The Imam of the Muslims, Abu'l-Hasan 'Ali b. Isma'il al-Ash'ari al-Hanbali affirms the Attributes of Two Eyes in his Ibana 'an Usul al-Diyanah - and that is well-known from him and his followers by the likes of al-Baqillani, Ibn 'Asakir and others - and in his book:

Maqalat al-Islamiyyin wa-Ikhtilaf al-Musallin

In p.290 till 297 of the book, in which al-Ash'ari puts together the different beliefs and opinions of Muslims and those pseudo-Muslims, he draws his own confession - the confession of the People of the Sunnah and Community, saying in it:

"Allah is upon His Throne, as He said, {The Merciful rose over the Throne}. He has Two Hands, without how, as He has said, {I have created with My Two Hands}, and as He has said, {Nay, outstretched are both His Hands}. [b]And He has Two Eyes, without how (wa-lahu 'aynayn bila kayfa), as He has said, {Under Our Eyes it floated on}. And He has a Face, as He has said, {And the Face of your Lord shall abide forever with Majesty and Glory}"

And the quote of al-Ibanah has been confirmed by many scholars, among them Ibn 'Asakir, Ibn Taymiyyah and al-Saffarini al-Hanbali.

And Ibn al-Baqillani mentioned the same, i.e. Two Eyes, according to Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Dhahabi and others.

So how can people claim that they never said so, that its is Tahrif and even worse - Tashbih!

Or is al-Maqalat also tampered with - and any other book they don't like?

Wa-Salam!

IBN ASAKIR mentions "EYE" check your own salafi site for the quote from Hafiz Ibn Asakir's Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari

quote from Dr. Gibril F Haddad


and at another place Gibril F Haddad said

Bismillahi al-Rahmani al-Rahim,

To "maturidi" and others who rely on G.F. Haddad and his unreliability in issues like these,

I will mention part of what I've prepared so far in refutation of the allegation that al-Ibanah 'an Usul al-Diyanah, of the Imam Abu'l-Hasan al-Ash'ari, has been tampered with - on the issue of Eyes (multiple) & [Two] Eyes (dual), Insha'Allah.

Amma ba'd:[/u]

[u]FIRST,

I have in front of me two works of Imam Abu'l-Hasan al-Ash'ari:

- al-Maqalat al-Islamiyyin

- al-Ibanah 'an Usul al-Diyanah

In al-Maqalat, which is authentically ascribed to the Imam and no one has - as far as we know - found difficulty in the phrase which mentions,

"And He has Two Eyes, without how (wa-lahu 'aynayn bila kayfa)",

the ascription of the Attributes of Two Eyes is a fact.

So no one may claim: 'It is a forgery!' On what basis? Has the man found new manuscripts which states otherwise? Has he found earlier quotes, such as of copyist of the Maqalat-passage? - May Allah give to the liars what they deserve!

[Source: al-Ash'ari, Maqalat al-Islamiyyin, ed. Ritter, Istanbul, p. 290]


SECOND,

The Ibanah-editions in front of me are 4 in number:

- Kitab al-Ibanah 'an Usul al-Diyanah, Hayderabad edition from 1321/1904 - in Sab' Rasa'il.

- Kitab al-Ibanah 'an Usul al-Diyanah, Cairo edition from 1348/1929.

- al-Ibanah 'an Usul al-Diyanah, Cairo edition of Miss Fawqiyyah H. Mahmud, published in 1397/1977.

- al-Ibanah 'an Usul al-Diyanah, Cairo print from 1413/1992.

We shall refer to these volumes with: "1904", "1929", "1977" and "1992".

The First Relevant Passage - in Bab fi Ibanat Qawl Ahl al-Zaygh wa'l-Bid'ah.

In 1904 it is said:

"They deny that Allah has Two Eyes, while His Saying, Subhanahu is { Under our Eyes it floated} and.."

The same passage in 1929 says:

"They deny that Allah has an Eye, while His Saying.."

The same passage in 1977, i.e. Fawqiyyah Husayn Mahmud's edition:

"They deny that Allah has Two Eyes.."

Lastly, in 1992 is stated, exactly as Fawqiyyah!:

"They deny that Allah has Two Eyes.."

So far, all agree that there must be 'Two Eyes' in the passage, except one which state 'an Eye'.

The Second Relevant Passage - in Bab fi Ibanat Qawl Ahl al-Haqq wa'l-Sunnah.

1904:

"And He has Two Eyes.."

1929:

"And He has an Eye.."

1977, Fawqiyyah:

"And He has Two Eyes.."

1992:

"And He has an Eye.."

The Third Relevant Passage - in the title of a chapter which says:

In 1904:

"Saying about the Face, the Two Eyes, the Seeing and the Two Hands"

And in 1929: (I've forgotten to note this one in my photo-copies/notes)

I believe exactly as the three others - but I will not state this positively for I'm not like the type you quote from! - as for the 1948 Hayderabad edition, which is as far as I see it a reprint of the 1904 edition - and therefor I haven't included it here - it states, "al-kalam fi'l-wajh wa'l-'aynayn wa'l-basar wa'l-yadayn", i.e. the same, thus affirming Two Eyes.

In 1977, Fawqiyyah:

"Saying about the Face, the Two Eyes, the Seeing and the Two Hands"

In 1992:

"Saying about the Face, the Two Eyes, the Seeing and the Two Hands"

So woe to the people of Innovation! Those who deny for Allah the Attributes of Two Eyes, while they contradict themselves, the Muslims, their Imams they claim to follow, not to speak about the other A'imma.. Subhan Allah al-'Azim!

See how he contradicted himself, in his saying:



Is then Two Eyes acceptable or not?! For Fawqiyyah stated it positively in:

THREE passages!

And he acknowledged one himself in his saying,





And plus! He gives us the information - which i don't trust untill I see it with my own (two!) eyes - that the same phrase is edited as such by the 1994 edition of Sabbagh - which I could not use, unfortunately.

So tell me, O ignorant one who does not look with his own eyes what is stated in the books of the Imams - but relies in stead on one who aint reliable as he himselfs indicates.

Thus he says,



Then did he notice the reader the other passages with state that al-Ash'ari affirms Two Eyes - I mean in the same book but in other places?!

Besides, what the Hafidh Ibn 'Asakir mentioned on the authority of al-Ibanah of al-Ash'ari is not an Eye, in the singular form, for sure - since, the Hafidh al-Dhahabi quotes (from the khatt of his own son? - I think I read it in al-'Uluww, but I've not the book right now with me to state so) from the Tabyin this:

"Qala al-Hafidh al-Hujjah Abu'l-Qasim Ibn 'Asakir fi Kitab al-Tabyin.. wa-anna lahu 'aynayn bila kayfa" !!!

Further, the man said:





See what he has done here! He refers to p. 121 of Fawqiyyah's edition with states what he says, but he DELIBERATELY hides the chapter heading which, we quoted above - and says:

al-Kalam fi al-Wajh wa'l-'Aynayn wa'l-Basar wa'l-Yadayn

So woe to the one who misinforms the true words of a Muslim - the lying one who has no shame.

Could he not state that those three above - incl. his own Fawqiyyah edition (see above what he said about it) - state Two Eyes - all of them (and maybe the 1929 edition too but I have to check on that, Insha Allah)!

So do not doubt - my brothers - that falsehood will vanish, and truth will see the light.

And the passages which state that He, Subhanahu wa-ta'ala, has an Eye - By Allah! I believe that Allah has an Eye unlike eyes, and that {Nothing is like him}!

So do not doubt brothers - to state positively that He has an Eye is correct, and Imam al-Ash'ari stated that so, and that is true. And Imam al-Ash'ari stated that He has Eyes, and that is true. And Imam al-Ash'ari stated that He has Two Eyes - in more then one place, and in more then one book - and that is true - May Allah let the truth shine forever, and destroy doubts and lies!

Amin. Ya Rabb al-'Alamin.

Wa-Salamu 'Alaikum.

An addition to what I've written here concerning one of the Ibanah-editions.

Since I've seen that "maturidi sufi" (probably the same person as "maturidi") copied the text and posted it on www.*** (and asked someone to refute it) I thought not to amend the text I've written - to correct or clarify anything now, or in the future - while I'd like to add some small points I forgot to give support to my argument.

In her summary/analysis of the contents of the Ibanah of al-Ash'ari, Miss Fawqiyyah H. Mahmud confirms the textual passages she edited concerning the phrase 'Two Eyes', such as on p. 137 of her book where she states, as the Imam:

"wa-dafa'u anna yakun lillahi ta'ala yad wa-wajh wa-'aynân"

And on the second page after it, p.139, Miss Fawqiyyah writes:

"anna lahu wajh wa-yadayn wa-'aynayn - bila kayf"

Then, later on the third passage we discussed, thé most amazing we may say if we not forget what the claiment said, on the Title:

"Chapter Kalam on al-Wajh and the Two Eyes and the Seeing and the Two Hands"

see also p. 162, where she explicitly says so again about al-Ash'ari, that he affirms - against the innovators - the proofs from the Quran, and they are:

"al-wajh al-'aynayn wa'l-basar"

Insha'Allah I will come back later on the 1929 edition and the Title mentioned there by Imam al-Ash'ari and the editor - and in the future the rest of the refutation, such as on the Issue of Imam Abu Hanifa, rahimahullah, & the Nature of the Qur'an, and this will be a devastating scholarly attack Insha'Allah as the sources permit me, and the Issue of al-Istiwa' in the Ibanah, and the Issue of the Hands in the Ibanah, etc. All of, Isnha'Allah, together with the Risalah fi Dabb 'an al-Ash'ari.

Wa-Salam!

A [second] addition to what I've written here above.

We've already refuted the claiment concerning the issue of Two Eyes vs Eye in the Ibanah - as any reader can see.

We've also noted the fact of Two Eyes in the Ibanah according to Ibn 'Asakir's Tabyin as quoted by al-Dhahabi, and as such refuted from one perspective the allegation that in Ibn 'Asakir/Tabyin there's mention of Eye in the singular.
There is the possibility that copyists may have made mistakes concerning the Two Eyes vs Eye debate in the Tabyin - since the tradition (or editions since Ibn 'Asakir till now) differs therein. But, Isha'Allah,

I shall show that the reliable words in the Tabyin which quotes the Ibanah affirms the words Two Eyes

This is what the man said,





There's no doubt that the book al-'Uluww is from al-Dhahabi, as even this claiment acknowledged. His other claim, that he disavowed this book according to the copyist is false - but we shall not bother ourself with refuting this here, as one has already done that clearly, nor will this have a consequence for the following we're saying.

Namely, that in al-'Uluww the Hafdih al-Dhahabi quotes from books of all type and short of scholars on the theme of the book, i.e. al-'Uluww for Allah. In it, al-'Uluww, he quotes also from al-Tabyin al-Kadhib of Ibn 'Asakir. So far - no one has the right to doubt that the Hafidh misquotes the other Hafidh, nor has anyone the right to doubt his reliability in quoting any other writer's book of the past which al-Dhahabi relied on - this is correct. Then, if he, i.e. al-Dhahabi, mentions from the khatt of Ibn 'Asakir's son [as I said before, and I still have to confirm this - Insha'Allah - or anyone else?], then which of the two quotes is more reliable? The edition which Haddad claims or the khatt of his son? Or let us just claim: which text is more reliable? The late edition which basis itself on a ms, see below, or the ms of Hafidh al-Dhahabi?

Let us say something about the manuscript (ms) on which the edition of 1995/1416 is based. He has made mention on what he based his edition:

A copy under the number 815 from the Dar Kutub al-Misriyyah.

And the editor, a certain Ahmad Hidjazi al-Saqqa, adds even 6 photo-copies of the manuscript in the beginning of the book, such as the title-page, the 1st folio-page, the 2nd folio-page and other folio-pages.
The editor also says:

"And this copy was written in the year 677 H"

But this is all he says!

1. He does not mention other manuscripts (which exist).

2. He does not add a critical apparatus, i.e. its no critical edition.

3. He says also nothing about his methodology of edition

Now, this edition, which is like the one issued forth from Husam al-Din al-Qudsi and al-Kawthari (1347/1928), is the same concerning the passages on the issue we're talking about.

Have they made any critical edition?

1. Have they mentioned all the manuscripts existing?

2. Have they added, especially the latter one, all the needed notes concerning the texts?

3. Have they identified all the people in the texts and referred to the biographical sources?

4. Have they somehow, tried to ascertain the authenticity of the akhbar in the text?

5. Besides, have they also mentiond the quotes from later scholars who relied on the texts, more closer than we? Such as the quotes of Abd al-Malik Ibn Darbas? Or that of Ibn Taymiyyah? Or al-Dhahabi? Or Ibn al-Qayyim? Besides, there existst even a Mukhtasar of the Tabyin by an Ash'arite himself! Have they compared that all and added the notes to make sure to the reader who waht said concerning the text of the Tabyin?!

[And to add a 6th: Since the Tabyin is a Refutation of al-Ahwazi's Mathalib Ibn Abi Bishr, which exists in Damascus and has been edited!, then why has no one of them bothered about what Ibn 'Asakir noted from it - such as the variants texts, the arguments etc.?]

As long as that has not been done, i.e. to make a real critical edition, which is first: based on all the ms's which are housed in the different libraries; second: based on the quotes by contemporary records, as well as later writers such as those mentioend above. As long as that hasn't been done, let alone to identify and explain persons and passages of the text itself as any scholar should do, then what kind of a Tabyin is he relying on?

We see here: that when it comes to a text which states something he likes [and assumes to be correct], Tabyin, then he don't bother about the 'manuscripts on which it is relied and how its is prepared', but when it comes to the Ibanah, then he claims that they all, with the exeption of one, are somehow incorrect! La hawla wa-la quwwata illa-billah.

Let me make an inventory of ms's and quotes.

To edit the Tabyin - al-Hamdulillah - there are excellent manuscripts to rely on!

In Europe there are three manuscripts of which one is the most important of all existing Tabyin-mss:

1. In Escurial library, Mardrid, Spain, there exists one manuscripts, under the sign. Casiri catalogue num. 1796, which is written:

in the year 582 in Damasucs! that means, just 11 years after Ibn 'Asakir's death!

2. In the Netherlands, in the Leiden Library - which has many excellent mss, incl. works in the khatt of Ibn Hazm and al-Dhahabi and others - there's again another important early ms: Arabic ms. num. 901 (see also the latest Catalogue of Verhoef):

written at least before the year 659 H - i.e. at least 8 years older than that based of the Saqqa-edition!

3. In Leipzig, Germany, there exists a ms (sign. D.C. num. 149) which is almost certainly written in the 7th century as the condition of the ms shows:

there's on the title-page written 792 H, a year which one of the possessors had it.

4. Another one, in Europe, is a Oxford-manuscript (see Dozy, cat. no.181):

It is written in 832 H.

Then these, and the manuscript of Dar Kutub al-Misriyyah of the year 677, are according to my knowledge the most important mss - to edit a reliable Tabyin al-Kadhib. An the 582-year ms is definitely the Asl on which all editors should rely on principially, on less there is seriously something wrong with which I doubt.

Then, there's another ms:

As I said, it is a Mukhtasar of the Tabyin. I've seen it. It is written by a certain Abdallah b. Sa'd al-Jafi'i b. Ali b. Sulayman b. Falah al-Yamani - which is a uniqum, the sole one for this. This man died in 768 H. That is, he's a younger contemporary of al-Dhahabi. The title of the Mukhtasar is: Sharaf al-Mufakhir al-'Aliyyah fi Manaqib al-A'immah al-Ash'ariyyah - he has added a Dhayl to the Tabaqat al-Ash'ariyyah in Ibn 'Asakir's Tabyin. It is an interesting work.

Its is written in 845 H.

Added on 12th july, 2005:

Ibn Ahdal al-Yamani (d.855), author of the Kitab al-Ghita' 'an Haqa'iq al-Tawhid wa-'Aqa'id al-Muwahhidin wa-Dhikr al-A'immat al-Ash'ariyyin, quotes al-Yafi'i much in this work. He says for example in one passage:

"al-Yafi'i added in his Kitab al-Shas al-Mu'lim (tahrif of Sharaf al-Mufakhir ?), the one which he shortened the book of Ibn 'Asakir in some hundred sentences, and I shortened Kitab al-Shas (?) also and added to it words to the book. And the people mentioned in it from the later-day Imams are from amongs them: Qadi 'Iyad, the Malikite, Abu'l-Qasim Ibn 'Asakir, the Shaykh Abd al-Qadir al-Jili (=al-Jilani), the Shaykh Abu'l-Najib al-Suhrawardi.."

I believe this is the quote from that work, al-Sharaf al-Mufakhir, though I've not seen this specific passage.

Then, let us see the quotes:

1. Refer to al-Dhahabi's quote I've mentioned before - al-'Uluww is based on highly credentials - i.e. ms's, so it is an important early source. See also www.sunnipress.com/arabic

2. The quote from the Tabyin by Imam Ibn al-Qayyim in Ijtima - again, there's no doubt to his reliability in quoting from Ibn 'Asakir's Tabyin. He died in 751/1351, and thus is an early copyist (refer also to the mss or a critical edition of Ijtima to confirm this).

He said:

".. al-Hafidh Abu'l-Qasim Ibn 'Asakir fi Kitab al-ladhi sammaha Tabyin al-Kadhib al-Muftari fima nusiba ila Abi'l-Hasan al-Ash'ari..
..qala Abu'l-Qasim Ibn 'Asakir.. (compare this with the quote of al-Dhahabi)

See p. 138-139, were he quotes Ibn 'Asakir's quote of the Ibanah of al-Ash'ari, such as:

"wa- dafa'u.." (see the post above on Fawqiyyah's edition/summary)

untill al-Ash'ari says, according to Ibn 'Asakir, according to Ibn al-Qayyim:

"And they deny that Allah has Two Eyes.."

[[added 02-10-2005:
وساق خطبة طويلة بيّن فيها مخالفة المعتزلة لكتاب الله وسنّة رسوله صلى الله عليه وسلم وإجماع الصحابة إلى أن قال فيها: ودفعوا أن يكون لله وجه، مع قوله: "ويَبْقى وجْهُ ربِّكَ ذو الجلال والإكْرام" سورة الرحمن آية 27. وأنكروا أن يكون للّه يدان، مع قوله: "لِمَا خَلْقَت بيَديَّ" سورة ص آية 75. وأنكروا أن يكون لله عينان، مع قوله: "تَجْري بأعْيُننا" سورة القمر آية 14، وكقوله: "ولتُصْنع على عَيْني" سورة طه آية 39. ]]


And then later (see p.140), Ibn al-Qayyim quotes Ibn 'Asakir again, who quotes al-Ash'ari's Ibanah:

"And He has Two Eyes, bila kayfa.."

[[added 02-10-2005:
وأن له عينين بلا كيف، كما قال تعالى: "تجري أعيننا". ]]

And so we must edit the works of our scholarly predecessors, such as the Hafidh of Islam, Abu'l-Qasim Ibn 'Asakir - rahimahullah!

Then have they done this?!

And may I mention: Ibn al-Qayyim quotes al-Ash'ari's Maqalat too, such as the saying of Abu'l-Hasan:

"And that He has Two Eyes.." (see p.145)

[[added 02-10-2005
وأن له عينين، كما قال تعالى: "تجري بأعيننا". ]]

So this is correct, wa-Billahi al-Hamd.

Wa-Salam!

as salaamu 'alaikum,

Jazakallah br. Ibn_Abi_Yala, I have checked Hafidh Shams al-Din Dhahabi's book al-Uluww and he quotes from Hafidh Thiqat al-Din Abul Qasim Ibn Asakir and to confirm what you mentioned i found it exactly same:
"Wa anna lahu Aynayn bila Kayf kama qaal"

Also I have read somewhere that there is a rule in arabic grammar to drop YA+NUN and append Alif if there is a BA after YA+NUN. I will check on this rule.

inshallah, Scanned page on from Hafidh Dhahabi's book on Abul Hasan Ashari will be posted soon.

And the claims by Kullabi Asharis that Hafidh Dhahabi later repudiated his views al-Uluww are smoke screen from the ones who lost their compass.
http://www.sunnipress.com/arabic/dhahabi_uluww_1.htm

Because:
1. Why would Ibn Nasir al-Din copy the whole book if it contained something "gross" ? Does it make any sense ?
2. Why does Dhahabi refer to Uluww in his book Siyr alam Nubula if he later on rejected his own work ?
3. Why do other scholars quote from Uluww, did they miss what ibn Nasir al-Din has written (note: that is according to a known and proven Ashari liar who slanders Sahaba of Prophet (saw) who is Hasan Ali Saqqaf, and yes this Ashari scholar has his own forum were you can read his lies)

Let GF Haddad and his likes focus more on his own problems (as mentioned by Zulfiqaar) rather than attacking Ahl al-Hadith wal Athar.

Massalama

Barakallahu fiq,

But could you verify what I thought to have seen, - i.e. that al-Dhahabi quoted from a Nuskha written by the son of Abu'l-Qasim Ibn 'Asakir.

Since I have not the book al-'Uluww with me - I can't verify it now.

If al-Dhahabi did quote from such a type of Copy then this is even a much stronger rebuttal - nay, a definite rebuttal! You'll have to go back some 4 pages were he informs us about the Tabyin or in another passage elsewhere, I cant remember exactly.

[Maybe I have it wrong - but try to verify it, thank you!]

Wa-Salam!

I've received the privilege to see with my own eyes another confirmation of the fact that the Hafidh Ibn 'Asakir mentioned 'Aynayn/Two Eyes instead of 'Ayn/Eye in the relevant passage, and I've also received other communications likewise.

I wrote above:



in my post on thuesday, Jan. 13, 2005, in: A [second] addition to what I've written here above. [see above]

- The Leiden-manuscript written ate least before 659 H states: "Aynayn"(seen it by myself; see also the footnotes by one who worked with it)

- A photo-copy of the Leipzig-manuscript (seen it too), which has a the year 792 H (this is not the date of composition), but which is according to the ms-description by the cataloguer at least a 7th century ms, says: "Aynayn" (see also W. Spitta's book in which he edited the passage according three mss - and he confirms it)

- The a photo-copy of the Oxford-manuscript written in 832 H says, again: "Aynayn"

So this is, again, a rebuttal to the one who alleged what Ibn 'Asakir wrote, namely 'Eye'.
I'm wondering how the editors Husam al-Din and al-Kawthari, and not forgetting al-Saqqa, came to the conclusion that its says: Eye/'Ayn?
Have they overlooked a letter in 'Aynân? Think not, they probably base themselves on a lesser reliable manuscript - mistake by a copyist - for other mss say differently - especially the earlier Leiden-ms.

The Madrid-ms could clarify more, but I do not doubt that it will confirm what we've said for - as we've said before - al-Dhahabi and Ibn al-Qayyim quote it too likewise.