Incubus

[Incubus @FatawaCollector]

————
¹ ʿabd al-Jabbār b. Aḥmad, Şerhu’l-Usûlı’l-Hamse, ed. İlyas Çelebi, vol. 1 (Istanbul: Türkıye Yazma Eserler Kurumu Başkanliği, 2013) 297.

[Incubus @FatawaCollector]

🔖 𝐀𝐬𝐡ʿ𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐦 & 𝐃𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐜𝐜. 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐮ʿ𝐭𝐚𝐳𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐬

The argument from Composition has long found its tradition amongst the Ancient Greeks of the Classical Period, and attempted to devoid God of any deficiencies which fall under a highly philosophized notion of ‘Part’-hood and ‘Whole’-relations.

| ➸ Given a particular understanding of a ‘Part’, several Kalām-theologians and Arabic philosophers have opted for a negation of certain or all properties of Allāh (ﷻ) in the name of ‘transcendence.’ Those of the Ashʿarite tradition specifically, claim to have escaped the implications of corporealism entailed by affirming a multitude of eternal and divine qualities. That is to say, there exists no ‘materiality’ within Allāh (ﷻ), since He possesses no ‘physical’ traits as contrarily ‘accepted’ by more Traditionalist schools.

Nevertheless, theologians of the Muʿtazilite movement, whom are often praised by post-Classical and modern Ashʿarites, note that even the theologian, Abū al-Ḥasan (d. 936 C.E.), alongside his followers, have inescapably suffered from a type of metaphysical composition.

| ➸ Former Ashʿarite thinker, turned Muʿtazilite judge and theologian, ʿabd al-Jabbār (d. 1025 C.E.) states:

“According to the Kullābites, He (ﷻ) ought to have the essential attributes eternally (Will, knowledge, life, existence) … Except, when they witnessed the Muslims in agreement that there is nothing eternal with Allāh, they did not dare to propagate this view. Then the Ashʿarite (Abū al-Ḥasan) appeared, and preached that He (ﷻ) ought to have these essential attributes eternally, [saying such] due to his foulness and lack of care for Islām and the Muslims.”¹

[Incubus @FatawaCollector]

————
¹ Muḥammad b. Maḥmūd, Nuzhat al-Arwāḥ wa Rawḍat al-Afrāḥ, ed. ʿabd al-Karīm abū Shuwayrib (Paris: Dar Byblion, 2007) 393.

[Incubus @FatawaCollector]

𝐖𝐚𝐬 𝐀𝐛ū 𝐚𝐥-Ḥ𝐚𝐬𝐚𝐧, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐬𝐡ʿ𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞, 𝐏𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐀𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞?

Medieval Arabic philosopher and scientist of Shahrazūr, Muḥammad b. Maḥmūd (d. 1288 C.E.), put together a bio-bibliographical history comprising the Ancient and Middle Age philosophers.

✤ In his entry on the major Ashʿarite theologian and philosopher, Muḥammad of Ray (d. 1210 C.E.), he makes a passing comment on the nature of Abū al-Ḥasan (d. 936 C.E.):

“Abū al-Ḥasan, the Ashʿarite, the Kalām-theologian, the one who didn’t know which end of his two tails was longer. He was devoid of having literacy in either of the two philosophies, the Peripatetic and Illuminationist tradition. Nor does he know how to form a proper syllogism, nor provide a sound argument. He is a poor old man, lost between his previous theological schools, where he mixes things together haphazardly.”¹

[Incubus @FatawaCollector]

————
¹ Muḥammad b. ʿabd al-Karīm, Command and Creation: A Shiʿi Cosmological Treatise, trans. Daryoush M. Poor (London: The Institute of Ismaili Studies, 2021) 102.

[Incubus @FatawaCollector]

𝐀𝐫𝐞 𝐀𝐬𝐡ʿ𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐬 & 𝐊𝐚𝐥ā𝐦-𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐨𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐩𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐜𝐜. 𝐭𝐨 𝐀𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐜 𝐏𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐬?

Former Ashʿarite theologian from Shahristān, turned Arabic Philosopher of the Ismāʿīlite faction, Muḥammad b. ʿabd al-Karīm (d. 1153 C.E.), categorized both the Ashʿarites and Muʿtazilites as ‘anthropomorphists’ alongside other theological schools:

“The Ashʿarīs, [affirmed] an essence and eight pre-eternal attributes … The Muʿtazilīs, an essence for God and attributional characteristics … The [Arabic] philosophers, an essence and negative and relative attributes … And at the root of each denomination an anthropomorphism is implied and a negation is necessitated.”¹

[Mujasimologist @Jdxdd1356]

@Hanbali2024 @AlAbdulDhaeef @AbuAsimHanbali Nope, and the proof is that the philosophers would takfir you not us.

You don’t believe yad is an attribute of meaning so it’s not the same when you appeal of knowledge.

Not only do you believe God is composite of parts but that he is a body (in meaning).

[Incubus @FatawaCollector]

————
¹ ʿabd-Allāh b. ʿuthmān, Al-Masālik fī al-Khilāfiyyāt bayn al-Mutakallimīn wa al-Hukamāʾ, ed. Seyit Bahgivan (Beirut: Dār Ṣādir, 2007) 113.

[Incubus @FatawaCollector]

𝐀𝐬𝐡ʿ𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐒𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 & 𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐂𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐫𝐬

Ottoman scholar and Māturīdite theologian, ʿabd-Allāh b. ʿuthmān (d. 1737 C.E.), otherwise known as Mestçızâde, authored a rich encyclopedic work in 1700 C.E. compiling the various contrastive and parallel views of Kalām-theologians, Arabic and Greek Philosophers.

In it, he mentions the general agreement amongst Ashʿarite theologians in that:

“Everything that exists can be seen, including flavors and scents. Likewise, everything that exists can be heard, including flavors, scents and desires.”¹

[Incubus @FatawaCollector]

————
¹ Yosuf b. Mattityāhu, Jewish Antiquities: Book XVIII-XX, trans. Louis H. Feldman, vol. 9 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965) 531; 533.

² Idem, Against Apion, trans. John M. G. Barclay (Leiden: Brill, 2007) 29-30.

³ Yosuf b. Mattityāhu, The Life 𝘢𝘯𝘥 Against Apion, trans. Henry Thackeray, vol. 1 (London: William Heinemann, 1926) 179.

⁴ Roger G. Beckwith, “A Modern Theory of the Old Testament Canon,” Vetus Testamentum 41, nō. 4 (1991): 205-6.

⁵ Sid Z. Leiman, The Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures, The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence, 2nd ed. (New Haven: Connecticut Academy of Arts & Sciences, 1991) 32-3.

[Incubus @FatawaCollector]

🔖 𝐂𝐚𝐧𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐞𝐛𝐫𝐞𝐰 𝐒𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐩𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐜𝐜. 𝐭𝐨 𝐉𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐩𝐡𝐮𝐬 (𝐝. 𝟏𝟎𝟎 𝐂.𝐄.)

How does a modern biblical Canon compare to that of an ancient scholarly and political figure from the first century? Yosuf b. Mattityāhu, was a historian and Romanized thinker who ascribed himself to Judaism. Having authored several works, he composed an extensive refutation against Egyptian grammarian and philosopher, Apion (fl. 1st century), clarifying the Jewish faith, referred to as „Against Apion“ in 94 C.E.¹

✤ In Book I — §38-40, he describes the scriptural authority of the Torah, prophetic books and hymns, which are narrowed down to twenty-two writings:

“<38> Among us there are not thousands of books in disagreement and conflict with each other, but only twenty-two books, containing the record of all time, which are rightly trusted. <39> Five of these are the books of Moses, … <40> From the death of Moses until Artaxerxes, king of the Persians after Xerxes, the prophets after Moses wrote the history of what took place in their own times in thirteen books; the remaining four books contain hymns to God and instructions for people on life.”²

➟ Given the above and several other passages, modern critical scholarship has attempted to reconstruct possible models that best represent Josephus’s codified biblical collection. There appears to be common ground as to the specific selections, consisting of the Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), prophetic writings (Joshua, Samuel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, etc.) and hymns (Psalms, Proverbs, Songs).

However, the placement of these scriptures within a singular volume with reference to their organization and structure remains uncertain. British biblical scholar, Henry Thackeray, maintained a different order³ to that of ecclesiastical historian, Roger Beckwith.⁴ Likewise, specialist of Jewish Studies, Sid Leiman, holds to a distinct arrangement than that of both aforementioned.⁵

✤ Nevertheless, a direct comparison between the current list and alternative biblical canons (e.g. Romans and Greeks) reveals that the latter contains additional books, such as the multi-volume history of the Maccabees or the revelation given onto Ezra.

[Incubus @FatawaCollector]

————
¹ Muḥammad b. ʿomar, Al-Maṭālib al-ʿāliya min al-ʿilm al-Ilāhiyya, ed. Aḥmad Ḥ. al-Saqā, vol. 2 (Beirut: Dār al-Kitāb al-ʿarabī, 1987) 61-2.

² Ibn ʿomar, Al-Maṭālib al-ʿāliya, vol. 2, 72-3.

[Incubus @FatawaCollector]

𝐃𝐢𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐒𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐩𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐬 & 𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐀𝐥𝐥ā𝐡 (ﷻ) 𝐝𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐬 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝?

The above question was self-prompted by Ashʿarite philosopher and theologian, Muḥammad b. ʿomar (d. 1210 C.E.), in the form of a lengthy doubt against Kalām-Theology to which he attempts to reconcile. He states:

➸ “Doubt nō. (7): All the scriptures of the prophets—peace be upon them—are filled with the notion to He (Allāh) is above in a direction. In so far as the Qurʾān, it mentions the fact that He is above the throne very explicitly in seven instances … And terms that allude to the [act of] descending and sending down [revelation] are numerous … and there’s nothing in the Qurʾān whatsoever that mentions the negation of directionality. Hence, if the true religion included negating directionality, then it would’ve been a must that such would be mentioned at least once.”¹

In an attempt to answer this problem, he resorts to claiming that the Qurʾān, alongside other heavenly scriptures and teachings of the Prophets, spoke in such mannerisms—anthropomorphism and corporealism, specifically that of spatialism—in light of an accommodative need towards the general populace, due to their inadequacy in comprehending Ashʿarite theology and Classical Theism in general. This much says Muḥammad of Ray:

➸ “Response to Doubt nō. (7): Calling creatures towards the truth requires delivery in the best of fashions, and closest to that which brings good. Thus, since being open about [divine] transcendence is unacceptable to the minds of the common people, the more appropriate approach would then be to preach in terms that seem to imply anthropomorphism, with an additional sense of warning using words that allude to general [divine] transcendence.”²

[Incubus @FatawaCollector]

————
¹ ʿalī b. al-Ḥusayn, Al-Tanbīh wa al-Ishrāf, ed. Michael J. de Goeje (Leiden: Brill, 1894) 395-6.

² ʿabd al-Jabbār b. Aḥmad, Faḍl al-Iʿtizāl wa Ṭabaqāt al-Muʿtazila, ed. Fuʾād Sayyid and Ayman Sayyid (Berlin: Klaus Schwarz, 2017) 336.

³ Muḥammad al-Nadīm, The Fihrist, trans. Bayard Dodge, vol. 1 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1970) 433.

⁴ Ibn al-Nadīm, The Fihrist, vol. 1, 534.

⁵ Ibid, vol. 1, 451.

⁶ Ismāʿīl b. ʿabbād, Dīwān, ed. Muḥammad Ḥ. Āl Yāsīn (Baghdad: Maktabat al-Nahḍa, 1965) 32-3.

[Incubus @FatawaCollector]

🔖 𝐄𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐲 𝐌𝐮ʿ𝐭𝐚𝐳𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐀𝐛ū 𝐚𝐥-Ḥ𝐚𝐬𝐚𝐧, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐬𝐡ʿ𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞 (𝐝. 𝟗𝟑𝟔 𝐂.𝐄.)

Some proponents of the Ashʿarite school express a type of tolerance, or even liking towards Muʿtazilite theology and its thinkers. Its Kalām-based worldview and contributions within secular sciences often demarcate them from the more so-called Traditionalist school, and earns them favor amongst more Post-Classical Ashʿarites.

However, does such a relationship find itself reflected amongst figures of the Muʿtazilite school, specifically towards Ibn abī Bishr, that is Abū al-Ḥasan?

𝟏. ʿalī, the Masʿūdite (d. 956 C.E.) — Shīʿite historian, Geographer

Specializing in history and geography, ʿalī had Shīʿite allegiance and leaned towards the Muʿtazilite cause. Writing in his final year, he authored his „Al-Tanbīh wa al-Ishrāf“ in which he takes notice of Abū al-Ḥasan’s emergence without recognizing the yet to-be independent school. Rather, he labels him as part of the Kullābite school, aware of the major over-laps between the two theological views:

“And Kalām-theologians amongst the various Islāmic groups, from the Muʿtazilite, Shīʿites, Murjiʾites … have authored works on theological encyclopedias and refutations against their opponents, such as Yamān b. Riʿāb, the Khārijite … and many others of which we’ve witnessed, like the work ʿalī Muḥammad b. ʿabd al-Wahhāb … Abū al-Qāsim of Balkh … and Abū al-Ḥasan b. abī Bishr, the Baṣran Ashʿarite, Kullābite …”¹

𝟐. Ibn ʿayyāsh (fl. 970 C.E.) — Muʿtazilite theologian

Abū Isḥāq, Ibrāhīm b. Muḥammad b. ʿayyāsh. He was a Muʿtazilite theolgian, and one of the first teachers of the Muʿtazilite judge, ʿabd al-Jabbār (d. 1025 C.E.).² Decades after Abū al-Ḥasan’s passing, he composed a refutation to Abū al-Ḥasan’s „Iḍāḥ al-Burhān“:

“Amongst his books there was »Refutation of the Book of Ibn Abī Bishr« about »Elucidation of Proof«.”³

𝟑. Ibn al-Nadīm (d. 990 C.E.) — Muʿtazilite bibliographer

Having had access to an array of libraries and manuscripts, the litterateur and prolific bibliographer, Muḥammad b. Isḥāq, completed Chapter Five of his „Al-Fihrist“ around 986-7 C.E.⁴ He recounts in his entry on Abū al-Ḥasan that he was often mocked and not taken seriously:

“𝗔𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗵𝗶𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗼𝗳 𝗷𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗷𝗼𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴.”⁵

𝟒. Ibn ʿabbād (d. 995 C.E.) — Muʿtazilite theologian

Ismāʿīl b. ʿabbād, also nick-named as al-Ṣāḥib, had learnt from the chief Muʿtazilite theologian, Abū Hāshim (d. 933 C.E.), and later taught on the aforementioned ʿabd al-Jabbār. He composed a lengthy poem, detailing Muʿtazilite beliefs and critiquing several theological factions which included the Ashʿarites. He attacks their views on the Ashʿarite conception of Divine Speech (Kalām Nafsī), and issues related to Divine Command Theory:

“And some people said: «He is eternal, for His speech is His». Look at to what extents they’ve reached. Likewise, the Christians (say so) about the Christ in their doctrine, and they’ve divided our religion so they (themselves) divided … And if I put forth their views on Determinism that they’ve expressed, the mountains on earth would tremble from its danger … they also say that Allāh desired blasphemy, oppression and pre-marital intercourse, and the murder of the prophets … and He punished him for abandoning an act he could not bear, with a punishment awaiting him from the pits of hell—forever.”⁶

[Incubus @FatawaCollector]

🔖 𝐂𝐚𝐧 𝐌𝐞𝐧 𝐁𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐆𝐨𝐝𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐬𝐡ʿ𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧?

Some proponents of the Ashʿarite school who practice Ṣūfī mysticism, especially in its extreme forms, advocate for the likes of medieval Arabic philosopher, Ibn ʿarabī (d. 1240 C.E.).

In their pursuit, figures such as Ashʿarite scholar and Ottoman Ṣūfī, Muḥammad b. Jaʿfar (d. 1927 C.E.), appear, and present a summary of the varying views within the Ṣūfī spiritual school:

“The scholar, ʿizz b. ʿabd al-Salām, mentioned that it’s allowed for someone to adopt all the Names of Allāh (ﷻ) with the exception of four, that is: Allāh, the Creator, the Originator, the Designer. As for the scholar, Abū al-ʿabbās of Murcia, and others like him who specialize in this field, they say that 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗡𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗔𝗹𝗹ā𝗵 (ﷻ) 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝘅𝗰𝗲𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗮𝗷𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗡𝗮𝗺𝗲, which is: Allāh … The great sage (Ibn ʿArabī) stated in his Futūḥāt that 𝗶𝘁’𝘀 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝘁𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗡𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘀—𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗡𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗠𝗮𝗷𝗲𝘀𝘁𝘆 (i.e. Allāh)—on the condition that the Most-High bestows upon his saint His divine lights and its attributes. 𝗙𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲, 𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗵𝗶𝗺, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸 𝗼𝗳 𝗵𝗶𝗺𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳 𝗮𝘀 𝗚𝗼𝗱 in the moment of feeling overwhelmed ...”¹

—————
¹ Muhammad b. Jaʿfar, Jalāʾ al-Qulūb min al-Aṣdāʾ al-Ghayniyya …, ed. ʿalī Jumʿa, vol. 3 (Cairo: Bāḥithy al-Markaz al-Islāmī, 2004) 60.

[Sheriffdeen 🇳🇬 🌙🗣️ @AhmedSheriffdin]

I give you “Transcendent Tajsim” 😭

[Incubus @FatawaCollector]

Your evaluations of what Islām, and the early body of Orthodox Muslims permitted and disallowed, has practically no historical precedence nor a representative group that could argue on your behalf.

Even non-Muslim records—independent of the Ḥadīth corpus—such as the 经行记 (Jing Xi Ji — A Record of Passages & Travels) by the Chinese solider, Du Huan, of the Shash rule, records during his captivity in Baghdād in the 750s C.E. that “They (Muslims) prohibit the drinking of wine and forbid music.”¹

Having himself witnessed the monarch, Abū al-ʿabbās al-Ṣaffāḥ (d. 754 C.E.), or Abū Jaʿfar al-Manṣūr (d. 775 C.E.), several of his Muslim contemporaries would’ve been direct transmitters from the disciples of the Prophet Muḥammad (ﷺ). This is even before the rise of the grand Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal (d. 855 C.E.), great Muḥammad b. Idrīs (d. 820 C.E.), and even the full formation of the Mālikite school as the prestigious, Mālik b. Anas (d. 795 C.E.), had not even yet passed away.

Rejecting the early views of the Orthodox Muslim community, even when attested independent of the Prophetic Tradition (Sunnah) as carried in the form of »Ḥadīth«, is to simply reject the reliability of Islām being preserved in the transmission of its teachings. The carriers, who themselves just so happen to reject Music, are the primary reason—aside from Allāh’s (ﷻ) will—why Islām managed to continue onto your hands today.
—————

¹ Alexander Akin, “The Jing Xing Ji of Du Huan: Notes on the West by a Chinese Prisoner of War,” Harvard Middle Eastern and Islamic Review 5 (2000): 90.

[Incubus @FatawaCollector]

————
¹ Muḥammad b. Fūrak, Mujarrad Maqālāt al-Ashʿarī, ed. Muḥammad F. Hāshim (Amman: Dār al-Nūr, 2022) 218-9.

² ʿabd al-Jabbār b. Aḥmad, Faḍl al-Iʿtizāl wa Ṭabaqāt al-Muʿtazila, ed. Fuʾād Sayyid and Ayman Sayyid (Berlin: Klaus Schwarz, 2017) 268.

³ ʿalī b. Ismāʿīl, Die Dogmatischen Lehren der Anhaenger des Islam, ed. Hellmut Ritter, vol. 1 (Istanbul: Devlet Matbaasi, 1929) 132-3.

⁴ Ibn Ismāʿīl, Die Dogmatischen, vol. 1, 198.

⁵ Ibid, vol. 2, 525.

⁶ Muḥammad b. ʿabd al-Karīm, Al-Milal wa al-Niḥal, ed. Amīr Mahnā and ʿalī Ḥ. Fāʿūr, 3rd ed., vol. 1 (Beirut: Dār al-Maʿrifa, 1993) 167.

⁷ ʿalī b. abī ʿalī, Abkār al-Afkār fī Uṣūl al-Dīn, ed. Aḥmad M. al-Mahdī, 2nd ed., vol. 5 (Cairo: Dār al-Kotob wa al-Wathāʾiq, 2002) 7.

⁸ Masʿūd b. ʿomar, Sharḥ al-Maqāṣid, ed. Ibrāhīm Shams al-Dīn, vol. 3 (Beirut: Dār al-Kotob al-ʿilmiyya, 2001) 420.

⁹ ʿalī b. Ḥazm, Al-Faṣl fī al-Milal wa al-Ahwāʾ wa al-Niḥal, ed. Muḥammad Naṣr and ʿabd al-Raḥmān ʿumayra, 2nd ed., vol. 2 (Beirut: Dār al-Jīl, 1996) 265-6.

[Incubus @FatawaCollector]

🔖 𝐀𝐬𝐡ʿ𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 & 𝐅𝐚𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧: 𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐒𝐚𝐭𝐚𝐧 𝐁𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐬

بِسْمِ اللَّـهِ الرَّحْمَـٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ

> 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐈 <

Adherents of the Ashʿarite school will speak in such caring mannerisms, and—unironically—emphasize the need to teach basic theological doctrines as a means to remedy such problems and illnesses.

However, there should be nothing wrong in what the below-mentioned woman expressed. Amongst various Kalām-based tenets that could be taught, it is quite strange as to why majority of modern-day Ashʿarites are completely avoidant of the topic: What constitutes true faith (Īmān)? Particularly that of a Muslim. Below is a brief over-view on the classical position, especially as that espoused by Abū al-Ḥasan (d. 936 C.E.), the founding theologian himself.

☉ Ibn Fūrak (d. 1015 C.E.) — Ashʿarite theologian

“For this reason, he (Abū al-Ḥasan) did not class one who denies Allāh (ﷻ) verbally, whilst believing in Him in the heart to be an infidel (Kāfir) in reality … He used to also say: ‘… Just as the one who bows down to the sun is an infidel not due to [the act of] bowing to it, rather him prostrating is merely an indication of the infidelity (Kufr) in his heart. Likewise, the murderers of the Prophets (ﷺ) …’

He (Abū al-Ḥasan) mentioned in some of his works, quoting from Abū al-Ḥusayn—also known as al-Ṣāliḥī—that he used to believe: »True faith (Īmān) … is to know that Allāh (ﷻ) is one, and there’s nothing like Him« … and he used to assert that infidelity is to be ignorant of Allāh (ﷻ) …

Then our grand scholar, Abū al-Ḥasan (the Ashʿarite) stated: ‘And what I choose in terms of what constitutes Faith, is that of what al-Ṣāliḥī believes in.’”¹

| ➸ Per the compilations of Ibn Fūrak, Abū al-Ḥasan and Abū al-Ḥusayn (fl. 890s C.E.) do not deem blaspheming against Allāh (ﷻ), His Prophet Muḥammad (ﷺ), or the verbal expression of believing in three distinct Gods, to be inherent forms of infidelity. They are merely indicators.

| ➸ Abū al-Ḥasan utilizes the teachings al-Ṣāliḥī in some of his works, and quite explicitly subscribes himself to his position per the compilations of Ibn Fūrak.

——————

> 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐈𝐈 <

✤ However, there arises two important questions before proceeding: (1) Who is al-Ṣāliḥī? And (2) Where is he utilized?

(𝟏) Little exists on Abū al-Ḥusayn Muḥammad b. Muslim al-Ṣāliḥī, with most of the extensive information preserved by Abū al-Ḥasan in his „Kitāb al-Maqālāt“. The Muʿtazilite head, ʿabd al-Jabbār (d. 1025 C.E.), of Hamadān, identifies him as a Muʿtazilite in his theo-bibliographical history,² and Abū al-Ḥasan places him within the broader category of „Jahmites“, specifically the „Murjiʾites“ from the Muʿtazilites.

(𝟐) Given—per Ibn Fūrak—that Abū al-Ḥasan explicitly states that his views on Faith are that of Abū al-Ḥusayn, it is important to critically examine the latter’s more elaborative expressions on the matter:

• “𝗔𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗱 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗽 from the Murjiʾites, they claim that Faith is merely to know Allāh, and that infidelity is simply to be ignorant of Him … and for someone to say that Allāh is Triune, it is not blasphemy. However, it does not appear except from an infidel, for Allāh (ﷻ) had anathematized whoever says that. And the Muslims have agreed, by consensus, that none says such except an infidel. They’ve also argued that to know Allāh, it is simply to have love for Him, and be humble towards Him … They’ve additionally claimed that prayer is not an act of worshipping Allāh, for there is no act of worship except the belief in Him … and the one who expressed these views is Abū al-Ḥusayn al-Ṣāliḥī.”³

[Abū Ayyūb ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Hāshimī @hashimiyy_]

The disaster that results from labeling things “minor kufr” or “minor shirk” without clarifying what that term means.

The disaster that results from not teaching your kids the fundamentals of creed.

[Incubus @FatawaCollector]

• “And the Muʿtazilites differed on whether it’s possible that Allāh (ﷻ) could call Himself ignorant, dead, and incapable on the basis of a change in language … As for the second group, they’ve claimed that it is possible, and if He were to do so there would be nothing wrong. This is the position of al-Ṣāliḥī.”⁴

• “Al-Ṣāliḥī also claimed that it is possible that Allāh (ﷻ) could call Himself ignorant and dead; and that He could call Himself a 𝗵𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮 𝗱𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆.”⁵

In sum, Abū al-Ḥasan, the Ashʿarite, and Abū al-Ḥusayn al-Ṣāliḥī, believe that professing that Allāh is ‘an animal’, human, ignorant, unwise, and anything else »in a sense« does not make you any less of a ‘Muslim’. Acknowledging the existence of Allāh (ﷻ) as the Creator suffices even if all the Prophets or Scriptures were to be rejected—as will be briefly touched upon.
——————

> 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐈𝐈𝐈 <

𝗗𝗶𝗱 𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗔𝘀𝗵ʿ𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝘀𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗮𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗔𝗯ū 𝗮𝗹-Ḥ𝗮𝘀𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗮𝗹-Ṣā𝗹𝗶ḥī 𝘀𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆?

𝟏. Ibn ʿabd al-Karīm of Sharistān (d. 1153 C.E.) — Ashʿarite theologian, philosopher

“As for al-Ṣāliḥī, he stated: «Faith is to know Allāh (ﷻ) in an absolute, and that the world has only one Maker. Infidelity is to be completely ignorant Him.» He also said: «The one who professes the Trinity did not utter blasphemy, but none professes this except from the infidel».”⁶

𝟐. Sayf al-Dīn of Āmed (d. 1233 C.E.) — Ashʿarite theologian, philosopher

“There are those from who believed that Faith is the affirmation in the heart, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗲𝗳, 𝗔𝗯ū 𝗮𝗹-Ḥ𝗮𝘀𝗮𝗻, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗴𝗲, 𝗔𝗯ū 𝗕𝗮𝗸𝗿, the teacher, Abū Isḥāq, and most of the scholars. 𝗔𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗮𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗴𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗹-Ṣā𝗹𝗶ḥī, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗜𝗯𝗻 𝗮𝗹-𝗥ā𝘄𝗮𝗻𝗱ī from the Muʿtazilites.”⁷

𝟑. Masʿūd of Taftāzān (d. 1390 C.E.) — Māturīdite theologian, philosopher

“And to know what was previously mentioned, which includes knowing Allāh (ﷻ) in His oneness; whatever else that befits Him and transcending from what doesn’t befit Him. 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝗵īʿ𝗶𝘁𝗲𝘀, 𝗝𝗮𝗵𝗺 𝗯. Ṣ𝗮𝗳𝘄ā𝗻, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗔𝗯ū 𝗮𝗹-Ḥ𝘂𝘀𝗮𝘆𝗻 𝗮𝗹-Ṣā𝗹𝗶ḥī … 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝘀𝗵ʿ𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗲 (Abū al-Ḥasan) 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗯𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗶𝘁.”⁸

➛ It is important to note that Abū al-Ḥasan’s views were likewise advocated by Jahm b. Ṣafwān (d. 746 C.E.) himself, and former Shīʿite Muʿtazilite theologian then later apostate, Ibn al-Rāwandī (d. 860 C.E.). Notably, the prolific Kalām-theologian, Sayf al-Dīn, included the early successor, Ashʿarite theologian and Mālikite judge, Abū Bakr (d. 1013 C.E.). The former must have been aware of his personal works and, more importantly, his views on the pharaoh, Ramesses II (d. 1213 B.C.E.), as is attributed by several writers from the Kalām school.

| ➸ Early reactions on the matter emerged from the likes of Arabic philosopher and scientist, Ibn Ḥazm (d. 1064 C.E.), who corroborates these findings, settled from the distant Spain:

“The furthest away (from Orthodoxy) [on the issue of Faith] are the followers of Jahm b. Ṣafwān; Abū al-Ḥasan, the Ashʿarite; and Muḥammad b. Karrām of Sijistān. Jahm and the Ashʿarite used to argue that faith is attached merely to the state of the heart, 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝗳 𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗳𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗧𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗺𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗵 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗻 𝗜𝘀𝗹ā𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗹𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 (Taqiyya).”⁹

[Incubus @FatawaCollector]

———
¹ Ismāʿīl b. Muṣṭafā, Ḥāshiya ʿala Sharḥ al-Jalāl al-Dawānī ʿalā al-ʿaqāʾid al-ʿiḍadiyya, ed. Aḥmad F. al-Mazīdī, vol. 1 (Beirut: Dār al-Kotob al-ʿilmiyya, 2017) 308.

[Incubus @FatawaCollector]

🗂️ 𝐂𝐚𝐧 𝐀𝐥𝐥ā𝐡 (ﷻ) 𝐋𝐢𝐞 𝐀𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐬𝐡ʿ𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐌ā𝐭𝐮𝐫ī𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐒𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐨𝐥?

Hārūn Kanj: “Lying can not be ascribed to Allah’s word.”

➣ Perhaps the Māturīdite theologian and Ottoman logician, İsmail of Gelenbe (d. 1790 C.E.), and the earlier Ashʿarite philosopher and theologian, Jalāl al-Dīn of Davan (d. 1502 C.E.), can elaborate on this:

“Generally speaking, for lying to occur under the ‘Kalām Lafẓī’ and class as morally abhorrent—that is to say, it entails a deficiency—is impossible according to the Ashʿarites. Thus, the chief thinker (Jalāl al-Dīn) said:

«It is amongst things which are possible, and achieving absolute certainty in its impossibility to take place within the speech (of Allāh), Most-High, through the consensus of the scholars and the prophets—peace be upon them—does not negate its inherent possibility as is in all other disciplinary fields of deduction.»”¹

⊛ In simpler terms, the Qurʾān by which most Muslims affirm are the verbatim words of Allāh (ﷻ), that is, what begins with a Sūrah known as al-Fātiḥa, and ends with al-Nās—from whatever and whichever commandments, moral teachings, prophecies, and historical narratives it contains—could, metaphysically speaking, all be a lie.

⊛ For the Orthodox, this entails all of Islām to be false. For the Ashʿarites and other Kalām-theologians who adhere to this position (many of them do), this would cause ‘no issue’. It is merely the „Kalām Lafẓī“ which is effected, not the „Nafsī“; therefore Allāh (ﷻ) is still—technically—not lying. Therefore, Ashʿarites of this kind, take absolutely no issue with asserting that it is metaphysically possible for Allāh (ﷻ) to have made all of the Qurʾān false.

[Haroun Kanj | Halwa Supremacist 🍮 @HarounKanj]

This quote from Imam Ash'ari RA is important because it mentions a few things:
1. Reward &amp; Punishment is revelation based.
2. Hellfire &amp; Jannah is forever by consensus.
3. Lying can not be ascribed to Allah's word.