Did Imam al-Ashari have a third stage (ibn kullab)? Response video

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 2 авг 2024
  • Your support helps me continue to study:
    www.IbnHashim.com/support-a-student
    One of the response series videos to some false attributions and misunderstandings about the Ashari methodology of Ahlulsunnah.
    NEW UPLOADS every week inshaAllah
    Timestamps:
    0:00 Introduction
    0:59 Introducing the claim
    2:05 The first claim
    2:30 Response 1
    3:20 Clarifying 'Mutakallimeen'
    4:09 Response 2
    5:31 Response 3
    5:52 The second claim
    6:28 Response 4
    8:16 The third claim
    8:28 Response 5
    8:48 Response 6
    9:48 Response 7
    12:47 The fourth claim
    12:55 Response 8
    14:07 Response 9
    15:31 Summary

Комментарии • 25

  • @abdullahkhan-qk3lk
    @abdullahkhan-qk3lk Год назад +4

    Masha'Allah very beneficial, Much needed content like this. Jazakallahu Khair

  • @YusraAbdulaziz
    @YusraAbdulaziz Год назад

    Patiently waiting for more response videos🙌🏻

  • @mohammedirfan204
    @mohammedirfan204 Год назад

    Jazakallahu khairAn for your efforts sheikh
    Awaiting intensive videos on the subject to enlighten ourselves insha allah

  • @ammaryassir5989
    @ammaryassir5989 Год назад +1

    Mashallah barakallahu feekum continue this great work may Allah bless you and aid you ameen

  • @Morris-OumarLombardi-cf9nz
    @Morris-OumarLombardi-cf9nz 4 месяца назад

    So why did Imām Ahmad Tabdī' on ibn Kullāb?

  • @alTursi05
    @alTursi05 Год назад

    Excellent work Yā Habibi

  • @ahamedzeidh5614
    @ahamedzeidh5614 11 месяцев назад

  • @OnkelKurac
    @OnkelKurac Год назад +3

    I wouldnt call the Madkhali a "Sheikh"

  • @somahmed123
    @somahmed123 11 месяцев назад

    That guy is not sheikh. Plz he mujassim.

  • @Beneficial_Reminders
    @Beneficial_Reminders Год назад +2

    There’s a lot of mistakes in this video, and I will point the main ones Inshallah
    Firstly: ibn kullab wasn’t from the scholars of ahul Al sunnah , and many scholars spoke out and warned against him and his followers (Dawud al-Zahiri, Harith al-Muhasibi, hussain al karbasi, Abu Thawr) and called them “ innovators ”
    from them:
    1- Iman Ahmed ibn Hanbal (the iman of ahul Al sunnah)
    • Ibn Taymiyyah said, “Imam Ahmed used to warn against Ibn Kullaab and his followers.”
    [‘Dar’ Ta’aaradh al-‘Aql wan-Naql (2/6)]
    • Imam Al-Dhahabi quoted Al-Imam Abu Bakr ibn Khuzaima saying, “Ahmed Ibn Hanbal was amongst the sternest of people in warning against Abdullah ibn Sa’eed ibn Kullaab and his companions such as Al-Harith and others.”
    [Seyar ‘alam an-Nubalaa (14/380)]
    • Imam Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani quoted Al-Imam Abu Bakr ibn Khuzaima saying: “ Ahmed Ibn Hanbal was amongst the sternest of people in warning against Abdullah ibn Sa’eed ibn Kullaab and his companions such as Al-Harith and others.”
    [lisān Al- Mizān (4/486)]
    2- Muhammad ibn Ishāq As-Sirāj
    • In the biography of Shaikh Al-Islam Muhammad ibn Ishāq As-Sirāj, the Muhaddith of Khurasān (died 313H), Imam Adh-Dhahabi stated that Abu Sa’eed ibn Abi Bakr said: “ When the affair of the Kullābiyyah struck the city of Naysaboor, Muhammad ibn Ishāq As-Sirāj started tested to children so that he would not narrate to the children of the Khullābiyyah. So on one occasion, he made me stand up and said: “Say: ‘I free myself in front of Allah (the Most High) from the Kullābiyyah.'” I replied: “If I say that, my father will not give me bread to eat.” So he started laughing and said: “Leave this one alone.”
    3- Ibrahim ibn Ahmad ibn Shāqalā Al-Hanbali (died 369H)
    Ibrahim ibn Ahmad ibn Shāqalā Al-Hanbali (died 369H) was talking to a person upon the doctrine of Ibn Kullāb called Abu Sulaimān Ad-Dimashqi. So Ibn Shāqalā narrated to Abu Sulaimān the hadeeth of Anas ibn Mālik (رضي الله عنه) wherein the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said: “Indeed the hearts are between the two Fingers of Allah, and He turns them.” So Abu Sulaimān said: “They (the two Fingers) are His two Bounties.” Ibn Shaqālā responded: “Does the narration state that the two Fingers are two Bounties??” as a rebuke of his false interpretation. He continued: “The two Hands are Attributes of Allah’s Self. And no one preceded you in this false interpretation except Abdullah ibn Kullāb al-Qattān whose madhhab you have embraced. And there no consideration to be given to the interpretation you mention that the hearts of the servants are between the two Bounties from the Bounties of Allah.” He continued: “Your madhhab (belief) is that the Speech of Allah contains no command or prohibition, no ambiguous verses, no abrogating verses and no abrogated verses. You believe that His speech cannot be heard because according to you Allah does not speak with a voice and that Moosā did not hear the speech of Allah with his own hearing (i.e. his ears). You believe that Allah created in Moosā an understanding with which he understood!” So when he (Abu Sulaimān) saw what Ibn Kullāb was upon of repulsive and ugly beliefs, he said: “I hope by opposing Ibn Kullāb al-Qattān in this issue I will have opposed his madhhab [totally].”
    [Tabaqāt Al-Hanābilah 2/133-135)]
    4- and iman Abul-Hasan Al-Ash’aree himself stated that the “ kullabiya “ is a sect inconsistent with “ ahul Al Hadith “
    He said: “The Muslims differed into ten groups: the Shiites, the Kharijites, the Murji’ah, the Mu’tazilah, the Jahmiyyah, the Dharari, the Husayni, the Bakri, the common, the companions of hadith, and the Kalabiyah, the companions of Abdullah bin Kilab al-Qattan”.
    [Maqaalaat al-Islamiyyin (1/65)]
    So he made it clear that the kullabiya is a sect that differs from the people of al-Hadith
    Secondly: Abul-Hasan Al-Ash’aree leaving the way of ibn kullab and following the path of iman Ahmed is a Indisputable fact
    He stated himself in his book Al ibannah that he follows that path of imam Ahmed Ibn Hanbal
    He said: “Our view and our belief is based on adhering to the Book of Allah our Lord, may He be glorified and exalted; the Sunnah of our Prophet Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him); and what was narrated from our leaders, namely the Sahaabah and Taabi‘een, and the leading scholars of hadith. We hold fast to that, and we also adhere to what Abu ‘Abdillah Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Hanbal - may Allah have mercy on him, raise him in status and increase his reward - said, and whatever views he differed with, we differ with them too, because he was the most virtuous of the scholars and the perfect leader, through whom Allah made truth clear, warded off misguidance, and clarified the path. By means of him, Allah suppressed the innovation of the innovators, the misguided notions of those who are misguided, and the doubts of the doubters. May Allah have mercy on him, what a brilliant and respected scholar he was, and how deep was his knowledge”
    [al-Ibaanah (p. 20)]
    This retraction shows clearly that he left the Kullābiyyah and adopted the creed and methodology of Imām Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and it was well-known that Imām Ahmad held a harsh stance towards Abdullah ibn Kullāb and anyone who followed him. And it was for this reason he ordered the abandonment of Al-Hārith Al-Muhāsabi who was a follower of Ibn Kullāb.
    This third stage of Abul-Hasan Al-Ash’aree showed that he turned away from distorting the meanings of Allahs Attributes which was the way of Ibn Kullaab and he followed the way of the scholars of the Pious Predecessors.
    Abul-Hasan Al-Ash’aree clearly showed this by writing three books: ‘Al-Ibaana’, ‘Risaala ila Ahli Thagr’ and ‘Maqaalaat Al-Islamiyeen’ clearly affirming the Attributes of Allaah in the manner He affirmed for himself without misinterpretation.
    Al-Dhahabi said in Siyar (15/86):
    “I have seen four works authored on the usool (foundations of the religion) of Abul-Hasan in which mentions the principles of the madhhab of the Salaf with regard to the Attributes ,and he said therein: "They are to be passed on as they have come", then he said, "And this is what I speak with, and which I hold as my religion, and they are not to be interpreted (with ta'weel)".
    & Al Al-Dhahabi also said he his book “the Throne”
    ((ولد الأشعري سنة ستين ومائتين، ومات سنة أربع وعشرين وثلاثمائة بالبصرة رحمه الله، وكان معتزلياً ثم تاب، ووافق أصحاب الحديث في أشياء يخالفون فيها المعتزلة، ثم وافق أصحاب الحديث في أكثر ما يقولونه، وهو ما ذكرناه عنه من أنه نقل إجماعهم على ذلك، وأنه موافق لهم في جميع ذلك، فله ثلاثة أحوال: حال كان معتزلياً، وحال كان سنياً في بعض دون البعض، وكان في غالب الأصول سنياً، وهو الذي علمناه من حاله .. )). اهـ
    Iman Ibn Kathir also mentioned this last stage of Abul-Hasan, he said:
    ((ذكروا للشيخ أبي الحسن الأشعري ثلاثة أحوال:
    أولها: حال الاعتزال التي رجع عنها لا محالة.
    الحال الثاني: إثبات الصفات العقلية السبع وهي: الحياة والعلم والقدرة والإرادة والسمع والبصر والكلام. وتأويل الخبرية كالوجه واليدين والقدم والساق ونحو ذلك.
    الحال الثالث: إثبات ذلك كله من غير تكييف ولا تشبيه جريًا على منوال السلف، وهي طريقته في الإبانة التي صنفها آخراً)). اهـ
    طبقات الفقهاء الشافعيين (1/ 210)

    • @MG-kt1nv
      @MG-kt1nv Год назад

      @@UmarElhashmi Assalmoalikum shaykh has a response video been made?

    • @hassanabdaladl
      @hassanabdaladl Год назад +2

      "Secondly etc" is laughable lol. Show me one scholar who said this before ibn taymiyyah. Thanks

    • @Beneficial_Reminders
      @Beneficial_Reminders Год назад

      @@hassanabdaladl firstly go read Kitab Al ibannah written by Iman Al-Ash'ari himself and see if what’s in that book is in accordance with the “ Ash'ari “ creed , you don’t need to say “ show me one scholar before ibn tayimah that said this … “
      But since you asked, Ibrāhīm ibn ʿĪsā Ibn Dirbās is a shafi'i scholar before ibn tayyminah that mentioned it ، he said:
      " فاعملوا معشر الإخوان وفقنا الله وإياكم للدين القويم وهدانا أجمعين الصراط المستقيم أن كتاب الإبانة عن أصول الديانة الذي ألفه الإمام أبو الحسن علي بن إسماعيل الأشعري هو الذي استقر عليه أمره فيما كان يعتقده وبما كان يدين الله سبحانه وتعالى بعد رجوعه من الاعتزال بمنَّ الله ولطفه، وكل مقالة تنسب إليه الآن مما يخالف ما فيه فقد رجع عنها وتبرأ إلى الله سبحانه منها، كيف وقد نص فيه على أنه ديانته التي يدين الله سبحانه بها، وروى وأثبت ديانة الصحابة والتابعين وأئمة الحديث الماضين وقول أحمد بن حنبل رضي الله عنهم أجمعين، وأنه ما دلّ عليه كتاب الله وسنّة رسوله فهل يسوغ أن يقال: إنه رجع عنه إلى غيره؟ فإلى ماذا رجع؟ إلى كتاب الله وسنّة نبي الله وخلاف ما كان عليه الصحابة والتابعون وأئمة الحديث المرضيون، وقد علم أنه مذهبهم ورواه عنهم، هذا الذي -لعمري- لا يليق نسبته إلى عوام المسلمين كيف بأئمة الدين !! …
      إلي أن قال: " وقد ذكر الكتاب واعتمد عليه وأثبته عن الإمام أبي الحسن رحمه الله عليه وأثنى عليه بما ذكره فيه وبرأه من كل بدعة نسبت إليه، ونقل منه إلى تصنيفه جماعة من الأئمة الأعلام من فقهاء الإسلام وأئمة القراء وحفاظ الحديث وغيرهم ". ثم ذكر جماعة منهم
      انظر: " رسالة الذب عن أبي الحسن الأشعري " لابن درباس (ص:١٠٧).

    • @hassanabdaladl
      @hassanabdaladl Год назад +10

      @@Beneficial_Reminders I asked you for a statement of someone before ibn taymiyyah who said that al ibanaah is proof of Imam al Ashari "leaving the kullabiyya for ahl ul athar/the way of Ahmad." Not for proof of a scholar saying that al-Ibanaah is written by the Imam. It is very likely that the Imam wrote a book called "al-ibaanah". I did not dispute that.
      But this is standard stuff from you guys. Maybe you misunderstood me, so you can make another attempt to answer my claim.
      I laughed at your claim because "al-ibaanah" is not proof that he "left the kullabiyya" for the way of Ahmad.
      In fact, if you actually read this version of al-ibaanah that we have today, you would clearly realize that it proves your claim is false.
      Do you want to know how?
      In this version of al-ibaanah, he refutes everyone, specifically the mutazila, after leaving them. Show me where he mentions the kullabiyya? If he's refuting everyone, especially the group he just left (mutazila), he would obviously want to refute the kullabiyya as well (if he supposedly just left them too). Unfortunately for you and everyone else who makes these claims, the author of this work, doesn't mention the kullabiyya.
      Further, why doesn't "he" address Ashari beliefs? When he's talking about istiwa? Why doesn't he speak about the Ashari belief of transcendence? He refutes "Allah being everywhere" but not even a mention of Ashari beliefs?
      Remember, you guys claim he went from itizal to kullabi/ashari to Ahl al athar. So he would know the ashari beliefs before he supposedly wrote this book, right? Yet he remained silent about them?
      Brother, you shouldn't take knowledge from partisans who only care to win an argument, with no regard for the truth.
      One last thing
      If you read Imam al Ashari's works, and then you read al-ibaanah, you will realize very quickly that the writing style is very different. This should make you really think

    • @stealthyghostmk3289
      @stealthyghostmk3289 Год назад

      @@hassanabdaladl what’s that last sentence supposed to mean? Are you claiming al ibanah is a fabrication?

  • @hassanswati827
    @hassanswati827 Год назад

    Al Ashari didn’t refute ibn Kullab because in the book he said he was on the same aqeedah as Imam Ahmad and imam Ahmad was known to have spoken harshly against ibn Kullab and his followers, so by him stating that he was on the path of Imam Ahmad he was therefore indirectly calling ibn Kullab aqeedah false

    • @hassanswati827
      @hassanswati827 Год назад

      All of the scholars that you mentioned who said Ibn Kullab was part of ahlul Sunnah were all Ashari scholars so of course they’re gonna say that the person who influenced Al Ashari is upon the correct aqeedah, Imam Ahmad criticism of ibn Kullab is sufficient for us to say he’s an innovator

    • @atyibali6630
      @atyibali6630 Год назад +1

      I’m just curious in which books did Imam Ahmed speak harshly about this person ?

    • @hassanswati827
      @hassanswati827 Год назад

      @@atyibali6630 Ibn Hajr narrated in Lisān Al-Mizān from Al-Hākim in his Tāreekh that Ibn Khuzaymah used to criticise the madhhab of the Kullābiyyah and he said that Ahmad ibn Hanbal was the severest of people against Abdullah ibn Sa’eed ibn Kullāb and his students.

    • @maalikserebryakov
      @maalikserebryakov Год назад

      @Malik he was a jahmi

    • @hassanswati827
      @hassanswati827 Год назад

      @MalikMuhammad al Shaybani studied with Imam Malik for 3 years and narrated the muwatta from him, he respected him but also disagreed with him on his usul(because he preferred the usul of Abu Hanifa), he didn’t say Imam Malik was an innovator, he used to be his student. Imam Ahmad didn’t just disagree with ibn Kullab, rather he considered him an innovator and warned against him