Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 27

Introduction and Historical Background

This is a discussion on Introduction and Historical Background within the Orthodox Theology (Aqeeda) forums, part of the Learning Zone category; The Orthodox Creed A Study of al-Durra al-Mudhiyya fi ‘Aqidat al-Firqa al-Mardhiyya (The Luminous Pearl on the Doctrine of Pleasure-endowed ...

  1. #1
    Peculiarly Ostrobogulous Expergefactionist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Londonistan
    Posts
    13,385
    Follow Expergefactionist On Twitter Add Expergefactionist on Facebook Add Expergefactionist on Google+

    Default Introduction and Historical Background

    The Orthodox Creed

    A Study of
    al-Durra al-Mudhiyya fi ‘Aqidat al-Firqa al-Mardhiyya
    (The Luminous Pearl on the Doctrine of Pleasure-endowed Sect)
    By al-‘Allama al-Shaykh Muhammad al-Saffarini al-Hanbali

    Allah praise be to Allah, who gifted us to Islam and guided us to the path of His Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam. Surely, without His guidance we would be in complete loss.

    May the peace and the blessings of Allah be upon the Prophet, His companions, His family and all those who followed them in righteousness until the Day of Judgement.

    Introduction:

    Before we begin, it is very important to answer an elementary question, and that is: what exactly is Orthodoxy in Islam and how is it determined?

    A simple answer would be the answer of the Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam – about the saved sect, that they are upon what the Prophet and his companions were upon.

    This is one of the easiest methods of examining the claims of various groups claiming for themselves orthodoxy. For example, it is easy for one to have a brief look at the Mu’tazilite beliefs and realise that it takes root in Greek philosophy and not in the Sunnah.

    However, this simplicity sometimes does not work, especially when, for example, certain heretical sects claim a large number of following for themselves, attribute themselves to one or more of the four orthodox schools of Law (fiqh), and in the due course, distorting history in their favour.

    This is when it becomes important for a person to know the historical roots and circumstances of each of these sects to be able to discern their claim to orthodoxy.

    Currently, since there are two main camps in the Muslim world, the Salafis and the Ash’aris, each of them laying claims to orthodoxy, it is important to briefly mention their history, tracing their roots to their respective origins, and thereby establishing whose claim to orthodoxy is more worthy than the other.

    Historical Background:

    In the beginning of Islam, the Quran and the Sunnah was the ultimate source of Islamic thought on all aspects of human life. Just as fiqh was deeply rooted in, and based on the two legal sources, the Qur’an and the Sunnah, theology too was based on the very same sources without any external influence. This approach was represented by the bulk of the Prophet’s Companions and their successors, who formed to constitute what we know and refer to today as: traditionalism.

    The first Islamic century witnessed the emergence of heretical sects such as the Khawarij, the Shi’ah and the Qadariyya (‘Free-Willers’), and the Jahmites, the followers of al-Jahm b. Safwan.

    The second Islamic century witnessed the emergence of the Mu’tazilites, under the leadership of Wasil b. ‘Ata. The common story often quoted in the heresiographical works is that during the confusion caused on the status of a sinful person in Islam due to the Khawarij, who expelled one from Islam due to sins, and the Murji’ah, who argued that sins do not affect one’s faith; a person came to al-Hasan al-Basri to enquire about the orthodox position on a sinful person, is he or is he not a Muslim?

    Before al-Hasan al-Basri could reply, Wasil b. ‘Ata interjected and claimed: ‘Such a person is not a believer, nor a disbeliever, rather he is of ‘an intermediate rank between the two ranks (of faith and disbelief)’ (al-manzila bayna al-manzilatayn)’ Thus, he was expelled by al-Hasan al-Basri from his gatherings. Wasil b. ‘Ata then began having his own gatherings at a corner of the same Masjid, which prompted al-Hasan al-Basri to say: la qad i’tazalana Wasil (Wasil has withdrawn from us), and were therefore known as the Mu’tazila (lit. those who withdraw).

    The Mu’tazili movement marked the emergence of the rationalist movement in Islam for their use of Greek Philosophy, which became known amongst the Salaf as ‘Ilm al-Kalam, and received violent attacks. Thus, there appeared two main theological camps amongst the Muslims, the traditionalist camp that represented the Salafi school, and the rationalist camp that represented advocates of Greek philosophy and rationalism.

    The rationalist movement received fierce criticisms from the Salaf for its disregard for the traditions in favour of reason. The movement, however, spearheaded by the Mu’tazilites, did eventually rise to power for two main reasons:

    1) They managed to gain acceptance and legitimacy for themselves by adhering to the Hanafi school in fiqh, and thereby, acquiring official posts as judges in Islamic courts. It was much easier for them to join the Hanafi school than the rest due to the school’s inclination to rationalism; whereas the rest of the scholars were ardent followers of the Ahl al-Hadeeth movement, who were always at odds with the Ahl al-Ra’y for their vigorous use of Qiyas, making it impossible for the Mu’tazilites to infiltrate their ranks. It is noteworthy that even amongst the Hanafi school, despite of their struggle, the Mu’tazilites did not receive approval.

    2) Their good connections with the ruling ‘Abbasid Caliphate always placed them in a favourable position. For instance, the Mu’tazilite leader, ‘Amr b. ‘Ubayd was a close friend of the ‘Abbasid Caliph Abu Ja’far al-Mansur; Abul-Hudhayl al-‘Allaf was the teacher of the Caliph Ma’mun who instigated the period of Mihna of the creation of the Quran against Ahl al-Sunnah; al-Nadham had good relationship with Muhammad b. ‘Ali, one of the ministers under the ‘Abbasid Caliphate; and finally, Ahmad b. Abi Du’ad, the Hanafite jurist was a supreme judge for Caliph al-Mu’tasim.

    Hence, the Mu’tazilites were able to influence the Caliphate in instigating an inquisition against Ahl al-Sunnah through out the land, which resulted in scores of scholars acknowledging the creation of the Quran under duress, while the prisons became over crowded with those who refused. The mosques in Egyp had inscriptions written on them: There is no God but Allah, the Lord of the Created Quran.

    This period was very critical for it posed a real threat to the very survival of the traditionalist movement, and it was only due to the staunch and heroic resistance demonstrated by Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal, that the traditionalist movement won the day, and hence, he was to be known as the Imam of Ahl al-Sunnah.

    After this humiliating defeat, the rationalist movement began to lose ground and respect amongst the commoners, neither did it enjoy the support it once had prior to Caliph al-Mutawakkil who restored the traditionalist status.

    At the same time, there appeared those who sought to reconcile between the traditionalist and the rationalist movement, and that was by championing the traditionalist cause, using the rationalist weaponry.

    The first to start this trend was Ibn Kullab. However, his attempt was rendered a failure since Imam Ahmad issued a decree of boycott against him for practising Kalam. Such was also the case with some of the early ascetics and Sufis like al-Muhasibi, who used to have large gatherings of sermons. It only needed one statement from Imam Ahmad to diminish al-Muhasibi’s status, which caused him to die in exile with only a hand full to pray over his funeral. Such was the strength of the traditionalist movement, and the insignificance of the rationalist movement.

    Ibn Kullab’s efforts, however, did not go in vain, for there appeared Abul-Hasan al-Ash’ari who revived the attempt of reconciling between traditionalism and rationalism.

    Abul-Hasan al-Ash’ari was brought up in a prominent Mu’tazilite household under the care of an eminent Mu’tazilite theologian Abu ‘Ali al-Jubba’i. For forty long years he was nourished on the Mu’tazilite version of Greek philosophy and negative theology, which obviously were to have a lasting effect on his thought.

    As to why exactly al-Ash’ari left Mu’tazilism remains obscure, but it is noteworthy that by this stage, the Mu’tazilites were rapidly losing ground, and neither did they enjoy the popular support as did the traditionalist. Perhaps, this could be one of the reasons for al-Ash’ari making a sudden U-turn after forty years, and turning against the rationalist movement.

    Al-Ash’aris efforts, like that of Ibn Kullab were also destined to go in vain, at least for a century, for the traditionalist viewed al-Ash’ari with much suspicion, especially for indulging in Kalam. In this regard, al-Ash’ari wrote his final work called al-Ibana and presented it to al-Barbahari al-Hanbali, the leading traditionalist of his time, but the latter rejected it point blank.

    After the demise of al-Ash’ari, there remained a few number of scholars who adhered to the Ash’ari school, yet they, far from being prominent, were constantly attacked every now and then by the scholars of the four schools, and often cursed publicly on the pulpits, precisely for employing Kalam in theology. The famous creed authored by the ‘Abbasid Caliph al-Qadir was written and publicly read to endorse the traditionalist beliefs and attack the rationalist movement, including the Mu’tazilites and the Ash’arites.

    It was only in the 5th Islamic century when the Nidham al-Mulk, a vizier who favoured the Shafi’is and the Ash’aris, took control and established a network of colleges that became known after him as Nidhamiyya Colleges, that the Ash’arites were finally able to breath and propagate their rationalism freely. A sudden influx of power for the neo-rationalist movement caused many riots in Baghdad between the traditionalist and the rationalists, now being represented by the Ash’arites.

    The reason why the Nidhamiyya Colleges worked so well in favour of Ash’arism, is that Nidham al-Mulk had stipulated conditions, making the fiqh lessons to be exclusively Shafi’i. This was a perfect opportunity for the Ash’arites to convince their co-madhabists from the Shafi’i school of Ash’arism. However, their efforts failed due to the opposition they received from the traditionalist Shafi’is, and hence the Ash’ari struggle for recognition moved to Damascus.

    In Damascus there appeared two main Ash’arite propagandists, one before Ibn Taymiyya, and the other after. The first one being Ibn ‘Asakir al-Dimashqi, and the other being al-Subki.

    Ibn ‘Asakir also made an attempt to gain approval for Ash’arite rationalism from his Shafi’i colleagues, and to this end he wrote his famous defence of Ash’arism called: Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari. In this book he presents a laudatory biography of al-Ash’ari, then lists more than 80 Ash’arite theologians, and finally ends with a section dealing with problematic reports from al-Shafi’i in particular concerning the censure of Kalam. Here, Ibn ‘Asakir is obviously addresses his colleagues from the Shafi’i school and tries convince them that Shafi’i only opposed the Kalam used by the Qadariyya, and not the science of Kalam itself as used by the Ash'arite Mutakallims. This effort by Ibn ‘Asakir was also destined to fail, for the bulk of the Shafi’is remained faithful to traditionalism.

    After Ibn ‘Asakir, it was time for Ibn Taymiyya to rock the very foundations of the Ash’ari world, and champion the cause of the traditionalist movement, which was to have a lasting affect for centuries to come. If, on one hand, Shafi’is had Madhab based colleges that were restricted to Shafi’ism, thereby facilitating for the Ash’aris to win approval of their co-Madhabists; there were, on the other hand, Dar al-Hadeeth or Colleges for Traditionist studies that were not restricted to a school of fiqh, and therefore, were attended by followers of the four schools.

    This is where Ibn Taymiyya played a pivotal role for he was a professor at Dar al-Hadeeth, where he had access to Shafi’i students such as al-Dhahabi, Ibn Kathir, al-Mizzi and others. This strengthened the bond between the traditionalist amongst the Shafi’is and the Hanbalis, against their common rationalist enemy, the Ash’arites.

    Ibn Taymiyya’s everlasting influence on the Shafi’i traditionalists became an enormous obstacle for the latter Ash’arite propagandists such as al-Subki. Yet, al-Subki was well equipped to take up the challenge, which he did by writing his biographical masterpiece on the Shafi’i scholars, which he called Tabaqat al-Shafi’iyya. This work, like Tabyin of Ibn ‘Asakir, was also aimed at the Shafi’i colleagues, but it was a more clever attempt by far.

    Unlike Ibn ‘Asakir’s book title which made a clear reference to al-Ash’ari, al-Subki’s work title was very subtle and therefore appealing to all Shafi’is. In this work, al-Subki’s major obstacles were not the traditionalists foreign to his school, but rather they were the traditionalists from his own school. To this end, he did not spare an opportunity to discredit al-Dhahabi’s status as a great Shafi’i, by attacking him and describing him as a Hanbalite-Hashawite sympathiser.

    However, al-Subki’s attacks on al-Dhahabi eventually fired back at him, for the latter Shafi’is did not view these attacks in good light, and often mention in their biographical notes, how kind al-Dhahabi was to his student al-Subki, implying thereby that al-Subki returned his own teacher’s kindness with rebuke. After al-Subki, there were no significant attempts to gain acceptance on part of the Ash’arites, for thereafter, the Shafi’ies kept producing the mutakallims, as well as the traditionists like Ibn Hajr who were often antagonistic to the Mutakallmimun.

    Hence, the traditionalists efforts have always been geared it keeping the rationalist Ash’arites out of orthodoxy, whereas the Ash’arite rationalist effort has always focused on gaining acceptance and an entry to orthodoxy.

    This shows that Ash’arite claim to orthodoxy is not a matter of dispute amongst the Hanbalis and the Ash’arites alone, rather the Shafi’i school itself was divided as to its legitimacy. Imam Ahmad, on the other hand, was recognised as the ultimate champion of Sunnah, by the traditionalists from the Hanbalis and the Shafi’is without doubt, and by the Ash’arites with concealed hesitance. This is clear from al-Ash’ari’s attempt to gain legitimacy by claiming to be a follower of Imam Ahmad in al-Ibana.

    Such a brief look at history helps us define orthodoxy and further identify who have more right to lay claim to orthodoxy, and whether or not Ash’arite claim to orthodoxy has any weight.
    Last edited by Expergefactionist; 13th June 2006 at 06:56 PM.
    A person who never made a mistake never tried anything new.

    Albert Einstein

  2. #2
    Anti-Shirk
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,356

    Default shafiyya

    However, al-Subki’s attacks on al-Dhahabi eventually fired back at him, for the latter Shafi’is did not view these attacks in good light
    salaam
    Correct me if am wrong. ..dint the majority of shafi'is after subki become asha'rites like sakhawi,Ibn hajar al haythami,suyuti and arent present day shafi's almost exclusively asha'ri ?

  3. #3
    Peculiarly Ostrobogulous Expergefactionist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Londonistan
    Posts
    13,385
    Follow Expergefactionist On Twitter Add Expergefactionist on Facebook Add Expergefactionist on Google+

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by abu hafs
    salaam
    Correct me if am wrong. ..dint the majority of shafi'is after subki become asha'rites like sakhawi,Ibn hajar al haythami,suyuti and arent present day shafi's almost exclusively asha'ri ?
    Ilm al-Kalam is the backbone of Ash'arism, and it is its legitimacy that Ibn ‘Asakir and al-Subki were trying to achieve.

    Ash’arism without Kalam is skin without bones.

    Scholars mentioned above were not mutakallimun, and al-Suyuti in particular quite Salafi in that regard, such that he wrote in censure of mantiq and kalam.

    They preferred the beliefs of the Salaf over the mutakallimun. What most of them erred in was their understanding what exactly is the Madhab of the Salaf, due to which many of them fell into tafwidh, which for them was to negate the dhahir.

    Ibn Hajar al-Haytami was not a mutakallim either, yet he sympathised with the Ash’aris, and hence his criticisms against Ibn Taymiyya, the bulk of them were simply taken from the works of al-Subki without questioning.

    Hence, note the difference between sympathising with the Ash’arites and agreeing with some of their doctrine, and following their philosophical Kalami approach to theology. It is the latter which was a point of contention amongst the Shafi’is, let alone Hanbalis.

    wasalam
    A person who never made a mistake never tried anything new.

    Albert Einstein

  4. #4
    Anti-Shirk
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,356

    Default one more...

    salaam...
    jk for the answer ...one more question since ur dealing with the
    Imaam as-Safaraini ,he seems to have been a contemporary of Sheikh Muhammed Ibn Abdul Wahhab rah ...what was the opinion of the later on the former or vice-versa if any such exists
    wassalam
    ps :sorry for too many questions

  5. #5
    Senior Member ibn 'abd al-jabbaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    2,469

    Default .

    as-salaamu 'alaikum,

    jazaakallahu khair for this introduction.

    what can be said of the development of the maturidiyyah within the context of the history above?

    did they indulge in a kalaam similar to the ash'ariyyah? was this creed very prevalent amongst the ahnaaf (as i hear that a number of hanifi jurists were maturidi)? and was it as significant as the movement of ash'arism?

    apologies for the volume of questions, jazaakallahu khair

  6. #6
    Peculiarly Ostrobogulous Expergefactionist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Londonistan
    Posts
    13,385
    Follow Expergefactionist On Twitter Add Expergefactionist on Facebook Add Expergefactionist on Google+

    Default

    Dear brother Abu Hafs,

    I have heard that he was critical of Sh Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Wahhab, though I haven’t been able to see it for myself, yet.

    It’s not a surprising that many great scholars, including those who completely agreed with Sh Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Wahhab, were critical of him due to the widespread anti-wahhabist propaganda, much of it was baseless, such as the Sheikh claiming to be a prophet.

    Dear brother iaj,

    I knowledge about the maturidiyya is very little. Yes they, like the Ash’ariyya were also mutakallimun. It is also interesting to note that the Ash’arites always regarded them to be closer to the Mu’tazilites than Ahl al-Sunnah.

    The Hanafis have had jurists from various doctrinal backgrounds. Al-Lacknawi al-Hanafi divides the Hanafis into five difference groups with respect to creed. From them al-Hanafiyya al-Kamila – the complete Hanafis who follow Imam Abu Hanifa in doctrine and jurisprudence, such as the very early Hanafis, al-Imam al-Tahawi, Ibn ‘Abil-‘Izz al-Hanafi etc. Then there were the Mu’tazila Hanafis, the Shi’a Hanafis, the Murjia Hanafis, etc.

    No need to apologise for your questions. After all, the purpose of these lessons is to learn and one can only do that by throwing questions.

    Was-salaamu ‘alaikum
    A person who never made a mistake never tried anything new.

    Albert Einstein

  7. #7
    ss4
    ss4 is offline
    Sister
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    31

    Default

    Bismillah walhamdulillah
    asalamu wa alaykum

    I was just wondering, is this Thread going to be one of learning Aqeedah or one of refuting different sects, I say this not out of sarcasm, but to truly understand, as for myself, I'm interested in knowing a little more about different aspects of Aqeedah itself than refuting, of course refuting will be in the lessons somewhere, as there has to be a compare and contrast. I just hope it will not be the bulk of the lessons, but more in a historical aspect so we may know how these sects came about and some portions of thier traits.

    Jazakhallah khair
    Last edited by ss4; 11th June 2006 at 05:46 PM.
    I ask you: Is there anything better than Tawhid and Tawakkul?

  8. #8
    Peculiarly Ostrobogulous Expergefactionist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Londonistan
    Posts
    13,385
    Follow Expergefactionist On Twitter Add Expergefactionist on Facebook Add Expergefactionist on Google+

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ss4
    Bismillah walhamdulillah
    asalamu wa alaykum

    I was just wondering, is this Thread going to be one of lerning Aqeedah or one of refuting different sects, I say this not out of sarcasm, but to truly understand, as for myself, I'm interested in knowing a little more about different aspects of Aqeedah itself than refuting, of course refuting will be in the lessons somewhere, as there has to be a compare and comparision. I just hope it will not be the bulk of the lessons, but more in a historical aspect so we may know how these sects came about and some portions of thier traits.

    Jazakhallah khair
    Yes, our aim is to learn the truth, and through it know falsehood.

    So yes, the lessons, as I said earlier, will be based on the poem of Imam al-Saffarini himself.
    A person who never made a mistake never tried anything new.

    Albert Einstein

  9. #9
    Muslim Male
    WM
    WM is offline
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,371

    Default Wala'a and Bara'a

    salamu 'alaykum,

    Abuz Zubair, this isn't very related, but its to do with the concept of wala'a and bara'a; some people of dubious intention claim that 'AbdurRahman bin 'Awf (r.a.a.) at Badr threw himself on top of a kafir friend to prevent the Muslims from killing him, and using this statement they try to nullify parts of our creed. This is a famous issue, because the editor of al-Wat(h)an newspaper was fired for including it in an article that slandered ibn Taymiyya as medieval etc. Now, as I don't have access to the hadith in question, I am asking for a clarification of this point.

    JK

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    326

    Default

    So if the Hanbalis and Shafis for the most part were united upon traditionalism what was the stand of the Hanafis and Malikis? Were they heavily influenced by the Matrudis and Asharis by the time of Ibn Taymiyyah?

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Introduction to Arabic Lessons
    By Expergefactionist in forum How to Prepare for Arabic Lessons
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 18th April 2012, 07:26 AM
  2. Author's introduction to Adab
    By Expergefactionist in forum Ethics (Adab)
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 4th July 2009, 04:40 PM
  3. Leaving Qur'aan playing in the background?
    By ibnYaseen in forum Sciences of the Qur'aan
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 27th September 2007, 11:33 AM
  4. Introduction
    By alkathiri in forum Introduce Yourself
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 6th May 2007, 01:30 PM
  5. Introduction to the Book
    By Expergefactionist in forum Jurisprudence (Fiqh)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 22nd March 2005, 06:51 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257