Introduction to the Jahmite Caper

Lets take a look at this new Jahmite caper. An example given by them to show tampering has taken place is the variation in the manuscripts and published versions regarding the affirmation of two eyes for Allah.

First they cite what is found in a print version verified by Salih al-'Asimi, published in 1429, here is the scans they provided:

And also:

In both of these texts we see that al-Ash'ari's statement affirming that Allah has two eyes. Then the Jahmites quoted from Ibn Asakir in Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari in which Ibn Asakir (d. 571) quotes from whatever manuscript was in possession of:

And also:

Here we see the eye used in the singular not in the dual. These pretenders to knowledge of their Asharite creed and their Asharite books then commented:

Now we do not, of course, say that Allah is one-eyed. We do, however, affirm the texts mentioned in the Qur'an. The word 'Ayn is only in the singular and plural form in the Qur'an but never in dual form. We deny that the word refers to a body part in relation to Allah and we consign the precise meaning of the word to Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala without researching into it further. This consignment is certainly the way of the Salaf which Imam al-Ash'ari's book represents.

Furthermore, in order to infer 'two eyes' from the plural form 'eyes' which has been mentioned in the divine texts one is likely to have drawn a comparison between Allah and His creation based on the senses. Imams Ibn Hazm [fn 8] , Ibn Aqil al-Hanbali and al-Imam Ibn al-Jawzi [fn 9] have harshly criticized those who affirm two eyes because there is no evidence for it, neither in the Qur'an nor the Sunna.

So, above is just one example from several of distortion in the text of Kitab al-Ibanah. In the quote of Imam al-Ash'ari from Imam Ibn Asakir it says 'Ayn [which is singular and in keeping with the divine texts], and in the printed edition we have scanned above is found 'Aynayn [in dual form].

Commentary and Notes on the Jahmite Caper

There are a number of points that can be made:

ONE: Firstly, we should put these clowns out of their misery without delay. Sayf al-Din al-Aamidee (d. 631H) wrote in his book Ghayat al-Maraam (p. 135)

And from the associates (of the madhhab) are those who added to this, and affirmed knowledge of the existence of attributes additional to what we have mentioned, and this is the likes of al-baqā' (lasting, remaining), wajh (face), ʿaynān (two eyes), yadān (two hands)

And then we have al-Juwayni (d. 478H) stating in al-Irshad (p. 155):

Chapter: Two hands, two eyes and face. Some of our leading scholars (a'immah) have gone to the view that the two hands, two eyes and face are established attributes for the Lord, the Exalted, and that the path to affirming them is the revealed texts, without entering the realm of reason (ʿaql).

These are two texts from two very prominent Ashari Scholars who affirm that there are those from their school who affirm two eyes for Allah, and they are referring to Ibn Kullab, al-Ash'ari, al-Baqillani amongst others. Al-Baqillani affirmed two eyes as occurs in his book al-Tamhid, you can read that here where he said:

And if someone says: Distinguish for us between the attributes of His Essence (dhaat) from the attributes of His Actions, so that I may know that. It is said to him: The attributes of His Essence are those that He has never ceased to be described with, and they are Life, Knowledge, Power, Hearing, Seeing, Speech, Wish (Iraadah), Permanence (al-Baqaa), Face, Two Eyes, Two Hands, and Anger, Pleasure...

Then in al-Maqaalaat (tahqiq Muhammad Muhyi al-Din, Egypt, 1950), al-Ashari affirms two eyes for Allah, whilst quoting the view of Ahl al-Sunnah, which he says that he follows and adheres to:

So he mentioned here face, two hands and two eyes.

TWO: It should be noted that the variation between stating eye or eyes in the dual is itself found in the books of Ahl al-Sunnah, and it is understood that when the singular is used it refers to the genus of eye, with it being understood that two eyes are affirmed for Allah, as is the view of Ahl al-Sunnah, Ibn Kullab, al-Ashari and others, as is confirmed by their own scholars. The same is the case with hand, the variation is found in all the writings of Ahl al-Sunnah sometimes they say hand, meaning the genus, and sometimes they say hands in the dual. This variation does no harm whatsoever, and the fact that there is such variation in the manuscripts is not a valid reason to dismiss the entire book as a fraud. These are the vain cravings of these contemporary Jahmiyyah. This is because whoever made their manuscript copy of the book may have chosen to use the dual, which is what is actually intended by the single in any case. If you find fault with this, and claim this makes the entire content unreliable, then you have to find fault with the likes of Ibn Fawrak and others who, when citing from al-Asharis Maqalaat, took liberties in adding and changing al-Asharis words.

THREE: Their saying:

Now we do not, of course, say that Allah is one-eyed. We do, however, affirm the texts mentioned in the Qur'an. The word 'Ayn is only in the singular and plural form in the Qur'an but never in dual form. We deny that the word refers to a body part in relation to Allah and we consign the precise meaning of the word to Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala without researching into it further. This consignment is certainly the way of the Salaf which Imam al-Ash'ari's book represents.

This is a lie upon the Salaf for their way was not tafwid, but this is a digression to a different topic. Their fraud is exposed in that al-Aamidee and al-Juwaynee show that the early associates affirmed these attributes as attributes of the essence, in opposition to their view which is ta'wil of these attributes and reading the full chapter in al-Irshad (p. 155 onwards) makes this clear. Whoever reads al-Ibanah will see the extent to which al-Ashari refutes the tawils of the Jahmiyyah and Mutazilah, and his refutation of them is to affirm what Allaah affirmed for himself, not to deny that it has any meaning or is known only to Allah.

FOUR: Then they wrote:

Furthermore, in order to infer 'two eyes' from the plural form 'eyes' which has been mentioned in the divine texts one is likely to have drawn a comparison between Allah and His creation based on the senses. Imams Ibn Hazm [fn 8] , Ibn Aqil al-Hanbali and al-Imam Ibn al-Jawzi [fn 9] have harshly criticized those who affirm two eyes because there is no evidence for it, neither in the Qur'an nor the Sunna.

Notice how they have used three particular scholars, and all of them were upon the usul of the Jahmiyyah and Mutazilah in Sifat. Ibn Hazm is well known for his tajahhum. Ibn Aqil was upon the way of the Mutazilah in sifat. And Ibn al-Jawzi was mudtarib, sometimes affirming, sometimes denying. They used these three who all had a Jahmi, Mu'tazili, perspective on the sifaat and they opposed the early Kullabi Asharis, let alone Ahl al-Sunnah. This is a combination of hypocrisy (from the angle that Ibn Hazm and Ibn al-Jawzi both scorned and vilified the Asharites, and they were upon Tajahhuum and I'tizal) and ignorance. Why did they not quote from any of the Imaams of the Salaf in the first 300 years after hijrah, whose writings are replete with affirmation the sifat khabariyyah, and contain refutation of the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah? Why of all the people did they resort to Ibn Hazm (read his writings on the Ash'arites, he despised them), Ibn Aqil and Ibn al-Jawzi? It's because of hawaa.

FIVE: Then they said:

So, above is just one example from several of distortion in the text of Kitab al-Ibanah. In the quote of Imam al-Ash'ari from Imam Ibn Asakir it says 'Ayn [which is singular and in keeping with the divine texts], and in the printed edition we have scanned above is found 'Aynayn [in dual form].

You don't know whether to laugh or to feel sorry for these deluded ignorants. Here you are coming out to write apologetic defences for your Jahmite creed, thinking you are upon al-Ash'aris creed, with compound ignorance, and you don't even know that your own Scholars affirm that the early Kullabis and Asharis were upon the affirmation of two eyes for Allah, without ta'wil or tafwid.

SIX In a footnote in the same article, these poor deluded ignorant Jahmites said, quoting Ibn Hazm:

"Saying: 'He has two eyes,' is null and void and part of the belief of anthropomorphistsı Allah Almighty and Exalted said 'eye' ('ayn) and 'eyes' (a'yunin) - so it is not permissible for anyone to describe Him as possessing 'two eyes' because no text has reached us to that effect."

[Ibn Hazm, al-Fisal fi al-Milal (2:166). (Tr. Dr. GF Haddad)]

This exposes the nifaq (hypocrisy) of these Jahmites in the 21st century, because it is known that Ibn Hazm had tajahhum and i'tizal in his aqidah on the sifat. So why have they resorted to quoting him and not al-Baqillani, or al-Juwayni or al-Amidee affirming that from the forerunners of the Ashari madhhab were those who affirmed two eyes in opposition to the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah? Because these people are not "Asharites" they are Jahmiyyah deceptively taking on the label of "Ashariyyah" and maligning the good name of Abu al-Hasan al-Ashari. They are disputants to Ibn Kullab, al-Ashari, and al-Baqillani, not their followers. They are the followers of the later ones who polluted the Kullabi original with tajahuum, i'tizal, tasawwuf, Falsafah, and illuminist gnosticism taken from the Batiniyyah. This is why they run to Ibn Hazm, Ibn Aqil, Ibn al-Jawzi who are not even from their doctrinal school to begin with!!

SEVEN: Their nifaq (hypoccrisy) also from the angle that they argue al-Ashari only had two doctrinal stages and after abandoning the Mu'tazilah he was upon the pure Sunnah as manifested in the Kullaabi doctrinal school. If we accept this, when it comes to the actual details of what these Kullaabi doctrines were, and from them is the affirmation of face, two hands and two eyes as attributes of the essence, then instead of allying with Ibn Kullab and al-Ash'ari, they ally with the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah, and they can be excused for this because the later Asharis reverted to the doctrines of the Jahmiyyah and Mutazilah in this regard, whilst the contemporary ignorants think they are following Ibn Kullab and al-Ashari. But the issue is how they manifest hypocrisy in their use of Ibn Kullab's name.

EIGHT: It should be pointed out that today's Ash'arites are intellectually confused and they don't really understand what their creed is nor what is in their own books, and this itself requires a separate series of articles. May Allah guide them. It's not their fault either. When you had al-Baghdadi (d. 429H) reverting to the approach of the Mu'tazilah in explaining away the attributes that Ibn Kullab and al-Ashari affirmed, and al-Qushayri (d. 465H) bringing in the innovated tasawwuf, and Juwayni (d. 478H) bring I'tizal into the Ashari school, then al-Ghazali (d. 505H) getting diseased by the books of Ibn Sina bringing in philosophy and illuminist gnosticism, and then al-Razi (d. 606H) doing the rounds in furthering what al-Ghazali entered, then you have al-Eejee and al-Taftazani more or less completing the hybridization of Kalaam with Falsafah, what else would you expect from 21st century Jahmites deluded into thinking they are following Ibn Kullaab and al-Ashari?

These people need mental and psychological help, and they should seriously check into to our clinic and support group, because this type of mental confusion can be harmful in later life.