Introduction

The Sources of Information

We are going to rely upon these books for the documentation of the statements of Tajseem coming from the Karraamiyyah:

They are two books of Abu Mansur al-Baghdadi (d. 429H) an Ash'ari scholar, Usul al-Din and al-Farq bayn al-Firaq. You can refer to the relevant entries in these books under the Karraamiyyah. Rather than provide full translations of entire passages, we are going to provide summary statements which will be exact translations of sentences in any case. Before we draw from these books to show the statements and views of the Karraamiyyah, we need to give some explanations so you understand where they were coming from and what their angle was.

Understanding Definitions That Are Fabricated

As we alluded earlier in this series, the Ahl al-Kalaam, in order to construct their theology, fabricated their own definitions for terms, with meanings that have no basis in the Qur'an or the language of the Arabs. Examples we gave [and some of which have been discussed in length in other articles (such as highlighting Naruiji's academic frauds)] include al-ahad, al-waahid, al-tarkib, al-jism. In order to truly fathom what was going on with all of these theological debates you have to appreciate that the Ahl al-Kalaam are operating upon polluted language, and you have to be aware of this when you are speaking to people who have been poisoned and intoxicated with it.

With respect to the term al-jism, it has two basic meanings. It refers to a) al-jasad, al-badan, the entity itself, whatever is being referred to, or b) the meaning of thickness, density pertaining to an entity. That is its meaning in the language of the Qur'an and of the Arabs. To the Ahl al-Kalaam (Mu'attilah or Mujassimah), they have their own devised definition for it, and their terms vary, some of them say, "whatever consists of two indivisible particles", and some say three, and some of the Mu'tazilah said six or eight (which means that extension would be in all three directions), and some of them said, "whatever occupies space, a space occupying entity", "whatever has the three spatial extensions (length, breadth, depth)", "whatever can be pointed at", "whatever is composite, composed (murakkab, mu'allaf)", that is one of their key ones. Also, whatever is said about it that it is here or there". And there is also "whatever is etablished by itself (al-qaa'imu bi nafsihi)", "whatever exists (mawjood)" (these last two are from the Karraamiyyah).

We have around twenty or so definitions amongst them. What is important here, is that these people fabricated new meanings as a means to construct and validate their own theology [be they Mu'attilah or Mujassimah], which fundamentally is not based upon the principle of "Affirming for Allaah what He and His Messenger affirmed for Him," rather, it is:

Proving the universe is originated with a proof based upon the conceptual tools and language of astray nations from the past then making reason (aql) the judge of what Allaah ought to be described with to conform to that proof and then making distortion of the texts that do not agree with that version of theism (because they imply a'raad or hawaadith).

So they all formulated their own definitions, and they have many differences amongst themselves and they refute each other in these definitions.

The Hanafi Karraamiyyah Mujassimah

The Karraamiyyah are named after Muhammad bin Karraam al-Sijistaanee (d. 255H) and he was from the Ahl al-Kalaam. They were Murji'ah in Eeeman and were Ahl al-Ra'i (people of opinion). They appeared around the same time, if not shortly after the Kullaabiyyah. They debated the Jahmiyyayh, Raafidah and fiercely debated the Mu'tazilah and agreed with them (the Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah) on those usool which led them (the Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah) to whatever it led them to (ta'teel). These usool were the language of al-a'raad and al-ajsaam and the proof of huduth al-ajsaam. However, he differed with them on the absoluteness of one of its premises. First let us revisit this proof that all of these people of Kalaam (Mu'attilah or Mujassimah) founded their theology upon:

The Proof of Huduth al-Ajsaam

The proof tries to establish the universe is originated and hence the existence of a creator. The argument is:

This is the core of it and all of these are its basic premises and all of these groups are united upon its basic premises. Note that premise e) is the greatest foundation of the Mu'attilah, it is the foundation of al-Jahm bin Safwan, its chief and master, and it is the basis for all of his ta'teel. And this premise is uniform for all the Mu'attilah, the Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah, Kullaabiyyah, Ash'ariyyah, Maturidiyyah and also the Karraamiyyah Mujassimah. And as for g), it is a sound priciple mentioned in the Qur'an and known through fitrah and reason. The major portion of the time, effort and resources spent by the Ahl al-Kalaam was on a) to e) and you will see this manifest in the books of the Mu'tazilah, Ash'ariyyah. They spent a lot of time debating and refuting each other on the deeper technical issues related to a) to e) - whilst being united on the actual framework.

The following words are pertinent at this point:

This is the proof on account of which al-Jahm bin Safwaan entered his taaghoots into the Ummah. This is the proof on account of which the Mu'tazilah put the Ummah and its scholars to trial. This is the proof whose presumed truth was taken up by the Ash'ariyyah and Maturidiyyah. This is the proof which split and divided the Ummah after the Khawarij, Raafidah, Murij'ah and Qadariyyah. This is the proof on account of which the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazlah invented their "ta'weel" (tahrif). This is the proof on account of which they [Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah, Ash'ariyyah, Maturidiyyah] considered the aql to be definitive and have precedence over the naql (revealed texts), as explicitly laid down by al-Razi's "Universal Principle" for all Ash'arites after him. This is the proof upon which al-Maturidi was building his creed upon, over yonder, beyond the river. This is the proof and its underlying language that is behind the tajsim of the Rafidi Ahl al-Kalaam. This is the proof and its language on account of which the Hanafi Karraamis from Ahl al-Kalaam based their Tajseem and its language of takyif. Al-Maturidi the Hanafi Mu'attil and Ibn Karram, the Hanafi Mujassim, two stains upon Hanafiyyah, besides that of the Mu'tazilah (and all are Ahl al-Kalaam). This is the proof which became the basis of many a subsequent innovation and instilling of hatred in the hearts. This was the proof brought into the Ummah by al-Ja'd bin Dirham who took it from the Sabean star, planet and idol-worshipping pagan disbelievers, and whose underlying language had already been toyed with by the Hellenized Jews and Christians aforetime (read this series). This is the Kalaam which the Salaf condemned, and perhaps [O gathering of contemporary Jahmites] your intellects are still with you such that you take heed of saying of Abu Haneefah (d. 150H):

Nuh al-Jāmiʿ said: I said to Abū Hanīfah: What do you say about what the people have innovated of speech regarding al-aʿrād and al-ajsām? He said, "(Nothing but) the sayings of the Philosophers. Upon you is (to follow) the narrations and the path of the Salaf, and beware of every newly-invented matter, for it is an innovation.

Free and innocent is Abu Hanifah and his associates from that Abu Mansur al-Maturidi, the Mu'attil (that's another article) and that Muhammad bin Karraam, the Mujassim! This is the very proof on account of which Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah, the Righteous Salaf, the people of Sunnah, Hadith and Aathar, were declared Mujassimah, Mushabbihah by al-Ja'd bin Dirham, al-Jahm bin Safwan and the Jahmiyyah, Amr bin Ubayd and the Mu'tazilah, and their tail-ends, the Later Ash'ariyyah and the Maturidiyyah.

Inside the Karraamite Mind

Let's get into the minds of those Hanafi Mujassimah.

The Karraamiyyah reasoned that things are only bodies (ajsaam) and their incidental attributes (a'raad), and since Allaah cannot be an incidental attribute (which cannot exist of its own accord) He must be a jism (body). Some of them said "a body unlike bodies" and Ibn Karraam himself said "a body like bodies" based upon his agreement with the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah that attributes and actions can only be established in bodies.

However, they differed with the rest of their brethren from Ahl al-Kalaam [Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah, Kullaabiyyah Ash'ariyyah, Maturidiyyah] on one of the major premises which is: A jism is never devoid of hawaadith (events, those affairs which have a beginning, meaning here attributes and actions). The Karraamiyyah disagreed on the absoluteness of this principle and said that this is not the case for Allaah, the Most High. They did not reject this principle, rather they accepted it, but did not accept that it is absolute. They said it is possible for there to be an eternal jism, that was devoid of all hawaadith in eternity. They said Allaah (the eternal jism, single, pure, unified, one) was devoid of hawaadith for a period of eternity. Hence, he is not like all the other bodies which are never devoid of hawaadith (meaning the qualities and attributes found in them). This is why some of them said "jism laa kal-ajsaam." So here, the Karraamiyyah established a difference betweeen the eternal jism and the created ajsaam, and what is the essential differene between the eternal jism and the created ajsaam? This difference is from the angle of whatever is obligatory (waajib), permissible (jaawaaz) and prohibited (mumtani'). Thus Allaah is a body. Created things are bodies. What's the difference between them? The difference is known and defined through what can be said to be obligatory (waajib), permissible (jaawaaz) and prohibited (mumtani') upon that eternal jism and these created ajsaam. It is prohibited for created ajsaam to be free of hawaadith, but not for Allaah. So this is how Allaah "does not resemble" the created bodies, it is in terms of what is permitted, obligatory and prohibited, and this is what they mean by "a body, unlike other bodies."

Hence, they said Allah was an eternal jism, devoid of hawaadith, but then Allaah acquired attributes, through His own wish and power, which means hawaadith (events that have a beginning) took place in Him. Thus whilst He may have had the (future) capacity to speak (but not actually being one who speaks for a period in eternity), He then acquired speech, and became one who speaks but was not one who was eternally one who speaks as and when He wills. They stated this upon the principle "an endless chain of events in the past is impossible", and this is a premise required by the proof of huduth al-ajsaam. Hence, Allaah cannot eternally have been one who speaks as and when He wills, that clashes with the proof, as it means an endless chain of events in the past. So the Karraamiyyah permitted for Allaah that events can take place in His essence, and what they mean here is the acquisition of attributes. However, and this is crucial, they did not consider this position of theirs to clash with the proof, and nor did they consider this to clash with the greatest principle in this proof which is "whatever is not devoid of hawaadith is itself haadith", because to them something is only an event (Haadith) if it occurs and expires, if it has been brought about (ihdaath) and caused to expire (ifnaa'). Thus, once Allaah became one who speaks, He always remained one who speaks, hence this cannot be entered into what are hawaadith. So they permitted "hawaadith" to take place but not to expire, so technically these are not really "hawaadith" (events that arise and then expire) in their view. And the reason why they rejected that Allaah could be eternally one who speaks as and when He wills is that this would necessitate and endless chain of events in the past. The proof relies upon the denial of an endless chain of events in the past. And in order to remain true to this proof, the Karraamiyyah denied that Allaah has always been one who speaks as and when He wills in eternity, or creates as and when He wills in eternity and so on (even though He might have had the future capacity, ability to be so, yet He was not). This was their way of thinking. And with this approach, they believed they remained true to that framework of huduth al-ajsaam with all its premises.

To illustrate with another example in addition to that of speech: The attribute of "khalq" (creating), they said Allaah was not able to act, create (although He had the future capacity to), but then He was able to act, create, He brought about this in Himself, and this remained permanent, eternal thereafter. Hence it is not "hawaadith" in reality, because the quality has not expired, it remains, unlike true "hawaadith", they occur and expire. So they believed they are still operating within the proof and have not opposed it. And the reason why they said that Allaah could not have been "the creator" in eternity is that it would necessitate endless chain of events in the past. Further, they held a view on this particular issue of Allaah "creating" that resembles the view of the Mu'tazilah and Ash'ariyyah in denying that an act called "creating" could be ascribed to His essence. So they had an approach to this similar to the Mu'tazilah and Ash'ariyyah, even if they had their own angle regarding it. We have omitted this discussion as it is lengthhy and detailed and is not crucial for the purposes of this article.

The way the Karraamiyyah saw it is just like a man has the future capacity for speech (Kalaam) and action (fi'l) and power (qudrah) when he is born, without actually having it. Then later he acquires them. So they saw Allaah like that. They held this view to remain true to the premises of the proof of huduth al-ajsaam, all of which rest upon the denial of an endless chain of events in the past. The proof cannot be completed without this statement. This claim of the Karraamiyyah of an eternal jism devoid of what they call "hawaadith" (meaning attributes) is falsehood because it implies Allah was deficient and acquired attributes He did not have.

Note that we have left out a lot of detail here as things would otherwise get very technical. We have left out a lot of detail in relation to matters and principles in which the Karraamiyyah agree with the Mu'tazilah (and Ash'aris and Maturidis) and some in which they have a different approach. But for the purpose of this article, what we have stated above is sufficient.

As for Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah they say:

Allaah has always been one who speaks as and when and He wills. He did not acquire any new attribute He did not already have. That Allaah never ceased with all His attributes is the saying of Ahl al-Sunnah, so Allaah is not subject to "hawaadith" upon the understanding of the Karraamiyyah (meaning acquisition of attributes). Rather Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah say that Allaah has never ceased with all His names and attributes, both those that are laazim (necessary to His essence) and those that are muta'addi (transitive, in the sense that they relate to another object), so al-Khaaliq, al-Raaziq, al-Muhyee, al-Mumeet are all transitive names, their meanings require other objects, Allaah creates something, Allaah provides with something, Allah gives life to something, Allaah takes life from something. Ahl al-Sunnah say Allaah has never ceased to be like this, meaning Allaah never ceases to create if He wills, never ceases to provide if He wills, never ceases to give life if He wills, never ceases to take life if He wills. And likewise He has never ceased to be one who speaks when and as He wills with whatever He wills. And in all of that nothing precedes Allah in His existence, rather everything besides Allaah was brought into existence after non-existence.

Understand What is Going on Here Between the Ahl al-Kalaam

It is important to stop here to understand what is really going on in the overall scheme of things, in the "birds-eye" of things, and once you get this way of thinking into your mind, and you start seeing the overall picture, and start building some context, you will start to see the pieces fit together. So here it is:

First thing to note is that all of these Kalaam groups are working on the same building. They have the same tools, the same types of bricks, there is a specific blueprint, and a specific goal. The goal is to build a solid proof for the universe being originated and to prove a creator. However, they all have different ways of going about it and in their unique approaches, they are adhering (in their view) to what they consider are the basic rules, which is the basic outline, the procedure for demonstrating huduth al-ajsaam (as described previously). So they share in:

a) The same foundational language, al-a'raad wal-ajsaam, b) The same foundational theoretical premise underlying the entire theology which is making qiyas al-shumul (analogy through inclusion) or qiyas al-ghaa'ib alaa al-shaahid (analogy for the unseen through the seen) or qiyas al-tamthil (analogy through likeness). What this means is that Allaah, the Creator, has to be included within the genus of created bodies for the purpose of being able to speak with the lawaazim (binding nececessities) from which the entire language of theology emanates (i.e. "Allaah is a not a jism etc." for the Mu'attilah, or "Allaah is a jism etc." for the Mujassimah). We explained this in more detail in Part 3 and Part 4, c) The same basic framework for the proof of huduth al-ajsaam (demonstrating the origination of bodies) which was outlined earlier in this article.

However, they have their own renditions or interpretations around it whilst adhering (in their view) to its core premises. Basically its a fight and each group is laying claim to being the one who has the "holy grail" [sorry for using that term, but there's nothing else we could think of to get the right message across]. So basically its the trail for the "holy grail" for proving the universe is originated, to prove a creator. It's like a gold rush and each party wants to be the one to make that "killer" find. In that "intellectual race," the Mu'attilah were led to ta'teel, the Mujassimah were led to tajsim - but they were all pushed in their own particular directions through this proof that they are all agreed upon. They (Mu'attilah, Mujassimah) are all one party, one group, one brotherhood. They are all expressing views, opinions etc. through which they are trying to keep in conformity with that basic framework of huduth al-ajsaam. And some of them are saying to others, "Hey, you've corrupted the proof" and others are saying "No we haven't, you have!" So the Jahmee says to the Mu'tazilee, "You've corrupted the proof, take that!" and he throws his custard pie. The Mu'tazilee says to the Ash'ari, "You've corrupted the proof" and he throws his custard pie, and the Ash'ari says to the Karraami "You've corrupted the proof", and the Karraami says to the Raafidee "You've corrupted the proof" and so its all one big custard fight as we observed in Part 4. This is why Abu Mansur al-Baghdadi (d. 429H), states in Usul al-Din (p. 337-338), in speaking about the Karraamiyyyah, "They have corrupted for themselves, by permitting hulul al-hawaadith (occurrence of events) in Allaah's essence, the evidence of the Muwahhideen for the [proof of] huduth al-ajsaam through hulul al-hawaadith." And the Karraamiyyah have their own view, they claim they are in perfect agreement with all the premises of huduth al-ajsaam and have not corrupted it, rather they have championed it. So you get the idea of what is going on.

And these people who are in this Kalaam cage, throwing custard pies at each other, are thinking they are the society's intellectual elite, they look down upon the people of Sunnah, Hadith and Aathar and consider them the worthless Hashawiyyah. This terms was thrown by one of the heads of the Mu'tazilah against Abdullah bin Umar (and later taken up and used by the Ash'arites). And what they mean by it is those worthless, intellectually defunct people who don't have what we have, this Kalaam, this science, which makes us so special and clever. So they are in their Kalaam cage throwing these custard pies at each other, and Ahl al-Sunnah look on, and this is the evil perception of those people towards Ahl al-Sunnah, when in reality, the real buffoonery is taking place in the Kalaam cage. So you get the picture now.

Once you understand these things, trust us, no pseudo-Ash'arite neo-Jahmite shyster will have the guts to stand in front of you and look you in the face. He will cower, his soul in awe and fear, a coward of huge proportions, all he has with him are the cobwebs of his ancestry of old, using pathetic little doubts by isolating statements of al-Darimi, or Ibn Taymiyyah and other scholars and scaring the dumb-witted ignorant people about those "nasty evil body-snatching Mujassimah who've landed from Mars and are out there waiting to pounce on you", when in reality, these "nasty evil body-snatching mujassimah" are their own brethren in ilm al-Kalaam, and they are in fact united with these Mujassimah in the theoretical foundations of their creed and in the proof of huduth al-ajsaam, except that they have different ways of trying to validate this proof, as they each see it. These neo-Jahmite pseudo-Asharites are feeble-minded, intellectually defunct, they do not have any 'aql, since they already threw away their aql when they threw the revealed texts behind their backs considering them nothing but presumptions of Tajseem for the "dumb commoners", and opted for al-Razi's "Universal Principle" (al-qaanoon al-kullee) which states the aql takes precedence over the naql. They claimed to establish the authenticiy, veracity and authority of the revealed texts [in the morning] through their proof as they claim, their aql, then [in the evening] they threw away their aql when they said these authentic, agreed upon, revealed texts [whose authority they had just proven through the same aql in the morning] are nothing but presumptions of tajsim and tashbih implying kufr and that the real truth actually lies in their 'aql, in the language of al-ajsaam and al-a'raad, in the very 'aql which they had used to prove the authority, authenticity and unquestionability of the naql (revealed text) in the morning. So what 'aql is that O disgraced ones!

So their reality is that they are simply trying to tarnish others with the dung of their own adversary from Ahl al-Kalaam. Basically, it is their fight, but they want to drag you into it, out of envious jealousy that you have the Sunnah, hadeeth and aathaar and are content with that, and they are full of doubt, insecurity, psychologial discomfort, bewildered as that is the very nature of that particular Kalaam they indulgeld in (al-ajsaam wal-a'raad). So we will address these doubts, and expose these affairs in due course as part of this series inshaa'Allaah when the fourth piece in our toolset is unleashed, which is reserved for those pansified makhaaneeth of the Jahmiyyah, who throw stones from glass houses.

We can now move on to see the language of the Karraamiyyah in their theism.

How the Karraamiyyah Described Their Lord

So after the Karraamiyyah concluded that Allaah is a jism (body) upon the conceptual tools of al-ajsaam wal-a'raad (bodies and their incidental attributes) in the wider framework of trying to prove the universe is originated and proving a creator, it was inevitable that in their speech, in their theology, that they use corresponding language. So we are going to now draw from those books we mentioned at the beginning. So this is what the Karraamiyyah said (with our comments), now most of it overlaps, but what concerns us here is the following:

Ibn Karraam said Allaah is a jism (body). He would say Allaah has singularity of essence and singularity of substance.

The reality of the saying of the Karraamiyyah is that some of them meant by the word jism "that which exists (mawjud)" and "that which is established on its own (al-qaa'imu bi nafsihi)." Now from the Ash'arites are those who said that the difference between these people is one of wording only. We have a whole article dedicated to just this topic, and you can read that here:

• Jism, Tajseem, and the Mujassimah (Anthropomorphists): From the Ash'arite Textbooks and in the Works of Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah: A Brief Comparison - (see here)

But there were some amongst them who believed that every jism is made up of the indivisible particle (al-Jawhar al-Fard), and so it is possible that some of them spoke of Allaah being a jism with this meaning, that He is composite. However, what is famous and well known from their leading Imaams like Ibn al-Haysam is something other than that, that by jism they mean "existing (mawjud)" and "self-established (al-qaa'imu bi nafsihi)".

Also from the saying of Ibn Karraam:

He would say Allaah has a hadd (limit) and nihayah (end) in the direction of the Throne, and that He is touching (mumaass) His Throne and that the Throne is a place for Him. Some of his associates changed the word touch (mummaassah) with proximity, nearness (mulaaqaah, coming near to, meeting) the Throne. They said that He does not extend beyond the Throne, His width is as the width of the Throne, and that the Throne becomes filled of Him. And that between Him and the Throne is an infinite distance or a certain distance.

This is takyif following on from their saying that Allaah is a jism (body), and this is speech which has no basis in the Book and the Sunnah. For this reason, others from Ahl al-Kalaam (who affirmed Allaah is above the Throne, like the early Kullaabis and early Ash'aris) refuted them with speech such as "He is above the Throne and is not a jism" and "He is above the Throne without touch, contact, adjacency" and "He is above the Throne without nearness [that brings Him closer] or being distant [that makes Him further]" and so on. They were refuting this takyif of the Hanafi Mujassimah. These were the early Kullabis and Ash'aris.

Incidentally, the Salafi Imaam, Abu Nasr al-Sijzee (d. 444H) who wrote a book in refutation of the Kullaabiyyah and Ash'ariyyah also used this negation in relation to istiwaa (that Allah [Himself] is above the Throne without touch [mummaassah]), refuting those who claimed that. However this is specific negation which is not from the way of the Salaf. The point in mentioning this is to show that this takyif of the Mujassimah was rejected by those upon the way of the Salaf too, even if it was in a manner that involved a methodological departure from the way of the Salaf, which is specific affirmation, with general negation (Allaah [Himself] is above the Throne, bilaa kayf, without how).

The Later Ash'aris who took the path of the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah in denying 'uluww altogether, they showed rejection against everyone who affirmed Allaah to be above the Throne, and they adduced arguments to refute this belief upon the principles of Kalaam. They slanderously imposed the takyif of the Mujassimaah upon Ahl al-Sunnah. Then in their great dishonesty, they found doubts [through historical occurrences] by which to justify this slander, and we will address these doubts in later articles inshaa'Allaah. From them is the saying of Ibn al-Mubaarak, Ishaq bin Raahuyah and Imaam Ahmad - in refutation of the Jahmiyyah who claimed Allaah is in every place - that Allaah is above His Throne with a "hadd" (as in He is separate from His creation. which means He is separate from His Throne and that His essence does not merge or mix with anything in the creation). So these people are very dishonest and they rely upon the ignorance of the audience to continue their great swindle. They do not distinguish between the language of tajsim of their brethren from Ahl al-Kalam which originates due to them having concluded Allaah is a jism through the foundational language of al-ajsaam wal-a'raad which they all share in, and between the speech and language of the Imaams of Ahl al-Sunnah, the Righteous Salaf that does not arise from within that framework, rather is completely outside of it and has nothing to do with it.

Between the Hanafi Karraamiyyah Mujassimah and the Raafidee Mushabbihah, Mujassimah

It is important to point out that the leading figures of the Karraamiyyah such as Ibn al-Haysam deny that they make tasbhih like that of the Raafidah, even if they affirm they refer to Allaah as a jism (in the manner outlined above, meaning "existing", "self-established"). Al-Shahrastani states regarding Ibn al-Haysam (in al-Milal wal-Nihal, Dar al-Ma'rifah, Beirut, 1993, 1/129):

And Ibn al-Haysam asserted that those matters which the Mushabbihah apply to Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, such as form, shape, [hollow] interior, roundness, abundance, touch, embrace, and what is like that is not similar to what the Karraamiyyah apply, such as Allaah creating Aadam with His hand and that He ascended over the Throne, and that He will come on the Day of Judgement to judge mankind. And this is because we [Ibn al-Haysam] do not believe in any corrupt meaning in regard to all of that, such as limbs, parts, in explanation of hands. And likewise, in applying makaan (place) and the independence of the Throne (in holding) Allaah as an explanation of "istiwaa", and nor occupying spaces as an explanation of coming (majee'). But we have only applied them simply because the Qur'an has applied them, without takyif and tashbih, and whatever has not come in the Qur'an and the report (khabar), we do not apply it [to Allaah], like all the Mushabbihah and Mujassimah do.

What he (Ibn al-Haysam) is saying here is that they do not apply those attributes which the Raafidee Mujassimah applied (see previous article), and as for what they affirm, it is only because the revealed texts speak of it, and in that they do not assert any corrupt meaning or takyif. However, what is apparent is that in the issue of al-istiwaa, takyif is related about them, and from Muhammad bin Karraam, and they entered into blameworthy language regarding it after their conclusion Allaah is a jism (body), even if they explained with meanings that their adversaries (the Ash'arites) could not fault, such as "mawjud" (existing) and "al-qaa'imu binafsihi" (self-established) - see this article.

Closing Notes

What should be taken away from this article in this series is that we have built much more context now, and the bigger picture is now emerging. We have learned that:

ONE: The Mujassimah are simply brethren of the Ahl al-Kalaam, they are brothers of the Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah, Ash'ariyyah and Maturidiyyah. What has led them to their tajsim is the same underlying foundations in language and in what they consider the most important foundation of the religion, to prove the universe is originated through huduth al-ajsaam. So all of them should be included within the same box.

TWO: We also learned that the Karraamiyyah differed with the others with respect to one premise of the proof, which is "Every jism is not devoid of hawaadith", they did not accept the absoluteness of the principle, even though they spoke with it. They said there is an eternal jism (meaning one that exists, self-established) who was devoid of hawaadith (meaning, events, which are attributes or actions) for a period in eternity, hence He is not like created bodies. Then, through His will and power, He acquired attributes, such as speech and action and creating and so on. And they said this because if Allaah had eternally been one who speaks as and when He wills, creates as and when He wills, acts as and when He wills, this would violate one of the core premises of the proof, which is "Events which have no beginning are impossible." For the proof of huduth al-ajsaam to be complete, this premise is needed to make the connection between its first half and its final part, it is the connector. However, in all of this, the Karraamiyyah believed they are true to the proof and that they have the correct rendering of it.

THREE: We learned that the Karraamiyyah used language of takyif in relation to Allaah's uluww and istiwaa, in which they were refuted by others from their brethren in ilm al-Kalaam (who actually affirmed Allaah's uluww and istiwaa, the early Kullabis, Ash'aris, even if they had certain approaches towards istiwaa because it is from the sifat fi'liyyah). However, the Later Ash'aris who receded into the views of the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah, accused everyone who affirmed Allaah's 'uluww over His Throne with the takyif of the Karraamiyyah, and this is slander and dishonesty, because Ahl al-Sunnah do not operate upon that language of al-ajsaam wal-a'raad upon which the Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah, Ash'ariyyah, Maturidiyyah and the Rafidi and Hanafi Karraami Mujassimah [all of whom are Ahl al-Kalaam] built their theology upon. Hence, the lawaazim (binding necessities) they operate upon and accuse each other of, do not apply to Ahl al-Sunnah.

We gave the example before in a previous article in this series, all of these Kalaam groups are in the cage having a big custard fight. We are not in the cage in the first place, because we have are not operating upon their false analogies for Allaah (qiyas al-shumul, qiyas al-ghaa'ib alaa al-shaahid, qiyas al-tamthil) which they absolutely must speak with, in order for their entire theology to be plausible, because that is what it all rests on. But we have not agreed to that, we say Allaah's essence is unlike all other essences, hence, these are false analogies and the lawaazim (binding necessities) built upon them are a mirage to us, they don't exist, they only exist in the mind which has been diseased with that specific Kalaam which the Salaf condemned. However, the Mu'attil and the Mujassim from Ahl al-Kalaam, they are both operating upon these false analogies, and there is no other way for their theology to have any existence, except by assuming these analogies as the fabric of the entire polemical debate.

FOUR: That from the leading Imaams of the Karraamiyyah are those who denied that they make tashbih like that of the Raafidah, and it is known and mentioned that the Karraamiyyah used to refute the Raafidah, in addition to debating the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah.

FIVE: The Salaf never knew or warned against the "tajsim" of Ahl al-Kalaam, rather they warned against Tashbih and Tamthil, which is resembling or likening Allaah to His creation. They never considered the affirmation of 'uluww, the sifaat khabariyyah (face, hands, eye etc.) and the Af'aal Ikhtiyaariyyah (nuzul, istiwaa, love, pleasure, anger etc.) and all of what Allaah is decribed with to be "tajsim" upon the terminological usage of the Ahl al-Kalaam. This was unknown to them, because those conceptual tools in matters of belief were shunned by them and considered heresy.

The issue of Allaah being a jism or not a jism, that is a Kalaam debate between the Ahl al-Kalaam in the context of their proof of huduth al-ajsaam that is founded upon the language of al-ajsaam wal-a'raad. However, whilst the early Kullabis and Ash'aris well appreciated this fact (they themselves affirmed 'uluww and the sifat khabariyyah) - [and the reason was explained previously in that they never considered the proof of huduth al-ajsaam to be obligatory or the only way to prove the origination of the universe and Allaah's existence] - the Later Ash'aris who treated this proof the same way as the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah [that is, Islam itself rests upon this proof and depends upon it], and were forced to deny Allah's 'uluww and all the sifat khabariyyah, they extended their accusation and slander of tajsim to everyone who affirmed Allaah's uluww and His sifaat khabariyyayh, over and beyond their disputants in Kalaam, the Karraamiyyah. In later times, there were scholars who may have got caught up in this type of language, those who never delved into this type of Kalaam fundamentally, but they agreed with the conclusions of those who did and merged these conclusions with the subject of their real pre-occupation, the Qur'an, Hadith and their sciences, and they received a warped and distorted perception of what the Salaf were upon due to living in a certain time or period when this particular Kalaam belief was predominant and they had acquired knowledge within that setting. This is the true and real background to the statements coming from the likes of al-Qurtubi, al-Nawawi, Ibn Hajar and their likes (we already commented on the reality of what happened to them in previous articles - see the introductory section to this article and also look at the "third faction" in this article). Hence, you will understand the attachment to these scholars by today's pseudo-Ashari Jahmites because they find a specific utility in them.

All of the above should have put another piece in the puzzle and built some further context for us. In our next article we are going to discuss a type of Mujassimah, Mushabbihah that your pseudo-Ash'ari, neo-Jahmi swindler will have kept hidden from you as part of his centuries old deception. Yes, the Mujassimah and Mushabbihah from amongst the Extremist Sufis, perhaps the greatest and most repugnant type of tajsim and tashbih.