Bismillahi al-Rahmani al-Rahim,

See how far people go - in fact unshamefull lying - in their misinformation of the Muslimbrothers/sisters who which to study their Din!

They are not shamefull in forging lies against their own Imam - as they claim! But far from it - Imam al-Ash' ari, about whom they lie, is not theirs.

And they even forge lies against Ibn Furak, Ibn 'Asakir and others!

See for yourself:



This can be found in www.*** - this man says, so they say:



La-hawla wa-la quwwata illa billah!

Let me quote Ibn 'Asakir's Tabyin (see for yourself: p. 129ff)

"Said Abu Bakr Ibn Furak, rahimahullah.." [untill]

"As for the titles of books of Shaykh Abu'l-Hasan al-Ash'ari, may Allah be pleased with him, which he authored till the year 320, then he mentioned in his Book - which he named al-'Amad fi'l-Ru'ya - many titles of his books"

[Source: Ibn 'Asakir, Tabyin al-Kadhib p. 129, where he quotes Ibn Furak who quotes al-Ash'ari's book al-Amad!!!]

[..fa-amma asami kutub al-shaykh abi'l-hasan al-ash'ari, radi-allahu 'anhu, mimma sannafah ila sanat 'ashrin wa-thalatha-mi'a, fa-innahu dhakar fi kitabihi alladhi samma-ha al-'Amad fi'l-Ru'ya asami akthar kutubih..]

Then which books are mentioned by Imam al-Ash'ari which he wrote untill 320 H, that is 4 years prior to his demise?

The 70 books that are named, written between 300-320, that his from the time he broke with the Mu'tazilah untill 320, there are three titles mentioned which are entitled as al-Luma':

- Kitab al-Luma' fi-Radd 'ala Ahl al-Zaygh wa'l-Bida', which he call a 'a small book';

- Kitab al-Luma' al-Kabir, which he wrote as an introduction to another work;

- Kitab al-Luma' al-Saghir, 'which we authored as a introduction to al-Luma' al-Kabir' - says al-Ash'ari.

Then, O lying people - if these works were authored, according to Imam al-Ash'ari himself, Ibn Furak and Ibn 'Asakir, before 320, then how can the ignorant writer say: 'We, Ash'arites, are unanimous that Luma' is his last work'!

And then another says,

'I always thought that Luma' was one of his last works'

There's no Might nor Power, but with Allah!

If the ignorant writer - a certain Abdullah bin Hamid Ali - would only say:

'It is one of his last works' - then we still would be surpised how he belies Ibn Furak, Ibn 'Asakir and above all -Imam al-Ash'ari!

In fact, the truth is:

al-Luma' which is edited now is al-Luma' fi Radd 'ala Ahl al-Zaygh wa'l-Bida', i.e. the first one mentioned of the three. And it is a small work on all kind of issues of 'Aqidah.

And this work is the 11th book mentioned by Imam al-Ash'ari in his al-'Amad, as Ibn Furak mentioned and Ibn 'Asakir says. So if it is the 11th book mentione from the first 70 books listed prior to 320, then how can someone claim it is one of his last works - or much worser! - his last work!?!?!?!

Rather, I say:

It is one of his earliest works after I'tizal being written not in his last years - but somewhere between 299 and 320, and I think in his earlier 'Sunni' career.

Besides, Ibn Furak mentions in the list of works which al-Ash'ari has written, according to his knowledge, between 320 untill his demise in 324:

No book whatsoever with the title al-Luma'!

So see, again, Oh people, were ignorance prevails together with lies! And they claim themselves to be Ash'arites - followers of Imam al-Ash'ari!

Rather, they are Jahmites/pseudo-Jahmites as Ibn Darbas says, who ascribe themselves falsely to Imam al-Ash'ari - No, we are Ash'arites truly, as following the Imam al-Ash'ari as he stated in al-Ibanah - his real last work!

May Allah's curse be upon the Muharrifun!

Wa-Salamu 'Alaikum!

salaams,

Asharites are known for manipulation. They have a history of distorting and misleading Muslim Ummah. In our times, you have heard of Asharites like Hisham Kabbani, Abdullah Habashi, Nuh Keller, Hasan Saqqaf, Saeed Fawdah, and others. You have also seen how they distort and selectively quote and misquote to suit their purposes.

If you read the books of Mutazila and Jahmiyya you won't be surprised if you see the same arguments employed by our present day Asharites. Mutazila and Jahmites used to call themselves Ahl al-Tanzih.

Faqeer or Faqir , Samarqandi and Ahsan Irfan of Deobandi "sunni"forum raised some questions.



Does the Ashari bible Usul al-Din of Abd al-Qahir Baghdadi have any sanad ?

Does the Ashari Sufi books like Risala Qushayri or Shikaya Ahl sunnah (whatever the title is) have isnaad ?

What about other Ashari bibles of Isfairini and others ? Do they have isnaad ?

Having said that, how is that you people claim that you are Asharites and yet you don't have any BOOKS of al-Ashari himself ?

Ibn Asakir talks about four famous books of Ashari, among them Maqalaat and Ibanah and Risalah. Why doesn't any Asharite who claims to have isnaad going back Abul Hasan Ashari have isnaad going back to these books ?

Where are these books ? Has the Asharite sect vanished and re-emerged ?

Or is it that Mutazilite/Jahmites have started calling themselves as Asharites. Look at Abdullah al-Habashi al-Ashari, he has a book of al-Ashari on his website. That book proves which creed of Abul Hasan Ashari when he was Imam of Mutazila.

One of Habashi types samarqandi said


Ask that question to Abu Bakr al-Baqillani al_Ashari who said about "two eyes" ! Didn't Jahmis and their followers from Mutazila and Ashariya said the same thing about 'Quran is Not Created' ? These Jahmis / Mutazila were asking for qatee daleel for 'Quran is NOT created' !!
One Jahmi said, the Prophet never said 'Al-Quran Ghayr Makhluq' hence whoever said that is innovated. Isn't Samarqandi following the same methodology ? But we shouldn't conclude samarqandi is Jahmite. Let us give him a chance.

Its quite amusing to see the so-called "Ash'arites" asking their opponents Isnad's for their books.

If people - read so-called Ash'arites - want to know what's Imam al-Ash'ari's real position is according to 'sahih chains of transmissions' then what would they say about Ibn 'Asakir, Ibn Furak, al-Baqillani etc.?

Are they the same as us - in their relying on the books of al-Ash'ari - supposedly all false and forged or misformed?

Shouldn't the Ash'arites preserve their own 'theological' heritage? Such as the Ahl al-Hadith have done to theirs, for instance, the books of the Ashab al-Hadith Ibn Hanbal, Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dauwd, al-Darimi, Ibn al-Madini, Ibn Abi Hatim etc.?

I've seen dozens of books by those who are called Ash'ariyyin, such as:

al-Baqillani's Tamhid and Insaf, Ibn Furak's Maqalat al-Ash'ari and Mushkil al-Hadith, Abu Ishaq al-Isfara'ini's Tabsir fil-Din,
Abu Ma'ali's Irshad, Luma', Nizamiyyah and his books on Fiqh, al-Baghdadi's Usul al-Din, al-Ansari's Ghunya, the books of al-Sharastani, al-Ghazali, al-Razi etc.

I've almost never seen an Isnad at all prefaced for any of these books - let alone if the Isnad is reliable!!

The same counts true for some of the different Tabyin-manuscripts: the one I've seen have unknown copyists..

So should we through all these overboard?!

Then I can count many many other books, such as plenty of non-religious books: for example, grammar-books, poetry, history-works, biographies etc. all which miss a Isnad or have a 'unreliable' sanad/support.

But so what?! If their's agreement that by competent scholars that some book/writing is from this/that author - and none of the Muhaqqiqin of our Religion have opposed that, should we deny its authenticity?

One doubter like 'you' once told me:

"Why do all the Hadith's in the Six Books have asanid, incl. the books themselves, and most of them are not Mutawatir, let alone that they be all authentic - While we know that the Qur'an is mutawatir but we haven't seen the documentation of all its asanid?!"

Does the doubter know how to anwser this? Cause if you are 'a scholar' as you claim, then you surely know!

If you look into Mashyakha of the Ulama, be they like Ibn Hajar, al-Dhahabi and al-Suyuti, then you'll find them give for any book - they either read or received - they gave: the name of the Ustadh, the title of the Work, the date etc. incl. sometimes the Isnad all the way back to the original author. Then what will you do with al those other scholars without Isnad, and if they have - many unknown people, i.e. no jarh or ta'dil, in it?!

To those people, who ask a Isnad for the Ibanah of al-Ash'ari we say:

All the competent scholars in religious/non-religious knowledge are agreed in the fact that al-Ibanah is the book of Imam al-Ash'ari.

They also agree generally what is written in it - and the likes of the Huffadh Ibn 'Asakir, Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Dhahabi and others agree on many details - such as the quotes we gave for example.

Then, if these scholars agree, there's no room for any other to doubt on what they agreed, except with proof which stronger than what they've said.

And if all parties - Ash'arites & Hanbalites, Sunnites & Shi'ites, and Malikites, Hanafites and Shafi'ites, Sufis & Fuqaha - concur on the facts like these, then who are those who oppose statements from al-Bayhaqi, Ibn 'Asakir, Ibn Abi Ya'la, not speak about the innovatoting people?!

And the Ibanah-manuscripts, and the Tabyin-manuscripts etc. are written by people who were unbiased towards al-Ash'ari and the Ash'arites - rather, we may even suggest that they were biased for they were themsleves Ash'arites in all probability!

And Ibn Darbas wrote a pamphlet just to proof the authenticity of this book - an Ash'arite himself! And he mentioned in it the manuscripts he used and on whom he relied to ascertain a correct copy!

And we have many many more Proofs & Qara'in - but Allah Subhanahu grant light to whomever He wishes!

Wallahu Musta'an!