Theological Debates on Divine Omnipotence: Response to GF Ha

In a recently published book titled The Maturidi School, Dr Gibril F Haddad provides a simplistic and evidently one-sided analysis of a highly complex controversy over divine omnipotence.[1] He paints Deobandī theologians and their predecessors as being on the “wrong side” of Sunnī doctrine. In the following, we will offer some important analysis on the issues Dr Haddad raises. We hope this will serve to bring clarity to some much-debated issues and present a more balanced, and accurate, understanding than the one Dr Haddad presents.

Dr Gibril Haddad’s Thesis

In a section titled “Salient Themes of Maturidism”, Dr Haddad has a chapter called, “The Mu‘tazilī and Deobandi position that Allah is described as ‘having power to lie’”. In it, he explains that “the Māturidī (sic) position is that injustice and lying are precluded from [Allāh].”[2] He then writes:
Dr Haddad provides a table that lists Arabic passages from early and late Māturīdī texts, some of which repeat the doctrine: “Allāh is not characterised as having power (qudrah) over unfairness, foolishness and falsehood” (lā yūṣafullāhu bi ‘l-qudrati ‘ala ‘l-ẓulm wa ‘l-safah wa ‘l-kidhb).[5] Following a critique of a passage from Ibn al-Humām’s al-Musāyarah (which will be discussed below), he concludes the chapter by sharing some excerpts and references from Ash‘arī works also declaring falsehood an impossibility for Allāh.[6]

The obvious conclusion he wants readers to take away from the discussion is that Deobandī theologians, in arguing that falsehood falls within the ambit of divine power (but can never occur), have taken a stance in opposition to legitimate Sunnī discourse; indeed, they are guilty of “resurfacing” and “recirculating” an ostensibly dead Mu‘tazilī doctrine.

It is also significant that Dr Haddad refers to the Deobandī stance as being “supposedly” an Ash‘arī position. This is despite not engaging with the readily available material substantiating that it is indeed an Ash‘arī position (as will be discussed below). Nor does he engage (or even reference) texts directly from Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd and the Deobandī theologians he is critiquing, but seems to rely only on their detractors.

What exactly Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd and his Deobandī successors said will be touched on later. First, a brief analysis will be provided on the classical theological debates surrounding divine power over safah (foolishness) and the related issues of kidhb (falsehood) and ẓulm (unfairness).

Safah (Foolishness)

Recall that Dr Haddad has documented (as we will too, below) that Māturīdī theologians have explicitly said: “Allāh is not characterised as having power (qudrah) over unfairness (ẓulm), foolishness (safah) and falsehood (kidhb).” In order for us to determine the true purport of this statement, we have to study what the classical Māturīdī theologians meant by these terms (ẓulm, safah & kidhb), and how they inferred they are “impossible” and “do not fall within the ambit of divine power”.

Let us start with what Māturīdīs mean by “safah” (foolishness). By “safah” Māturīdīs mean something opposed to ḥikmah (divine wisdom) within divine action (fi‘l).[7] Ḥikmah (in this context) means for actions to have a favourable end, so safah means for something to have no favourable end.[8]

Māturīdīs consider pardoning a disbeliever & putting him eternally into heaven or punishing an obedient believer by putting him eternally into hell an example of safah.[9] This is an issue known as “rewarding the disbeliever and punishing the believer”, and is a famous point of debate discussed in the books of theology (kalām). Māturīdīs also offer this as an example of ẓulm or jawr (unfairness), as they define ẓulm as “putting things out of place” – which punishing a good-doer and rewarding an evil-doer certainly is.[10]

In short, Māturīdīs consider it rationally impossible for Allāh to put a disbeliever into heaven or an obedient believer into hell. They consider it outside the ambit of divine power.[11] On the other hand, Ash‘arīs consider it intrinsically possible and as falling within the ambit of divine power.[12]

Divine Power Links to All Possibilities

Divine power (qudrah) links to all “possibilities”[13], as opposed to “impossibilities” or “necessities”. A proposition that suffers from an inherent tension or contradiction rendering it inconceivable in the mind’s eye is “impossible”.[14] A second divine entity is one such contradictory proposition. The Divine Being is the Sole Sovereign of creation. It is inconceivable for two separate beings to simultaneously have sovereignty over creation, hence two gods are an impossibility. Thus it does not fall within the ambit of divine power to create another god or to create another divine being (like a “divine son”). Similar absurd propositions include: “the bachelor is married”, “the number three is even”, “the physical object is neither moving nor still”. Such things are inconceivable in the mind’s eye, and hence do not fall under the divine power, not because the divine power is deficient but because these propositions themselves are absurd and self-contradictory.

Rewarding a Disbeliever and Punishing a Believer

If we take the straightforward proposition, “a disbelieving sinner was put permanently into heaven by Allāh” or “an obedient believer was put permanently into hell by Allāh”, there is no inherent tension in the proposition that renders it inconceivable. Hence, we should expect that such things falls under divine power.

Why then do Māturīdīs exclude this from divine power? It is because they are viewing divine power differently to the way we normally view it. They are viewing it in light of the divine will to operate only on the basis of ḥikmah.

A Semantic Dispute

Once we have inferred that it is Allāh’s decision to only operate on the basis of ḥikmah (wisdom) and ‘adl (fairness), it is not conceivable that ḥikmah can combine with its opposite: safah, nor ‘adl with its opposite: ẓulm/jawr. It is not possible for ḥikmah and safah to combine in one action; an action cannot both have a favourable end and also not have a favourable end. The divine power does not connect to the combination of both, as that amounts to “ijtimā‘ al-ḍiddayn” (a fusion of two opposites) – which is absurd.

Hence, Māturīdīs are excluding divine power from punishing a believer or rewarding a disbeliever on the premise that ḥikmah is taken as a given. When it is taken as a given, it is of course not possible to simultaneously have ḥikmah and safah, and thus the qudrah does not connect to it. But if Māturīdīs had taken ḥikmah and ‘adl out of the equation, no sensible person can question that these are included within divine power. Of course, Allāh has the power to put the likes of Pharaoh and Satan into heaven and has the power to put the righteous into hell. There is nothing inherent in disbelief (kufr) that prevents it from being pardoned. But based on Allāh’s choice to operate only on the basis of ḥikmah and ‘adl, He will never do so. The dispute between the Ash‘arīs and the Māturīdīs on this issue thus boils down to one of semantics.

Discussing this and related matters of dispute, ‘Allāmah Ibn al-Humām (790 – 861 H) writes:
The contemporary theologian, Sa‘īd Fūdah, also explains that this is a semantic dispute:
That is, taking “the matter as it is”, there is no intrinsic impediment to a disbeliever being pardoned & being granted entry into heaven, nor for a believer being eternally punished. Fūdah explains:
But of course, taking into account divine will, this is an impossibility. Fūdah concludes:
This is also borne out by the explicit reasons Māturīdī theologians have given for their stance.

Ḥāfiẓ al-Dīn al-Nasafī (ca. 620 – 710 H) writes in al-I‘timād, in discussing this issue:
A similar explanation is found in Nūr al-Dīn al-Ṣābūnī’s (d. 580 H) al-Bidāyah[20] and al-Kifāyah[21].

In short, the Māturīdī negation of divine power is based on viewing these acts as being contradictory to divine wisdom and fairness. Hence, to affirm power over them would be to affirm something being possible in the presence of its opposite, which is of course absurd. But, if Māturīdīs did not look at things in this way, but viewed it from the perspective of Allāh’s being as divine sovereign (as did the Ash‘arīs), they would surely have agreed with Ash‘arī doctrine that things Māturīdīs include within “safah” are in and of themselves possible and thus included within the ambit of divine power, but are precluded by Allāh’s choice.

From one perspective (by extending the Māturīdī logic), it can even be said it is not within the ambit of divine power to have made this world any differently. The famous (and puzzling) statement of Imām al-Ghazālī (450 – 505 H): “Nothing superior to what exists can exist”, has been explained in this way. Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī (909 – 974 H) explains Imām al-Ghazālī’s statement as follows:
This can be explained alternatively as follows: it is not conceivable for this world to exist while simultaneusly not existing, nor to exist with the properties it has while simultaneously possessing opposing properties. If looked at in this manner, divine power essentially correlates with divine will. But taking a more holistic point-of-view, as the Ash‘arīs do, divine power links to all things that are in and of themselves possible.

Despite the disagreement between the Māturīdīs and Ash‘arīs in this matter collapsing into an essentially semantic one, the Ash‘arī position is easier to comprehend and, according to ‘Allāmah Ibn al-Humām, is stronger in affirming divine transcendence (given it both negates any apparent flaws to Allāh’s total power as well as any faults in His acts – as explained below). The Ash‘arī position is also arguably more consistent with apparent texts of the Qur’ān, which emphasise Allāh’s power even over things that He chooses not to do.[23]

Kidhb (Falsehood)

Keeping in mind the explanation above, we can now proceed to analyse the specific issue at hand. But before doing so, let us first have a look at what Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd (1779 – 1831 CE) and his Deobandī successors actually said.

What Shāh Ismā‘īl Said

In his arguments against Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd, Faḍl Ḥaqq Khayrābādī (1797 – 1861 CE) contended that kidhb (falsehood) is muḥāl (impossible) for Allāh. Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd responded in a treatise authored in 1826:
Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd’s statement is very clear. His contention is only that it does not fall outside the ambit of divine power to create inscriptions in the Lawḥ Maḥfūẓ (Preserved Tablet) or to create words that are delivered to angels or prophets that convey something untrue. If an untrue proposition is taken, for example, “cats do not exist anywhere in creation”, is it in and of itself possible for those words to be inscribed on the Lawḥ Maḥfūẓ or for those words to be delivered to an angel or a prophet? Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd’s answer is: yes, as there is nothing inherently absurd in this. But it is certainly impossible for such a thing to occur given Allāh’s choice to operate only on the basis of ḥikmah and ṣidq (truthfulness).

What Deobandī Theologians Said

Deobandī doctrine is explained clearly in al-Muhannad ‘ala ‘l-Mufannad (completed in Shawwāl of 1325 H/November 1907 CE), a work in Arabic, of which Dr Haddad is well-aware. It is arguably the most famous work written by Deobandī scholars on issues of controversy amongst rival theological schools of India. It is odd therefore that Dr Haddad did not reference or mention al-Muhannad at all, let alone the Arabic texts cited from Ash‘arī works in al-Muhannad to support their contention, or the endorsements from major Arab scholars of that time.

In al-Muhannad, ‘Allāmah Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī (1852 – 1927 CE) explained:
Shortly thereafter, several passages are cited from the books of kalām to support this thesis (some of which will be highlighted below). This statement (along with the entirety of al-Muhannad) was signed by virtually all major Deobandī scholars of the time.

One of the major scholars of Madinah, Sayyid Aḥmad al-Barzanjī, offered his assessment on the answers in al-Muhannad. On the latter statement, he wrote:
This was part of a write-up written in 1911, endorsed by over 20 scholars of Madinah.[27]

Shaykh Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad Khayr al-Shinqīṭī wrote:
Since Dr Haddad was literally critiquing the Deobandī position, it would have only been fair to have at least directed readers to this crucial, and widely-known/cited, source.

Explaining the Deobandī Position

As observed from the earlier citation from Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd, his original contention was modest. The contention was only that Allāh has the power to communicate falsehood, by putting inscriptions in the Lawḥ Maḥfūẓ or delivering words to angels or prophets that convey something untrue.

Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd also presents an argumentum ad absurdum: if we say that it does not fall within the ambit of divine power to communicate something false to others, then it entails most human beings have a power that Allāh does not, namely, the power to communicate something false to beings other than themselves. This concomitant (i.e. a created being has more power than Allāh) is of course absurd. This is a perfectly rational argument. Māturīdī theologians of the past have also used this line of argument: it is impossible the created being that was endowed by (a type of) power by Allāh holds a greater power than Allāh Himself.[29]

But despite affirming that this falls within the ambit of divine power, Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd is clear that for such a thing to occur is an impossibility, given it contradicts Allāh’s choice to operate on the basis of ḥikmah.

Does this accord with Ash‘arī theology? As pointed out earlier, there is no inherent tension (rendering it inconceivable) in statements that hold a false meaning being inscribed on the Lawḥ or being delivered to angels or prophets. Hence, these would presumably fall under “possibilities” that are included in divine power. But to understand Ash‘arī discourse on this matter, it is necessary to briefly touch on the issue of the nature of divine speech.

Divine Speech (Kalām) & Kidhb in the Ash‘arī Paradigm

In all beings characterised by “speech”, there is a meaning or idea that precedes any actual “verbalised speech” (kalām lafẓī). This is referred to as “internal speech” (kalām al-nafs or kalam nafsī). Kalām nafsī follows from knowledge. If a being characterised by speech knows something to be untrue, the internal speech can only regard it to be untrue and cannot regard it to be true.[30] Hence, for the Being Who knows all, the Kalām Nafsī can only ever be true. Any untruth would entail lack of knowledge, and is hence inconceivable and intrinsically impossible in respect to Allāh.

Yet, it is an evident reality that beings that know something to be untrue can express that untruth and convey it to others.[31] The kalām lafẓī or verbalised speech does not have to accord with the kalām nafsī, hence it is possible even for someone that knows something to be untrue to communicate that untruth to others.

Although some Ash’ari theologians believed the Kalam Lafẓī of Allāh could only accord with His Kalam Nafsī and hence falsehood is intrinsically impossible in the Kalam Lafẓī too[32], others took the stance that this correspondence is not necessary. Given what we know of the nature of “speech” and “speakers” – namely, that is it not necessary for the kalām lafẓī to always correspond with the kalām nafsī (where a person knowingly utters something false) – the latter position accords more with what we know of reality.[33]

Sa‘d al-Dīn al-Taftāzānī (722 – 792 H) wrote in his celebrated Sharḥ al-‘Aqā’id al-Nasafiyyah:
Al-Farhārī in his footnote to this passage said regarding the latter meaning of “Allāh’s speech”:
Hence, any words that Allāh puts together and delivers to creation would be regarded as His speech, in terms of “Kalām Lafẓī”. The “Kalām Lafẓī” is His speech that He has produced and composed without the intervention of any sentient creature. The words that emerge from other creatures (e.g. humans) as their own speech were of course also created by Allāh, but they are not His Kalām Lafẓī nor will they be described as “Allāh’s speech” because those words were produced via the intermediary of a sentient creature. Thus they are described as the creature’s speech not Allāh’s.

Qāḍī ‘Aḍud al-Dīn al-Ījī (d. 756 H) , the author of al-Mawāqif and teacher of al-Taftāzānī, writes:
‘Allāmah Ismā‘īl al-Kalanbawī (1143 – 1205 H), who Dr Haddad describes as “erudite”[37], writes in his footnotes to Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawwānī’s commentary on al-‘Aqā’id al-‘Aḍudiyyah:
Al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī (740 – 816 H) is the commentator of al-Mawāqif, in which he described kidhb as being from “the possibilities contained within [divine] power.”[39] In other words, the imperfection (naqṣ) that results from kidhb nafsī (falsehood in the kalām nafsī) does not transfer to kidhb lafẓī (falsehood in kalām lafẓī). Falsehood in the Kalām Lafẓī is therefore not muḥāl dhātī (intrinsically impossible) but muḥāl ‘ādī (empirically impossible). That is, we know with certainty based on the information available to us that there is never any falsehood in Allāh’s verbalised speech, but that is not because of any intrinsic necessity for this to be so, but because of Allāh’s choice to maintain absolute truthfulness and wisdom.

Another thing we infer from al-Kalanbawī’s comment is the conflation that may occur between istiḥālah dhātiyyah (intrinsic impossibility) and istiḥālat al-ṣūdūr (impossibility of occurrence). Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (544 – 606 H) refuted the view that Allāh contravening His threat was possible in terms of occurrence. As for its possibility in and of itself, but the occurrence being impossible, al-Rāzī did not refute this. The text that Dr Haddad cited from al-Bayḍāwī [40] also refers to the impossibility of occurrence, not intrinsic impossibility.

‘Abd al-Ḥakīm al-Siyālkūtī (d. 1067 H) comments on the statement of al-Jurjānī:
This is a clear statement. Al-Taftāzānī writes:
This again is another clear statement.

There can be no doubt therefore that the position articulated by Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd and his supporters falls within the parameters of legitimate Sunnī (Ash‘arī/Māturīdī) discourse. It not only fits within the Ash‘arī paradigm in the manner demonstrated, the position was explicitly articulated by some of their major exponents. Some of these texts Dr Haddad would most certainly have encountered (& are cited in al-Muhannad), but why he chose to omit them or not engage with them in any way is something we will leave for readers to speculate on.

Ẓulm (Unfairness)

As mentioned earlier, “ẓulm” or “jawr” in the Māturīdī understanding is to put things out of place, like putting believers eternally in hell. In the Ash‘arī understanding, ẓulm is to engage in unsolicited activity outside of one’s domain of ownership or dominion. If we take the latter meaning of ẓulm, it is inconceivable Allāh could be characterised by it. Nothing is outside the domain of Allāh’s dominion and ownership, so how can it be conceived He operates outside of it? But if we take the Māturīdī definition of ẓulm, it is not all that different to their understanding of safah. Hence, Ash‘arī theologians would affirm the possibility of “ẓulm” in the manner defined by Māturīdīs, while negating the possibility of its occurrence.[43]

Ibn al-Humām’s Thesis in al-Musāyarah

We are now in a position to better understand a controversial passage from Ibn al-Humām’s al-Musāyarah. Ibn al-Humām said:
In al-Taḥrīr, Ibn al-Humām has a more lengthy discussion on the matter, and describes the Ash‘arī stance as the one “that is more inclusive of transcendence.”[45]

As Dr Haddad correctly points out, Ibn al-Humām is actually not correct that the Mu‘tazilah held these things to be outside the ambit of divine power.[46] Ibn al-Humām seems to have reached this conclusion based on a conflation between “rational impossibility” and “intrinsic impossibility”. The Mu‘tazilah believe we can rationally determine Allāh does not do anything “repugnant” (qabīḥ). But this only tells us how we know that Allāh does not do something, according to the Mu‘tazilah. It does not tell us whether such things are inconceivable in the mind’s eye according to them and thus excluded from divine power.

Regardless of this oversight, Ibn al-Humām’s analysis about the Ash‘arī stance is not unsound, when we keep in mind that by ẓulm is meant the Māturīdī definition of “putting things out of place” and by kidhb is meant kidhb lafẓī.

More significant is that Ibn al-Humām assesses the view of the Ash‘arīs that he presents to be “more far-reaching” in and “more inclusive” of divine transcendence. How so? Because it affirms the inclusiveness of divine power (hence negates the lack of power over things intrinsically possibile, which is a deficiency), while simultaneously affirming transcendence from repugnant things. Hence, the stance of Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd and his successors should not be misconstrued as “admitting flaws for Allāh”, as their detractors have done. Rather, they are arguing against a flaw in divine power, while negating the possibility of any reprehensible act occurring from Him. Hence, their position is in fact more inclusive of transcendence.

In al-Taḥrīr, Ibn al-Humām argued the debate he presents between Ash‘arīs and Māturīdīs actually boils down to one of semantics. This has been explained earlier.

Does the Ash‘arī Stance Result in Circular Reasoning?

The impossibility that Allāh’s Kalām Lafẓī contains falsehood is decisive and established empirically. What does it mean to be “established empirically”? There are individuals throughout history that Allāh had appointed as “prophets” and “messengers”. We know this based on mu‘jizāt. Mu‘jizāt are acts outside of human capacity, which could only be an act of Allāh. When they follow a person’s claim to be prophet, and correspond to his claim, this is in effect Allāh confirming that he is a prophet.[47]

The prophets and messengers were known to be truthful and honest, and their prophecies came to be exactly as they had prophecised. The words they conveyed from Allāh were equally truthful and honest. Based on all of this and the evident ḥikmah we see manifest in Allāh’s creation, we reach an empirical certainty that Allāh is Truthful and Wise, and never has or will a lie issue from Him.[48] But that does not mean that issuing a lie falls outside the ambit of His power. Reasoned in this way, the argument that this position leads to circular argumentation (i.e. having to rely on scripture to negate kidhb, while the negation of kidhb in scripture presupposes that) is avoided.[49]

Is the Deobandī View Akin to Ibn Ḥazm’s Erroneous View?

We can now see how far off Dr Haddad’s claim was: “It is more reminiscent of a pagan Greek/Roman and Christian theology akin to Ibn Ḥazm’s blunderous statement that ‘Allah is able to take for Himself a son’.” A son of Allāh would share in His nature of divinity (ulūhiyyah). It is not possible for multiple divine beings to coexist. Two entities cannot simultaneously have sovereignty over creation. Hence, the Qur’ān states: “Exalted is He from having a son. To Him alone belongs all that is in the heavens and the earth.”[50] This bears no resemblance to the issue of creating words that convey a false meaning.

Badāyūnī & Deobandīs

Dr Haddad also has an entry on Faḍl al-Rasūl al-Badāyūnī. In it, he says:
The entire thesis here is anachronistic. Faḍl al-Rasūl al-Badāyūnī predated Deobandīs and the Deobandī school, so when he spoke of “Najdīs” he was not talking about Deobandīs, but Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd and his immediate followers. The Deobandī madrasah was erected in 1866 only six years before the passing of Faḍl al-Rasūl al-Badāyūnī[52], after he had already written his invectives against Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd. Neither is Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd a “Deobandī”, nor do Deobandīs represent a school he created. So sure is Dr Haddad that Badāyūnī was refuting “Deobandīs” that while listing the headings from Badāyūnī’s book, Dr Haddad even adds “=Deobandīs” in parentheses after the term “Najdīs”!

Badāyūnī was notorious for misinformation and propaganda against Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd. If Badāyūnī is the source of Dr Haddad’s information about Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd and Taqwiyat al-Īmān, Dr Haddad’s judgements about Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd can safely be ignored. Badāyūnī seemed to know very little about the actual Najdī Wahhābī school. He believed a fabricated document (that in reality was a mutilated Arabic rendition of Taqwiyat al-Īmān by its detractors) was a summary of the original Kitāb al-Tawḥīd authored by Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb himself! He thus claimed Taqwiyat al-Īmān was literally a translation of Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb’s Kitāb al-Tawḥīd![53]

According to Nuzhat al-Khawāṭir:
Badāyūnī’s accusations against Shāh Walīullāh al-Dihlawī are found in his al-Bawāriq al-Muḥammadiyyah.[55] Dr Haddad promotes Badāyūnī and omits these elements from his biography, despite most likely having coming across them.

More can be said about Badāyūnī (a predecessor to the Barelwī school) and Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd, but as that is not the objective of this essay we will suffice with the above.

Conclusion

There is no escaping the conclusion that Dr Gibril Haddad has obvious biases against the Deobandī school. Everyone of course has their biases. But this does not prevent genuine critique. Those engaging in genuine critique might mitigate for their biases by being as transparent as possible and giving the opposition a fair hearing. In his critiques of the Deobandī school, however, Dr Haddad engages not in genuine critique but a disingenuous exercise of omitting information and even perpetuating misinformation.

The stance taken by Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd and his successors regarding Allāh having the power to communicate falsehood (but it being impossible to occur) does not at all fall outside the legitimate parameters of Sunnī discourse. Nor does it amount to admitting flaws for Allāh. On the contrary, it is clearing Allāh of the flaw of any imperfection in His all-inclusive power over possibilities. Hence, the view is “more-inclusive” of transcendence as stated by ‘Allāmah Ibn al-Humām. Detractors of Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd and Deobandī scholars pretend that the stance has no legitimacy in Sunnī theology, but as has been clearly shown above, nothing could be further from the truth.

---

[1] The Maturidi School, p.14-7

[2] The Maturidi School, p.14

[3] Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd was martyred in May of the year 1831, not 1830.

[4] The Maturidi School, p.14; emphasis added

[5] The Maturidi School, p.15-6

[6] The Maturidi School, p.16-17

[7]


[8]


[9]


[10]

[11]


[12]

[13]


[14]

[15]


[16]


[17]

[18]

[19]


[20] Al-Bidāyah min al-Kifāyah, p.146

[21] Al-Kifāyah fi ‘l-Hidāyah, p.338-9

[22]


[23] For example, Qur’ān, 5:118, 6:37, 6:65, 32:13, 43:60

[24] Yak Rozah, p17; also quoted in Juhd al-Muqill, p3

[25] Al-Muhannad ‘ala ‘l-Mufannad, Dār al-Fatḥ, p.87-89

[26] Ibid. p.122-3

[27] Ibid. p.125

[28] Ibid. p.127-8

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]


[33] Juhd al-Muqill, 2:160

[34]


[35]


[36]


[37] The Maturidi School, p.121

[38]


[39]

[40] “One of the foremost Ash‘arī exegetes of the Qur’ān, Qadi al-Bayḍāwī (d. 708?/1308?) in his Anwār al-tanzīl, under al-Baqara 2:80, states that the verse forms proof that ‘for Allah to contravene His own report is an impossibility.” (The Maturidi School, p.17)

[41]


[42]


[43]


[44]


[45]


[46] See: The Maturidi School, p.16

[47]


[48] المصدر السابق

[49]

[50] Qur’ān, 4:171

[51] The Maturidi School, p164; emphasis added

[52] Faḍl al-Rasūl al-Badāyūnī died towards the start of Jumāda ‘l-Ākhirah of the year 1289 H, which corresponds to August 1872. Dr Haddad gives the year of his death as 1279/1862. (The Maturidi School, p164) He must have misread “1289” as “1279”.

[53] See Fabricating to Wahhābify Taqwiyat al-Īmān – The Case of Faḍl-e-Rasūl Badāyūnī and Sayful Jabbār | Barelwis: A Critical Review (wordpress.com) for details. See also our earlier piece on Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd: Sectarianism and Its Roots in the Indian Subcontinent – Basair.net

[54] Nuzhat al-Khawāṭir, p.1065

[55] Al-Bawāriq al-Muḥammadiyyah, p. 28-32.

---

Taken from HERE