AhlulHadeethPublications.Com

Tāj ud-Deen as-Subkī Al Asharī as-Shafi’ī, the son of Taqī ud-Deen was an enemy of the Sunnah and a vicious opponent to the Aqeedah of Ahlus Sunnah. He affirms in Tabaqāt as-Shafi’īyyah that the debate between Imām al-Kenāni and Bishr al-Marīssī took place in the court of Ma’mūn, however he says that which is found written in the Kitāb الحيدة regarding the debate ascribed to Imām al-Kenāni cannot be authentically attributed to Imām al-Kenāni by way of as-Subki taking ad-Dhahabi’s weakening of a narrator in the Sanad (chain of narration) of the book that was presented to Imām ad-Dhahabi. And in addition to the words of ad-Dhahabi, as-Subki added: ان في الكتاب أمور مستشنعة – That some points in the work الحيدة were reprehensible; in other words problematic and controversial for him to accept. As-Subki made this general criticism without mentioning a single example with evidence to support his claim. Nonetheless, it is clear that as-Subki didn’t accept the attribution of this work to Imām al-Kenāni although he affirmed that the debate took place and it is clear that as-Subki found the discussion surrounding Khalq Al Qur’ān problematic to digest, since the view of Imām al-Kenāni didn’t conform to the view of the Ashā’irah regarding the Qur’ān, thus as-Subki supported the notion that it was not authentically established to the author by way of the chain presented by ad-Dhahabi and in addition to that as-Subki discredited the book without checking or being open minded to accepting other chains and subsequently he fell into reviling this valuable book in the process. On the other hand, our noble Ulemā such as Ibn Hajr, Khateeb Al Baghdadi and Ibn Katheer رحمهم الله accepted that this book is authentically attributed to Imām al-Kenāni. As opposed to as-Subki, Imām ad-Dhahabi also mentioned that if by way of another Riwaya الحيدة was established then there would be no objection to accepting this work. And all praise is due to Allāh that another Riwaya was authentically collected by Imām Ibn Battah in his work al-Ibānah. And this is what has been mentioned by the Muhaqiq and Salafi scholar Shaykh Ali Nāsir al-Faqīhī in his Tahqeeq of الحيدة – Thus it is safe to say that which distinguishes between the methodology of ad-Dhahabi & as-Subki here is what distinguishes between a just & fair approach being present with the former and a bigoted partisan approach with the latter.

طريقة الزنادقة: إسقاط الناقل ليسقط المنقول
And I follow this up by saying there is a striking similarity between the methodology of Tāj ud-Deen as-Subki here, and his Ash’arī stooge Zahed al-Kawthari al-Hanafi who centuries later also committed the crime of unjustly dropping narrators and reviling their honour with the sole purpose of discrediting what was narrated by them. Due to their difficulty of demonstrating the weakness of the narration, the heretics resort to reviling or dropping the narrator. If as-Subki was sincere in his acceptance of the Jarh of ad-Dhahabi he would not have added to it by saying: ان في الكتاب أمور مستشنعة as there is generally an agreement among the Ulemā of Ahlus Sunnah like Shaykh Salih al Fawzan and Shaykh Muhammad Aman al-Jāmi who stated that which is contained within the Matn (text) of this book: الحيدة is the authentic creed of Ahlus Sunnah concerning the Qur’ān, regardless of the authenticity of the Sanad (chain) and none would oppose the authentic Matn (text) of this book, except that he is a misguided Jahmi upon the creed of Jahm Ibn Safwān and Bishr Al Marīssī.

•Compiled & translated by Abu Sakeenah al-Athari