Ibn Darbas al-Shaafi'ee, a Qadi of the Ayyubi Dynasty Renders These Contemporary Pusillanimous Academic Fraudsters as "Jahmites"!

We explained in a previous article that historically, Asharis have not been a uniform, monolithic sect, and that when the word "Ashari" is used it can refer to a number of different categories. It is extremely important to grasp this fact, because it lifts the veil from much of the frauds perpetrated by the Jahmites against historical fact, and it clears a lot of the confusion that is found in discussions. Here are the different types of Ash'aris:

• The very early Kullaabi Asharis (al-Ashari, Ibn Mahdi al-Tabari, al-Baqillani)
• Those who held fast to what is in al-Ibaanah, did not oppose it, and labelled themselves as "Ashari"
• Those who were clearly influenced by al-Ibaanah (al-Bayhaqi)
• Those who retreated to the way of the Mu'tazilah (al-Baghdadi, al-Juwaynee) including those mentioned next:
• Those who mixed kalam with zandaqah (philosophy) and tasawwuf, such as al-Ghazali, al-Razi (that's why western orientalists love them so much, it aids in the destruction of Islam), al-Shahrastani and al-Aamidee
• Those who are alleged to be Asharis upon flimsy pretexts and they are free of it such as Abu Uthman al-Sabuni and,
• Those in the later times who were brought up in an era in there was nothing but the Ashari creed, and they grew up influenced by it in some areas, even if they did not speak with its foundations (usul) and they are the likes of Ibn Hajar, al-Nawawi and al-Qurtubi. Even amongst these, some can be said to be Ash'ari (al-Nawawi) and others were merely influenced by their way (Ibn Hajar).

So the point here is that these Jahmites of our times are not original and they are not bringing anything new. Their ancestory is well-documented in history, and it was the Ibanah-Asharites (see this article here) who exposed them and refuted them.

Before continuing with the quotation from Ibn Darbas, it should be pointed out that it is likely that Salah al-Din al-Ayubi was an Ibanah-Ashari [he studied with Ibn Asakir (d. 571H)] except that there will have been influences from other Asharite orientations, since "Ashariyyah" has never been a uniform madhhab, and for this reason, this "Ashariyyah" will not have been free from kalam influences. In any case, they will not have denied the sifat khabariyyah based on what is found in Ibn Asakir's citation from al-Ibanah in Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari, and this was the way of al-Ashari, Ibn Mahdi al-Tabari, al-Baqillani (and al-Bayhaqi). This renders spurious the claim of tajsim and tashbih made by the contemporary Jahmites posing as Ash'aris which was rebutted by al-Qadi Abu Bakr al-Baqillani (see that rebuttal here) in his book al-Tamheed.

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 affiliate themselves, spuriously, to Abū Hasan al-Ashʿarī. 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.

• These are the people referred to as "Jahmiyyah" by Ibn Darbas and they are the ones he is refuting on this matter. This species of Jahmite, unfortunately, never became extinct, and we still have their likes today, as dumb as they are, in the persons of the likes of Faqir, Abu Bilal, Muhammad Fahmi and others peddling the same academic frauds as their predecessors of old.