zameel quoting kalam works for his deobandi/mutazili heresy

update: a couple of corrections, typos and rewording in some places. thanks to noori bhai.

 

it is in this context of rulings - permissible or prohibited - that we encounter ibn Hajib's passage in mukhtasar al-muntaha, p.274

rulings: the mind cannot ordain that an action is good or bad in the Command of Allah and these terms are described according to three extraneous (supplementary) factors:

1. agreement with one's interest or opposed to it
2. and that we were commanded (to do or abstain) due to its being praised or deplored and
3. there is no (inherent) harm in it or its opposite

and the Actions of Allah are good in relation to the latter two descriptions.

the mutazilah, karramiyyah, barahimah say: actions are inherently good or evil.

older scholars (from these sects) without deemin it as an attribute; and a group among them deeming it due to the attribute; and another group that it is due to an attribute of ugliness; and jubbayiyyah have various reasons and descriptions.
and we say: if it were intrinsically (good or bad), the ruling would not change (according to the situation).
because it is wajib to lie if one can lie and protect a Prophet; so also killing, hitting etc would be (absolutely bad), if such an action were inherently bad. two contradictory statements will coincide if one says: "i shall lie tomorrow" and his lie.​

=====
this is the context of the discussion. we will not delve into the details of this discussion as our objective is only to establish the context of the apparently problematic quote by al-eeji. therefore, we shall take a look at the original text and then on eeji's commentary.

ibn Hajib says further in the same discussion, p.277

they say: the desirablility (goodness) of beneficial truth and faith; and ugliness/undesirability of harmful lie and disbelief (*) is known by necessity without looking at the accepted mores (urf), or Divine Law, etc. our answer: this is not acceptable; rather it is as we have said (i.e. known by Divine Law).​

* kufran

====

further in the same discussion: p.277-278

they say: if they are both (truth and falsehood) the same for all purposes, ignoring specific use-cases, then reason would prefer truth.

my reply: the basic assumption is impossible (that both falsehood and truth are the same) [or basic premise is invalid]; therefore it is unlikely that it would prevent the preference of truth; and suppose we accept that, this is not necessarily true for Allah ta'ala - because we know that it is not ugly/deplorable if Allah ta'ala allows [tamkin] His slave [grants him the ability] to commit a sin - though it is ugly for us (i.e. committing that sin).

they say: if this were [only] known by shariah/Divine Law, this would necessitate repudiation of Messengers. one would say: "i will not heed your miracle, until it is made obligatory to heed - or vice versa; or it is not obligatory until affirmed by shariah or vice versa.

the answer:the obligation according to them [the mutazilah] is dependent upon evaluation [naZari]; we too say the same - that evaluation is not dependent on its being obligatory or not.
suppose we accept [this argument] - the obligation is known by the shariah - irrespective of his evaluation, whether [his examination] affirms this to be rationally good or bad.

[to the above] they say: if that is the case, then it would be possible for a miracle to occur at the hands of a liar; and prior to Divine Command [sama'a], it would not be possible as ugly/evil, to consider attributing a lie to Allah [nisbatu'l kadhib ala Allah] or belief in trinity and various other kinds of kufr.

i answer: if the first one is impossible, it is because of a different factor. and the second becomes binding [or necessary] only if you mean that it is forbidden by Divine Law.​

----
the last para from ibn al-Hajib's book is the actual text upon which eeji has commented and is highlighted by zameel:



zameel has translated the above as:



----
we can see how a quote-hunter does not care for the context of the discussion per se. he is obsessed with the idea of proving that falsehood is possible for Allah - because his elders have committed to this position. blind following (taqlid) of deobandis leads him everywhere and he will refuse to see the truth even if it punched him in the face.

in the above quote - the poor man zameel was overjoyed just looking at the phrase: "wa'l kadhib ala Allah" and probably did not bother to read it even once. he went ahead and added it to the account of eeji that he believed "falsehood is possible for Allah ta'ala".

---
if you follow ibn al-Hajib's text, you can see that he states two objections of the mutazilah:

1. it would be possible for a liar to show a miracle [mujizah] and attribute a lie to Allah
2. trinity and various kinds of kufr would not be ugly prior to divine command ordaining them as evil

let us see what eeji says here citing the objections of mutazilah (the text above the passage highlighted by zameel)

they say: fourthly: if it thus - that is, if it is established only by shariah, then it will necessitate two impossibilities.

firstly: in the Divine Action of Allah taa'la - and nothing is ugly/evil from His Actions - therefore nothing is impossible for Him (on the basis that something is deemed ugly). this would necessitate possibility of a miracle to occur at the hands of a liar - and this would close the door for the proof of prophethood (1) and it would be impossible to rule that it is ugly/evil to attribute a lie, towards Allah prior to revelation (2) and it would necessitate that it is not compulsory for (a prophet's) to be truthful fundamentally (3). because this cannot be proven by revelation - because revelation (sam'a) as a proof is itself a corollary of (the basic premise that) Allah ta'ala is truthful.

because if He (Allah) could lie, then His Affirmation to the truth of a prophet (taSdiq) would not be evidence for the truth of the prophet. this would close the door of prophethood and trust would be lifted from his speech.

secondly: concerning the actions of a slave (creature) - it would not be ugly for him to believe in trinity or attribute a wife or a son or an equal to Allah ta'ala - and various kinds of kufr by the person who knows its opposite to be true - prior to revelation. however, it is necessary to invalidate the above proposition​

footnotes for above:

1. the truth of a prophet being true is established by a prophet's displaying a miracle.

2. we know spontaneously that we cannot attribute a lie to Allah. one cannot falsely claim that He is a prophet or that he has received revelation. such an action is abominable - it is kufr. now, if this were known ONLY by shariah - meaning AFTER revelation - then prior to the revelation, it would not be ugly/evil. so thus he would be allowed to attribute a lie to Allah without consequences. REMEMBER THIS.

3. one of the attributes of prophethood is that they are always truthful; it is impossible for them to lie.
see bajuri's epistle translated here: http://www.ridawipress.org/wp-content/uploads/50-essential-beliefs.pdf


eng translation of the part above:



shaykh nawawi al-jawi in his commentary on bajuri's risalah:



{the proof of which} i.e. the necessity of truth for prophet alayhimus salatu wa's salam {that if they} were not truthful, it would necessitate they could lie - because there is no connection between truth and falsehood and if {they could lie, the Message [khabar] given by Allah glory to Him, and exalted is He} that they (prophets) were truthful could {be a lie}

here, the message refers to the implied - and that is the miracle (of the prophet) and this is the Action of Allah ta'ala. because Allah ta'ala attests to their being truthful by making miracles happen. it has not happened - in the manner (as ordained by) Allah - from the beginning of the world until now - that Allah has allowed a miracle to occur at the hands of a liar. rather, the commonly observed manner as ordained by Allah is that: it occurs only on the hands of a true prophet, not a liar.

if one thinks about sorcery [siHr] or its like, this is to humiliate the person soon thereafter.

it is known that the attestation of a liar is a lie.

{and that} i.e. the proposition that the message of Allah ta'ala can be false is {impossible/muHal}. because the message given by Allah is according to His Knowledge; and the message according to His Knowledge cannot be except the truth...​

this explains the relation between miracle at the hands of a liar would imply that the message of Allah is false.


------
immediately after the above passage, imam al-eeji says answering mutazilah objections which he has explained, and which was highlighted by zameel:

and the answer [to the above objections]:

first: we do not accept that it is (intrinsically) impossible for a miracle to occur at the hands of a liar; or his attributing a lie to Allah ta'ala - i.e., being rationally impossible, even though we insist that it will never occur. [these two are not rationally impossible] because they are from possibilities and within the Divine Power of Allah.

suppose, we accept its being (rationally) impossible - we do not accept that the impossibility of a rationally ugly thing is what necessitates its absence; because it can be impossible for a different reason.​

remember the context: the author and the commentator are debating the proposition that: "it is impossible because it is rationally ugly".

so eeji's statement can be reworded as: 'we do not accept that it is impossible because it is rationally ugly; rather, there is a different reason'.

when you read eeji's own statement in al-mawaqif, we see that it is consistent with his argument here. what is then "we do not accept that it is (intrinsically) impossible" according to eeji? we will see this clarified further below, but if you go by zameel's translation it means:


1. miracle being displayed at the hand of a liar
2. lie for Allah

zameel then concludes this as the belief of qadi adududdin al-iji that he considers "falsehood for Allah to be a possibility and included in Divine Power".

----
zameel misunderstood the "wa'l kadhibu `ala Allah" and assumed that this refers to the possibility of lie in the Speech of Allah - or imkan al-kadhib, which is a deobandi/mutazili belief. sub'HanAllahi amma yaSifun.

he ignored - it appears he did not read - the actual text which clearly says: "intisab al-kadhib ila Allah" - or attribution of a lie to Allah. i suggest you read the backstory - the actual text and its explanation and you will see that "lie for Allah" is a patent lie of zameel; the author commentator are talking about "attributing a lie to Allah ta'ala being possible prior to revelation".

eeji has clearly said that it is about 'attributing a lie to Allah'; NOT that 'it is possible for Allah ta'ala to lie'

----
now, zameel may accuse me of having misunderstood or that i have distorted al-eeji's statement; even though, it is amply clear from the context. but a shameless man will try to brazen out (as he has done numerous time in the past) and much like faithless andh-bhakts (a term for the mindless and dumb followers of modi, which suits deobandis well) will try to distract: "look! abu hasan is a fraud.." abu hasan will not come in your grave to answer for your crimes. worry about your own skin.

----
to settle this i have these two citations from no less than imam taftazani and sharif jurjani who have explained eeji's passage (highlighted by zameel). we will translate that later, in sha'Allah, but those who can read arabic can clearly see how zameel jumped off the cliff.

supercommentary of imam taftazani on sharh adud of mukhtasar al-muntaha of ibn Hajib: v2/p83 and sharif jurjani v2/p86.




==============
note: almost all of this is translated extempore without review; ignore mistakes of style and readability - but please feel free to correct errors that lead to an incorrect meaning. sometimes, the translation is not verbatim and tries to convey the meaning based on commentaries. wa billahi't tawfiq.

also note: we are not angels. we are not deobandis.

- angels do not make mistakes. they are ma'Sum.
- deobandis never own up to mistakes. they live in a delusion that they are probably ma'Sum and therefore, accepting an error is anathema in their culture and belief system. hence, their refusal to own up to horrendous mistakes - and the pigheadedness of their followers in stubbornly defending those heresies.

alHamdulillah, we are not deobandis. alHamdulillah, we believe that it is impossible for the Creator to lie.
​

 

am extremely sorry. i had composed a reply two days ago and due to my preoccupation with other things and being out of station for a short while, i have been unable to post it. in sha'Allah, hope to post the update by tonight. wa billahi't tawfiq.

a brother also updated that zameel has posted updates on his website. we will see to it later as we should not be distracted by filibustering and garrulity.

 

this work mukhtasar of imam ibn Hajib is about usul - and discusses various related issues in this regard; check a snapshot of some topics:



one of the discussions is about "husn-qubh". can actions be inherently good or evil? can the human mind / reason identify something as good or evil or that the shariah/Divine Law ordains something as good or abhorrent?

-----
this is a lengthy topic, but for the purpose of our discussion we will briefly describe the point of contention between sunnis and the mutazilah:

in sharh al-talwih by taftazani: 1/364.

know that ulama have said that the concept of "good/desirable (husn)" and "ugly/abhorrent (qubH)" can be defined in three different ways a has the following three meanings:

1. one feels a natural inclination or abhorrence towards a thing

2. that it is an attribute of perfection (good/beautiful)and the other is an attribute of flaw (qubH)

3. about a thing that is praiseworthy in this world and deserves reward in the Hereafter (is Hasan); and that the other (qubH) is deplorable and abominable in this world and will be punished in the Hereafter..

as for the first two definitions, they can be known by reason, by common agreement - the disagreement and dispute is regarding the third case.​

-----
in musamarah of imam ibn humam / and its commentary by ibn abi'sh sharif: p155:



(in flower brackets - ibn humam's text - blue is ibn abi'sh sharif)

this is the eighth principle in the discussion of hujjatu'l islam [imam ghazali]. the author has dealt this topic in detail and he started off with the point of contention between us and the mutazilah. like others [kalam scholars] he began with the basic concept - that [husn/qubH] has three definitions. there is no dispute concerning the first two definitions and the dispute is only in the third definition. so he says:

{there is no dispute concerning the matter that the mind can independently recognise (or identify) the good/husn and the bad/qubH; meaning: good is an attribute of perfection and bad is an attribute of flaw} such as justice and injustice/oppression. because, indeed reason can independently comprehend the beauty or goodness of knowledge and justice; and the ugliness and reprehensibility of ignorance and injustice, tyranny. {irrespective of Divine Law - whether it is deemed good or bad according to Divine law}

so also human mind/reason can know the goodness and ugliness {meaning: that which is agreeable to one's own interest or opposed to it. for example, the killing of zayd near his enemies} because the killing of zayd according to his enemies is good and according to his relatives is bad.

the author's description: "inclination/agreeable to one's own interest or absence of it" is a better than that of some others as this is more generic. the inclination of one's personal taste (taba') such as sweet is "good" / hasan and bitter is "undesirable" /qabiH - the human mind can also recognise "good/ugly" in this meaning of the term.

{indeed, the dispute and disagreement} between us (ahlu's sunnah) and them (mutazilah) {is its ability to independently} i.e., reason can {know; durk} i.e. perception of that which is mentioned, whether good or bad {in the Commands of Allah. the mutazilah say: YES} and they maintain that they are rationally good or bad; and they say explaining their position: {the mind affirms the action prohibited by Allah ta'ala} related to the clause: "command of Allah". i.e., the proof of the Command of Allah ta'ala prohibiting an action {in a manner that invokes} by the action {a reason for punishment if it is known} by the mind {of its being ugly}.

[revised and updated.]
​

to summarise the above: when we say a thing is good or bad, desirable or abhorrent, beautiful or ugly, good or evil - husn/qubH, there are three meanings to this:

1. certain things are inherently good or bad and is known by human mind - it is not necessary that we recognise it ONLY by their being ordained as good or bad by Divine Law. knowledge is good and desirable. ignorance is bad, abhorrent. being just is good, being unjust, trespassing on others' rights, is bad.

2. certain things are good or bad relatively - for example, killing of zayd is desirable and good to his enemy; whereas the same thing is undesirable and bad for zayd's relatives (assuming they love him).

3. certain things are good or bad as ordained by the shariah. for example faith/iyman is good and kufr is bad; faith will be praised in this world and rewarded in the hereafter; kufr is abhorrent and will be punished in the hereafter. THIS is a point of contention.

the mutazilah say that even this is known by reason; the ahlus sunnah say that this is known by shar'a / Divine Law - i.e. whatever the shariah says is good, is good; and what it considers bad, is bad. these are not rationally good or bad.

----
in al-mawaqif of aduDuddin al-eeji (keep this in mind for future reference. it is the same eeji who is 'quoted' by zameel) p.323:

the fifth objective: about things being good or bad, desirable or ugly.

ugly, undesirable, evil, abhorrent (qabiH) is that which the shariah has forbidden; and hasan is its opposite. there is no scope for the human mind or reason to ordain something good or bad; and it cannot impose this [good or bad] on any action known by Divine Law. rather, it is the Law (shariah) that attests (to its being good or bad) and clarifies - and if this case were reversed, that which was ordained by shariah as good would become evil and, that which was bad (by shariah) would become good and it would not be impossible - and the matter would become overturned.

the mutazilah say: it is the mind, reason that ordains an action as good or bad inherently; the shariah only describes it and clarifies (what is already known by the mind) - and it is not possible to reverse the case.

it is necessary to first explain the point of contention and we say: husn and qubH (good and bad) have three meanings:

1. attribute of perfection or flaw such as: knowledge is good and ignorance is bad. there is no dispute that this is known (mudrikuhu) by reason. [aH: mudrik: that which can perceive, which can recognise; remember this term for future use].​

----
nazm al-fara'id of shaykh zadah, p.217

husn and qubh can take three meanings:

1. that which is an attribute of perfection is good (hasan); that which is an attribute of a flaw is ugly/abhorrent (qabiH).

2. that which is agreeable to one's interest is good and that which is opposed is undesirable, ugly.

there is no dispute concerning the above 2 cases that human mind can perceive and recognise them to be good or bad. this has no connection to Divine Law.

3. that which is praiseworthy in this world and gets rewarded in the hereafter - this is named 'good', hasan.
that which is deplorable in this world and gets punished in the hereafter is named evil or bad, qabeeh.

if one talks about the Divine Actions of Allah - it is not possible to define them as 'one deserving reward or punishment' - as this is not possible for Actions of Allah; as for the difference of opinion in husn/qubH - meaning praise and condemnation in this world - according to Hanafis, it can be affirmed by the mind - and imam abu'l Hasan ash'ari says, it cannot be affirmed by the mind and only known by the shariah.

​

====

so this is the issue that is being discussed in ibn Hajib's mukhtasar.

disclaimer: these are on the fly translations, so there might be typos or the translation might be clunky. i will be revising them as i receive comments and correction by brothers.

 

zameel quotes a snippet from iji's commentary on mukhtasar al-muntaha thus:
according to him this is a "clear kalam text"

----
mukhtasar al-muntaha - mukhtaSar muntaha al-suul wa'l amal fi ilmay al-usuli wa'l jadal is a very famous work on usul by imam ibn al-Hajib, the shaykh of malikiyyah which is also known as "mukhtaSar ibn al-Hajib".

imam jamaluddin abu amr uthman ibn umar ibn abi bakr - ibn al-Hajib (571-646 AH). maliki in furu and ash'ari in aqidah.

among his teachers are the imams:

1. qasim ibn firruh al-shaTibi, the imam of qurra (538-590 AH)
2. abi'l faDl al-ghaznawi al-Hanafi (522-599 AH)
3. abi'l juud ghiyath ibn faris (518-605 AH)
4. hibatullah ibn ali al-busiri (506-598 AH)
5. qasim ibn ali ibn asakir al-dimashqi (527-600 AH)
6. ali ibn ismayil ibn ali al-abyari (557-618 AH)
7. he read the book al-shifa of qaDi iyaD under the shaykh of sufiya, imam abu'l hasan ali ibn abdullah al-shadhili (571-656 AH)
8. also took from sayfuddin ali ibn muhammad al-aamidi (551-631 AH)

he also narrates from:
9. abu'l abbas ahmad ibn khalil ibn sa'adah al-barmaki (583-637 AH) a student of imam fakhruddin razi, ibn SalaH, rafi'yi.

---
among his books are:

1. al-kafiyah
2. al-shafiyah
which are famous works of sarf and naHw; the author has himself written commentaries and versified the books:

3. sharh al-kafiyah
4. al-wafiyah nazm al-kafiyah
5. sharh al-wafiyah
6. sharh al-shafiyah.

7. al-amali al-nahwiyyah

====
8. aqidat ibn Hajib

9. jami'y al-ummuhat / mukhtaSar al-far'yi
10. muntaha al-suul wa'l amal fi ilmay al-usul wa'l jadal which was abridged by the author himself as he notes in the opening lines of the book: "and then i have abridged it.."

there are 15-20 more books on various topics, omitted. [info taken from the dirasah in of mukhtasar al-muntaha]

------
now this is the book, on which qadi adud al-iji wrote a commentary from which zameel quotes thus:



=====
so first we need to see the context of the main text, that is ibn Hajib's matn of mukhtasar.

 

for example, let us take qaDi adud al-din iji, whose passage from a commentary on an usul text mukhtasar al-muntaha of ibn Hajib is paraded by zameel as: "clear kalam texts"



sub'HanAllah, the very first word of this screed is patently false and the rest of the research is shoddy as we will demonstrate in sha'Allah and by His tawfiq.

---
who is qaDi adud?

he is imam qaDi aDud'uddin abdu'l raHman ibn aHmad al-eeji al-shirazi; he was born in eej (near shiraz) around 700AH and passed away in 765 AH (according to subki) or 753 AH (according to isnawi). he is the student of zaynuddin al-hanki, a prominent student of qaDi naSiruddin al-bayDawi [d. 685 AH], the famous mutakallim, mufassir, muhaddith and shafiyi imam.

imam sa'aduddin taftazani is among the prominent students of qaDi aDududdin al-eeji.

among his works are:

1. al-mawaqif, one of the well-known treatises on kalam.

2. sharh of mukhtasar al-muntaha of ibn Hajib (which is cited by zameel in his article)

3. al-jawahir fi ilm al-kalam (said to be still in manuscript form, unpublished)

4. al-fawa'id al-ghiyathiyah in the sciences of ma'ani and bayan.

5. risalah fi'l akhlaq (published recently by shaykh nizar hammadi)

6. al-aqayid al-aDudiyyah - on which is the sharh of allamah jalaluddin dawwani (830-908 AH)

7. aadab al-baHth

8. zubdatu't tarikh fi tarjamati ishraqu't tawarikh

9. bahjatu't tawHid

10. taHqiq al-tafsir fi takthir al-tanwir, a commentary of the qur'an.

11. risalah aDudiyyah

12. sharh al-maqalah al-mufradah

13. uyun al-jawahir

====

so eeji is an imam of kalam scholars and his al-mawaqif and al-aqayid are famous, and have received commentaries.

in his aqayid he states: (see sharh aqayid aDudiyyah by hasan al-kilani / matn on p.17)

Allah is transcendent from all and every kind of flaw - He has none resembling Him, nor equal to Him, no one like Him, no partner unto Him, nor Helper, nor does he indwell [hulul] in another - nor can any accident be present in Him, nor does He unite with someone else.

He is neither a substance, nor an accident, nor a body, nor does He have limits or direction; one cannot point 'towards' Him by saying 'here' or 'there' and it is impossible [to attribute Him iwth] movement or transfer or ignorance or falsehood.
​

the same text, sharh of dawwani:





=====
in al-mawaqif, he says: (p.295-296)

[this issue] that it is falsehood is impossible for Allāh táālā is agreed by all; the Mútazilah say that [it is impossible because] falsehood is ugly and Allāh táālā does not do ugly things; as for us, we say it is because it is a flaw, and a flaw for Allāh táālā is muĥāl by unanimous agreement.​

he gives two other reasons why kadhib is muHal for Allah ta'ala.

-----
these are the author's OWN opinions. only a madman or a deranged moron or a shameless heretic will claim that "al-eeji believed that kadhib was permissible for Allah ta'ala".

fine. then what about the passage in sharh al-mukhtasar of ibn Hajib by the same author?

in sha'Allah we will examine this now.

 

before we begin to address these apparently problematic passages, we have to understand a few important aspects related to problematic passages (let us call them mushkilat or PPs) and the author's own view. just because a certain passage exists in a book attributed to an author does not automatically make that position, the author's own viewpoint, especially when it is a controversial issue.

ordinarily, when we read a book - we assume that it is that author's own view unless there are indications or the author himself notes that it is a citation. in case of citations, the author might have quoted it, to refute it - or cite it as an affirmation of his own view. this is known by either the author's express admission that the citation is used as a proof, or by the overall context of the discussion.

---
in our specific example: sharif jurjani in mawaqif said so; adududdin iji in sharh mukhtasar al-muntaha said so; ibn humam said so - that is accusing these ulama of having the belief that "falsehood is in the realm of possibilities/mumkinat".

zameel in his article has given us these six 'quotes' to justify the deobandi/mutazili position. and his argument runs like this:

1. deobandis hold the position that "kadhib" is included in Divine Power; and this is because kadhib is among "mumkinat"/rational possibilities.

2. these are six quotes from well-known ulama, who also say the same as per their quotes. [this is the deobandi argument, ignoring hundreds of express and explicit statements that reject that above position].

3. what do you say about these quotes?

4. if you do not rule these ulama as heretics, or criticise them, and in fact, you too respect them, you must accept that the deobandi position [in this issue] is ANOTHER acceptable position within ahl al-sunnah.

5. therefore the deobandi position is justified.
​

as you can see, the argument hinges on the quotes presented, which according to zameel [as the rest of the deobandis] are proof for their position.

=====
the brief response to this argument is that in a controversial matter, an isolated quote of any scholar cannot be deemed his own view, much less an accepted position, unless it is established beyond doubt, by hard evidence, that it is indeed his own view and he supports that view. i.e., a controversial position (CP) cannot be justified by a one or two problematic passages (PP) found in books of well-known authors.

so how do we explain these PPs on a CP? how can we ascertain that the PP is indeed the author's own position?

when we encounter an apparently problematic passage (PP) on a "controversial position" (CP) - such as one which contradicts established aqidah - one needs to ascertain a few aspects before one can accuse the author of holding or promoting that view.

1. THE AUTHOR'S STATED POSITION: the author might have stated his own viewpoint in clear terms - whether in the same book or in other works. in such a case, it is unjust to attribute the CP to the author, irrespective of a contradictory statement found elsewhere.

2. SIDE DISCUSSION: the passage (PP) is stated in the context of another discussion, which is not about the issue (CP) per se. if the author has himself unambiguously stated his views on a CP, he sometimes mentions the opposing view without any disclaimer that he is stating it in the form of playing the 'devil's advocate'.

3. AMBIGUOUS STATEMENT: the author wished to say something else, but due to unclear wording, it leads to the impression that the author favours a controversial position. this can be clarified by examining the author's position in other works (see #1 above). sometimes a honest mistake on the part of the author - where he might have written something by mistake, without intending THAT meaning.

4. SPURIOUS ADDITION: whether due to malicious intent or by copyist's error, a statement is introduced in a book that was never the author's original intent; and he never wrote it himself.

5. CHANGE OF VIEWPOINT: the author might have held a view in the early period of his life and subsequently changed his view. thus, it can be explained as a view which the author renounced in the later part of his life. but due to the survival of an older work, the author's previous position is stated as his final view.

6. ABERRATION: the author's view is an aberration and contradicts the majority of scholars. except in matters of aqidah, aberrations are ignored in view of the position held by the majority.

7. UNATTRIBUTED CITATION: sometimes authors cite a source without naming them and without clarifying their own position. this citation can be mistaken to be the author's own view.

there can be other cases as well, but for our discussion, these many suffice.

------
any reasonable person will agree that the author's position is his own stated view. statements made in the course of an argument, sometimes speaking from a contrary position should not be deemed the author's actual position. sometimes, ulama anticipate this and clarify their own position unambiguously, lest an incompetent reader misunderstands his argument and assigns contrary positions to him.

ibn humam at the end of the book al-musayarah says: p235:

The author, may Allāh have mercy upon him said: {And we conclude} this {book with an explanation of the beliefs of Ahl as-Sunnah wa'l Jamāáh} so that we mention in summary the major points that have been explained in detail earlier; because a concise summary after a detailed exposition, gathers in one place scattered [points] which gives more clarity and explains the objectives more clearly because of their contigious and being in one place [is also] easy to refer; and that is: the creed of Ahl as-Sunnah.​

and in this concluding pages, he writes:

{It is absolutely impossible for Him} Sanctified is He {from all attributes of flaw like ignorance and falsehood;} rather it is also absolutely impossible for Him to have any attribute that has neither perfection nor flaw, because every attribute of the Lord Almighty Allāh is that of Perfection
​

in the above passages: ibn humam's al-musayarah is highlighted in red and his student ibn abi'sh sharif's commentary al-musamarah is in blue.

=====
this is a well known occupational hazard, imam adu'duddin iji comments on this in his al-mawaqif, p.133, that mere citation without objection doesn't mean that it is the author's own position:

And you know the madh’hab of Ahl al-Ĥaqq, that sight is created by Allāh táālā in the living and it is not necessary to put conditions of light [being present], either facing or otherwise. We shall not object to such things, relying upon your knowledge where it is relevant.​

commenting on the above, sharif jurjani in sharh al-mawaqif. vol.5/p246

{We shall not object to such things, relying upon your knowledge where it is relevant} Thus, it is mandatory for you to consider [and be mindful of] the principles of Ahl al-Ĥaqq in all the discussions, even if we do not explicitly mention them.​

---
allamah taftazani in sharh al-maqasid [2/273] has also said similarly:

There are numerous opinions of philosophers that are false and invalid [according to our religious belief] and mentioned without stating [our] objection or refuting them, except where additional clarification is required.​

----

 

on my twitter sojourn, i encountered a link - which i assume might have been posted on SP by brothers earlier, but i might not have responded due to my preoccupation at that time. or i might have put it away for later. or i might have felt disgusted and didn't feel i should respond.

regardless, here, zameel cites a few passages from kalam works to prove that these esteemed ulama believed that kadhib was permissible for Allah ta'ala (al iyadhu billah).

https://barelwism.wordpress.com/202...r-issuing-an-untrue-statement-imkan-al-kidhb/

====
i have screenshotted the page. i also get an honorary mention (see at the fag end of the article).

zameel is one case, where the saying: 'the devil can quote the scripture for his own purpose' is literally true. nas'alu Allah al aafiyah.

----
this cannot be answered on twitter due to the constraints of the medium - so i will answer here, in shaAllah and then brothers can post it on twitter. if i get the time, i will do it myself.

wa billahi't tawfiq.