Mahmud ibn ‘Abidin

@mahmud_murrah

64 Tweets • 2023-04-03 •  See on Twitter

rattibha.com 

[ Were the majority of scholars Ashʿarī?]

Thought I’d respond to the common argument that

many Ashʿarīs resort to: “But… but… the majority of
the scholars were Ashʿarī!” Well, let’s begin with the
Salaf…

Abū Zurʿah (d. 264) and Abū Ḥātim (d. 277) both said,
“We encountered the ʿUlamāʾ across all the lands⁠—
from Ḥijāz, ʿIrāq, Shām, Yemen⁠…
“…and their maḏhab was that whoever says, ‘My lafẓ
of the Qurʾān is makhlūq (created),’ then he is a
Jahmī.” So this is the agreed-upon view of the Salaf
al-Ṣāliḥ across all the lands.
As for the Ashāʿirah, then Al-Bayjūrī (d. 1276) says,
“Know that the Kalām of Allāh in the sense of Kalām
Nafsī is eternal […] but in the sense of the lafẓ (of the
Qurʾān), then it is makhlūq (created).”
Al-Juwaynī (d. 478) quotes the Muʿtazilah as saying,
“This (i.e., the lafẓ of the Qurʾān we recite) is an
expression of the Kalām of Allāh, and it is created,”
and Al-Juwaynī then agrees with them, saying, “We
(i.e., the Ashāʿirah) do not deny that it is the creation
of Allāh.”
Al-Ījī al-Ashʿarī (d. 756) likewise quotes the Muʿtazilah
as saying that the Qurʾān we recite (i.e., the lafẓ) is
created, and Al-Ījī then says, “We say the same as
them (i.e., the Muʿtazilah), and there is no dispute
between us and them on this issue.”
So, is the Ashʿarī belief on lafẓ al-Qurʾān shared by
the majority of the Salaf? Nope. On the contrary, it
goes against the Ijmāʿ of the Salaf and falls in
agreement with the Muʿtazilah (as they themselves
have admitted).
The Ashāʿirah believe in two Qurʾāns: the Kalām
Nafsī, which they say is uncreated and established in
the Essence of Allāh, and the Qurʾān which we recite,
which they say is created. Al-Bāqillānī (d. 403) states
that the Qurʾān revealed to the Prophet is the
kalām of Jibrīl!
Ibn Qudāmah (d. 620) asked one of the Ashāʿirah
about this Qurʾān that we recite, so they replied, “I say
that this is also Qurʾān, but this is not the eternal
Qurʾān.” Ibn Qudāmah said, “So there are two
Qurʾāns?” The Ashʿarī said, “Yes; so what if we
believe in two Qurʾāns?”
Meanwhile, Aḥmad ibn Sinān al-Wāsiṭī (d. 258), the
shaykh of Al-Bukhārī (d. 256) and Muslim (d. 261),
said, “Whoever divides the Qurʾān into two types or
claims that the Qurʾān is a ḥikāyah (quotation), then
by Allāh, he is a zindīq kāfir.” Its isnād is ṣaḥīḥ.
And Imām al-Ṭabarī (d. 310) said, “Whoever claims
that there is a Qurʾān on the earth and another Qurʾān
in the heaven that is different to the one which we
recite with our tongues […] then he is a kāfir, his blood
is permissible, and he is free from Allāh and Allāh from
him.”
And in his Iḥyāʾ ʿUlūm al-Dīn (1/91), Abū Ḥāmid al-
Ghazālī (d. 505) states that Mūsā heard the speech
of Allāh without the Kalām of Allāh being with sound.

Meanwhile, in his Khalq Afʿāl al-ʿIbād (2/240), Imām

al-Bukhārī (d. 256) affirms that Allāh speaks with
sound, and he says, “The voice of Allāh does not
resemble the voices of the creation.”
Imām al-Bukhārī (d. 256) also said, “I met more than
one thousand of the ʿUlamāʾ across the lands, and I
did not see any one of them disagree that Al-Īmān
consists of speech and actions, and that it increases
and decreases.” Al-Ḥāfiẓ ibn Ḥajar (d. 852)
authenticated its isnād.
Meanwhile, Al-Juwaynī (d. 478) states that Al-Īmān is
only al-taṣdīq (to believe in Allāh), and that it neither
increases or decreases. Yikes…
And in Kitāb al-Inṣāf (p. 75), Al-Bāqillānī (d. 403)
states that the Kalām of Allāh is qadīm (eternal) and
that it is not emergent, in that the Kalām of Allāh does
not emerge from Him.
Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal (d. 241) directly contradicts
this when he said about the Qurʾān, “He spoke it; from
Him it emerged (‫)ﺧﺮج‬, and to Him it will return.”
And Isḥāq ibn Rāhawayh (d. 238), the shaykh of Imām
al-Bukhārī (d. 256), said, “There is no difference of
opinion between the people of knowledge that the
Qurʾān is the Kalām of Allāh, not created; how can
something which emerged (‫ )ﺧﺮج‬from Allāh be
created?”
Al-Ḥāfiẓ Aḥmad ibn Sinān al-Wāsiṭī (d. 258) said,
“The Qurʾān is the Kalām of Allāh, not created; from
Him it originated (‫)ﺑﺪأ‬, and to Him it will return.”
And ʿAmr ibn Dīnār (d. 126) said, “I observed the
people across seventy years and encountered the
Ṣaḥābah of the Prophet and other than them,
saying, ‘The Qurʾān is the Kalām of Allāh; from Him it
emerged (‫)ﺧﺮج‬, and to Him it will return.’”
Sufyān al-Thawrī (d. 161) said, “The Qurʾān is the
Kalām of Allāh, not created; from Him it originated (‫)ﺑﺪأ‬,
and to Him it will return. Whoever says other than this,
then he is a kāfir.”
All these Aʾimmah al-Salaf are affirming Al-Ṣifāt al-
Ikhtiyāriyyah for Allāh, which the Ashʿarīs negate.
Further, Isḥāq ibn Rāhawayh (d. 238) said about the
majīʾ (coming) of Allāh, “If He will come on the Day of
Resurrection, what prevents Him from (descending)
today?”
Imām Aḥmad (d. 241) said in his Radd ʿalā al-
Zanādiqah wa al-Jahmiyyah, “We do not say that He
(i.e., Allāh) did not speak until He created His speech;
rather, we say that Allāh speaks however He wills,
whenever He wills.” This is clear affirmation of Al-Afʿāl
al-Ikhtiyāriyyah.
And Imām al-Mufassirīn ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī (d. 310)
said, “He Istawā (rose) above His Throne on the
seventh day, after having created the heavens and the
earth and what is between them.”
Why do we see the Ashāʿirah contradicting the Salaf
on so many of these matters? It's simple: because the
Salaf were not Ashʿarī. The same goes for the claim of
many of the later Ashʿarīs, such as Ibn Ḥajar al-
Haytamī (d. 973): “The majority of the Salaf were upon
tafwīḍ!”
Imām al-Bukhārī (d. 256), under Al-Radd ʿalā al-
Jahmiyyah, quotes Abū al-ʿĀliyah (d. 93) explaining
‘Istawā’ to mean Irtafaʿ (rose over), and Mujāhid (d.
103) explaining ‘Istawā’ to mean ʿAlā (ascended). Both
are students of Ibn ʿAbbās (d. 68).
On the Āyah, “Do they await but that Allāh should
arrive to them,” Abū al-ʿĀliyah (d. 93) said, “The
angels will come in the shade of clouds, and Allāh will
come (yajīʾ) however He wills.” He explains al-ityān
(arriving) to mean al-majīʾ (coming). (Credit:
@iFlashFX)
The Messenger of Allāh said, “Our Lord laughs for
the despair of His servant, as He will soon relieve
them.” Abū Razīn asked, “O Messenger of Allāh, does
the Lord laugh?” He ( ) replied, “Yes.” Abū Razīn
said, “We will never be deprived of good by a Lord
who laughs.”
Imām al-Dārimī (d. 280) uses this ḥadīth to argue that
the laughing of Allāh is in a real sense, not as a
metaphor for ‘Mercy’ or ‘pleasure,’ since Abū Razīn
wouldn’t have been amazed if he understood
‘laughing’ to only be a metaphor, and this completely
contradicts tafwīḍ.
Imām al-Nasāʾī (d. 303), Maʿmar ibn al-Muthannā (d.
210), and Al-Khalīl ibn Aḥmad (d. 170) all explained
Al-Istiwāʾ with examples such as someone rising upon
a rooftop or an animal.
Isḥāq ibn Rāhawayh (d. 238) reports the Ijmāʿ of the
ʿUlamāʾ on affirming Al-Istiwāʾ, and he said: Bishr ibn
ʿUmar (d. 206) told us, “I heard more than one of the
Mufassirīn explain ‘The Most Merciful Istawā above
the Throne’ by saying, ‘Irtafaʿ (rose over) the Throne.’”
ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Warrāq (d. 251) explained Al-
Istiwāʾ to mean sitting, and Ibn Qutaybah (d. 276)
explained Al-Istiwāʾ to mean settling; both are direct
students of Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal (d. 241).
And Isḥāq ibn Rāhawayh here (d. 238) links the majīʾ
(coming) of Allāh with His nuzūl (descending), and he
uses one to argue for the other, thus demonstrating
that he understands their meanings.
Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal (d. 241) also links the majīʾ
(coming) and ityān (arriving) of Allāh and uses them to
argue for the fact that Allāh will be seen in the
Hereafter. This is also impossible if he was upon
tafwīḍ al-maʿnā.
Al-Ḥajjāj and Ḥammād ibn Salamah (d. 167) gestured
with their hands when narrating a mawqūf athar on the
Yadayn of Allāh. Similarly, Imām Aḥmad (d. 241), Al-
Qaṭṭān (d. 198), and Al-Thawrī (d. 161) gestured with
their fingers when narrating aḥādīth on the Aṣābiʿ of
Allāh.
Imām al-Tirmidhī (d. 279) clearly mentions that Ahl al-
ʿIlm, such as Imām Mālik (d. 179), Sufyān ibn
ʿUyaynah (d. 198), and ʿAbdullāh ibn al-Mubārak (d.
181), would give tafsīr of the Āyāt al-Ṣifāt, while the
Jahmiyyah would explain the meanings in another way
by making taʾwīl.
And Imām ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī (d. 310) states that the
majīʾ (coming) and nuzūl (descending) of Allāh are to
be affirmed on the ẓāhir without taʾwīl, and on the next
page, he states that the same is to be done with all the
Ṣifāt.
And Ibn Khuzaymah (d. 311) understood the maʿnā of
the Istiwā (rising) of Allāh and deduced therefrom that
He is accordingly currently in a state of Istiwā above
His Throne. Hence, he said, “He is mustaw (risen)
above His Throne,” thus making taṣrīf (conjugation) of
Al-Istiwāʾ.
Similarly, when Ibn al-Aʿrābī (d. 231) was asked about
the meaning of the Āyah, “The Most Merciful Istawā
above the Throne,” he replied, “Verily, He is mustaw
(risen) above the Throne, as He has informed us.”
On the other hand, Al-Ghazālī (d. 505) prohibits one
from describing Allāh as mustaw (risen), since
conjugating Al-Istiwāʾ—under the paradigm of tafwīḍ
—may end up changing its meaning. (Credit: Br.
Bassām Zawwādī)
So once it is established that the Salaf were neither
Ashāʿirah nor Muʾawwilah nor Mufawwiḍah, does it
matter if even the majority of the Khalaf disagreed with
the Salaf on these matters? Not really. As the Prophet
said, the best of people are the first three qurūn.
If the Ashʿarī ʿAqīdah cannot be proven from the early
generations of Islām, this argument really holds no
weight. Abū Naṣr al-Sijzī al-Ḥanafī (d. 444) highlights
in his treatise the lack of differing in ʿAqīdah until the
advent of Ibn Kullāb (d. 240) and his likes.
This is not to mention the harsh criticism which Ibn
Kullāb (d. 240) and his companions were met with,
which is significant, considering the fact that the
Kullābiyyah are the group from which the Ashāʿirah
stem.

https://mobile.twitter.com/mahmud_murrah

/status/1639005424061128705
Imām Abū Sulaymān al-Khaṭṭābī (d. 388) wrote, “As
for what you have asked regarding the Ṣifāt […] then
the maḏhab of the Salaf is to affirm them and observe
them upon their apparent meanings (ʿalā ẓāhirihā).”
Note how he only references the Salaf, skipping over
the Khalaf.
Al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī (d. 463) also said, “As for the
Ṣifāt […] then the maḏhab of the Salaf is to affirm and
observe them apparent meanings (ʿalā ẓawāhirihā).”
Again, we find the maḏhab of the Salaf referenced
and the differing of the Khalaf from the Salaf
disregarded.
Even Abū Shāmah al-Maqdisī (d. 665) states clearly
that we should follow the truth even if its followers are
few and many oppose it, and that the Jamāʿah is what
the Ṣaḥābah were upon without any consideration
being given to the numbers of the deviants who came
after them.
As for the ‘Ashʿarī majority’ argument, then it is forced
to appeal primarily to the opinions of the Khalaf, which
are not a ḥujjah and do not hold weight in light of the
agreement of the Salaf; hence, this argument fails to
serve any real purpose.

With that being said, regarding the claim that the

majority of the Khalaf were Ashʿarī, then it itself can be
challenged from a number of angles.

Al-Qaṣṣāb (d. 360) wrote a treatise on ʿAqīdah where

he, among other points, states that the Ṣifāt are to be
affirmed on the ḥaqīqah, not majāz. This treatise was
approved by the ʿUlamāʾ of the time and distributed
across the lands, indicating that the masses weren’t
Ashʿarī.
Ibn ʿAsākir (d. 571), in his attempt to list the Ashʿarī
ʿUlamāʾ, failed to reach even one hundred, while Ibn
Mibrad al-Ḥanbalī (d. 909) provides a list which
exceeds four hundred ʿUlamāʾ that opposed the
Ashāʿirah, and he mentions that he was informed of
over one thousand.
For similar lists, one may refer to Ithbāt Ṣifah al-
ʿUluww by Ibn Qudāmah (d. 620), Ijtimāʿ al-Juyūsh al-
Islāmiyyah by Ibn al-Qayyim (d. 751), Al-ʿUluww lil-ʿAlī
al-Ghaffār by Al-Dhahabī (d. 748), and Ṭabaqāt al-
Ḥanābilah by Al-Qāḍī Abū Yaʿlā (d. 458).
And regarding Imām Abū al-ʿAbbās al-Nihāwandī (d.
~370), who was very harsh against Ahl al-Kalām and
would make takfīr of the Ashāʿirah, Abū ʿAbdillāh al-
Dīnawarī said, “I met one thousand scholars who are
in agreement with Al-Nihāwandī.” (Credit:
@OneofYoda)

For more details, one may refer to this article:

https://islamicdiscourse.substack.com/p/

does-it-matter-if-the-majority-of

Note that this is only regarding the ʿAqīdah of the

scholars; when it comes to the ʿāmmah al-nās
(general masses of people), things get even worse for
the Ashʿarīs, as their own scholars admit that the
masses do not and cannot accept the Ashʿarī ʿAqīdah.

For instance, Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606) admits that

the fiṭrah of the majority of people leads them to affirm
that Allāh is above the heavens.
Similar statements are found in the works of Al-ʿIzz ibn
ʿAbd al-Salām (d. 660), Al-Taftazānī (d. 792), Al-
Sanūsī (d. 895), and others, as is listed and explained
here:

https://islamicdiscourse.substack.com/p/

is-asharism-the-theology-of-the-masses
In closing, the fact that Ashʿariyyah has gained
popularity in more recent years is not something which
can be used as evidence in support of it. As we know,
the followers of the truth will be few, and all sects will
be in the Fire with the exception of only one.

The Prophet said, “Islām began as (something)

strange, and it will return to being strange, as it had
begun. So glad tidings be to the ghurabāʾ (strangers).”
ʿAbdullāh ibn Masʿūd (d. 32) said, “The Jamāʿah is
whoever obeys Allāh, even if they are a single
person.”

And Imām al-Awzāʿī (d. 157) said, “Upon you is to

follow the āthār of the Salaf, even if the people oppose
you. And beware of the mere opinions of men, even if
they beautify it with their words.”
So in following this advice, we should follow the path
of the Salaf even if the people have abandoned it, and
we should adhere to it even if the people call against
it.

And Allāh knows best.

@JohnDoe69230127 And Isḥāq ibn Rāhawayh used
the fact that the Qurʾān emerged from Allāh as a proof
that it is not makhlūq. If ‫ ﺧﺮج‬means Allāh sent the
Qurʾān down, not that it emerged from Him, then there
are many things which Allāh sends down which are
makhlūq, so this would make no sense.
@JohnDoe69230127 @D1mashqi If you were
consistent, you would accept that a more honest
translation would be that the Qurʾān is revealed to the
earth, not that it is created on earth and uncreated in
the heaven. Otherwise, you'd have to say that Isḥāq is
contradicting himself.

@JohnDoe69230127 @D1mashqi You can also go to

the Masāʾil of Ḥarb ibn Ismāʿīl and see Isḥāq's view
on the lafẓ which we recite.

These pages were created and arranged by Rattibha

services (https://www.rattibha.com)
The contents of these pages, including all images,
videos, attachments and external links published
(collectively referred to as "this publication"),
were created at the request of a user (s) from
Twitter. Rattibha provides an automated service,
without human intervention, to copy the contents of
tweets from Twitter and publish them in an article
style, and create PDF pages that can be printed and
shared, at the request of Twitter user (s). Please
note that the views and all contents in this
publication are those of the author and do not
necessarily represent the views of Rattibha. Rattibha
assumes no responsibility for any damage or breaches
of any law resulting from the contents of this
publication.