The Ash'ari Clinic: 2nd Case Study of 'Ash'ari Burnout' - Concerning Ibn Hajr, Im

aam Bukhaaree, The Kullaabiyyah and the Pronunciation of the Qur'an

Filed under: The Clinic
Wednesday, October 28 2009 - by TheClinic
Key topics: The Clinic Ash'ari Burnout
Mail to a Friend Printer friendly
We are pleased to present our second case study of "Ash'ari Burnout". To learn m
ore please see this page. "Ash'ari Burnout" is a phenomenon arising when the ina
bility to satisfactorily resolve and come to terms with certain (historical) fac
ts and information results firstly in "psychological denial" which disturbs the
mental constitution, then denial of the denial secondly, and then finally, barel
y comprehensible, illogical, irrational "outbursts" taking place mainly on blogs
and forums. Our first case (see here) was met with good acceptance, and readers
have expressed their eagerness to read further cases. Today's case is a bit mor
e complicated.
Case Involving Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani's Comments Regarding Imaam al-Bukhaaree and
the Kullaabiyyah
First let us document the symptoms that manifested in the "intellectual dump" of
the victim:
Case Diagnosis, Notes and Comments
Compound Ignorance Is the Fabric of That Delusion Which Lies Behind Much of "Ash
'ari Burnout"
We have mentioned repeatedly - and will continue to mention repeatedly until it
sinks into the heads of today's deluded (Jahmite) Ash'aris - that the foundation
of the deen of the Mutakallimoon (people of Kalaam, the Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah,
Kullabiyyah, Ash'ariyyah, Maturidiyyah) is based around an intellectual proof ca
lled "hudooth ul-ajsaam" which is based generally around language and terminolog
y derived from Aristotle's "al-Maqoolaat al-Ashar", or "the Ten Categories" - wh
ich aims to provide a framework for characterizing all bodies (ajsaam) in observ
able existence. Read more about that here. This proof argues for the createdness
of the universe based upon the presence of qualities (sifaat), incidental attri
butes (a'raad) and actions (what they call hawaadith, events or occurrences) in
bodies. The presence of these things in bodies indicate (to the Mutakallimoon) t
hat the bodies (ajsaam) themselves are events (hawaadith, i.e. came to be after
not being) and events cannot be infinite in the past - and from this the presenc
e of a creator is deduced, and then following on from this, the possibility and
likelihood of prophethood and resurrection. This proof is a vile, corrupt, false
proof, and it is the utmost falsehood because it actually proves the opposite o
f what they set out to use it for. As a result of it, they were forced to deny,
to varying degrees, what Allaah has affirmed for Himself in order not to invalid
ate this proof - which they wrongly believed to be something upon which the vera
city and truthfulness of the very religion of Islaam depended upon.
It is for this very reason that they abandoned speaking about Allaah with the me
thodology of the Book and the Sunnah which is to affirm specifically and to nega
te generally and instead took to describing Allaah with negating specifically an
d affirming only generally or what their intellects found acceptable to their in
tellectual proof. Thus, Allaah is "not a jism (body), not a jawhar (substance),
not an 'arad (incidental attribute), not above, nor below, nor inside the creati
on, nor outside of it, nor in a place, or a location, nor in a direction..." and
so on. They were forced to use the same language in describing Allaah that they
used for their corrupt intellectual proof for demonstrating the universe to be
created - and this is what they made Tawheed to be comprised of.
As we said in the previous case, most, if not all cases of "Ash'ari Burnout" occ
ur within the context of complete and compound ignorance of what actually instig
ated the Mutakallimoon - [people of theological speculation using the metaphysic
al classification and terminology of the atheist philophers] - to the compelling
need to deny Allaah's Names, attributes and Actions, which is this very intelle
ctual proof called "hudooth ul-ajsaam". The Jahmiyyah (Jahm bin Safwaan, ex. 128
H) and Mu'tazilah (Abu al-Hudhayl al-Allaaf, d. 235H) were the pioneers of this
proof, and the Ash'aris were just the blind-followers, they did not originate it
, they "borrowed" it. It was the Mu'tazilah who incorporated "Atomism" into the
crude version of "hudooth ul-ajsaam" of the Jahmiyyah to allow them to better ar
gue for the whole universe being created, and the Ash'aris acquired all of this
and simply made refinements to this intellectual proof, differing with the Mu'ta
zilah in subsidiary details - al-Baqillani (d. 403H) being the first to codify i
t and formalize it in his book "at-Tamheed".
See this article for more details on this subject:
The Usool of the Ash'ariyyah Are the Usool of the Mu'tazilah: Part 1 - The Intel
lectual Proof of hudooth ul-ajsaam (Createdness of the Universe) - Read article
here.
So all deluded As'hari burnout victims suffer from an underlying condition which
is compound ignorance. Whenever they speak on a matter, this compound ignorance
is always the background fabric to their delusion and psychological illness.
Analysis of the Victim's "Burnout"
This burnout took place in response to an article of ours in which we quoted ash
-Shahrastani (an Ash'ari of the 6th century hijrah) corroborating that Abu al-Ha
san al-Ash'ari took the bulk of the creed of the speculative theologian, Ibn Kul
laab (d. 240H) who preceded al-Ash'ari in refuting the Mu'tazilah. We have also
covered elsewhere that the creed of Ibn Kullaab was to affirm the Names and attr
ibutes (inclusive of the sifaat dhaatiyyah, such as Face, Hands, Eyes etc.) but
to reject those attributes tied to Allaah's will and power, the Sifaat Fi'liyyah
- since in the view of the Kullaabites, these attributes invalidated the intell
ectual proof of "hudooth ul-ajsaam" and would have signified change (taghayyur)
in Allaah - and that this creed was basically that of the Early Ash'aris.
The Later Ash'aris, from al-Juwaynee (d. 478H) onwards reverted back to many of
the views of the Mu'tazilah and Jahmiyyah, they rejected the sifaat dhaatiyyah t
hat the Early Ash'aris affirmed and utilized the very ta'weels of the Jahmiyyah
and Mu'tazilah that the Early Ash'aris refuted! Go and take a look at this artic
le for an illustration.
In light of the quote from ash-Shahrastani, the victim attempted to portray Ibn
Kullaab (and his followers) to be within the ranks of Ahl us-Sunnah, seeing that
the real and true origin of Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'aris creed was bought to light.
As part of this attempt the victim brought the above statement of Ibn Hajr al-A
sqalani. So what the the victim is attempting by his outburst above can be summa
rized as follows:
Al-Ash'ari took his creed from Ibn Kullaab. Imaam al-Bukhaaree took from Ibn Kul
laab according to Ibn Hajr. Therefore, the Ash'ari creed must be the absolute tr
uth.
This is clearly an attempt to defend al-Ash'aris adoption of the bulk of the cre
ed of Ibn Kullaab through this statement of Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani, and through th
is, to argue for the creed of the later (Jahmite) Ash'aris which constitute all
of todays Ash'aris.
Ibn Kullaab and The Kullaabiyyah on the Qur'an
Ibn Kullaab and his followers were from the Ahl ul-Kalam that were condemned by
the leading Imaams of the Salaf, such as Imaam Ahmad (rahimahullaah). This is be
cause these Imaams of the Salaf knew their speech was directed towards rejecting
Allaah's actions that are tied to His will and power, amongst which was "Kalaam
" (speech) since Ahl us-Sunnah held that Allaah speaks as He wills when he wills
, however He wills. The Kullaabiyyah, denying that Allaah speaks according to Hi
s will and power, were saying that Allaah's speech is just the "Kalaam Nafsee" a
nd that this Qur'aan we have with us is just a "quotation" (hikaayah) of that "K
alaam Nafsee" and is created. The Ash'aris came along after and said the "Kalaam
Nafsee" is a singular, indivisible meaning (ma'naa waahid) with the Self of All
aah and it is uncreated, but that this Qur'an we have with us, recited, heard, m
emorized, in letter and word, is created. The ancestors of the Ash'aris in this
saying were none other than the Kullaabiyyah, the likes of Haarith al-Muhasibi a
nd Hussain al-Karaabeesee, who were the "Lafdhiyyah".
It was these people (the Kullaabiyyah) who started saying "My recitation of the
Qur'an is created", and their intent was to arrive at the saying that the Qur'an
is created - following on from their rejection of Allaah's actions tied to His
will and power, meaning that Allaah does not speak with His will and power - as
this would entail hawaadith (events, occurrences) with Allaah's Essence accordin
g to them, which are proof of something being a body (jism) according to the Ten
Categories of Aristotle (al-Maqoolaat al-Ashar).
As a [Jahmite] Ash'ari, you should always be grateful for being guided to your f
orm of Tawheed: Thanks Aristotle for laying down the foundations for the true Ta
whid - how else would we have understood this Tawheed and proved the existence o
f a creator without your Metaphysics as a foundation? Thanks once more.
Between Imaam Ahmad and Imaam al-Bukhaaree
Both Imaam Ahmad and Imaam al-Bukharee were upon the same creed and they both re
futed two different types of factions.
Imaam Ahmad refuted those Ahl ul-Kalaam who held the Qu'ran to be created - beca
use Allaah speaking according to His will and power would mean Allaah is a jism
(body) according to them - since instances of speech that are other than each ot
her are hawaadith (events, occurrences) and this is proof of something being a b
ody (jism), according to Aristotle's Ten Categories, thus this has to be rejecte
d. These innovators then moved to the statement, "My recitation of the Qur'an is
created" and they intended by this to reach their saying that the Qur'an itself
is created. So Imaam Ahmad declared the Lafdhiyyah (those saying this statement
) to be Jahmites, and likewise he declared anyone who said, "My recitation of th
e Qur'an is not created" to be Innovators - since neither of these statements ar
e from the Salaf and each of these two statements lead to what is falsehood.
However, some people wrongly thought that when the likes of Imaam Ahmad said, "W
hoever says 'My recitation of the Qur'an is created' is a Jahmee" that the actua
l voices of the servants, when reciting the Qur'an are not created and are etern
al and others exaggerated and extended this to even the ink and the paper upon w
hich the Qur'an was written. This opened up the door to the saying that the acti
ons of the servants are uncreated (i.e. their reciting of the Qur'an)
So Imaam al-Bukhaaree stood to refute this faction and this is why he authored t
he book "Khalq Af'aal il-Ibaad" (the Creation of the Servants' Actions). Thus he
established that the Qur'an is the uncreated Speech of Allaah, and that when th
e servants recite the Qur'an, then their voices and actions are created and are
not eternal, whilst that which is recited (Allaah's words) is uncreated, and in
doing so he refuted those who claimed that their voices (and the ink and paper)
are eternal and uncreated.
So Imaam Ahmad was refuting one particular faction and Imaam al-Bukharee was ref
uting another faction - and both of their views concerning the Qur'an were in ag
reement with each other.
Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani explains in Fath ul-Bari in "Kitaab ut-Tawheed", the chapte
r on "Do Not Set Up Rivals for Allaah":

Which translates as:
And [one] other than him (meaning other than al-Bayhaqi) said [that] some of the
m thought al-Bukhaaree opposed Ahmad, and [the affair] is not like that. Rather,
whoever reflects upon his speech will not find any difference in meaning. But t
he affair of the scholar is such that when he is put to trial in refuting an inn
ovation, most of his speech is [focused] on refuting it [specifically] as oppose
d to its opposing [counterpart].
So when Ahmad was put to trial with those who said "The Qur'an is created", most
of his speech was in refutation of them, until he exaggerated in that regard an
d showed rejection against anyone who withheld, neither saying "[The Qur'an is]
created", and nor saying, "[The Qur'an is] not created", and likewise, [Ahmad sh
owed rejection] against the one who said, "My pronunciation of the Qur'an is cre
ated", so that the one who said, "The Qur'an, with my pronunciation, is created"
could not use it as armour [protection, for the saying that the Qur'an is creat
ed] - whilst the difference between these two sayings was not hidden from him [A
hmad]. However, [the difference] may be hidden from some [other people].
As for al-Bukhaaree, then he was put to trial with those who said that the voice
s of the servants [in reciting the Qur'an] are not created, until some of them e
xaggerated and said that the ink and paper, after the writing [is uncreated too]
. So most of his speech was in refutation of them and he exaggerated (i.e. went
to great lengths) in providing evidence that the actions of the servants are cre
ated from verses and ahaadeeth, and he was excessive in doing so until it was as
cribed to him that he was from the "Lafdhiyyah" (those who said that their recit
ation of the Qur'an was created).
Alongside [the fact] that the saying of whoever said, "That which is heard from
the reciter is the eternal voice" is not known from the Salaf and Ahmad and nor
anyone from the leading Imaams from his companions said it. The reason for that
being attributed to Ahmad was his saying, "Whoever said my pronunciation of the
Qur'an is created is a Jahmee". So they thought that he equated between the lafd
h (wording, pronunciation) and the sawt (Voice).
And what has been quoted from Ahmad regarding the lafdh (pronunciation of the wo
rding) has not been quoted regarding the Sawt (Voice). Rather, he has stated exp
licitly in places that the Voice heard from the recitor is the Voice of the reci
tor, and it is supported by the hadeeth, "Beautify the Qur'an with your voices",
and it will come shortly [in this chapter]. And the difference between them is
that the wording (al-lafdh) is ascribed to the one speaking with it initially. S
o it is said regarding the one who reported a hadeeth with its wording, "This is
its wording (lafdhahu)", and [it is said] regarding the one who reported the ha
deeth with other than its wording, "This is its meaning (ma'naa) and its wording
(lafdh) is such and such". And in all of that, it is not said about anything th
at "This is its Voice (Sawt)". So the Qur'an, is the speech of Allaah, its wordi
ng (lafdh) and its meaning (ma'naa), it is not the speech of other than Him.
Ibn Hajr also said, just after the above:
:
( )
Which translates as:
And the result of what has been quoted from the people of Kalaam on this matter
is five sayings:
The first: The saying of the Mu'tazilah, that it is created.
The second: The saying of the Kullaabiyyah that it is eternal with the essence o
f the Lord, it is not letters and voices, and that which is present amongst the
people [the Qur'an] is an expression (ibaarah) of it, and not the actual thing i
tself.
This is correct except that the Kullaabiyyah said it is a quotation (hikaayah) a
nd not an expression (ibaarah). The latter is the view of Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ar
i who did not like the use of the word quotation (hikaayah) because it implied t
hat what we have with us (in letter and word), if it is quoted, is exactly the s
ame as what is with Allaah, and this would imply letter and word and would imply
divisibility with Allah and other meanings that would not conform to the requir
ements of the intellectual proof of hudooth ul-ajsaam. So he changed it to expre
ssion (ibaarah) because this allows for it to be understood that it is different
to what is with Allaah, whereas "quotation" (hikaayah) implies it is the same.
This second saying that Ibn Hajr has mentioned here is the very saying of the As
h'aris.
Ibn Hajr continues:
The third: The saying of the Saalimiyyah that it is letters and voices, and [tha
t these very letters and voices] are eternal, and that it [the Qur'an] is these
very written letters and heard voices.
The fourth: The saying of the Karraamiyyah that it is Muhdath (occurred after no
t occurring) but not created, and more detailed speech regarding it will come re
garding this in the chapter that is after this.
The fifth: That it is the speech of Allaah, uncreated, that He has not ceased to
be one who speaks when He wills. Ahmad textually stated this in the book "ar-Ra
dd alal-Jahmiyyah", and his associates split into two factions: Amongst them are
those who said that it (the Qur'an) is inherent, imperative to His essence, and
that the letters and voices are simultaneous and not successive, and that He ca
uses whomever He wills to hear His speech. But the majority of them (associates
of Ahmad) said that He is one who speaks (mutakallim) with whatever He wills, wh
enever He wills and that He called out to Moses (alayhis salaam) when He spoke t
o him, and had not called out to him previously.
Immediately after this, Ibn Hajr says something surprising:
And that which the saying of the Ash'ariyyah became established upon is that the
Qur'an is the speech of Allaah, uncreated, written in the masaahif (copies of t
he Qur'an), memorized in the hearts, recited with the tongues.
This is clearly incorrect and a mistake from Ibn Hajr, the Ash'ariyyah do not ho
ld that, unless Ibn Hajr is speaking of a small, isolated, rare faction amongst
the Ash'aris. The saying of the Ash'ariyyah is the saying of Ibn Kullaab that Ib
n Hajr has already pointed out above.
Ibn Hajr continues:
Allaah, the Most High, said: "...then grant him protection, so that he may hear
the Word of Allah (the Qur'an)..." (At-Tawbah 9:6)
And the Most High said: "Nay, but they, the clear signs (verses) are preserved i
n the breasts of those who have been given knowledge" (Al-Ankabut 29:49)
And in the agreed upon hadeeth from Ibn Umar, as has preceded in the [chapter on
] jihaad, "Do not travel with the Qur'an to the land of the enemy", disliking th
at the enemy obtain it. And the intent (behind this prohibition in this hadeeth)
is not what is [memorized] in the breasts, but rather what is in the mushaf (in
case the enemy takes it). And the Salaf are unanimously agreed that that which
is in between the two covers is the speech of Allaah.
Here Ibn Hajr is establishing that no matter how the Qur'an is present and found
with us, written, memorized, heard (i.e. the words - not the Voice, paper and i
nk) - then it is all the uncreated speech of Allaah - and this is the position o
f the Salaf, it is not the position of the Mutakallimoon.
To the Kullaabiyyah and Ash'ariyyah, what we have with us, written, memorized an
d heard is but the quotation (hikaayah) or created expression (ibaarah) of the Q
ur'an and not the uncreated Qur'an which they believe is the "Kalaam Nafsee" tha
t is eternally present with Allaah's Self.
Summarizing the Above
The intent behind all the above was to point out the major difference in creed b
etween Ahl us-Sunnah and the Kullaabiyyah. Ahl us-Sunnah affirm Allaah has actio
ns tied to His will and power (Sifaat Fi'liyyah) amongst which is speech (Kalaam
), and that with respect to this particular attribute, in addition to Allaah bei
ng one who speaks (mutakallim) and who has always been as such, then Allaah spea
ks with His will and power as, when and however He wills - this is denied by the
Kullaabiyyah due to their rejection of Allaah having actions tied to His will a
nd power (being followed in that by the Ash'ariyyah).
...