The Ash'ari Clinic: 4th Case Study - The Ash'ari, Maturidi Creeds and The Trinita

rian Christian Called Ghiyth bin Ghawth bin al-alt al-Taghlab

Filed under: The Clinic
Thursday, December 16 2010 - by Asharis.Com
Key topics: The Clinic Ash'ari Burnout Al-Akhtal
Mail to a Friend Printer friendly
We have our fourth case of "Ash'ari Burnout" or "Ash'ari Fizzle" (unfortunately,
there are hundreds, but we don't have the resources right now to see that many
patients). To learn more please see this page. "Ash'ari Burnout" and "Ash'ari Fi
zzle" is a phenomenon arising when the inability to satisfactorily resolve and c
ome to terms with certain (historical) facts and information results firstly in
"psychological denial" which disturbs the mental constitution, then denial of th
e denial secondly, and then finally, barely comprehensible, illogical, irrationa
l "outbursts" taking place mainly on blogs and forums.
Case Involving Christian Arguments Against The Asharis and Maturidis
The victim has been confused by the various expressions of the Ash'arites and Ma
turidis on the issue of the Qur'an and after reading explanations from the Ash'a
ri and Maturidi books and finding lack of conformity in view, he asked for advic
e as to how to respond to the Christian argument that the Ash'ari / Maturidi vie
w on the Qur'an is the same as their view on Jesus (alayhis salaam).
Note: We say here that the argument is "against the Ash'ari Maturidi view", even
though the Christian intends Islam in general. This is because this doubt only
applies to the Ash'ari, Maturidi view on Allaah's speech and the Qur'an, not to
the actual Islamic belief which has nothing to do with the Ash'ari, Maturidi vie
ws which are taken from students of the Hellenized Sabeans, Hellenized Jews and
Hellenized Christians and their theology based upon al-ajsaam and al-a'raad (stu
dy this series to learn more) and from a Trinitarian Christian in this particula
r matter at hand.
So the victim was looking for an answer way back in April when he stated:
As far as the Christians see it, they believe that the Word of God (an attribute
of God, Perfect and Immesurable) became flesh (something confined to space and
time). So they try to say that we believe the same, that the Speech of Allah (an
attibute of Allah) became something which could be understood by human beings,
either as what Musa (Alayhi Salaam) understood, or "as a book" (the Quran), both
of which are confined to space and time.
He never received any answer except to refer his question to that intellectual c
ripple (and a dishonest one too) known as Abu Adam Naruiji (see that clown's ant
ics here). So eight months later and no response. There is a clear risk here of
a burnout and a fizzle and for this reason, some preventative treatment is requi
red, which takes on the form of historical fact:
Understanding the Evolution of Ash'ari, Maturidi Viewpoint on the Qur'an and Its
Support From [Alleged] Arab Christian Poetry
The First: The saying that the Qur'an is created (and Allah is not above His Thr
one) was first brought into the Ummah by al-Ja'd bin Dirham and he took this fro
m the Hellenized Sabeans, Jews and Christians [meaning the Ahl al-Kalaam from th
ose nations] who preceded the Ahl al-Kalaam from Islaam in speaking about their
theology through the language of al-ajsaam wal-a'raad (bodies and their incident
al attributes). What you hear from todays Jahmiyyah that "Allaah is not in space
or time" is a dubiuos, ambiguous statement by which they mean to say: Allaah is
not above His Throne and Allaah does not have actions tied to His will and powe
r such that He can speak as and when He wills with whatever He wills, since they
refer to that as "hawaadith" (events) and "enclosure in time". Al-Jahm and al-J
a'd built their ta'teel upon the principle "Whatever is not devoid of hawaadith
is itself Haadith (originated)" and what they mean by "hawaadith" is Allaah's at
tributes and actions. Upon this, they said the Qur'an is created (just like thos
e Hellenized Jews said the Torah is created), and that Allaah does not speak. Th
e Mu'tazilah agreed with them except they said Allaah can be said to have speech
even if he creates it in others, so the (Arabic) Qur'an is the speech of Allaah
to them, but it is created. In all this time, it was never disputed by any nati
on, or in any language that "Kalaam" (speech) means both the meaning and wording
together. All the classical Arabic linguists are united upon this. And the view
of the Salaf is that the Arabic Qur'an is the actual speech of Allaah, He spoke
it and Jibreel heard and it conveyed it to Muhammad (alayis salaam) who conveye
d it to the Ummah. And there is only one Qur'an, its words are from Allaah, uncr
eated, even if the actions of the servants in the conveyance of these words (rec
iting, reading, writing etc.) are created, yet the words being conveyed are not
created. And Amr bin Deenaar (d. 126H) stated that for seventy years he heard th
e people (including the Companions) saying that everything besides Allaah is cre
ated except the Qur'an, that it is the speech of Allaah, from Him did it begin [
as speech] and to Him shall it return. So this was an established matter until t
he speech of the Hellenized Sabeans, Jews and Christians entered upon the tongue
s of al-Ja'd, al-Jahm, the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah and their offshoots (see nex
t).
The Second: Then came the Kullaabiyyah and Ash'ariyyah and Maaturidiyyah, and th
ey adopted false principles from their predecessors in Kalaam out of not being a
ble to refute them adequately, since they took to kalam and were not grounded in
the Sunnah and aathaar. So they likewise said "Whatever is not devoid of hawaad
ith is itself haadith" except that they made an exception for some of the attrib
utes of Allaah and removed them from this principle (unlike the Jahmiyyah and Mu
'tazilah) but the left within it all of Allaah's chosen actions (those tied to H
is will and power), which include Allaah speaking as and when He wills. Now the
Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah declared the Qur'an to be created precisely for this re
ason, but they also rejected the attributes. As for the As'haris and Maturidis,
they agreed with the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah that Allaah cannot be one who spea
ks as and when He wills as this means events in Allaah's essence, since multiple
instances of speech are other than each other, with meanings different to each
other, and this would invalidate the Jahmee principle "Whatever is not devoid of
events is itself originated". Hence, they agreed that this Qur'an we have is ma
khluq (created), Muhdath (originated), maf'ul (done), masnu' (manufactured), maj
'ul (made). But then they were hard pressed to affirm the attribute of speech (K
alaam) in such a manner so that it conformed to this agreement they had with the
Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah on this principle - which meant negating Allah speaks
as and when He wills with whatever He wills, such that He actually spoke to Adam
, Iblis, the Angels, Moses (alayhis salaam), Muhammad (alayhis salaam), and like
wise will speak to the believers and disbelievers on the Day of Judgement and su
ch that He can return speech. All of this would mean "hawaadith (events which ha
ve a beginning)" and this would invalidate his existence, because it would make
him a body like the created bodies (according to their proof of huduth al-ajsaam
).
Enter al-Akhtal the Trinitarian Christian. A breath of relief for these people,
now they can remain consistent with that Jahmee principle.
The Third: Abandoning the agreement of all nations, and the agreement of all lan
guages, of all linguists, grammarians, and what is in all the revealed books, an
d what Prophets, Messengers and their respective companions were agreed upon, as
were the Salaf and the langauge specialists of this ummah, that Kalaam (speech)
is both meaning and wording together and which can be summarized as "nutq mufhi
m" (spoken word which affords a complete meaning) - the Ash'aris and Maturidis -
alongside their claim that aqidah is not taken from what is dhannee (speculativ
e) but only what is qat'ee (definitive) - they took some alleged speech of a Tri
nitarian Christian called al-Akhtal (real name Ghiyth bin Ghawth bin al-alt al-Tag
hlab, a Christian Poet in the Umayyad Dynasty), in which he says, "Indeed speech
is in the heart (self, soul) [in reality]. And the tongue is merely an indicator
for what is in the heart." So they founded their aqidah upon the alleged saying
of this Christian, and then they began to use it as a foundation in all their b
ooks. Al-Baqillani used it, al-Baghdadi, al-Juwaynee used it and then it became
standard, just as the Maturidis used it too. So what this means is that the real
ity of Kalaam (speech) is that it is only the meaning in the self and as for the
actual words, they are only a daleel for it, meaning they are only an indicator
of the actual speech, which is what is in the heart. And of course, this is baa
til (false) and a depature from reason, let alone a departure in language. But t
his is standard doctrine in the books of the As'haris and Maturidis and they quo
te al-Akhtal as a primary piece of evidence. Then they went to the texts of the
Book and the Sunnah to find Kalaam being mentioned in a restricted sense (muqayy
ad) in order to support this idea, and all the examples they bring are in fact a
gainst them, not for them, but leaving that aside, they fled from using the mutl
aq (unconditioned) occurrences of the mention of "Kalaam" (speech) in the reveal
ed texts which shows academic dishonesty and following of desires.
The Fourth: With support then from Ghiyth al-Akhtal al-Nasrni, the Ash'aris and Ma
turidis have their "aqidah" which is that Allaah's speech is really only a singl
e, indivisible meaning in the self, eternal. This they called "Kalaam Nafsee" an
innovated matter not known to anyone before them and which they took from a Tri
nitarian Christian. This allowed them to affirm Kalaam (speech) for Allaah in a
manner that, in their view, would not contradict that Jahmee foundation (Whateve
r is not devoid of hawaadith is itself originated) except that - if you recall -
the Ash'aris never included "attributes" within this principle, they found a wa
y to affirm some of the attributes, even if they agreed with the Jahmiyyah and M
u'tazilah regarding denial of Allaah's chosen actions (af'aal iktiyaariyyah) lik
e al-istiwaa, Kalaam, love, pleasure, anger and the likes, and regarding distort
iion of them. And then they said that what we have with us here, the Arabic Qur'
an it is something created, Allaah created it and it is the Kalaam lafdhee (whic
h is a daleel to the Kalaam nafsee). And then they differ, is it something Allaa
h created in the Preserved Tablet, did Jibreel express it first after being insp
ired by that "eternal meaning" or did Muhammad express it after being inspired b
y that "eternal meaning" or did Allaah create voices which He caused the Prophet
(alayhis salaam) to hear an expression of that meaning. In any case, they aband
on the belief of the orthodox Muslims, the people of Sunnah and Jamaa'ah that th
e Qur'an is the speech of Allaah, which began as speech, from Him, and it is unc
reated. See Imaam al-Tahawi (to whom these people spuriously ascribe themselves,
out of fancies and desires) explain that aqidah in this article here.
The Fifth: However, some of them saw the weakness in this position, and in order
to maintain this view and avoid public scorn, whilst making it appear to be in
agreement (at least in wording) with the people of the Sunnah, al-Juwayni came a
long, opposed his school associates and gave a hybridized definition for Kalaam
in the sense it is both the Kalaam Nafsee (in reality) but also the Kalaam lafdh
ee (metaphoricaally), and thus, through this collective definition, the Qur'an c
an be said to be Allaah's speech, uncreated. This is from the multitudes of acad
emic deceptions found in these Kalaam schools, where everything consists of word
games, playing with definitions and so on, in order to make a doctrine which st
inks (the Qur'an is created, the kufr of the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah), to appea
r like one which is sweet and fragrant. This is the type of deception you get fr
om the Ash'aris today. However, at the same time, they are not scared to express
the real truth (according to them) and we have document elsewhere on this site
from the likes of al-Juwayni himself, and al-Razi, and al-Bayjuri, and al-Buti (
from the contemporaries) all admitting their view is the same as the Mu'tazilah
except that they have a dispute in wording only (see here, here, here, here and
here).
The Sixth: In the view of Ahl al-Sunnah, this Qur'an we have is from Allaah's kn
owledge and it is also His speech, and from one perspective it is an attribute a
mongst the attributes of Allaah in the sense that it is His knowledge which is u
ncreated and in the sense that it is from His attribute of speech (which is also
uncreated), except that His speech is tied to His will and power, and hence He
speaks as and when He wills, with whatever He wills. So whoever said this Qur'an
that we have is created then he has declared permissible the worshipping of ido
ls, since he has claimed worship of one whose attributes are created. And one sh
ould refer back to the arguments of Imaam Ahmad against the Jahmiyyah in this re
gard about the Qur'an being from Allaah's knowledge.
Now answering this particular doubt (of the Christian) as represented in the que
stion [within the context of the false doctrine of the Ash'aris and Maturidis] r
equires a lengthy discussion of the issue of "space" and "time" which has put th
ese people to trial and on account of which they denied Allaah's uluww and claim
ed His speech (the Qur'an) is created and that He does not speak as and when He
wills. And we will not therefore embark upon that until we have established a se
ries of articles on that topic in due course. However, the point here is to indi
cate that:
It does not do you any good arguing with a Christian on an issue in which your v
ery vewpoint is fundamentally derived from a Trinitarian Christian himself, name
ly the doctrine of Kalaam Nafsee.
And we can mock your intelligence a little bit with these quotes: Ibn Taymiyyah
said (in Kitab al-Eemaan, p. 32):
If one was to argue in an issue through a hadeeth related in the two Sahihs [of
Bukhari and Muslim] from the Prophet (alayhis salaam), they would say, "This is
a solitary narration (khabar waahid)", despite it being from that which the Scho
lars are united upon regarding its truthfulness and taking it with acceptance. A
nd this line of poetry, its transmission has not even been etablished from the o
ne who [allegedly] said it with an authentic chain of narration, neither through
a solitary report [meaning, khabar waahid] and nor through other than it, and n
or have the specialists of the language taken it with acceptance either. So how
can even the smallest of matters of the language be affirmed through it (i.e. th
rough poetry without any authentic transmission), let alone the mening of Kalaam
(speech)?
And as Ibn al-Munajjaa, the Hanbali Shaykh narrated about Shaykh Abu al-Bayaan N
aba' bin Muhammad al-Qurashi al-Shaafi'ee that an Ash'ari Shaykh came to him cal
led Ibn Tameem, and after some discussion occurred between them he said (as repo
rted by al-Dhahabi in al-uluww with a sound chain, see the Mukhtasar pp. 284-285
):
Woe be to you! The Hanbalis when it is said to the: What is the proof that the Q
ur'an is in letter and voice? They say, "Allah said this, the Messenger said thi
s..." - and then the Shaykh narrated verses and reports - "... yet when it is sa
id to you: What is the proof that the Qur'an is a meaning in the self?" You say,
"al-Akhtal [who is a Trinitarian Christian] said, 'Indeed speech is in the hear
t (self, soul)'..." Who is this al-Akhtal, a vile Christian and you have founded
your madhhab upon a line from his poetry and abandoned the Book and the Sunnah.
There is no doubt both the Ash'aris and Maturidis abandoned the Qur'an, the Sunn
ah and 'aql on this matter, and for this reason, when it comes to debating, they
are left to fend for themselves with nothing but whatever [deficient] 'aql they
have left with them.
Imaam Ahmad has a response to an argument adduced by the Jahmiyyah which partial
ly addresses this matter and you can read that in this article here:
Imaam Ahmad on the Doubt of the Jahmiyyah: That the Qur'an Is Created Because Ee
saa is the 'Word of Allaah' and Eesaa is Created - (see here)
Although it is not exact same issue, it nevertheless is relevant to it, and part
ially addresses the matter from a Sunni, Athari perspective.
Case Recomendations
Inshaa'Allaah we will revisit this case after the necessary foundations have bee
n laid down through other articles. Every case is unique and requires its own ap
proach. We feel not enough background has been laid down regarding these ambiguo
us statements of "space" and "time", so we will need articles on those subjects
before proper treatment can be carried out. But for now, we advise the victim to
print this article off and make two readings, four times a day, for a week as a
preventative for to ward off any potential risk of burnout or fizzle. It may al
so be helpful to take the following supplements (once daily, first thing in morn
ing):
Ahmad bin Sinan al-Waasitee (d. 258H): Shaykh of al-Bukhaaree and Muslim Sends J
ahmite Ash'aris Fleeing From Their Secret Hideouts: 'Whoever Says the Qur'an is
Two Things Or a Hikaayah is, by Allaah, a Zindeeq, Kaafir' - (see here)
The Ash'aris: We Believe in Two Qur'ans - (see here)
Abdul-Kareem ash-Sharahstani (d. 584H), Ash'ari Scholar: On the Speech of Allaah
and the Qur'an - (see here)
Ibn Jareer at-Tabari (d. 310H): Sends the Jahmite Ash'aris Fleeing From Their Se
cret Hideouts: There is Only One Qur'an, Uncreated and Whoever Claims Otherwise
Is a Cursed, Forsaken Kaafir - (see here)
The Four Doors in Explanation of Why the Jahmites Must Deny That The Qur'an is A
llaah's Uncreated Speech, That Allaah Will be Seen In the Hereafter and That All
aah is Above His Throne, With His Essence - (see here)