Al-Saffārīnī’s Critique of Later Ash‘arīs
Below is a translation of a section from Ustadh Alaa’ Hasan’s article, Da‘áwá al-munāwi’īn li-fatáwá Ibn Bāz wa-Ibn ‘Uthaymīn.
A- Al-Saffārīnī’s Critique of Later Ash‘arīs
Many contemporary critics of Salafism only recognize Al-Saffārīnī for his statement that Ahl al-Sunnah consists of three groups. They often cite this phrase without carefully reading his works in full.
Al-Saffārīnī explicitly discusses the alignment of later Ash‘arīs with the doctrines of the Marīsiyyah Jahmiyyah:
ولما كان بعد المائة الثانية انتشرت هذه المقالة التي كان السلف يسمونها مقالة الجهمية؛ بسبب بشر بن غياث المريسي وذويه.. وهذه التأويلات الموجودة اليوم بأيدي الناس مثل أكثر التأويلات التي ذكرها أبو بكر بن فورك في كتاب (التأويلات)، وأبو عبد الله محمد بن عمر الرازي في كتابه الذي سماه (تأسيس التقديس).. هي بعينها التأويلات التي ذكرها بشر المريسي في كتابه، كما يعلم ذلك من كتاب الرد الذي صنفه عثمان بن سعيد الدارمي، فإنه حكى هذه التأويلات بأعيانها عن بشر المريسي، ثم ردها بكلام إذا طالعه العاقل الذكي، يسلم حقيقة ما كان عليه السلف، ويتبين له ظهور الحجة لطريقهم وضعف حجة من خالفهم. وقد أجمع أئمة الهدى على ذم المريسية، بل أكثرهم كفرهم وضللهم، ويعلم بمطالعة كتاب ابن سعيد الدارمي أن هذا القول الساري في هؤلاء المتأخرين الذين تسموا بالخلف هو مذهب المريسية، فلا حول ولا قوة إلا بالله
“After the second century, this doctrine—referred to by the Salaf as the doctrine of the Jahmiyyah—spread due to Bishr ibn Ghiyāth al-Marīsī and his followers... The interpretations found in contemporary books, such as most of those mentioned by Abū Bakr ibn Fūrak in Al-Ta’wīlāt and Abū ‘Abdullāh Muḥammad ibn ‘Umar al-Rāzī in his book Ta’sīs al-Taqdīs, are the very same interpretations recorded by Bishr al-Marīsī in his book. This is evident from the refutation compiled by ‘Uthmān ibn Sa‘īd al-Dārimī, where he quoted these exact interpretations from Bishr al-Marīsī and refuted them with arguments so clear that any intelligent and perceptive person who reads them will undoubtedly recognize the truth of the doctrine of the Salaf. He will also realize the strength of their argument and the weakness of those who opposed them. The imams of guidance unanimously condemned the Marīsiyyah, with most of them declaring them to be disbelievers or severely misguided. By reading the work of Ibn Sa‘īd al-Dārimī, it becomes clear that this doctrine, which has spread among these later scholars who call themselves the Khalaf, is, in reality, the doctrine of the Marīsiyyah. There is no power nor strength except with Allah.”[1]
In this passage, Al-Saffārīnī equates the theological positions of Ibn Fūrak, Al-Rāzī, and later Ash‘arīs with the views of Bishr al-Marīsī and the Jahmiyyah, expressing regret over the state of later scholars.
To the fair-minded reader, what difference exists between the statements of contemporary Salafīs and the remarks of Al-Saffārīnī above? In fact, his words are even stronger, as neither Ibn Bāz nor Ibn ‘Uthaymīn classify the Ash‘arīs as pure Jahmiyyah.
2- Al-Saffārīnī on the Ash‘arīs’ Agreement with the Mu‘tazilah
Al-Saffārīnī dedicated a section titled “The Ash‘arīs’ Agreement with the Mu‘tazilah,” in which he stated:
والحاصل أن المعتزلة موافقة الأشعرية والأشعرية موافقة المعتزلة في أن هذا القرآن الذي بين دفتي المصحف مخلوق محدث، وإنما الخلاف بين الطائفتين أن المعتزلة لم تثبت لله كلاما سوى هذا، والأشعرية أثبتت الكلام النفسي القائم بذاته تعالى
“In summary, the Mu‘tazilah agree with the Ash‘arīs, and the Ash‘arīs agree with the Mu‘tazilah in that the Qur’an, which is between the two covers of the muṣḥaf, is created and originated. The only difference between the two groups is that the Mu‘tazilah do not affirm any speech for Allah beyond this, whereas the Ash‘arīs affirm an eternal, intrinsic speech (kalām nafsī) subsisting within His essence.”[2]
He also stated:
وفيها دلالة أيضا على بطلان قول من يقول: إن القرآن العربي ليس منزلًا من الله بل مخلوق؛ إما في جبريل أو محمد أو في جسم آخر كالهواء، كما يقول ذلك الكلابية والأشعرية القائلون بأن القرآن العربي ليس هو كلام الله
“This also serves as evidence for the invalidity of the view that Allah did not reveal the Arabic Qur’an but is instead created—whether in Jibrīl, in Muḥammad, or in another entity such as the air. This is the view of the Kullābiyyah and the Ash‘arīs, who claim that the Arabic Qur’an is not the speech of Allah.”[3]
Al-Saffārīnī further remarked:
وهذا المقام من أعظم المقامات التي اضطرب فيها مبتدعة المتكلمين وملاحدة الفلاسفة، حتى إن الرجل الواحد يصنف الكتب المتعددة، فينصر قول هؤلاء في كتاب، كما يقع في كتب الرازي والآمدي وأبي حامد وغيرهم
“This is one of the greatest issues in which the innovators among the mutakallimūn and the heretical philosophers have fallen into confusion. It has reached the point where a single individual authors multiple books, supporting one view in one book and a different view in another—this is evident in the writings of Al-Rāzī, Al-Āmidī, Abū Ḥāmid [Al-Ghazālī], and others.”[4]
The Key Takeaway:
Al-Saffārīnī explicitly stated that the Ash‘arīs agree with the Mu‘tazilah on the issue of the Qur’an being created. Yet, if Ibn ‘Uthaymīn had made the same statement, he would have been harshly condemned, accused of misunderstanding the Ash‘arī school, and subjected to the usual accusations. However, since these words come from Al-Saffārīnī—a figure not associated with contemporary Salafism—the same level of criticism is absent. This double standard reveals that the objection is often not to the critique's content but to who is making it.
Recommended Reading:
The Inclusion of Asharis within Ahlus Sunnah by Later Hanbalis
[1] Lawāmi‘ al-Anwār (1/299).
[2] Lawāmi‘ al-Anwār (1/165).
[3] Ibid. (1/163).
[4] Ibid. (1/299).