Al-Naruiji's Latest Swindle and Distortion of the Aqidah of the Sunni Muslims of the First Three Centuries Hijrah To the right is the latest attempt by this Aristotelian, Neo-Platonic Jahmite to pull the wool over his audience by falsifying history and falsifying the creed of the Sunni Muslims regarding the Qur'an during the first three centuries hijrah in the face of the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah and Kullaabiyyah (of whose view regarding the Qur'an, the Ash'arites were followers). So let us peel off the layers of deception one by one and establish that what this Jahmite is really pushing is a creedal viewpoint regarding the Qur'an that is founded upon the conceptual tools of Aristotelian Metaphysics (al-jawhar wal-'arad) - but which is very cleverly concealed in layers of doublespeak (words which actually mean the very opposite of what they appear to mean at face value). The Neo-Platonic Aristotelian Jahmite said: To bring absolute clarity to the deviant claim of Aļļaah's Eternal Speech, the Qur'aan, being created. There are 3 main sayings: Sunni, Salafi, Athari Comment: When this Jahmite Heretic, contender to Allaah's Messenger, the Sahaabah in their entirety, the Taabi'een in their entirety and the Imaams of the Salaf from the second and third centuries says, "Aļļaah's Eternal Speech, the Qur'aan..." he is not revealing to you that what he really means by "the Qur'aan" is not the Qur'an that the entire Ummah knows of, the Qur'an that the entire Ummah (save the heretical Ahl al-Kalaam from the Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah, Ash'ariyyah and Maturidiyyah) reads, listens to, memorizes. Rather, to this Jahmite, this Qur'an that the common-folk from the Ummah knows is created. He is just too much of a filthy conniving coward to tell you that and make it apparent in his speech. But this is the formulation of the Jahmite creed when presented to the common-folk - clothed in layers of deception and made to appear other than what it really is. There are some courageous Ash'arites (past and contemporary) who have openly come out and made it clear that the Ash'aris in reality agree with the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah that the Qur'an we read (as in the words of the Qur'an - we are not speaking here of the book, the ink and the likes, we mean the actual words), that it is created. These people believe that the Qur'an we recite and memorize is just an "ibaarah (expression)" of the second "Qur'an" they believe in (which is an "indivisible meaning" present with Allaah's Self), and that this ibaarah is created (but they forbid that this should be said openly) as is explicitly stated in al-Bayjuri's Haashiyah upon al-Jawharah (one of their standard and most famous textbooks). Fakhr ud-Din ar-Razi (d. 606H) openly stated that the Ash'aris and Mu'tazilah are agreed that the Qur'an we have is created, and that they just differ on issues of wording and terminology (see here). The contemporary Ash'ari, Muhammad Sa'eed Ramadan al-Buti - and we brought his saying establishing the same (see this article). And likewise the saying of al-Juwaynee (d. 478H) confirming they are in agreement with the Mu'tazilah regarding the Qur'an being created (in this article), and then another article on another section in al-Bayjuri's Haashiyah confirming that the Qur'an that is recited (maqroo') is created (see this article). The Qur'an is a Recital, a Book. Alaah spoke it, Jibreel heard it and transmitted it to Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). The Messenger Muhammad conveyed it to his Ummah as it was conveyed to Him. Allaah is eternally one who speaks, but His speech is through His will, choice, power. He speaks with whatever He wills, whenever He wills. And the Muslims only know of one Qur'an. There are no two Qur'ans [may Allaah reward you Ibn Qudaamah (rahimakallaah) - see here]. This is what the Qur'an and Sunnah came with and what the Imaams of the Salaf were upon in opposition to the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah before Ibn Kullaab and al-Ash'ari came along.

Blatant Hypocrisy and Contradiction

So when this Jahmite is saying to you, "Aļļaah's Eternal Speech, the Qur'aan" it is a lie. This sentence is a lie to the Ash'aris, by definition, it is a lie. It is not permissible for an Ash'ari or Maturidi to put together a blatantly contradictory sentence like this. The Qur'aan, by definition to an Ash'ari, cannot be eternal. It is a created expression only of another "thing" they believe in, which is an indivisible meaning present with Allaah's self in eternity. To say, "Aļļaah's Eternal Speech, the Qur'aan" is blatant hypocrisy, a lie and an attempt to deceive the Muslims. For this reason, we see that these people try their best to conceal the reality of their belief that the only Qur'an the ummah knows and has ever known of is created. They will not spell it out in plain black and white, but try to conceal it with clever doublespeak. So when this Jahmite says next:

Sunnis, the Ash'ariyys and Maaturiidiyys, say that the Qur'aan is the eternal Speech of Aļļaah. This Speech is an eternal attribute of Aļļaah and is not created, i.e. not brought into existence. It is not letters or sounds, and is not something sequential or divisible into parts. "The book of the Qur'aan, which is letters and words, expresses some of what Aļļaah's attribute of Speech refers to. That is why it is called "Aļļaah's Speech." Note again that Aļļaah's attribute of Speech is not divisible. It is what it refers to that is divisible, just as Allaah's attribute of Will is not divisible; it is what it refers to that is divisible.

One can readily see the blatant contradiction and lie, clothed in evil doublespeak aimed at deceiving the audience. It is impossible for this Aristotelian, Neo-Platonic Jahmite and his likes to say, "...the Qur'aan is the eternal Speech of Aļļaah," this is certainly a lie for them, and is putting together two opposites (according to their particular creed). You can note the blatant contradiction as soon as he starts explaining in the words that followw:

"The book of the Qur'aan, which is letters and words, expresses some of what Aļļaah's attribute of Speech refers to. That is why it is called "Aļļaah's Speech." Note again that Aļļaah's attribute of Speech is not divisible. It is what it refers to that is divisible...

So we have moved from "the Qur'aan is the eternal Speech of Aļļaah," where the Qur'aan is eternal and move in the same breath to a statement which essentially says that the Qur'an now is not the actual eternal speech of Allaah but merely an expression of that eternal speech (and not the actual eternal speech itself). This is what is known as "doublespeak" which is language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words and this is a hallmark of the Ash'arite theology which aims to disguise the Jahmite, Mu'tazilite usool they are really operating upon and trying to make their subsequent viewpoints appear other than what they really are. In reality, they believe in two Qur'ans but are too cowardly to openly propagate this doctrine without fear. Read the statement of Ibn Qudaamah al-Maqdisi (d. 620H) exposing the Jahmite Ash'aris of his time on this very point, it is extremely revealing - it is at the end of this article.

What this Aristotelian Jahmite is really saying is:

We believe like the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah that the Qur'aan which we have, which Muslims recite, memorize, listen to is created. As in, the words of the Qur'aan are created. This is because we are operating upon the same foundations and conceptual tools and language that the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah founded their theology upon. Hence, we agree with their conclusion that the Qur'aan is created. However, in order to avoid the scorn and wrath of all people we will affirm something additional and try to make that synonymous with this created Qur'aan so as to veil the reality. So we will affirm what we call "an indivisible eternal meaning in the self of Allaah" as a double for the Qur'aan that everybody else knows of. Then in our language and characterization of our belief we will use cleverly crafted formulations and doublespeak in order to conceal the reality of our saying and make it appear that we believe "the Qur'an" present with us that the entire Ummah knows of is uncreated, whereas in reality we, like our Jahmite and Mu'tazili forerunners believe it is created (thanks al-Bayjuri - see here).

It is highly appropriate here now that we bring the statements of those Ash'arites we mentioned earlier who admitted that their saying is the same as the Mu'tazilah, that the Qur'aan is in fact created, and that the dispute between them is essentially, one of wording only.

The Ash'arites and the Mu'tazilah Are United and Differ in Wording Only

Muhammad Sa'eed Ramadan al-Buti, a contemporary "Ash'ari" explains it really well, in the book, "Kubraa al-Yaqeeniyyaat al-Kawniyyah", al-Buti says (pp. 126-127) - see original here:

They (the Mu'tazilah) had said:

Indeed, the sense, meaning (madlool) of the expressions (ibaaraat) to which you have applied the name of "al-kalaam an-nafsee" returns in reality to the attribute of knowledge (ilm), if this meaning is information (khabar), and returns to the attribute of wish, desire (iraadah) if it is a command (amr) or prohibition (nahee) (and you will already know that they consider the wish, iraadah and the command, amr, to be a single meaning). As for the expressions themselves, then their words are haadithah, makhlooqah (recent, created) from Allaah - just as we have all agreed (upon this) - for they are not the attribute of Allaah, the Most High, but they are a creation from amongst His creatures, and the [word] "Kalaam" is nothing but an explanation of this (meaning).

When you reflect upon what we have mentioned, you will have grasped the point of difference between the Mu'tazilah and Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah [he means the Ash'aris], and it is:

There is a meaning of the words of the Qur'an from which the command (al-amr), prohibition (an-nahee), information (al-khabar) are composed of and which are directed to mankind and which is eternal (qadeem) [referring here to the meaning, ma'naa]. So what is the name of this meaning (ma'naa)?

The Mu'tazilah [say]: It's name is knowledge (al-ilm) if it is informing with knowledge (ikhbaar), and wish, desire (al-iraadah) if it is command or prohibition.

The majority (meaning of the Ash'aris) [say]: It's name is "al-kalaam an-nafsee", and it is an attribute in addition to both knowledge (ilm) and wish (iraadah), which is established with the essence of Allaah.

As for the speech (al-kalaam) which is the wording (al-lafdh), then they are agreed (the Ash'aris and Mu'tazilah) that it is created (makhlooq), and that it is not established with His, the Sublime's essence...

... And though we believe what the majority [i.e. of the Ash'aris] have tended to that the meaning (ma'naa, present with Allaah) which is the [original] sense, or meaning (madlool) behind of the expressions (ibaaraat), is name is "al-kalaam an-nafsee", and that it is an attribute in addition to both the attribute of knowledge and wish (al-ilm wal-iraadah), except that the Mu'tazilah are all agreed, entirely, with the majority [meaning of Ash'ari scholars] in affirming this meaning for Allaah, the Most High, and that it is an eternal attribute established with His essence, even if they do not call it "Kalaam" like we do.

So what is al-Buti saying in essence? He is saying that the Ash'aris and Mu'tazilah are all agreed that the Qur'aan (the lafdh) is created. Thereafter the Ash'aris and Mu'tazilah disagree on what label they apply to what the Ash'aris consider to be the uncreated speech of Allaah. The Ash'aris say it is "Kalaam Nafsee" (a meaning in the self of Allaah). [How they came to this view has been discussed in other articles, this view was innovated by Ibn Kullaab and is founded upon a line of poetry from a Trinitarian Christian called al-Akhtal]. And the Mu'tazilah argue that this is nothing but Allaah's knowledge (if it relates to information) and Allaah's will (if it relates to a command). In other words, what you Ash'arites are labelling as "a meaning in the self" is no different to Allaah's "knowledge and will" to us the Mu'tazilah, which we consider to be synonymous with the essence of Allaah, as we do not accept multiplicity of attributes, so we are just referencing the same thing through different labels. So the Mu'tazili argument is that this additional thing you are attempting to affirm (Kalaam Nafsee) doesn't exist, it is nothing but knowledge and will which we, the Mu'tazilah, treat as being synonymous with the essence, not distinct attributes. This is a very frank and honest admission of the reality of the saying of the Ash'arites by al-Buti here (and it was also stated in a different way by al-Juwaynee and al-Razi). And it is here that the Ash'arites got such a mighty pounding by the Mu'tazilah and for which they had no answer (al-Aamidee [an Ash'ari d. 631H], poor soul, he couldn't hack it and had to throw in the towel):

• How the Mu'tazilah Slapped the Ash'arites Into Intellectual Oblivion and Made Mockery of Their Intelligence - Between The Multiplicity of Attributes and the Doctrine of the Indivisible Kalaam Nafsee - (see here)

Ibn Qudamah al-Maqidis's Unveiling of the Jahmites in His Time Which is Also An Unveiling of This Neo-Platonic Aristotelian Jahmite, Abu Adam Naruiji

The final speech in this opening article has to be given to Ibn Qudaamah al-Maqdisi (rahimahullaah), (you can read the full Arabic in this article here), Ibn Qudaamah (d. 620H) said in his book, "Hikaayat ul-Munaadharah fil-Qur'aan Ma'a Ba'd Ahl il-Bid'ah" (Narrative of the Debate Regarding the Qur'an with Some of the People of Innovation) - which is his documenting of his debate with the Ash'aris on the subject of the Qur'aan (pp. 34-35):

And the focus of [these] people [the Ash'arites] is to [say] the Qur'an is created and to agree with the Mu'tazilah, but they love that this should not be known about them, so they embarked upon [sophistry] that [amounts] to arrogant rejection of observable reality, and rejection of the realities, and opposition to the consensus (ijmaa), and throwing the Book and the Sunnah behind their backs, and speaking with something that no one before them has said, neither Muslim nor Disbeliever.

And it is strange that they are not daring enough to proclaim their [real] saying openly, and nor to explicitly state it, except in secluded gatherings, even if they were [ones] in authority (i.e. rulers) and were the leaders of the state. And if you were to quote [to others] from their saying that they believe, they would hate it and reject it and become arrogant over it.

They do not outwardly show except veneration of the Qur'an, and respect of the masaahif (copies of the Qur'an), and standing up (maintaining respect for it) when seeing it. But in the secluded gatherings, they say, "There is nothing in them (the masaahif) except paper and ink, and what else is in them [but that]?"

And I had quoted some of what had been said by one with whom there was a debate - between me and him - and he became angry and it was burdensome to him, and he is one of the greatest of rulers in the land. And he did not reveal explicitly his saying until I was in seclusion with him, and he said, "I wish to say to what is in the innermost part of myself, and you (in turn) say to me what is in the innermost part of yourself", and he made their saying (that of the Ash'aris) clear to me, along the lines of what we have [already] quoted from them. And when I presented some verse, making it binding upon him [to accept] that they indicate the Qur'an is these [very] surahs (chapters) [in letter and word], he said, "And I say this is the Qur'an (as well). But this is not the eternal Qur'an." I said, "So do we have two Qur'ans?". He said, "Yes, and what will happen if we have two Qur'ans?"

When I quoted this saying from him (to others) he became angry.

And some of our companions said to him: "You are the rulers (wulaat ul-amr), the leaders of the state, so what prevents you from openly proclaiming your saying to the general folk, and calling people to speak with it between them."

So he was refuted and did not [thereafter] respond to me.

And we do not know amongst the people of innovation, any faction who conceal their saying, and do not have the boldness to proclaim it (openly) except the Heretics (Zanaadiqah) and the Ash'ariyyah.

And Allaah, the Exalted, order His Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) to openly proclaim the religion, to call to it, and to convey what Allaah revealed to Him, so the Most High said:

O Messenger! Proclaim (the Message) which has been sent down to you from your Lord. And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His Message. Allah will protect you from mankind. (Al-Ma'idah 5:67)

So if their saying - as they claim - is the truth, then why do they not openly proclaim it and call the people to it?

And how is it lawful for them to hide it and conceal it, and to proclaim openly what is different to it, deceiving the public [into thinking they] believe other than it? Rather, if their saying was the truth that the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), His Companions, and the Imaams of the religion after them were upon, how come not one of them openly proclaimed it? And did they all concur upon concealing it?

Or how was it lawful for the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) to conceal it from his ummah whilst he had been ordered to convey what had been revealed to him, and had beed threatened against concealing anything from it with His saying:

And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His Message. (Al-Ma'idah 5:67)

And how was it possible for him to make the people presume (something) in opposition to the truth?

May Allaah reward Ibn Qudaamah (rahimahullaah) immensely for bringing out the innermost secrets of these heretics for all of posterity to see until the Hour is established.

End of Part 1. To be continued inshaa'Allaah...