Fakhr al-Din al-Razi Annihilates and Demolishes the Foundation of the Jahmite Ashari Attacks Upon Ibn Taymiyyah and the Sunni Muslims: He Says All Factions Affirm Hawaadith For Allaah Despite Denying It Posted by Asharis.Com, in Articles Topics: Fakhr Al-Din Al-Razi • Ibn Taymiyyah This is an extremely important and monumental piece of historical record which fits into the larger jigsaw puzzle which as it continues to be solved further exposes the academic fraud of todays Jahmites posing as Asharis. What is known today as Ashariyyah is a confused medley of both historical and academic frauds bundled together to produce a school of doctrine that is in essence one big lie, at least in its ascription to what al-Ashari himself died upon, since those who ascribed to al-Ashari wandered away from what he was upon of the school of Ibn Kullaab, let alone what he tended to at the end of his life, that which Imaam Ahmad was upon, the Imaam of Ahl al-Sunnah. Often we are forced to use metaphors and colorful language so that the reader can truly appreciate the significance of what they are reading, so what this article represents is another Hiroshima under the seat of contemporary Jahmite Ashari polemics against the Sunni Muslims, who are the Salafis, Atharis, followers of the Sunnah and Jamaaah who hold on to the pure milk of revelation and shun the dung, puss and blood of the Kalaam of the Hellenized Jews, Christians, Sabeans which entered the Ummah and was carried by the Jahmiyyah, Mutazilah, Rafidi Hishamiyyah, Kullaabiyyah, Karraamiyyah, Ashariyyah, Saalimiyyah and Maturidiyyah. So what is our issue here in this article? First you must have some good background into this matter to appreciate it properly. We suggest you read this article as a basic primer and it should set the scene for you nicely. Please do not proceed unless you have read the above article. It is also advisable that to truly appreciate the significance of this article and its ramifications, that you read our series on the slanderous allegation of tashbeeh against Ahl al-Sunnah which has a detailed treatment of the ilm al-Kalaam that entered the Ummah and the heretical groups it was carried by. Then, these two articles (this one and the follow up to it, this one) are absolutely crucial if you want insight into what is going on, they deal with how the kalam groups explain the origin of the universe and Allaahs actions. In a nutshell, when the Kalaam (conceptual language and tools) of the Hellenized Jews, Christians and Sabeans entered the Ummah - [the discussion of divinity through the language of bodies and accidents (al-ajsaam wal-araad) is the refuse and trash of other nations who abandoned their revealed books and turned to the language of Aristotle which was taken to be the great science of the day] - it led the Jahmiyyah to deny all names (Asmaa) and attributes (sifaat) and actions (afaal) to avoid likening Allaah to a body (jism) [upon their innovated definitions of jism]. The Mutazilah, taking this from the Jahmiyyah, denied all attributes and actions. The Jahmiyyah and Mutazilah referred to all attributes and actions as araad (non-permanent incidental attributes) without distinguishing between them. Then in the third century, a new faction appeared who debated with the Jahmiyyah and Mutazilah using the same Kalaam (and not the Book and the Sunnah), but they were unable to refute the doubts of the Mutazilaah pertaining to Allaahs speech, because they, unlike the Imaams of the Sunnah, were not really grounded in the sunnah and aathaar. So whilst they managed to find a way to affirm Allaahs attributes, albeit, upon an innovated way, they could not refute the Mutazilah on Allah having actions tied to His will and power. This manifested mainly in the issue of Allaahs speech (Kalaam) where the Mutazilah overempowered them, and forced them to acknowledge that if successive speech is affirmed for Allaah, it signifies hawaadith (events) in His essence, thus rendering Him a created body like all the created bodies. The Kullaabiyyah affirmed attributes (sifaat) and denied they were araad for Allaah and they dealt with the attribute of Kalaam (speech) in a certain way by innovating a definition that Kalaam is only a meaning in the self (Kalaam Nafsee), and they rejected Allaahs chosen actions (afaal) because it entailed, in their view, hawaadith (events) in Allaahs essence, which according to Aristotelian conceptual language (that all Kalaam groups were operating upon as the platform of debate), would render Him a body. As a result, they were forced to say there are two Qurans, one which is a meaning in the self of Allaah and the other which is created, which is what we have, in letter and word. So in essence they agreed with the Mutazilah in reality about the Quran being created, but they innovated a false definition of Kalaam (speech) which they tried to attribute to Allaah so as to please both the Mutazilah and Ahl al-Sunnah. This manner of speaking about Allaah and his attributes was the new Tawhid, the innovated Tawhid not known or spoken of by any Prophet or Messenger, and they put the Ummah to trial with this, and the Salafs rejection of them was extremely severe as is well known and documented. This is what was condemned by Imaam Maalik and Imaam al-Shaafiee in the second century hijrah, just prior to the emergence of the Kullaabiyyah in the third century. Imaam Maalik (d. 179H), Abu Uthmaan al-Saaboonee narrates with his chain in his Aqidat al-Salaf wa As-haab al-Hadeeth (Dar al-Aasimah, tahqiq, Nasir al-Judai, 1415H, p. 243-244): حدثنا أشهب بن عبد العزيز سمعت مالك بن أنس يقول: إياكم والبدع، قيل: يا أبا عبد الله ! وما البدع؟ قال: أهل البدع الذين يتكلمون في أسماء الله وصفاته وكلامه وعلمه وقدرته، لا يسكتون عما سكت عنه الصحابة والتابعون Ashab bin Abd al-Aziz narrated to us: I heard Malik bin Anas saying, Beware of innovations. It was said, O Abu Abdillah! And what are the innovations? He said, The people of innovation, those who speak about Allaahs Names, His attributes and His speech, knowledge and power and do not remain silent about that which the Companions and the Successors remained silent about. Imaam Maalik made this statement about the Jahmiyyah and Mutazilah. As for Imaam ash-Shaafiee (d. 204H) said, as reported by as-Suyuti in Sawn al-Mantiq (1/47-48): ماجهل الناس ولااختلفوا إلا لتركهم لسان العرب وميلهم إلى لسان ارسطوطاليس The people did not become ignorant and nor differ (with each other) except due to their abandonment of the language of the Arabs and their inclination to the language of Aristotle. And the condemnation of Kalaam and Ahl al-Kalaam (those who founded theolgical matters upon the language of al-ajsaam wal-araad) is well-known and famous from him. Imaam Ahmad, following those before him, showed great rejection against the Kullaabiyyah who were upon this in the early third-century, those who innovated new principles to support and prop up that intermediate, hybrid creed of something of Kalaam and something of Sunnah. Then came Abu al-Hasan al-Ashari who was a Mutazili for forty years of his life before he abandoned them, but he turned to the school of the Kullaabiyyah and not to the Sunnah. As he moved towards the end of his life, he started to become closer and closer to the Sunnah until he wrote al-Maqaalaat and al-Ibaanah in which he explicitly expressed that he is upon what Imaam Ahmad is upon, and his writings became more and more closer to the Sunnah. The Early Asharis who came (in the fourth century) broadly remained upon what al-Ashari was upon, with its Kullaabi influence, but in the fifth-century (400H onwards) others came along ascribing to al-Ashari and slowly moved the Asharite school away from its Kullaabi roots and back towards the views of the Jahmiyyah and Mutazilah. These are the likes of Ibn Fawrak (d. 403H), Abu Mansur al-Baghdadi (d. 429H), al-Juwaynee (d. 478H), al-Ghazali (d. 505H), and al-Razi (d. 606H). They denied al-uluww, and denied the sifaat Khabariyyah whose affirmation were a hallmark of the Kullabi school initially adopted by al-Ashari, and by the time al-Ghazali and al-Razi had had their time on the field, they had entered philosophy, gnostic illuminism, an innovated tasawwuf and many other affairs which essentially severed any tangible connection with al-Ashari himself and thus, Ashariyyah became just a self-lauding slogan and label used by intellectually confused and bewildered people. This continues today in a people who are closer to the Jahmiyyah and Mutazilah than they are to Ibn Kullaab and al-Ashari, let alone to Ahl al-Sunnah. In fact, they are clear disputants and opponents to al-Ashari and Ibn Kullaab and allies of the Jahmiyyah and Mutazilah on the issues of al-uluww and the sifat khabariyyah. Some of the later ones, like al-Razi, had enough intelligence to realize that some of these foundations held by the earlier ones were flawed and upon careful inspection can not really hold ground. Al-Razi has numerous critiques of some of these false and baseless principles. This indicates that todays Jahmiyyah concealed under the slogan of Ashariyyah are munaafiqoon (hypocrites) in the way they behave with Ahl al-Sunnah, we mean here hypocrisy in dealing and behaviour, not hypocrisy in the foundation of belief. This means that they use arguments and polemics against the people of the Sunnah [the Salafis, Atharis, followers of the Imaams of the Sunnah in shunning Kalaam and adhering to the aathaar with tasleem] which they know to be false arguments and which cannot really be sustained which have been annihilated by some of their own figureheads centuries ago. As we have said repeatedly, Asharism is one big academic fraud, an intellectual con. The reason why they have gotten away with it for so long is purely because to unravel their fraud requires detailed and lengthy investigation, and a detailed study of history, and a detailed knowledge of their various positions in different areas of creed (in which there are many internal and blatant contradictions) and this knowledge is not yet common knowledge to the average person (or even the average Ashari), and only when it is common knowledge will their fraud collapse in no time. In short, the Kullaabi, Ashari school was characterized by affirming attributes (sifaat) for Allaah in principle (including al-uluww and the sifaat khabariyyah such as face, hands, eyes) whilst rebutting the claim of the Jahmiyyah, Mutazilah that these attributes are araad (non-permanent, incidental attributes), or that they necessitate Tajseem, and the same time rebutting the taweel of the Jahmiyyah and Mutazilah. However, they denied the Sifaat Filiyyah (actions tied to Allaahs will and power such as speaking as and when He wills, and al-istiwaa, al-nuzool, mahabbah, ridhaa, ghadab and the likes) upon the argument that these are hawaadith (events) - so they inherited and retained something of the usool of the Jahmiyyah upon which they built their doctrinal school. This principle (of rejecting Allaahs chosen actions upon the argument that they are hawaadith and necessitate tajseem) is utterly false and known as such through naql (revelation) and aql (reason). Moving on now, this brings is now to the main piece in our article. Please read it with care and reflection. Note: al-Razi uses certain terms that are typical of Ahl al-Kalaam as he is one of them, and which we do not agree in reference to Allaahs actions (afaal), and we shall make some observations at the end of this article. The excerpt below is from Al-Mataalib al-Aaliyyah of al-Raazee (ed. al-Saqaa, Dar al-Kitaab al-Arabi, 2/106), and it is said to be one of the later books of al-
Posted on: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 11:10:30 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015