action: that is created and is a ḥikāya [narration] of Allah’s speech…the Ḥanbalī companions of Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal abandoned al-Karābisī, declared him an innovator, and spoke badly about both him and all who spoke with his belief in that matter.

The authors also quote Al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Kathīr who said in his biographical entry for al-Karābisī:

Quote

Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal used to speak negatively about him because of the issue of pronunciation, and he [al-Karābisī] used to speak negatively about Aḥmad as well, and for that reason the people abstained from taking from him [al-Karābisī]. I say: what I have seen from him is that he said: “The speech of Allah is un-created from every angle, except that my pronunciation of the Qur’ān is created. Whoever does not believe that one’s pronunciation of the Qur’ān is created is a disbeliever.” This is also relayed from al-Bukhārī, and Dāwūd b. ‘Alī al-Ẓāhirī. Imām Aḥmad used to shut this door in order to close the discussion regarding the createdness of the Qur’ān.

Elsewhere Shaykh Gibril quotes Imam al-Bukhari as saying in Khalq Af'al al-Ibad :

'As for what the two parties from the school of Ahmad have claimed as proof, each for his own position: Much of what they relate is not established as authentic. It is probably they did not comprehend the subteleness of his postion. What is known from Ahmad and the people of knowledge is that Allah's speech is uncreated and all else besides Him is created. But they hated to discuss and explore obscure matters, avoiding dialectic theologians and their queries and disputations, except in what was a matter of knowledge and which the Prophet [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam] clarified.'

And the following from al-Kawthari nicely summarises the issue of disagreement:

Quote

As for Aḥmad’s words against Ibn Kullāb and his companion [al-Muḥāsibī], it was due to his hatred of discussing theological rhetoric and his pious scrupulousness away from it. The truth of the matter is that it is obligatory to discuss it when there is a need – contrary to the view of Aḥmad.

[faqir]

Imam al-Haramayn has been also been quoted on slanderagainstasharis.com as saying:

Quote

And Abdullaah bin Sa'eed bin Kullaab (rahimahullaah), from amongst our associates, has gone (to the view) that the eternal Kalaam (speech) is not described as being command (amr), prohibition (nahy), and khabar (information) except with the presence of those being addressed and their posessing all the conditions of being "[those] commanded" and "[those] prohibited".

So Imam al-Haramayn also considers Ibn Kullab from Ahl al-Sunnah.

Elsewhere I also found a statement quoted from pseudosalafiaqeedah.com in a statement allegedly of Ibn Qudamah in a book called Munadhara ma’a Ahl al-Bid’a which salafis [probably falsely] attribute to him:

Quote

He says: ‘What is amazing is that their leader (i.e. Abul-Hasan al-Ash’ari) who established their beliefs was a man not known for his religion or piety, nor was he known for any of the Sacred sciences. In fact, he belongs to no science except the science of blameworthy Kalam. All the while they acknowledge that he spent 40 years adhering to Mu’tazili doctrine, and then pretended to have retracted from it, however, nothing could be seen from him after his repentance except this Bid’ah.’

So much for his alleged 'repentance' to salafi beliefs then!!

[AbdulAziz_A]

Question 2: The Salafis claim that Abul Hasan Ash‘ari formulated the Ash‘ari tenets of Islamic faith (‘aqida) while he was between the Mu‘tazila and Ahl al-Sunna, and that he later refuted his formulations and joined Ahl al-Sunna in the Hanbali madhhab before he died. Is there any truth in this? They say his last book, al-Ibana, contains the refutations. If not, how can I prove it to these people? They also say that he had a second dream in which the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) appeared to him and told him that his Ash‘ari positions were wrong!

Answer: http://shadhilitariq...id=50&Itemid=20