The Speech and Word of Allah (Kalām): In Light of Traditional Discussions

The Speech and Word of Allah (Kalām): In Light of Traditional Discussions

Abdullah bin Hamid Ali

---

The words ‘Kalām’ and ‘Qur’ān’ are very closely related terms. In their original legal applications they are distinct in meaning. But in another way they are synonymous.

In other words, the word ‘Kalām’ is usually applied to the beginningless attribute of Allah present with His being referred to as His ‘Speech.’ But sometimes when it is used, it means the ‘Qur’ān,’ which is the revelation sent to Muhammad who proclaimed it to humanity.

On other hand, the word ‘Qur’ān’ is usually applied to refer to the Holy Book revealed by Allah to Muhammad. But it is sometimes used to refer to the beginningless attribute of the Creator known as His ‘Speech.’

This is all supported by the comments of Shaykh Ibrāhīm ibn Muhammad Al-Bayjūrī. He says:

“And know that the phrase ‘Kalām Allah’ (Allah’s Word or Speech) is applied to the beginningless unuttered speech (kalām nafsī qadīm), which happens to be a quality (sifah) present with His being (dhat) – High is He; just as it is a phrase applied to the uttered speech (kalām lafzī), which happens to be a reference to His creation (i.e. the physical book) while no one has played a part in the origin of its composition. And according to this (second) application, the statement of Our Lady ‘Āisha is understood when she said:

“All between the two covers of the book (mushaf) is Allah’s word (kalām Allah) – High is He.”

And it (i.e. the expression) is applied to both meanings (i.e. the Book and to the eternal quality of Allah). It has also been stated that the phrase is a homonym (ishtirāk); just as it has been said that it literally applies to the unuttered (uncreated) speech, while it is metaphorically applied to the uttered (created) speech.

(At any rate) All who deny that all that is between the two covers of the book (mushaf) is the word of Allah (kalām Allah) are guilty of unbelief unless one means that it is not the quality present with His divine essence – High is He. And in spite of the fact that the words (lafz) we recite happen to be emergent, it is still only permitted to say “The Qur’ān is emergent (or created)” in a classroom setting, because it sometimes applies to the quality present with His divine essence even though only metaphorically according to the strongest view. And it might be imagined from stating in a general fashion that “The Qur’ān is emergent (or created)” that (one is saying that) the quality present with His divine essence – High is He – is emergent (or created).”[1]

Due to the similarities between these two terms, scholars found difficulty in saying things like, ‘The Qur’ān is created” as well as “The Qur’ān is not created.”

The reason was that the one who heard such a statement might confuse the two entities to which this word was applied – i.e. Allah’s attribute and His revealed scripture, and he might assume that it was being applied to the former. If so, this would mean that an attribute of the Creator is created.

And if one of His attributes can be created, then what prevents us from believing that more of His attributes are created to the point that we even conclude that the Creator Himself has a Creator. And if He has a Creator, how are we to be sure that the one we call our Creator is actually who we believe He is?

Contrarily, the one who hears someone say ‘The Qur’ān is not created,” might be led to believe that the actual book with all of its pages, the ink, etc. are things that have no creator or manufacturer. But we all know such an assumption to be contrary to reality, especially were one to strike a match to the pages of the book.

For these reasons, much controversy has occurred in the past over this issue, especially among the Arabs. As for non-Arabs - viz. speakers of English, this should not be a point of dispute, since ‘Qur’ān’ has only one connotation for us in the English language.

Ibn Hazm reports about the different schools of Islam in his Al-Milal Wa al-Nihal. He says:

The People of Islam have unanimously agreed that Allah – High is He – spoke to Musa, and that the Qur’ān is Allah’s word/speech (kalām). Similar is what is applied to the other revealed books and scriptures…

Beyond that they differed. The Mu’tazila said that ‘Allah’s kalām (word/speech) is the attribute of an action that is created, and that He spoke to Musa with speech that He produced in the tree.’

Ahmad and those who followed him said ‘Allah’s kalām is his knowledge. It is beginningless (lam yazal) and it is not created.’

The Ash’aris said ‘Allah’s kalām is an attribute of essence. It is beginningless and it is not created. It is not Allah’s knowledge. And Allah has only one kalām (speech)…

As for the Kullābiyya, he states:

The Kullābiyya said ‘The kalām (word/speech) is one single attribute, beginningless in essence (qadīma al-‘ayn), inseparable from Allah’s being (dhāt), like life, and (they said) that He doesn’t speak by His will and power. And His speaking to the one He spoke to was merely Him creating for him comprehension (idrāk) by which he heard the speech. And His summoning (nidā) of Musa was prior to creation (lam yazal). However, He made him hear that summons when He spoke to him in secret.’

And the like of it (i.e. this statement) has been narrated about Abū Mansūr Al-Māturīdi of the Hanafis. But he said: ‘He created a sound when he summoned him. Then He made him hear His speech…

Then he said:

And Al-Qābisī, Al-Ash’arī, and his followers adopted the view of Ibn Kullāb. They said ‘If the kalām is without beginning (qadīm) by its essence, inseparable from the being of the Lord, and it is established that it isn’t created, then the letters are not beginningless, since they follow one another in sequence (muta’āqiba). And whatever is preceded by something else is not without beginning, while the beginningless speech (al-kalām al-qadīm) is a characteristic (ma’nā) present with the divine essence (qa’im bi al-dhat) that is not multiple in number and is indivisible. Rather, it is a singular characteristic (ma’nā wāhid). If it is expressed in Arabic, it is Qur’ān, or (if expressed) in Hebrew, it is Taurāh for example…

Then Ibn Hazm says about the Hanbalis:

And some of the Hanbalis held the view that the Arabic Qur’ān is Allah’s kalām (speech), and the same goes for the Taurāh, and (they said) that Allah has incessantly without beginning been one who speaks (mutakkalim) whenever He pleases, and (they say) that He spoke with the letters of the Qur’ān, and He made those that He pleased from the angels and the Prophets to hear His voice.’

[T] What this actually means is that they believe that Allah’s speech is two, not one attribute. It is as some of them stated today, “an attribute of the divine essence as well as an attribute of action.”[2] This is because they believe that to state that His actions are created would be tantamount to saying that He is created[3]. But an act is time-specific, which necessarily means that it cannot be without beginning. These same people also believe that by saying that His speech is one and beginningless would mean that He doesn’t have the will and power to speak when He pleases. The Ash’aris, on the other hand, hold that His power and will are two separate attributes by which Allah does whatever He pleases when He pleases. As for His speech, it pertains to all things spoken regardless of if they are possible, impossible, or necessary. And by Allah’s power He can allow anyone He pleases to comprehend His eternal beginningless and endless speech whenever He pleases by His will.

Ibn Hazm continues:

And they (i.e. these Hanbalis) said ‘These letters and sounds are without beginning in essence, inseparable from the divine essence. But they do not follow one another in sequence (muta’āqiba). Rather, they have always been present with His being without following one another in a sequence (muqtarina) without one preceding another. For following in succession to one another (ta’āqub) happens with respect to the created, not the Creator. And most of them held the view that the sounds and letters are those heard from those who recite.

But many of them refuse to accept this, and said ‘They are not those heard from those who recite.’

And some of them held the view that He (Allah) utters the Arabic Qur’ān by His will and power with the letters and sounds that are present with His being, but that it is not created. However, He – prior to creation – didn’t speak due to the impossibility of the existence of a finite matter (hādith) before the existence of time and space (azal). So His kalām [to them] is emergent (hādith) with His being, not uttered anew (muhdath)…

All of this can be found in Ibn Hazm’s ‘Al-Milal wa al-Nihal’ and Ibn Hajar quotes from it in Fath Al-Bārī [Volume 15/p 421 Dar al-Fikr 1415/1995 edition].

Ibn Hajar Al-‘Asqalāni then quotes a scholar by the name of Ibn Al-Tīn [v. 15/p.450] as saying,

The speculative theologians (mutakallimūn) differed about hearing Allah’s speech. Ash’arī said: “Allah’s speech is present with His being. It is heard during the recitation of every reciter and the reading of every reader.”

Al-Baqillānī said: “Merely the recitation is heard, not the thing recited. And the reading (is heard), not the thing that is read.”

In other words, when a person recites, he is not actually listening to a sound or voice coming from Allah. Rather, the sound is coming from the person doing the reading or recitation, while the words and meanings expressed in that are Allah’s verbatim. This is like if someone was to write a letter to be announced to an audience written by a third person. The one reading may say, ‘So and So said such and such.’

But no one can claim that the voice or sound of the author of the document has become incarnate in the reader, so that it can be said the author is the actual speaker/reader. Consequently, the recitation is created and the sound and voice are created. But the meanings transmitted through the Arabic language are not created, in spite of the fact that the paper, ink, cover, and Arabic language are all created with all obviousness to all rational human beings.

Then Ibn Hajar said the following on p. 465 about the issue of the ‘lafz’ (the wording),

This issue is well-known as the issue of the ‘lafz’ (wording/utterance). The delvers into it are referred to as the ‘Lafziyya.’ Imam Ahmad’s objection as well those who followed him was severe against those who said ‘My wording/utterance of the Qur’ān is created.’

Here we must understand that ‘lafz’ can be taken to mean both ‘wording’ and ‘utterance’. For this reason Imam Al-Dhahabī stated about the person who makes the statement ‘My lafz of the Qur’ān is created’:

If he meant by saying, “Allah’s speech is uncreated. And my lafz of it is created” (if he means) “My utterance” (talaffuz), this is good. For surely our actions are created. But if he means the thing that is uttered (malfūz) is created, this is the one that Ahmad objected to… And they (the scholars) considered it to be a sign of being a Jahmī. [Al-Mīzān: 1/544]

Ibn Hajar continues,

It is said that the first to make this utterance was Al-Husayn ibn ‘Alī Al-Kurābisī, one of the disciples of Shāfi’ī, one of the transmitters of his book that comprised his former school (qadīm). So once that reached Ahmad, he declared him to be an innovator and he boycotted him. Then Dāwūd ibn ‘Alī Al-Asbahānī, the chief of the Literalists (Zāhiriyya), became known for that next. And he was at that time in Nisapur. So Ishāq (Ibn Rahuwiyah) objected to him. And that reached Ahmad. So when he (Dāwūd) reached Baghdad, he (Ahmad) didn’t allow for him to come into his presence.

And Ibn Abū Hātim collected the names of those who were referred to as ‘The Lafziyya’ who were labeled as Jahmiyya. And they reached a large number of the Imams. He also dedicated a chapter to that in his book entitled ‘Al-Radd ‘alā al-Jahmiyya.’

And what results from the comments of the expert legal critics (muhaqqiqūn) is that they (Ahmad and others) wanted to bring closure to the matter as a protection for the Qur’ān from being described as being created, and that once the truth of the matter was brought to light, no one would express that the movement of his tongue when he recited was without beginning (qadīma).

Al-Baihaqī says in Kitāb al-Asmā wa al-Sifāt:

“The view of the Salaf and the Khalaf from Ahl al-Hadith wa al-Sunnah is that the Qur’ān is the speech of Allah. And it is one of the attributes of His being (dhāt). As for the recitation (tilāwa), they follow two different approaches: Some of them make a difference between the recitation (tilāwa) and the thing recited (matluw). And others preferred to give up speaking about it. As for what has been conveyed about Ahmad ibn Hanbal that he made no distinction between them (the recitation and the thing recited), he merely desired to bring closure to the matter so that none would find a means to say that the Qur’ān is created.”

Then he (Al-Baihaqī) produced two chains going back to Ahmad that (in one) he objected to those who said: “My lafz of the Qur’ān is uncreated.” And (in the other) he objected to those who said: “My lafz of the Qur’ān is created.”

And he (Ahmad) said: “The Qur’ān – however it is dealt with (and referred to) – is uncreated.” So he adopted the apparent meaning of this (statement).

“The second [statement ‘My lafz of the Qur’ān is created’] has those who misunderstood the intent while it is clear in the first [declaration that ‘My lafz of the Qur’ān is uncreated’]. Likewise, it has been conveyed from Muhammad ibn Aslam Al-Tūsī that he said:

“The sound coming from the one who produces sound (when reciting the Qur’ān) is Allah’s speech.”

Such is a repugnant expression. He didn’t intend its apparent meaning. He merely intended to negate the thing recited (matluw) as being a created thing [since its meanings are eternal without beginning].

And something similar happened to the Imam of the Imams, Muhammad ibn Khuzayma who then later retracted. And he has a well-known account in that regard with his pupils. The jurist, Abū Bakr Al-Dab’ī, one of the Imams among his pupils, dictated to Ibn Khuzayma his creed. And in it he stated:

“Allah has from before creation been one who speaks (mutakallim). And there is no equal (mithl) to His speech, because He negated the equal from His attributes just as He negated the equal from His being. And He negated depletion from His speech just as He negated ruin from His self. He said: ((…The sea would be depleted before the words of my Lord would be depleted)). And He said: ((Every thing is perishing save His face)).”

So Ibn Khuzaima considered that to be correct and he was pleased with it.”

Then Ibn Hajar speaks about Imam Bukhārī. He says,

“And others say: Some of them thought that Bukhārī had opposed Ahmad. But that isn’t so. Rather, those who deeply reflect on his comments will not find any difference in meaning (between what the two of them said). However, the scholar – part of his norm – when he is tried in refuting a heresy is that most of his comments will relate more to its refutation than its opposite. So when Ahmad was tried by those who said ‘The Qur’ān is created’, most of his comments related to the refutation of them until he went overboard, and then objected to those who maintained neutrality and didn’t say that it is created or uncreated as well as those who said ‘My lafz of the Qur’ān is created.’ (He did this) so that those who say ‘The Qur’ān with my lafz is created’ would not find a means to (saying) that in spite of the fact that the difference between the two of them wasn’t hidden from him, although it might he hidden from others.

As for Bukhārī, he was tried by those who said ‘The voices of the slaves (of Allah) are uncreated’ until some of them went overboard and said,

“The same goes for the ink and the paper after being written (i.e. they are also uncreated).”

So most of his comments related to the refutation of them. But he went too far in advancing proof that the actions of the slaves (of Allah) are created based on the verses and hadiths. And he spoke at length about that until he was accused of being one of the ‘Lafziyya’ in spite of the fact that the statement of those who say ‘Verily what one hears from the reciter is the beginningless voice (of Allah)’ isn’t known from the Salaf. Ahmad didn’t say it. And neither did the Imams among his disciples (make any mention of it).

And the only reason that that was ascribed to Ahmad was because of his saying

“Whoever says ‘My lafz of the Qur’ān is created’ is a Jahmi.’”

So they thought that he equated between the lafz (wording) and the sawt (sound). But there isn’t anything conveyed about Ahmad concerning the ‘sawt’ (sound/voice) as has been conveyed about him concerning the ‘lafz’ (wording, utterance). Rather, he expressly declared in a number of places that the sound heard from the reciter is the sound/voice of the reciter. The hadith “Decorate the Qur’ān with your voices” supports it…

The difference is that the ‘lafz’ is attached to the one who utters it initially. For instance, it is said about the one who relates a hadith with its wording (lafz),

“This is its wording”
(hādhā lafzuhu).

And (it is said) of one who has related it without its wording (lafz),

“This is its meaning. It wording is such and such”
(hādhā ma’nāhu wa lafzuhu kadhā).

But it isn’t said of any of that,

“This is its sound”
(hādhā sawtuhu).

So the Qur’ān is Allah’s speech, (both) its wording, and its meaning (lafzuhu wa ma’nāhu). It is not the speech of another.

As for His saying: ((Verily it is the statement of a noble messenger)) – while there is disagreement about whether the intent is Gabriel or the Messenger – may Allah be pleased with both of them, the intent (from the word ‘statement’ in the verse) is ‘the conveyance’ (tablīgh), since Gabriel is conveying from Allah – High is He – to His messenger (pbuh). And the messenger (pbuh) conveys to mankind.

And it hasn’t been conveyed about Ahmad ever that the action of the slave is beginningless and not about his voice. He merely objected to the general application of the word ‘lafz’ (to the Qur’ān).

And Bukhārī expressly stated that the voices of the slaves are created, and that Ahmad does not oppose that. He said in Kitāb Khalq af’āl Al-‘Ibād’:

“What they claim about Ahmad, most of it isn’t clear. However, they didn’t understand his intent or his opinion. And what is known from Ahmad and the people of knowledge is that Allah’s speech – High is He – is uncreated while all other than it is created. But they disliked spreading news about obscure matters. And they avoided indulging in them and disputing with one another unless it is something that the Messenger (pbuh) clarified…”

Then Ibn Hajar said,

“And a summary of what has been conveyed about the speculative theologians (ahl al-kalām) in this issue are five different views:

The first: is the view of the Mu’tazila that it is created.

The second: is the view of the Kullābiyya that it is beginningless present with the being of the Lord. It is not letters and sounds, while what is found in the midst of people is an expression of it, not it itself.

The third: is the view of the Sālimiyya that it is letters and sounds that are beginningless in essence. And it is actually these written letters and sounds heard.

The fourth: is the view of the Karrāmiyya that it is newly uttered (muhdath), not created (makhlūq)…

And the fifth: is that it (the Qur’ān) is the speech of Allah, uncreated, and that He has been – since before creation - speaking whenever He pleases.

Ahmad expressed that in Kitāb al-Radd ‘ala Al-Jahmiyya. But his disciples have split into two factions:

One of them says: that it is inseparable from His being while the letters and sounds are on an even plain (muqtarina), not following one another in a sequence (muta’āqiba). And he allows whomever He pleases to hear His speech.

However, most of them said: ‘Verily He is one who speaks (mutakallim) with what He pleases and when He pleases. And when he summoned Musa (pbuh) when He spoke to him He had not summoned him prior to that time [in pre-eternity].”

And what the view of the Ash’aris has become established upon is that:

‘The Qur’ān is the speech of Allah, uncreated, inscribed on pages, guarded in hearts (or minds), and recited on tongues.’ Allah – High is He – said ((…Then grant him asylum so that he may hear Allah’s speech)). And He – High is He – said ((Rather, it is verses made clear [found] in the breasts of those who have been given knowledge)). And in the hadith agreed upon (by Bukhārī and Muslim) on the authority of Ibn ‘Umar as has preceded in (The Book of) Jihad, (the Prophet said): “Do not travel with the Qur’ān to the land of the enemy out of dislike for having the enemy reach it.” And it doesn’t mean ‘what is in the breasts.’ Rather, it means ‘what is in papers.’

And the Salaf have unanimously agreed that all between the two covers (of the book) is Allah’s word (kalām). And some of them said: “The Qur’ān is mentioned and it is a reference to ‘the thing read’ (maqrū), which is the beginningless quality (of Allah). It is also mentioned while being a reference to ‘the reading’ (qirā’a), which are the words that point to (the existence of) that (quality). Due to that, disagreement occurred.

As for their statement that ‘Verily it is exonerated from letters and sounds,’ their intent is the unuttered speech (kalām nafsī) present with the divine essence (of Allah). For it is one of the beginningless existing attributes (of Allah).

Then Ibn Hajar makes clear what his position is on the matter. He says,

“As for the letters – if they happen to be the movements of tools, like the tongue and lips, they are non-essential characteristics and accidents [indicative of createdness] (‘arād). And if they (the letters) are in writing, they are composite bodies and objects (ajsām). But the existence of composite bodies and accidents in Allah’s being – High is He – is impossible. And it is a necessary result of those who affirm that [they can be present with His essence] that he adopts the view that the Qur’ān is created while (in the same breath) denying such a thing and fleeing away from it. So that compelled some of them to claim the uncreatedness of the letter as the Sālimiyya adopted. And others adopted the view that they (the letters) are present in His being.

And resulting from the extreme confusion that happened in the issue, the Salaf’s prohibition against indulging in it happened much. And they found it sufficient to believe that the Qur’ān is Allah’s word uncreated (al-Qur’ān kalām Allah ghayru makhlūq). And they didn’t add anything to that. And it is the safest of all views. And Allah is the One sought for aid.”

So it becomes clear that the true position of the Salaf was to limit themselves to saying, ‘The Qur’an is Allah’s word uncreated.’ As for stating that they are composed of letters and sounds or not, this was a later development in Islamic history. So it is sufficient for one to limit his/her statements to the same that the Salaf limited themselves to.

[Fath Al-Bārī 15/465-467].

---

FOOTNOTES

[1] Tuhfah Al-Murīd Sharh Jawhara Al-Tawhīd: p. 84.

[2] Salafis likely don’t realize what their view necessitates in that it results from it that Allah has two attributes of speech as opposed to one. One of them is an attribute of His divine essence, which is without beginning as His essence is. And the other is an attribute of action or just an act of creation done by the Creator, which must be created, since it is something that occurs outside of His being. Unfortunately, the Salafis insist that sounds, letters, and words can be without beginning in spite of the fact that one letter precedes another, which clearly indicates that they are time-specific.

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Sālih Al-‘Uthaymīn says after mentioning that Allah has two types of attributes, which are those of the divine essence (dhāt) and those that are actions (f’il):

“Additionally, the attribute may happen to be of the essence and an action [dhātiyya fi’liyya] at the same time from two different regards, like speech (kalām). It is while considering its origin an attribute of the essence, since Allah has everlastingly and continues to be one who speaks (mutakallim). And while considering the individual incidents of speech (āhād al-kalām) it is an attribute of action, since speech pertains to His will. He speaks when and with what He pleases”

[Al-Qawā’id al-Muthla: Idārāt al-Buhūth al-‘Ilmiyya wa al-Iftā wa Al-Da’wa wa al-Irshād p. 25].

Upon close reflection, it is revealed that the opinion of the Salafis is not much different from what the Mu’tazila say in that ‘Allah’s speech is one of His acts, not a quality of His essence.’ The only difference is that the Mu’tazila are shown to be more reasonable by denying that Allah has an eternal attribute found with His being referred to as ‘speech,’ since they deny the possibility of something being without beginning and created at the same time.

All of this must be considered with regard to the similarities between the two sects, since if - as ‘Uthaymīn said – “…speech pertains to His will. He speaks when and with what He pleases,” then the true attribute of Allah is not speech. It is His will, while speech is merely an action that originates from Allah’s will.

Another Salafi shaykh known as Muhammad Khalīl Harrās states after declaring that Allah’s attributes are of two different categories (attributes of the essence and attributes of action); he states about the latter:

“The second (category) is ‘Attributes of Action’ to which His will and power pertain at all times. And the individual incidents of those attributes of actions occur by His will and power, even though He has always been characterized as doing them without beginning; meaning that their general category (naw’) is without beginning (qadīm), while their individual occurrences (afrād) are created and emergent (hāditha). So He – Glory to Him – has everlastingly been a doer of whatever He wants. And He has everlastingly and continues to say, speak, create, and manage all affairs. And His actions occur one by one in accord with His wisdom and His will.”

[Sharh ‘Aqīda al-Wāsitiyya li Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taimiyya: Dār al-Fikr]

So here, Harrās, acknowledges the created and uncreated act of Allah by stating that “…their general category (naw’) is without beginning (qadīm), while their individual occurrences (afrād) are created and emergent (hāditha).”

This conclusion was adopted from Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taimiyya who borrowed the idea from the Neo-Platonic and Aristotelian philosophers who believed that the universe has no origin. They said, “Its general category is without beginning. But its individual occurrences and particulars are emergent (hādith) and created.”

This is like saying, the general category of ‘man’ is uncreated even though each individual person born in history came to being in a later time. So man is without beginning from one regard and with beginning from another.

And it is surprising that both Ibn Taimiyya and Harrās would use this type of argument to justify their belief in the uncreated-created (qadīm-hādith) speech of Allah in spite of the fact that the scholars of Islam have declared the philosophers with this type of thinking to be unbelievers.

[3] The Maturidis also held the view that Allah’s actions are uncreated. But the Ash’arī view is that they are created due to the argument stated above.

Thus article is reproduced courtesy of Lamppost Productions

wa'as-salam

Mas'ud
www.masud.co.uk

DP comments on the al-Maqrizi thread

as-salamu 'alaykum,

The article on al-Maqrizi by Shaykh Gibril Fouad Haddad (GFH) was posted on DeenPort recently to clarify who al-Maqrizi was as he was extensively quoted in an article posted on The Translators' Blog (which is fed to the blogtracker on DP), the blog in question is mainly run by Imam Suhaib Webb (ISW). The Translators ran an article on the "History of the Ashari School" which has since been removed for the second time and used al-Maqrizi as evidence against the Ashari school. Therefore, this research by Shaykh GFH is timely and pertinent to the discussion. ISW asked for the thread to be deleted [see Omar Tufail's (DeenPort webmaster) recent stance on deletion of threads on the thread DP DefCon1], however, Sh GFH's article is extremely useful and needs to be made available to show the flaws in the basis of the anti-Ashari piece that was on the Translators' Blog.

My own comments on DP were not so much about the content of either al-Maqrizi or Sh GFH's piece about him but about the relevance of The Translator's blog to DP and the DP community. DP has The Translators' blog on its blog tracker and my point is that if The Translators' blog makes posts that are anti-Ashari or problematic for those of Ashari/Maturidi aqidah then the posts should be fair game to discuss, criticise and refute on the DP forums. We either allow the discussions or we remove the blog. We shouldn't play the unity card when we come under scrutiny and we shouldn't ask for such threads to be deleted when they scrutinise certain claims and "evidences".

My initial comment on the matter was:

"In light of Shaykh Gibril's research, where does that leave The Translator's post on 'The History of the Ashari School', it seems to me that it is discredited in light of this research and people should take heed. JazakAllahu-khayran Shaykh Gibril."

and then

"I think it is a valuable analysis of al-Maqrizi, whether the thread stays or goes must be dependent upon the usefulness and accuracy of the article and whether or not it will reduce the thread to bad mannered slanging (which I don't think it will). I deem the article a very useful biographical account of this scholar who was cited in opposition to the Ashari school. The sources cited are all very credible and nowhere does Sh GFH's own opinion cloud the sources cited.

Whether Imam Suhaib has taken the decision to remove the original article [from The Translators' Blog] in the first place should not be the basis for removing this biography [from DP], since it is just a biography of a scholar and aside from the fact that the scholar in question was cited in Imam Suhaib's article it has no direct bearing on that original article. Even if the thread gets removed, insha'Allah, I will carry it on my blog and in the biographies section on masud.co.uk with the permission of Sh GFH."

and then after the requests for deletion of the thread:

"You are quite right that certain things should be in their proper places. However, since The Translators' blog is being fed into DPs blogtracker we will probably get the occasional anti-Ashari post flagged on DP (as was the case here), therefore it is only right and proper that we allow for the ensuing discussion on DP to take place or we pull the plug on an occasionally controversial blog so as not to generate these discussions. In all honesty (and I didn't want to get to this point), The Translators does not really fit the profile of most people who visit DP (Maddhhabi, Sufi, Ashari/Maturidi - I may be mistaken in this assumption). Wallahi, I love Imam Suhaib for the sake of Allah and he has much good to offer to all Muslims under the banner of Unity, he is charming, charismatic and eloquent, he is someone who has embarked on a quest for knowledge and wants to share what he has learned, with others, such a noble thing that many of us (including me first and foremost) should appreciate, may Allah reward him more than he can imagine and increase him. But when you dabble in the issues of aqidah and call into question the validity of the Ashari school and its history, call some of its proponents bigots, don't expect people (and knowledgeable ones at that) not to respond and expose the flaws, inaccuracies and shortcomings in the research. My advice to Imam Suhaib is that if you really want the Unity of Muslims, put your aqidah issues on one side and deal with the day to day and common issues. Forgive me if I have offended but I felt I had to make this post.

Whilst singing from different qasa'id sheets can be illuminating and uplifting, different aqa'id are an other matter entirely and should not be taken lightly."

The Translators' Blog has raised an important issue of one of the directions in which Salafism is moving and is re-branding or re-marketing. Gone are the discussions against the Madhhabs (in most Salafi circles) and there is even a nod of acknowledgement to Tasawwuf which before would have been a scowl. However, there is still this underlying hatred intense dislike for the Ashari aqidah (and by extension the Maturidi aqidah) that still seems to generate a reaction in them that they can't resist taking a dig and casting aspersions. Alhamdulillah, we have ulama who are more than able to respond to such absurdities (and have done so for the last 10 years). The other issue is the assertion that the Salafi aqidah is the same as the Athari aqida, whilst I am not qualified in anyway to say one way or the other, but from what little I have read and what I have taken from those more knowledgeable in such matters, they are not the same thing and any attempt to conflate and [mis]represent the two as one and the same is disingenuous and to further suggest that Ibn Taymiyya is the custodian of the Athari aqidah is pushing it.

ISW (on a thread in DP) said that he considers the Ashari school of the Ahl al-Sunnah, the fact is that the Ashari (and Maturidi) school ARE Ahl al-Sunnah, the real question is whether Salafism is of the Ahl al-Sunnah...

wa'as-salam

Mas'ud
www.masud.co.uk

GF Haddad on al-Maqrizi

as-salamu 'alaykum

The Translators' Blog recently cited al-Maqrizi against the Ashari school of aqida in a post entitled "The History of the Ashari School". The original post has since been deleted, twice in actual fact after being withdrawn initially after complaints that it was disrespectful and then reinstated after Imam Suhaib "didn't find anything wrong with it", and it has been deleted again without comment. Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad researched and wrote a short biography as to who he was so as to contextualise al-Maqrizi's comments on the Ashari school, the bio is quite a telling and an interesting read:

---

AL-MAQRIZI
by GF Haddad

Ahmad ibn `Ali ibn `Abd al-Qadir ibn Muhammad ibn Ibrahim ibn Muhammad ibn Tamim ibn `Abd al-Samad Taqi al-Din al-Ba`li al-Misri al-Maqrizi (766-845) "the Sufi" (Ibn Rafi`), "the Reliance of Historians" (Ibn `Imad), "our rafiq and sahib" (Ibn Hajar), Allah Most high have mercy on him. This great specialist of Egyptian history grew up as a Hanafi then chose the Shafi`i school in his twenties. His family originated in Ba`labakk in Lebanon.

Among his teachers were his grandfather the major erudite muhaddith Shams al-Din Muhammad ibn al-Sa'igh al-Hanafi; al-Burhan al-Nashawari; al-Burhan al-Amidi; al-`Izz ibn al-Kuwayk; al-Najm ibn Razin; al-Shams ibn al-Khashshab; al-Tanukhi; Ibn Abi al-Shaykha; Ibn Abi al-Majd; al-Siraj al-Bulqini; al-Zayn al-`Iraqi; al-Haythami; al-Farasisi; al-Shams Ibn Sukkar; al-Amyuti; Qadi Abu al-Fadl al-Nuwayri; Sa`d al-Din al-Isfarayini; Abu al-`Abbas ibn `Abd al-Mu`ti, and others. He received certificates of transmission from al-Shihab al-Adhru`i, al-Jamal al-Isnawi, Abu al-Baqa' al-Subki, `Ali ibn Yusuf al-Zarandi, and others.

Al-Sakhawi says "I have read in his hand-writing that his works exceeded 200 large volumes and that his teachers numbered 600" but he dismisses al-Maqrizi's claim of having heard from Ibn Kathir the "pattern-chained hadith of firstness" as "hardly true."

Al-Maqrizi's greatness lies in his writing of geographical history, "particularly that of Egypt" (Ibn Hajar). He founded the genre of urban topography in which he left his encyclopedic Khitat - which al-Sakhawi said is indebted to his coming into possession of the large Khitat Misr wal-Qahira by the Egyptian historian Shihab al-Din Ahmad ibn `Abd Allah al-Awhadi (761-811) - among other lasting and numerous contributions in universal, metropolitan, political, Prophetic, genealogical, and biographical history such as:

• Al-Bayan wal-I`rab `amma fi Ardi Misra min al-A`rab
• Al-Durar al-Mudiyya fi Tarikh al-Dawlat al-Islamiyya
• Durar al-`Uqud al-Farida fi Tarajim al-A`yan al-Mufida, chronicling contemporaries from his birthday to his death. al-Ilmam fi man Ta'akhkhara bi-Ardi al-Habasha min Muluk al-Islam
• `Iqd Jawahir al-Asfat fi Muluk Misr wal-Fustat.
• Imta` al-Asma` bi-ma lil-Rasuli `alayhi al-Salatu wal-Salamu min al-Abna' wal-Am/hwal wal-Hafadati wal-Mata` in 6 volumes. o Itti`az/Iqaz al-Hunafa bi-Akhbar al-Fatimiyyin al-Khulafa, in which he argues for the Fatimi lineage of the `Ubaydis, from which he said he descended.
• al-Khabar `ani al-Bashar, in five volumes on Arab tribes and the Prophetic lineage.
• Majma` al-Fara'id wa-Manba` al-Fawa'id, of which he finished between 80 and 100 volumes, "on the two sciences of reason and transmission in earnest and in jest."
• al-Mawa`iz wal-I`tibar bi-Dhikr al-Khutati wal-Athar, his masterpiece, of which a Turkish translation was made in 969 for the Emir Ibrahim al-Daftari.
• Muntakhab al-Tadhkira
• al-Suluk li-Ma`rifati Duwal al-Muluk in many volumes chronicling events up to the author's death, which his student Ibn Tughriburda began to continue, he said "in the author's lifetime from the year 840," naming the continuation "Hawadith al-Duhur fi Mada al-Ayyam wal-Shuhur."
• al-Tarikh al-Kabir al-Muqaffa in 16 volumes, which he said would have reached 80 if he could have finished it.

Al-Maqrizi also wrote more specialized monographs such as:

• al-Awzan wal-Akyal al-Shar`iyya
• Daw' al-Sari fi Ma`rifati Khabar Tamim al-Dari
• al-Dhahab al-Masbuk fi Dhikri man Hajja min al-Muluk
• Husul al-In`am wal-Mayr fi Su'al Khatimat al-Khayr
• Ighathat al-Umma bi-Kashf al-Ghumma
• al-Isharatu wal-I`lam bi-Bina'i al-Ka`bati Bayt Allah al-Haram
• al-Isharatu wal-Ima' ila Halli Lughz al-Ma'
• al-Maqasid al-Saniyya li-Ma`rifati al-Ajsad al-Ma`daniyya
• Ma`rifatu Ma Yajibu li-Al al-Bayt al-Naawi min al-Haqqi `ala man `Adahum, a work on the immense precedential merit of the Prophetic Household in which he cites in full a nine-page passage from the Futuhat al-Makkiyya which he introduces with the words, "The gnostic (al-`arif) Muhyi al-Din Abu `Abd Allah Muhammad Ibn `Arabi said...." I had the honor of reading this book in full with al-Sayyid `Abd al-Maqsud Faris al-Idrisi al-Hasani of the Ulema of al-Azhar, the rector of Madrasat al-Junid in Singapore.
• al-Tanazu` wal-Takhasum fi-ma bayna Bani Umayya wa-Bani Hashim, a book against the Banu Umayya edited and published by a Rafidi.
• Shudhur al-`Uqud fi Dhikr al-Nuqud, on Islamic mintage.
• Tajrid al-Tawhid al-Mufid.
• al-Turfat al-Ghariba min Akhbari Hadramawt al-`Ajiba

He preached, sat as judge, and taught hadith at various points but his employment was mostly in financial administration (hisba) until he retired from public life and devoted himself completely to writing.

Ibn Hajar casts doubt over al-Maqrizi's `Ubaydi lineage in Inba' al-Ghumr (year 845), for which the latter's only proof is that his father took him into al-Hakim's mosque in Cairo and told him: "This is your grandfather's mosque!" while al-Sakhawi in al-Daw' al-Lami` comments on his unreliability when it came to the early history of Islam, biography, and hadith narrators, adding: "How excellent is someone's comment that 'some of what is in it gives pause.'" He also says it would be "foolhardiness" (mujazafa) to call him a hafiz in the technical hadith sense, as he only had "a little knowledge" of fiqh, hadith, and nahw. Accordingly only the Cairene historian al-Jabarti (1167-1237) calls him a hafiz in `Aja'ib al-Athar and Nafh al-Tib while Ibn Qadi Shuhba (779-851) does not mention him in his Tabaqat al-Shafi`iyya.

In his biographical notice on Ibn Khaldun (732-808) al-Shawkani writes:

The hafiz Abu al-Hasan [Nur al-Din] al-Haythami used to disparage Ibn Khaldun a lot. The hafiz Ibn Hajar said: "When I asked him about the reason, he replied that the news reached him that he had said about al-Husayn the Prophetic grandson, Allah be well-pleased with him, that 'he was killed with his grandfather's sword' and after he mentioned that, weeping, he cursed Ibn Khaldun." Ibn Hajar continued: "This statement is not found in the Tarikh in existence nowadays and it seems that it was found in the version from which he recanted." Then he said: "What is astonishing is that our friend al-Maqrizi was so excessive in praising Ibn Khaldun because the latter positively affirmed the authenticity of the [Fatimi] lineage of the Banu `Ubayd, the caliphs in Egypt, opposing others [who considered it spurious] and dismissing what is related from the Imams that disputes such lineage. He would say: 'They only recorded such [aspersions] to please the `Abbasi caliph.' Al-Maqrizi himself claimed he descended from the Fatimis, as we already said, so he loved Ibn Khaldun for having affirmed their lineage and was ignorant of Ibn Khaldun's intent, as the latter hated the `Alawis so much that he affirmed the `Ubaydis descended from them because their loathsome beliefs had become well-known, as some of them were propagandists of heresy and some claimed divinity, such as al-Hakim, so Ibn Khaldun wanted such [a lineage] to provide an avenue for aspersions [against `Alawis]." Thus did al-Sakhawi relate it from Ibn Hajar, and Allah knows best about the truth. For, if Ibn Khaldun ever said such a statement, then {Allah sent him astray purposely} (45:23).

The Encyclopedia of Islam mentions that "[al-Maqrizi's] contemporaries were somewhat critical of his scholarship" and that "he seems to have had professional and perhaps personal difficulties with his fellow historians" such as al-`Ayni and Ibn Hajar. Indeed, his close student Ibn Tughriburda in al-Nujum al-Zahira relies on al-Maqrizi but nevertheless does not spare his criticism of his sharp tongue, and mentions his "fumbling in the dark" (takhbit) at one point while Ibn Qutlubagha and al-Sakhawi accuse him of plagiarism and Al-`Ayni accuses him of having been engrossed with geomancy (raml). Al-Sakhawi says he "looked up Ibn Khaldun's horoscope to the point it is related he pinpointed a day for his appointment to some office and it came to be as he had predicted.... Yet, the eminent personalities honored him, either to placate him out of fear of his pen or because his conversation was pleasant." Ibn `Imad al-Hanbali states "he was fanatically anti-Hanafi and other than them due to his leaning to the school of Zahirism" of which, Ibn Hajar says, "he actually knew nothing." The French historian of Mamluk intellectual history Eric Geoffroy considers him a Taymiyyan qadi inimical to ill-educated Sufis but highlights his meticulousness in not blaming Ibn `Arabi for doctrines of which he is innocent.

In doctrine it appears that al-Maqrizi indirectly imputed anthropomorphism to the Hanbali school of anthropomorphism for their opposition to the Ash`ari school when he (reportedly, in the Khitat 4:184-5) says:

The reality of the school of al-Ash`ari, may Allah have mercy upon him, is that he followed a way between the negation of attributes, that being the Mu`tazili school, and the affirmation thereof, that being the school of the anthropomorphists.... there remains no school today that opposes the Ash`ari school, with the exception of the school of the Hanbalis, the followers of Imam Abu `Abdullah Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Hanbal, may Allah be well-pleased with him. For they are upon what the Salaf were upon, that is, to avoid allegorical interpretation of texts pertaining to attributes.

By describing the Hanbalis as opposing the way which he himself defined as "a way between the negation of attributes and the affirmation thereof, the latter being the school of the anthropomorphists," al-Maqrizi, either deliberately or otherwise, confirmed the fact that whatever the anti-Ash`aris Hanbalis characterize, with regard to affirming the attributes, as "the school of the Salaf," is actually the way of the anthropomorphists.

Accordingly, in order to reflect this witting or unwitting authorial distance between the letter of the Hanbali self-identification as the *school of the Salaf* and its actual meaning under al-Maqrizi's pen - and as Imam Ibn `Abd al-Salam had warned in his treatise (al-Mulha) when he flayed the camouflaging (tasattur) of the deviant Hanbalis of his time - quotation marks should be inserted both in the last sentence above and in the sentence where he refers to Ibn Taymiyya thus:

For 'they [Hanbalis] are upon what the Salaf were upon'....

He [Ahmad ibn Taymiyya] undertook to champion 'the school of the Salaf' and did his utmost to refute the Ash'aris.

However, even if we should doubt that al-Maqrizi had mastered, like al-Dhahabi, the art of subtle allusion, it remains that his interpretation of the historico-doctrinal dynamics of the spread of the Ash`ari School and its subsequent opposition by Ahmad ibn Taymiyya is unreliable because of the judgments of the scholars concerning him and, at best, superficial. In the words of a perceptive student of history:

The historical contextualisation of events such as the rise of the Ash`ari school, which ostensibly limits its appeal to the effects of political patronage, could be applied to any event in Islamic history (in order to undermine its authenticity, as many anti-Islam Orientalists have done over the centuries).... All of our scholarship could be argued away on this basis.

And Allah knows best.

---

Sources:

• Ibn Tughriburda, al-Nujum al-Zahira (year 841);
• Ibn Hajar, Inba' al-Ghumr (year 845);
• al-Sakhawi, al-Daw' al-Lami` (2:21-25);
• Ibn `Imad, Shadharat al-Dhahab (year 845);
• al-Shawkani, al-Badr al-Tali` (p. 338);
• `Abd al-`Alim Khudr, al-Muslimun wa-Kitabat al-Tarikh (IIIT, 1993);
• Eric Geoffroy, Le Soufisme en Egypte et en Syrie sour les derniers Mamelouks et les premiers Ottomans (IFEAD, p. 470-471, 481).

GF Haddad

Two more new articles!

as-salamu 'alaykum,

Ustadh Abdullah bin Hamid Ali has agreed to allow masud.co.uk to host some of his articles courtesy of Lamppost Productions. The first two are:

"The Speech and Word of Allah"

and

"Abu Hanifa, Salafis, Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar, and The Truth"

See masud.co.uk for more details.

wa'as-salam

Mas'ud
www.masud.co.uk

The rise and fall of the ’salafi dawah’ in the US

as-salamu 'alaykum,

This is an excellent personal analysis of the Salafi movement in the US from an ex-Salafi. It is about how Salafism gained prominence and then how it tore itself apart by accusations of others not being Salafi enough...

The rise and fall of the ’salafi dawah’ in the US by Umar Lee

wa'as-salam

Mas'ud
www.masud.co.uk