Asharism and Atheism- A Glimpse Into Two Parallel Ideologies

8/3/2019 Asharism and Atheism- A Glimpse Into Two Parallel Ideologies

1/21

Btibsjtn!bne!Buifjtn;!B!Hmjnqtf!Jnup!Uxp!Qbsbmmfm!Jefpmphjft

Author: Ali BoriqeeSource: Multaqa Ahlul-Hadeeth

Compiled by: al-Mustaqeem Publications

+);0#+"!>2(.-;:.928/.-0#(1234'5/.-+&()'&$#"!0"8

+GH/.9E4C#D;2AB8

I initiate this discussion to enrich the understanding of the Muslims and to solidify whatsome of them can somewhat already perceive, but only in a general fashion. It may befunny, but it has a great element of tragedy in that those who follow the Ashari school ofthought, who claim to be the followers of rationalism, simply do not see the rational andconclusive ramifications of what their school of thought leads to.

There are a number of sources in my mind that gear towards this topic, so part of myinitiation of this discussion is to make it a conglomerate platform for these sourcesinshallah.

To further make reading the following material easier, I begin by classifying thediscussion into graduating stages. So I began by presenting the topic of Allahs Being onhaving limit or not limit. After the establishment of this sector of the topic, I move ontothe topic of place which is an intermediate topic which precedes the final topic. The


2/21

final topic I discuss will most likely be the lengthiest as it deals with Allahs existentialityin the view of Ashari advocates or those who conceded to their views.

Allahs Being, limit or No limit

The Test of Imaam Ahmad on Allahs Existentiality to the Jahmiyyah

Issue: When Allah Created the Creation, Did He Do So Within Himself orOutside of Himselfi.e. does He dwell within the creation or is He separate from it.

This argument actually stems from Imaam Ahmad in his Radd alal-Jahmiyyah.However, before I present the testimony of Imaam Ahmad, I will reveal it in answer toan inquiry I received on the topic.The following was a reply to a brother who was trying to understand this very issuebetter. The reason why I quote the following is because it is integral to the topic at hand

It was asked

As-salamu alaikum.

May Allah reward you all for your patience and generosity.

You say that Allah has Infinite grandness in His Attributes (not in His being) whydo you say this about His Attributes but not His Being?

I would be interested to see evidence from the Quran, the Sunnah or the RighteousSalaf to justify your opinion.

So my reply is the following

Ill divide this in two, the first is the rationale argument while the second is thescholastic proof inshallah

1. The claim that He is infinite in His Attributes and NOT in His Being.

This means that His attributes are endless, they do not have a limit, His Mercy isinfinite, His Benevolence is Infinite, His Power is infinite, His Might is Infinite, HisSovereignty, His Bounty infinite etc etc, are infinite. In short, every one of Allahsqualities knows no bounds.

This also means that His actual being (dhaat) is limited. WHY? If Allah is unlimited inHis being, then this necessitates that His very Being consumes all that exists as thismeans that His actual being is unlimited consuming everything, including the creationand other than the creation and this is the very belief that was being promulgatedamong the jahmiyyah. The modern lexical term for this belief is Omnipresence

2. The proofs


3/21

Imaam Ahmad recorded in his Radd alal-Jahmiyyah in the chapter on the expositionregarding the denial of the jahmiyyah that Allah is not on His Throne, he mentionedthat when he told Jahm about where is Allah, their reply was

He is under the seven earths as He is on the throne; He is in heaven, on earth and in

every place; there is no place where he is not, nor is He in one place to the exclusion ofany other. And they quoted the verse: And He is God in the Heavens and on the Earth.

Imaam Ahmad says in His radd

We said: The Muslims know of many places where there is no trace whatsoever of themight of the Lord. They (jahm) said: And where is that? We replied: Your bodies, yourinsides and pigs insides, in privies and unclean places, and in all of which there is notrace of the Lords might.

Allah told us that He is in Heaven, saying:

What are ye sure that He who is in Heaven will not cleave the Earthbeneath you?..

Or are you sure that He who is in Heaven will not send against you astone-charged whirl-wind?67-16,17And again:

The good word riseth up to Him. 35-2

And again:

O Jesus! Verily I will cause thee to die, and will take thee up to myself.3-48And again:But Allah took him up to Himself. 4-156And again:All beings in Heaven and in Earth are His, and they who are in Hispresence21-19And again:They fear their Lord who is above them 16-52And again:

The Master of those ascents 70-3And again:He is the High, the Great.2-256

This then tells us that He is in Heaven.

The following verses show us that all beneath Him are villainous: Verily the hypocritesshall be in the lowest abyss of the fire4-144And again: And they who believe not shall


4/21

say, O our Lord! Show us those of the jinn and men who led us astray: both of themwill we put under our feet that they be of the humbled. 41-29

We added: Do you not know that iblis has his place and the devils have theirs? Allah andIblis can not be both in one place. The meaning of Allahs word:

He is God in heaven and upon earth is that to him belong those in Heaven and those inearth; that He is on the throne and that His knowledge embracess all that lies beneaththe throne; and that there is no place not embraced by His knowledge. [1]

Logically speaking, to claim the belief that Allah is unlimited in His being, then this bydefault entails that He is infused with, or envelopes or consumes the creation with Hisbeing and to have an opinion different than the opinion that I have claimed above is kufrof apostasy because this is not merely likening Allah to His creation, rather this is thesaying of some of the esoteric sects of the sufis who follow the school of Ibn Arabi whostated that Allah is everywhere which provided the basis of the doctrine of wahdatul-wujood and itihaad which originated from al-Hallaaj.

However, if this is not enough, then allow me to quote an irrefutable excerpt that ImamAhmad superbly made an acid test for those who have doubt about this matter of Allahbeing limited in His being. Check this out

the title of this chapter from his radd is

Bab: If you wish to know that the Jahmi lies against Allah, in saying that Allah is inevery place and is not in one place to the exclusion of any other

So that is the title

So he begins by saying

Say: Was there not Allah when there was nothing else?

In this line, he is telling the people of the sunnah to ask these people infect bytheosophical dialectic the above question. So Ahmad says

He will assent

Meaning he (the one being asked) will agree. So Ahmad continues

Then say: When He made a thing, did He do so inside or outside of Him?

Then he addresses the Sunni by saying

Three possibilities follow

meaning, there can only be three different views, no more and no less, and two of themis apostasy and only one is correct. He says


5/21

If he asserts that Allah created all things within Himself, including jinn,men and devils, he denies the faith.

thus one who holds this belief cannot be a Muslim. Next he says

If he says that He created them outside of Himself and then entered intothem, including all the wild, squalid and vile places this too is infidelity.

Again, a belief such as this invalidates the faith and the testimony of faith.

And if he says He created them outside of Himself and then did not enterinto them, he has abandoned his position for that of ahl-Sunna.

i.e. if the one who agrees with us that Allah has created the creation outside of Himselfand remains outside and thus separate and distinct from His creation, then such anindividual has abandoned the view that Allah is unlimited in His Being and has agreedwith us (ahlu-sunnah) that He is limited in His being because believing that He is

unlimited in His being equals the belief that He coexist with His creation or that He isomnipresent. So if it is agreed by any individual that Allah created the creation outsideof Himself and remained so has just conceded to our view that Allah is limited in Hisbeing

For those who wish to see further evidence for Imaam Ahmads position on theapplication of the term had or limit for Allah, then read below


6/21

The Issue of Affirmation of al-Hadd (limit) for Allah

There is a saying of Abdullahi ibnul-Mubaarak, the Imaam, on affirmation of al-Hadd.

It is reported in the Tabaqaat al-Hanaabilah (1/267) the following

I said to Ahmad bin Hanbal It is narrated about Ibnul-Mubaarak that it was said tohim , How do we know our Lord?, and he replied, Above (fee) the seventh heaven,Upon His Throne, with a limit (bi-haddin),so Ahmad saidThis is how it is with us

Ibn Taymiyyah makes the following comment on this pointFor (al-hadd) is that by which a thing is distinguished from others in terms of itsdescription (sifa) and extent (qadr), as is well know regarding al-hadd for thosethings which brings about seperation (non-contact) between things. So it is said, Thehadd (end, limit) of so and so or to such and such extent (hadd), and this is from the

attributes that demarcate something from others[2]


7/21

On The Concept of Place: The Ashari Contention With Ahlu-Sunnah

Modern day proponents to the Ashari school place great emphasis on the sunni doctrineof Allahs whereabouts because they have taken the Aristotelian concept of place andwhat it necessitates in Aristotelian philosophical theory.

So then it was asked

You have affirmed place inside creation and place outside creation, and thisaffirmation entails that the place inside creation should be created and the placeoutside creation should be uncreated,

Therefore, you have asserted an uncreated place for Allah (quote: These two coversup everything that exists) I wonder what the Righteous Salaf would have made ofsuch an assertion.

Do you have any evidence from the Righteous Salaf that they ever asserted anuncreated place for Allah?

The Sunni/Athari response is as followsThe salaf would not have mentioned nothing. WHY? Because when the prophet inquiredto the slave women aiynallah i.e. where is Allah, the term aiyn already implies themeaning of place and since it is the prophet Muhammad who asked this question, thenthis makes Muhammad a mushabih (anthropomorphist) in the view of those who claimthat place does not apply to Allah from their concocted formula Allah does not haveplace theory.

Secondly, regarding this point, the salaf did not view the idea of place in the mannerthat you have viewed it under the implication of your words. Place, as viewed under the

kalaam premise, is an area that is confined to spatial direction and surrounded by thesix directions. We say this applies to the creation. But if Allah is above the Throne as Hesaid He was, and then at the same time someone accused this claim made by Allah asascribing place to Him in a manner that is meant by the philosophers as expounded bythe asharis, then we reject the notion that Allah is surrounded by the six directions andconfined to a place just as our Athari Imaam Abu Jafar at-Tahaawee commented in hisAqeedah[3]. That is because when place is attributed to other than Allah, then itrequires the properties mentioned by the philosophers, which is confinement and inspatial direction. But when we are speaking of Allah, then the properties, attributes, andlaws applicable to creation is inapplicable to Allah. So when we say Allah is in thedirection of highness and in the place which is above the throne, then all the properties

that have been applied upon the definitions of space or place are inapplicable if the onewho place is being attributed to is Allah.

Failing to make this distinction between Allah and His creation is the true nature oftashbeeh. In other words, if we say that above has the meaning of being in a directionand therefore limited, and therefore claiming that if we affirm Allahs highness then weare affirming a direction for Allah, then you are really likening Allah into how you view


8/21

the creation, and this is exactly the tashbeeh that the early orthodox community warnedfrom of which the Asharis are guilty of.

And this is exactly where the acclaimed rationalist mindset of the asharis has beenabandoned them because these formulas they have made for Allah are illogical and does

not make sense and is incoherent and ultimately it does not match the beliefs of thesalaf.


9/21

The View of Asharis on Allahs Existentiality:

Their Silent Agreement With Atheists

What are the Belief of Atheists

The following is a general extraction of certain slants of atheism

Theoretical atheismFurther information: Existence of God, Evolutionary origin of religions, andEvolutionary psychology of religionTheoretical, or contemplative, atheism explicitly posits arguments against theexistence of gods, responding to common theistic arguments such as the argumentfrom design or Pascals Wager. The theoretical reasons for rejecting gods assumevarious psychological, sociological, metaphysical, and epistemological forms.

Epistemological arguments

Further information: Agnostic atheism, Theological noncognitivismEpistemological atheism argues that people cannot know God or determine theexistence of God. The foundation of epistemological atheism is agnosticism, whichtakes a variety of forms. In the philosophy of immanence, divinity is inseparable fromthe world itself, including a persons mind, and each persons consciousness is locked inthe subject. According to this form of agnosticism, this limitation in perspectiveprevents any objective inference from belief in a god to assertions of its existence. Therationalistic agnosticism of Kant and the Enlightenment only accepts knowledgededuced with human rationality; this form of atheism holds that gods are notdiscernible as a matter of principle, and therefore cannot be known to exist.Skepticism, based on the ideas of Hume, asserts that certainty about anything isimpossible, so one can never know the existence of God. The allocation of agnosticismto atheism is disputed; it can also be regarded as an independent, basic world-view.

Other forms of atheistic argumentation that may qualify as epistemological, includinglogical positivism and ignosticism, assert the meaninglessness or unintelligibility ofbasic terms such as God and statements such as God is all-powerful. Theologicalnoncognitivism holds that the statement God exists does not express a proposition,but is nonsensical or cognitively meaningless. It has been argued both ways as towhether such individuals classify into some form of atheism or agnosticism.Philosophers A. J. Ayer and Theodore M. Drange reject both categories, stating thatboth camps accept God exists as a proposition; they instead place noncognitivism in

its own category

Metaphysical argumentsFurther information: Monism, PhysicalismMetaphysical atheism is based on metaphysical monismthe view that reality ishomogeneous and indivisible. Absolute metaphysical atheists subscribe to some formof physicalism, hence they explicitly deny the existence of non-physical beings. Relativemetaphysical atheists maintain an implicit denial of a particular concept of God based


10/21

on the incongruity between their individual philosophies and attributes commonlyapplied to God, such as transcendence, a personal aspect, or unity. Examples ofrelative metaphysical atheism include pantheism, panentheism, and deism.

The source of this was extracted from Wikipedia as I merely wished to gloss over the

general concept on the forms of atheism rather than trying to pinpoint the total accuracyof what they mean as many academics do not prefer Wikipedia as a source for reference.At any rate, our main concern is the metaphysical argument here, which as the bottomline proves that what gives the argument of atheist a leg to stand upon is the fact thatthere was never some physical form of contact between the created and the Creator, atleast as they see it.

With that being said, this entire subject should stem from, and MUST ONLY stem fromthe issue of the relationship between the Creator and the Created. It should NOT beconstrued that the Creator and that which is ascribed to the Creator, in any way, shape,or form, is dependant upon the creation.


11/21

The Ashari View of Where is Allah (Himself) and the Notion of Atheism

I will quote Ibnul-Jawzee as it seems to be the best argument for the asharis (such anirony, that it took a hanbali to present their heresy in a manageable fashion)

Haafidh Ibnul-Jawzee states the following absurd logic in reply to Ibn Zaghuni, aHanbali jurisprudent, who he is trying to refute

Furthermore, from another point of view, it can be pointed out that He is neither inthis world nor outside itbecause entering and exiting are inseparable attributes ofthings which occupy space. Entering and exiting are just like movement and stillnessand all other accidents which apply to bodies only.

Notice that Ibn al-Zaghnclaims above [Ibn al-Jawz had quoted from one of hisbooks] that He did not create things in His Essence (dht); therefore, he presumesit is established that they are separate from Him. (In refutation of this claim)we declare that the Essence of the Transcendent God (dhtuh al-muqaddasah) is

beyond having things created in it, or that things should occur in it.Now, materialseparation in relation to Him requires of Him what it requires ofsubstances [namely, that He be defined by finite limits].Indeed, the definitionof location is that what occupies it prevents a similar thing from being found there;[whereas, nothing is similar to God in any way].

It is apparent that what [these anthropomorphists] presume is based on sensoryanalogy.Their inability to conceive of a reality beyond material experience led them intobewilderment, and to liken the attributes of the Transcendent God to the attributes oforiginated things [that is, to commit tashbh].


12/21

A Breakdown of Ibnul-Jawzis Erroneous Deduction

How is this?

Firstly: Islam did not come with anything that is irrational (contradicts intellect\reason\aql)Rather, Islam came with

)2+"JK)maharat al uqool (i.e. what bewilders\puzzles the mind

but did NOT come with

)L2+"JK)]mahalat al uqool (i.e. what is impossible in the mind [unfeasible

In regards to the belief of the later Asharis that Allah is neither in His creation noroutside of it, and neither in contact/attached to His creation nor separate from it (Thefirst Muslim scholar whom Ive seen mentioning such a belief is al Ghazali rahimahuAllah), it is from mahalat al uqool (impossibilities in the mind).

Before Allah created creation, there was only Allah, then Allah created creation, all agreethat Allah did not create it inside of Him, there is only one other choice that is possiblein the mind, which is outside of Him.

The creation being neither inside nor outside of Allah would only be possible if Allah

was non-existent and Allah exists with no doubt, subhanahu wa Taala.

This belief is not something that puzzles the mind, it is something that the mind findsimpossible completely.

It is like saying that a person is not alive or dead, this would only be possible if yourspeaking about a non-existent person.

As for his statement on entering and exiting

Then we say, Firstly, and for mostly, there is nothing in the legal texts nor in the

statements of those errornously deemed as anthropomoprhists by which all of themsay that He enters and exits. And the statement the creation exists outside of Him orthe term He is separate and distinct (bain) from creation does not equal in anyreasonable and formal logic as the object which enters and exits. In other words, theattribute of entering and exiting has no relation at all to a reality that a thing may existoutside or separate of another thing.


13/21

This is the first flaw which makes the mode of his deduction inapplicable to the sunniargument to begin with

Secondly, If entering and exiting are inseparable attributes of things that occupy space,then this would form a line of argument that dictates denial that Allah can come as He

says

C EP G>2#R+ S 1 U.V WXY; 9 Z4[\]]^ YL Ba3]^ UDo they then wait for anything other than that Allah sh ould co me to them in the?shadows of the clouds and the angels

Then the obvious conclusion of this line of logic is that this Aristotelian rule can onlybe applied to the creational objects within the creational realm. Thus the rule does notand could not be applied for anything outside of the creational reality, of which the onlyOne who is Above this creation is Allah.Alas, the anthropomorphists thinking of the Aristotelians continues in full force.

As for his statement that

Entering and exiting are just like movement and stillness and all other accidents whichapply to bodies only.\

Yes, ONLY within this creational dimension which does not apply to Allah because weapply the rule laysa kamithlihi shay i.e. there is no likeness nor similarity to Him.

Ibnul-Jawzi furthermore, with great sadness to us, performs a mighty fallacy if thewords below fully or accurately depict his logic from the original Arabic source. He says

Notice that Ibn al-Zaghnclaims above [Ibn al-Jawz had quoted from one of hisbooks]that He did not create things in His Essence (dht); therefore, he[meaning the one who Ibnul-Jawzi is refuting, namely ibnul-Zaghuni]presumes it isestablished that they are separate from Him. (In refutation of this claim) wedeclare [that is, Ibn al-Jawz] that the Essence of the Transcendent God (dhtuh al-muqaddasah) isbeyond having things created in it, or that things should occur in it.

Hence Ibnul-Jawzi conforms to Ibnul-Zaghuni. What just happened here is that Ibnul-Jawzi is pointing out to the reader that the argument of Ibnu-Zaghuni was that Allah didnot create anything within His Essence. The problem here is one of atheism, which is

that when Ibnu-Jawzi declared Allah to be transcendent beyond having things createdwithin Him or beyond Him, the premise for this reasoning is based on the idea divestedby Aristotelian advocates that the reason for this is because Allah is a mere conceptualreality, with no actual existence. Thus, they liken the actual Being of Allah into a conceptlike love or hate, which happen to exist but only in a theoretical or conceptual state ofmind, they do not have actual existential realities. Thus, the basis for Ibnul-Jawzisrefutation to Ibnu-Zaghuni here is because in the view of Ibnul-Jawzi, Allah is a merefigment of the imagination with no actual existence. Now, it must be clear, we do not


14/21

harm our predecessors in faith from among the likes of Ibnul-Jawzi if we compare hisvast amount of benefit and dedication to Islam and his outright opposition ot theheretics including the Asharis, however, we wished to comment on a dangerousdoctrinal statement advocated by him, and being applied to doctrine by the Asharischool.

However, these criticisms were directed at the defunct logic used above.

Now, I will dissect this argument from the implicated ramifications of this argumentstated by Ibnul-Jawzee above.

1. Inside or outside the World.In logic, reason, and plain simple reality there can only be three states regarding thissubjectA. within creationB. beyond (outside of) creationC. merely conceptual (concepts that are not real, but merely concepts and therefore non

existential)The Jahmi Belief is that Allah was in creation which has been dealt with above and thetest of Imaam Ahmad is a burhan in this subject.

The Normal Sunni Belief is that Allah is beyond (outside) and ABOVE the creation

The Ashari belief is that Allah does not exist as He is not within this world, NOROUTSIDE OF IT.

We say, that such a belief accords to the beliefs of the atheists, because while you do notaspire to reach the same goal as the atheists, you have treaded upon the path of atheism

using different tools than the atheists.

If Allah is not within His creation, and likewise Allah is not outside of it, then that onlyleads to one more possibility, which is that He (Allah) is merely a conceptual figment ofour imagination and not an entity that actually exist, and hence this belief requires whatis most obvious, Allahs NON-existentiality

This topic as well touches the topic of bi dhaatih and jism because as Ibnul-Jawzeesuggest, Allah is transcendent of having form and LIMIT thereby contradicting theaqeedah of Imaam Ahmad because Imaam Ahmad argued against the Jahmiyyah on thisvery point. Allah IN HIS BEING has a limit which is why Imaam Ahmad affirmed that

Allah has a had i.e. limit, but not for His Attributes. His Mercy is infinite, His Poweris infinite, but His being is not and therefore limited. WHY? Because the logical outcomeof such a belief entails that if He is not limited in His being, then that means He isphysically encompassing everything (both what is in the creation and whatever isoutside of it) which is why the Jahmiyyah came to the kufr conclusion that Allah is fikulli makaan.


15/21

However, for the heretical pseudo asharis, for a group who could be concluded in therealm of theists, they came out with an A-theist conclusion in spite of their theism. ALLtheist (this includes everyone who is not an atheist) asserts in one form or another thatAllah is simply somewhere, whether some of them say that He is everywhere orsomewhere, ALL of them concede to the idea that Allah actually exists. These are the

two conclusionary outlooks of every single theist that exist on planet Earth. However,there is one school of thought that posited a different outlook, which is that Allah doesnot exist at all. This is the outlook of the atheist.

As for the asharis, they are the only group in existence who mended the two viewstogether. They affirmed that He exists, and denied His existentiality by asserting that Heis neither within this world nor outside of it.

at any rate, Ibnul-Jawzee here states that if Allah is indeed separate, then that entailsthat He has form and limit which he negates for Allah.

We, the Ahlu-Sunnah say, that He has a form that befits His Majesty and Nature whichis also affirmed in the Hadeeth narrations. This is because after careful study, then thestatement He does not have form entails some major implications like1. If He has no form and is unlimited, then that entails either the belief that Allah iseverywhere OR2. That He has no form, which is basically non-existentialism or atheism

The Issue of Bi Dhaatih and Imaam adh-Dhahabees Commentary on theApparent Atheism of This Ashari Equation for Allah

as I said before ,this issue actually touches the topics of jism and bi dhaatih and nowIm adding Istiwaa because the logical conclusion to the issue of Istiwaa of Allah is

Where is Allah which is the essence of this very thread and here is one such examplewhere adh-Dhahabee comments on their strange and awkward form of atheism

I will highlight the relevant portion in bold. I have quoted this passage several timesbefore and each time I quoted it, it was of benefit to each topic. SO this followingpassage has many benefits that touches spans over several subjects, but the issue I wishto highlight in this thread is concerning the topic of Allahs actual whereness

here is where haafidh adh-Dhahabee brought forth the inquistition of the salaf in thisregard. He quotes Qurtubee who said in al-Asnaa,

Many of the past and contemporary philosophers said, When it is necessary to purifythe Creator (al-Baaree) whose Magnificence is great from having direction (jihah)and demarcation (tamayyuz), then from the requirements and necessary consequencesof this, in the view of most of the past scholars and their leading contemporaries, is topurify the Creator (al-Baaree) from having direction (jihah). In their view, directiondoes not have the aspect of above to it. This is because to them, when Allaah isdesignated with direction, this would necessitate that He is restricted to a place(makaan) and a confine (hayyiz). (Subsequently), a place and a confine necessitate (for


16/21

Him) (such) movement and stillness that is related to distinction (tamayyuz),transformation (taghayyur) and new occurrences (hudooth) . This is the saying of thephilosophers.

I (adh-Dhahabee) say, Yes, this is what the deniers of the uluww (highness) of the

Lord, Mighty and Majestic, have depended upon. And they turned away from therequirement of the Book, the Sunnah, the sayings of the Salaf and the innatedispositions of the whole of creation. What they claim to be necessitated (from affirmingAllaahs highness) is only applicable to created bodies. Yet there is nothing like Allaahand the necessities arising from the clear and evident texts (of the Book and the Sunnah)are also true. However, we do not make use of any explanation except one that comesthrough a narration. In addition to this we say, We do not accept that the Creatorsbeing upon His Throne and above the heavens, necessitates that He is confined and inspatial direction, since whatever is below the Throne is said to be confined and in spatialdirection. However, what is above the Throne is not like that. And Allaah is above theThrone as the very first generation are unanimously agreed upon and as the imaams

after them have quoted from them. They said this in refutation of the Jahmiyyah, thosewho said that He is in every place seeking as a proof His saying, And He is with you.So these two sayings were the very two sayings which were present in the time of theTaabieen and their successors who came after them. And they are the two sayings thatcan be understood in this statement (i.e. of the philosophers).As for the third saying

which came around after this which is that Allaah the Most High is not inany place, nor is His Holy Essence (Dhaat) confined, nor is He separate anddistinct from His creation, nor is he in any spatial direction, nor is outsideof any spatial directions, and nor this and nor that then this is somethingthat cannot be comprehended nor understood , along with the fact that

within it is opposition to the verses (of the Book) and the narrations (from

the Salaf). Therefore flee with your religion and beware of the opinions of thephilosophers. Believe in Allaah and what has come from Him upon the desired intent ofAllaah, then submit your affair to Him and there is no power nor movement except byAllaah.The book is completed and all praise is to Allaah alone Mukhtasir al-Uloow

Indeed in this passage I highlighted in underlined above, means that this can only comeabout through the idea of concepts which is the basis for non existentialism. In otherwords, the mind that comes across this statement and in which the subject is concerningAllah, then it can only be non existentialism that is understood and nothing more.


17/21


18/21

Athari Imaam #2: Shaykhul-Islam Ibn-Taymiyyah says Bayaan Talbis al-Jahmiyyah (1/443)

And when the Jahmiyyah speaks with such words whose meanings comprise thesense that the Creator is not distinguished (seperate) from the creation, then they deny

and oppose His Attributes by which He is distinguished, and they deny His Power(qadar) such that when the Mutazilah come to know that He is al-Hayy (The Living),al-Aleem (All-Knowing), al-Qadeer (All-Powerful), they say, We already know Hisreality and His (true) nature, and they say, He is not seperate and distinguished(Bain) from those besides Him.

Infact, either they should describe Him with the Attribute of non-existence(Atheism) so that they say, He is neither inside the world, not outside it andnor this and nor that, or they should make Him merged with the created things orthe existence of the created things.[end quote]

my commentsThere is a mountain of realities that we can pull from this single excerpt from IbnTaymiyyah alone, but for the sake of brevity, I will only comment on that which relatesto our situation in this specific thread regarding their apparent Atheism

The Jahmiyya were at odds with the Mutazilah in spite of the same pedastal from whichthey operated and understood the religion i.e. kalaamist philosophy.

The jahmis, on the one hand, through their denial of everything about Allah, came to theconclusion that Allah is simply unlimited, and by default of that aqidah, came to themost logical conclusion of this premise, which is that He is everywhere.

However, on the other hand, the mutazilah, like the asharis today, had a morecontradictory aqida, because at least the jahmis were blatently clear. The mutazilahaffirmed the same thing as the jahmiyyah did (well some of them) while at the sametime forming a creedal principle that He is neither inside the world, nor outside, nor tothe left, nor to the right, or the front, or the back, nor below the creation, nor above it


19/21

Athari Imaam #3: Imaam Alee bin al-Murtadaa al-Yamaanee, more commonlyknown as the celebrated Imaam Ibn Wazeer said

The second matter is accusing the religion of deficiency by rejecting the texts anddhawaahir (literal meanings of the Attributes), and removing them from their real

and literal meanings to metaphorical meanings without a clear and unequivocal proofwhich would indicate the establishment for the necessity of taweel, having only theblind following of some of the Ahl al-Kalaam in principles that they have not agreedupon. And the most vile of these is the madhhab of the Qaraamita, the Baatiniyyah, intheir taweel of the Beautiful Names of Allaah, and their negation of them by way ofabsolving Allaah of anthropomorphism and hence actualising tawheed (in their eyes),and their claim that applying them (to Allaah) is tashbeeh, to the extent that they wentto say that He is not present/existing and neither is He absent/non-existing[4]

The are three mountains of the Sunni School of Doctrine who commented on Ashariatheism in their respective times, so this claim is not something new espoused by me,

rather there is precedent in this argument ages ago.Conclusive Remarks

Thus as it appears, some of these groups from ahlul-kalaam adopted preposterous ideas,in this case they said that Allah is neither existent (atheism) or non-existent (theism).

the only conclusion one could arrive at in trying to reconcile this contradictory claimwith some type of reasoning before entering the doorstep of insanity is to assume ofAllah as you assume of conceptual realities, which is that they perceive of Allah that Heis merely a thought, a figment of the imagination with no actual reality, for such a viewis the ONLY view that could entertain the idea that

Allah is neither existent or non-existent or my favorite quote of theirs He is withoutplace

with some plausibility.

Outside of this, one is dealing with insanity. And indeed this was the case when I went toa shia mutazili forum requested by our some people. When I went to the shia forumand asked them if God exists the response of one of them wasdoes love exists

in simple speak, He reduced Allahs reality to the reality of love. Why. Because love hasno actual reality YET we know it exists, it is a feeling, a sensation, an experience with noactual reality. Moreover what defines how crooked their corrupt doctrine is, is that loveis an attribute and not a shayun i.e. a stand alone entity. It can only have a realitybased on an existential thing shayun. Thus like love, this shia implied by his answerthat Allah is like that, having no actual reality


20/21

1 The Defense of Asharis: Lack of Atheistic methodology In TheirApproach

This following defence was actually brought by one of supporters so Im merely quoting

them to demolish the points raised

The defense provided to prove their non atheism is the following defense

I can think of three other choices that do not necissitate non-existence:

1) There is the side itself,

2) There is being both inside and outside,

3) There is being neither inside nor outside through transcending.

Our Athari/Sunni reply

As for the first1. That does not make sense and it entails a foundation that opposes one of thefundamentals of asharism.A. being on the side cannot take place if there is no such thing as being within ouroutside of that thing. In other words, in order to be on the side of something, it eitherhas to be within that thing, or outside of it. Something cannot be on the side of a thingwhile not being within the thing nor outside of it and such a reasoning defies base logic.B. However, even for the sake of argument that existence can be proven by not beingwithin the creation or outside of it, and still proving being on the side, then it entails

that Allah has a physical connection since being on the side of something physicallyentails contact of some form or sort, which such a premise rudimentarily defies Asharidoctrine as well.

As for the second2. Being both inside and outside. Well that equals Allah fi kulli makan (Allah iseverwhere) or omnipresence because this is exactly what the jahmiyyah argued for.

as for the third3. Transcending, then the question is transcending to what? Allah only revealed auniversal fact which is, Himself and Other Than Himself. There is no third state in the

physical realm. There is one other state, but it is a metaphysical (i.e. non-existential)realm where things within this state (like numbers) are merely concepts within thefigment of our imaginations and nothing more.

[1] Radd Alal-Jahmiyyah lil-Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal

[2] Majmua al-Fatawa


21/21

[3] This was stated by at-Tahaawee in his work on creed titled by the scholars asTahawiyyah in point number 38.

[4] [Eethaar al-Haqq alaa al-Khalq (pp. 219+) of al-Yamaanee with summary, asquoted in Sharh Kitaab at-Tawheed min Saheeh al-Bukhaaree (1/86+) of Shaykh

Adullaah al-Ghunaymaan.]

Documents

Asharism and Atheism- A Glimpse Into Two Parallel Ideologies