Are the Differences Between Ash’aris and Ahl Al-Hadith Semantic and Minor?

The below is a translation of Ustadh Alaa’ Hasan’s article, Da’wa anna Al-Khilaf Bayn Al-Asha’ira wa-Ahl Al-Hadith Lafdhee wa-Qareeb.

Introduction:

Some contemporary Ash’aris primarily rely on publicity statements to attract students to their school of thought. They often claim that the Ash’ari school represents the majority view among hadith scholars, leading figures of the various Islamic jurisprudential schools, and experts in language and exegesis.[1] To support this claim, they cite the names of prominent non-theologians such as Al-Nawawi, Ibn Hajar, Al-Qurtubi, Ibn Daqiq al-'Id, and Al-Suyuti, using these figures as a form of promotional advertising for their doctrine. They may even include some traditionalist scholars, such as Ibn Abd al-Barr, Al-Mizzi, Al-Dhahabi, and Ibn Kathir, relying on the audience’s ignorance.

Once a student is convinced of the need to follow the majority of the Ummah and seeks to learn Ash’ari creed, they are then introduced to other figures like Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, Al-Amidi, Al-Sanusi, Al-Sa’d al-Taftazani, and Al-Jalal al-Dawwani. Through these scholars, the student learns the principles of kalam and Aristotelian logic, despite the fact that the first group of scholars, who were initially cited to promote the Ash’ari school, actually condemned these methods.

Al-Maqrizi, a Shafi'i scholar, explained that the spread of the Ash’ari school was largely due to the enforcement of this doctrine by rulers through the use of force, imprisonment, and punishment of dissenters. He stated:

فكان هذا هو السبب في اشتهار مذهب الأشعري وانتشاره في أمصار الإسلام، بحيث نُسي غيره من المذاهب وجُهل؛ حتى لم يبق اليوم مذهب يُخالفه، إلا أن يكون مذهب الحنابلة أتباع الإمام أبي عبد الله أحمد بن محمد بن حنبل رضي الله عنه، فإنهم كانوا على ما كان عليه السلف، لا يرون تأويل ما ورد من الصفات

“This was the reason for the fame and spread of the Ash’ari school throughout the Muslim lands, to the extent that other schools were forgotten and became obscure. The only exception was the Hanbali school, the followers of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal. May Allah be pleased with him. He adhered to the approach of the Salaf and rejected any ta’weel of the divine attributes.”[2]

Given the longstanding and intense conflict between the Ash’aris and the Ahl al-Hadith, marked by mutual accusations of heresy and disbelief, some eventually resorted to claiming that their differences were merely semantic and minor. 

This claim not only implies ignorance on the part of Islamic scholars throughout the centuries but also falsifies the intellectual history of Muslims. How could scholars across all eras of Islam fail to recognize that the disagreement was merely semantic and minor, only for contemporary scholars to discover it? No doubt, presenting the matter in this way oversimplifies the issues and lacks scholarly impartiality.

In this context, we will discuss some of the major issues with fairness and justice so the reader can understand the complete and unaltered truth. Our methodology will be to present each disputed issue, followed by the acknowledgment of Ash’ari scholars regarding their disagreement with Ahl al-Hadith on each matter. In doing so, we aim to eliminate any room for misinterpretation or justifications by the opposition.

Firstly: Source of Knowledge

Fakhr al-Din al-Razi articulated the Ash’ari approach to sources of knowledge in his book “Asas al-Taqdis,” where he prioritized reason (which is ‘Ilmul Kalam) over revelation (the Quran and Sunnah) in what he called the “universal principle.” Later Ash’ari scholars subsequently adopted this methodology.

Al-Razi stated:

اعلم أن الدلائل القطعية العقلية إذا قامت على ثبوت شيء، ثم وجدنا أدلة نقلية يشعِر ظاهرها بخلاف ذلك، فهناك لا يخلو الحال من أحد أمور أربعة: إما أن يصدَّق مقتضى العقل والنقل فيلزم تصديق النقيضين وهو محال، وإما أن يبطل فيلزم تكذيب النقيضين وهو محال، وإما أن يصدَّق الظواهر النقلية وتكذَّب الظواهر العقلية وذلك باطل؛ لأنه لا يمكننا أن نعرف صحة الظواهر النقلية إلا إذا عرفنا بالدلائل العقلية إثبات الصانع وصفاتِه وكيفية دلالة المعجزة على صدق الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم

“Know that if definitive rational proofs establish something, and we then find scriptural evidence that appears to contradict it, the situation can only be one of four possibilities: Either both rational and scriptural evidence is accepted, which entails believing in two contradictories, and this is impossible; or both are rejected, which also entails rejecting two contradictories, and this is impossible, or the apparent meanings of the scriptural texts are accepted, and the rational proofs are rejected, which is invalid because we can only know the validity of the scriptural texts through rational proofs that establish the existence of the Creator, His attributes, and the veracity of the miracles that prove the truthfulness of the Prophet (peace be upon him)...”[3]

Al-Sanusi, may Allah have mercy on him, said:

أما من زعم أن الطريق بدأ إلى معرفة الحق بالكتاب والسنة ويحرم ما سواهما فالرد عليه أن حُجتيهما لا تُعرف إلا بالنظر العقلي، وأيضًا قد وقعت فيهما ظواهر من اعتقدها على ظاهرها كفَر عند جماعة أو ابتدع

“As for those who claim that the path to knowing the truth starts with the Book and the Sunnah and that it is forbidden to rely on anything else, the refutation of this is that their evidence can only be known through rational inquiry. Furthermore, according to many scholars, there are apparent meanings in the scriptures that, if taken on their apparent meaning, would lead one to disbelief or heresy.”[4]   

Al-Sa’d al-Taftazani acknowledged that their approach contradicts what is universally transmitted from the scriptures of the prophets and the innate nature of rational people. He said:

والواجب أنها ظنية سمعية في معارضة قطعيات عقلية، فيُقطع بأنها ليست على ظاهرها، فيفوَّض العلم بمعانيها إلى الله، أو تؤوَّل تأويلات مناسبة موافقة لما عليه الأدلة العقلية… فإن قيل: إذا كان الدين الحقّ نفي الحيِّز والجهة فما بال الكتب السماوية والأحاديث النبوية مشعرة في مواضع لا تُحصى بثبوت ذلك من غير أن يقع في موضع منها تصريح بنفي ذلك وبيان استحالته؟! مع أن المقام مقام التصريح بنفيها، بل مقام التأكيد والتكرير كما كررت الدلالة على وجود الصانع ووحدته وعلمه وقدرته وحقيَّة المعاد وحشر الأجساد في عدة مواضع، وأكدت غاية التأكيد، مع أن هذا أيضا حقيق بغاية التأكيد والتحقيق؛ لما تقرر في فطرة العقلاء مع اختلاف الأديان والآراء من التوجه إلى العلو عند الدعاء ورفع الأيدي إلى السماء. أُجيب: بأنه لما كان التنزيه عن الجهة مما تقصر عنه عقول العامة حتى تكاد تجزم بنفي ما ليس في الجهة كان الأنسب في خطاباتهم والأقرب إلى صلاحهم والأليق بدعوتهم إلى الحق ما يكون ظاهرًا في التشبيه

“It is obligatory that [these texts] are speculative and transmitted, contrary to definitive rational proofs. Therefore, it is certain that they are not to be taken on their apparent meaning. Their meanings should either be consigned to Allah or interpreted in a way that aligns with rational evidence...If it is argued that if the true religion denies spatial existence and direction, then why do the scriptures and prophetic traditions imply the existence of such attributes in numerous places without explicitly denying or explaining their impossibility? This should be explicitly denied, especially as the scriptures repeatedly affirm the existence of the Creator, His oneness, His knowledge, His power, and the reality of the resurrection and the gathering of bodies in several places with utmost emphasis. This issue also deserves utmost emphasis and clarification because rational people’s innate nature, regardless of their religions and views, inclines towards looking upwards when praying and raising their hands towards the sky. The response is that since the denial of direction is beyond the comprehension of the general public, who almost certainly reject what is not within a direction, it was more appropriate in their addresses and more conducive to their well-being and more suitable for inviting them to the truth to use expressions that appear to imply anthropomorphism.”[5]

Regarding the methodology of Ahl al-Hadith, Abu al-Muzaffar al-Sam’ani states:

اعلم أن فصل ما بيننا وبين المبتدعة هو مسألة العقل، فإنهم أسَّسوا دينهم على المعقول، وجعلوا الاتِّباع والمأثور تبعًا للمعقول، وأما أهل السُنة قالوا: الأصل في الدين الاتباع والعقول تبع، ولو كان أساس الدين على المعقول لاستغنى الخلق عن الوحي وعن الأنبياء صلوات الله عليهم، ولبطل معنى الأمر والنهي، ولقال مَنْ شاء ما شاء، ولو كان الدين بُنِيَ على المعقول وجب أن لا يجوز للمؤمنين أن يقبلوا أشياء حتى يعقلوا.. وإنمَّا علينا أن نقبل ما عقلناه إيمانًا وتصديقًا، وما لم نعقله قبلناه تسليمًا واستسلامًا، وهذا معنى قول القائل من أهل السنة: إن الإسلام قنطرة لا تُعبَر إلا بالتسليم

“Know that the key distinction between us and the innovators lies in the matter of reason. They have founded their religion on rationality, making adherence to and reliance on transmitted reports secondary to reason. However, Ahl al-Sunnah assert that the foundation of religion follows the transmitted reports, with the reason being secondary. If religion were based on rationality, there would be no need for revelation or prophets, and the concepts of command and prohibition would be meaningless, allowing anyone to say whatever they wished. If religion were established on rationality, believers would not be permitted to accept anything until they fully understood it. We are obligated to accept what we comprehend with faith and affirmation, and we accept what we do not comprehend with submission and surrender. This is the meaning of the saying from Ahl al-Sunnah: ‘Islam is a bridge that can only be crossed with submission.’”[6]

Secondly: The First Obligation upon the Mukallaf (Legally Responsible Individual)

According to Ahl al-Sunnah, the first obligation upon the mukallaf is to pronounce the two testimonies of faith (shahadatain). In contrast, the Ash’aris assert that the first obligation is to contemplate the proofs of the incidental attributes (a‘rad) and the origination of bodies (huduth al-ajsam), through which they aim to establish the existence of the Creator. These proofs are derived from Greek philosophy and were never mandated by any of the Salaf or the eminent scholars of Muslims.

Al-Juwayni states:

أول ما يجب على العاقل البالغ -باستكمال سن البلوغ أو الحلم شرعًا- القصدُ إلى النظر الصحيح المفضِي إلى العلم بحدوث العالم

“The first obligation upon a rational adult—upon reaching the age of maturity or puberty according to Shari‘ah—is to engage in correct contemplation that leads to knowledge of the world’s origination.”[7]

Abu Mansur al-Baghdadi says:

الصحيح عندنا قول من يقول: إن أول الواجبات على المكلَّف النظر والاستدلال المؤدِّيان إلى المعرفة بالله تعالى وبصفاته وتوحيده وعدله وحكمته، ثم النظر والاستدلال المؤديان إلى جواز إرسال الرسل منه، وجواز تكليف العباد ما شاء، ثم النظر المؤدّي إلى وجوب الإرسال والتكليف منه، ثم النظر المؤدّي إلى تفصيل أركان الشريعة، ثم العمل بما يلزمه منها على شروطه

“According to us, the correct opinion is that the first obligation upon the mukallaf is to engage in contemplation and inference that leads to knowledge of Allah, His attributes, His oneness, His justice, and His wisdom. Then comes the contemplation and inference that lead to the permissibility of Allah sending messengers and assigning duties to His servants as He wills. Then, the contemplation leads to the necessity of sending messengers and assigning duties. Then, the contemplation leads to the details of the pillars of Shari‘ah. Finally, one must act upon what is obligatory according to its conditions.”[8]

Abu Ja’far al-Samnani, one of the prominent Ash’ari scholars, acknowledged that the Ash’aris adopted this stance from the Mu’tazilites, which subsequently remained within the Ash’ari school. Ibn Hajar has reported this. Al-Samnani said:

إن هذه المسألة بقيت في مقالة الأشعري من مسائل المعتزلة، وتفرَّع عليها أن الواجب على كل أحد معرفة الله بالأدلة الدالة عليه، وأنه لا يكفي التقليد في ذلك

“This issue remained in al-Ash’ari’s creed from the Mu’tazilite teachings. It led to the conclusion that everyone must know Allah through the evidence pointing to Him and that mere imitation (taqlid) is insufficient.”[9]

Imam al-Nawawi, may Allah have mercy on him, favored the position of Ahl al-Hadith and refuted the Mutakallimun. He stated:

قوله صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم ‌في ‌الرواية ‌الأخرى: «‌أقاتل الناس حتى يشهدوا أن لا إله إلا الله، ويؤمنوا بي وبما جئت به» وفيه دلالة ظاهرة لمذهب المحقِّقين والجماهير من السلف والخلف أن الإنسان إذا اعتقد دين الإسلام اعتقادًا جازمًا لا تردُّد فيه كفاه ذلك، وهو مؤمن من الموحِّدين، ولا يجب عليه تعلُّم أدلّة المتكلمين ومعرفة الله تعالى بها، خلافًا لمن أوجب ذلك وجعله شرطًا في كونه من أهل القبلة، وزعم أنه لا يكون له حكم المسلمين إلا به، وهذا المذهب هو قول كثير من المعتزلة وبعض أصحابنا المتكلمين، وهو خطأ ظاهر

“The Prophet’s saying in another narration, ‘I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no god but Allah, and they believe in me and what I have brought,’ provides clear evidence supporting the view of the majority of the Salaf and later scholars that if a person firmly believes in Islam without any doubt, that is sufficient, and he is considered a believer among the monotheists. He is not obligated to learn the Mutakallimun’s proofs and to know Allah through them. This contradicts those who insist that it is obligatory and a condition for being considered among the people of the Qibla, claiming that one cannot be deemed a Muslim without it. This view is held by many Mu’tazilites and some of our Mutakallimun, but it is evidently incorrect.”[10]

 It is incorrect to assert that since Al-Nawawi adopted a particular stance, the issue becomes a matter of disagreement among the Ash’aris. This assumption is inaccurate, as it is not a contentious issue among them. Rather, the madhab fundamentally relies on the evidence of huduth and the examination of existence and entities, which are foundational to the later Ash’ari creedal texts. Those who consider it a matter of disagreement are the laypeople and the uninformed among contemporary Ash’aris.

In Al-Sanusi’s “Sharh al-Kubra,” the opinions on the faith of the imitator without reflection are summarized into three views: that he is an unbeliever, that he is sinful, and that he is a believer. Al-Sanusi favored the first opinion.[11]

The author of “Al-Jawhara”[12] stated:

إذ كل من قلّد في التوحيد *** إيمانه لم يخل من ترديد

ففيه بعض القوم يحكي الخُلفا *** وبعضهم حقق فيه الكشفا

فقال: إن يجزم بقول الغير *** كفى وإلا لم يزل في الضير

Indeed, whoever imitates in monotheism 

His faith is not without hesitation 

Some recount the difference of opinion on this 

While others assert its clarification 

They said that if one firmly adheres to another’s view, it suffices; otherwise, he remains distressed. 

Abu al-Muzaffar al-Sam’ani succinctly summarizes the methodology of the Hadith scholars, may Allah have mercy on him, who said:

أنكرنا طريقة أهل الكلام على ما أسَّسوا، فإنهم قالوا: أول ما يجب على الإنسان النظر المؤدّي إلى معرفة الباري. وهذا قول مخترع لم يسبقهم إليه أحد من السلف وأئمة الدين، ولو أنك تدبَّرت جميع أقوالهم وكتبهم لم تجد هذا في شيء منها، لا منقولًا من النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم، ولا من الصحابة رضي الله عنه، وكذلك من التابعين بعدهم. وكيف يجوز أن يخفى عليهم أول الفرائض وهم صدور هذه الأمة، والسفراء بيننا وبين رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم؟! ولئن جاز أن يخفى الفرض الأول على الصحابة والتابعين، حتى لم يبينوا لأحد من هذه الأمة مع شدة اهتمامهم بأمر الدين وكمال عنايتهم حتى استخرجه هؤلاء بلطيف فطنتهم في زعمهم، فلعله خفي عليهم فرائض أخر! ولئن كان هذا جائزا فلقد ذهب الدين واندرس؛ لأنا إنما نبني أقوالنا على أقوالهم، فإذا ذهب الأصل فكيف يمكن البناء عليه؟! نعوذ بالله من قول يؤدّي إلى هذه المقالة التي تؤدّي إلى الانسلاخ من الدين، وتضليل الأئمة الماضين. هذا، وقد تواترت الأخبار أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم كان يدعو الكفار إلى الإسلام والشهادتين… ولم يُرو أنه دعاهم إلى النظر والاستدلال، وإنما يكون حكم الكافر في الشرع أن يُدعى إلى الإسلام، فإن أبى وسأل النَّظِرة والإمهال لا يُجاب إلى ذلك، ولكنه إما أن يسلم أو يعطي الجزية أو يُقتَل، وفي المرتد إما أن يسلم أو يُقتل، وفي مشركي العرب على ما عُرف. وإذا جعلنا الأمر على ما قاله أهل الكلام لم يكن الأمر على هذا الوجه

“We rejected the methodology of the Mutakallimun in what they established, for they claimed that the first obligation upon a person is contemplation leading to the knowledge of the Creator. This is an invented opinion unprecedented among the Salaf and the Imams of the religion. If you were to examine all their sayings and writings, you would not find this in any of them, not transmitted from the Prophet (peace be upon him), the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them), or the Tabi’un who came after them. How could the first obligation be hidden from them, the foremost of this nation and the intermediaries between the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and us? If it were possible for the first obligation to be hidden from the Companions and the Tabi’un, such that they did not clarify it for anyone in this nation despite their intense concern for religious matters and their complete attention to them, and it was only these later Mutakallimun who, with their claimed astuteness, extracted it, then perhaps other obligations were hidden from them as well! If this were possible, the religion would have disappeared and become obliterated, for we base our statements on theirs, and if the foundation is gone, how can the building stand? We seek refuge with Allah from a statement that leads to this conclusion, which leads to the abandonment of the religion and the misguidance of the past Imams. Furthermore, numerous reports confirm that the Prophet (peace be upon him) would invite the disbelievers to Islam, as well as the two Shahadahs... It was never reported that he invited them to contemplation and reasoning. The legal ruling for a disbeliever is that he is invited to Islam; if he refuses and asks for time, he is not granted it, but rather, he must either embrace Islam, pay the jizya, or be killed. For an apostate, he must either embrace Islam or be killed. For the polytheists of the Arabs, it is known. If we adopt the view of the theologians, the matter would not be as it is.”[13]

From the above, it becomes clear that the Ash’ari method, which asserts the obligation of contemplation to attain monotheism in Lordship, is invalid. Among the Hadith scholars, it is well known that the first obligation upon the accountable individual is the declaration of the two Shahadahs, which is the essence of Islam. The monotheism of Uluhiyyah encompasses the monotheism of Rububiyyah and the monotheism of names and attributes together. For whoever worships Allah alone and believes that He alone deserves worship, this indicates belief in His Lordship and His names and attributes. This is because one only worships Allah alone if one believes that Allah, glorified and exalted, is unique in His Lordship and perfection.

Thirdly, concerning the issue of Iman:

The Salaf and the Ahl Al-Hadith widely report that Iman is composed of speech and action, which increase and decrease. In contrast, the Ash’aris assert that faith is merely affirmation and that actions do not affect Iman.

Al-Bukhari said:

لقيت أكثر من ألف رجل من العلماء بالأمصار، فما رأيت أحدًا يختلف في أن الإيمان قول وعمل، ويزيد وينقص

“I met more than a thousand scholars across various regions, and I did not see anyone differing on the fact that Iman consists of speech and action and that it increases and decreases.”[14]

Abu Umar ibn Abdul Barr stated:

أجمع أهل الفقه والحديث على أن الإيمان قول وعمل، ولا عمل إلا بنية، والإيمان عندهم يزيد بالطاعة وينقص بالمعصية

“The scholars of jurisprudence and Hadith unanimously agreed that Iman is speech and action and that there is no action without intention. According to them, Iman increases with obedience and decreases with disobedience.”[15]

The Admission of Taqi al-Din al-Subki:

Al-Subki authored the book “Al-Sayf Al-Maslul ‘ala man Sabb Al-Rasul” and asserted that whoever insults Allah and His Messenger is an unbeliever, even if he is a Muslim who affirms belief in Allah and His Messenger. However, al-Subki found it problematic to maintain that Iman is mere affirmation and that actions have no bearing on faith. He could not resolve this issue except by acknowledging that the Ash’ari view contradicts the understanding of the Salaf.

Al-Subki, may Allah have mercy on him, said:

ومذهب الأشعريِّ وأكثرِ أصحابه أن الإيمان هو التصديق، واختلف جوابه في معنى التصديق: هل هو المعرفة أو هو قول النفس على تحقيق ومن ضرورته المعرفة، وهو الذي ارتضاه القاضي ابن الباقلاني، ومذهب السلف أن الإيمان معرفة بالجنان، وإقرار باللسان، وعمل بالأركان، وأنه يزيد وينقص، وأنه لا ينتفي بانتفاء الأعمال، ومذهب السلف في هذا هو الحق، ولتقريره مكان غير هذا

“The madhab of al-Ash’ari and most of his followers is that Iman is affirmation. However, there is a difference of opinion regarding the meaning of affirmation: is it knowledge, or is it the assertion of the self with certainty, which inherently includes knowledge? Al-Qadi Ibn al-Baqillani favored this latter view. The madhab of the Salaf is that Iman is knowledge in the heart, acknowledgment by the tongue, and action by the limbs, increasing and decreasing and not ceasing with the absence of actions. In this matter, the madhab of the Salaf is the truth, and its explanation belongs in a different context.”[16]

Reflect on al-Subki’s statement after recounting the Ash’ari madhab, “The doctrine of the Salaf in this matter is the truth,” which indicates his recognition of the divergence between the two views and his preference for the madhab of the Salaf.

The Admission of Al-Juwayni:

Al-Juwayni acknowledges that the view of the Hadith scholars is that Iman consists of speech and action, and then he explicitly states his disagreement. He said:

فصل في معنى الإيمان: اعلموا أن غرضنا في هذا الفصل يستدعي تقديم ذكر حقيقة الإيمان، وهذا مما اختلفت فيه مذاهب الإسلاميين. فذهبت الخوارج إلى أن الإيمان هو الطاعة، ومال إلى ذلك كثير من المعتزلة، واختلفت مذاهبهم في تسمية النوافل إيمانا. وصار أصحاب الحديث إلى أن الإيمان معرفة بالجنان، وإقرار باللسان، وعمل بالأركان. وذهب بعض القدماء إلى أن الإيمان هو المعرفة بالقلب والإقرار بها. وذهبت الكرامية إلى أن الإيمان هو الإقرار باللسان فحسب، ومضمِر الكفر إذا أظهر الإيمان مؤمن حقًّا عندهم، غير أنه يستوجِب الخلود في النار. ولو أضمر الإيمان ولم يتَّفق منه إظهاره فهو ليس بمؤمن، وله الخلود في الجنة. والمرضيّ عندنا أن حقيقة الإيمان التصديق بالله تعالى، فالمؤمن بالله من صدقه

“Section on the meaning of Iman: Know that our purpose in this section requires us first to mention the essence of Iman, which is a matter of differing opinions among Islamic schools. The Khawarij believed that Iman is obedience, and many of the Mu’tazilites leaned towards this view, though they differed on whether supererogatory acts could be considered part of Iman. The Hadith scholars maintained that Iman is knowledge in the heart, acknowledgment by the tongue, and action by the limbs. Some early scholars held that Iman is simply the heart’s recognition and acknowledgment of it. The Karramites believed that Iman is solely verbal acknowledgment, so someone who harbors disbelief but outwardly professes Iman is a true believer, according to them, though they deserve eternal punishment in hell. Conversely, someone who inwardly believes but does not outwardly profess it is not considered a believer and deserves eternal paradise. Our accepted view is that the essence of Iman is the affirmation of Allah, and thus the believer in Allah is the one who affirms Him.”[17]

He also said:

حقيقة الإيمان عندنا: التصديق، وهو معناه في اللغة… والمؤمن على التحقيق: من انطوى عقده على المعرفة بصدق من أخبر عن صانع العالم وصفاته وأنبيائه. فإن اعترف بلسانه بما عرفه بجنانه فهو مؤمن ظاهرًا وباطنًا. وإن لم يعترف بلسانه معاندًا لم ينفعه علم قلبه، وكان في حكم الله تبارك وتعالى من الكافرين به كفر جحود وعناد

“The essence of Iman, according to us, is affirmation, which is its meaning in the language… The true believer is one whose conviction encompasses the knowledge of the truthfulness of the one who reports about the Creator of the world, His attributes, and His prophets. If one verbally acknowledges what one knows in one’s heart, then he is a believer both outwardly and inwardly. However, suppose one does not verbally acknowledge it out of obstinacy. In that case, the knowledge in his heart does not benefit him, and in the judgment of Allah, he is considered among the disbelievers, a disbeliever out of denial and obstinacy.”[18]

As for Al-Sayf Al-Amidi—may Allah have mercy on him and forgive him—he mentioned this widely transmitted statement from the Salaf and attributed it to the Hashwiyya! He said:

وبهذا ثبت فساد قول الحشوية: أن الإيمان هو التصديق بالجنان والإقرار باللسان والعمل بالأركان

“Thus, the falsehood of the Hashwiyya’s statement is established: that Iman is affirmation in the heart, acknowledgment by the tongue, and action by the limbs.”[19]

It cannot be said that Al-Amidi was unaware that this was the view of the Salaf, for the man was originally Hanbali. The Hanbalis are particularly associated with this view and have defended it with the traditions of Imam Ahmad and other scholars.

Indeed, Imam Al-Nawawi—may Allah have mercy on him—disagreed and attempted to reconcile the Mutakallimun’s view with the Salaf's. However, Al-Nawawi cannot be cited as evidence in this matter because his opinion is not authoritative in the Ash’ari school. He was an independent thinker, and his association with Ash’arism was generic rather than precisely established.

As for the authoritative position of the school, it was established by later scholars such as Al-Sanusi, Al-Laqani, and Al-Bajuri, who relied on the opinions of the theologians.

Al-Bajuri said:

إن الإيمان هو مطلق التصديق، والإيمان والعمل الصالح متغايران، ومن صدَّق بقلبه ولم يتَّفق له الإقرار في عمره لا مرة ولا أكثر من مرة مع القدرة على ذلك فهو مؤمن عند الله تعالى؛ ولكنه شرط في إجراء الأحكام الدنيوية

“Iman is simply affirmation. Iman and righteous deeds are distinct. Whoever believes in his heart but never verbally declares it, even once in his lifetime, despite being able to do so, is still considered a believer before Allah. However, a verbal declaration is a condition for applying worldly legal rulings.”[20]

The Admission of Al-Kawthari:

Sheikh Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari acknowledges that the Ash’ari belief differs from that of the Salaf. He says:

وهؤلاء الصالحون -يعني السلف- باعتقادهم ذلك الاعتقادَ أصبحوا على موافقة المعتزلة أو الخوارج حتمًا إن كانوا يعدّون خلافَ اعتقادهم هذا بدعة وضلالة؛ لأن الإخلال بعمل من الأعمال -وهو ركن الإيمان- يكون إخلالًا بالإيمان، فيكون من أخلَّ بعملٍ خارجًا من الإيمان، إما داخلًا في الكفر كما يقوله الخوارج، وإما غير داخل فيه بل في منزلة بين منزلتين الكفر والإيمان كما هو مذهب المعتزلة. وهم من أشدّ الناس تبرُّؤًا من هذين الفريقين، فإذا تبرّؤوا أيضًا مما كان عليه أبو حنيفة وأصحابه وباقي أئمة هذا الشأن، يبقى كلامهم متهافتًا غير مفهوم! وأما إذا عدُّوا العمل من كمال الإيمان فقط، فلا يبقى وجه للتنابز والتنابذ، لكن تشدّدهم هذا التشدّد يدلّ على أنهم لا يعدّون العمل من كمال الإيمان فحسب، بل يعدونه ركنًا منه أصليًّا، ونتيجة ذلك كما ترى! ومن الغريب أن بعض من يعدّونه من أمراء المؤمنين في الحديث يتبجّح قائلًا: إني لم أخرج في كتابي عمن لا يرى الإيمان قول وعمل يزيد وينقص، مع أنه أخرج عن غلاة الخوارج ونحوهم

“These righteous ones—the Salaf—by holding that belief, necessarily align with the Mu’tazilites or the Khawarij if they consider deviation from their belief to be innovation and misguidance. This is because neglecting any action—which is a pillar of Iman—constitutes a deficiency in Iman, so whoever neglects an action falls out of Iman, either entering into disbelief as the Khawarij say or not entering it but being in a position between disbelief and Iman, as is the view of the Mu’tazilites. They [the Salaf] are among the people who most strongly dissociate from these two groups. If they also dissociate from what Abu Hanifa, his companions, and the other Imams of this matter adhered to, their stance remains incoherent and incomprehensible! However, if they considered actions only as part of the perfection of Iman, there would be no reason for such contention and mutual renunciation. But their extreme rigidity indicates that they consider actions not just part of the perfection of Iman but an essential pillar of it, leading to the consequences you see! Strangely, some consider one of their leaders in Hadith[21] to be saying proudly: ‘I did not include in my book anyone who does not consider Iman to be composed of speech and action, which increases and decreases,’ despite including extremists among the Khawarij and others.”[22]

Notice how Al-Kawthari criticizes the Hadith scholars entirely on this central issue, clarifies the matter, and indicates that their disagreement is genuine. He then mocks Imam Al-Bukhari!

Fourthly: Affirmation of the Attributes:

The Ash’aris unanimously agree that the attributes of Allah, blessed and exalted, are not to be understood according to their apparent meanings. The majority of the later scholars opted for ta’wil, such as interpreting “istiwa” (rising) as “istawla” (dominated over) and “hand” as power or blessing. This method has been consistently denounced by the Salaf, who attributed it to the Jahmiyya. How can this disagreement be considered merely semantic when the Jahmiyya’s view is one of the two accepted opinions in the school, and indeed, it is the opinion of the majority of the later scholars among the Ash’aris?

Taqi al-Din al-Subki, referring to those he calls the Hashwiyya, said:

هم طائفةٌ ضَلُّوا عنِ السبيلِ، وعَمِيَتْ أبصارُهم، يُجْرون آياتِ الصِّفاتِ على ظاهرِها، ويعتقِدونَ أنَّه المُرادُ

“They are a group who have strayed from the right path, and their vision is blinded. They interpret the verses of the attributes according to their apparent meanings and believe that this is what is intended.”[23]

Al-Baijuri said:

وإنما اختلفوا: هل يُؤَوَّل ذلك الظاهر تأويلًا تفصيليًّا، أو يُؤَوَّل تأويلًا إجماليًّا.. فذهب إلى الأول الخلف، ويُعبَّر عنهم بالمؤوِّلة

“The difference lies in whether the apparent meanings are to be interpreted in detail or generally. The later scholars (khalaf) adopted the former approach, and they are referred to as the mu’awwila.”[24]

Abu Nasr al-Sijizzi said:

ينبغي أن يتأمَّل قول الكلابية والأشعرية في الصفات؛ ليعلم أنهم غير مثبتين إلها في الحقيقة، وأنهم يتخيرون من النصوص ما أرادوه، ويتركون سائرها ويخالفونه

“One should contemplate the views of the Kullabiyya and Ash’aris regarding the attributes of Allah, to understand that they do not truly affirm a deity, but rather select from the texts what suits them and disregard or oppose the rest.”[25]

Contemporary scholars have attempted to argue that the Ash’aris only rejected interpretations that imply anthropomorphism, not all apparent meanings. However, this view is questionable; if the Ash’aris had intended this distinction, they would have articulated it explicitly, which they did not. The only scholars who have made such distinctions are from the Salafi tradition, like Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Kathir, and Ibn Rajab. The Ash’aris, on the other hand, intended the apparent meaning of the words themselves, as evidenced by their acceptance of general metaphorical interpretation, as will be explained.

Compare the explanation of al-Subki with that of the hadith scholar Ibn Rajab, who, after citing several verses about Allah’s attributes, stated:

ولم يتأوّل الصحابة ولا التابعون شيئا من ذلك، ولا أخرجوه عن مدلوله، بل روي عنهم ما يدل على تقريره والإيمان به

“The Companions and their followers did not interpret any of these verses allegorically nor deviate from their apparent meaning. Rather, what indicates their affirmation and belief in these attributes is narrated from them.”[26]

The hadith scholar of the Maghrib, Ibn Abd al-Barr, may Allah have mercy on him, said:

أهل السنة مجمعون على الإقرار بالصفات الواردة كلها في القرآن والسنة، والإيمان بها وحملها على الحقيقة لا على المجاز، إلا أنهم لا يكيِّفون شيئًا من ذلك، ولا يحدّون فيه صفة محصورة، وأما أهل البدع والجهمية والمعتزلة كلها والخوارج، فكلهم ينكرها، ولا يحمل شيئًا منها على الحقيقة

“The Ahl al-Sunnah are unanimous in affirming all the attributes mentioned in the Qur’an and Sunnah, believing in them and understanding them literally, not metaphorically. However, they do not assign any specific modality to these attributes or limit them to a specific description. As for the people of innovation, the Jahmiyya, the Mu’tazila in all their forms, and the Khawarij, they all deny these attributes and do not accept any of them literally.”[27]

In the “Qadiri Creed,” which was endorsed by the Ahl al-Hadith and Hanbalis and sent by the Commander of the Faithful, al-Qadir Billah, to various regions, it is stated:

وكل صفة وصف بها نفسه، أو وصفه بها نبيه، فهي صفة حقيقية لا صفة مجاز

“Every attribute with which Allah has described Himself, or His Prophet has described Him, is real, not metaphorical.”[28]

All Hanbalis and traditionalists agree that the attributes are not to be understood metaphorically.[29]

It is well known that rejecting the metaphorical interpretation of the attributes implies rejecting both detailed and general forms of interpretation (ta’wil and tafwid).

When contemporary Ash’aris encountered the widespread texts of the Ahl al-Hadith affirming the apparent meanings of the attributes, they began to claim that these texts meant the attributes should be understood according to their apparent wording. The question here is: Who among the earlier scholars preceded you in this interpretation of their words? We do not find any Ash’ari scholar interpreting their words in this manner.

When contemporary scholars cannot find support from earlier figures, they hasten to cling to the views of Hanbali theologians who allegedly uphold the apparent meanings of the attributes while claiming to practice tafwid (consigning the meaning to Allah) — or so they assert.[30] This only adds to the confusion and eccentricity because it amalgamates different theological positions. It is well known that no one before them attempted such a synthesis. If one adheres to a particular school of thought, one should follow it consistently to the end or clearly state that one is not Ash’ari but rather an independent thinker. Only then can their views be properly considered, rather than defending the Ash’aris while simultaneously contradicting them.

The Ash’ari concept of tafwid is actually a form of general interpretation (ta’wil ijmali):

Many students of knowledge — especially those who are not specialists — mistakenly believe that the Ash’ari concept of tafwid involves a general affirmation of the attributes without delving into their reality and that as long as one affirms the attributes without anthropomorphism, they are practicing tafwid. This understanding is incorrect; it reflects the approach of the Salaf and the Ahl al-Hadith. In contrast, the Ash’ari kalami practice of tafwid considers the verses on attributes to be metaphorical, though they do not specify the precise interpretation.

Al-Juwayni (d. 478 AH) said:

وقد اختلفت مسالك العلماء في الظواهر التي وردت في الكتاب والسنة، وامتنع على أهل الحق اعتقاد فحواها، وإجراؤها على موجب ما تبتدره أفهامُ أرباب اللسان منها، فرأى بعضهم تأويلَها والتزام هذا المنهج في آي الكتاب، وما يصح من سنن الرسول ﷺ

“The scholars have differed in their approaches to the apparent meanings found in the Qur’an and Sunnah. The people of truth cannot accept the literal meaning or apply it according to what the language might initially suggest to its speakers. Some have chosen to make ta’weel of these texts and adhere to this method with the verses of the Qur’an and the authentic sayings of the Prophetﷺ.” [31]

Al-Ghazali (d. 505 AH) said:

وما أراده -يعني: الله عز وجل- فلسنا نعرفه، وليس علينا ولا عليك -أيها السائل- معرفته، فكذلك نقول: ولا يجوز إثبات اليد والإصبع مطلقًا

“What Allah intends by these attributes, we do not know, nor is it required of us — or of you, the questioner — to know it. Thus, we say: it is not permissible to affirm the hand or finger in any absolute sense.”[32]

Mulla Ali al-Qari (d. 1014 AH) stated:

والحاصل أن السلف والخلف مؤوِّلون؛ لإجماعهم على صرف اللفظ عن ظاهره، ولكن تأويل السلف إجماليّ لتفويضهم إلى الله تعالى، وتأويل الخلَف تفصيليّ لاضطرارهم إليه لكثرة المبتدعين

“In summary, both the Salaf and the Khalaf make ta’weel, as they unanimously agreed to move away from the apparent meaning of the text. However, the interpretation of the Salaf is general, as they consigned the true meaning to Allah. In contrast, the interpretation of the Khalaf is detailed due to the necessity brought about by the proliferation of innovators.”[33]

Al-Laqani (d. 1041 AH) said:

وكل نصٍّ أوهمَ التشبيهَا   أوِّلْه أو فوِّض ورُمْ تَنزيهَا

“And every text that implies anthropomorphism, either make ta’weel of it or consign it [to Allah], and aim for transcendence.”

He explained this statement, saying:

فمتى ورد في الكتاب أو السنة ظاهر يوهم خلافَ ما وجب له تعالى أو جاز في حقه -بأن يدل على المعنى المستحيل عليه تعالى- وجب علينا شرعًا تنزيهه تعالى عما دلّ عليه ذلك الظاهر اتفاقًا من أهل الحق وغيرهم… وإنما اختلفوا: هل يُؤَوَّل ذلك الظاهر تأويلًا تفصيليًّا، أو يُؤَوَّل تأويلًا إجماليًّا؟… وذهب إلى الثاني: «السلف» ويعبر عنهم بالمفوضة، وإليه أشار بقوله: «أو فوِّض ورُمْ» أي: اقصد «تَنزيهًا» له تعالى عما لا يليق به، فينزهونه سبحانه عما يوهمه ذلك الظاهر من المعنى المحال، ويفوِّضون علمَ حقيقته على التفصيل إليه تعالى إيثارًا للطريق الأسلم

“Whenever an apparent meaning in the Qur’an or Sunnah suggests something contrary to what is obligatory or permissible for Allah — by implying an impossible meaning for Him — it is obligatory for us, according to the Shari’ah, to uphold His transcendence from what that apparent meaning suggests. The people of truth and others agree upon this... The difference lies in whether this apparent meaning should be made ta’weel of in detail or generally consigned. The Salaf preferred the latter, and they are referred to as the mufawwida (those who consign). He referred to this by saying: ‘or consign and aim,’ meaning aim for ‘transcendence’ of Allah from what does not befit Him. Thus, they transcend Him from the apparent meaning of the impossible and consign the detailed knowledge of its true meaning to Him, choosing the safer path.”[34]

Al-Nafrawi al-Maliki (d. 1126 AH) said:

فعُلم بما ذكرنا أن كلًّا من أهل الطريقتين تُؤوّل المُتشابه بصرفه عن ظاهره لاستحالته، وافترقا بعد صرفه عن ظاهره المستحيل في بيان معناه على التعيين والتفصيل، فالسلف يفوّضون علم ذلك إلى الله تعالى، والخلف تؤوّله تأويلًا تفصيليًّا

“From what we have mentioned, it is understood that both groups interpret the ambiguous texts by diverting them from their apparent meaning due to their impossibility. However, after diverting the impossible apparent meaning, they differ in how they specify and detail its intended meaning. The Salaf consign this knowledge to Allah, while the Khalaf make ta’weel of it with a detailed interpretation.”[35]

Al-Bajuri (d. 1276 AH) said:

والمراد من التفويض: صرف اللفظ عن ظاهره، مع عدم التعرض لبيان المعنى المراد… قال الإمام السبكي: أجمع السلف والخلف على تأويـل الآيات المتشابهة تأويلا إجماليًا بصرف اللفظ عن ظاهره المحال على الله تعالى؛ لقيام الأدلة القاطعة على أنه تعالى مخالف للحوادث

“By tafwid (consigning), what is meant is to divert the wording from its apparent meaning without attempting to specify the intended meaning... Imam al-Subki said: The Salaf and Khalaf have unanimously agreed to make ta’weel of the ambiguous verses in a general sense by diverting the wording from its apparent meaning, which is impossible for Allah due to the conclusive evidence that He is unlike created beings.”[36]

Their approach to the volitional attributes:

The Ash’ari school asserts that actions are created and separate from Allah. Consequently, they maintain that the revealed Qur’an is created. According to them, an action is an effect, creation is the created thing, speech is composed of created letters, istiwa’ (Allah’s establishment over the Throne) is a created event that Allah has called istiwa’, and descent is an event in the heavens that Allah has called descent. They consign the meaning of this created thing —what Allah has created.

Al-Bayhaqi, may Allah have mercy on him, said:

وذهب أبو الحسن علي بن إسماعيل الأشعري إلى أن الله تعالى -جل ثناؤه- فعلَ في العرش فعلًا سماه استواءً، كما فعل في غيره فعلا سماه رزقًا أو نعمةً أو غيرهما من أفعاله

“Abu al-Hasan Ali ibn Isma’il al-Ash’ari held that Allah, exalted be His praise, performed an action on the Throne which He called istiwa’, just as He performed other actions which He called provision, blessing, or other such actions.”[37]

What is meant by action here is not a voluntary action from Allah but rather a created event; He brought something created into existence without a voluntary action from Himself.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah clarifies the Ash'ari position by saying:

ومعنى ذلك عنده وعند من ينفي قيام الأفعال الاختيارية بذاته: أنه يخلق أعراضًا في بعض المخلوقات يسميها نزولًا كما قال: إنه يخلق في العرش معنى يسميه استواءً، وهو عند الأشعري تقريب العرش إلى ذاته من غير أن يقوم به فعل، بل يجعل أفعاله اللازمة كالنزول والاستواء كأفعاله المتعدية كالخلق والإحسان، وكل ذلك عنده هو المفعول المنفصل عنه

“According to him [al-Ash’ari] and those who deny that volitional actions can be attributed to Allah’s essence, the meaning is that He creates certain states or phenomena in some of His creations and calls them descent, just as He said that He creates in the Throne a meaning which He calls istiwa’ (establishment). For the Ash’ari, this means drawing the Throne closer to Himself without any action occurring within Him. He considers Allah’s inherent actions, like descent and istiwa’, to be like His transitive actions, such as creation and beneficence — all of which, according to him, are effects that are separate from Him.”[38]

In clearer terms, they do not understand istiwa’ as elevation and rising above the Throne, but rather, they consign the meaning of this created and separate action.

The question is: Is this the same view held by the Hanbalis and traditionalists?

Imam al-Bukhari said:

وقالت الجهمية: الخلق هو المخلوق، وقال أهل العلم: التخليق فعل الله

“The Jahmiyya said that creation is the same as the created thing, but the scholars said that creating is an action of Allah.”[39]

The idea that creation is the same as the created thing is the same position held by the Ash’aris.

Al-Sijizzi said:

وقد أقر الأشعري بحديث النزول ثم قال: النزول فعل يُحدثه في السماء… وهذا كلام مُسفت، لا معنى تحته، وتحقيقه: النفي بعد الإثبات

“Al-Ash’ari affirmed the hadith of the descent, then said: ‘The descent is an action that Allah creates in the heavens.’ This is a superficial statement with no substantive meaning underlying it; its essence is denial after affirmation.”[40]

Letters and sounds:

The Ash’aris unanimously agreed that Allah’s speech is an internal meaning within Himself, not consisting of letters or sound. They also held that Allah did not speak to Musa  (peace be upon him) with His voice, nor did He call to him with sound. Instead, they believe that Allah either made him understand His speech or created speech for him, which he then heard.

Al-Qadi Abu Bakr al-Baqillani said:

ولا يجوز أن يطلَق على كلامه شيء من أمارات الحدث من حرف ولا صوت

“It is not permissible to attribute any signs of creation to His words, such as letters or sound.”[41]

Al-Baijuri described the attribute of speech for Allah by saying:

صفة أزلية قائمة بذاته تعالى ليست بحرف ولا صوت

“It is an eternal attribute inherent in His essence, not consisting of letters or sound.”[42]

Al-Juwayni stated that the disagreement with the Mu’tazila is a matter of semantics:

اعلموا أن الكلام مع المعتزلة وسائر المخالفين في هذه المسألة يتعلق بالنفي والإثبات؛ فإن ما أثبتوه وقدروه كلاما فهو في نفسه ثابت، وقولهم: إنه كلام الله تعالى، إذا رد إلى التحصيل آل الكلام إلى اللغات والتسميات؛ فإن معنى قولهم: هذه العبارات كلام الله أنها خلقه، ونحن لا ننكر أنها خلق الله، ولكن نمتنع من تسمية خالق الكلام متكلما به؛ فقد أطبقنا على المعنى، وتنازعنا بعد الاتفاق في تسميته

“Know that the disputes with the Mu’tazila and other opponents on this issue revolves around affirmation and negation. What they affirm and consider speech does indeed exist, but their assertion that it is the speech of Allah when reduced to its essence, is a matter of language and terminology. By their claim that these expressions are the speech of Allah, they mean that it is His creation. We do not deny that it is the creation of Allah, but we refrain from calling the Creator of speech a speaker of it. Thus, we agree on the essence and differ only in the naming.”[43]

Al-Jurjani also expressed agreement with the Mu'tazila, stating:

اعلم أن ما تقوله المعتزلة في كلام الله تعالى وهو خلق الأصوات والحروف الدالة على المعاني المقصودة، وكونها حادثة قائمة بغير ذاته تعالى، فنحن نقول به، ولا نزاع بيننا وبينهم في ذلك، وما نقوله نحن ونثبته من كلام النفس المغاير لسائر الصفات فهم ينكرون ثبوته، ولو سلموه لم ينفوا قدمه الذي ندعيه في كلامه تعالى، فصار محل النزاع بيننا وبينهم نفي المعنى النفسي وإثباته

“Know that what the Mu’tazila say about the speech of Allah —namely, that it consists of created sounds and letters indicating intended meanings and that these are occurrences existing apart from His essence—is something we agree with. There is no dispute between us and them on this matter. However, what we assert and affirm as ‘internal speech,’ which is distinct from other attributes, is something they deny. Even if they were to acknowledge it, they would not deny its eternal nature, which we claim for His speech. Thus, the point of contention between us and them lies in the denial or affirmation of this ‘internal meaning.’”[44]

The scholars of hadith have unanimously agreed that Allah’s speech consists of letters and sounds. They cite as evidence the hadith: “Allah will gather the servants and call to them with a voice that will be heard as clearly by those far away as by those near, saying, ‘I am the Sovereign, the Judge.’”[45]

Additionally, a hadith narrated by al-Bukhari states: “Allah will say, ‘O Adam,’ and he will respond, ‘At Your service and in Your pleasure.’ Then Allah will call out with a voice, ‘Allah commands you to bring forth from your progeny those destined for Hellfire.’”[46]

Al-Bukhari said:

وأن الله عز وجل ينادي بصوت يسمعه من بعُد كما يسمعه من قرب، فليس هذا لغير الله جل ذكره

“And that Allah Almighty calls out with a voice that is heard by those far away as clearly as by those near. This is unique to Allah, glorified be His mention.”

He also said:

وفي هذا دليل على أن صوت الله لا يشبه أصوات الخلق؛ لأن صوته -جل ذكره- يسمع من بعد كما يسمع من قرب وأن الملائكة يصعَقون من صوته

“This is evidence that Allah’s voice is unlike the voices of creation; for His voice, glorified be His mention, is heard equally from afar as from near, and the angels are overcome by it.”[47]

Abdullah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal reported:

سألت أبي عن قوم يقولون: لمَّا كلم الله موسى لم يتكلم بصوت، فقال أبي: بلى تكلَّم بصوت، هذه الأحاديث نرويها كما جاءت. وقال أبي: حديث ابن مسعود: «إذا تكلم الله سمع له صوت كجرّ السلسلة على الصفوان». قال أبي: وهذه الجهمية تنكره. قال أبي: وهؤلاء كفار، يريدون أن يُموِّهوا على الناس، مَن زعم أن الله لم يتكلَّم فهو كافر

“I asked my father about people who say that when Allah spoke to Musa, He did not speak with a voice. My father replied, ‘Yes, He spoke with a voice; we narrate these hadiths as they have come.’ He also mentioned the hadith of Ibn Mas’ud: ‘When Allah speaks, a sound is heard like the dragging of a chain over stone.’ My father said, ‘These Jahmiyyah deny this.’ He added, ‘These people are disbelievers; they seek to deceive the people. Whoever claims that Allah did not speak is a disbeliever.”[48]

Ibn Abi Khayr al-'Amrani, the Imam of the Shafi'is in Yemen, stated:

الأشعرية موافقة للمعتزلة في أن هذا القرآن المتلو المسموع مخلوق

“The Ash’aris agree with the Mu’tazila in that this recited and heard Quran is created.”[49]

Al-Saffarini said:

والحاصل أن المعتزلة موافقة الأشعرية، والأشعرية موافقة المعتزلة في أن هذا القرآن الذي بين دفتي المصحف مخلوق مُحدَث، وإنما الخلاف بين الطائفتين أن المعتزلة لم تثبت لله كلامًا سوى هذا، والأشعرية أثبتت الكلام النفسي القائم بذاته تعالى، وأن المعتزلة يقولون: إن المخلوق كلام الله، والأشعرية لا يقولون: إنه كلام الله

“In summary, the Mu’tazila and Ash’aris agree that the Quran between the covers of the Mushaf is created and originated. The difference between the two groups lies in the fact that the Mu’tazila do not affirm any speech for Allah other than this, while the Ash’aris affirm internal speech inherent in His essence. The Mu’tazila claim that the created thing is Allah’s speech, whereas the Ash’aris do not refer to it as Allah’s speech.”[50]

The Issue of Uluww and Elevation:

This issue is one of the two groups’ most apparent points of disagreement. The Ash’aris believe that Allah, exalted be He, is not above the Throne; rather, He is neither inside the world nor outside of it, neither connected to it nor separate from it.

Al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi stated:

وقال متأخرو المتكلمين: إن الله تعالى ليس في السماء، ولا على العرش، ولا على السماوات، ولا في الأرض، ولا داخل العالم ولا خارج العالم، ولا هو بائن عن خلقه ولا متصل بهم

“The later Mutakallimun said that Allah, exalted be He, is not in the sky, nor on the Throne, nor in the heavens, nor on the earth, nor inside the world, nor outside of it, nor separate from His creation, nor connected to them.”[51]

This view entirely opposes the doctrine of the Ahl al-Hadith. Ali ibn al-Hasan ibn Shaqiq reported:

قلت لعبد الله بن المبارك: كيف ينبغي لنا أن نعرف ربنا عز وجل؟ قال: على السماء السابعة على عرشه، ولا نقول كما تقول الجهمية: إنه هاهنا، وأشار إلى الأرض

“I asked Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak, ‘How should we recognize our Lord, exalted be He, he replied, ‘He is above the seventh heaven, upon His Throne, and we do not say as the Jahmiyyah do, that He is here,’ and he pointed to the earth.”[52]

Qutaybah ibn Sa'id said:

هذا قول الأئمة في الإسلام والسنة والجماعة: نعرف ربنا في السماء السابعة على عرشه، كما قال جل جلاله: {الرَّحْمَنُ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ اسْتَوَى}”. قال الذهبي: “فهذا قتيبة في إمامته وصدقه قد نقل الإجماع على المسألة، وقد لقي مالكًا والليث وحماد بن زيد والكبار، وعمر دهرًا، وازدحم الحفاظ على بابه

“This is the belief of the Imams in Islam, the Sunnah, and the Jama’ah: We recognize our Lord as being above the seventh heaven, upon His Throne, as He, glorified be His majesty, said: {The Most Merciful is established above the Throne}” Al-Dhahabi commented: “This is Qutaybah, with his leadership and honesty, transmitting the consensus on this matter. He met Malik, al-Layth, Hammad ibn Zayd, and the great scholars who lived a long life and had many scholars crowding at his door.”[53]

Al-Sijizzi said:

فأئمتنا -كسفيان الثوري ومالك وسفيان بن عيينة وحماد بن سلمة وحماد بن زيد وعبد الله بن المبارك وفضيل بن عياض وأحمد بن حنبل وإسحاق بن إبراهيم الحنظلي- متفقون على أن الله سبحانه بذاته فوق العرش، وأن علمه بكل مكان، وأنه يُرى يوم القيامة بالأبصار فوق العرش، وأنه ينزل إلى سماء الدنيا

“Our Imams—such as Sufyan al-Thawri, Malik, Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah, Hammad ibn Salamah, Hammad ibn Zayd, Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak, Fudayl ibn ‘Iyad, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and Ishaq ibn Ibrahim al-Hanzali—agree that Allah, exalted be He, is above the Throne in His essence, that His knowledge encompasses all places, that He will be seen with the eyes on the Day of Judgment above the Throne, and that He descends to the lowest heaven.”[54]

Al-Hafiz Ibn Abd al-Barr, after mentioning the hadith of descent, said:

وفيه دليل على أن الله عز وجل في السماء على عرشه من فوق سبع سماوات كما قالت الجماعة، وهو من حجتهم على المعتزلة والجهمية في قولهم: إن الله عز وجل في كل مكان وليس على العرش… -إلى أن قال:- ومن الحجة أيضا في أنه عز وجل فوق السماوات السبع أن الموحّدين أجمعين من العرب والعجم إذا كربهم أمر أو نزلت بهم شدة رفعوا وجوههم إلى السماء يستغيثون ربهم تبارك وتعالى، وهذا أشهر وأعرف عند الخاصة والعامة من أن يحتاج فيه إلى أكثر من حكايته

“This hadith is evidence that Allah, exalted be He, is in the heavens, upon His Throne above the seven heavens, as the community has stated. It is proof against the Mu’tazila and Jahmiyyah, who say that Allah, exalted be He, is everywhere and not upon the Throne... Moreover, another proof that He, exalted be He, is above the seven heavens is that all monotheists, whether Arabs or non-Arabs, when faced with distress or adversity, lift their faces toward the sky to seek help from their Lord, blessed and exalted. This is so well-known and widely recognized among both the elite and the general public that it needs no further explanation beyond simply recounting it.”[55]

Al-Ghazali explicitly acknowledges that Imam Ahmad’s position affirms Allah’s transcendence above, stating:

والحنبلي مضطر إليه وقائل به ]يعني: التأويل[، فقد سمعت الثقات من أئمة الحنابلة ببغداد يقولون: إن أحمد بن حنبل رحمه الله صرح بتأويل ثلاثة أحاديث فقط. أحدها: قول صلى الله عليه وسلم: «الحجر الأسود يمين الله في الأرض»، والثاني: قوله صلى الله عليه وسلم: «قلب المؤمن بين إصبعين من أصابع الرحمن»، والثالث: قوله صلى الله عليه وسلم: «إني لأجد نفس الرحمن من قبل اليمن». فانظر الآن كيف أوَّل هذا، حيث قام البرهان عنده على استحالة ظاهره… وإنما اقتصر أحمد بن حنبل رضي الله عنه على تأويل هذه الأحاديث الثلاثة؛ لأنه لم تظهر عنده الاستحالة إلا في هذا القدر؛ لأنه لم يكن مُمعنًا في النظر العقلي، ولو أمعن لظهر له ذلك في الاختصاص بجهة فوق وغيره مما لم يتأوله

“The Hanbali is compelled to and acknowledges [meaning, ta’weel], as I have heard reliable scholars among the Hanbalis in Baghdad say that Ahmad ibn Hanbal, may Allah have mercy on him, explicitly made ta’weel of only three hadiths. The first is the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him), ‘The Black Stone is the right hand of Allah on earth’ The second is his saying, ‘The heart of the believer is between two fingers of the fingers of the Most Merciful’ The third is his saying, ‘I sense the breath of the Most Merciful coming from the direction of Yemen’ Observe now how he made ta’weel of these hadiths when it became evident to him that their literal meaning was impossible... Ahmad ibn Hanbal, may Allah be pleased with him, only interpreted these three hadiths because the impossibility of their literal meaning became apparent to him only to this extent, for he was not deeply engaged in rational inquiry. Had he delved deeply, it would have also become apparent to him regarding the attribute of ‘aboveness’ and other aspects that he did not interpret.”[56]

Al-Ghazali attributed to Ahmad that he affirmed the direction of aboveness to Allah, and an excuse was made for him, stating that the Imam was not deeply engaged in rational inquiry, meaning he was not deeply involved in philosophy and kalam.

Dr. Hassan al-Shaf’i acknowledges that later Ash’aris differed from the Salaf, saying:

أما الأشاعرة فقد بدؤوا بإثبات الاستواء والعلو والفوقية دون كيف أو تمثيل، ولكن دون تأويل أيضًا كما سبق نقله عن الأشعري، وتابعه في ذلك أصحابه وتلاميذه، وتلاميذ أصحابه كالباقلاني الذي أثبت الاستواء أيضًا، وعارض تأويله بالاستيلاء والملك… -إلى أن قال:- أما بعد الباقلاني فقد جنحوا إلى نفي الجهة والمكان صراحة، وإلى تأويل الاستواء، واقتربوا بهذا من المعتزلة الذين قالوا بذلك من قبل، ولعل أول من عُرف عنه تأويل الاستواء ونفي الجهة من الأشاعرة هو الأستاذ أبو بكر بن فورك -توفى سنة 404هـ- أي: بعد وفاة الباقلاني بعامٍ واحد

“The Ash’aris initially affirmed Allah’s istiwa, Uluww, and aboveness without asking how or likening Him to creation, but also without ta’weel, as previously mentioned about al-Ash’ari. His followers and students, such as al-Baqillani, also affirmed Allah’s istiwa and opposed interpreting it as conquest or dominion... However, after al-Baqillani, they leaned towards explicitly denying direction and place and towards making ta’weel of Allah’s istiwa. By doing so, they became closer to the views of the Mu’tazila, who had said the same earlier. Perhaps the first known Ash’ari to interpret Allah’s istiwa and deny direction was al-Ustadh Abu Bakr ibn Furak, who died in 404 A.H., one year after al-Baqillani’s death.”[57]

Ibn Rushd points out the disagreement of the Ash’aris, stating:

وأما هذه الصفة ]يعني: صفة العلو[ فلم يزل أهل الشريعة من أول الأمر يثبتونها لله سبحانه حتى نفتها المعتزلة، ثم تبعهم على نفيها متأخرو الأشعرية كأبي المعالي ومن اقتدى بقوله. وظواهر الشرع كلها تقتضي إثبات الجهة، مثل قوله تعالى: {وَيَحْمِلُ عَرْشَ رَبِّكَ فَوْقَهُمْ يَوْمَئِذٍ ثَمَانِيَةٌ} [الحاقة: 17]، ومثل قوله: {يُدَبِّرُ الْأَمْرَ مِنَ السَّمَاءِ إِلَى الْأَرْضِ ثُمَّ يَعْرُجُ إِلَيْهِ فِي يَوْمٍ كَانَ مِقْدَارُهُ أَلْفَ سَنَةٍ مِّمَّا تَعُدُّونَ} [السجدة: 5] ومثل قوله تعالى: {تَعْرُجُ الْمَلَائِكَةُ وَالرُّوحُ إِلَيْهِ} [المعارج: 4] ومثل قوله: {أَأَمِنتُم مَّن فِي السَّمَاءِ أَن يَخْسِفَ بِكُمُ الْأَرْضَ فَإِذَا هِيَ تَمُورُ} [الملك: 16]، إلى غير ذلك من الآيات التي إن سُلِّط التأويل عليها عاد الشرع كلّه مؤولًا. وإن قيل فيها: إنها من المتشابهات عاد الشرع كله متشابهًا؛ لأن الشرائع كلها مبنية على أن الله في السماء، وأن منه تنزل الملائكة بالوحي إلى النبيين، وأن من السماء نزلت الكتب، وإليها كان الإسراء بالنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم حتى قرب من سدرة المنتهى. وجميع الحكماء قد اتفقوا أن الله والملائكة في السماء، كما اتفقت جميع الشرائع على ذلك. والشبهة التي قادت نُفاة الجهة إلى نفيها هي أنهم اعتقدوا أن إثبات الجهة يوجب إثبات المكان، وإثبات المكان يوجب إثبات الجسمية، ونحن نقول: إن هذا كله غير لازم، فإن الجهة غير المكان

“As for this attribute [meaning the attribute of Uluww], the people of Shari’ah have affirmed it for Allah, the Exalted, from the beginning, until the Mu’tazila denied it. Later Ash’aris, such as Abu al-Ma’ali and those who followed his views, also denied it. The apparent meanings of the Shari’ah all imply the affirmation of direction, such as the verse: {And the Throne of your Lord will be carried above them by eight [angels]} [Al-Haqqah: 17], and the verse: {He arranges [each] matter from the heaven to the earth; then it will ascend to Him in a Day, the extent of which is a thousand years of those which you count} [As-Sajdah: 5], and the verse: {The angels and the Spirit will ascend to Him} Al-Ma’arij: 4], and the verse: {Do you feel secure that He who is above the heaven would not cause the earth to swallow you and suddenly it would sway?} [Al-Mulk: 16], and other such verses. If ta’weel is applied to these, then the entire Shari’ah becomes prone to it. If it is said that these are among the ambiguous verses, then the entire Shari’ah becomes ambiguous because all divine laws are based on the belief that Allah is in the heavens, that angels descend from Him with revelation to the prophets, that the books descended from the heavens, and that the Prophet’s ascension was towards the heavens until he approached the Lote Tree of the Utmost Boundary. All the sages have agreed that Allah and the angels are in the heavens, just as all divine laws agree on this. The doubt that led those who deny the direction to do so is their belief that affirming direction necessitates affirming place and affirming place necessitates affirming corporeality. We say that none of this is necessary, as direction is not the same as place.”[58]

ويعترف السنوسي أن عقيدة الأشاعرة ليست هي عقيدة العامة في الجهة وإثبات الحكمة والتعليل والحرف والصوت والأفعال الاختيارية في صفة الكلام، فيقول

Al-Sanusi acknowledges that the Ash’ari creed differs from the beliefs held by the masses[59] regarding direction, the affirmation of wisdom and purpose, letters and sounds, and voluntary actions in the attribute of speech. He says:

أما العامة فأكثرهم ممن لا يعتني بحضور مجالس العلماء ومخالطة أهل الخير، يتحقَّق منهم اعتقاد التجسيم والجهة وتأثير الطبيعة، وكون فعل الله لغرض، وكون كلامه جل وعلا حرفًا وصوتًا، ومرة يتكلم ومرة يسكت كسائر البشر، ونحو ذلك من اعتقادات أهل الباطل، وبعض اعتقاداتهم أجمع العلماء على كفر معتقديها، وبضعهم اختلفوا فيه

“As for the masses, most of them, being those who do not regularly attend scholars’ gatherings or associate with people of virtue, hold beliefs such as anthropomorphism, the affirmation of direction, the influence of nature, that Allah’s actions are for a purpose, that His speech, exalted and glorified, consists of letters and sounds, and that He sometimes speaks and sometimes remains silent like humans. Such beliefs resemble those of the people of falsehood. Scholars have unanimously agreed upon some of these beliefs as constituting disbelief, while others are subjects of scholarly disagreement.”[60]

Fifth: The Ash’ari Criticism of the Imams of the Salaf and the Hadith Scholars:

Among the indicators of doctrinal differences between the Ash’aris and the Hadith scholars is the intense aversion between the two groups throughout history. Their leading thinkers assert that their disagreement is not merely semantic. This aversion is well-known among the Hanbalis and many Hadith scholars. However, we will present some examples of the Ash’aris’ criticism of certain prominent Hadith scholars, underscoring that the disagreement is substantive.

Fakhr al-Din al-Razi said:

واعلم أن محمد بن إسحاق بن خزيمة أورد استدلالَ أصحابنا بهذه الآية في الكتاب الذي سماه بالتوحيد، وهو في الحقيقة كتاب الشرك، واعترض عليها، وأنا أذكر حاصل كلامه بعد حذف التطويلات؛ لأنه كان رجلًا مضطرب الكلام، قليل الفهم، ناقص العقل

“Know that Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Khuzaymah cited our scholars’ argument using this verse in the book he called ‘Tawheed,’ which is, in reality, a book of Shirk. He criticized it, and I will summarize his words, omitting the lengthy parts, because he was a man of confused speech, limited understanding, and deficient intellect.”[61]

ولا غرابة في ذم الرازي -غفر الله له- لابن خزيمة، فالرازي هو القائل عن الإمامين البخاري ومسلم أنهما قد قبلا أحاديث الملاحدة، وأن قوله هذا من باب حسن الظن فيهما

It is unsurprising that al-Razi, may Allah forgive him, criticized Ibn Khuzaymah, as al-Razi also stated that the two imams, al-Bukhari and Muslim, accepted the narrations of heretics and that this statement was made out of goodwill towards them. 

Al-Razi states:

اشْتهر فِيمَا بَين الْأمة أَن جمَاعَة من الْمَلَاحِدَة وضعُوا أَخْبَارًا مُنكرَة، واحتالوا فِي ترويجها على الْمُحدّثين، والمحدّثون لِسَلَامَةِ قُلُوبهم مَا عرفوها بل قبلوها، وَأي مُنكر فَوق وصف الله تَعَالَى بِمَا يقْدَح فِي الإلهية وَيبْطل الربوبية؟! فَوَجَبَ الْقطع فِي أَمْثَال هَذِه الْأَخْبَار بِأَنَّهَا مَوْضُوعَة، أما البُخَارِيّ والقشيري [يعني: مسلما] فهما مَا كَانَا عَالمين بالغيوب، بل اجتهدا واحتاطا بِمِقْدَار طاقتهما، فَأَما اعْتِقَاد أَنَّهُمَا علما جَمِيع الْأَحْوَال الْوَاقِعَة فِي زمَان الرَّسُول صلى الله عَلَيْهِ وَسلم إِلَى زَمَاننَا فَذَلِك لَا يَقُوله عَاقل، غَايَة مَا فِي الْبَاب أَنا نحسن الظَّن بهما وبالذين رويا عَنْهُم، إِلَّا أَنا إِذا شاهدنا خَبرا مُشْتَمِلًا على مُنكر لَا يُمكن إِسْنَاده إِلَى الرَّسُول صلى الله عَلَيْهِ وَسلم قَطعنَا بِأَنَّهُ من أوضاع الْمَلَاحِدَة وَمن ترويجاتهم على أُولَئِكَ الْمُحدثين. الرَّابِع: أَن هَؤُلَاءِ الْمُحدثين يخرجُون الرِّوَايَات بِأَقَلّ الْعِلَل؛ أَنه كَانَ مائلا إِلَى حب عَليّ فَكَانَ رَافِضِيًّا فَلَا تقبل رِوَايَته، وَكَانَ معبد الْجُهَنِيّ قَائِلا بِالْقدرِ فَلَا تقبل رِوَايَته، فَمَا كَانَ فيهم عَاقل يَقُول: إِنَّه وصف الله تَعَالَى بِمَا يبطل إلهيته وربوبيته فَلَا تقبل رِوَايَته، إِن هَذَا من الْعَجَائِب

“It is widely known among the community that a group of heretics fabricated outrageous reports and managed to circulate them among the Hadith scholars. Due to the purity of their hearts, the Hadith scholars did not recognize these fabrications and accepted them. What could be more outrageous than attributing to Allah descriptions that undermine His divinity and negate His Lordship? It is, therefore, necessary to definitively declare such reports as fabricated.

As for al-Bukhari and al-Qushayri [meaning: Muslim], they were not all-knowing. They exerted effort and took precautions to the best of their abilities. To believe that they were aware of all events from the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) until our time is irrational. At most, we hold a favorable opinion of them and those they narrated from. However, if we encounter a report containing something absurd that cannot possibly be attributed to the Prophet (peace be upon him) we must conclude that it is fabricated by heretics and spread among the Hadith scholars.

Fourthly, these Hadith scholars would reject narrations for the slightest reasons: someone inclined towards the love of Ali was considered a Rafidi, so his narration was not accepted; Ma’bad al-Juhani, who believed in predestination, had his narrations rejected. However, none of them would rationally say that a person who attributes to Allah what negates His divinity and Lordship should have his narrations rejected. This is truly astonishing.”[62]

Al-Razi criticizes the narrations of Abu Huraira, saying:

وأما أبو هريرة فإنه لم يصل إلى خدمة النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم إلا مدة قليلة، وهو في نفسه ما كان زائدًا في الذكاء والفطنة على أبي بكر وعلي، ثم إنه روى ألفي خبر وأكثر، وهو نصف الصحاح، وهذا يدل على الطعن الشديد

“As for Abu Huraira, he only served the Prophet (peace be upon him) for a short period. He himself was not superior in intelligence and acumen to Abu Bakr and Ali, yet he narrated over two thousand reports, constituing half of the authentic hadiths. This indicates significant doubt.”[63]

Ibn Jahbal al-Ash’ari acknowledges that al-Qayrawani and Ibn Abd al-Barr differ from the Ash’aris. In his response to Ibn Taymiyyah, he states:

وأما ما حكاه -أي: ابن تيمية- عن أبي عمر بن عبد البر فقد علم الخاص والعام مذهب الرجل ومخالفة الناس له، ونكير المالكية عليه أولًا وآخرًا مشهور، ومخالفته لإمام المغرب أبي الوليد الباجي معروفة معلومة، حتى إن فضلاء المغرب يقولون: لم يكن أحد بالمغرب يرى هذه المقالة غيره وغير ابن أبي زيد، على أن العلماء منهم من قد اعتذر عن ابن أبي زيد بما هو موجود في كلام القاضي الأجل أبي محمد عبد الوهاب البغدادي المالكي رحمه الله

“As for what Ibn Taymiyyah narrated about Abu Umar Ibn Abd al-Barr, it is well known among both the learned and the laypeople the stance of this man and the opposition of many to him. The rejection of him by the Malikis from the beginning to the end is well-documented, as is his disagreement with the Imam of the Maghreb, Abu al-Walid al-Baji. In fact, the scholars of the Maghreb say that no one in the region held this view except him and Ibn Abi Zayd. However, some scholars have excused Ibn Abi Zayd, as noted in the words of the esteemed judge, Abu Muhammad Abd al-Wahhab al-Baghdadi al-Maliki, may Allah have mercy on him.”[64]

Al-Taj al-Subki transmitted and endorsed Ibn Jahbal’s response, thereby acknowledging that al-Qayrawani and Ibn Abd al-Barr are part of the Salafi tradition, which entails the charge of anthropomorphism. It is noteworthy in Ibn Jahbal’s response that Ibn Abdal-Barr’s opposition is well-known among the Ash’aris. Therefore, it is strange for anyone today to claim that Ibn Abd al-Barr belongs to the Ash’ari school!

Those who are true to themselves and adhere to the principles of the Ash’ari madhab recognize their disagreement with the Hadith scholars and acknowledge that they are anthropomorphists. Sheikh Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari is among those who were consistent and honest with themselves.

Al-Kawthari says:

فدونك كتاب الاستقامة لخشيش بن أصرم، والكتب التي تسمى السنة لعبد الله وللخلال، ولأبي الشيخ، وللعسال، ولأبي بكر بن عاصم، وللطبراني، والجامع، والسنة والجماعة لحرب بن إسماعيل السيرجاني، والتوحيد لابن خزيمة، ولابن منده، والصفات للحكم بن معبد الخزاعي، والنقض لعثمان بن سعيد الدارمي، والشريعة للآجري، والإبانة لأبي نصر السجزي، ولابن بطة، ونقض التأويلات لأبي يعلي القاضي، وذم الكلام والفاروق لصاحب منازل السائرين.. تجد فيها ما ينبذه الشرع والعقل في آنٍ واحد، ولا سيما النقض لعثمان بن سعيد الدارمي السجزي المجسم، فإنه أوَّلُ من اجترأ من المجسمة بالقول: إن الله لو شاء لاستقر على ظهر بعوضة فاستقلت به بقدرته، فكيف على عرش عظيم

“Refer to the book ‘Al-Istiqaamah’ by Khushaish bin Asram and the books titled ‘Al-Sunnah’ by Abdullah, Al-Khallal, Abu al-Sheikh, Al-Assal, Abu Bakr bin Asim, Al-Tabarani, and ‘Al-Jaami,’ and ‘Al-Sunnah wal-Jama’a’ by Harb bin Ismail al-Sirjani, and ‘Al-Tawhid’ by Ibn Khuzaymah and Ibn Mandah, and ‘Al-Sifat’ by Hakam bin Ma’bad al-Khuza’i, and ‘Al-Naqd’ by Uthman bin Sa’id al-Darimi, and ‘Al-Shari’a’ by Al-Ajurri, and ‘Al-Ibanah’ by Abu Nasr al-Sijizzi and Ibn Battah, and ‘Naqd al-Ta’wilat’ by al-Qadi Abu Ya’la, and ‘Dhamm al-Kalam wal-Faruq’ by the author of ‘Manazil al-Sa’irin’... You will find in them what both the Sharia and reason reject at the same time, especially ‘Al-Naqd’ by Uthman bin Sa’id al-Darimi al-Sijizzi, the anthropomorphist, who was the first among the anthropomorphists to dare to say: ‘If Allah willed, He could sit on the back of a mosquito, and it would support Him by His power, so how about on a mighty throne.””[65]

Declaring Abu Nasr al-Sijizzi to be an Innovator:

Taqi al-Din al-Subki, in his response to Ibn al-Qayyim, says:

لكني تأسَّيت في ذلك بإمام الحرمين في كتابه المسمى بنقض كتاب السجزي، والسجزي هذا كان محدِّثا له كتاب مترجم بمختصر البيان، وجده إمام الحرمين حين جاور بمكة شرفها الله، اشتمل كتاب السجزي هذا على أمور، منها: أن القرآن حروف وأصوات

قال إمام الحرمين: وأبدى من غمرات جهله فصولًا، وسوى على قصبة سخافة عقله نصولًا، ومخايل الحمق في تضاعيفها مصقولة، وبعثات الحقائق دونها معقولة

وقال إمام الحرمين أيضا: وهذا الجاهل الغرّ، المتمادي في الجهل المصر، يتطلَّع إلى الرتب الرفيعة، بالدأب في المطاعن في الأئمة والوقيعة.

وقال إمام الحرمين أيضا: صدر هذا الأحمق الباب بالمعهود من شتمه، فأف له ولخرقه، فقد -والله- سئمت البحث عن عواره وإبداء شناره

وقال الإمام أيضا: وقد كسا هذا التيس الأئمّة صفاته. وقال الإمام أيضا: أبدى هذا الأحمق كلاما ينقض آخره أوله في الصفات، وما ينبغي لمثله أن يتكلم في صفات الله تعالى على جهله وسخافة عقله

وقال الإمام أيضا: قد ذكر هذا اللعين الطريد المهين الشريد فصولا، وزعم أن الأشعرية يكفُرون بها، فعليه لعائن الله تترى واحدة بعد أخرى، وما رأيت جاهلا أجسر على التكفير، وأسرع إلى التحكم على الأئمة من هذا الأخرق

وتكلم السجزي في النزول والانتقال والزوال والانفصال والذهاب والمجيء، فقال الإمام: ومن قال بذلك حلّ دمه، وتبرم الإمام كثيرا من كلامه معه

“However, I follow the example of Imam al-Haramayn [al-Juwayni] in his refutation of al-Sijizzi’s book. Al-Sijizzi was a hadith scholar who authored a book titled “Mukhtasar al-Bayan,” which Imam al-Haramayn found while residing in the holy city of Mecca. Al-Sijizzi’s book asserts that the Qur’an is composed of letters and soundss.

Imam al-Haramayn said: ‘He displayed profound ignorance and penned sections replete with the utter folly of his shallow intellect, with signs of foolishness clearly polished in its lines, while the truth of the matter remains concealed from him.’

Imam al-Haramayn also said: ‘This ignorant, naive individual, persistent in his ignorance and obstinate in his errors, aspires to lofty ranks by disparaging the leading scholars and attacking them.’ 

Imam al-Haramayn also said: “This fool began his chapter with his usual insults—curses upon him and his foolishness, for by Allah, I am weary of exposing his flaws and revealing his disgrace.”

The Imam also said: “This goat of a man attributes his own traits to the esteemed scholars.” He further remarked: “This fool has expressed views that contradict themselves on the subject of divine attributes. Someone like him, with such ignorance and intellectual shallowness, should not speak on the attributes of Allah Almighty.”

The Imam continued: “This wretched, cursed, exiled individual mentioned certain issues and claimed that the Ash‘aris are deemed disbelievers because of them—may Allah’s curses follow upon him one after another. I have never seen an ignoramus more brazen in declaring others as disbelievers or quicker to pass judgment on the leading scholars than this reckless person.

Al-Sijzizi also spoke about issues such as divine descent, movement, change, separation, departure, and arrival. The Imam said: “Whoever says such things deserves to have his blood spilled,” and the Imam expressed great frustration with al-Sijizzi's statements.”[66]

Al-Kawthari quoted Abu Ja'far al-Labli al-Ash'ari in his catalog as saying:

وكذلك اللعين المعروف بالسجزي، فإنه تصدّى أيضا للوقوع في أعيان الأئمة وسرج الأمة بتأليف تالف، وهو على قلة مقداره وكثرة عواره ينسب أئمة الحقائق وأحبار الأمة وبحور العلوم إلى التلبيس والمراوغة والتدليس، وهذا الرذل الخسيس أحقر من أن يكترث به ذمّا، ولا يضرّ البحر الخضم ولغة كلب

“Likewise, the accursed one known as al-Sijizzi also took it upon himself to attack the prominent Imams and the leading lights of the Ummah with a worthless book. Despite its lack of substance and abundance of flaws, he attributes deception, trickery, and dishonesty to the true Imams, scholars of the Ummah, and oceans of knowledge. This lowly, despicable person is too insignificant to be worth denouncing, and the barking of a dog does not harm a mighty sea.”[67]

There is nothing unique about al-Sijizzi’s views on letters, sounds, and affirming the divine attributes in their apparent meanings. Those who read al-Sijizzi’s book know that he always emphasizes transcendence. For example, he denies spatial confinement, physical contact, and being limited by space. Their declaration of him as an innovator is thus evidence that they label all Hadith scholars who affirm the absolute attributes as innovators, which implies declaring figures like al-Bukhari, Ahmad, and the Salaf as innovators as well.

Their Stance on Ibn Qudamah:

Contemporary scholars argue that Ibn Qudamah was a proponent of tafwid (delegating the meanings of divine attributes to Allah), suggesting that his disagreement with the Ash’aris is merely semantic and minor. However, none of the early Islamic scholars made such a claim, whether agreeing or disagreeing with him.

Ibn al-Mu’allim al-Qurashi, in his response to Ibn Taymiyyah, says:

بل غلب عليكَ البذاءة والهوى، وسلكتَ في ذلك مسلك من قد غوى؛ فقلت في جواب السؤال الرابع: (وأما إن أراد بإجرائه على الظاهر الذي هو الظاهر في عرف سلف الأمة، لا يُحرِّف الكلم عن مواضعه، ولا يلحد في أسماء الله تعالى، ولا يقرأ القرآن والحديث بما يخالف تفسير سلف الأمة)، فجعلت تفسيرك الظواهر بمذهبك تفسير سلف الأمة، وجعلت المؤولين لما يوهم من الظواهر مُلحدة. ولعلك نسجتَ على منوال ابن قدامة

“You have been overwhelmed by vulgarity and caprice and have followed the path of those who have gone astray. In your answer to the fourth question, you said: ‘As for interpreting it according to its apparent meaning, which is the apparent meaning in the understanding of the Salaf, one should not distort the words from their places, deviate in the names of Allah Almighty, or recite the Qur’an and Hadith in a way that contradicts the interpretation of the Salaf.’ Thus, you made your interpretation of the apparent meanings the interpretation of the Salaf and labeled those who make ta’weel what is implied by the apparent meanings as deviants. Perhaps you have followed in the footsteps of Ibn Qudamah!”[68]

Ibn al-Mu’allim al-Qurashi thus associated Ibn Taymiyyah with Ibn Qudamah. Reflect on this!

Abu Shama al-Maqdisi’s Statement about Imam Ibn Qudamah:

Abu Shama al-Maqdisi, may Allah have mercy on him, said about Imam Ibn Qudamah, may Allah have mercy on him:

كَانَ إِمَامًا عَلَمًا فِي العِلْمِ وَالعَمَلِ، صَنَّفَ كُتُبًا كَثِيْرَةً، لَكِنَّ كَلاَمَهُ فِي العقَائِدِ عَلَى الطَّرِيقَةِ المَشْهُوْرَةِ عَنْ أَهْلِ مَذْهَبِهِ، فَسُبْحَانَ مَنْ لَمْ يُوَضِّحْ لَهُ الأَمْرَ فِيْهَا عَلَى جَلاَلَتِهِ فِي العِلْمِ، وَمَعْرِفَتِهِ بِمعَانِي الأَخْبَارِ

“He was a leading figure in knowledge and practice, having authored many books. However, his views on theological matters followed the well-known method of the people of his school of thought. Glory be to Him who did not clarify the matter for him despite his eminence in knowledge and understanding of the reports’ meanings.”

Then, al-Dhahabi commented, saying:

قلت: وهو وأمثاله مُتعجّب منكم مع علمكم وذكائكم كيف قلتم؟! وكذا كل فرقة تتعجب من الأخرى

 “I said: He and others like him are astonished by you. With your knowledge and intelligence, how could you say such things?! And likewise, each group is astonished by the other.”[69]

This is an acknowledgment from Abu Shama that the madhabs differ, and he expressed amazement at Ibn Qudamah. Al-Dhahabi’s comment, known for his fairness, also indicates that the disagreement is not merely semantic, as some contemporary scholars claim.

Dr. Saeed Foudah says:

لا تظن -أيها القارئ- أن الحنابلة كلهم مجسّمون، بل فيهم مجسمة كالقاضي أبي يعلى وابن الزاغوني وابن قدامة، وهؤلاء تجسيمهم أقل من ابن تيمية وابن القيم وغيرهم

“Do not think, dear reader, that all Hanbalis are anthropomorphists. Rather, there are among them anthropomorphists like Qadi Abu Ya’la, Ibn al-Zaghuni, and Ibn Qudamah, and their anthropomorphism is less severe than that of Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim, and others.”[70]

Here, Dr. Saeed Foudah classifies Imam Ibn Qudamah among the anthropomorphists. Still, according to his claim, he considers his anthropomorphism to be of a lesser degree than that of Ibn Taymiyyah.

Their Stance on Al-Hafiz Abdul-Ghani al-Maqdisi and Declaring Him a Disbeliever and Criticizing Him:

Al-Hafiz Abdul-Ghani, the author of “Al-Kamal fi Asma’ al-Rijal,” was the most knowledgeable of his time in the Sunnah, Hadith, language, and traditions.

Al-Hafiz Ibn Rajab summarizes the position of the Ash’aris in his biography of ‘Abd al-Ghani:

أخذوا عليه مواضع، منها قوله: ولا أنزهه تنزيهًا ينفي حقيقة النزول، ومنها قوله: كان ولا مكان، وليس هو اليوم على ما كان. فقالوا له: إذا لم يكن على ما قد كان، فقد أثبت له المكان، وإذا لم تنزهه تنزيهًا تنفي حقيقة النزول فقد أجزت عليه الانتقال، وأما الحرف والصوت فإنه لم يصح عن إمامك الذي تنتمي إليه، وإنما المنقول عنه: أنه كلام الله غير مخلوق، وارتفعت الأصوات، فقال له صارم الدين: كل هؤلاء على ضلال، وأنت على الحق؟! قال: نعم

“They criticized him on several points, including his statement: ‘I do not exalt Allah in a manner that negates the reality of His descent,’ and his statement: ‘He existed before there was any place, and He is not now as He was then.’ They said to him: ‘If He is not now as He was then, you have affirmed for Him a place, and if you do not exalt Him in a manner that negates the reality of His descent, you have allowed for Him to move.’ As for letters and sounds, it was not authentically reported from your Imam whom you follow; rather, what is reported from him is that it is the speech of Allah, uncreated.’ Voices were raised, and Sarim al-Din said to him: ‘Are all these people astray, and you alone are right?!’ He replied: ‘Yes.’” 

Al-Hafiz Ibn Rajab commented:

فأما قولهم: (أجمع الفقهاء على الفتوى بكفره وأنه مبتدع) فيا لله العجب! كيف يقع الإجماع وأحفظ أهل وقته للسُّنة وأعلمهم بها هو المخالف؟! -يعني عبد الغني-، وما أحسن ما قال أبو بكر قاضي القضاة الشامي الشافعي لما عقد له مجلس ببغداد، وناظره الغزالي، واحتج عليه بأن الإجماع منعقد على خلاف ما عملت به، فقال الشامي: إذا كنتُ أنا الشيخ في هذا الوقت أخالفكم على ما تقولون، فبمن ينعقد الإجماع؟! بك وبأصحابك؟! هذا مع مخالفة فقيه الإسلام في وقته -يعني ابن قدامة- الذي يُقال: إنه لم يدخل الشام بعد الأوزاعي أفقه منه ومعه خلق على أئمة الفقهاء والمناظرين والمحدِّثين، هذا في الشام خاصة، دع عنك المخالفين لهؤلاء المجتمعين في سائر بلاد المسلمين -بغداد ومصر وغيرهما من أمصار المسلمين- مع إجماع السلف المنعقد على موافقة هؤلاء المخالفين لهم، ولم يكن في المخالفين للحافظ مَن له خبرة بالسُّنة والحديث والآثار. ولقد عُقد مرة مجلس لشيخ الإسلام أبي العباس ابن تَيميَّة، فتكلم فيه بعض أكابر المخالفين، وكان خطيب الجامع، فقال الشيخ شرف الدين عبد الله أخو الشيخ: كلامنا مع أهل السنة، أما أنت فأنا أكتب لك أحاديث الصحيحين، وأحاديث من الموضوعات، وأظنه قال: وكلامًا من سيرة عنترة، فلا تُميِّز بينهما -أو كما قال-، فسكت الرجل

“As for their claim that ‘the jurists unanimously agreed on his disbelief and that he was an innovator,’ how astonishing! How can there be unanimity when the most knowledgeable and well-versed in the Sunnah of his time opposed this view? He meant ‘Abd al-Ghani. How apt are the words of Abu Bakr, the Shafi’i chief judge of Sham, when a council was held for him in Baghdad, and Al-Ghazali debated him, arguing that consensus had been established against his practice. The Shamian replied: ‘If I, the elder of this time, disagree with you, then how can consensus be established? By you and your companions? This is despite the opposition of the preeminent jurist of his time, Ibn Qudama, who is said to be the most knowledgeable in Sham since Al-Awza’i, along with a multitude of scholars, jurists, debaters, and hadith scholars. This is specifically in Sham, not to mention those who disagree with these gathered in other Muslim lands such as Baghdad, Egypt, and elsewhere, with the consensus of the Salaf aligning with those who oppose them. None among those who opposed Al-Hafiz had expertise in the Sunnah, hadith, or traditions.

Once, a council was convened for Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, and one of his notable opponents, the masjid preacher, spoke against him. Shaykh Sharaf al-Din Abdullah, the brother of the Shaykh, said: ‘Our discussion is with the people of the Sunnah, but as for you, I will write for you hadiths from Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, and hadiths from fabricated sources, and perhaps even stories from the life of Antarah, and you will not be able to distinguish between them.’ The man fell silent.”[71]

From the above, it becomes evident that the Ash’ari creed significantly differs from the creed of the Ahl al-Hadith on major issues, not merely verbal differences but substantive ones. Some of them, as mentioned, recount the views of the Ahl al-Hadith among other opinions without adopting them. If they were the natural extension of the Salaf, why do they, from the outset, assert doctrines contrary to those of the Ahl al-Hadith? What necessitates this divergence?

Despite this, some debaters insist that the doctrines of the Ahl al-Hadith are the same as those of the Ash’ari. When we present admissions from within their own school—fair-minded individuals—acknowledging their divergence from the Salaf and the Ahl al-Hadith on every issue, the same debaters strive to discredit these fair-minded individuals, insisting that the doctrines are identical. When we bring forth the Ash’aris’ criticisms of the Ahl al-Hadith and the mutual disavowal between the two groups, they argue that there was a misunderstanding between them. All of this is to avoid shattering the illusion in which they live. 

وليس هذا بصنيع الباحث عن الحق؛ فإن الإنسان عليه أن يكون ولاؤه الأول والأخير للإسلام، لا إلى الطوائف والجماعات، ولا أن ينتمي إلى عقيدة معينة ثم يحاول جاهدًا إثباتها بمحض المناكفات مع خصمه، فهذا ينافي البحث العلمي المتجرد. وقد قيل: استدل ثم اعتقد، ولا تعتقد ثم تستدل، فتضلّ

وقد كانت هذه ومضات سريعة ليقف عليها طالب الحق بدليله، ثم لينطلق منها للبحث والتحري

وصلِّ اللهم على نبينا محمدٍ وآله وصحبه وسلم

This is not the behavior of one genuinely seeking the truth; a person should have their primary and ultimate loyalty to Islam, not to sects and groups. One should not adhere to a particular creed and then strive tirelessly to prove it solely through disputes with opponents, as this contradicts the objective pursuit of scholarly inquiry. It has been said: deduce, then believe; do not believe, then deduce, lest you go astray.

These are brief insights for the truth-seeker to reflect upon and then use as a starting point for further research and investigation.

May Allah’s blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family, and his companions.

Recommended Reading:

Allah's Divine Attributes Discourse

---

[1] Translator’s note: See Does It Matter If the Majority of Scholars Follow Your Theological School? & Can All These Ash’ari Scholars Be Wrong? 

[2] Al-Mawa’idh wal-I’tibar bi-Dhikr Al-Khutat wal-Athar, vol. 4, p. 192

[3] Asas Al-Taqdees, p. 125

[4] Sharh Al-Kubra, pp. 59-60

[5] Sharh Al-Maqasid, vol. 2, p. 67

[6] Al-Intisar li-Ahl Al-Hadith, p. 81

[7] Al-Shamil, p. 26

[8] Usul Al-Deen, p. 75

[9] See: Ibn Hajar, Fathul Bari, vol. 1, p. 77

[10] Sharh Saheeh Muslim, vol. 1, p. 210

[11] Sharh al-Kubra with notes, p. 39

[12] Jawharat Al-Tawheed ma’a Hashiyat Tuhfat Al-Mureed, p. 40

[13] See: Al-Asbahani, Al-Hujjah fi Bayan Al-Mahajjah, vol. 2, p. 120

[14] See: Fathul Bari, vol. 1, p. 47

[15] Al-Tamheed, vol. 9, p. 238

[16] Al-Sayf Al-Maslool ‘ala man Sabba Al-Rasool, p. 112

[17] Al-Irshad ila Qawati’ Al-Adillah, p. 415

[18] Al-Aqeedah Al-Nizamiyyah, pp. 260-257

[19] Ghayat Al-Maram fi ‘Ilm Al-Kalam, p. 511

[20] Tuhfat Al-Mureed Sharh Jawharat Al-Tawheed, p. 46

[21] He means Imam Al-Bukhari; Allahu al-Musta’an.

[22] Al-Ta’neeb, pp. 75-76

[23] Al-Ibhaj fi Sharh Al-Minhaj, vol. 1, p. 361

[24] Hidayat Al-Mureed Sharh Jawharat Al-Tawheed, p. 139

[25] Risalat Al-Sijizzi ila Ahl Zabeed, p. 163

[26] Fathul Bari, vol. 5, p. 97

[27] Al-Tamheed, vol. 7, p. 145

[28] See: Siyar ‘Alam Al-Nubala’, vol. 16, p. 213. Also see: Ibn Al-Jawzi, Al-Muntadham, regarding the events of 433 A.H.

[29] For example, see: Al-Zaghuni, Al-Idah fi Usul Al-Deen, p. 287

[30] The contemporary Ash’ari who ascribes the position of tafwid to some Hanbalis is only doing so out of taqleeq of Ibn Taymiyyah, as there are no Ash’aris who ascribed this stance to them. He needs to be consistent and either make taqleed of the scholars of his madhab or Ibn Taymiyyah. He should not arbitrarily swing between the two!

[31] Al-Risalah Al-Nizamiyyah, pp. 32-34

[32] Iljam Al-Awam ‘an ‘Ilm Al-Kalam, p. 74

[33] Mirqat Al-Mafateeh Sharh Mishkat Al-Masabeeh, vol. 1, p. 260

[34] Hidayat Al-Mureed Sharh Jawharat Al-Tawheed, p. 139

[35] Fawakih Al-Dawani, vol. 1, p. 51

[36] Sharh Jawharat Al-Tawheed, p. 153

[37] Al-Asma’ wal-Sifat, vol. 2, p. 308

[38] Majmu’ Al-Fatawa, vol. 5, p. 386

[39] Khalq Af’al Al-Ibad, p. 112

[40] Risalat Al-Sijizzi ila Ahl Al-Zabeed, p. 128

[41] Al-Insaf, p.111

[42] Sharh Jawharat Al-Tawheed, p. 129

[43] Al-Irshad ila Qawati’ Al-Adillah, p. 136

[44] Sharh Al-Mawaqif, vol. 3, p. 135

[45] Al-Bukhari this hadith with a mu’allaq isnad (no. 7481), while Imam Ahmad collected it with a fully connected isnad (no. 16042).

[46] Saheeh Al-Bukhari, no. 7483

[47] Khalq Af’al Al-Ibad, p. 149

[48] Al-Sunnah, p. 62

[49] Al-Intisar wal-Radd ‘ala Al-Mu’tazila Al-Ashrar, vol. 2, p. 554

[50] Lawami’ Al-Anwar, vol. 1, p. 165

[51] Al-‘Uluww, p. 418

[52] See: Siyar ‘Alam Al-Nubala’, vol. 7, p. 424

[53] Mukhtasar Al-‘Uluww, p. 187

[54] See: Siyar ‘Alam Al-Nubala’, vol. 17, p. 656

[55] Al-Tamheed, vol. 6, pp. 124-127

[56] Faysal Al-Tafriqa, p. 66

[57] Dr. Hasan Al-Shaf’i, Al-Amidi wa-Ara’uhu Al-Kalamiyyah, pp. 355-356

[58] Al-Kashf ‘an Minhaj Al-Adillah, p. 145

[59] Translator’s note: See: Is Ash'arism the Theology of the Masses?

[60] Sharh Al-Sanusi ‘ala Al-Kubra, p. 62

[61] Mafateeh Al-Ghayb, vol. 9, p. 582

[62] Asas Al-Taqdees, p. 170

[63] Al-Matalib Al-‘Aliyah, vol. 3, p. 129

[64] Taj Al-Subki relayed it in his Tabaqat, vol. 9, p. 78

[65] Al-Kawthari’s introduction to Al-Bayhaqi’s Al-Asma’ wal-Sifat, p. 3

[66] Al-Sayf Al-Saqeel, p. 25

[67] Al-Subki, Al-Sayf Al-Saqeel, with Al-Kawthari’s notes, p. 26

[68] Najm Al-Muhtadi wa-Rajm Al-Mu’tadi, p. 77

[69] Siyar ‘Alam Al-Nubala’, vol. 22, p. 172

[70] Tahdheeb Sharh Al-Sanusiyyah, p. 12

[71] Dhayl Tabaqat Al-Hanabilah, vol. 4, p. 16. See the sections on deaths during the year 107 A.H.