[derinasderun]

Right, so do you think that ibn taymiyah was an asha'ri mutakalim who did ta'weel? If not than what type of asha'ri was he?

Well he changed in the end of his life, that's when he said he was 'Ashari, and all of his works were probably written before he changed his views

[megatrendsZ]

Your assumption is based on the three stages that he supposidly went through. The Ibanah was written according to Ibn Kullab's method as Ibn Hajar said, to strenghten that the Hanabilah rejected this work as Imam Dhahabi writes in Siyar.

The Ibanah we have today has been corrupted, for example, Ibn 'Asakir quotes from Ibanah sayind 'Ayn (singular) while todays printed versions have 'Aynayn (dual). Much more differences refer to shaykh Ghawji.

can you please quote with the context what exactly did Dhahabi write in his Siyar that Hanabilah rejected Ibanah. ( don't get yourself embarrassed by cut-n-paste from Habib Hasan Ali Saqqaf ,,,, )

for your second claim that Ibanah which we have has been corrupted was actually claim made by some and harshly refuted by Ibn Darbas you can read the whole book of Ibn Darbas here:

Ibn Darbas al-Shafi'ee (d. 659H) Exposes Todays Jahmites Almost 800 Years Ago

The author, Ibn Darbās, said:

And amongst them is Abū Muḥammad bin ʿAlī al-Baghdādī, the resident of Makkah, may Allāh guard it. I saw a manuscript of the book al-Ibānah with his writing from its beginning to its end. And at the end of it was what has just been mentioned. It was in the possession of our Shaykh, the Imām, the head of the Scholars, the Faqīh, the Ḥāfidh, the ʿAllāmah Abū al-Ḥasan bin Mufaḍḍal al-Maqdisī. I prepared my own manuscript from it and compared it after I had made another copy from what I found in the book of the Imām Naṣr al-Maqdisī at the Bayt al-Maqdis, may Allāh protect it. And one of our companions presented it - in the precincts of Bayt al-Maqdis - to one of those with high ranking among the Jahmiyyah who attributed the forged statement [of not writing al-Ibānah] to Abū Hasan al-Ashʿarī. But he rejected it and argued against it saying, "We have never heard of it, and nor is it one of his works." And another one strove to work his monotony in trying to put an end to the doubt through his shrewdness, so he said, after moving his beard somewhat, "Perhaps he wrote it when he was a Ḥashawī." So I do not know which of his two affairs are more strange. Whether it is his ignorance of the book despite its fame and the abundance of those who mention it in the authored works from amongst the Scholars, or whether it is his ignorance of the condition of his shaykh against whom he fabricates a lie by ascribing himself to him, [and his ignorance] of [what is] well-known in the ummah - to both its scholar and ignoramus alike - regarding [al-Ashʿarī] being upon iʿtizāl before his repentance.

Refer to Risālah Fī al-Dhabb ʿan Abī al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī (pp. 130-131) with tahqiq of al-Faqeehi (1984), p. 131. and it has also been printed by Da'irah al-Ma'arif al-Uthmaniyyah in Hyderabaad al-Dikn in India, (1948), p. 6.

From the above we note:

* There were found, 800 years ago, those who denied the authorship of al-Ibanah by al-Ash'ari or claimed it was authored when he was a "Hashawi" - upon their belief that after leaving the Mu'tazilah he became a Hashawi, wrote al-Ibanah, and then left that to take the way of Ibn Kullab.

and your claim about Aynayn is also wrong. Have you seen the manuscripts of Tabyin of Ibn Asakir.
Read here more http://www.asharis.com/creed/article...r-singular.cfm

Some Revision Of What Took Place Previously and Some Reminders

Three individuals Faqir, Abu Bilal Maliki and Muhammad Fahmi were involved in a scam in trying to discredit the book al-Ibaanah with claims of tampering merely because there appears to be a variation between what is cited by Ibn Asaakir (d 571H) in his book Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftaree and todays printed versions. They had been fed with rotten leftovers by GF Haddaad who was the initiator of this hoax. In particular, they played upon the issue of the variation in the mention of eyes in the dual (aynaan) and the singular (ayn). We covered this in detail (see here, here, here and here) and exposed that charlatanry and showed that this is just a red-herring used to deceive.

Now there are a number of layers of deception involved here so you have to catch them all.

Firstly, these pseudo-Ash'aris do not even affirm the attribute of eye(s) as an attribute of Allaah's essence to begin with, as the standard established Ash'arite view today is these are not from Allaah's attributes since they imply limbs. In this view, today's pseudo-Ash'aris oppose all the early Kullaabi Ash'aris such as al-Ash'ari, Ibn Mahdee al-Tabari, al-Baqillaani and we can include al-Bayhaqi who also affirmed the attribute of eye for Allaah, they affirmed these as actual attributes of the essence although they entered into a methodological departure from the way of the Salaf by making specific negations. However, they never delved into ta'weel nor tafweed in relation to these attributes. So the first thing is that you are not even on our side of the fence on this issue, where there are the Salaf, and those Kullaabi Ash'aris we just mentioned. You are on the other side of the fence, with the Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah and the animal fodder.

Secondly, the variation in the use of aynaan (two eyes) or ayn (eye) is totally immaterial and utterly irrelevant, especially when we see that in all the manuscripts of al-Ibaanah there is to be found an entire chapter dealing with these attributes in which al-Ash'ari uses both the singular and dual of eye. Hence, trying to deceive the audience by the apparent variation between manuscripts as it relates to the opening passage of al-Ibaanah (whilst ignoring the actual chapter dealing with the attribute of eyes and hiding from the audience that all manuscripts are identical) is in fact a huge scam. It is a confidence trick, because they simply have to discredit this book because it convicts them for the neo-Jahmites that they are, who have zero connection with Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari, except for that misappropriation of his good name.

Now, if you read up on those earlier articles (see series here) you will realize that they were making comparisons between today's published versions of al-Ibaanah which rely upon around six or so manuscripts between them, and between a passage that Ibn Asaakir cited from his copy of al-Ibaanah from the beginning of al-Ibaanah. Now, it so happens that there are also numerous manuscripts of Ibn Asaakir's Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftaree, where this citation is made. And in most of these manuscripts, Ibn Asaakir actually quotes "two eyes". Now this is very, very significant. What this means is that the scam is bigger and deeper and more serious. Because if you were truly and really honest, you would have admitted and said:

Hey, there are numerous manuscripts of Ibn Asaakir's Tabyin in which "two eyes" are mentioned. In fact in most of those manuscripts "two eyes" are mentioned. And so from the angle of academic honesty, we can't really use this as an issue to claim tampering of the text of al-Ibaanah of al-Ash'ari. Rather, what appears to be most correct, when considering all of the evidence together, is that what is correct in al-Ibaanah in those places is the mention of two eyes. This appears to be the case in almost all manuscripts of al-Ibaanah and likewise, this appears the case in all manuscripts of al-Tabyin as well (in which Ibn Asaakir was quoting from his copy of al-Ibaanah). Further, since we see that in al-Maqaalaat al-Ash'ari also mentions "two eyes" and al-Baqillaani also affirms two eyes in his book al-Tamhid, and likewise we even see al-Juwaynee, al-Aamidee, al-Shahrastaanee and al-Baghdaadee all confirming that the earliest Ash'aris affirmed two eyes, then we'll just resign from this scam and drop it alltogether. This scam is unlikely to work because overwhelmingly the evidence is against us.

So you get the idea of what is going on. But these fools decided not to drop it alltogether and opted to get caught out instead with unchanged nappies... (the evil outcome of consuming GF Haddaad's rotten leftovers).

Acknowledgement: The scans below were sent to us by Moulay Abdoellah (may Allaah reward him) who took the effort to acquire them. There is also another manuscript dated 659H which, Allaah willing, should be made available through him. Information about the various manuscripts in this article is taken from material that Moulay Abdoellah sent to us.

The Various Manuscripts of al-Tabyin

Those involved in publishing Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari - for which numerous manuscripts exist - such as Muhammad Zaahid al-Kawthari, and Ahmad Hijaazee al-Saqaa failed to point out those other manuscripts. And since one is going to publish such an important work, it is from scholarly standards that you actually do a decent job of it, which is to refer to all available manuscripts, and then strive to publish an edition which relies upon as many as possible so that the reader has the most authoratitive text in his hands. And if you can't do that, at least acknowledge the presence of all of these manuscripts. So this was not done. Here are other manuscripts:

1. Escurial library, Madrid, Spain. Casiri catalogue no. 1796. This manuscript is dated 582H, in Damascus. Which is merely a decade after the authors death (571H)

2. Leiden library, Netherlands. Arabic manuscript no. 901. This is written before 659H, which is older than the one used by those who published al-Tabyin (the next one).

3. Dar Kutub al-Misriyyah. Date 677H.

4. Leipzig, Germany. D.C no. 149. This is the one for which scans are provided below. It is written in seventh century, and on the cover page the date of 792H is written which indicates the date of possession of the manuscript.

5. Oxford, England. Dozy catalogue, no. 181. This is written in 831H.

In addition to this, there are also citations from the Tabyin by Imaam al-Dhahabi and Ibn al-Qayyim who were citing from manuscripts they had. Note in the Oxford, Leiden, and Leipzig manuscripts the word eye is mentioned in the dual ('aynayn). The other two have not been seen for us to state whether the singular or dual is used. And the same (use of dual) is found in al-Dhahabi's quote in Mukhtasar al-'Uluww (p. 242) and Ibn al-Qayyim in Ijitmaa' Juyush al-Islamiyyah (p. 288, Maktabah al-Rushd, 1995) whose quote is identical to what is below in the Leipzig manuscript. So all the evidence seems to show that al-Kawthari's and al-Saqaa's prints of Tabyin are erroneous in claiming ayn (eye) is mentioned in the singular in Ibn Asaakir's citation, and that two yes (aynayn) is what is correct. And it is on this error that the likes of GF Haddaad and his blind-followers based their scam which you can read about starting with this article and this one and the rest that follow.

The Leipzig Manuscript

This is the opening page for the book:

Here we have the citation from the opening passage of al-Ibaanah:

The part highlighted with red line reads:

And they denied that Allāh has a face, despite His saying, "And the Face of your Lord shall remain (the Face) full of Majesty and Honour." (55:27) and they rejected that Allāh has two hands, despite His saying, "What I created with My Own Two Hands" (38:75), and they denied that He has two eyes, despite His saying, "Floating under our eyes" (54:14)

And here is the other part where two eyes are mentioned in his citation:

The part highlighted with red line reads:

And that Allāh ascended over His Throne, as He said, "The Most Merciful ascended over the Throne" (20:5), and that He has a face, just as He has said, "And the Face of your Lord shall remain (the Face) full of Majesty and Honour." (55:27) and that He has two hands, as He said, "Nay both His Hands are oustretched" (5:64), and He also said, "What I created with My Own Two Hands" (38:75), and that He has two eyes, without kayf, as He said, "Floating under our eyes" (54:14)

Concluding Remarks

It is apparent that in the print editions of Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari (by al-Kawthari, and al-Saqaa), they have not established and verified the true and correct wordings in those two passages from the opening of al-Ibaanah which are cited by Ibn Asaakir, and it is more correct that the actual wording in all cases is "aynayn" (two eyes) as is evident from at least three of the manuscripts and through what is cited by other authorities like al-Dhahabi and Ibn al-Qayyim who were quoting from what they had with them. This means that the hoax and scam of the likes of GF Haddaad and his blind-followers is very apparent in that they tried to use what is really an immaterial matter in the first place (the mention of eye in singular or dual), in order to hoodwink the audience. The scam is made worse by the fact that these pseudo-Asha'rites do not even affirm these sifaat khabariyyah, as in attributes of Allaah's essence, in the first place, such that they should be in any position to be discussing one eye or two eyes. Take a look at what they say about these attributes in this article where we addressed their historical and academic fraud.

This is very similar to another issue which we have outlined in other articles on this site. The issue of saying whether Allaah is above the Throne "bi haddin" or "bilaa hadd" which are both reported from the Salaf and they relate to two separate matters. The affirmation of hadd refers to Allaah being separate and distinct from His creation in terms of His essence. And likewise, affirmation of hadd in terms of definition (in the sense that we can say of Allaah that He is one who is "hearing, seeing, living, knowing, speaking, able, willing" and so on, so this is giving definition which automatically brings something from the realm of non-existence to existence) and this is what the Jahmites were denying. And the negation of hadd refers to rejecting any definitions as to how Allaah is above His Throne or how His attributes are in reality. Refer to a detailed treatment of that in this article. Now, these pseudo-Ash'arites stick their noses into this matter and start raising the issue of Allah being above the Throne with a "hadd" and using it to confuse people and deceive them. Now here is the real point. This discussion is only for those people who actually affirm their is a Lord above the Throne to begin with. If you don't affirm this, then there is no room in this discussion for you and you ought to get lost and go somewhere else. But for you to stick your nose into it and start faking all that piety and pretence of concern, its just one great big scam and fraud, and you've only exposed yourself by trying it on!

Postscript

To the right is an image of the quote from Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftaree from Ibn al-Qayyim in his book Ijtimaa' Juyoosh al-Islaamiyyah (top) and likewise a quote from the Tabyin by al-Dhahabi (as occurs in Mukhtasar al-Uluww) and they are identical quotes to the two parts above in the Leipzig manuscript.

So we say: If you dont' affirm the attribute of eye for Allaah to begin with as an actual attribute of His essence (which today's Ash'arites do not and further, they make ta'weel of seeing (basr) to mean knowledge (ilm), so they don't really affirm "basr" for Allaah as an attribute), then the scholarly discussion regarding one eye or two eyes in the manuscripts of al-Ibaanah has got nothing to do you with you. You are over yonder on the other side of the fence, with the Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah and the mounds of animal fodder. You are not allowed on this side of the fence with the Salaf, Ibn Kullaab, al-Ash'ari and their earliest followers, (whether they affirm eye in the singular or dual), it makes no difference. You are not allowed on this side of the fence to start faking concern over this matter.

Just like in the issue of Nuzool, when your ancestors the Jahmiyyah began to fake concern, "Does Allaah leave His Throne or not?", these doubts were first raised by the Jahmiyyah, because it grieved them that Allaah is above the Throne and that He has actions tied to His will and power (such as al-istiwaa and al-nuzul) which they considered hawaadith (events, occurrences) which clashed with their proof of al-ajsaam wal-a'raad. So the answer to them was that this issue is not for you, because you don't even believe there is a Lord above the Throne to begin with, such that this question should arise for you "Does He leave the Throne or not?" Rather, this is just mischief on your behalf and doubts you are trying to create.

So these are the realities of these people, be not in doubt about it, and they simply play games and make calculated deception and rely upon the naivety of their audience, most of whom will not be in a position to research and verify matters.

[derinasderun]

can you please quote with the context what exactly did Dhahabi write in his Siyar that Hanabilah rejected Ibanah. ( don't get yourself embarrassed by cut-n-paste from Habib Hasan Ali Saqqaf ,,,, )

Look in al-Barbahari section in siyar, you'll find it there. Also Tabaqat al-Hanabilah and al_Wafi bil Wafayat.



for your second claim that Ibanah which we have has been corrupted was actually claim made by some and harshly refuted by Ibn Darbas you can read the whole book of Ibn Darbas here:
Hmm, let me think about this, should I follow your claims or that of an 'Alim who went thru the manuscrits the likes of Shaykh Ghawji?

[megatrendsZ]

Look in al-Barbahari section in siyar, you'll find it there. Also Tabaqat al-Hanabilah and al_Wafi bil Wafayat.

Can you please check Siyar of Dhahabi and let us know the isnad/chain for such a claim and looking at tabaqat of ibn abi yala , if you are referring to the report which goes to al-Ahwazi. So, how is that you **reject** Ahwazi accusations on Abul Hasan al-Ashari and (you have ibn asakir writing a complete book on it) yet you accept this report coming from Ahwazi ? do you accept what Ahwazi said about Abul Hasan Ashari ? have you even read his book called Mathalib ibn abi bishr ?

and this claim of yours has been answered in more details here
http://www.asharis.com/creed/article...i---part-6.cfm
and
http://www.asharis.com/creed/print.cfm?mkboc

Hmm, let me think about this, should I follow your claims or that of an 'Alim who went thru the manuscrits the likes of Shaykh Ghawji?

hmmm... should I follow a claims of Ghawji with no precedent ( no one claimed what Ghawji claims ) or should I follow an Alim like Ibn Darbas al-Shafi (d. 659 AH) who said (see below the risala translated by abu abdullah )

it same as the saying of Hanafi Hadith Master Badr al-Din Ayni who said about Ibn Taymiyyah "Whoever says ibn Taymiyyah is a kaafir then he is in reality himself a kaafir, and the one who accuses him of heresy is himself a heretic. How is this possible when his works are widely available and there is no hint of deviation or dissension contained therein" so if you bring to me, habib hasan ali saqqaf or naruji or whoever, no one really cares because we know who is Badr al-Din Ayni and we know who is Abu Adam Naruji.


Ibn Darbas al-Shafi'ee (d. 659H) Exposes Todays Jahmites Almost 800 Years Ago

The author, Ibn Darbās, said:

And amongst them is Abū Muḥammad bin ʿAlī al-Baghdādī, the resident of Makkah, may Allāh guard it. I saw a manuscript of the book al-Ibānah with his writing from its beginning to its end. And at the end of it was what has just been mentioned. It was in the possession of our Shaykh, the Imām, the head of the Scholars, the Faqīh, the Ḥāfidh, the ʿAllāmah Abū al-Ḥasan bin Mufaḍḍal al-Maqdisī. I prepared my own manuscript from it and compared it after I had made another copy from what I found in the book of the Imām Naṣr al-Maqdisī at the Bayt al-Maqdis, may Allāh protect it. And one of our companions presented it - in the precincts of Bayt al-Maqdis - to one of those with high ranking among the Jahmiyyah who attributed the forged statement [of not writing al-Ibānah] to Abū Hasan al-Ashʿarī. But he rejected it and argued against it saying, "We have never heard of it, and nor is it one of his works." And another one strove to work his monotony in trying to put an end to the doubt through his shrewdness, so he said, after moving his beard somewhat, "Perhaps he wrote it when he was a Ḥashawī." So I do not know which of his two affairs are more strange. Whether it is his ignorance of the book despite its fame and the abundance of those who mention it in the authored works from amongst the Scholars, or whether it is his ignorance of the condition of his shaykh against whom he fabricates a lie by ascribing himself to him, [and his ignorance] of [what is] well-known in the ummah - to both its scholar and ignoramus alike - regarding [al-Ashʿarī] being upon iʿtizāl before his repentance.

Refer to Risālah Fī al-Dhabb ʿan Abī al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī (pp. 130-131) with tahqiq of al-Faqeehi (1984), p. 131. and it has also been printed by Da'irah al-Ma'arif al-Uthmaniyyah in Hyderabaad al-Dikn in India, (1948), p. 6.
Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim.

Subject: Translation of the Risala of Ibn Darbas in Defense of al-Ash'ari.

See for - the Ash'arite author - Abd al-Malik Ibn Darbas al-Shafi'i (d.659): http://s8.invisionfree.com/Sunnah/index ... wtopic=418
* chapter-headings between [] are mine, incl. all other words in brackets which were necessary to translate the intent of the author;
* text between () are also mine, though they are explanatory additions and could be left out;
* the Qur'anic text has been given in transcription so a few other necessary expressions for fear of misinterpretation;
* I've not incl. the variant readings between the 1901 and 1948 editions, but those will Insha'Allah be given in the footnotes in a later text-publication;
* I've not checked the quoted texts from earlier works, such as the Tabyin of Ibn 'Asakir, al-I'tiqad of al-Bayhaqi etc. though everything quoted by the author is well-known to be correct.

[Introduction]

al-Hamdulillah, and peace upon His servants He selected, especially our Prophet Muhammad, and his family who posses the most complete lineage!

[Part: Ibanah by Imam al-Ash'ari is his Last Testimony]

Thereafter,

Know, O community of brethren, may Allah grant us and you succes to the right religion, and guide us all to te straight path - that the book, al-Ibanah 'an Usul al-Diyanah (The Elucidation of the Principles of Religion), which the Imam Abu'l-Hasan 'Ali b. Isma'il al-Ash'ari authored, is the one on which his affair established with respect to what he professed and took as religion in worshipping Allah, the Sublime and Exalted, after his return from Mu'tazilism, by the Grace of Allah and His Benevolence!

[Part: Any Opinion of Imam al-Ash'ari which Opposes Ibanah is False]

And every saying which is ascribed to him now, and which opposes what's in al-Ibanah, then he turned back from it, and declared himself to be innocent of it in front of Allah, the Sublime.

How can it be otherwise, when he stated in it that the religion with what he worships Allah, the Sublime, and [which] he reports and confirmed as the beliefs of the Companions, the Followers and the Imams of Hadith, who have passed before, and the saying of Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal - may Allah be pleased with all of them. And that it is which the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger points to.

Then is it permitted to say that he turned back from it to something else? Then to what did he return? Did he turn back from the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Prophet of Allah in opposite of what the Companions, the Followers and the Imams of Hadith, those who are pleased, were upon? And [even] while he knew that this was their Madhhab? And we have narrated this from them?!

By my life, how can that which does not befit the general Muslims be ascribed to the Imams of the Religion?! Or can it be said that he was ignorant in the matter [of opinions] in his relating from the Salaf wo have passed, knowing the passage of his life in which he explored the Madhabs and acquainted himself with the sects?! This can not be imagined or suspected by anyone, but only a arrogant profligate one can hold this!

[Part: Ibanah is Confirmed Book of Imam al-Ash'ari]

And the book (i.e. al-Ibanah) has been mentioned, relied upon and confirmed [as coming] from the Imam Abi'l-Hasan [al-Ash'ari], Allah's mercy upon him. And he has been praised for what he has written in it, and they have declared him free from every innovation that has been ascribed to him [thereafter]. And they have quoted from him from his work (al-Ibanah), [like] a community from the Imams from the Fuqaha of Islam, and Imams of the Reciters, and the Hadith-masters, and others then them.

[Part: Abu Bakr al-Bayhaqi Confirmed the Ibanah]

Among them, the Imam, the Faqih and Hafidh Abu Bakr al-Bayhaqi, author of famous works and praiseworthy reports. He depended on it in the book of his [known as] al-I'tiqad. And he reported from him (i.e. al-Ash'ari) in places of his [books], and he didn't mention his work, but that he said in the chapter 'Saying on the Quran' - what the Imam and Hafidh Abu'l-Qasim 'Ali b. al-Hasan b. Hibat Allah al-Shafi'i, known as Ibn 'Asakir, reported to us by way of his reading to us, saying: Abu 'Abdallah Muhammad b. al-Fadl b. Ahmad al-Furawi al-Sa'idi reported to us, by way of his reading to us: the Imam Abu Bakr Ahmad b. al-Husayn b. 'Ali al-Bayhaqi reported, he said:

"And it has been reported from al-Shafi'i, Allah's mercy on him, that what is recited from the Qur'an by our tongues, and what we hear with our ears, and what we write in our scriptures, is Allah's Speech",

he said (i.e. al-Bayhaqi):

"And with its meaning it has been mentioned also by 'Ali b. Isma'il - i.e. Abi'l-Hasan al-Ash'ari, Allah's mercy on him - in his book al-Ibanah".

Then he said (i.e. al-Bayhaqi):

"And Abu'l-Hasan 'Ali b. Isma'il, Allah's mercy on him, said in his book:

'If the speaker says: It has been reported to us that you say that the Speech of Allah is in the Lawh al-Mahfudh, say to him: We say like that, because Allah says { Nay, it is a Noble Qur'an in a well-preserved table} (Bal-huwa Qur'anun al-Majidun fi Lawh al-Mahfudh), for the Qur'an is in a well-preserved table. He is in the breasts of those who received Knowledge, for Allah, the Exalted, says: {Nay, it is a clear Sign in breasts of those who received Knowledge} (Bal-huwa Ayatun bayyinatn fi suduri'l-lladhina utul-'Ilm). He is pronounced by the tongues, for Allah, the Exalted, says: {Do not haste with your tongue in reciting it} (La tuharik bi-hi lisanaka), for the Qur'an is written in reality, memorised in our breasts in reality, recited by our tongues in reality, heard by us in reality, like Allah, the Exalted, said: {Grant him, so that he can hear the Word of Allah!} (fa-ajruhu hatta yusma'u kalam Allah)."

This is the end of what al-Bayhaqi reported from the book al-Ibanah.

And al-Bayhaqi said also in the beginning of this chapter (i.e. Chapter: Saying on the Qur'an), after argumenting from Verses and other then them from what is mentioned in the book al-Ibanah, saying:

"And 'Ali b. Isma'il [al-Ash'ari] has made use of these chapters (fusul)"

[Part: Abu'l-'Abbas al-'Iraqi Confirmed the Ibanah]

And from among them [who made use of al-Ibanah] is the Imam and Hafidh Abu'l-'Abbas Ahmad b. Thabit al-'Iraqi, for he said in the elucidation of the issue of Istiwa from his work - from what has been reported to us, the Imam and Hafidh Abu'l-'Abbas Ahmad b. Thabit reported to us, saying:

"I have seen the Jahmiyyah ascribing the denial (nafy) of the Throne and the interpretation (ta'wil) of al-Istiwa to Abu'l-Hasan al-Ash'ari, but this is not so [as they claim]. All of this is false! They put forth lies against him, for I have read in his book, named al-Ibanah 'an Usul al-Diyanah, proofs from expressions, [which are] only mentioned but in affirming al-Istiwa. And he said in that formulation: "And from the supplications of the People of Islam, all of them, if they desire from Allah, the Exalted, in the revealed decree, they say: 'Oh dweller of the Throne!'" Then he said: 'And from their oaths of swearing is their saying: By Him, He who is veiled by the Seven Heavens!'

this is the end of what he (i.e. Abu'l-'Abbas) quoted, and this is in the Ibanah as he mentioned it.

[Part: Abu 'Uthman al-Sabuni Confirmed the Ibanah]

And from among them is the Imam and Hafidh, al-Ustadh Abu 'Uthman Isma'il b. Abd al-Rahman b. Ahmad al-Sabuni. For he said - what has been reported to us by the sublime Shaykh Abu Muhammad al-Qasim, the son of the Imam and Hafidh Abu'l-Qasim 'Ali b. al-Hasan b. 'Asakir al-Shafi'i, in Bayt al-Maqdis (Jerusalem) - may Allah keep him - in the year 576, he said: My father told me, he said: I heard Shaykh Abu Bakr Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Isma'il b. Muhammad b. Bashshar al-Bushanji, known as al-Kharbawi al-Faqih al-Zahidara, say on the authority of some of his teachers that the Imam Abu 'Uthman Isma'il b. Abd al-Rahman b. Ahmad al-Sabuni al-Naysaburi would not leave to a study-circle for teaching but taking in his hand the book al-Ibanah of Abu'l-Hasan al-Ash'ari, and [al-Sabuni] would make evident his amazement for it, and say:

"Who is it who rejects whats in this book, a explanation of his creed?!"

The Hafidh Abu'l-Qasim Ibn 'Asakir said after this report:

"This is the saying of Imam Abu 'Uthman, and he is from the greatest of the People of Tradition in Khurasan."

[Part: Abu 'Ali al-Ahwazi Confirmed the Ibanah]

And from among them is the Imam of the Reciters Abu 'Ali al-Hasan b. 'Ali b. Ibrahim al-Farisi, for he said..

For the rest of the translated tex - the other half - including footnotes and commentary, see http://s3.invisionfree.com/sunnipress in the future.

wa-Salamu 'Alaikum.

[Helloheshess]

Well he changed in the end of his life, that's when he said he was 'Ashari

he just wrote he is ashari but didnt act like an ashari because before writing/doing taweel same way as ashari scholars do, he died? not even able to write a sentence that "burn my books"?

salafis say imam ashari changed his mind and wrote the book al ibanah.

asharis say: we deny the book.

asharis say imam ibn taymyiah changed his mind and wrote the sentence "i am ashari"

salafi says: we deny the sentence.

the world is really funny. both party believe that this 2 person changed their opinion, but still they refutes the same person till death.

[derinasderun]

I dont' want to continue with this debate only because I haven't read much into it; But I have a few questions,

1- Did any of Imam Asharis students or students students say it is his last work?

2 - If it is his last work how does it differ with the early 'Ashari school? And don't discuss 'Aynayn as that's rejected even if some of the early Ashari scholars said it for there's no Nass and it's been refuted by Ibn alJawzi, Ibn 'Aqil and Ibn Hazm.

3 - If you accept this work, then you have accept Ibn Kullab, unless you can provide differences between Ibn Kullab's position to those mentioned in Ibanah.
And to clarify to abulayl, Asharis don't deny the work, they say it's been tampered with.

Last question, Do all of the manuscripts of original Ibanah of Imam Ashari and that of Ibn 'Asakir agree completely or are there differences as Shaykh Ghawaji states? If you say they're same, have you looked at all of the manuscriipts?

[Helloheshess]

And to clarify to abulayl, Asharis don't deny the work, they say it's been tampered with.

how can student of imam ashari or follower of imam ashari let temper the book? or the book itself didnt had any value to them becuase the book might have contain some fishy things from the beginning?

Last question, Do all of the manuscripts of original Ibanah of Imam Ashari

which version of ibanah accepted by the asharis? is there any which they prefer to read?

[megatrendsZ]

few major corrections in zubair's post

I dont' want to continue with this debate only because I haven't read much into it; But I have a few questions,

1- Did any of Imam Asharis students or students students say it is his last work?

Did any of Abul Hasan al-Ashari's students say which was the last work ?

2 - If it is his last work how does it differ with the early 'Ashari school?

Pull out the books of al-Ashari published by Abdullah al-Habashi and you will know.

I don't understand why brothers involve themselves into such polemics and they don't know the fundamentals.

And don't discuss 'Aynayn as that's rejected even if some of the early Ashari scholars said it for there's no Nass and it's been refuted by Ibn alJawzi, Ibn 'Aqil and Ibn Hazm.

there is no NASS for your claim as well. so what you claim is also rejected even if it is supported by IBN JAWZI ( censured by dozen of hanabila including ibn qudama ) and ibn aqil ( coming from mutazilite background ) and ibn hazm ( since when did this scholar who refuted and declared asharites to be heretics suddenly become a source ?? )

c'mon why is it okay for you to reject and not okay for us to reject ? or why is it for you okay to reject what Baqillani and other senior ashari scholars said about TWO EYES ? do you think you know more about the ashari madhhab than the senior giants of Ashari Madhhab like Baqillani Juwayni and others ?

3 - If you accept this work, then you have accept Ibn Kullab, unless you can provide differences between Ibn Kullab's position to those mentioned in Ibanah.

It is the same ibn kullab who Dhahabi said he might have agreed with heretic Mutazilites on the issues which differ between heretic mutazilites and sunni muslims ?
let us read the complete bio of ibn kullab by dhahabi.

And to clarify to abulayl, Asharis don't deny the work, they say it's been tampered with.

this is one of the most misleading statement. who are these "they" who say it is been tampered with ? are you referring to Habib Hasan Ali Saqqaf or his likes ?

are these "they" which zubair is referring to mentioned here http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...l=1#post556624 by ibn darbas al-ashari ?


let us read the bio of ibn kullab from Dhahabi:
http://www.asharis.com/creed/article...-al-ashari.cfm


Ibn Kullaab: The head of the Mutakallimeen (speculative Theologians, kalaamists) of al-Basrah in his time, Abu Muhammad, Abdullaah bin Sa'eed bin Kullaab al-Qattaan al-Basree. The author of works in refutation of the Mu'tazilah and perhaps he agreed with them [in affairs].

Dawud ad-Dhaahiree took Kalaam from him, [this was] said by Abu at-Taahir adh-Dhuhlee.

And it has been said: That al-Haarith al-Muhaasibee took the knowledge of inspection and argumentation from him as well. He used be called "kullaab" because he used to entice the disputant towards himself through his speech and eloquence. And his associates are the Kullaabiyyah. Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari met some of them. And he (Ibn Kullaab) use to refute the Jahmiyyah.

And some of those who do not know said: That he innovated what he innovated in order to [enter and] conceal the religion of the Christians into our religion, and that he pleased his sister by that. And this is false for the man was the closest of the mutakallimeen (speculative theologians) to the Sunnah, rather he is amongst their debators (i.e. of the mutakallimeen).
And he used to say that the Qur'an is established with the self [of Allaah] without [being tied to Allaah's] qudrah (power) or mashee'ah (will). And no one preceded him in this [saying] at all. He said this in opposing the one who spoke with the creation of the Qur'an.
And he authored on [the subject] of Tawheed and affirmation of the attributes, and that Allaah being above His creation is something known through the innate instinct (fitrah), and the intellect, in agreement with the (revealed) text. And al-Muhaasibee said likewise in the book "Fahm ul-Qur'aan". I did not come across the death [date] of Ibn Kullaab, and he was alive prior to 240H.


Ibn an-Najjaar gave mention to a biographical account for him but he was not thorough in it. He mentioned that he used to be at the time of al-Junayd, and that he heard something of the expressions of the Soofees, and that he was amazed by him and held him in awe.

Muhammad bin Ishaaq an-Nadeem said: Ibn Kullaab is from the generation of the Hashawiyyah. He had debates with Abbaad bin Salmaan, and he would say, "The Speech of Allaah is Allaah", and Abbaad would say, "He is a Christian by this saying".

And Abu al-Abbaas al-Baghawee said: Faythoon the Christian said to me: May Allaah have mercy upon Abdullaah [bin Sa'eed bin Kullaab]. He used to come to me to the Church and would take from me, and if he remained alive, we would have turned the Muslims into Christians. So it was said to Faythoon: What do you say about al-Maseeh [Easaa bin Maryam]? He said: [The same] as what the people of your Sunnah say regarding the Qur'an.

And to Ibn Kullaab belongs the book "as-Sifaat" as well as the book "Khalq al-Af'aal" and "Kitaab ar-Radd alal-Mu'tazilah".

keep avoiding the key questions, because truth shall prevail and falsehood will perish.

[derinasderun]

few major corrections in zubair's post



Did any of Abul Hasan al-Ashari's students say which was the last work ?

So we are to assume it's his last work because some Salafi wants the world to believe it? Get real.


Pull out the books of al-Ashari published by Abdullah al-Habashi and you will know. You didn't answer my question.


I don't understand why brothers involve themselves into such polemics and they don't know the fundamentals. This is fundamental? Really?

there is no NASS for your claim as well. so what you claim is also rejected even if it is supported by IBN JAWZI ( censured by dozen of hanabila including ibn qudama ) and ibn aqil ( coming from mutazilite background ) and ibn hazm ( since when did this scholar who refuted and declared asharites to be heretics suddenly become a source ?? ) What is my claim? If you really want to do Ithbat then do that of Ay'un? Didn't He say Bi'Ayunina? Tell me do you believe in Ay'un or not?



c'mon why is it okay for you to reject and not okay for us to reject ? or why is it for you okay to reject what Baqillani and other senior ashari scholars said about TWO EYES ? do you think you know more about the ashari madhhab than the senior giants of Ashari Madhhab like Baqillani Juwayni and others ?
Because there's no nass for the Two Eyes.




It is the same ibn kullab who Dhahabi said he might have agreed with heretic Mutazilites on the issues which differ between heretic mutazilites and sunni muslims ?
let us read the complete bio of ibn kullab by dhahabi. First off might have, and what issues? Just because agreeing in some matters doesn't mean the same hukm applies to both parties nor does it mean it's incorrect.
this is one of the most misleading statement. who are these "they" who say it is been tampered with ? are you referring to Habib Hasan Ali Saqqaf or his likes ? Nope, 'Ashari scholars such as Shaykh Ghawaji and others.

[sam]

few major corrections in zubair's post



Did any of Abul Hasan al-Ashari's students say which was the last work ?



Pull out the books of al-Ashari published by Abdullah al-Habashi and you will know.

I don't understand why brothers involve themselves into such polemics and they don't know the fundamentals.


there is no NASS for your claim as well. so what you claim is also rejected even if it is supported by IBN JAWZI ( censured by dozen of hanabila including ibn qudama ) and ibn aqil ( coming from mutazilite background ) and ibn hazm ( since when did this scholar who refuted and declared asharites to be heretics suddenly become a source ?? )

c'mon why is it okay for you to reject and not okay for us to reject ? or why is it for you okay to reject what Baqillani and other senior ashari scholars said about TWO EYES ? do you think you know more about the ashari madhhab than the senior giants of Ashari Madhhab like Baqillani Juwayni and others ?





It is the same ibn kullab who Dhahabi said he might have agreed with heretic Mutazilites on the issues which differ between heretic mutazilites and sunni muslims ?
let us read the complete bio of ibn kullab by dhahabi.


this is one of the most misleading statement. who are these "they" who say it is been tampered with ? are you referring to Habib Hasan Ali Saqqaf or his likes ?

are these "they" which zubair is referring to mentioned here http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...l=1#post556624 by ibn darbas al-ashari ?


let us read the bio of ibn kullab from Dhahabi:
http://www.asharis.com/creed/article...-al-ashari.cfm





keep avoiding the key questions, because truth shall prevail and falsehood will perish.

Why do you quote adh-Dhahabi , and highlight his mention of some people's ascription of ibn Kullab to Christianity, as if it were important information, when adh-Dhahabi himself refuted the idea?

[megatrendsZ]

Why do you quote adh-Dhahabi , and highlight his mention of some people's ascription of ibn Kullab to Christianity, as if it were important information, when adh-Dhahabi himself refuted the idea?

Dhahabi only said "And some of those who do not know said: That he innovated what he innovated in order to [enter and] conceal the religion of the Christians into our religion, and that he pleased his sister by that. And this is false "

So, what is false according to Dhahabi that the accusation of concealing christianity ( taqiya ) but the reality according to al-Dhahabi is what Dhahabi report from Abul Abbas al-Baghawi with the tacit approval ( and not refuting it which means tacit approval ) which is:

Abu al-Abbaas al-Baghawee said: Faythoon the Christian said to me: May Allaah have mercy upon Abdullaah [bin Sa'eed bin Kullaab]. He used to come to me to the Church and would take from me, and if he remained alive, we would have turned the Muslims into Christians. So it was said to Faythoon: What do you say about al-Maseeh [Easaa bin Maryam]? He said: [The same] as what the people of your Sunnah say regarding the Qur'an.

[megatrendsZ]

So we are to assume it's his last work because some Salafi wants the world to believe it? Get real.

and let us assume because some Kullabi Asharite wants the world to believe otherwise. You get real brother. Have you forgotten the words of Ibn Darbas al-Ashari

So definetely IBN DARBAS is more reliable than you or Ghawji or your likes for he said in the book Dabb an Abil Hasan Al-Ashari

What is my claim? If you really want to do Ithbat then do that of Ay'un? Didn't He say Bi'Ayunina? Tell me do you believe in Ay'un or not?

Because there's no nass for the Two Eyes.

you tell me brother, that senior Asharites didn't know Ashari aqida and you are here to teach us what is right and what is not nass. Senior Ashari giants like Baqillani and dozen others...

in other words you want to say that you have discovered that the early Asharite scholars who said TWO EYES were
1) wrong
2) heretics
3) innovators

which one is it from the above ?

First off might have, and what issues? Just because agreeing in some matters doesn't mean the same hukm applies to both parties nor does it mean it's incorrect.
Nope, 'Ashari scholars such as Shaykh Ghawaji and others.

who said Ghawaji is Ashari ? Habib Hasan Ali Saqqaf also says he is Ashari [urlhasan-alsaqqaf.tripod.com[/url], so did Abdullah Habashi and someone posted Ibn Taymiyyah was also an Ashari. L0L

appreciate if you can post, where Ghawaji says he is an Ashari and the type of Ashari ( like Baqillani or like Habib Hasan Ali Saqqaf or Like Iji / Amidi / Bajuri or like ibn furak )

I think Ibn Darbas is more reliable than Ghawji or unknown "others" brother zubair is referring to.

[sam]

Dhahabi only said "And some of those who do not know said: That he innovated what he innovated in order to [enter and] conceal the religion of the Christians into our religion, and that he pleased his sister by that. And this is false "

So, what is false according to Dhahabi that the accusation of concealing christianity ( taqiya ) but the reality according to al-Dhahabi is what Dhahabi report from Abul Abbas al-Baghawi with the tacit approval ( and not refuting it which means tacit approval ) which is:

Abu al-Abbaas al-Baghawee said: Faythoon the Christian said to me: May Allaah have mercy upon Abdullaah [bin Sa'eed bin Kullaab]. He used to come to me to the Church and would take from me, and if he remained alive, we would have turned the Muslims into Christians. So it was said to Faythoon: What do you say about al-Maseeh [Easaa bin Maryam]? He said: [The same] as what the people of your Sunnah say regarding the Qur'an.

So, just to confirm, you are claiming that ibn Kullab would have helped Christians apostatize Muslims, and you ascribe this belief to adh-Dhahabi ?

[derinasderun]

and let us assume because some Kullabi Asharite wants the world to believe otherwise. You get real brother. Have you forgotten the words of Ibn Darbas al-Ashari

So definetely IBN DARBAS is more reliable than you or Ghawji or your likes for he said in the book Dabb an Abil Hasan Al-Ashari





you tell me brother, that senior Asharites didn't know Ashari aqida and you are here to teach us what is right and what is not nass. Senior Ashari giants like Baqillani and dozen others...

in other words you want to say that you have discovered that the early Asharite scholars who said TWO EYES were
1) wrong
2) heretics
3) innovators

which one is it from the above ?

I have no problem saying he was wrong in this, He was a mujtahid. Why don't you tell us about the Qidam an-Naw' al-'Alam (wherein he went against the Ijma' as recorded by Ibn Hazm)? Or how you guyz believe the Quran is Ghayr Makhluq yet Muhdath (a jahimi belief)? Or that the Prophet will be seated on the throne with Allah ta'ala? Or that the fire will terminate (a jahimi belief)? Or how you (or your buddies) claimed the proposition that "that in which accidents subsists is also Hadith" that you claimed was from Jahm yet Imam Tabari (and the Ashariah and the Maturidya) held it? Or how it's possible for Allah ta'ala to do Istiqrar on a gnat? Or that the ta'wil of Harwala that Imam Tirmidhi records from the Salaf is a Jahimi tawil? I advise you to keep silent before more of your rediculousness is exposed.



who said Ghawaji is Ashari ? Habib Hasan Ali Saqqaf also says he is Ashari [urlhasan-alsaqqaf.tripod.com[/url], so did Abdullah Habashi and Dont' about Habashi, but Shaykh Ghawaji is definitly not a salafi.

someone posted Ibn Taymiyyah was also an Ashari. L0L
Yea LOL, laughin like a school girl i'm sure. It was Hafidh Ibn Hajar the one whose book you rely on yet burn due to your hatred.

I wouldn't be surprised why the reason why your defending the current Ibanah, is because of the two 'Aynayn which you guyz are so obsessed with, included with that feet, hands, mouth, etc. And what about the expression Ya Sakin as-Sama', Is it why? Plz don't expose yourself further.

I ask you, Do all of the manuscripts agree or no? Did Shaykh Ghawaji lie when he said that the manuscripts he checked differed?

And when did we start taking our Jarh wa Ta'dil from Christians especially when we have Ulema saying he was an Imam of AhlusSunnah? This is what hatred of the salaf leads to!

[megatrendsZ]

I know the trick now how to get the thread closed. Start with abusing and mud-slinging and occasional slander and then outright lie ( see the proof below) . See the digression of zubair, from where to where and yet the guy pretends knows what he is talking about.

I have no problem saying he was wrong in this, He was a mujtahid.

Who told you he was Mujtahid ? You pulled this from your own pocket. Back it up from sources.

If Baqillani was Mujtahid then did he form his own Madhhab within Asharism ? What kind of Mujtahid was he and who said it. Please we don't care about your personal opinion or opinion of Naruji.

So, when you say Baqillani was wrong, who from the Asharites said that Baqillani was wrong ? So saying TWO EYES is anthropomorphism ? What about the other giant Ashari scholars who said about TWO EYES AND TWO HANDS ? are they wrong (or anthropomorphist ) as well ? and you think you know better about Ashari creed than those close or direct student of abul hasan al-Ashari himself ?

Subhanallah.... new kids on the block criticizing giants like Baqillani... what a shameful day.

Zubair some unknown person from 1432 AH criticizing the Imam Baqillani ?!
who is Zubair and who is Imam Baqillani ? No one from the Asharites said Imam baqillani made mistake except we have a newcomer zubair. I am sure zubair is not Asharite. because real asharites respect Imam Baqillani. Read Dr. GF Haddad's bio on Imam Baqillani http://www.sunnah.org/history/Schola..._baqillani.htm

Why don't you tell us about the Qidam an-Naw' al-'Alam (wherein he went against the Ijma' as recorded by Ibn Hazm)?

zubair, you are jumping here and there. what has qidam has to do with this topic? open a new thread where will discuss that in full detail. and please don't bring ibn hazm... ibn hazm is ENEMY of ASHARITES and he declared Asharites heretics and deviant. you need to read his book before you prove to everyone that you are clueless person. So, please stop trying to pull ibn hazm when it suits you and the fact is that Ibn hazm is an enemy of Asharis.


now see the outburst of zubair, he totally lost control... read below:

Or how you guyz believe the Quran is Ghayr Makhluq yet Muhdath (a jahimi belief)?
Or that the Prophet will be seated on the throne with Allah ta'ala? Or that the fire will terminate (a jahimi belief)? Or how you (or your buddies) claimed the proposition that "that in which accidents subsists is also Hadith" that you claimed was from Jahm yet Imam Tabari (and the Ashariah and the Maturidya) held it? Or how it's possible for Allah ta'ala to do Istiqrar on a gnat? Or that the ta'wil of Harwala that Imam Tirmidhi records from the Salaf is a Jahimi tawil? I advise you to keep silent before more of your rediculousness is exposed.

i think you should keep silent. because now you started with baseless accusation following the path of naruji and others. All your claims have been answered just it has been answered above . Ibn Darbas hit the coffins nail when he clearly mentioned your types.
Keep yourself in state of denial.. TWO EYES .. TWO HANDS this is the real ASHARITE CREED.

"hat the Prophet will be seated on the throne with Allah ta'ala" another bogus claim made by zubair. like i said the guy is clueless. just doing cut-n-paste from the same old internet articles translated material of Habib Hasan Ali Saqqaf and Abdullah Habashi...same old trash....keeps resurfacing every here and then...

Dont' about Habashi, but Shaykh Ghawaji is definitly not a salafi.

We know who Ghawaji is. Ibn Darbas talked about these type of people several hundred years ago. Ibn Darbas = more reliable
Ghawaji = 0 reliability compared to ibn Darbas !

Yea LOL, laughin like a school girl i'm sure

what you// a school girl ? girls keep zubair as name ? first time i am hearing that ... do know arabic? muzakar from mu'annas ? sorry i didn't understand..please clarify.are you saying you are school girl ?

zubair, did you come across this report from the salaf : And Yahyaa bin 'Ammaar used to say, "The Jahmite Mu'tazilees were masculine (males) and the Jahmite Ash'aris were feminine (females)"
Who is this Yahya bin Ammar ?

. It was Hafidh Ibn Hajar the one whose book you rely on yet burn due to your hatred.

see the tactics, first zubair started with outburst, then slander, then accusation and now outright lie ... I challenge you to show me or prove to everyone here on the forum that i showed hatred to Ibn Hajar Asqalani. It is IBN HAJAR ASQALANI who exposed Asharites. This will be posted in seperate thread. another eye-opener and people like zubair will be in a shock and state of denial just as these types were when First time it was posted that it is the CORE ASHARITE CREED ABOUT TWO EYES !!!

I wouldn't be surprised why the reason why your defending the current Ibanah, is because of the two 'Aynayn which you guyz are so obsessed with, included with that feet, hands, mouth, etc.

Not you guys, but you scholars like IBN DARBAS who talked about your types hundreds of years ago. Yes, we sunnis are obessed.

I can understand why Jahmis affiliated with Kullabi Asharites deny the book... as explained by IBN DARBAS in his risala.

And what about the expression Ya Sakin as-Sama', Is it why? Plz don't expose yourself further.

yeah, what about it ? clueless guy... don't make yourself laughing stock brother. you started with outburst, then slander, then accusations and then a lie about hatred regarding ibn hajar and now you embarrass yourself.

I ask you, Do all of the manuscripts agree or no? Did Shaykh Ghawaji lie when he said that the manuscripts he checked differed?

is Ibn Asakir lying when he reported about TWO EYES ? or is IBN ASAKIR less reliable then Shakh Ghawaji ?

And when did we start taking our Jarh wa Ta'dil from Christians especially when we have Ulema saying he was an Imam of AhlusSunnah? This is what hatred of the salaf leads to!

I don't know who you are referring to as christian ? are you referring to this report which Dhahabi said from Abul Abbas Baghawi : : Faythoon the Christian said to me: May Allaah have mercy upon Abdullaah [bin Sa'eed bin Kullaab]. He used to come to me to the Church and would take from me, and if he remained alive, we would have turned the Muslims into Christians. So it was said to Faythoon: What do you say about al-Maseeh [Easaa bin Maryam]? He said: [The same] as what the people of your Sunnah say regarding the Qur'an.


Brother, i think Dhahabi has more knowledge about Jarh and Tadil then whatever you claim. you have already demostrate your incompetence. save your embarrassment and learn first about TWO EYES ASHARITES and come back .

[megatrendsZ]

And when did we start taking our Jarh wa Ta'dil from Christians especially when we have Ulema saying he was an Imam of AhlusSunnah? This is what hatred of the salaf leads to!

how interesting. you said about hatred of Salaf while you are the first one WHO CRITICIZED BAQILLANI. saying Baqillani was wrong, in my opinion is showing hatred to Baqillani (salaf)

anyway, read what musnad al-Asr, THE HAFIDH of his time, Abu Tahir al-Silafi said about Ibn Kullab reported with authentic isnad through al-Dhahabi






قال الذهبي في السير :أنبأني أحمد بن سلامة، عن الحافظ عبد الغني بن سرور، أنشدنا أبو طاهر السلفي لنفسه في رجب سنة ست وستين وخمس مئة:


وأتباع ابن كلاب كلاب * على التحقيق هم من شر آل

translation:

And the followers of ibn Kullab are dogs ** upon research/investigation they are from the worst group



Then at the end of the poem of Hafidh Abu Tahir al-Silafi , Hafidh Shams al-Din gives his approval and says





صدق الناظم رحمه الله، وأجاد، فلان يعيش المسلم أخرس أبكم خير له من أن يمتلئ باطنه كلاما وفلسفة !.


so this is the reality. Don't be shocked. this is the fact. just like Baqillani and other senior Asharites said Allah has Two Eyes and Two Hands.

Hafidh Abu Tahir Silafi is millions times more trustworthy then any of zubair types !!

who is abu tahir silafi ?
Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Ibrahim, Abu Tahir b. Abi Ahmad al-Isbahani al-Silafi, the Hafidh. Abu Tahir al-Silafi, the great Hafidh, travelled a lot and settled eventually in Alexandria, Egypt. He had many teachers, over a thousand. The number of students he had is too many. al-Dhahabi said: “The Imam, the ‘Allâma, the Muhaddith, the Hafidh, the Mufti, the Shaykh al-Islam..” (al-Dhahabi, Siyar A’lam al-Nubala’ 21:5). He was born in 475 or around this year. He died in 576 AH, becoming 100 years old at the least.. Refer for him to: Ibn Manzur, Tahdhib Tarikh Dimashq 1:449; Sibt b. al-Jawziy, Mir’at 8:362; Ibn Khallikân, Wafayât 1:150; al-Dhahabi ,al-‘Ibar 4:227 and al-Tadhkirah 4:1298, but the best biography can be found in his Siyar from the beginning of vol.21.

read complete biography by Adil Salahi arabnews :
Scholar of renown: Abu Tahir Al-Silafi — I
Edited By Adil Salahi, Arab News Staff

Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Ahmad Al-Silafi belongs to Isfahan in Iran where he was born in 475 AH, corresponding to 1183 AD. He is better known as Abu Tahir, in accordance with the Arab customary gesture of respect, calling a man as the father of his eldest son. Al-Silafi is his best known name, which calls him after his grandfather who was nicknamed Silafah. In fact, this title, Al-Silafi, became his exclusive title, with no other scholar ever being called by it, in contrast with Asbahani or Asfahani, which was a title of all eminent scholars who came from the famous city of Isfahan.

We know very little about his family. There are no reports to suggest whether he had any brothers or sisters, nor do we know the year of his mother’s death. But from the little we know about his upbringing we know that he grew up in a highly religious environment, with his grandfather being a dedicated Sufi. His father, Muhammad, was also strongly influenced by the Sufi approach, but he also frequented scholarly circles, listening to Hadith studies.

In the second half of the fifth century of the Islamic calendar, Isfahan witnessed some great rivalries among different sects, many of which were markedly deviant from proper Islamic thought. These rivalries often led to violent conflicts with much bloodshed and loss of life. However, the city also witnessed a great intellectual flourish, with many a scholar achieving eminence in his field. However, the study of Hadith was given particular importance, to the extent that the city was a center of attraction for numerous Hadith scholars who came over to it to study under its famous scholars. This was strongly encouraged by the famous minister, known as Nazzam Al-Mulk (died in 485 AH).

Al-Silafi showed great scholarly promise at a very young age. He was endowed with sharp intelligence and a fine memory, which gave him the necessary tools to excel in the study of Hadith. He frequented the circles of the top scholars in his hometown and read the Qur’an in different methods of recitation under distinguished scholars. He was only 17 when he began to teach the Hadith in his own circle in a mosque in Isfahan. What qualified him was four years of dedicated study of Hadith that gave him a number of certificates from his teachers that he was well-equipped for the task. He recalls: “Students wrote my dictation when I was only 17, with no hair in my face, just like they did with Al-Bukhari.”

Al-Silafi realized that to achieve a really high standard in Hadith scholarship, he needed to travel in order to study under scholars in different areas. This was the tradition of Hadith scholars who wished to pursue their studies further than what they could acquire in their hometowns. Hence, Al-Silafi consulted his teachers and his father, who all supported him in his desire to travel for study. However, before leaving, he wrote a book of biographical notes on all scholars under whom he studied or from whom he learned even one or two Hadiths. The book, Mu’jam Isfahan, is said to have included more than 600 scholars.

In Ramadan 493, Al-Silafi, now 18 years of age, traveled to Baghdad, and he was keen to meet Nasr ibn Al-Bitar, a Hadith scholar who, being of old age, had the distinction of reporting Hadiths with a short chain of transmission. This is an especially valued merit, because the shorter the chain of transmission of a Hadith is the higher is its authenticity. Hence, Al-Silafi lost no time in reading under this scholar and writing a considerable number of Hadiths which he heard from him.

However, Baghdad was at the time a great center of learning in all fields of knowledge. By contrast, the city, which was the capital of the Islamic state, was the scene of much political turmoil, with the Abbasid Caliph being in a very weak position, and many an ambitious upstart conspiring to achieve a position of power.

Al-Silafi was keen to steer away from this political turmoil and to grasp as much knowledge as possible from scholarly circles. He dedicated himself to his studies, moving from one circle to another, reading mainly the Hadith and the Qur’an. By the time he completed four years in Baghdad, he had written a book of biographies of his teachers there, mentioning also the main areas and districts in the city. At this time, his father came over to visit him, and he was well-pleased when he realized the extent of his son’s scholarly achievement. The two were soon to travel for pilgrimage.

During this trip and his several months’ stay in Hijaz, Al-Silafi met a large number of scholars from different parts of the Muslim world. He also read under several scholars in both Makkah and Madinah, before returning to Baghdad. However, on his way back, he stopped at Kufah where he also read under several scholars.

Two more years of stay in Baghdad saw Al-Silafi concentrating on a more in-depth study of the Arabic language and the Shafie school of law. He also wrote and read extensively in different disciplines.

However, he later felt that there was little more to learn in his fields of interest in the city. Therefore, he decided to resume his travels, beginning with a short visit to Basrah before embarking on a very long trip, lasting nine years, (500-509 AH), to the eastern provinces of the Muslim world.

During this trip he visited a large number of towns and cities, pursuing his studies wherever he stopped. We should mention, however, that this trip was very arduous for Al-Silafi, who was a man of limited means. It is reported that sometimes he had to travel walking barefoot because he did not have money to buy shoes. He lived in guest houses allocated by some wealthy people for students traveling for study.

This trip gave Al-Silafi a great amount of scholarship. Twice he had to leave his books with trusted friends because he could not carry them with him. By the time he finished, he had written so much that it could rarely be matched by other scholars. But when his eastern travels were over, he continued his journeys, encamping this time in Damascus, where again he studied under its scholars. However, he was not particularly happy there, because of the political in-fighting between local Muslim rulers on the one hand, and because of the Crusaders who had occupied Jerusalem and coastal areas. He stayed in Damascus for two years, meeting all its scholars and learning whatever he needed to learn, while at the same time teaching in the grand Umawi Mosque. In 511 AH, he left Damascus for Soor in Lebanon, where he stayed for only a short period before traveling by sea to Alexandria.

Apparently Al-Silafi intended to stay only several months in Alexandria, gathering whatever he could learn under its scholars before traveling to the Andalus, or Islamic Spain, for further study. But his intention was not to be fulfilled. Indeed, Al-Silafi stayed in Alexandria for the rest of his long life, apart from a single 3-year visit to Cairo (515-517) where he met Sheikh Abu Sadiq Al-Madeeni and learned from him all that he had to teach. He was also in a scholarly contact with a large number of scholars, literary figures, poets and booksellers. He documented whatever he learned from them and wrote biographical notes about many of them.

His trip to Alexandria was the end of a long journey in pursuit of knowledge, and his stay there ushered the second stage of his life as a scholar of high eminence. We will write about this second stage next week, God willing.

Scholar of renown: Abu Tahir Al-Silafi-II
Edited by Adil Salahi, Arab News Staff

A remarkable change in Al-Silafi’s life took place when he arrived in Alexandria in 511 AH, at the age of 36. Prior to his arrival there, he had spent half his life traveling in pursuit of knowledge, reading under many hundreds of scholars, and leading a life of dire poverty, often traveling on foot. He had met numerous scholars of Hadith and read under them or attended their teaching circles. So, on his arrival in Alexandria, the city with which he fell in love, he was an expert in Hadith of a very high standard. He was also a distinguished scholar of the Qur’an, having read several methods of recitation with a high standard of accuracy. At the same time, he was a scholar of Fiqh following the Shafie school of law. He had an in-depth knowledge of the Arabic language and was well-read in poetry.

With such talent and scholarship, Al-Silafi soon earned a position of high respect among the people of Alexandria who loved him. Some of the attraction of the city for Al-Silafi was seen in the fact that Alexandria was a resting point for travelers from the western parts of the Muslim world on their way to the east for pilgrimage or pursuit of scholarship and on their way back home. Thus, Al-Silafi was able to meet many of the Andalus and Maghrib scholars. Moreover, Alexandria was the place to which many scholars had emigrated from Syria as a result of the Crusades and from Sicily when it was overtaken by Christians. Besides, although Alexandria was part of the Fatimi Shia state, its people were able to enjoy a greater measure of freedom of belief than people in Cairo, the capital city.

When Al-Silafi was well-established in Alexandria, he married a local lady known as Sitt Al-Ahl, whom he describes as a devout woman belonging to a highly religious family. She was wealthy and she allowed him to manage her property, which gave him a settled life. She was to give him only one daughter, Khadeejah, who became a scholar of Hadith in her own right. In fact, some highly distinguished scholars of Hadith, such as Al-Mundhiri, were to read under her and to obtain her certificate confirming their scholarship. Her son, Abd Al-Rahman ibn Makki, was also to become a highly distinguished scholar of Hadith.

Al-Silafi was soon to acquire a reputation of being the top scholar of Hadith in Alexandria. He was renowned for his accuracy of reporting and his diligence in his scholarship. But he continued to give his lessons either in the mosque or in his own home for nearly a quarter of a century. Later, Ali ibn Al-Sillar, who was an admirer of Al-Silafi, was to become the governor of the city. Indeed, in 544 AH, he established a school for Al-Silafi, which was the first in Egypt for teaching the Shafie school of law. The school was first known as Al-Adiliyah, and later was called Al-Silafiyah. This is seen as a step toward undermining the Fatimi influence in Egypt.

At first, Al-Silafi was the only teacher and administrator in the school, but soon the number of students increased, and he had to select some of his best students to help him in teaching. The school had a morning program for young students who were large in number. It also had a late afternoon program of lectures and classes for adults. These covered different subjects, like the Hadith, Fiqh and the Qur’an. What added to the popularity of the school was the fact that it was recognized as a center of Sunni learning, when the Shia scholarship dominated other parts of Egypt. The school also attracted many students from abroad because of the high standing in which Al-Silafi was held.

Al-Silafi was known to be very serious in his life and in his approach to scholarship. This is not surprising because a scholar of Hadith was always expected to demonstrate the highest standard of propriety. A scholar who is seen to be frivolous was discarded, even if he was of the highest standard in his scholarship. The established tradition in Hadith scholarship was that a scholar should always demonstrate a standard of propriety that befits what he learns and teaches. Since Al-Silafi concentrated on Hadith scholarship from his early years, such an attitude was, to him, second nature. When he was due to teach or dictate, whether in Fiqh, Hadith or other related subjects, he would begin by performing his ablutions, and he would sit giving an air of awe. He would make only the necessary moves, laughing only when the occasion arises but his laughter would never be very loud. At no point did he ever give his audience a feeling that he was tired or bored. He would not allow any side discussion, even by the most distinguished personalities in his audience.

It is true to say that Al-Silafi is known in scholarly circles as a highly distinguished scholar of Hadith and Qur’anic recitations. In fact, he attained the position of being the top scholar on Earth with the shortest route of transmission in both Hadith and the Qur’an. This is a quality of distinction, because it means that the number of reporters of Hadith and the Qur’an between him and the Prophet was small, which is a quality that contributes to authenticity. He attained this by having studied in his youth under scholars of old age, and then he lived to an old age. In fact, he was over one hundred years of age when he died. But he was also a distinguished Fiqh scholar, teaching the Shafie Fiqh, and acquiring in-depth knowledge of the Maliki school of law. He was also a poet of a good standard, although he wrote poetry mostly for educational purposes.

Al-Silafi wrote many books. Several scholars have mentioned this, stating that he wrote extensively. However, most of his writings, which are mainly concerned with Hadith, have been lost. Some manuscripts have survived. However, one of his main works, Mu’jam Al-Safar was recently edited although I am not certain if it has been published. Al-Silafi also chose some books by contemporary or earlier scholars which he edited and commented on, before teaching these books to his students. Thus, the books he taught benefited by his meticulous and diligent scholarship. However, none of these has yet been edited and published, although some of these are available in manuscript form in different libraries.

As mentioned earlier, Al-Silafi attained to a very old age, but he retained his fine memory and his sharp mind until his final days. Indeed, he is reported to have been teaching Hadith until sunset on his last day on earth. Some of his students were reading while he was listening and he corrected even the most subtle of mistakes they made. This is remarkable because he died on Friday, Rabie’ Al-Thani 5, 576 AH, at the age of 101 by the lunar calendar, 98 by the Gregorian calendar. May God shower His mercy on him.

(Concluded)

[sam]

"hat the Prophet will be seated on the throne with Allah ta'ala" another bogus claim made by zubair. like i said the guy is clueless. just doing cut-n-paste from the same old internet articles translated material of Habib Hasan Ali Saqqaf and Abdullah Habashi...same old trash....keeps resurfacing every here and then....

It is located in Shaikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah's Fatawa, and Abu-Zaubair of Islamic Awakening claimed anyone who denied this was a Jahmi.

[Kinds Of Pain Meds]

assalamu alaykum

I came across this:

Abu Muhammad Ibraheem al-Hanbali says:
January 1, 2011 at 3:27 pm (Edit)
In response to the backbiters and slanderers found on the thread here:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...bali-resources

Yes, Ibn Taymiyah for 99% of his life was a Hanbali scholar, not only a Hanbali scholar but he had the greatness of doing ijtihaad. He was a great scholar of the madh-hab in certain aspects and has penned many beneficial works that the Hanaabilah do not deny. However, he is rejected in creed and some fiqh issues where he vied against the consensus of the Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah. Such issues led him to be imprisoned by the Ash’aris of Egypt, which resulted in a number of debates in which Ibn Taymiyah was defeated until the point he denounced all of his mistakes and announced that he was now an Ash’ari in creed. He died upon this state and the very same scholars who imprisoned him led his janaazah and buried him as a Muslim believer.

Secondly, Imaam Raza Khan [who I do not take from in any 'Aqeedah issues, nor fiqh issues, nor am I in habit of reading his books] is noted to be a great reviver of the deen in the indo pak subcontinent and their beliefs are side by side with other great scholars of the Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah. Imaam Raza Khan has nothing to do with the Hanbali madh-hab, but yet Wahhabi/Deobandi hypocrites expect me to reject this man as a mubtadi based purely on their bias and self conceited nafs.

The person on the Sunni forum who has claimed to have spoken with me on facebook hides his face and pretends to be a Sunni promoting texts on the ‘Aqeedah Imaam Ghazali on his facebook whilst sitting and agreeing with Wahhabi views on forums such as Islamic Awakening. Then he emails me pretending to be somebody else, but I know his style and all of his different faces. He is like a rabbit between two holes, you do not know which hole he is going to appear from next.

wa-as-Salaam

[sam]

Does he know anything about the Deobandi/Brelwi conflict if he is not in the habit of reading Ahmad Raza Khan's works?

Then how does he call Deobandis hypocrites when he doesn't even know anything about the conflict!?

[evarekataVame]

Salam Alaykum,

I would like to know if I could have some proper online (or otherwise) resources of the Hanbali Madhab from the traditional way (non-Salafi).

aoa,

it seems nobody answered your orignal Question.
Here are a few good books that i know:
- zad almustaqni
- umdah al fiqh

first one is on scribd.com...the second i cldnt find in english translation. all i found was a sharh. if you can find the actual book in eng do let me know as well.

for a good list of hanbali authors:
http://thehanbalirevival.wordpress.c...revival-forum/

look to the tab on the right for their books. you dont have to read salih al munajjid if you dont like salafi scholars. the only difference (which i assume u already know) is that wherever they find a weak stance of their madhab they adopt a stronger stance from Qur'an and hadith.