Bassam Zawadi
1st March 2008, 06:20 PM
Ibn al Jawzi in Akhbar al-Sifat said (point 40):
“In the same category are the following verses: ‘…In order that you might be reared under My (watchful) eyes.’ And ‘build an ark under Our eyes.’ The expression ‘Under Our eyes’ is taken by (some) exegetes to mean ‘under our command’ (amr)’, and by others to mean ‘under Our oversight (mar’an minna).’ Abu Bakr b. al-Anbari pointed out that among the Arabs the plural (pronoun) is sometimes used even when the referent is singular; hence, one may say: ‘We travelled to Basra (when one really means ‘I travelled to Basra’).’ This use of the plural derives from the practice of kings who are in the habit of saying ‘our command’ or ‘our prohibition.’ The Qadi (Abu Ya’la) maintained that ‘eye’ is an attribute added to the divine essence (za’ida ala dh-dhat). Already before him Abu Bakr b. Khuzayma said, in connection with the above verses: ‘Our Lord has two eyes by which He sees.” Ibn Hamid said: ‘We must believe that God has two eyes.’ This view, however, is an innovation for which there is no justification in scripture. (Champions of this view) attribute two eyes to God only through a kind of inferential reason (Dalil al-Khitab) based on the Prophet’s (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) statement: ‘He is not one eyed.’ These words, however, were meant only to deny that imperfection of any sort can be ascribed to God….”
In points 217-219, ibn al Jawzi said:
In the Sahihs of Bukhari and Muslim there is a tradition from Anas b. Malik in which it is reported that the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) said while discussing (the signs of) the Antichrist (dajjal): “He will have one eye (a’war), but your Lord is not one-eyed.”
The Ulama maintain that the chief aim of this saying is to assert that God cannot be described in any way that might imply imperfection, for being one-eyed is obviously an indication of imperfection. The Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) did not mean to ascribe to God bodily organs, for there is nothing praiseworthy in the attribution of such to God.
Who can refute his reasoning?
qadri
2nd March 2008, 06:54 AM
still you didn't answer.
Why do you want to refute ? Do you refute each and every scholar ? What is the point ? You have so many cut-copy-paste posts of gfhaddad/faqir on this forum and Multaqa English...isn't what they call Spamming ?
Shams al-Din Dhahabi says in Siyr Alam Nubula 484:15 on Ibn Jawzi
"“… his excellence continued to increase and gain popularity until he died. May Allah have mercy on him and forgive him! Only if he had not indulged in allegorical exegeses (ta’wil) and opposed his Imam !”
1) Where is the isnaad for the supposedly book of Ibn Jawzi ?
2) Is the Isnaad for the book authentic ?
3) Ibn Jawzi censured and rebuked Abul Hasan al-Ashari
His extremely hostile attitude towards the Ash’aris was well noted by Ibn Kathir as he states: “Ibn al-Jawzi mentions in this year[20], in al-Muntadham, the death of al-Ash’ari, where he spoke ill of him, disparagingly in accordance with the habitual criticisms by the Hanbalis directed towards the Ash’aris, past and present”[21]
Ibn Kathir is referring to the following note of Ibn al-Jawzi on al-Ash’ari: “He was born in 260 AH. He delved into the Kalam, and was upon the madhab of the Mu’tazila for a long time. He then decided to oppose them and proclaimed a doctrine which muddled up people’s beliefs and caused endless strife. The people never differed that this audible Qur’an is Allah’s Speech, and that Gabriel descended with it upon the Prophet – Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him. The reliable imams declared that the Quran is eternal, while the Mu’tazila claimed that it is created. Al-Ash’ari then agreed with the Mu’tazila that the Quran is created and said: ‘This is not Allah’s Speech. Rather, Allah’s Speech is an Attribute subsisting in Allah’s Essence. It did not descend on the Prophet, nor is it audible.’ Ever since he proclaimed this belief, he lived in fear for his life for opposing the orthodox community (ahl al-sunnah), until he sought refuge in the house of Abu al-Hasan al-Tamimi fearing his assassination. Then some of the rulers began to fanatically followed his madhab, and his following increased, until the Shafi’is abandoned the beliefs of al-Shafi’i and instead followed al-Ash’ari’s doctrine”[22]
The vehement defence of sunna and palpable attacks on unorthodox views, and in particular the Ash’arite views on the Qur’an, were a distinct feature of Ibn al-Jawzi’s sermons. His attacks against the Ash’aris include his famous remark, once made on the pulpit: “The heretics claim; i) there is none in the Heavens, ii) neither is there Qur’an in the Mushaf, and iii) nor is there a Prophet in the grave; ‘your three shameful facets’”[23]
Ibn al-Jawzi writes, while complaining about certain Ash’arites indoctrinating the masses with the Ash’arite dogma: “A group of Persian (a’ajim) heretics arrived in Baghdad and mounted the pulpits to sermon the masses. They would claim, in most of their gatherings: There is no ‘Speech of Allah’ on this earth, and is the mushaf anything but paper, galls and vitriol?[24] Allah is not in the Heavens, and the slave-girl to whom the Prophet said: ‘Where is Allah?’ was dumb and therefore pointed towards the sky, meaning: He is not from the idols worshipped on this earth.[25]
They then said: ‘Where are the ‘letterists’, who claim that the Quran is composed of letters and sound? Rather, the Quran is only an expression of Jibril!’ They continued in this vein, until the sacredness of the Quran diminished from the hearts of many.”[26]
He then mentions at length, the arguments for the orthodox approach towards the Quran, and commends Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal for his rigid stance on the issue, which united the Muslims on one belief: the Quran, which is contained in the Mushaf, is the uncreated Speech of Allah. He then denigrates al-Ash’ari, saying: “Then, people did not differ in this issue, until there appeared ‘Ali b. Isma’il al-Ash’ari, who at first, held the beliefs of the Mu’tazilites. It then occurred to him, as he claimed, that Allah’s Speech subsists in the Divine Essence (sifah qa’imah bil-that). His claim, therefore, necessitated that the Quran we have is created.”[27]
[ http://www.islamicawakening.com/viewarticle.php?articleID=1277 ]
4) Ibn Jawzi was criticized
قال ابن رجب : ( ومن اجله – أي التأويل – نقم عليه جماعة من مشايخ أصحابنا وأئمتهم ميله إلى التأويل في بعض كلامه .... ولا ريب أن كلامه في ذلك مضطرب مختلف ) [ ذيل الطبقات : 3 / 414 ] .
وقال عنه سيف الدين ابن المجد : ( سمعت ابن نقطة يقول : قيل لابن خضر : ألا تجيب عن بعض أوهام ابن الجوزي ؟ ، فقال : إنما ينبع من قلّ غلطه ، فأما هذا ، فأوهامه كثيرة ... قال سيف الدين : ما رأيت أحداً يعتمد عليه في دينه وعلمه وعقله راضياً عنه !! ) [ سير الأعلام : 21/382 ] .
وكتب له إسحاق بن أحمد العثلي [ ت: 634هـ ] رسالة طويلة ينكر فيها عليه مقالاته في الصفات ، ومن ذلك قوله نافياً نسبة تفويض المعاني إلى أهل السنة : ( وزعمت أن طائفة من أهل السنة والأخيار تلقوها وما فهموا وحاشاهم من ذلك .. ) "[ ذيل طبقات الحنابلة : 4/205-211 ] .
قال السيوطي في طبقات الحفاظ (1\480): قال الذهبي في التاريخ الكبير: «لا يُوصَفُ ابن الجوزي بالحفظ عندنا باعتبار الصنعة، بل باعتبار كثرة اطلاعه وجمعه».
فقال الذهبي في سير أعلام النبلاء (21\378): «هكذا هو: له أوهامٌ وألوانٌ من ترْك المراجعة، وأخذ العِلم من صُحُف».
وقيل لإبن الأخضر: ألا تجيب عن بعض أوهام بن الجوزي؟ قال: «إنما يُتتبع على من قل غلطه، فأما هذا فأوهامه كثيرة». قال السيف: «ما رأيت أحداً يُعتمد عليه في دينه وعلمه وعقله، راضياً عنه». وقد عابه الكثير من أهل السنة فأصر على بدعته. وعاتبه أبو الفتح بن المني في أشياء. ولما بان تخليطه أخيراً رجع عنه أعيان السنة، وذمّوه وتركوه.
وقال ابن حجر لسان الميزان (2|83) بترجمة ثمامة بن الأشرس البصري بعد قصة: «دلّت هذه القصة على أن ابن الجوزي حاطب ليلٍ لا ينتقد ما يحدّث به
Criticisms of Ibn al-Jawzi
Ibn al-Jawzi, being a remarkable critic, was censured himself on a number of issues, some of which follow:
Profuse errors in his works
Although Ibn al-Jawzi is remembered as a voluminous writer, the obvious disadvantage was the subsequent colossal number of errors in his works. For often, he would finish a book, and instead of revisiting it for corrections, he would begin another one; similarly, at times, he would write two books in different subjects simultaneously. He would frequently quote passages from various sources in different sciences, without thoroughly studying and researching. Thus, it is reported that he would say: “I am a compiler and not an author.”
His errors in Hadith
Although, Ibn al-Jawzi displayed great dislike for many authors to narrate week, and sometimes fabricated traditions in their works, while al-Ghazzali being the foremost of his victims; he, ironically, was guilty of the same.
According to al-Dhahabi, while he was known with the exalted title of ‘al-Hafidh’, it was not due to his mastery in the science of traditions, but as a result of his vast knowledge and memorisation of copious narrations.
Al-Dhahabi also mentions Ibn al-Akhdar being asked about Ibn al-Jawzi: “Would not you respond to some of the errors of Ibn al-Jawzi?” He said in reply: “One can only critically study someone whose errors are relatively few. As for him, then he has countless errors.” Al-Dhahabi then quotes al-Sayf’s unwarranted comment: “I have never seen anyone who is relied upon in his religion, knowledge and intellect, admiring Ibn Al Jawzi.” Al-Dhahabi then beautifully concludes: “If Allah is pleased with him, then they are irrelevant”.[40]
Al-Mawdhu’at is amongst the famous works of Ibn al-Jawzi on fabricated traditions, which received wide acceptance as well as criticisms, the primary reason for which was his inclusion of numerous traditions that were, perhaps weak (dha’if), but not at all fabricated (mawdhu’). Many of such traditions are found in the books of Sunan, and in fact, one in Sahih Muslim. A number of latter traditionists pursued his errors, such as al-Hafidh al-‘Iraqi, Ibn Hajar and al-Suyuti in his work al-La’ali al-Masnu’ah.
Self-eulogy
Ibn Rajab quotes Ibn al-Qadisi from his Tarikh that from the objections many had against Ibn al-Jawzi was that “his speech consisted of eulogy, pride, presumptuousness, and frequent claims; no doubt he was guilty of some of that, may Allah overlook his faults.”[41] Ibn al-Jawzi’s description of his sermons, fame and glory in his al-Muntadham are an obvious reflection of such objections, which often puzzles the average reader with respect to his piety and humility on one hand, and his eulogy and assertions on the other.
However, it seems Ibn al-Jawzi was well aware of such criticisms, and perhaps he even responded to them, albeit indirectly, saying: “After I had devoted myself to a study of these latter (i.e. the traditions) and to the sciences which fall under rubric of hadith, scarcely a tradition was mentioned to me but that it was possible for me to say: ‘It is a sound tradition (sahih),’ or ‘a good tradition (hasan),’ or ‘an absurd tradition (muhal).’ There are to be found in my books of wa’dh, achievements which even those experts [in this art] find impossible to match. I mention these achievements only out of gratitude, not out of pride, because those who see them will be astonished. But as for myself, I see only the excellence of the One who has made possible these achievements, and the inadequacy of my thanksgiving. Most assuredly, it was He who empowered me to speak extemporaneously for entire meetings without having to recourse to what I had memorised. Sometimes as many as fifteen verses [from the Quran] were recited in my presence at these meetings, following which I would immediately deliver a khutba relevant to each of the verses. And now I implore God to give me sincerity of purpose and assist me in profiting from my learning so that He may be the Master of that [learning] and the Sovereign Lord over it”[42]
Theological errors
Ibn al-Jawzi created a storm in the traditionalist-textualist Hanbali school by writing his infamous book Daf’ Shubah al-Tashbih bi Akuff al-Tanzih (Rebuttal of the Insinuations of Anthropomorphism at the Hands of Divine Transcendence), which drew fierce attacks from all corners of the Hanbali world. The book came is a reaction to Ibn Hamid, Abu Ya’la and his Shaykh Ibn al-Zaghuni, who too were accused of fanaticism in their approach to affirming Allah’s Attributes, for often they would use baseless and unfounded narrations to affirm them.
Ibn Taymiyya writes about the three aforementioned:
“…from the third category are those who heard the traditions and the narrations, glorified the beliefs of the early Muslims, yet also shared some of the principles of the Jahmite-Mutakallimun. They did not have as much expertise in the Quran, Hadith and traditions, as did the Imams of sunnah and hadith; neither from the angle of distinguishing between the Sahih and the Dha’if, nor from the angle of grasping the meanings of those texts. They also deemed some of the rational arguments of the Jahmite-negators to be correct, and therefore, saw a visible contradiction between the two (text and rationale). This was the case with Abu Bakr Ibn Furak, al-Qadhi Abu Ya’la, Ibn ‘Aqil, et al. Due to this, they would sometimes prefer the method of allegorical exegesis (ta’wil), as did Ibn Furak and his likes while commenting on problematic traditions; or sometimes, they would ‘leave the meanings to Allah’ (tafwidh) saying: the apparent meaning must be retained (tujra ‘ala dhawahiriha), as did al-Qadhi Abu Ya’la and his likes; and sometimes, their opinions would differ, hence, they would prefer the former method at times, and the latter at other times, as was the case with Ibn ‘Aqil and his likes. Moreover, they would often mention amongst the problematic traditions, narrations that were false and fabricated, not knowing that they were forged; or not knowing the same tradition with a different wording which may solve the dilemma.”[43]
Ibn al-Jawzi was more impressed with Ibn ‘Aqil than the others mentioned by Ibn Taymiyya, due to which he would often favour tafwidh, while sometimes opting for ta’wil. Such a contradictory stance is demonstrated by his interpretation (ta’wil) of the Face of Allah, as referring to Allah’s essence in Daf’ Shubah al-Tashbih[44]; and then the rebutting the Mu’tazilites for the very interpretation he is guilty of in Majalis Ibn al-Jawzi.[45] In a similar vein, he censures those who opt for Ta’wil and brands them ‘negators of Attributes’, and further denounces the Mu’tazalite interpretation of Hands as bounties, Ascension (istawa) as seizure (istawla), or Descent (nuzul) as mercy; yet he is found guilty of the same errors in Daf’ Shubah al-Tashbih.[46]
Towards the end of his work, Ibn al-Jawzi remarks: “When a group of ignorant ones learnt of my book, they were disappointed, for they had become accustomed to the beliefs of their anthropomorphist leaders. Thus they said: ‘This is not the madhab.’
I say (Ibn al-Jawzi): This is not your madhab, nor the madhab of your teachers whom you blind follow. I have, however, exonerated the madhab of Imam Ahmad, and cleared him from the false narrations and nonsense utterances, without blind following anyone in my beliefs.”[47]
No doubt, none can challenge Ibn al-Jawzi’s assertion with respect to himself; but as for exonerating Imam Ahmad of beliefs he considered anthropomorphic, then the scarcity of quotes from Imam Ahmad in his work, despite their copious presence in other popular and widely accepted Hanbali sources, remains a far cry from his claim. Al-Dhahabi also noticed Ibn al-Jawzi’s departure from the doctrine of Imam Ahmad and remarked: “… his excellence continued to increase and gain popularity until he died. May Allah have mercy on him and forgive him! Only if he had not indulged in allegorical exegeses (ta’wil) and opposed his Imam!”[48]
Inevitably, he received criticisms by various Hanbali authorities, from his age up until the present time. Amongst his contemporary critics was the Hanbali ‘Shaykh of Iraq’, Abu al-Fadhl Ishaq b. Muhammad al-‘Althi, who addressed Ibn al-Jawzi in harsh words in a letter, most of which was quoted by Ibn Rajab in Dhayl[49].
From the highlights of the letter, is al-‘Althi’s remarks addressing Ibn al-Jawzi:
“Amazing is of one who adheres to the madhab of the Salaf, and does not deem permissible to indulge in Kalam, who then moves to interpret that which he did not tolerate at first. He then says: If we say such and such, it would lead to such and such.
“If you interpret the divine Attributes based upon linguistic interpretations, deeming it permissible for you, and refuse to accept the advice, (then know that) this is not the madhab of the great Imam, Ahmad b. Hanbal – May Allah sanctify his soul. Therefore, it is not fitting for you to attribute yourself to him with such beliefs. So chose for yourself a different madhab, if it is possible for you. For our (Hanbali) colleagues have not ceased to proclaim the blatant truth at all times, even if they were struck with the swords, not fearing anyone’s criticism.”
Thus, Ibn al-Jawzi’s account in nearly all Hanbali biographical works remained tainted with this criticism. Ibn Rajab quotes Ibn al-Qadisi’s remarks on Ibn al-Jawzi’s controversy:
“[The error] for which he was criticised by a group of our scholars and Imams from the Maqdisis and the ‘Althis [Hanbalis], was his tendency towards allegorical exegesis (ta’wil) in some of his speech. Their criticisms were severe in that regard. No doubt, his beliefs in this issue were quite contradictory. Even though he was well-versed in traditions and narrations regarding the subject matter, he was not well-aware of the responses to the doubts of the Mutakallimun, nor the extent of their fallacy. He would also hold Abu al-Wafa Ibn ‘Aqil in great respect, and follow most of his beliefs, in spite of refuting him in some issues. Despite Ibn ‘Aqil’s excellence in Kalam, he was not au fait on traditions and narrations, due to which he was inconsistent in this subject, with variegated opinions. Ibn al-Jawzi’s opinions were as vegetated as his.”
Ibn Rajab then quotes Ibn Qudama saying:
“Ibn al-Jawzi was the leading authority on the art of preaching in his age. He also authored excellent works in various sciences, and his efforts were generally accepted. He would teach law (fiqh) and author works to that end, just as he had memorised traditions and also authored in that respect. However, we are not pleased with his writings with respect to sunnah (doctrine), nor his approach.’[50]
The latest rebuttal of Daf’ Shubhat al-Tashbih is a two volume book by a contemporary Hanbali theologian and a traditionist, Sulayman b. Nasir al-‘Alwan called: Ithaf ahl al-Fadhl wal-Insaf bi Naqdh Kitab Ibn al-Jawzi Daf’ Shubah al-Tashbih wa Ta’liqat al-Saqqaf (An Offering to the Noble and Just, by Rebuttal of the book by Ibn al-Jawzi Daf’ Shubah al-Tashbih, and commentary of al-Saqqaf thereupon)
Due to Ibn al-Jawzi’s theological slips, some modern-day, and rather zealous Ash’arites have described him as an Ash’ari who ‘took a staunch Ash`ari stance in doctrine’; which is a rather astonishing claim, since none from the Muslim biographers or historians ever described him as such. On the contrary, despite sharing some aspects of doctrine with the Ash’arites, he was nevertheless, a staunch Ash’ari detractor, as demonstrated above and in a number of his works.
[ same above link ]
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.