We explained in previous articles the claim of the Jahmiyyah that by believing Allaah to be above the heaven, above the Throne - [just as He stated in explicit unambiguous words in His Book, and as affirmed by the entirety of the Salaf, and the early Ash'arites, and many other factions] - that on account of this Ahl us-Sunnah have declared Allaah to be a composite body (jism murakkab) that has distinct parts (ajzaa) - and this was responded to in a series of articles dealing with much of the deception of the Jahmiyyah who are fraudulently passing off as followers of Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari - when Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari is free and innocent of them (see here, here and here) and they of him.

Today, we are going to turn the tables around a little bit and level the same accusations against the Jahmite Ash'aris through the tongues of the Philosophers namely that they are Mujassimah who declare Allaah to be composed (murakkab) of distinguishable parts (ajzaa') and one who is subject to need (iftiqaar).

The objective behind this is to identify the answers of the Jahmite Ash'aris in response to such an allegation.

Once we have identified the main ingredients of the counter-response of the Jahmite Ash'aris against the Philosophers, we can then proceed to list the benefits arising from such an exercise, and through it we can understand the nature and extent of the hypocrisy and deception which the later (Jahmite) Ash'aris are characterized by.

An Explanation of the Deception and Hypocrisy of the Jahmiyyah

You need to pay careful attention to the following so that you can fully understand the rest of the article:

Ahl us-Sunnah affirm the Attributes upon the principle of affirming whatever Allaah affirmed for Himself in His Book and whatever His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) affirmed for Him, and thus, they make no distinction between the affirmation of His Attributes such as hearing, seeing, speech, knowledge and between Him being above the creation, and having ascended above the Throne, and being described with mahabbah (love), anger (ghadab) and pleasure (ridhaa), and Attributes of the Essence such as Face, Hand and Eyes and so on.

The Mutakallimoon reject this principle [of affirming for Allaah whatever He affirmed for Himself] outright. This is not how they restrict themselves in speaking about Allaah.

Their principle is the rejection of whatever conflicts with their rational proof for the createdness of the universe, which is demonstrated through "hudooth ul-ajsaam" (the createdness of bodies) and "hudooth ul-a'raad" (the occurrence of incidental attributes in bodies).

This rational proof of theirs is through the demonstration that created bodies not being free of attributes (sifaat), incidental attributes (a'raad) and ocurrences (hawaadith), must have a creator. Thus, whatever conflicts with this rational proof is to be rejected. To the Jahmites affirming any name or attribute or quality or description conflicts with it, so they reject everything, Allaah cannot be described with anything - otherwise it would mean, according to their rational proof, that Allaah is also created and has a creator. And to the Mu'tazilah, everything but the Names conflict with the rational proof (whilst noting that they only affirm the Names on the surface only), and to the Kullaabiyyah and Early Ash'ariyyah everything but the Names and sifaat dhaatiyyah (Attributes of the Essence), such as Face, Hands, Eyes, and being above the Throne - so everything besides these attributes conflict with the rational proof for demonstrating the createdness of the universe.

And so each faction only rejects what they deem to be incompatible with their proof. Therefore, the origin and principle for speaking about Allaah returns back to their intellects and the rational proof they made to be the foundation of their religion and not to the Book and the Sunnah, fundamentally. And their arguments with each other (Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah, Kullaabiyyah, Ash'ariyyah, Maturidiyyah) are only in relation to a) what can and cannot be rejected from the Names, Attributes, sifaat dhaatiyyah, Sifaat Fi'liyyah, and b) what means and methods should be used to effect that rejection (ta'weel or tafweed).

Ahl us-Sunnah (those upon the creed of the Salaf) say to the Philosophers: We affirm the Attributes because they are proven textually in the Book and the Sunnah.

However, the Ash'arites say to the Philosophers, you should affirm the Names and (some of the) Attributes because the rational evidence points to them (and not fundamentally because they are affirmed textually).

This is because to the Ash'arites and the Mutakallimoon in general, the truth of the revelation can only be demonstrated by the intellect, so the starting point in convincing the atheists, has to be the intellect itself. Thus, they have provided intellectual evidences for each of the attributes they affirm - and as for the Qur'aan and the Sunnah, then they take an inferior position, since the knowledge they contain is not qat'ee (definitive) according to them, only the intellectual evidence is qat'ee (definitive).

In light of this, Ahl us-Sunnah say to the Philosophers, affirming Names and Attributes for Allaah does not necessitate that He is composed of parts, and likewise affirming Allaah is above the Throne, above the creation does not necessitate that He is composed of parts either, since these necessities are false, merely because it is impossible that the acceptance of whatever Allaah affirmed for Himself, and which the Messenger affirmed for Him, and which all the Companions affirmed without any difference therein, and which the Salaf in their entirety affirmed, then it is impossible for that to necessitate that which is disbelief.

However, the Mutakallimoon (including the Jahmite Ash'aris) have a different angle. Because what can and cannot be affirmed for Allaah returns back to whatever they deem to conflict with their rational proof for the demonstration of the createdness of the universe, then they will refute the claim of the Philosophers that affirming attributes necessitates tarkeeb (composition through parts), and then at the same time they will accuse Ahl us-Sunnah of holding Allaah to be divisible and composed of parts for affirming that He is above the Throne.

This is because their intellects can accept distinct attributes in an essence without that being considered tarkeeb (composition through parts), but can't accept Allah being above the Throne without Him being a jism (body) and composed of parts.

Thus the point of reference to them is their intellect and not the Book and the Sunnah.

And whereas Ahl us-Sunnah say:

Where we learned that Allaah is above the Throne, above His creation is the same source from where we learned that He is Aleem, Samee', Baseer, (Knowing, Hearing, Seeing) with ilm, sam' and basr (knowledge, hearing and sight)

The Mutakallimoon say:

Whatever agrees with our intellectual proof of demonstrating the createdness of the universe, we accept it, and whatever conflicts with it, we reject it or explain it away.

And this is what they mean when they say, "the intellect does not accept it" which really means: "It conflicts with and invalidates our rational proof of Hudooth ul-ajsaam" and "hudooth al-a'raad fil-ajsaam" (createdness of bodies through the presence of incidental attributes within them)".

And then, the Mutakallimoon, differ with each other as to what the intellect can and cannot accept and what can and cannot be reconciled with their intellectual proof:

• So the Jahmiyyah deny everything and claim Allaah cannot be described with anything at all, as that would invalidate the proof.

• The Mu'tazilah say we affirm the Names as mere labels that are all synonymous and which only point back to Allaah's Essence, but that they do not signify any attributes - since that would invalidate the intellectual proof of "hudooth ul-ajsaam".

• And the Kullaabiyyah took a middle path in between and affirmed some attributes as opposed to others, so they affirmed the sifaat dhaatiyyah and rejected the Sifaat Fi'liyyah (those actions tied to Allaah's will) because these attributes would invalidate the intellectual proof. And alongside this they affirmed Allaah is above the heaven, above the Throne, and denied that He is a body (jism) whilst being above the heaven.

• And the Early Ash'aris were upon the creed of Ibn Kullaab, so they affirmed Allaah's uluww in the manner of the Kullaabiyyah, whilst negating that He is a jism (body) and they affirmed some of the attributes and denied others upon the usool of the Kullaabiyyah.

• And then the later Ash'aris simply reverted back to the usool of the Mu'attilah faction of the Jahmiyyah and the usool of the Mu'tazilah, as is evidenced from the likes of Abu al-Mu'ali al-Juwaynee (d. 478H) and al-Ghazali (d. 505H) and ar-Razi (d. 606H).

So from all of this, you can see clearly, that when the Mutakallimoon speak concerning Allaah, His Names, Attributes and Actions, you know where they are coming from and what their motive is behind it all. It is to protect and maintain a creed that is determined by Metaphysics and their proof for demonstrating the existence of a creator. And on account of this, they were forced to reject whatever invalidated their rational proof from the revealed texts.

Methodology In This Article

In this article we are going to document the "proof through tarkeeb (composition)" of the Philosophers - that which they use to establish a Maker for the universe from the words of Ibn al-Qayyim (d. 751H) and through the words of Muhammad bin Yusuf as-Sanusi (d. 895H).

Once this has been documented we want to detail the charges brought by the Philosophers against the affirmers of the Attributes which include the Ash'arites and the response to them. This will also be done through a Sunni, Athari source (Ibn al-Qayyim) and an Ash'ari Mutakallim source (as-Sanusi).

The two books in question are "as-Sawaa'iq al-Mursalah" of Ibn al-Qayyim (tahqeeq. al-Mawsilee) and "Sharh al-Kubraa as-Sanusiyyah" of as-Sanusi (Egyptian print dated just before 1900).

Once this is established, we want to compare between the response of the Ash'arites to the Philosophers in their allegations against them for affirming the Attributes with the response of Ahl us-Sunnah to the allegations of the later Jahmite Ash'aris (such as ar-Razi) against them for affirming Allah is above the Throne With His Essence.

Concerning the "Proof Of tarkeeb (Composition)" of the Philosophers

Ibn al-Qayyim said, in "as-Sawaa'iq" (p. 365):

The translation of which is:

... As for the Philosophers, they affirmed the Maker through the way of at-tarkeeb (composition) which is: That [created] bodies (ajsaam) are composed (murakkabah) and anything that is composite is needy, dependent (yaftaqir) on its parts (ajzaa'), and everything that is needy (muftaqir) then its existence is only possible (as opposed to necessary), and that whose existence is only possible must have an agent whose existence is necessary. And numerousness (kathrah) in the essence (dhaat) of that whose existence is necessary is impossible, since that necessitates its composition (tarkeeb) and need (iftiqaar), and this contradicts its necessary existence. And this is the limit of their Tawheed, and through it did they affirm the Creator, according to their claim. And it is known that this is the greatest of evidences for the negation of the Creator, for it negates His qudrah (power), will (mashee'ah), knowledge (ilm) and life (hayaat). Because if these attributes were affirmed for Him, according to their claim, He would be composite (murakkab, composed of parts), and that which is composite is in need of other than it (muftaqiran ilaa ghayrihi), and therefore, cannot be necessary (in existence) by itself. And in this doubt there is such deceipt and fraud, and [the use of] generalized words and ambiguous meanings whose description will become very lengthy ...

This is an outline of the proof of the Philosophers, as well as the manner in which they were forced to argue for the rejection of the attributes on account of their proof being corrupt in an of itself. So they made it binding upon those affirming the attributes amongst the Mutakallimoon, who are the Ash'arites, that they hold Allaah, in his Essence (Dhaat) to be made up distinguishable parts (ajzaa') that are "other" (ghayr) than each other, and thus Allaah is "composed" (murakkab).

Concerning the Doubt of "tarkeeb" (Composition), "Parts" (Ajzaa') and "Need" (Iftiqaar) Following On From the Above Rational Proof of the Philosophers

In this section we want to document the doubt of the Philosophers used against the likes of the Ash'arites (and all affirmers of the Attributes) - but from the words of the Ash'arites themselves - so we can define precisely what this doubt is and what the allegations are. After bringing these quotes, we will summarize all the essential points.

Muhammad bin Yusuf as-Sanusi said in "Sharh al-Kubraa" (p. 118):

The translation of which is:

Know that the Philosophers have sought to use as proof for the negation of the Attributes (a doubt) that is close to the previously (mentioned) doubt of the Mu'tazilah, and they said:

If attributes were present it would necessitate that they are in need (muftaqirah) of the Essence (adh-dhaat) due to the impossibility of attributes being established by themselves. And also because some of them are a condition for the others such as life (al-hayaat) which is a condition for power (al-qudrah), knowledge (al-ilm) and will (al-iraadah). So it is binding that the contigent (mashroot) is in need of the condition (shart), or (that it) comes after it according to reason. And need (al-iftiqaar) negates the necessity [of existence] since that [whose existence is] necessary is absolutely free of need, and this negates being in need (al-iftiqaar) or having requirement (al-haajah). And precedence (of the contingent) over the necessary in existence is impossible.

Thus, the response is to prohibit the [consequential] necessity claimed by the Philosophers to arise from our view]. For being in need (al-iftiqaar) upon another entity (al-ghayr) requires that the existence of the thing in need (al-muftaqir) is derived through (the presence of) the other entity (al-ghayr), thus, rendering it newly-arisen (haadith, something existing after having not existed) - and we do not claim that.

And on page 119, as-Sanusi says, quoting Ibn at-Tilmisani on Fakhr ud-Din ar-Razi falling prey to this proof of the Philosophers:

The translation of which is:

Sharf ud-Din Ibn at-Tilmisani said: And when al-Fakhr [ud-Din ar-Razi] believed the correctness of this proof, meaning the doubt of the Philosophers that "al-iftiqaar" - with the meaning of unrestricted dependence (tawaqquf) - necessitates (only) the possibility (of existence), and that every composed (thing) is in need of its (composite) part (juz') and (in need of) the part that is other than it, and that anything that is need of what is besides it cannot (have) except a possible (existence), and (the doubt of) the presumption of "tarkeeb" (composition) [for Allaah] through consideration of the attributes - [so ar-Razi, believing in the correctness of all that] when he used these precepts in seeking evidence for the possibility (of existence) of everything that is besides Allaah, the Exalted, he perceived (that this also meant) the invalidation of the attributes of Allaah, the Exalted. So on one occasion he (ar-Razi) said, "This is from (amongst those affairs) in which we beseech Allaah, the Exalted, for counsel"...

And he says on page 120, outlining further the influence of the doubt of the Philosophers upon ar-Razi:

The translation of which is:

And what has led him (i.e. ar-Razi) to most of these corrupt views is fleeing entirely from "at-tarkeeb" (composition) which the Philosophers have presumed to be binding from the affirmation of the attributes, and for that reason, they negated them - whilst (we should note) that something does not increase (numerically) on account of the numerousness of its attributes and nor does it increase (numerically) on account of the numerousness of its considered qualities (such as hearing, seeing, speaking).

Sharf ud-Din bin at-Tilmisani said: And at-Tarkeeb (composition) in [Allaah's} Essence is binding upon him (ar-Razi) as well, because the quiddity (the true essence of a thing) of every attribute amongst life (al-hayaat), knowledge (al-ilm), power (al-qudrah), will (al-iraadah) are distinguished (mutamayyizah) from the others in the mind. From them are those that have no connection (to others) such as life (al-hayaat), and from them are those that do have connection, but do not have influence (upon other things) such as knowledge (al-ilm). And from them are those which are connection and also have influence such as power (al-qudrah) and will (al-iraadah). So when they are distinguished (from each other) and are different (to each other in Allaah's Essence), they (the Attributes) necessitate different aspects in that which is required for them (to exist) [meaning Allaah's Essence], and when the Philosophers realized that, then it was not possible for them except to deny the attributes, and so they deceived the Muslims in applying them (to Allaah) whilst negating their realities (haqaa'iq), and they explained them (the attributes) with affairs that are different to their true essence - such as their explanation of Him being knowing (aalim) as meaning "He is not a jism (body) or established within a body (meaning He is not a body or an incidental attribute of a body)"...

Summary of the Allegations of the Philosophers Against the Ash'arites

After reading the above, the following allegations of the Philosophers can be extracted, whilst noting that the meaning of the word "quiddity" is the essential quality or "somethingness" of a thing that establishes its existence:

• Affirming attributes for Allaah's Essence necessitates that they are in need (muftaqirah) of Allaah's Essence, and they have their own distinguishable maahiyah (quiddity, true essence), and some of these attributes are dependent (conditional) upon others, such as Allaah's life (hayaat) being a condition for hearing (sam'), seeing (basr) and so on. And thus, when need (iftiqaar) is established, it proves that Allaah is created because anything that has need (the Attribute) must be created, and through extension anything that is composed of something that has need (i.e. the Essence having Attributes), then it is also created.

• Further, every composite thing (murakkab) is in need of its component parts, and its component parts are "other" than itself, and thus it is in need (muftaqir) of what is besides it, and this is tarkeeb (composition) through distinguishable parts in the Essence, and this proves that Allaah is created.

• And every attribute you affirm, then it necessitates multiplicity in the Essence of Allaah, since each of these attributes have their own distinguishable quiddities (true essences), and since these attributes are said to be eternal, then it necessitates that multiple distinguishable parts (ajzaa') and quiddities (true essences) existed along with Allaah - and this is tarkeeb (composition) and tajazzee (separability into parts), which is also inqisaam (divisibility into parts).

• And affirmation of the attributes necessitates that He is a jism (body), or He is an incidental attribute of a jism (body) - and as for us (the Philosophers) - then Allaah being "knowing" (aalim) is interpreted by us to mean "He is not a body", and His being "hearing" (samee') is interpreted by us to mean, "He is not a body", and His being "seeing" (baseer) is interpreted by us to mean, "He is not a body" and so on, and thus we negate Jismiyyah from Allaah, and we negate tarkeeb, ajzaa', tajuzzee, iftiqaar and so on from Him. And if you do not negate the meanings of these terms from him, then you are Mujassimah.

Next we can look at the responses provided by the Ash'arites to these allegations.

Ash'arite Responses to The Allegations of tarkeeb (Composition), Tajuzzee (Divisibility Into Parts), Iftiqaar (Need) and Tajseem Levelled Against Them By the Philosophers

Regarding the allegation that the presence of attributes necessitates iftiqaar (need) within the Essence of Allaah, then as-Sanusi responds to this (p. 118-119):

Which translates as:

Thus, the response is to prohibit the [consequential] necessity (mulaazamah) [claimed by the Philosophers to arise from our view]. For being in need (al-iftiqaar) upon another entity (al-ghayr) requires that the existence of the thing in need (al-muftaqir) is derived through (the presence of) the other entity (al-ghayr), thus, rendering it newly-arisen (haadith, something existing after having not existed) - and we do not claim that.

Rather, we say that His, the Exalted's, Attributes are all necessary in existence, not having need of any requirement, absolutely. And if you mean by (the term) "al-iftiqaar (being in need)", [the meaning of] concomitance (mulaazamah, meaning two things existing in connection with one another), and the absence of separation of one of the two existents from the other, then we would prohibit the exceptionality, and "al-iftiqaar" with this meaning would not negate [the necessity of] existence.

So why have you (the Philosophers) said that this dependence (tawaqquf) (of the attributes) in knowledge or in existence - which you have labelled as "iftiqaar (being in need)" - negates the necessity of existence, or necessitates (only) its possibility...

The essence of the Ash'arite response is basically that the Philosophers are making it binding and necessary that the presence of the Attributes makes them dependent upon and having a need for Allaah's Essence in their existence, and as such they are newly-arisen (haadithah), because their existence depends upon something other than them. So as-Sanusi responds to this allegation and says: "We do not claim that." Then he raises the issue of what the Philosophers intend and mean by the term "al-iftiqaar", and says that if you simply mean that two existents are present alongside each other, without one of them separating from the other, then this meaning is not one that makes Allaah something created and composite. And then he rebukes the Philosophers for labelling this correct meaning with "al-iftiqaar (need)".

Then a little later, on page 119, he says, addressing the Philosophers:

... and thus, your humiliation becomes apparent through your claim for whose validation you found no route except the fraud through the word "al-iftiqaar" [and its contained] presumption and its use to (denote) unrestricted and unqualified dependence...

... So in summary, these people made (mere) imaginations - despite the weakness (in these imaginations) - to be the judge and they made them the evidences therein ...

Meaning that the fraud of the Philosophers lies in their entering meanings into the term "al-iftiqaar" which they used to make the allegation of tarkeeb, tajazzee (composition and separability into parts) against the Sifaatiyyah (those factions affirming the Attributes), and then they made these presumptions of meaning to be the judge to which judgment is deferred to.

So the equation of the Philosophers is:

And the response of the Ash'arites is to make a quick stroke of the pen and put a line through the equals sign, prohibiting the mulaazamah (binding necessity), so it now becomes:

And you've just rebutted the allegation of Tajseem, tarkeeb and tajazzee of those nasty, evil, vile Philosophers who fraudulently enter correct and true meanings (Allaah has Attributes) into terms (tarkeeb, tajazzee, iftiqaar, ajzaa'), which they then deny for Allaah, intending by that to reject what Allaah affirmed for Himself - all that in an instant with a single diagonal stroke.

How we wish that things could be just as easy for Ahl ul-Sunnah to rebut the allegations of tarkeeb and tajazzee with one diagonal stroke - but unfortunately, there are two scales of justice, and two faces, one which turns to the Philosophers and says, "we prohibit the mulaazamah (the binding necessity)" and the other which turns to Ahl us-Sunnah and says, "this is a mulaazamah (binding necessity)".

As for their distinction in the issue of tarkeeb (composition) between Allaah's Essence described with Attributes and between Allaah being above the Throne, then this is false for reasons that are explained at the beginning and end of this article.

And then as-Sanusi says on page 121:

The translation of which is:

The consensus is that al-Qadeem (meaning Allaah) is one, and the reply [to their doubt] is to prohibit the binding necessity (they are trying to establish). So if you mean by "numerousness of the Eternal One" that He is composed (tarakkub) and has many parts (ajzaa') on account of the presence of the attributes, then (the response is) that numerousness of attributes does not prohibit the oneness of the one being described with them, and nor does is it necessitate His tarkeeb (composition), and nor is it said regarding Him on account of (the Attributes) that "He is many", neither in the language, nor in customary usage, and nor in the intellect.

Here, as-Sanusi has rebutted the allegation of the Philosophers that multiple attributes necessitates multiplicity of essences, and thus divisibility into parts (ajzaa') and therefore composition (tarkeeb), by saying, "the reply is to prohibit the mulaazamah (the binding necessity)" and by saying, "and nor is it said regarding Him on account of (the Attributes) that "He is many", neither in the language, nor in customary usage, and nor in the intellect".

So the equation of the Philosophers is:

And the response of the Ash'arites is to make a quick stroke of the pen and put a line through the equals sign, prohibiting the mulaazamah (binding necessity), so it now becomes:

And you've just rebutted the allegation of Tajseem, tarkeeb and tajazzee of those nasty, evil, vile Philosophers who fraudulently enter correct and true meanings (Allaah has Attributes) into terms (tarkeeb, tajazzee, iftiqaar, ajzaa'), using them in a manner not known in the language, customary usage, or the intellect.

As-Sanusi also writes on page 120 (quoting Ibn at-Tilmisani):

The translation of which is:

...and when the Philosophers realized that, then it was not possible for them except to deny the attributes, and so they deceived the Muslims in applying them (to Allaah) whilst negating their realities (haqaa'iq), and they explained them (the attributes) with affairs that are different to their true essence (maahiyah, quiddity) - such as their explanation of Him being knowing (aalim) as meaning "He is not a jism (body) or established within a body (meaning He is not a body or an incidental attribute of a body), and they are supported in this tanzeeh but they are also requested to affirm He is knowing (aalim) on account of what is evidenced by the actions of precision and perfection.

Here through this quote of Ibn at-Tilmisani, as-Sanusi explains that when the Philosophers realized that their proof (of tarkeeb) necessitated distinguishable quiddities (true essences) within the Self of Allaah, which necessitates composition (tarkeeb) they were forced to deny the Attributes (and the Names signifying them), and then they explained away the Names, so their explanation of "al-Aleem" (Knowing, with the attribute of knowledge) would be "He is not a jism (body)", and their explanation of "al-Baseer" (Seeing, with the attribute of sight) would be "He is not a jism (body)" and so on. And as-Sanusi says to them that this tanzeeh (negating jism for Allaah) then they are aided in that but requested to affirm these Names (and the corresponding attributes) on account of the intellectual proof of what is found in the creation of precision and perfection - indicating his being "al-Aleem", with "ilm" (knowledge).

The equation of the Philosophers here is:

And the response of the Ash'arites is to make a quick stroke of the pen and put a line through the equals sign, prohibiting the mulaazamah (binding necessity), so it now becomes:

And you've just rebutted the allegation of Tajseem of those nasty, evil, vile Philosophers who fraudulently enter correct and true meanings (Allaah has Attributes) into terms (jism, tajseem), using them in a manner not known in the language, customary usage, or the intellect.

And in the last quote as-Sanusi also requested the Philosophers - that in addition to their tanzeeh, when they say "Allaah is no a (jism) body", that they should also affirm the Names and Attributes, on account of the rational proof indicating that. And here, it should be noted what has been pointed out that it is only because the intellect - to the Mutakallimoon - does not allow the affirmation of Allaah being above the Throne, that they cannot accept it, whereas the intellect does allow the affirmation of Names and (to the Kullaaabiyyah, Ash'arites and Maturidiyyah) some of the Attributes, that they affirm them.

In opposition to them, Ahl us-Sunnah say that Allaah's Names, Attributes and Actions, and that He is above His Throne should all be accepted because the textual Sharee'ah proof affirms them, and there is no distinction between them from that aspect.

Summary of the Ash'arite Responses to the Philosophers

In summary, the response of the Ash'arites to the allegations of the Philosophers is:

• To prohibit the binding necessity (mulaazamah) that the Philosophers make between affirming attributes and tarkeeb, tajazzee, iftiqaar, jismiyyah

• To distinguish between correct, true meanings from false, devised meanings in terms such as al-iftiqaar (need) and at-tarkeeb (composition) and al-ghayr (other) and so on, and to highlight the fraud of the Philosophers in terminology

• To deem it possible to affirm multiple attributes with distinct quiddities (true essences) within the Self of Allaah without that necessitating Jismiyyah (being a body) and separability into parts (tajazzee) and composition (tarkeeb)

And it is important to understand that the quotes from as-Sanusi's "Sharh al-Kubraa" when discussing the allegation of the Philosophers of tarkeeb (composition), as-Sanusi is reprimanding Fakhr ud-Din ar-Razi for being affected by this same proof of the Philosophers, and he said (page 120):

And what has led him (i.e. ar-Razi) to most of these corrupt views is fleeing entirely from "at-tarkeeb" (composition) which the Philosophers have presumed to be binding from the affirmation of the attributes, and for that reason, they negated them - whilst (we should note) that something does not increase (numerically) on account of the numerousness of its attributes and nor does it increase (numerically) on account of the numerousness of its considered qualities (such as hearing, seeing, speaking)...

And he also says (bottom of page 121):

Know that this doubt is the very one that misled the Philosophers to reject all the attributes, and it misled the Imaam, al-Fakhr (ud-Din ar-Razi) until he said what he said, and Allaah guides whomever He wills to the right path.

And as-Sanusi here is in agreement with Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim who preceded him in rebutting this particular argument of ar-Razi which is nothing but that same argument of "tarkeeb" (composition) of the Philosophers.

Ibn al-Qayyim on the Philosophers' and Their Terminologies

Ibn al-Qayyim said, in as-Sawaa'iq (p. 365-367)

The translation of which is:

And in this doubt there is such deceipt and fraud, and [the use of] generalized words and ambiguous meanings whose description will become very lengthy. And the soldiers of Islaam, upon the variety of their madhhabs, dedicated (themselves) to destroy it.

For "al-murakkab (composite)" is a general word by which

• That thing which is composed (put together) by something else is intended,
• And (also) what was separated and the all its parts came together,
• And also that of which a part is possible to be separated from another part.

And Allaah, the Sublime, is purified from these compositions. But what is intended in the terminological usage of those (Philosophers) is whatever has a specific quiddity ...

Quiddity here means: The essential quality or "somethingness" of a thing that establishes its existence.

...But what is intended in the terminological usage of those (Philosophers) [by tarkeeb] is

• Whatever has a specific quiddity through which it is distinguished from all other quiddities,
• And also whatever has an essence and attributes whence some of its attributes are distinguished from others

And this is affirmed for Him, the Sublime, even if they (the Philosophers) call it "tarkeeb", as has preceded.

And likewise the word "al-iftiqaar", it is a general word by which the need (faqr) of the quiddity for an originator besides itself to bring about its existence is intended, and Allaah, the Sublime, is purified of this need (iftiqaar).

And what is also intended by it is a quiddity is in need of its own essence (dhaat) in its essence (dhaat), and there is no foundation (of existence) for its essence except by its own essence, and that an attribute is not established by itself, that it is only established with the one described by it - and this meaning is true, even if those deceivers call it "faqr" (need, want).

And likewise the word "al-ghayr" (other), there is a generality (of meaning) in it. It can be intende by "ghayrayn" (two things other to each other) the separation of one from the other in terms of essence (dhaat), or place (makaan) or time (zamaan). And the Attributes of [Allaah] al-Qadeem, the Sublime, are not "ghayr" [with respect to each other] through this consideration (of the meaning). And it is [also] intended by "ghayrayn" (two things other to each other), the permissibility of having knowledge of one of them besides the other, and this meaning is true regarding His Essence and His Attributes, the Sublime, even if they call them "aghyaar" (multiple "others"). For the creation knows of the Creator an attribute after an attribute, and the most knowledgeable of the creation about Him said:

I am not able to enumerate praise upon you as you have praised yourself. [Muslim, Abu Dawud]

And this is due to the abundance of His Names and attributes of His perfection and qualities of His Majesty. And he said:

I seek refuge in your pleasure from your anger,and I seek refuge in your pardon from your punishment. [Muslim, Abu Dawud]

And that in whom refuge is sought, is other than that from which refuge is sought.

And the intent is that calling this "tarkeeb (composition)" and "iftiqaar (need, want)" and "ghayr (otherness)" is a convention (in meaning) concocted by them, and the importance is not in the words, the importance is in the meanings, and their saying, "He is in need of subordinate parts" is deception, for al-Qadeem (the eternal) described with attributes that are necessary for Him, then it is impossible that His attributes separate from Him, and He has no reality [of existence] except an Essence described with attributes, such that it can be said, "That reality is in need of other than it (for its existence), even if you call that attribute "ghayr" (an "other"), for the Essence and the Attributes are inseparable, one of them is not found except with the other.

So this is the reply of Ibn al-Qayyim (d. 751H) to the allegations of the Philosophers.

Ibn Taymiyyah on ar-Razi's Use of the Doubts of the Philosophers

And for the record it is befitting that we bring the quotation from Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728H) on account of which 21st century Kalam Atomists have accused Him of claiming Allaah to be composite:

Ibn Taymiyyah said in "Bayaan Talbees al-Jahmiyyah" (3/440):

Which translates as:

So it is said to him (ar-Razi): Your saying, "If He was divisibe (munqasim), He would be composed, assembled (murakkab) - and its invalidation has already preceded", and the reply against that which he (ar-Raazee) has labeled as "murakkab (composed, assembled)" has already preceded and it was made clear that there is no proof at all for the impossibility of that.

Rather, it was made clear that declaring that impossible necessitates the abolition of every existing thing, and had he not referred to what has preceded we would not have referred to it. And what is contained of generality in the word "at-tarkeeb (composition)", and "al-hayyiz (space)" and "al-ghayr" (other)" and "al-iftiqaar" (need) has already preceded, and that the [particular] meaning that they (the likes of ar-Raazee) intend, it is necessary that every existing thing be described with it, regardless of whether it's [existence] is necessary (i.e. Allaah) or possible (i.e. the creation), and that saying that this is impossible necessitates pure sophistry.

And it was made clear that it is binding upon every one to speak with the likes of this meaning which (he ar-Raazee) has labelled as "tarkeeb" (composition), until even the Philosophers, and that this disputant (ar-Raazee) [himself] speaks with the same as this in the multiplicity of attributes [that he, ar-Razi, affirms for Allaah], and that he (ar-Raazee) has made binding upon the Philosophers the likes of that.

And so this is as plain and as clear as daylight. It is nothing but pure hypocrisy to accept as-Sanusi's refutation of ar-Razi's use of the proof of tarkeeb, and not accept Ibn Taymiyyah's and Ibn al-Qayyim's refutation of ar-Razi's use of the proof of tarkeeb.

However, we are discussing the proof of tarkeeb of the Philosophers unscrupulously used by ar-Razi, and which Ibn Taymiyyah is addressing and refuting in the quotation above, and as-Sanusi who came after Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim also refutes ar-Razi in exactly the same way. And all of this exposes the deception and treachery of the 21st Century Kalam Atomist Jahmee Baleeds.

As for the distinction between Allaah's Essence described with attributes and between Allaah being above the Throne, then the Jahmite As'haris speak with that distinction because what can and cannot be said of Allaah returns back to their intellects and not to what Allaah revealed in the Book and the Sunnah, and thus they differentiate between it to allow themselves to give an answer in reply to the Philosophers, but not accept the same answer from Ahl us-Sunnah who affirm Allaah is above the Throne.

As for Ahl us-Sunnah, since their foundational principle for speaking about Allaah is to limit themselves to whatever Allaah affirmed for Himself or negated from Himself or what He affirmed or negated for Himself through His Messenger, then they do not distinguish between Allaah's Essence being described with Attributes - that this does not necessitate composition - and between Allaah being above the Throne - that this too, does not necessitate composition. They do not distinguish between them.

And this highlights that the Tawheed of the people of the Sunnah is whatever Allaah and His Messenger said in accordance with the unanimous agreement of the Salaf, and from it is that Allaah is above the Throne, with His Essence, separate and distinct from the creation - and that the Tawheed of the Jahmites and Philosophers is "al-jawhar wal-'arad" (substance and incidental attribute) or "al-maadah was-soorah" (matter and form), that Allaah is not composite, nor a jism, nor an 'arad, nor in place, nor in direction, nor occupying space, nor this and nor that and nor this and nor that ...