The Ash’ari Rejection of the Salafi Theological School

People frequently emphasize that Salafis regard the Ash’ari theological school as deviant, yet there is inadequate attention given to the fact that Ash’ari theologians reciprocate these sentiments.

The below is a translation of Dr. Sultan Al-Umayri’s article, Baraa’at Al-Asha’irah min Madhab Ahl Al-Sunnah Wal-Jama’ah

The Ash'ari school of thought represented a new methodology distinct from that of the early Salaf from its inception. Al-Ash'ari adopted the approach and methodology of Ibn Kullab in establishing theological doctrines. This fact is revealed by Al-Shahrastani in his praise of his teacher, Al-Ash'ari:

حتى انتهى الزمان إلى عبد الله بن سعيد الكلابي وأبي العباس القلانسي والحارث بن أسعد المحاسبي وهؤلاء كانوا من جملة السلف إلا أنهم باشروا علم الكلام وأيدوا عقائد السلف بحجج كلامية وبراهين أصولية. .. وانحاز الأشعري إلى هذه الطائفة فأيد مقالتهم بمناهج كلامية وصار ذلك مذهبا لأهل السنة والجماعة وانتقلت سمة الصفاتية إلى الأشعرية

“The era concluded with Abdullah ibn Sa’id al-Kullabi, Abu al-Abbas al-Qalanisi, and Al-Harith ibn Asad al-Muhasibi. They were part of the Salaf, but they engaged in Kalam and supported the doctrines of the Salaf with rational arguments and foundational proofs... Al-Ash’ari joined this group, supporting their views with Kalami methods, and this became the creed of Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah. The affirmation of attributes became ascribed to Ash’arism.” [1]

From the moment the Ash’ari madhab emerged as a distinct theological school with its own principles and doctrines, the Imams of Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah, who were more knowledgeable about the doctrines of the early Imams and their implications, took a clear stance. Due to its methodological and doctrinal errors, they regarded it as a sect that deviated from the Sunnah, followed by the Sahabah, their students, and the subsequent leading Imams.

Numerous statements and positions from the Imams confirm this stance. Many classical and contemporary scholars have collected these statements and positions, in which the Imams of Ahl al-Sunnah explicitly declared that the Ash’ari school is outside their methodology and represents a creed that contradicts their own.

However, there is another perspective through which this judgment made by the scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah can be confirmed: the writings and stances of the Imams and scholars of the Ash’ari school. They have explicitly stated that their approach differs from, and is contrary to, the methodology and principles established by the Imams of Ahl al-Sunnah.

This perspective has not been sufficiently explored, yet it is one of the strongest and clearest pieces of evidence affirming that the madhab advocated by the Imams of Ahl al-Sunnah is fundamentally different from that promoted by the Imams of the Ash’ari school. Each school differs from the other and contradicts it clearly and unequivocally. The disagreement between them is not merely semantical but rather fundamental and methodological, where the validation of one necessitates the invalidation of the other.

The key positions in which the Imams of the Ash’ari school have declared their divergence from the madhab established by the Imams of Ahl al-Sunnah can be summarized as follows: 

The first issue is their labeling of those who uphold the beliefs of the Salaf as “Hashawiyya”:

The term “Hashawiyya” refers to the lowest and least regarded people, those without understanding or knowledge. The Mu’tazilites were the first to use this label to demean the scholars and jurists of Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah, aiming to belittle and undermine their status. The Ash’aris later adopted this term from the Mu’tazilites and frequently used it in their writings. Closely examining their use of this label reveals clearly that those who adhere to the madhab established by the Imams of Ahl al-Sunnah are unequivocally included in this description. They apply it to anyone who affirms the divine attributes, interprets texts on their apparent meaning without resorting to ta’weel, asserts that Iman is a compound reality, or denies the obligation of rational inquiry, among other beliefs.

Al-Juwayni states:

ذهبت الحشوية المنتمون إلى الظاهر إلى أن كلام الله قديم, ثم زعموا أنه حروف وأصوات, وقطعوا بأن المسموع من أصوات القراء ونغماتهم عين كلام الله

“The Hashawiyya, who adhere to the literalist approach, claim that Allah’s speech is qadeem, and then assert that it consists of letters and sounds. They insist that what is heard from the voices and tones of the reciters is the very speech of Allah.” [2]

He also says:

ذهبت الكرامية وبعض الحشوية إلى أن الباري -تعالى عن قولهم- متحيز مختص بجهة فوق

“The Karramiyya and some of the Hashawiyya claim that Allah—exalted be He above their assertions—is confined to a direction above.”

And then he presents the evidence used by the Imams of Ahl al-Sunnah to affirm God's ‘uluww and interprets it allegorically.[3]

Al-Ghazali remarks:

أما الحشوية فإنهم لم يتمكنوا من فهم موجود إلا في جهة، فأثبتوا الجهة-أي لله -حتى ألزمتهم بالضرورة الجسمية

“As for the Hashawiyya, they could not conceive of an existent except in a spatial direction, so they affirmed a direction for Allah, which necessarily implies corporeality.” [4]

Al-Amidi says:

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

“Thus, the invalidity of the Hashawiyya’s assertion is established: that Iman is belief in the heart, verbal affirmation, and action with the limbs.” [5]

Al-Juwayni mentions that this assertion, deemed invalid by Al-Amidi, is the belief of the Ahlul Hadith, and he himself explicitly declares it invalid.[6]

Al-Razi, after presenting an argument he believes proves the necessity of rational inquiry, states:

تدل على فساد قول الحشوية الذين يقولون : نستفيد معرفة الله والدين من الكتاب والسنة

“This argument demonstrates the falsehood of the Hashawiyya, who claim that we gain knowledge of God and religion solely from the Qur’an and Sunnah.” [7]

Al-Subki reveals the Ash’aris’ intended meaning of the term Hashawiyya, stating:

هم طائفة ضلوا عن السبيل وعميت أبصارهم : يجرون آيات الصفات على ظاهرها, ويعتقدون أنه المراد

“They are a group who have deviated from the correct path and whose vision has become blinded. They interpret the verses of attributes on their apparent and believe that this is the intended meaning.” [8]

The writings of the Ash’ari Imams consistently condemn and denigrate the Hashawiyya, and they have two well-known opinions regarding the ruling on declaring them disbelievers.[9]

When we refer to the writings and statements of the Imams of Ahl al-Sunnah, such as Imam Malik, Al-Shafi’i, Ahmad, Al-Thawri, Ibn’ Uyaynah, Al-Bukhari, and many others, we find that they express the same views that the Ash’ari Imams condemned as Hashawiyya. This clearly indicates that the Ash’aris regard the madhab established by the Imams of Ahl al-Sunnah from the hadith scholars and jurists as false, erroneous, outside the fold of the Sunnah, and fundamentally opposed to their own. Their disagreement is substantial and not merely semantical. 

The second issue: Their labeling of those who follow the way of the Salaf as anthropomorphists:

The term “anthropomorphists” is frequently mentioned in the writings of the Ash’ari Imams. This label is usually applied to two groups: the first group consists of the true anthropomorphists, who explicitly embraced anthropomorphism and adopted it as their madhab, such as Muqatil ibn Sulayman, Hisham ibn al-Hakam, Dawud al-Jawaliqi, and others.[10] The second group includes those who interpret the texts concerning the names and attributes of God according to their apparent meanings and affirm the attributes indicated by the texts while denying any likeness or comparison, which is the doctrine established by the Imams of Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah. According to the Ash’ari Imams, this second group is considered to be among the anthropomorphists and corporealists. Thus, anyone who affirms Allah’s uluww and His istiwa on the Throne, asserts that the Qur’an is truly the speech of God and consists of letters and sounds, affirms God’s descent in reality, and confirms the inherent attributes such as the face, two hands, and foot, while denying any resemblance to creation, is considered an anthropomorphist by them. 

Al-Juwayni describes the belief of the anthropomorphists as follows:

وذهبت المشبهة إلى أنه – تعالى عن قولهم- مختص بجهة فوق

"The anthropomorphists claim that Allah—exalted be He above their assertions—is confined to a direction above."[11]

Al-Subki states:

إنما المصيبة الكبرى والداهية الدهياء الإمرار على الظاهر والاعتقاد أنه المراد وأنه لا يستحيل على الباري, فذلك قول المجسمة, عباد الوثن الذين في قلوبهم زيغ يحملهم الزيغ على إتباع المتشابه ابتغاء الفتنة عليهم لعائن الله تترى واحدة بعد أخرى, ما أجرأهم على الكذب وأقل فهمهم للحقائق

“The greatest calamity and the most grievous disaster is to pass over the apparent meaning of the texts and to believe that it is the intended meaning and that it is not impossible for Allah. This is the belief of the corporealists, the idol worshippers whose hearts are deviant, and their deviance leads them to follow ambiguous texts seeking discord. May the curses of Allah be upon them one after another. How bold they are in lying and how little they understand the facts.” [12]

 Readers of the works of the Ash’ari Imams will find that they label anyone who affirms all divine attributes and interprets their texts on the apparent meaning, even if they explicitly deny any resemblance or modality similar to the actual anthropomorphists. Most of the instances where they attribute beliefs to the anthropomorphists and corporealists are clearly and evidently aligned with what is mentioned in the writings of the Imams of Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah. For instance, Al-Razi says:

قالت المشبهة قوله تعالى : {يَخَافُونَ رَبَّهُم مِّن فَوْقِهِمْ} هذا يدل على أن الإله تعالى فوقهم بالذات

"The anthropomorphists argue that the verse, {They fear their Lord above them} (Quran 16:50), indicates that God is His Essence above them."[13]

He also says:

قالت المشبهة قوله تعالى : {وَجَآءَ رَبُّكَ وَالْمَلَكُ صَفًّا صَفًّا} (الفجر : 22)  يدل على أنه تعالى يحضر في ذلك المكان وتعرض عليه أهل القيامة صفاً

“The anthropomorphists interpret the verse, {And your Lord comes with the angels, rank upon rank} (Quran 89:22), to mean that Allah will come to that place and the people of the Resurrection will be presented before Him in rows.” [14]

Furthermore, he states:

المشبهة استدلوا بلفظ الإسراء في السورة المتقدمة وبلفظ الإنزال في هذه السورة على أنه تعالى مختص بجهة فوق

“The anthropomorphists use the term ‘isra’ in the preceding surah and ‘inzal’ in this surah as evidence that Allah is confined to a direction above.” [15]

And there are many other such instances scattered throughout Ash’ari literature.

The Ash’ari Imams’ writings consistently emphasize the anthropomorphists’ deviation and misguidance, declaring them to have departed from the Sunnah. There are two well-known opinions among them regarding the ruling on declaring such individuals disbelievers.[16]

If we refer to the texts of Ahl al-Sunnah from the Tabi’in and those who followed them, as well as to the well-known and authoritative compilations such as “Radd ‘ala al-Jahmiyyah” and “Radd ‘ala Bishr al-Marisi” by Al-Darimi, “Kitab al-Tawhid” by Ibn Khuzaymah, “Kitab al-Tawhid” by Ibn Mandah, “Al-Shari’ah” by Al-Ajurri, and “Sharh Usul I’tiqad Ahl al-Sunnah” by Al-Lalakai, we find that they affirm the views that the Ash’ari Imams label as anthropomorphism and corporealism.

This clearly indicates that the Ash’ari Imams do not consider the disagreement between them and the Imams of Ahl al-Sunnah to be merely semnatical but rather a fundamental difference concerning the principles of religion and the methodology of understanding it.

Moreover, their stance contains a clear contradiction; the Ash’ari Imams who established the school, such as Al-Ash’ari and Al-Baqillani, explicitly affirm the attribute of uluww and several other intrinsic attributes, such as two hands and face.[17] How can they not be considered anthropomorphists when they agree with Ahl al-Sunnah in affirming these types of attributes?!

The third issue: The stance of the Ash’ari Imams regarding the book “Kitab al-Tawhid” by Ibn Khuzaymah:

Ibn Khuzaymah is considered one of the most prominent scholars representing the creed of Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah, and his book is one of the foundational works in establishing their methodology. His book gained widespread fame due to the popularity of Ibn Khuzaymah himself, who was deemed the “Imam of the Imams.” He is one of the most notable scholars of the Shafi’i school.

His book, “Kitab al-Tawhid,” has become a landmark for Ahl al-Sunnah and a primary reference among their sources. Consequently, it has been the target of rebuttals and opposition by numerous prominent figures of theological schools outside of the Sunnah, whether from the Mu’tazilites, Ash’aris, or others.[18]

One of the earliest and most famous Ash’ari Imams to publicly oppose Ibn Khuzaymah’s “Kitab al-Tawhid” was Ibn Furak. After interpreting a significant number of texts on the divine attributes, he said:

ثم سألتم عند انتهائها إلى هذا الموضع من كتابنا أن نتأمل مصنف الشيخ أبي بكر محمد بن إسحاق بن خزيمة رضي الله عنه, الذي سماه كتاب التوحيد, وجمع فيه نوع هذه الأخبار التي ذكرت فيها هذه الألفاظ المتشابهة, وحمل ذلك على أنها صفات الله عز وجل, وأنه فيها لا يشبه سائر الموصوفين بها من الخلق, فتأملنا ذلك وبينا ما ذهب فيه عن الصواب في تأويله, وأوهم خلاف الحق في تخريجه, وجمعه بين ما يجوز أن يجري مجرى الصفة وما لا يجوز ذلك فيه, وذكرنا ألفاظا ذكرها في كتابه الذي روى وجمعها فيه مما لم يدخل فيما أملينا قبل, ورتبنا معانيها, وإن كنا قد أومينا إلى أصله وأشرنا إلى طريقته

“You have requested that we examine the compilation of Sheikh Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Khuzaymah, may Allah be pleased with him, which he titled ‘Kitab al-Tawhid.’ In it, he collected various reports mentioning these ambiguous terms, interpreting them as attributes of Allah Almighty, asserting that He does not resemble other entities described with these attributes among creation. We have scrutinized this and demonstrated where he deviated from correctness in his interpretation, suggesting meanings contrary to the truth in his explanations. He combined statements that may be considered attributes with those that should not be, and we cited words from his book that we had not previously addressed, arranging their meanings, although we had indicated the foundation and method of his approach.” [19]

He then examined what Ibn Khuzaymah mentioned regarding several divine attributes, such as the attributes of the self, face, two hands, foot, and others, interpreting them and diverting them from their apparent meaning, which Ibn Khuzaymah had upheld.

This clearly indicates that he considered what Ibn Khuzaymah asserted in his book to be contradictory to the Ash’ari creed and in clear opposition to it. Among the Ash’ari Imams who declared their opposition to Ibn Khuzaymah’s book was al-Razi, who was even harsher in his critique, describing Ibn Khuzaymah as lacking intelligence and understanding and labeling his book as a book of polytheism. He stated:

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

“Know that Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Khuzaymah included the argument of our companions with this verse in the book he named ‘Kitab al-Tawhid,’ which is, in reality, a book of shirk. He criticized it, and I will summarize his argument after omitting the lengthy parts, as he was a man of confused speech, little understanding, and deficient intellect.” [20]

Thus, al-Razi clearly affirms that what Ibn Khuzaymah asserted in his book completely contradicts the Ash’ari creed, so he labeled it as shirk.  

Among those who criticized and denounced Ibn Khuzaymah’s “Kitab al-Tawhid,” considering it outside the fold of the Sunnah, was Ibn Jama’ah. He stated:

فإن احتج محتج بكتاب ابن خزيمة وما أورد فيه من هذه العظائم وبئس ما صنع من إيراد هذه العظائم الضعيفة والموضوعة قلنا لا كرامة له ولا أتباعه إذا خالفوا الأدلة العقلية والنقلية على تنزيه الله تعالى بمثل هذه الأحاديث الواهية وإيرادها في كتبهم  وابن خزيمة وإن كان إماما في النقل والحديث فهو عن النظر في العقليات وعن التحقيق بمعزل فقد كان غنيا عن وضع هذه العظائم المنكرات الواهية في كتبه

“If someone uses Ibn Khuzaymah’s book as evidence, citing the severe errors within it, and what a terrible act it was to include these weak and fabricated reports, we say that he and his followers deserve no respect if they contradict rational and transmitted proofs that affirm the transcendence of Allah with such weak hadiths and include them in their books. Although Ibn Khuzaymah was an imam in transmission and hadith, he was far removed from engaging in rational inquiry and verification. He did not need to include these severe fabrications in his books.” [21]

In his own work, he made ta’weel of most of the texts that Ibn Khuzaymah mentioned in his book, rejecting their apparent meaning regarding the divine attributes.

Another Ash'ari scholar who affirmed that what Ibn Khuzaymah asserted in his book contradicted their creed was Ibn Jahbal. He stated:

على أن ابن خزيمة قد علم الخاص والعام حديثه في العقائد, والكتاب الذي صنفه في التشبيه, , وسماه بالتوحيد, ورد الأئمة عليه أكثر من أن يذكر, وقولهم في ما قاله هو في غيره معروف

“It is well known to both the elite and the general public that Ibn Khuzaymah’s views on aqeedah, and the book he authored promoting anthropomorphism, which he misleadingly titled ‘Kitab al-Tawhid,’ have been widely refuted by the imams. Their criticisms of his statements and those of others are well-known.” [22]

A number of modern Ash’ari scholars have continued to emphasize this criticism. All of these texts point to a single reality: that Ash’ari scholars recognize Ibn Khuzaymah’s teachings in his book “Kitab al-Tawhid” as completely opposing their own madhab. In their view, his teachings are seen as a heretical departure from the Sunnah; thus, it is impossible to reconcile his views with theirs as representing the truth.

What is truly remarkable is that, despite the clarity of Ibn Khuzaymah’s stance in his book and the clear position of Ash’ari scholars that he affirms apparent meanings for the divine attributes and interprets texts in an apparent manner, some contemporary adherents of the Ash’ari school attribute a position of tafwidh (consigning the meaning of divine attributes to God) to Ibn Khuzaymah, and claim that he ascribes this view to Salaf![23]

Equally perplexing is the fact that they group Ibn Khuzaymah with al-Razi, claiming that both advocate tafwidh and ascribe it to the salaf, although al-Razi condemns Ibn Khuzaymah as writing in support of shirk (polytheism) and opposing the true methodology. 

Ibn Khuzaymah is not alone in his views:

The foundational beliefs outlined by Ibn Khuzaymah in his book are not unique to him; rather, they represent the creed upheld by the leading scholars who preceded him, such as Imam Abu Hanifa, Malik, al-Shafi’i, Ahmad, al-Thawri, Ibn ‘Uyaynah, al-Bukhari, and many others. In his work, Ibn Khuzaymah did not intend to establish a personal madhab; instead, he aimed to elucidate the aqeedah that had already been agreed upon by the scholars before him, which he had learned from them. This is why he was keen to emphasize their consensus in several instances. For example, he states:

فنحن وجميع علمائنا من أهل الحجاز وتهامة واليمن والعراق والشام ومصر مذهبنا أنا نثبت لله ما أثبته الله لنفسه نقر بذلك بألسنتنا ونصدق ذلك بقلوبنا, من غير أن نشبه وجه خالقنا بوجه أحد من المخلوقين عز ربنا عن أن يشبه المخلوقين, وجل ربنا عن مقالة المعطلين

“We and all our scholars from the Hijaz, Tihamah, Yemen, Iraq, the Levant, and Egypt hold the view that we affirm for Allah what He has affirmed for Himself. We acknowledge this with our tongues and believe it in our hearts without likening the face of our Creator to the face of any of His creatures. Our Lord is exalted above any resemblance to created beings, and He is far removed from the assertions of those who deny His attributes.”[24]

Ibn Khuzaymah adopted a similar approach when discussing attributes such as hearing, sight, two hands, the divine Throne, and uluww. In all these matters, he consistently emphasized the consensus among the scholars of the Salaf.

When we consult the authoritative texts that have documented the views of these scholars, we find that they agree with what Ibn Khuzaymah stated, and there is no divergence from him on the core tenets of belief. The same applies to the scholars who were contemporaries of Ibn Khuzaymah or came after him, such as al-Sabuni, Abdullah ibn Ahmad (the son of Imam Ahmad), al-Daraqutni, Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, al-Sam’ani, al-Isfahani, and Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, as well as those who preceded him, like al-Bukhari. All of these scholars affirmed what Ibn Khuzaymah affirmed regarding the attributes of God without any disagreement on these matters.

This is precisely what al-Kawthari understood, which led him to categorically classify all of these scholars as anthropomorphists and likeners of Allah to His creation. He states:

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 مندة، 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 آن واحد ولا سيما النقض لعثمان بن سعيد الدارمي السجزي المجسم, فإنه أول من اجترأ من المجسمة بالقول إن الله لو شاء لاستقر على ظهر بعوضة فاستقلت به بقدرته، فكيف على عرش عظيم

“Take, for instance, the book “Al-Istiqaamah” by Khushaish ibn Asram, the books titled “As-Sunnah” by Abdullah [ibn Ahmad], Al-Khallal, Abu Shaykh, al-‘Assal, Abu Bakr ibn ‘Asim, al-Tabarani, “Al-Jami‘“, “As-Sunnah wal-Jama‘ah” by Harb ibn Isma‘il al-Sirajani, “Kitab al-Tawhid” by Ibn Khuzaymah, Ibn Mandah, “As-Sifat” by al-Hakam ibn Ma‘bad al-Khuza‘i, “Al-Naqd” by ‘Uthman ibn Sa‘id al-Darimi, “Al-Shari‘ah” by al-Ajurri, “Al-Ibanah” by Abu Nasr al-Sijzi, Ibn Battah, “Naqd al-Ta’awilat” by Qadi Abu Ya‘la, “Dham al-Kalam” and “Al-Faruq” by the author of “Manazil al-Sa’irin”.. you will find in these books what both the Shari‘ah and reason reject simultaneously, especially “Al-Naqd” by ‘Uthman ibn Sa‘id al-Darimi al-Sijizzi, the anthropomorphist, who was the first to audaciously claim that if Allah willed, He could rest upon the back of a mosquito, and the mosquito would bear Him by His power—so how much more easily on a great throne!” [25]

 Suppose Ibn Khuzaymah’s book is deemed one of anthropomorphism and shirk because it affirms divine attributes and interprets texts according to their apparent meanings. In that case, this judgment is not exclusive to him. It applies to all who followed his approach and methodology and agreed with him—among whom are many well-known scholars from various schools of thought: Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi‘i, and Hanbali. This clarity in judgment by the Ash‘ari scholars strongly affirms that they believe the disagreement between them and the Imams of Ahl al-Sunnah is not merely a semantical dispute but rather a fundamental methodological difference.  

The Fourth Issue: Their Position on al-Sijzi’s Book “Ithbat al-Harf wal-Sawt”

Abu Nasr al-Sijizzi authored a book titled “Ithbat al-Harf wal-Sawt,” in which he articulated the madhab of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama'ah. However, al-Juwayni responded with a separate book, vehemently attacking al-Sijizzi and describing him as ignorant and intellectually shallow. Taqi al-Din al-Subki quoted from this response, stating in his criticism of the innovators:

 وها أنا أذكر مجامع ما تضمنته القصيدة- نونية ابن القيم- ملخصا من غير نظم وناظمها  أقل من أن أذكر كلامه لكني تأسيت في ذلك بإمام الحرمين في كتابه المسمى بنقض كتاب السجزي، والسجزي هذا كان محدثا 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 فصولا وسوى على قصبة سخافة عقله نصولا، ومخايل الحمق في تضاعيفها مصقولة وبعثات الحقائق دونها معقولة

وقال إمام الحرمين أيضا: وهذا الجاهل الغر المتمادي في الجهل المصر، يتطلع 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 الأئمة 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 يكفرون 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 والمجئ فقال الإمام, ومن قال بذلك حل دمه وتبرم الإمام كثيرا من كلامه معه 

“I will now summarize the main points of what is contained in the poem—the “Nuniyyah” of Ibn al-Qayyim—without addressing its poetic form, as the author is too insignificant for me to engage with his words directly. 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 sounds.

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.”[26]

Al-Kawthari quoted Abu Ja'far al-Labli al-Andalusi, who said in his “Fihrist”:

وكذلك اللعين المعروف بالسجزي فإنه تصدى 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 ذما ولا يضر البحر الخضم ولغة كلب

“And likewise, the cursed one known as al-Sijizzi, who also dared to attack the eminent scholars and the guiding lights of the ummah by authoring a worthless book. Despite its insignificance and numerous flaws, he accuses the true scholars, the great figures of the ummah, and the vast oceans of knowledge of deceit, trickery, and fraud. This vile and contemptible individual is too insignificant to even be criticized, and just as the vast ocean is not harmed by the barking of a dog, so too is he inconsequential.” [27]

What al-Sijizzi asserted in his treatise regarding the affirmation of letters and sounds is not unique to him; rather, it is the position upheld by the leading scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah in their well-known works. Therefore, the judgment of innovation and departure from the Sunnah is not exclusive to him but extends to all who agree with him and affirm what he affirmed.

This judgment clearly demonstrates that the Imams of the Ash‘ari school consider the disagreement between them and the Imams of Ahl al-Sunnah to be a real and methodological conflict, not merely a verbal dispute. 

The Fifth Issue: Their Stance on Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim, and Others

When Ibn Taymiyyah began defending the creed of Ahl al-Sunnah in matters of belief, writing both lengthy and concise works to explain and elucidate it, the Ash’ari scholars of his time recognized that what he was doing was contrary and opposed to their own principles and beliefs. As a result, they sought to prevent him and restrict his influence, leading to several well-known debates between him and them over some of these writings.

One of the most famous of these debates was regarding “Al-Aqidah al-Wasitiyyah.” In this creed, Ibn Taymiyyah presented concise, comprehensive statements reflecting the beliefs of the Imams of Ahl al-Sunnah without introducing anything unique to himself. He was confident that his views were in alignment with those of the Salaf, and thus, he challenged the Ash’ari scholars of his time, saying:

قد أمهلت كل من خالفني في شيء منها ثلاث سنين فإن جاء بحرف واحد عن أحد من القرون الثلاثة

“I have given everyone who disagrees with me on any point in this creed three years to produce a single word from any of the first three generations in support of their position.” [28]

Despite this, the Ash’ari scholars were aware that their beliefs conflicted with what was outlined in that creed, especially in areas such as the divine names and attributes and the nature of Iman, among others. 

Similarly, there was a debate over “Al-Aqidah al-Hamawiyyah,” which Ibn Taymiyyah authored to affirm the volitional attributes of Allah and the attribute of istiwa. The Ash‘ari scholars recognized that what was stated in this creed directly contradicted their own beliefs. As a result, they sought to debate and restrict him, and some even authored books refuting the contents of this creed.

Some did not stop at merely refuting him but went further by imprisoning him and preventing him from issuing legal opinions. Some even went as far as to declare him an unbeliever, accuse him of apostasy, and call for his execution.

As for Ibn al-Qayyim, he, too, was not spared from the opposition and restrictions of the Ash‘ari scholars. When he authored “Al-Nuniyyah” and affirmed the creed of the Imams of Ahl al-Sunnah within it, some Ash‘ari scholars quickly responded, refuting and criticizing its contents, considering it to be an innovative belief that deviated from the Sunnah, as was done by al-Subki in his book “Al-Sayf al-Saqil.”

Among those targeted by the Ash‘ari scholars was Imam ‘Abd al-Ghani al-Maqdisi, who was a follower of Imam Ahmad and greatly admired him. He used to teach in the masjid of Damascus, affirming the divine attributes and the Qur’an as held by the Imams of Ahl al-Sunnah, affirming them without distortion or anthropomorphism, as is evident in his book “Al-Iqtisad fi al-I‘tiqad.” Some Ash‘ari scholars of his time opposed him, complained about him to the Ameer, and declared him a disbeliever, issuing a fatwa that he should be killed.[29]

These incidents clearly demonstrate that the Ash‘ari scholars were fully aware that the disagreement between them and the Imams of Ahl al-Sunnah was a real, methodological conflict, not merely a verbal dispute. 

The Ash‘ari School and Its Claim to the Salaf

Many leading scholars of the Ash‘ari school have frequently claimed in their writings that they represent the true teachings of Ahl al-Sunnah and that they have accurately upheld the beliefs of the Sahabah and the scholars who followed them.[30]

On the other hand, they often emphasize that the teachings of the well-known Imams of Ahl al-Sunnah, such as Ibn Khuzaymah, Abdullah ibn Ahmad (the son of Imam Ahmad), Ibn Mandah, Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, al-Isfahani, Ibn Abi Zamanin, Abu Bakr al-Isma‘ili, al-Sabuni, and many others up to Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim, do not truly represent what the Sahabah and the subsequent Imams of the deen adhered to. Instead, they argue that what is outlined in these scholars’ works constitutes a deviation and a departure from the original path.

Exposing this claim’s methodological and doctrinal flaws requires detailed and extensive discussion. However, it is important to emphasize here that the Ash’aris’ claim alone does not necessarily prove that they have accurately represented the beliefs of the Sahabah and the Imams of the deen. This point can be clarified through the following considerations: 

The First Point: Claiming Adherence to the Sunnah and the Salaf

One does not become a true adherent of the Sunnah and the way of the righteous Salaf simply by claiming affiliation. If mere affiliation were sufficient, many theological sects would be considered adherents of the Sunnah since they also claim to follow it and align themselves with the Salaf. The claim of adherence to the Sahabah and the assertion of complete agreement with them is not exclusive to the Ash‘aris; it is a common trait among the major theological groups.

For instance, the Mu’tazilites—whom the Ash‘aris consider misguided, with some even declaring them disbelievers—also claim to adhere to the Sunnah and assert that they represent the truth. Al-Qadi ‘Abd al-Jabbar emphasized that adherence to the Sunnah is the way of the Mu’tazilites.[31]

He quoted Muhammad ibn Yazdad al-Isfahani as saying:

أن المعتزلة هم المقتصدون, فاعتزلت الإفراط والتقصير, وسلكت طريق الأدلة, وذكر أن المعتزلة الأولى هم أصحاب محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم

“The Mu’tazilites are those who follow the middle path, avoiding both excess and negligence, and they follow the path of reason. He mentioned that the original Mu’tazilites were the companions of Muhammad (peace be upon him).” [32]

In a chapter titled “Regarding the Accusation that the Mu’tazilites Depart from the Sunnah and the Jama’ah, and That They Are Not Among Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah,” (فصل في نسبتهم المعتزلة إلى الخروج عن التمسك بالسنة والجماعة, وأنهم ليسوا من أهل السنة والجماعة) he stated:

فالمتمسك بالسنة والجماعة هم أصحابنا دون هؤلاء المشغبين

“Those who adhere to the Sunnah and the Jama’ah are our companions, not these troublemakers.” [33]

From this, it becomes clear that merely claiming affiliation with the Salaf is insufficient evidence of truly adhering to the Sunnah. True adherence requires complete alignment with the beliefs and methodology in reasoning and understanding that the Salaf followed. 

The Second Aspect:

If the attainment of true adherence to the Sunnah necessitates complete conformity with the practices of the Sahabah and the imams who succeeded them, then the condition of the Mu’tazilites and Ash’aris does not meet this requirement. They fell into significant methodological errors in their attempts to validate their affiliation, as they engaged in a substantial undermining of the texts and narrations reported from the Salaf (. They did not rely on all the texts and did not reconcile everything authentically transmitted from the Salaf. Instead, they highlighted texts that superficially appeared to support their views while disregarding the numerous other texts that contradicted the core of their doctrines or interpreted them away from their apparent meanings, as is the case with texts from the Quran and the Sunnah.

For instance, the Mu’tazilites cite numerous texts from the Sahabah and the Tabi’un to demonstrate that these early figures shared their views on the attributes of Allah, predestination, and Iman.[34] However, they ignored dozens of other texts and statements that indicate the opposite of their position.

Similarly, the Ash’aris rely on ambiguous texts and statements from some of the Salaf to claim that they supported the concept of Tafwid (consigning the meanings of God’s attributes to God alone). Yet, they overlook dozens of other texts that clearly show that the Salaf affirmed specific meanings for the divine attributes without likening them to the attributes of created beings.[35]

Some of their contemporary followers have attempted to prove that the Salaf endorsed the concept of Tafwid (consigning the meanings of God’s attributes to God alone).[36] They have compiled numerous texts from the Salaf. However, upon closer examination, it becomes evident that they selectively chose ambiguous statements from the imams and relied on these while ignoring many other texts that are clearer in meaning and more definitive in their implications, as these contradicted their intended conclusions. Many of the prominent scholars they cited also have other statements that directly oppose the interpretations attributed to them.

In the matter of Iman, some of them, such as al-Juwayni,[37] explicitly stated that the Ash’ari position contradicts the stance of the Ahl al-Hadith, as articulated by al-Juwayni. Others, like Taj al-Din al-Subki, attempted to reinterpret and modify the views of Ahl al-Sunnah and the Ahl al-Hadith to align them with the Ash’ari position on faith.[38]

When we move beyond the undermining approaches of the Mu’tazilite and Ash’ari schools when dealing with the texts and statements of the imams and turn to the works of the imams of Ahl al-Sunnah, such as “Kitab al-Tawhid” by Ibn Khuzaymah, “Al-Sunnah” by Abdullah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal, “Al-Ibanah” by Ibn Battah, “Al-Shari’ah” by al-Ajurri, and “Sharh Usul I’tiqad Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah” by al-Lalakai, among others, we find a different approach. These scholars collected all the texts and statements from the Salaf, organized and systematized them, striving to explain their meanings and clarify their concepts. They addressed apparent contradictions (which were few) and reconciled differing statements without omitting or selectively emphasizing certain types of texts.

This approach underscores that these scholars were the true preservers of the madhabs of the Salaf, comprehensively compiling their statements. Thus, they are the most qualified to expound upon their beliefs and methodologies. 

Ash’ari Imams and Diversity within Ahl al-Sunnah:

The approaches of Ash’ari scholars in defining who is included under the label “Ahl al-Sunnah” have varied. Some imply that the title “Ahl al-Sunnah” applies exclusively to the followers of the Ash’ari school.[39] Others believe that this description encompasses multiple groups, though their opinions differ. For example, Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi considered eight groups to fall under Ahl al-Sunnah.[40] Meanwhile, al-Amidi classified them into only two categories: the Ash’aris and the Salafis among the Ahl al-Hadith.[41] Another view includes the Ash’aris and the Maturidis as the two groups under this label.[42] Some Hanbalis influenced by the Ash’ari school, such as al-Saffarini, identified three groups: the Ash’aris, the Maturidis, and the Atharis.[43]

The intent here is not to assess the validity of this claimed diversity but to highlight the methodological flaw in the Ash’ari stance. Some have claimed that a faction of Salafis aligns with them without providing clear and definitive texts or statements to substantiate this claim. When al-Amidi began to outline the principles agreed upon by the Ash’aris and the Salafis of the Ahl al-Hadith, he mentioned only very general and broad statements, mostly aligned with the Ash’ari approach, without addressing the contentious issues where the Ash’aris differ. This creates a misleading impression that there is no disagreement between the two groups despite the fact that this supposedly aligned faction does not exist in reality.[44]

Conclusion: Only Two Options with No Third Alternative:

This article has demonstrated that the imams of Ahl al-Sunnah and the scholars of the Ash’ari school agree that the dispute between them is methodological and fundamental. Consequently, each party has sought to exclude the other from the fold of Ahl al-Sunnah. This indicates that there are only two possible options: either the madhab established by the imams of Ahl al-Sunnah is the true madhab that aligns with the beliefs of the Sahabah, the Tabi’un, and those who came after them, or the madhab established by the imams of the Ash’ari school is the true one that aligns with the beliefs of the Sahabah, the Tabi’un, and those who came after them.

The third option is the attempt to reconcile the two madhab and claim that both represent the Sunnah and that their differences are merely semantical, which is incorrect. This view contradicts the consensus of both groups, the reality of their madhabs, and their methodological and theoretical foundations.

It has also become evident that the insistence on distinguishing between the two madhabs is not solely from Ahl al-Sunnah but also from the Ash’aris, who are keen to differentiate themselves from those they refer to as Hashawiyyah and Mujassimah.

Furthermore, the clear distinction between the two madhabs did not begin with Ibn Taymiyyah; it existed before him and is widely present in Ash’ari writings.

Lastly, the conflict between the two madhabs is not limited to the Hanbalis and Ash’aris. Several imams of Ahl al-Sunnah from various schools of thought have participated in this dispute. For instance, Ibn Khuzaymah was a prominent Shafi’i scholar, not a Hanbali. Similarly, Abu Hamid al-Isfarayini, who vehemently opposed al-Ash’ari and his followers, was also a Shafi’i. Abu Nasr al-Sijizzi, who refuted the Ash’aris, was a Hanafi scholar, as indicated by several sources. Therefore, a significant number of imams of Ahl al-Sunnah were not Hanbalis.

Recommended Reading:

Allah's Divine Attributes Discourse

---

[1] Al-Milal wal-Nihal, vol. 1, p. 91

[2] Al-Irshad ila Qawati’ al-Adillah fi Usul al-‘Itiqad, p. 125

[3] Ibid., p. 85

[4] Al-Iqtisad fil ‘Itiqad, p. 72

[5] Ghayat al-Maram fi ‘Ilm al-Kalam, p. 311

[6] See: Al-Irshad ila Qawati’ al-Adillah fi Usul al-‘Itiqad, p. 333

[7] Al-Tafseer Al-Kabeer, vol. 8, p. 56 

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

[9] Al-Qarafi, Al-Furuq, vol. 4, p. 271 

[10] Al-Juwayni, Al-Shamil fi Usul Al-Din, p. 288

[11] Ibid., p. 511 

[12] Tabaqat Al-Shaf’iyyah, vol. 5, p. 192 

[13] Al-Tafseer Al-Kabeer, vol. 7, p. 218

[14] Ibid., vol. 7, p. 470 

[15] Ibid., vol. 7, p. 422

[16] Al-Shirbini, Mughni Al-Muhtaj, vol. 4, p. 134

[17] Al-Ash’ari, Al-Ibanah, pp. 105 & 120; Al-Baqillani, Al-Insaf, p. 24 and Al-Tamheed, p. 260

[18] See: Sadiq Saleem, Nabdha Lateefa fi Radd Ba’dh Tashgheebat Al-Mu’atillah ‘ala Al-Imam Ibn Khuzaymah

[19] Mushkil Al-Hadeeth wa-Bayanih, p. 167

[20] Al-Tafseer Al-Kabeer, vol. 9, p. 582

[21] Idah Al-Daleel fi Qat’ Hujaj Ahl Al-Ta’teel, p. 203 

[22] Radd Ibn Jahbal ‘ala Al-Fatwa Al-Hamawiyyah, p. 112

[23] Saif Al-Asri, Al-Qawl Al-Tamam bi-Thabat Al-Tafweedh Madhhaban lil-Salaf, p. 179

[24] Al-Tawheed, p. 26

[25] His introduction to the book Al-Asma’ wal-Sifat for Al-Bayhaqi.

[26] Al-Sayf Al-Saqeel, p. 25 

[27] Ibid., p. 26 in the footnotes

[28] Majmu’ Al-Fatawa, vol. 3, p. 169 

[29] Read the story at length in Al-Dhahabi’s Siyar ‘Alam Al-Nubala’, vol. 21, pp. 364-458 

[30] See: Al-Isfarayeeni, Al-Tabsira fi Al-Deen, p. 153; Al-Ghazali, Al-Maqsad Al-Usna fi Sharh Al-Asma’ Al-Husna, p. 157; Al-Razi, Al-Tafseer Al-Kabeer, vol. 14, p. 186, and much more.

[31] See: Fadl Al-‘Itizal wa-Tabaqat Al-Mu’tazila, p. 156 

[32] Ibid., p. 185 

[33] Ibid., p. 186

[34] See, for example, Ibn Al-Murtadah, Tabaqat Al-Mu’tazila, pp. 120-130 

[35] See: Faisal Al-Jasim, Al-Asha’ira fi Meezan Ahl Al-Sunnah, p. 143-189 

[36] Saif Al-Asri, Al-Qawl Al-Tamam bi-Thabat Al-Tafweedh Madhhaban lil-Salaf, p. 165 onward. 

[37] See: Al-Irshad, p. 333 

[38] See: Tabaqat Al-Shaf’iyyah, vol. 1, p. 98, 102, and 129

[39] See: Aqeedat Abi Ishaq Al-Shirazi (part of Sharh al-Luma’), vol. 1, p. 111 

[40] See: Al-Farq Bayn Al-Firaq, p. 113 

[41] See: Abkar Al-Afkar, vol. 5, p. 96 

[42] See: Ibn Hajar Al-Haytami, Al-Fatawa Al-Hadeethiyyah, p. 370; and, Al-Zubaidi, Ithaf Al-Saadah, vol. 2, p. 6 

[43] Lawami’ Al-Anwar, p. 73 

[44] See: Abkar Al-Afkar, vol. 5, p. 96