The Muhaqiq of Al Ibanah ‘an Usul ad Diyanah (Dr. Saleh bin Muqbil bin Abdullah Al-Usaymi Al-Tamimi) wrote extensive research into the book, and he spoke on:

The scholars who affirmed the book as authentic and those who questioned whether it is truly attributed to Imam Abu al Hasan al Ashʿari عليه السلام

When it was written and whether it represents his final work.

Doubts raised about the purpose of its writing, claims of later additions to the printed text

How the book influenced later ulama, both directly and indirectly

Al Bayhaqi’s direct transmission from Al Ibanah, his naming of it, and places where he was influenced by it without explicit attribution.

The history of the book’s printed editions, starting from the earliest modern editions and ending with the Imam Muhammad ibn Saud University edition

A description of the six manuscript copies used for verification, each identified by its symbol and place of preservation.

Below is most of what the muhaqiq wrote at the beginning of the book.

Navigation Menu For The Summary

Verification of the attribution of Al Ibanah an Usul ad Diyanah

Those who questioned the attribution and the responses

Time of authorship and whether Al Ibanah was his final work

Doubts about the purpose of authoring Al Ibanah and the replies

Claims of additions and corruption in the printed text

The influence of Al Ibanah on later ulama

History of the printed editions of Al Ibanah

Description of the six manuscript copies used for verification

Conclusion: Is Al Ibanah Authentic To Abu Hasan Al Ashari?

Navigation Menu For The Full Article

Those who affirmed the book

Those who questioned the soundness of the attribution of the book

The time of its authorship

The scholars that said that Al Ibanah is Al Ashari’s last composition.

Those who cast doubt on the goal of the authorship

Those who cast doubt on the printed text and accuse it of additions

Those whom Al Ibanah influenced

Bayhaqi’s transmission from Al Ibanah and his being affected by it

Those whom Al Ibanah affected in an indirect way

Previous editions of the book

The first edition: The edition of Doctor Fawqiyyah Mahmoud

The second edition: The edition of Bashir ʿUyoon

The third edition: The edition of ʿAbbas Sabbagh

The fourth edition: The edition of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ʿAli ibn Rayhan

The fifth edition: The edition of Imam Muhammad ibn Saud University

Description of the manuscript copies of the book: The book was verified on the basis of six manuscript copies.

The first copy: symbol (أ) Alif

The second copy: the Indian copy, symbol (ب) Ba

The third copy: symbol (ج) Jeem

The fourth copy: the American University in Beirut, symbol (د) Dal

The fifth copy: symbol (هـ) Ha

The sixth copy: symbol (و) Waw

Summary

Verification of the attribution of Al Ibanah an Usul ad Diyanah

Hardly any work in the heritage has its attribution strengthened by so many testimonies as Al Ibanah an Usul ad Diyanah to Imam Abu al Hasan al Ashari, and that dozens of imams, early and late, explicitly name it as his book and often describe it as one of his most famous and last compositions.

Among the earliest to affirm it is Ibn Asakir, whose book At Tabyin is the main reference for al Ashari’s life and writings. He names Al Ibanah several times, transmits pages from its opening, and even cites poetry that pairs it with Al Luma.

He then presents Al Ibanah as proof of the soundness of al Ashari’s belief in the fundamentals, which shows that he considered it one of the key works to represent al Ashari’s creed (At Tabyin p. 152, p. 171, p. 389).

Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah mentions the book in many places. He describes it as “among the most famous compositions of al Ashari and the last of them” and reports that the followers of al Ashari regarded it as his final position and relied upon it to defend him against critics (Bayan Talbis al Jahmiyyah 1/136, 1/143; Majmu al Fatawa 5/93, 6/359; Dar at Taarud 2/16).

Ibn al Qayyim repeatedly uses Al Ibanah as evidence that al Ashari attached himself to the creed of Imam Ahmad and Ahl al Hadith, and he cites it in Ijtima al Juyush al Islamiyyah and in his Nuniyyah where he names Al Ibanah alongside Al Maqalat and other writings as works of clarification in creed (Ijtima al Juyush al Islamiyyah p. 167, p. 178; Nuniyyah Ibn al Qayyim p. 69 to 70; Al Sawaiq al Mursalah 1/260).

Abu Bakr al Bayhaqi explicitly mentions that Abu al Hasan al Ashari spoke of the uncreated speech of Allah in Al Ibanah and quotes from it in Al I’tiqad, treating it as a reliable source in creed (Al I’tiqad p. 204 to 205, p. 123 to 125).

Ibn Asakir reports that Imam al Sabuni would not go out to his teaching circle except with a copy of Al Ibanah in his hand, which shows the prestige of the book among early Asharis close to al Ashari’s time (At Tabyin p. 389; Bayan Talbis al Jahmiyyah 1/139).

Other major hadith and fiqh imams also count Al Ibanah among al Ashari’s known works: Abu Bakr al Samani, Ahmad ibn Thabit al Turki, Abu al Maali Mujli ibn Jami, Ibn al Tabakh, al Nawawi, al Qadi Abu Bakr al Baqillani, Ibn Darbas, al Dhahabi, Ibn Kathir, al Maqrizi, Ibn Hajar, Ibn al Imad, al Zabidi, Khalid al Naqshbandi, and al Alusi, many of whom explicitly call it his last book and treat it as the reference for his settled creed (Bayan Talbis al Jahmiyyah 1/136 to 142; Al Uluw 2/1248 to 1249; Al Arsh 2/294, 2/296 to 297; Tabaqat al Fuqaha al Shafiiyyin 1/199; Shadharāt adh Dhahab 4/131; Ithaf as Sadah al Muttaqin 2/4 to 6; Jala al Aynayn p. 157, p. 462; Al Mawaiz wal I’tibar 4/194; Lisan al Mizan 1/354).

Many later scholars and researchers also affirm its attribution: Ibn Baz, Ibn Uthaymin, Salih al Fawzan, Ismail al Ansari, Hafidh Hakami, Hamad al Ansari, Abdur Rahman al Mahmoud, Rajih al Kurdi, Ahmad ibn Hajar Aal Abi Tami, Mustafa Hilmi, Hamudah Gharabah, Jalal Musa, Zahid al Kawthari, and others.

Some of them emphasise that Al Ibanah is al Ashari’s last composition and that his final creed was that of Ahl al Hadith and the Salaf, as expressed in this book (Al Ibanah p. 4, p. 18, p. 43, p. 45; Ma’arij al Qabul p. 310; Mawqif Ibn Taymiyyah min al Ashairah 1/348, 1/384 to 385; Al Aqaid as Salafiyyah p. 157 to 158; Al Qawaid al Muthla p. 80 to 81; Abu al Hasan al Ashari p. 66; Nashat al Ashairah wa Tatasuruha p. 170; Al Qada wal Qadar 2/323; Al Aqaid as Salafiyyah p. 157 to 158; Alaqat Sifat Allah Taala bi Dhatih p. 128, p. 141).

The cumulative result is that the attribution of Al Ibanah to Abu al Hasan al Ashari is supported by continuous testimony from early, middle, and late generations, along with surviving manuscripts, to the degree that the author describes denial of this attribution as a claim without proof.

Those who questioned the attribution and the responses

Despite this large amount of scholars who affirmed its attribution, some scholars raised doubts, which the author divides into three claims.

The first group accept that al Ashari authored Al Ibanah but cast doubt on the printed editions, especially the Indian print.

Zahid al Kawthari is the main example; he claims the Indian edition is a corrupted copy tampered with by “wicked hands” and demands a new print from a reliable original (his marginal notes on At Tabyin p. 35, note 1).

The author concedes that there are misreadings and printing errors in that edition but insists they do not reach the level of deliberate doctrinal alteration. He says that the likely cause of al Kawthari’s suspicion is that Al Ibanah follows the Salafi way of affirmation in the attributes, which conflicts with al Kawthari’s own path of negation and figurative interpretation (Mawqif Ibn Taymiyyah 1/353 to 355).

The second tendency denies the very attribution of Al Ibanah to al Ashari. Its main representative is Abdur Rahman Badawi, who writes that he has “strong doubts” about attributing Al Ibanah to al Ashari (Madhahib al Islamiyyin p. 533). The author shows that Badawi’s arguments are internally contradictory.

Badawi first points out that Al Ibanah is not listed in three catalogues of al Ashari’s works: those recorded by al Ashari himself in Al Amd, those listed by Ibn Furak, and those added by Ibn Asakir. Yet he himself admits that Ibn Asakir knew of Al Ibanah and that its omission was likely a copyist’s error, which undermines his own doubt.

He then notes that Ibn al Nadim’s Fihrist does not list Al Ibanah but lists a book titled At Tabyiin an Usul ad Din. The author replies that Ibn al Nadim never claimed to exhaust all of al Ashari’s works and only mentioned five, whereas Badawi himself lists many more that Ibn al Nadim omitted, so singling out Al Ibanah is inconsistent.

Badawi finally suggests that At Tabyiin an Usul ad Din might actually be Al Ibanah an Usul ad Diyanah under a descriptive title because of the close resemblance between the two titles, a possibility the present author endorses as very likely (Madhahib al Islamiyyin p. 517).

Badawi also misattributes the phrase that al Ashari’s followers made Al Ibanah “a protection against the Hanbalis” to Ibn Asakir, whereas in reality it was said by al Ahwazi, a bitter opponent of al Ashari. Ibn Asakir only quotes this as a slander and then refutes it as a corrupt and far fetched accusation, emphasising that al Ashari’s followers actually believed in Al Ibanah with firm conviction (At Tabyin p. 388 to 389).

The author concludes that Badawi’s position ends up acknowledging the book while simultaneously undermining his own denial.

The third claim rejects Al Ibanah on the basis that Ibn Furak did not mention it in his list of al Ashari’s works. The reply proceeds in several points.

First, Ibn Furak himself says he only listed the books al Ashari authored up to the year three hundred and twenty, while al Ashari lived until 324 and authored further works after that. Al Ibanah is presented as his last book, written after 320, so it naturally falls outside that list (Bayan Talbis al Jahmiyyah 1/143; At Tabyin p. 35, p. 136).

Second, Ibn Asakir explicitly states that works reached him which Ibn Furak had not mentioned. He then names Al Ibanah and even quotes from it, so it is clear that Ibn Furak’s list was not exhaustive and was never intended as such (At Tabyin p. 136, p. 171).

Third, it remains possible that Ibn Furak simply forgot to list Al Ibanah, as he forgot other works. There is no reason to single this book out for denial if his omission was broader.

Fourth, Ibn Taymiyyah offers a more specific explanation: he notes that Ibn Furak and those around him inclined to negation concerning the attribute of istiwa and similar issues. Because of this tendency, he edited and reshaped some of what he transmitted from Ibn Kullab and al Ashari according to his own interpretive preferences.

Ibn Taymiyyah suggests that this inclination to negation prevented Ibn Furak from following the affirmational approach of his own imams, so he did not mention an explicitly affirmational book such as Al Ibanah (Bayan Talbis al Jahmiyyah 1/145, 1/147).

The author then adds two further evidences. First, after collating the manuscripts he finds that their wording is in very broad agreement: in arrangement, chapters, issues, and expressions they largely coincide.

Differences are mostly in presence or absence of salutations, variants in expressions like “exalted” versus “mighty and majestic”, and very occasional wording shifts that do not affect meaning. Only one passage of about three lines appears in a single manuscript alone and is therefore treated as a later addition.

This strong agreement supports the authenticity of Al Ibanah as a single work of al Ashari, not a fabrication.

Second, the content of Al Ibanah is substantially paralleled in other undisputed works of al Ashari, such as Maqalat al Islamiyyin and his risalah to the people of the frontier, both in overall doctrinal foundations and in many detailed issues.

That agreement makes the claim of tampering in Al Ibanah even weaker. The author concludes that the real motive behind rejecting Al Ibanah and Maqalat is that they contain explicit affirmation of attributes which conflict with the path of later Asharis who leaned towards Jahmi and Mutazili negation, so they sought to impugn the books rather than reconsider their own positions.

Time of authorship and whether Al Ibanah was his final work

The author presents a detailed case that Al Ibanah belongs to the last phase of al Ashari’s life, when he left the Mutazili tradition, moved through an intermediate stage, and finally aligned himself with the way of the righteous Salaf.

He notes that al Ashari passed through three phases: early adherence to the Mutazilah, a middle phase close to Ibn Kullab and the mutakallimun who supported the Sunnah, and a final phase in which he clearly attached himself to the creed of the Salaf and Imam Ahmad. In this last phase he authored Al Ibanah, which is presented as his last composition.

Several evidences are given for the lateness of Al Ibanah.

First, as already mentioned, Ibn Furak, when listing al Ashari’s works based on Al Amd, records books authored only up to 320 AH and then says that al Ashari lived after that until 324 and authored additional books. Al Ibanah is not in that earlier list, which implies it was written after 320 (Bayan Talbis al Jahmiyyah 1/143; At Tabyin p. 35).

Second, in the famous narrative of al Ashari’s public return, Ibn Asakir relates that al Ashari climbed the pulpit, renounced Mutazili beliefs, and handed the people certain books including Al Luma and Kashf al Asrar wa Hatk al Astar. This indicates that Al Luma was composed immediately after leaving the Mutazilah, while Al Ibanah came later and was not among those first distributed works (At Tabyin p. 39).

Third, al Ashari’s own list in Al Amd does not include Al Ibanah among the works he counted as authored up to 320, even though he even lists books he wrote in his Mutazili phase and then left. This supports the conclusion that Al Ibanah was written after that list and therefore in his final years.

Fourth, a widely circulated report relates that when al Ashari came to Baghdad he went to the Hanbali imam Abu Muhammad al Barbihari and said repeatedly, “I refuted al Jubba’i, I refuted the Magians, I refuted the Christians.” Al Barbihari replied, “I do not know what you are saying; we only know what Imam Ahmad said.”

So al Ashari left and authored Al Ibanah, but it was not accepted from him. This story, even though Ibn Asakir considers it weak and criticises some of its details, still supports that Al Ibanah was composed after this encounter and therefore late, and Ibn Asakir does not deny the lateness of the book itself (Siyar Alam an Nubala 15/90; Tabaqat al Hanabilah 2/18; Al Wafi 12/246; Tabyin Kadhib al Muftari p. 390 to 391; Mawqif Ibn Taymiyyah 1/382).

Fifth, the internal style of Al Ibanah backs this conclusion. In Al Ibanah, al Ashari strongly affirms the reported and rational attributes such as Allah’s highness and His rising over the Throne, relies heavily on the two revelations, and rejects figurative interpretation. He does not explore the detailed kalam issues that fill Al Luma.

This shows a gradual movement away from the kalam of the mutakallimun toward the straightforward path of Ahl al Hadith, which fits a later, more mature phase after Al Luma (Siyar Alam an Nubala 15/90; Tabaqat al Hanabilah 2/18; Al Wafi 12/246; Tabyin Kadhib al Muftari p. 390 to 391).

The author then gathers the explicit testimonies that Al Ibanah is al Ashari’s final book. Ibn Taymiyyah reports that al Ashari’s followers themselves regarded it as his last composition and used it to defend him against critics, and he asserts that no later statement from al Ashari contradicts it (Bayan Talbis al Jahmiyyah 1/136, 1/143; Majmu al Fatawa 5/93, 6/359).

Ibn Darbas explicitly calls Al Ibanah the book that represents what al Ashari’s affair finally settled upon in creed (his treatise defending al Ashari p. 115).

Ibn al Imad, Ibn Kathir, al Alusi, Khalid al Naqshbandi, Hafidh Hakami, Muhib al Din al Khatib, Abdur Rahman al Mahmoud, Abd al Fattah Fuaad, Ahmad Aal Abi Tami, Rajih al Kurdi and others say it as his last work and the book upon which his followers rely when defending him (Tabaqat al Fuqaha al Shafiiyyin 1/199; Shadharāt adh Dhahab 4/131; Ithaf as Sadah al Muttaqin 2/4 to 6; Jala al Aynayn p. 157, p. 462; Ma’arij al Qabul p. 310; Al Muntaqa p. 44 note 2; Mawqif Ibn Taymiyyah 1/384 to 385; Al Firaq al Islamiyyah wa Usuluha al Imaniyyah 1/132; Al Aqaid as Salafiyyah p. 157 to 158; Alaqat Sifat Allah bi Dhatih p. 128).

Taken together, the external testimonies, internal style, and historical reports point to Al Ibanah being authored between 320 and 324 AH in Baghdad and standing as the last and most explicit expression of al Ashari’s creed.

Doubts about the purpose of authoring Al Ibanah and the replies

A separate set of doubts concerns the motive behind writing Al Ibanah. Some claim that al Ashari authored it insincerely as a shield from the Hanbalis and as flattery toward them, not as a true expression of his creed.

The origin of this claim lies with al Ahwazi, an enemy of al Ashari. He asserted that al Ashari wrote Al Ibanah to protect himself from the Hanbalis. Some orientalists, such as Macdonald, then repeated this, suggesting that al Ashari was compelled to write Al Ibanah without believing in it as a type of dissimulation to appease the Hanbalis who were supposedly dominant in Baghdad during his last years (Al Qada wal Qadar 2/316). Some later Asharis, such as Hamudah Gharabah, transmitted these words and tried to support them by citing the story of al Ashari’s encounter with al Barbihari (Kitab Al Luma with Hamudah Gharabah’s verification; Al Qada wal Qadar 2/316; At Tabyin p. 188; Siyar Alam an Nubala 15/90; Tabaqat al Hanabilah 2/18; Al Wafi 12/246; Tabyin Kadhib al Muftari p. 390 to 391).

The author refutes this from several directions, drawing heavily on Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Asakir.

Ibn Taymiyyah notes that al Ashari was tested by two extremes: a group that hates him and a group that loves him, and both may lie about him. Some claimed he wrote books such as Al Ibanah only as a show of agreement with Ahl al Hadith and as dissimulation.

Ibn Taymiyyah says this charge is false, because there is no known inner belief of his that contradicts what he wrote, and none of his close companions ever transmitted a hidden doctrine opposed to what is in his books.

The claim that he concealed one creed while manifesting its opposite is invalid in Sharia and reason. Whoever carefully reads his statements in context sees that he is sincerely supporting what he openly affirms. Those who love him but oppose affirmation of the attributes are the ones who try to detach him from his own explicit words (Majmu al Fatawa 11/201; Al Nadhrah at Tayseer p. 338).

Ibn Asakir adds further responses.

First, it is not reasonable that a person would strip himself of his creed and then author a book that contradicts his own belief, especially at an advanced age near death. Such a claim amounts to accusing him of hypocrisy.

Second, al Ashari was never known for cowardice or flattery. He remained a staunch Mutazili for many years, even when the standing of the Mutazilah had waned, and he did not write anything in that phase as dissimulation for the Hanbalis, although the Hanbalis had considerable influence at that time. This shows that he was not a person given to changing creed under pressure.

Third, there is no proof of any personal enmity between al Ashari and the Hanbalis. On the contrary, in Al Ibanah and in Maqalat he openly affiliates himself with Imam Ahmad and praises his creed. If he had been a hypocrite, writing merely for show, it would have sufficed for him to make a single declaration without repeatedly defending the madhhab of the Salaf in many places.

Fourth, the report about al Ashari and al Barbihari was propagated by his adversaries and then refuted by Ibn Asakir himself. If it had been true in the sense claimed, Ibn Asakir, as an Ashari imam, would either have endorsed it or remained silent, yet he instead exposes its flaws and rejects it (At Tabyin p. 388 to 391; Mawqif Ibn Taymiyyah 1/382).

Fifth, those who push this narrative portray the Hanbalis as tyrannical rulers forcing doctrinal shifts. Historical reality contradicts this: the Hanbali leader al Barbihari himself was persecuted and driven into hiding, and his followers were harassed and exiled. He died in concealment, not in a position of power over the caliphate. This makes it implausible that al Ashari would have altered his creed to please such a figure (Siyar Alam an Nubala 15/91 to 92; Al Muntaẓam 14/14; Shadharāt adh Dhahab 4/158).

The author concludes that the true driver behind Al Ibanah was guidance from Allah and a sincere return to the creed of the Salaf, not political pressure or the guardianship of Hanbalis or rulers over al Ashari’s belief. The accusation of dissimulation is therefore rejected as a slander that ultimately paints both al Ashari and the Hanbalis in a false light.

Claims of additions and corruption in the printed text

Some critics shifted the discussion from authorship to the integrity of the text, alleging that the existing prints of Al Ibanah are filled with tampering, especially in matters of creed. The most prominent critic is Zahid al Kawthari, who claimed that the Indian edition is a mis vocalised, altered copy tampered with by sinful hands and therefore unsuitable as a base text (marginal notes on At Tabyin p. 35, note 1).

The author answers these claims by a detailed comparison of manuscripts and printed editions. He acknowledges that the Indian print has many typographical errors and misreadings, but he maintains that these do not alter the doctrinal substance of the book.

He then turns to the first modern critical edition, that of Doctor Fawqiyyah Husayn Mahmoud. He praises her pioneering effort and her useful introduction on al Ashari and his works, as well as her brief biographies and partial tracing of reports. However, he lists serious textual problems.

The core defect is that she made a particular manuscript, denoted by the symbol S, the principal base. This copy contains many additions not found in the other manuscripts, some of which clearly reflect the language of later Ashari and even Mutazili negation regarding istiwa and highness.

For example, in the chapter affirming istiwa, the basic wording in the sound Egyptian copies reads simply that Allah is established over His Throne as He said in the verse of surat Ta Ha.

The S copy, however, adds a long explanatory passage that denies contact, settling, inhabiting, movement, and any increased nearness to the Throne, and affirms that Allah is near to every thing in the same way while being high above all. This addition is almost word for word taken from al Ghazali’s Al Arba’in fi Usul ad Din, showing that it is a later insertion, not part of al Ashari’s text (Al Arba’in fi Usul ad Din pp. 7 to 8, Dar al Afaq edition).

Doctor Fawqiyyah herself notes that this S copy contains additions that need careful review and that some of them, such as defining istiwa as overpowering and power, conflict with the Salafi tendency present in the rest of the book.

She suggests that the hand behind these additions was inclined to the Mutazilah and ignorant of the reality of the matter, yet she still treated S as the principal copy, inserting its additions into the main text and only signalling them in footnotes (study section of Al Ibanah p. 188; Mawqif Ibn Taymiyyah 1/353 to 355).

The author further documents multiple misreadings, omissions, wrong names, and typographical errors scattered through her edition, all of which make the text difficult to rely upon “as is” without constant comparison with the other manuscripts.

Turning to the later printed editions, he notes that the Dar al Bayan edition by Bashir Uyun is based only on previous prints rather than manuscripts. It has some merits, such as better tracing of narrations and Qur’an verses and some sound creedal comments, but it also contains many additions and omissions because no manuscript base was used.

Whole phrases and even sections are missing or altered, including the passage proving seeing Allah with the eyes and the correct wording regarding the imamate of the rightly guided caliphs.

The Dar an Nafais edition by Abbas Sabbagh is based on a manuscript in the American University of Beirut, itself a copy of the Alexandria manuscript.

It traces Qur’an verses, gives some brief biographies and explanations of unfamiliar terms, but still has very brief hadith sourcing, neglect of athar, many additions and omissions, and some errors in naming.

The edition of Shaykh Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Rayhan, printed by Dar al Ibanah, claims to rely on five manuscript copies and has the merit of adding many supporting statements from Sunni imams on issues that al Ashari discusses.

However, it does not actually record a single variant reading, which undermines its claim to be a verification. It nearly omits biographies, traces only one athar, and bases many comments on recent authors instead of the original Salafi sources such as Ar Radd ala al Jahmiyyah of Imam Ahmad, As Sunnah of Ibn Abi Asim, al Khallal, and others. Its commentary is also heavily concentrated on the first pages, leaving the remainder almost without annotation.

Finally, the edition issued by Imam Muhammad ibn Saud Islamic University, with an introduction by Salih al Fawzan, is praised for its affiliation to a Salafi institution, for its helpful creedal notes and corrections of some problematic phrases, and for clarifying important issues. Yet it still relies on printed editions rather than manuscripts and lacks detailed tracing of narrations and biographies.

From this comparative study the author concludes that while the printed editions suffer from numerous technical shortcomings, especially typographical errors and occasional later insertions, the core content of Al Ibanah across manuscripts remains stable and clearly expresses an affirmational, Salafi creed. The claim that the entire book is a forged or heavily corrupted work cannot stand in the face of the manuscript evidence and the agreement of its main doctrinal structure.

The influence of Al Ibanah on later ulama

The book’s impact on later scholars is traced in two ways: explicit transmission with naming, and indirect influence without explicit attribution.

The clearest direct influence appears in the work of al Bayhaqi.

In Al I’tiqad he affirms that the Qur’an is the speech of Allah and not created, stating that this is the madhhab of the people of knowledge in earlier and later times, and then adds that Abu al Hasan al Ashari mentioned this same meaning in his book Al Ibanah.

He then quotes a passage from Al Ibanah where al Ashari uses the verse of surat al Buruj about the Noble Qur’an in the Preserved Tablet as evidence that the Qur’an is in the Preserved Tablet (Al I’tiqad pp. 123 to 125, p. 204 to 205).

In the same book, al Bayhaqi has a long chapter on the affirmation of seeing Allah in the Hereafter with the eyes. He cites the verse about radiant faces looking at their Lord on the Day of Resurrection and carefully analyses the different usages of “looking” in the Qur’an, ruling out the meanings of reflection, waiting, and compassion in this context, and concluding that only the sense of actual sight remains.

He strengthens this by referring to Allah’s statement to Musa عليه السلام that if the mountain remained in place he would see his Lord, demonstrating that Allah is able to show Himself to His believing servants.

This entire reasoning is taken almost word for word from Al Ibanah, sometimes with explicit mention of Abu al Hasan and sometimes without naming the book, but the wording and structure are clearly the same (Al I’tiqad pp. 123 to 125).

The author presents this as decisive proof that an eminent Ashari imam like al Bayhaqi regarded Al Ibanah as genuinely from al Ashari and used it as a source of argument in creed, both by direct citation and by silent adoption of its arguments.

Beyond al Bayhaqi, Al Ibanah exerts an indirect influence on Qadi Abu Bakr al Baqillani and other leading figures. Ibn Kathir notes that al Baqillani authored a commentary on Al Ibanah, though this work appears to be lost (Tabaqat al Fuqaha al Shafiiyyin 1/199).

Ibn Taymiyyah cites from a book of al Baqillani also titled Al Ibanah in which he affirms for Allah a Face and two Hands by the verses of surat ar Rahman and surat Sad, and in which he affirms that Allah is above the Throne and above all creation and rejects the belief that Allah is “in every place”.

He also explicitly divides the attributes into attributes of the Self and attributes of action, and he affirms the attributes based on reports such as Face, two Hands, and two Eyes, as well as highness and istiwa, while refuting the interpretation of istiwa as mere overpowering (Al Hamawiyyah pp. 96 to 97; Bayan Talbis al Jahmiyyah 3/474 to 477, 4/486; Dar at Taarud 3/382, 6/206 to 207; At Tasiniyyah 3/892 to 895; Majmu al Fatawa 3/262, 7/21, 15/4; Ijtima al Juyush p. 178).

Al Baqillani’s more famous book At Tamheed reinforces this picture. In it he follows an affirmational path on the attributes and opposes the later restriction to seven attributes adopted by many subsequent Asharis. He treats the attributes in a manner close to al Ashari’s late position.

Some modern verifiers initially accused Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al Qayyim of misrepresenting al Baqillani, but when Macarthy published a careful edition of At Tamheed from multiple manuscripts, it confirmed that what Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al Qayyim transmitted is accurate. Jalal Musa, who is critical of Ibn Taymiyyah in general, ultimately admits that comparison of al Baqillani’s text with their transmissions proves their precision “word for word, without bias” (At Tamheed pp. 26 to 29, 261 to 263; Nashat al Ashariyyah pp. 330 to 331).

al Bayhaqi and al Baqillani one sees the strong echo of Al Ibanah’s methodology of affirmation, even if the later mainstream of Asharis moved away from that path under the influence of Ibn Furak and others, adopting widespread figurative interpretation and negation in matters such as highness and attributes of action.

For this reason he calls on modern Asharis, if they truly claim affiliation to al Ashari, to align themselves with his final book Al Ibanah or else to desist from attributing their own creed to him.

History of the printed editions of Al Ibanah

The modern history of Al Ibanah’s publication is traced through five main editions, each with its strengths and weaknesses.

The first widely known edition is that of Doctor Fawqiyyah Husayn Mahmoud. Its merits include precedence in making the text available, a substantial introductory study on al Ashari and his works, short biographies for most of the individuals mentioned, basic tracing of many narrations, and several beneficial comments.

Its defects, however, are numerous: abundant misreadings and printing errors, reliance on the problematic S manuscript as the principal base, incorporation of its unique additions into the main text, minimal grading of narrations, and many small inaccuracies in cross references and names.

As already noted, some of these additions clearly derive from later Ashari sources such as al Ghazali’s Al Arba’in, making it necessary to treat them as interpolations rather than original words of al Ashari (study section of Al Ibanah pp. 188 to 190; Mawqif Ibn Taymiyyah 1/353 to 355).

The second edition is that of Bashir Uyun, printed by Dar al Bayan in Beirut. This edition does not use manuscripts but collates the earlier printed texts. It improves the tracing of hadith and Qur’an verses and adds a few sound creedal notes. However, due to the lack of manuscript control it suffers from many additions and omissions, including altered doctrinal phrasing and dropped passages. It also omits biographies and neglects tracing of athar.

The third edition is that of Abbas Sabbagh, printed by Dar an Nafais, based on a manuscript in the American University in Beirut which is itself a copy of the Alexandria manuscript. It traces Qur’an verses, offers brief biographies, and explains some unfamiliar words.

Its defects lie in very concise referencing of hadith, neglect of athar, a lack of creedal commentary, and various additions and omissions, some of which seem to follow the same problematic lines already seen in other non Egyptian copies.

The fourth edition is that of Shaykh Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Rayhan, printed by Dar al Ibanah in Cairo. On the cover it is claimed that he used five manuscript copies. The main positive feature of this work is the extensive addition of supporting evidences from Sunni authors on the issues that al Ashari raises, which, taken on their own, would form a useful creed book for Ahl as Sunnah.

However, from the standpoint of textual verification it has serious problems: no manuscript variants are recorded at all, biographies are almost absent, only a single athar is traced, and most of the commentary relies on recent writers instead of the classical Salafi sources. The commentary is also very uneven, with around nine hundred and fifty pages devoted to the first ten pages of Al Ibanah and almost no comment on the remainder.

The fifth edition is that issued by Imam Muhammad ibn Saud Islamic University in Riyadh. This edition is introduced by Shaykh Salih al Fawzan, which itself indicates institutional acceptance of Al Ibanah as a Salafi creed text.

It includes some valuable creedal notes, corrects certain expressions that appeared incorrect in earlier prints, and explains key issues in the attributes and other topics. However, it still does not rely directly on manuscripts and lacks tracing of narrations and athar and biographies of narrators.

Overall, the printed tradition reflects serious effort to present Al Ibanah but shows that a fully rigorous critical edition still requires comprehensive use of all available manuscripts, complete tracing and grading of narrations, and careful separation of later additions from the original text.

Description of the six manuscript copies used for verification

The author then describes six manuscript copies used to verify Al Ibanah, identifying each by a symbol and repository, and explaining why he adopted one of them as the principal base.

The first copy, symbol Alif (أ), is preserved in the Egyptian National Library in Cairo in the Taimur section of creed works under number 377. It is an endowed copy in the name of Ahmad ibn Ismail and was copied by Abdul Rahman al Farsi ibn the late Muhammad Said, completed on Friday, the second of Rabi al Awwal in the year 1310 AH. It comprises 33 pages and 65 folios, each folio with 23 lines, of medium size and good script.

At its end there is a three folio conclusion written by Ibn al Qasim Abd al Malik ibn Isa ibn Darbas in which he affirms that al Ashari left the madhhab of the Mutazilah for the madhhab of the Salaf, that this was what he finally settled upon, and that he then arranged al Ashari’s book in an ordered fashion.

The researcher makes this copy the main base because omissions and erasures are very few, its small extra phrases compared to other copies are important and consistent with al Ashari’s method, there is no evidence of scribal doctrinal interference, and its margins are free of notes and glosses that might signal later reworking.

The second copy, symbol Baa (ب), is the Indian copy preserved in the library of Osmania University in Hyderabad under number 502. On its first page is a note that it is Al Ibanah of Abu al Hasan al Ashari al Shafii, copied from the book of Mawlay Abd al Wahhab, “the possessor”, and written in the hand of its owner Ahmad Said. No copying date appears.

It has 77 pages and 154 folios, each folio with 16 lines, of medium size and good handwriting. It is distinguished by some additions compared to the Egyptian copies and by the absence of marginal comments.

Its main defects are two long omissions: one from the discussion of the meaning of Allah’s saying “Be” and it is until the affirmation that Allah has never ceased speaking, and another from a later section up to the chapter on narrations concerning al Qadar. The scribe also sometimes rephrases al Ashari’s expressions in his own words, which requires caution.

The third copy, symbol Jeem (ج), is also in the Egyptian National Library in the Taimur section under number 107. Its copying was completed on Saturday, the second of Dhu al Hijjah in the year 1007 AH, by Muhammad ibn Sulayman al Akhmimi.

It consists of 70 folios and 140 pages, each page with 17 lines, medium size and moderate handwriting. There are omissions and erasures, but in general it is close to the first Egyptian copy Alif, with only slight differences. The first copy is still superior in clarity of wording, but Jeem corroborates it strongly.

The fourth copy, symbol Daal (د), is preserved at the American University in Beirut under the title “At Tawhid” of Abu al Hasan al Ashari. Examination shows that it is actually Al Ibanah, copied from an Egyptian original held in the library of the Municipality of Alexandria. This is the copy on which Doctor Fawqiyyah relied.

It was copied in al Andalus in the year 1000 AH, has 32 folios of which 16 are extant, each folio with 25 lines, and is of medium size with good handwriting. It is very close to the Indian Baa copy and, like it, contains additions and marginal notes. These notes and certain doctrinal expressions suggest that the scribe, or a later annotator, had tendencies of the Jahmiyyah or the late Asharis who incline towards negation of the attributes.

The fifth copy, symbol Ha (هـ), is in the Azhar Library under the numbers 904 “khususi” and 46057 “Majami Bakhit”. At its beginning is the same introduction by Ibn al Qasim Abd al Malik ibn Isa ibn Darbas that appears in Alif and Jeem, affirming al Ashari’s move to the madhhab of the Salaf and his settled creed. At the end is a note in the handwriting of Muhammad ibn Sulayman al Akhmimi al Maliki mentioning a dream in which he saw the Prophet ﷺ.

The copying was completed on Sunday, the fifth of Rabi al Awwal in 1308 AH by Muhammad ibn Muhammad al Hammadani. The manuscript has 66 folios and 132 pages, each page with 17 lines, medium size and good script.

It is very close to the Egyptian copies Alif and Jeem, and there is evidence that the scribe of Jeem wrote a folio at the end of Ha and sealed it, linking the two. Ha has many marginal notes, comments, and explanations, some of which reflect Sufi inclinations, such as mention of tawassul by the status of the Prophet ﷺ, but these are easily distinguishable from the main text.

The sixth copy, symbol Waw (و), is preserved in the Revan Roshel Library in Austria under number 26 to 1 10 Page. The first page bears the word “Revan”, and the second page introduces the content as “Majmu Usul ad Din”, a collection of treatises on creed among which is Al Ibanah of Abu al Hasan al Ashari.

There is an ownership note in the name of Ismail Shahba Uthman Pasha al Shami dated 1154 AH in the month of Shawwal, and a round seal containing the Qur’an verse “All praise belongs to Allah who has guided us to this, and we would never have been guided had Allah not guided us” from surat al Araf.

The copying was completed on Tuesday at the beginning of Muharram in the year 1084 AH. It consists of 26 folios and 52 pages, each page with 32 lines, with acceptable handwriting. It is close to the Indian Baa copy but contains an omission of more than a page and a half. At the same time, it preserves important additions in some places where the other copies have gaps, making it a useful auxiliary witness.

Conclusion: Is Al Ibanah Authentic To Abu Hasan Al Ashari?

By collating these six manuscripts, the wording of Al Ibanah is overwhelmingly stable across centuries and regions, and that the authentic text supports the attribution to Abu al Hasan al Ashari and the affirmational creed it contains.

When all of the evidences are brought together, the question of whether Al Ibanah an Usul ad Diyanah truly belongs to Abu al Hasan al Ashari has a clear answer.

The continuous testimony of early and later imams, beginning with Ibn Asakir and al Bayhaqi and extending through al Dhahabi, Ibn Kathir, al Maqrizi, Ibn Hajar, al Alusi and others, forms an unbroken chain of attribution.

These are the main authorities for al Ashari’s life and writings, and they not only name Al Ibanah as his work but often treat it as one of his most famous and last books. It is difficult, in the presence of such agreement, to claim that the attribution is an error or a fabrication.

The criticisms raised against this attribution are few and internally weak. Some revolve around the omission of Al Ibanah in partial lists of al Ashari’s works that are clearly not exhaustive and that are themselves explained by the late authorship of the book.

Others are based on confusion between hostile reports and the words of Ibn Asakir, or on speculative claims that contradict the plain use of Al Ibanah by early Ashari imams such as al Bayhaqi.

The claim that the book is a shield against the Hanbalis or an act of dissimulation collapses when measured against al Ashari’s known courage in leaving the Mutazilah, the absence of any secret creed transmitted from him, and the actual historical weakness of the Hanbalis in Baghdad at that time.

Alongside this external testimony, the manuscript record strengthens the attribution rather than weakening it. Six manuscripts from different times and regions, when compared carefully, present a single stable text in structure and content.

The differences are mostly small omissions, variant phrases, and a few later additions that can be detected by style and by comparison with other works. The core of the book is one and the same and reflects a consistent affirmational creed that matches what is found in other undisputed writings of al Ashari such as Maqalat al Islamiyyin and his letter to the people of the frontier.

For this reason, the strongest and most balanced conclusion is that Al Ibanah an Usul ad Diyanah is authentically from Abu al Hasan al Ashari and that it represents his final and clearest expression in creed after leaving the Mutazilah and moving to the way of the Salaf and Imam Ahmad. Whoever wishes to affiliate their belief to al Ashari in a truthful way must either accept the creed contained in this book or else acknowledge that their belief is different from what his affair finally settled upon.

Verifying its Attribution to its Author

Those who affirmed the book

I (Dr. Saleh bin Muqbil bin Abdullah Al-Usaymi Al-Tamimi) have not found any book whose attribution to its author has been strengthened by so many statements as the attribution of the book Al Ibanah to its author, Imam al Ashari (d.324 AH), may Allah have mercy on him. Dozens of scholars have testified that Imam al Ashari authored his book Al Ibanah.

Some people have asked: why is it absent from the list of Ibn Furak (d.406 AH)?

I will answer this, if Allah wills. Others have asked: why did Ibn Asakir (d.571 AH) not mention it among what he added to correct the list of Ibn Furak? I say: such people have either been ignorant, or they have forgotten that Ibn Asakir mentioned the book Al Ibanah in his book At Tabyin.

He did not only correct Ibn Furak by adding it, rather he did something greater than a bare mention and simple listing; he actually transmitted pages from it. This is without doubt greater than a mere mention and general enumeration. He even did not find, when he wanted to praise al Ashari, anything better than his book Al Ibanah. (At Tabyin p. 152, p. 389)

Likewise, the leading imams have repeatedly transmitted that the book Al Ibanah belongs to al Ashari, so its attribution to him is well known, in addition to the existing manuscript copies. I will present here examples of the statements of the scholars who affirmed that the attribution of the book is sound. Among them are:

1. Ibn Asakir (d.571 AH). I begin by mentioning him because there is no doubt about his complete knowledge of al Ashari and his affiliation to him. He even authored a book to explain his merits and to defend him.In At Tabyin he mentioned the book Al Ibanah in more than one place. Once he mentioned a poem by one of the Asharis in which it appears:“If he had authored in his lifetime nothing but Al Ibanah and Al Luma.”In another place he said, praising this book: “So let the reality of his state in the soundness of his belief in the fundamentals of the religion be known, and listen to what he mentioned at the beginning of his book which he named Al Ibanah.” Then he began to transmit a long section from Al Ibanah. (At Tabyin p. 171)Here Ibn Asakir, in his book At Tabyin which is relied upon for knowing the books of al Ashari, attributed the book Al Ibanah to Abu al Hasan. He even made this book a proof of the soundness of his belief. As for his not mentioning it among what he corrected upon Ibn Furak, then the likely reason is that he had already mentioned it within this very book and transmitted from it, so he considered that sufficient and did not see any benefit in repeating the mention. (At Tabyin p. 152, p. 389)
2. Nasr al Din al Sajzi or al Maqdisi, about whom Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (d.728 AH) mentioned that Nasr al Din al Maqdisi had a work in the fundamentals from which he transmitted sections of the book Al Ibanah. A copy of it was held in his endowment. (Bayan Talbis al Jahmiyyah 1/141–142; Al Dhab an Abi al Hasan al Ashari by Ibn Darbas (d.605 AH) p. 115, where he said: “It is among the most famous compositions of al Ashari and the last of them.”)
3. Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah himself, who mentioned the book in several places in his writings. For example:He said in Bayan Talbis al Jahmiyyah: “This book, meaning Al Ibanah, is among the most famous compositions of al Ashari and the last of them.” (Bayan Talbis al Jahmiyyah 1/136; Majmu al Fatawa 5/93; Dar al Taarud 2/16)
4. Imam Ibn al Qayyim, who mentioned Al Ibanah in several places in his books. For example, in Ijtima al Juyush al Islamiyyah he mentioned that al Ashari attached himself to Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d.241 AH) and used as evidence for that what is in Al Ibanah. (Ijtima al Juyush al Islamiyyah p. 167)He also mentioned in his Nuniyyah:“And likewise concerning al Ashari, for in his books
   he has brought clarification, in concise work, in Al Ibanah, in Maqala,
   and in letters to the frontier with clear exposition.”(Nuniyyat Ibn al Qayyim p. 69–70; Al Sawaiq al Mursalah 1/260)
5. Abu Bakr al Bayhaqi (d.458 AH). He said in his book Al I’tiqad, after mentioning the statement of al Shafii (d.204 AH): “With this same meaning it was also mentioned by Ali ibn Ismail al Ashari (d.324 AH) in his book Al Ibanah.” (Al I’tiqad p. 204; he also mentioned Al Ibanah on p. 205 when he said: “Abu al Hasan said in his book…” then he mentioned a section from Al Ibanah.)
6. Imam al Sabuni, Abu Uthman Ismail ibn Abd al Rahman al Sabuni (d.449 AH). Ibn Asakir (d.571 AH) mentioned about him that he would not go out to his teaching session except with the book Al Ibanah in his hand. (Tabyin Kadhib al Muftari p. 389; also transmitted by Ibn Taymiyyah in Bayan Talbis al Jahmiyyah 1/139)Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah also transmitted this from him.
7. Abu Bakr al Samani, Al Hafidh Abu Bakr Mansur ibn Muhammad al Tamimi al Samani al Khurasani al Marwazi (d.562 AH). Shaykh al Islam transmitted that Al Hafidh Abu Bakr al Samani relied upon the book Al Ibanah and transmitted from it, and he did not mention, among the works of Imam al Ashari, any composition other than it. (Bayan Talbis al Jahmiyyah 1/136; his biography: Siyar Alam al Nubala 20/456; Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah 16/218; Shadharāt al Dhahab 6/340; Mirat al Jinan 4/200)
8. Ahmad ibn Thabit al Turqi, Al Hafidh Abu al Abbas Ahmad ibn Thabit ibn Muhammad al Isfahani al Turqi (d.521 AH), from the villages of Isfahan. Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned that this Al Hafidh, the author of Al Lawami in combining the authentic collections and the compendiums, said: “The Jahmiyyah attributed negation to Abu al Hasan al Ashari, but I read in his book Al Ibanah an exposition of the fundamentals of the religion that contains affirmation.” (Bayan Talbis al Jahmiyyah 1/140–141, with a slight summary; Al Dhahabi (d.748 AH) also transmitted it in Al Uluw 2/1249 and in Al Arsh 2/296–297; his biography: Siyar Alam al Nubala 19/528; Al Ansab 4/42; Mizan al I’tidal 1/86)
9. Abu al Maali Mujli ibn Jami ibn Raja al Qurashi, the head of the Shafiis in Egypt (d.549 or 550 AH). Shaykh al Islam mentioned that Abu al Maali relied upon the book and transmitted a statement from him that he used to say: “By Allah, He is the One who authored it.” (Bayan Talbis al Jahmiyyah 1/142; his biography: Siyar Alam al Nubala 20/325; Wafayat al Ayan 4/154)
10. Ibn al Tabakh, Abu Muhammad Mubarak ibn Ali ibn Husayn al Baghdadi, the resident of Makkah and the Imam of the Hanbalis in the Haram (d.575 AH). Shaykh al Islam mentioned that he transmitted from the book Al Ibanah of al Ashari in a book of his named Al Ibanah. (Bayan Talbis al Jahmiyyah 1/142; his biography: Shadharāt al Dhahab 6/418; Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah 16/542; Tadhkirat al Huffaz 4/1476; Al Uluw 2/1248)
11. al Nawawi (d.676 AH). Al Dhahabi (d.748 AH) mentioned that al Nawawi copied Al Ibanah in his own handwriting. (Al Uluw 2/1248)
12. Al Qadi Abu Bakr al Baqillani (d.403 AH), who took care to explain it. (Tabaqat al Fuqaha al Shafiiyyin 1/199)
13. Ibn Darbas, the judge of the Egyptian lands, Imam Sadr al Din Abd al Malik ibn Isa ibn Darbas al Kurdi al Shafii (d.605 AH). He affirmed the attribution of Al Ibanah to al Ashari. (His treatise in defence of Abu al Hasan al Ashari p. 131; he was born in al Mosul in 510 AH, heard from Al Hafidh Ibn Asakir, and Al Hafidh al Mundhiri transmitted from him. Siyar Alam al Nubala 21/474; Al Nujum al Zahirah 6/175)
14. Al Hafidh al Dhahabi (d.748 AH) in his book Al Uluw, where he said: “The book Al Ibanah is among the most famous compositions of Abu al Hasan al Ashari.” (Al Uluw 2/1248)

In his book Al Arsh he also transmitted a section from Al Ibanah. (Al Arsh 2/294, 2/298)

15. Al Hafidh Ibn Kathir (d.774 AH). He mentioned the stages through which al Ashari (d.324 AH) passed and stated that his final approach was that which he set out in Al Ibanah. (Tabaqat al Fuqaha al Shafiiyyin 1/199)
16. Al Hafidh al Maqrizi, Taqi al Din Ahmad ibn Ali al Maqrizi (d.845 AH). He listed the compositions of al Ashari and mentioned among them Al Ibanah. (Al Mawaiz wa al I’tibar 4/194)
17. Al Hafidh Ibn Hajar al Asqalani (d.852 AH). When he wrote the biography of Abdullah ibn Saeed ibn Kullab (d.240 AH) he said: “And al Ashari followed his way in the book Al Ibanah.” (Lisan al Mizan 1/354)
18. Ibn al Imad al Hanbali, Shihab al Din Abd al Hayy ibn al Imad (d.1089 AH). He said in the biography of al Ashari: “Al Ashari said in his book Al Ibanah fi Usul al Diyanah, and it is the last book he authored.” (Shadharāt al Dhahab 4/131; Ithaf al Sadah al Muttaqin 2/4; Tabaqat al Fuqaha al Shafiiyyin 1/199; Al Mawaiz wa al I’tibar 4/194; Lisan al Mizan 1/354)
19. Al Zabidi, Murtada ibn Muhammad al Zabidi (d.1205 AH). He mentioned in the biography of al Ashari (d.324 AH) that he authored books and listed among them the book Al Ibanah. (Ithaf al Sadah al Muttaqin 2/4)
20. Khalid al Naqshbandi, Khalid ibn Ahmad ibn Husayn Abu al Baha Diya al Din al Naqshbandi (d.1242 AH). Al Alusi (Nu’man ibn Mahmood al Alusi d.1317 AH) mentioned that his shaykh of shaykhs, Khalid al Naqshbandi, said: “We see the books of al Ashari (d.324 AH) in creed filled with decisive proofs and radiant arguments, and with much involvement in interpretation and detailed discussion. Then he gave an excuse in his book Al Ibanah an Usul al Diyanah, which is his last composition, and it is upon this book that reliance is placed in the school of al Ashari.” (Jala al Aynayn p. 157; Al Alusi said: “Our great shaykh of shaykhs, Shaykh Khalid al Naqshbandi, said”; see also A’lam 2/294; Mu’jam al Muallifin 4/95)
21. Al Alusi, Nu’man ibn Mahmood ibn Abdallah al Alusi, Abu al Barakat Khayr al Din (d.1317 AH). In Jala al Aynayn, under the heading “The creed of al Ashari,” he said: “More than one of the authors have transmitted from Shaykh Abu al Hasan al Ashari that he said in his book Al Ibanah fi Usul al Diyanah, and it is the last book he authored…” (Jala al Aynayn p. 462; his biography: Mu’jam al Muallifin 13/107; introduction to the edition of Jala al Aynayn 3/6)
22. Imam Abdul Aziz ibn Baz (d.1420 AH). He wrote a foreword to this book. (Al Ibanah p. 43)
23. Muhib al Din al Khatib (d.1389 AH). He mentioned in his verification of Al Muntaqa that al Ashari moved to the school of the Salaf when he authored his book Al Ibanah. (Al Muntaqa p. 46)
24. Shaykh Muhammad ibn Salih al Uthaymin (d.1421 AH). He mentioned in Al Qawaid al Muthla that al Ashari  authored Al Ibanah in the last of his stages and that it is among his last books or the very last of them. (Al Qawaid al Muthla p. 80–81)
25. Muhammad Zahid al Kawthari (d.1371 AH). (See his marginal notes on At Tabyin p. 35, note 1)
26. Hamudah Gharabah. He mentioned that al Ashari authored Al Ibanah in his second phase. (Abu al Hasan al Ashari p. 66; and in his introduction to Al Maqal p. 7)
27. Jalal Musa. He said: “Al Ashari had a wide horizon and careful insight. He was skilful in authorship, and his book Al Ibanah bears witness to that.” (Nashat al Ashairah wa Tatasuruha p. 170)
28. Shaykh Salih al Fawzan. He said: “This book has been attributed to Abu al Hasan al Ashari by many of the imams, in such a way that no room remains for doubt about the soundness of that attribution.” (Al Ibanah an Usul al Diyanah p. 4)
29. Shaykh Ismail al Ansari (d.1417 AH). He wrote an endorsement for this book and clarified that the claim that it has been interpolated against al Ashari is a grave danger. (Al Ibanah p. 45)
30. Al Hafidh ibn Ahmad ibn Ali al Hakami (d.1377 AH). He affirmed Al Ibanah and said: “The view which al Ashari settled upon in his last works, including Al Ibanah, is the view of Ahl al Hadith.” (Ma’arij al Qabul p. 310; his biography: Musa’at Asbar 1/215)
31. Shaykh Hamad al Ansari, Hamad ibn Muhammad ibn Muhammad al Ansari (d.1418 AH). After mentioning the statements of the people of knowledge about the book Al Ibanah he said: “These are the transmissions from the leading imams, which contain an explicit statement that no two goats would butt over, that the book Al Ibanah is not forged against Abu al Hasan al Ashari as some of the blind followers claimed, rather it is among his works which he authored later, and his view settled upon the creed of the Salaf contained in it, which the noble Quran and the prophetic Sunnah brought.” (Al Ibanah an Usul al Diyanah p. 18, in the foreword of Shaykh Hamad; his biography: Musa’at Asyar 1/244–245)
32. Doctor Abdur Rahman al Mahmoud. He mentioned that it is one of the most important books of al Ashari. (Mawqif Ibn Taymiyyah min al Ashairah 1/348)
33. Doctor Faruq al Dusuki. He mentioned that al Ashari (d.324 AH) authored Al Ibanah an Usul al Diyanah as a book directed to those who are seeking the truth. (Al Qada wa al Qadar 2/323)
34. Doctor Fuqiyyah Husayn, may Allah have mercy on her. She undertook its verification.
35. Doctor Muhammad Ibrahim al Fayumi. He said: “Al Ashari began his book Al Ibanah fi Usul al Diyanah, then he proceeded to speak about those fundamentals.” (Tarikh al Firaq al Islamiyyah al Siyasi wa al Dini p. 39)

In summary, a number of leading scholars have affirmed it. If I were to continue listing them, the discussion would become very long. (Among them are Doctor Rajih al Kurdi in his book Alaqat Sifat Allah Taala bi Dhatih p. 141; Shaykh Ahmad ibn Hajar Aal Abi Tami in Al Aqaid al Salafiyyah p. 157; and Doctor Mustafa Hilmi in Ibn Taymiyyah wa al Tasawwuf p. 33.)

Those who questioned the soundness of the attribution of the book

I say: in spite of this great number of those who affirm it, there are still some who cast doubt upon the book, based on several claims.

The first claim: There are those who cast doubt upon the printed editions and not upon the original book itself. Such a person accepts that al Ashari (d.324 AH) authored Al Ibanah, but he considers what has been printed of Al Ibanah to be open to question. The main representative of this tendency is al Kawthari (d.1371 AH).

He said that the edition printed in India is a corrupted and altered copy which wicked hands tampered with, and that it must be reprinted from a reliable original. (His marginal notes on Tabyin Kadhib al Muftari p. 35, note 1)

I say: no researcher doubts that there are some errors and corrupt readings in the India edition. However, they do not go beyond misreadings in transmission or printing mistakes, and they by no means reach the level of being deliberate attempts to alter the subject matter or of contradicting the principles of the author.

The likely reason why doubt arose in his mind is that this book, in which its author followed the way of the righteous Salaf in affirmation, differs from what al Kawthari himself was upon in negation, denial and figurative interpretation.

The second claim: There are those who cast doubt upon the very existence of Al Ibanah as a work of al Ashari, and this doubt goes back to a mistaken understanding that led to contradictions. The representative of this tendency is Abdur Rahman Badawi (d.1423 AH). He said: “We have strong doubts about the soundness of attributing Al Ibanah to al Ashari.” (Madhahib al Islamiyyin p. 533)

He did not present any convincing reason for his doubt; rather, he showed contradiction.

He said:

a. “We did not find it in the three registers of works.” I say: he means here what al Ashari (d.324 AH) listed in Al Amd, what Ibn Furak (d.406 AH) listed among the titles of al Ashari’s books, and what Ibn Asakir (d.571 AH) added to that.

Then he expressed his amazement when he mentioned the status of the book among the Asharis, and that al Sabuni (d.449 AH), may Allah have mercy on him, would not go to his lesson except with the book in his hand. Then he himself removed the problem when he said: “Ibn Asakir knows that the book Al Ibanah belongs to al Ashari, and its absence was due to an error by the copyist.”

I say: what amazes me is that he denies the soundness of the attribution of the book, then he follows up by refuting himself with his own words.

b. Then he raised a second problem, which is that Ibn al Nadim (d.385 AH) did not list it among the titles of al Ashari’s books. I say: what is strange is that he knows that Ibn al Nadim’s aim was not to exhaustively record the books of al Ashari. For that reason he was content with mentioning only five books, while Badawi himself listed dozens which Ibn al Nadim did not mention in Al Fihrist. Why then did he restrict his doubt to Al Ibanah alone, and not extend it to the other books that Ibn al Nadim omitted and Badawi mentioned?

Then Badawi, knowingly or unknowingly, rendered a great service to those who affirm Al Ibanah, when he said: “Ibn al Nadim mentioned, among the titles of the books of al Ashari, a book titled At Tabyiin an Usul al Din. This title is not recorded by al Ashari in Al Amd, nor by Ibn Furak, nor by Ibn Asakir. It is possible that it is none other than Al Ibanah an Usul al Diyanah, especially as the resemblance between the two titles is almost complete.” (Madhahib al Islamiyyin p. 517)

I say: I support him in this statement, because there is no reason to prevent Ibn al Nadim from expressing the name of the book by its content rather than by its original title. This is a likely possibility which comes very close to touching the truth.

c. Badawi then declared a complete contradiction when he said: “Ibn Asakir says that the followers of al Ashari made Al Ibanah a protection against the Hanbalis.”

He thus fell into two errors:

The first error: he acknowledged that Al Ibanah belongs to al Ashari (d.324 AH) and that his followers made it a protection from the Hanbalis, so why then does he doubt the India edition of Al Ibanah? If he had doubted the motive behind the composition of the book, that would have been acceptable from him based on his mistaken understanding, but instead he doubted the very existence of the book, and this is a clear contradiction.

The second error: the expression “Al Ibanah was a protection from the Hanbalis” was uttered by al Ahwazi, the opponent of al Ashari, as a slander against him. Ibn Asakir (d.571 AH) authored At Tabyin in refutation of him. Therefore the one who uttered that phrase was al Ahwazi, the enemy of al Ashari, not Ibn Asakir. For this reason Ibn Asakir refuted this statement when he said: “His statement, meaning al Ahwazi, may Allah not make his condition good: that the followers of al Ashari made Al Ibanah a protection from the Hanbalis, is one of his corrupt claims and far fetched and cold fabrications.

Rather they believe in what it contains with intense conviction and rely upon it with firm dependence.” Then he began to praise Al Ibanah, and mentioned the story of Imam al Sabuni (d.449 AH), that he would not go to his circle of teaching except with the book Al Ibanah of Abu al Hasan al Ashari in his hand, showing his admiration for it. So who really uttered the phrase? Was it Ibn Asakir, or al Ahwazi? If only Badawi had examined and reflected before rushing to judgement. (Tabyin Kadhib al Muftari p. 388–389)

The third claim: There are those who rejected the book on the grounds that Ibn Furak (d.406 AH) did not mention it. This can be answered in several ways:

The first point: Ibn Furak mentioned the books that al Ashari authored before the year three hundred and twenty. Al Ibanah, however, is his last book, which he authored in Baghdad in the last period of his life, after his understanding of the Sunnah increased. For this reason Ibn Furak said: “Al Ashari lived after that until the year three hundred and twenty four and authored books during that time.” (Bayan Talbis al Jahmiyyah 1/143; At Tabyin p. 35)

Then Ibn Asakir (d.571 AH) said after that: “This is the last of what Ibn Furak mentioned of his compositions, but works have come to me which he did not mention in his list of compositions.” (At Tabyin p. 136)

Here there are several observations:

a. Ibn Furak did not list all of the books of al Ashari.

b. Ibn Furak only mentioned the books which al Ashari authored before three hundred and twenty. Al Ibanah was his last book, so it would have been authored after three hundred and twenty, especially since Ibn Furak mentioned that al Ashari authored books in this later period, and Al Ibanah was among them. Indeed, there is no doubt in my mind that Al Ibanah was the very last of them in authorship.

c. Ibn Asakir corrected Ibn Furak’s list by adding books, among them Al Ibanah. He mentioned Al Ibanah in more than one place in At Tabyin and transmitted sections from it.

The second point: It may be that Ibn Furak forgot it, just as he forgot other works. Why then was Al Ibanah alone denied and nothing else?

The third point: Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned another reason which caused Ibn Furak to omit Al Ibanah. He said: “Ibn Furak and those around him inclined to negation concerning the attribute of rising over the Throne and similar issues, and he transmitted words from Ibn Kullab then altered them. His inclination towards negation prevented him from following what had come in affirmation from his own imams and others.

For this reason he transmitted words from al Ashari, adding to them and omitting from them. His motive in this was his belief that this was the truth. I have seen, in the compositions of some who transmit from the imams, things that no one else transmitted from them, due to their belief that they were correct. This is a principle that must be understood.”

So Ibn Furak did not mention Al Ibanah because it is one of the books of affirmation which differ from his own interpretive approach, according to the view of Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him. (Bayan Talbis al Jahmiyyah 1/145, 1/147, abridged)

The fourth point: After I edited Al Ibanah it became clear to me that the copyists are agreed on the general content found in it, whether in terms of arrangement, chapters, issues, answers, or expressions. As for the differences between the manuscripts, they mostly do not go beyond matters that have no impact on the core subject.

Most of the differences are of the kind that a copyist sometimes sends prayers upon the Prophet ﷺ and sometimes does not, or he sends blessings upon him in one place and omits them in another.

Likewise concerning expressions of being pleased with the companions, may Allah be pleased with them. Some copyists include such expressions and others do not. Among the differences is that with the mention of the name of Allah, in some manuscripts there appears the expression “exalted” and in others “mighty and majestic”.

As for substantial differences which change the meaning, they are among the rarest of rare things, if they exist at all, except in one place which does not exceed three lines and appears in one manuscript alone among the other six, which confirms that it is an addition from the copyist. I have mentioned the proofs of this in its place in the thesis.

Apart from this, there is no difference worth mentioning. This agreement in wording confirms, beyond any room for doubt, that this book was authored by Imam al Ashari (d.324 AH). As for the claim of those who assert that the hands of some imams tampered with it, or that it is not his work, this is a claim without proof.

The fifth point: What al Ashari (d.324 AH) wrote in Al Ibanah is, for the most part, found in his other books such as Maqalat al Islamiyyin and his letter to the people of the frontier.

The agreement of these books in most of the fundamentals, and in the majority of the chapters and issues, negates any tampering in Al Ibanah. The claim of tampering was invented by al Kawthari (d.1371 AH), and some of his admirers received it from him without the slightest careful verification.

In reality, the true motive for criticising Al Ibanah and Maqalat and rejecting them is that they are books of affirmation. The affirmations they contain, especially in Al Ibanah, contradict what some later Asharis hold of negation.

For this reason some of them, and they are few, praise be to Allah, strive to impugn the soundness of what is in these books and to deny that they belong to Imam al Ashari, and they interpret whatever they can interpret.

The reason is that the affirmations in these books contradict what they themselves hold of beliefs that differ from those of their own imam, may Allah have mercy on him. What Imam al Ashari affirmed in Al Ibanah is in accordance with what Ahl al Sunnah are upon, and in opposition to what some of the later Asharis hold of Jahmi and Mutazili tendencies.

In conclusion, the fact that Ibn Furak (d.406 AH) did not list the book Al Ibanah is not a valid reason to deny the book, especially since it has been shown with evidence that Ibn Furak did not exhaustively list the books of al Ashari and that such exhaustive listing was not his aim.

Even if his aim had been exhaustive listing, his omission of Al Ibanah would then be no more than forgetfulness or error and not proof that Imam al Ashari did not author it, especially as Ibn Furak neither listed it nor explicitly denied it.

The time of its authorship

Imam al Ashari (d.324 AH), may Allah have mercy on him, passed through three phases in his life. In the last phase he aligned himself with the way of the righteous Salaf, and in this phase he authored the book Al Ibanah, which is his last composition. The proof that it is his last composition is as follows:

First: Ibn Furak (d.406 AH), did not mention Al Ibanah among the books which al Ashari authored before the year three hundred and twenty, which indicates that Al Ibanah was written after three hundred and twenty. It is impossible that it was written immediately after his return from the school of the Mutazilah.

If it had been authored immediately after his return from that school, al Ashari would have mentioned it in his book Al Amd, from which Ibn Furak transmitted, and the historical narratives in the books of biography which listed the books authored after his return from the Mutazili school would have mentioned it, yet they did not.

If someone were to say: perhaps he did not mention Al Ibanah in Al Amd because he retracted what is in this book, the answer would be: al Ashari listed in Al Amd the books he had authored when he was a Mutazili and had left, which shows that his aim was to exhaustively list his books.

Second: What Ibn Asakir (d.571 AH) mentioned about the story of al Ashari’s return: that when he ascended the pulpit and announced his return, he handed his books to the people, among them the book Al Luma and a book in which he exposed the faults of the Mutazilah, which he called Kashf al Asrar wa Hatk al Astar, and other works. (At Tabyin p. 39)

From this you can see that al Ashari authored Al Luma in the phase immediately after leaving the Mutazili school. This proves that Al Ibanah came later and was written after it, because it is certainly not among the works he authored before leaving the Mutazili school, and no one has ever claimed that. Nor was it among the books he handed to the people immediately after his change. This shows that its composition was later.

Third: When al Ashari mentioned his works in Al Amd, he did not mention Al Ibanah among them, even though Ibn Furak (d.406 AH) clarified that these works which he listed in Al Amd were authored up to the year three hundred and twenty. Had Al Ibanah been among them he would have mentioned it. When Ibn Furak then added what he authored after that, he still did not mention Al Ibanah among them.

As for Ibn Asakir (d.571 AH), he transmitted sections from Al Ibanah, even though he did not list it among what he corrected upon Ibn Furak, because he had already transmitted sections from it and saw that as sufficient to establish it and to show his knowledge of it. In fact, transmitting from it is stronger than merely mentioning the title of the book in a bare list without detail.

Fourth: Among the strong confirmatory proofs for the late authorship of Al Ibanah is the story of al Ashari with al Barbihari, Shaykh of the Hanbalis, Abu Muhammad al Hasan ibn Ali ibn Khalaf al Barbihari (d.329 AH). When al Ashari came to Baghdad he went to Abu Muhammad al Barbihari and said repeatedly: “I refuted al Jubba’i, I refuted the Magians, I refuted the Christians.”

Abu Muhammad replied: “I do not know what you are saying. We know only what Imam Ahmad (d.241 AH) said.” So al Ashari left and authored Al Ibanah, but it was not accepted from him. (Siyar Alam al Nubala 15/90; Tabaqat al Hanabilah 2/18; Al Wafi 12/246; Tabyin Kadhib al Muftari p. 390–391)

This story is proof that Al Ibanah was authored late. Ibn Asakir (d.571 AH) considered the story weak and said: “The clearest proof of its falsehood is his statement that he did not appear in Baghdad until he left it, whereas after he reached it he never left it nor travelled away from it, for his death was there and his grave and resting place are there.” (At Tabyin p. 391)

Shaykh Abdur Rahman al Mahmoud said: “Ibn Asakir rejected the story but did not reject the lateness of Al Ibanah.” (Mawqif Ibn Taymiyyah 1/382)

I say: this is what appears from his words, and Allah knows best.

Fifth: In Al Ibanah we find affirmation of the reported and rational attributes such as rising over the Throne, and we find reliance upon the two revelations and rejection of figurative interpretation. Al Ashari does not discuss in it the dialectical issues that he mentioned in Al Luma.

This is proof of his gradual abandonment of dialectical theology, for his knowledge of the methods of kalam in that earlier phase was more than his knowledge of the approach of Ahl al Hadith. For that reason Al Luma is closer to the method of the people of kalam than to the method of Ahl al Hadith, just as its author was in that period. (Siyar Alam al Nubala 15/90; Tabaqat al Hanabilah 2/18; Al Wafi 12/246; Tabyin Kadhib al Muftari p. 390–391. Ibn Asakir weakened the story for another reason as mentioned, but did not deny the lateness of Al Ibanah, and this is what appears from his words, as noted by Shaykh Abdur Rahman al Mahmoud in Mawqif Ibn Taymiyyah 1/382.)

The scholars that said that Al Ibanah is Al Ashari’s last composition.

1. Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him. He said in Bayan Talbis al Jahmiyyah: “This book, meaning Al Ibanah, is among the most famous compositions of al Ashari and the last of them.” (Bayan Talbis al Jahmiyyah 1/136)In another place he said: “Abu al Hasan said in his book which he named Al Ibanah. His followers have mentioned that it is the last book he authored, and they rely upon it to defend him against those who criticise him.” (Majmu al Fatawa 5/93)In another place he said: “Al Ibanah was authored by al Ashari (d.324 AH) in the last part of his life, and no statement from him has appeared that contradicts it.” (Majmu al Fatawa 6/359)In yet another place he said: “This is his last book, and he authored it in Baghdad in the last part of his life when his insight into the Sunnah became clearer.” (Bayan Talbis al Jahmiyyah 1/143)
2. Ibn Darbas (d.605 AH), who said in his treatise defending al Ashari: “Know, my brothers, may Allah grant us and you success in the upright religion and guide us all to the straight path, that the book Al Ibanah an Usul al Diyanah, which was authored by Imam Abu al Hasan Ali ibn Ismail al Ashari (d.324 AH), is what his affair settled upon in what he believed.” (His treatise in defence of Abu al Hasan al Ashari p. 115)
3. Ibn al Imad al Hanbali (d.1089 AH), who said: “Al Ibanah fi Usul al Diyanah is the last book he authored, and upon it his followers rely in defending him against those who criticise him.” (Tabaqat al Fuqaha al Shafiiyyin by Ibn Kathir 1/199; Ithaf al Sadah al Muttaqin 2/6)
4. Al Hafidh Ibn Kathir (d.774 AH), who said: “It is his way in Al Ibanah which he authored last.” (Shadharāt al Dhahab 4/131)
5. Nu’man al Alusi (d.1317 AH), who said under the heading “The creed of al Ashari”: “More than one of the authors have transmitted from Shaykh Abu al Hasan al Ashari (d.324 AH) that he said in his book Al Ibanah fi Usul al Diyanah, which is the last book he authored…” (Jala al Aynayn p. 462)
6. Khalid al Naqshbandi (d.1242 AH), who said: “We see the books of al Ashari (d.324 AH) on creed filled with decisive proofs and radiant arguments, and with much involvement in interpretation and detailed discussion. Then he gave an excuse in his book Al Ibanah an Usul al Diyanah, which is his last composition, and it is upon this book that reliance is placed in the school of al Ashari.” (Jala al Aynayn p. 157; Al Alusi transmitted his words and said: “Our great shaykh of shaykhs, Shaykh Khalid al Naqshbandi, said.”)
7. Hafidh Hakami (d.1377 AH), who said: “As for Abu al Hasan al Ashari (d.324 AH), may Allah have mercy on him, the view which he set out in his book Al Ibanah, which is among the last things he authored…” (Ma’arij al Qabul p. 310)
8. Muhib al Din al Khatib (d.1389 AH), who said: “He wrote his later books in that way, and among what people have is the book Al Ibanah, and those who wrote his biography have stated that it is the last of his books.” (Al Muntaqa p. 44, note 2)
9. Doctor Abdur Rahman al Mahmoud, who said: “These are the main proofs of those who say that Al Ibanah came after Al Luma, and, as can be seen, they are scholarly proofs based on the transmissions and statements of the scholars. As for the proofs of the first view, none of them explicitly state that Al Luma is later and that Al Ibanah is earlier. The statement of Ibn Khallikan is general, and all those who tend towards the Ashari school say that his books all follow the way of the jurists and hadith scholars and do not distinguish between Al Ibanah and Al Luma. As for the psychological argument that a person is enthusiastic when he moves from one view to another, it is countered by another psychological argument, which is gradual development, which is present in the proofs of the other view. As for the argument of intellectual maturity, in Al Ibanah there are discussions with the Mutazilah which are no less forceful than those in Al Luma. Thus it becomes clear that Al Ibanah is the last of the compositions of al Ashari.” (Mawqif Ibn Taymiyyah 1/384–385)
10. Abd al Fattah Ahmad Fuaad. He mentioned the disagreement about which of the two books al Ashari authored after leaving the Mutazili phase and stated that he favours the view that Al Luma is the book he authored in that period, because he attacked the Mutazilah very strongly in it but did not move in one leap to the way of the Salaf. He did not mention Imam Ahmad (d.241 AH) in Al Luma. That phase was like an intermediate stage between the scholars of the Salaf and the mutakallimun who supported the Sunnah, especially Ibn Kullab (d.240 AH). (Al Firaq al Islamiyyah wa Usuluha al Imaniyyah 1/132, abridged)
11. Ahmad ibn Hajar Aal Abi Tami. He said: “If someone were to ask, on what basis do you strengthen your statement that Al Ibanah is later than his book Al Luma and similar works? The answer is: because this is what befits his status as an imam and his exalted rank. Also, those who wrote about him among the historians have mentioned this sound creed in relation to him. If his creed had settled upon figurative interpretation at the end of his life, Ibn Asakir and other historians would have recorded that.” (Al Aqaid al Salafiyyah p. 157–158, abridged)
12. Rajih al Kurdi. He said: “In reality the view he settled upon was to consider them to be attributes, especially in his last book, Al Ibanah an Usul al Diyanah.” This view has been held by many researchers as well. (Alaqat Sifat Allah bi Dhatih p. 128; among those who held it are Shaykh Ibrahim al Halabi in Al Lamah fi Tahqiq Mabahith al Wujud wa al Huduth wa al Qadar wa Afal al Ibad p. 57; Shaykh Ibrahim ibn Hasan al Kurani in Al Qawl al Jali p. 36; Muhammad Ahmad Mahmood in Al Hanabilah fi Baghdad p. 168; and Rida Nu’man in Alaqat al Ithbat wa al Tafwid p. 41, p. 44, citing Mawqif Ibn Taymiyyah 1/384)

From what has preceded it becomes clear that this book was authored between the years 320 and 324 and so it is regarded as the last of the books of Imam al Ashari (d.324 AH). This is because when al Ashari came to Baghdad he went to Abu Muhammad al Barbihari (d.329 AH) and repeatedly said: “I refuted al Jubba’i, I refuted the Magians, I refuted the Christians.”

Abu Muhammad replied: “I do not know what you are saying. We know only what Imam Ahmad (d.241 AH) said.” So he left and authored Al Ibanah, but it was not accepted from him. Allah knows best. (Siyar Alam al Nubala 15/90; Tabaqat al Hanabilah 2/18; Al Wafi 12/246; Tabyin Kadhib al Muftari p. 390–391. Ibn Asakir weakened the story for the reason he mentioned, but as Shaykh Abdur Rahman al Mahmoud notes in Mawqif Ibn Taymiyyah 1/382, Ibn Asakir did not deny the lateness of Al Ibanah, and this is what clearly appears from his words. Allah knows best.)

Those who cast doubt on the goal of the authorship

There are those who have made the goal of Al Ashʿari in authoring Al Ibanah to be seeking protection from the Hanbalis and flattering them. The first one who uttered this phrase was Al Ashʿari’s enemy, Al Ahwazi.

Then some orientalists picked it up, where Macdonald said: “Al Ashʿari was compelled to write Al Ibanah while he did not believe in what was in it, and that was as a form of dissimulation from the Hanbalis, who held influence in Baghdad in the last days of his life.” (see Al Qadaa wal Qadar 316/2)

Some Ashʿaris then took up this doubt and clear slander. So Hamudah Gharabah, for example, transmitted Macdonald’s words, then commented after them by saying: “Perhaps what bears witness to this is the saying of some of them: ‘The Ashʿaris made Al Ibanah a shield for themselves from the Hanbalis, but the noble Salafis are not pleased with this explanation.’” (see Kitab Al Lumʿ with the verification of Hamudah Gharabah)

The basis of these people is the story that has been mentioned concerning Al Ashʿari with Al Barbahari, the shaykh of the Hanbalis in Baghdad. That is that when Al Ashʿari arrived in Baghdad, he came to Abu Muhammad Al Barbahari and began to say: “I refuted Al Jubbai, I refuted the Magians and the Christians.”

Abu Muhammad replied: “I do not know what you are saying, and we know nothing except what Imam Ahmad said.” So he left and authored Al Ibanah, but it was not accepted from him. (see Al Tabyeen p. 188) (see Qadaa wal Qadar 316/2) (see Siyar Aʿlam Al Nubala 15/90, Tabaqat Al Hanabilah 2/18, Al Wafi 12/246, Al Tabyeen Kadhib Al Muftari 390–391)

Ibn ʿAsakir weakened this story, where he said: “The clearest proof that it is false is his statement that he did not appear in Baghdad until he departed from it, whereas in reality after he arrived in it he did not leave it, nor did he travel away from it, for in it was his death, and in it is his grave and burial place.” (see Al Tabyeen p. 391)

Shaykh Al Mahmood said: “Ibn ʿAsakir rejected the story, but he did not reject the lateness of Al Ibanah.” (see Mawqif Ibn Taymiyyah 1/382) I say: that is what is apparent from his words, and Allah knows best.

Added to this is the refutation of Shayk Al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy upon him, where he said:

“Al Ashʿari was put to trial with two groups: a group that hates him and a group that loves him. Each of them lies upon him and says: He only authored these books as dissimulation and as a display of agreement with Ahl Al Hadith and the Sunnah from the Hanbalis and others.

This is a lie upon the man, for there has never been found for him an inner belief that opposes the statements he made apparent, and none of his close companions nor anyone else has transmitted from him anything that contradicts these statements which are present in his works.

So the claim of one who alleges that he concealed something contrary to what he displayed is a claim that is rejected both according to the Sharia and reason.

Rather, whoever reflects upon his words in this subject in their contexts will clearly see that he was supporting what he made apparent. However, those who love him and oppose him in affirming the attributes that are based on reports intend to negate that from him, so that it will not be said that they have opposed him while that which they went to from the Sunnah, they only followed his proof in it, the proof upon mention of which they rely and upon which they depend.” (see Majmuʿ Al Fatawa 11/201) (see Al Nadhrah At Tayseer p. 338)

And Ibn ʿAsakir mentioned the following:

First: A person cannot strip himself of his creed and then author a book that clashes with his creed, while, according to their claim, he does not believe in the correctness of what is in it, especially when he was advanced in age and in the last days of his life. In that is a slander against him and an accusation that he was a hypocrite.

Second: Al Ashʿari was never known for cowardice and fear. He remained a Muʿtazili for tens of years and did not author in that period anything that contradicted Muʿtazili thought as a dissimulation from the Hanbalis, even though, during his time as a Muʿtazili, they, meaning the Hanbalis, were at the peak of their standing.

So how can it be said that he authored this book as a protection from them, meaning the Hanbalis?

In that is also a slander against Abu Al Hasan, accusing him of hypocrisy. Otherwise, who has established that there was enmity between him and the Hanbalis?

Rather, he affirmed in Al Ibanah and in Al Maqalat that he was a follower of Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy upon him. If he had been a hypocrite, it would have been enough for him to say that once and to announce his affiliation without defending the madhhab again and again in many places.

Third: The firmness of Al Ashʿari upon the creed of the Muʿtazilah for tens of years, at a time when the standing of the Muʿtazilah had weakened, is proof that the man was not a hypocrite, nor one who would flatter or deceive. This is a proof before which the talk of those who harbour hatred against this imam and stab at his religion comes to an end.

Fourth: This report was not transmitted from any of the followers of Al Ashʿari. Rather, one of his opponents spread it. Those opponents were refuted by one of the Ashʿaris concerning whose Ashʿarism no one doubts, namely Al Hafidh Ibn ʿAsakir. If what that opponent said had been correct, Ibn ʿAsakir would have affirmed it, or remained silent about it, or at the very least he would not have refuted this fabrication. (see Al Tabyeen p. 388) (see p. 201 of this book)

Fifth: Those who have transmitted this fabrication portray the Hanbalis as having not accepted Al Ashʿari even with his book Al Ibanah, and they also portray Al Barbahari as not having accepted it from him. For that reason Al Dhahabi said: “It has been said…” and this wording indicates his doubt concerning the origin of the story. So this story, as appears, is not established.

Sixth: The promoters of this slander portray the Hanbalis as tyrannical, depicting the Hanbalis with other than their true image. They portray the people of knowledge and virtue and those who enjoin good and forbid evil, and those upon a pure Salafi creed, with that which is not reality. If the matter were as they described, it would have been more fitting for the Hanbalis to combat the Muʿtazilah, and even to combat those worse than the Muʿtazilah such as the Rāfidah and the Khawarij.

We would then have found the adherents of those madhhabs seeking to draw close to them and flatter them, authoring books that contradict their own madhhabs as a way of drawing near and as dissimulation and protection from the Hanbalis. This did not happen. Yet the people of cold lies and the people of slander and false accusation do not cease from their slander and falsehood and do not cease from their lying.

Seventh: Historical facts have not shown or announced such causes, and nothing has been mentioned about the Hanbalis having such a standing with the ruler. Rather, among the strongest confirmations of the falsehood of this slander is that the shaykh of the Hanbalis at that time, the one about whom it is said that Al Ashʿari authored Al Ibanah as a protection from him and as flattery to him, was himself subjected to trials and tribulations.

He did not live, may Allah have mercy on him, close to the authorities as they claim, nor as an influencer over the ruler as they allege. Rather, he was pursued and followed up, and here are the books of history testifying to that and speaking about it.

Among that is what Al Dhahabi and others mentioned, that Al Barbahari had struggles and stations in the religion and that the opponents would harden the ruler’s heart against him. In the year three hundred and twenty one the ruler wanted to imprison him, so he went into hiding, and his senior companions were seized and taken to Basrah.

Then Allah punished the minister and restored Al Barbahari to his esteem, and his followers increased. It has reached us that he once passed by the western side of the city and sneezed, so his followers prayed for mercy upon him, and their loud voices rose until the caliph heard them. He was informed of what had happened and found it astounding.

The people of innovation continued to instil estrangement towards him in the heart of Al Rādi until it was proclaimed in Baghdad: “Two of the companions of Al Barbahari are not to gather together.” So he went into hiding until he died and was buried in the house of his sister, Tūzun.

It is said that when he was shrouded and his servant was beside him, he prayed over him alone. She looked from the balcony and saw that the room had been filled with men wearing white garments praying over him, so she became afraid and called the servant, who swore that the door had not been opened. (see Siyar Aʿlam An Nubala 15/91–92, Al Muntaẓam 14/14, Shadharat Adh Dhahab 4/158)

So is this majestic and awe inspiring shaykh, who does not escape the harm of one ruler except that he meets the harm of another, to be portrayed as having such standing and such favour that he makes a man of the standing of Imam Al Ashʿari change his creed for his sake?

The people of this falsehood spread such lies for malicious aims, so that they can lie to the people by saying that Jahmism and Muʿtazilism were not suppressed, warned against and prohibited except due to political disputes, not because they oppose the religion. Likewise, they strive to plant hatred in the hearts of the masses and the elite towards the people of sound creed, depicting them as tyrannical. But

وَيَمْكُرُونَ وَيَمْكُرُ اللَّهُ وَاللَّهُ خَيْرُ الْمَاكِرِينَ

“They plan and Allah plans, and Allah is the best of planners.” (Surat Al Anfal verse 30)

And I say: It is the truth, and nothing but the truth, which Al Ashʿari believed and held as his creed. The guidance from Allah is what drove Imam Al Ashʿari, may Allah have mercy upon him, to author this book. The Hanbalis and the rulers had no guardianship over Al Ashʿari and no compulsion, such that he would author what he did not believe.

Those who cast doubt on the printed text and accuse it of additions

There are those who do not deny the original existence of the book Al Ibanah, but they cast doubt upon the printed text of it. For example, Muhammad Zahid Al Kawthari commented on Al Ibanah in the margin of Al Tabyeen and said: “The printed Indian edition of Al Ibanah is a mis vocalised, altered copy which sinful hands have tampered with. It is therefore necessary that it be reprinted from a reliable original.” (see Al Tabyeen p. 35 margin 1)

For Al Kawthari here the problem is not the typographical errors that occurred, for in that he would have been correct. Rather, his real problem is that Al Ibanah is upon the method of the righteous Salaf in affirmation. Yes, the Indian edition is filled with typographical errors, as he said, but these errors do not contradict the essence of the subject. They are no more than typographical mistakes arising from the poor reading of the manuscript by its first copyist.

Those whom Al Ibanah influenced

After exhausting research, questioning and investigation, I did not find that any of the Ashʿaris who are known for their Ashʿarism transmitted directly from this book while attributing it to him, except Al Bayhaqi.

There is no doubt about his Ashʿarism. He transmitted directly from Al Ibanah in several places in his book Al Iʿtiqad, using it as evidence and supporting it. This indicates the effect of the book upon him. In this section I will mention two issues.

Establishing that Al Bayhaqi was an Ashʿari

Al Bayhaqi was clearly influenced by the Ashʿari madhhab, and perhaps that was due to the influence of his shaykh, Ibn Furaq. What confirms his Ashʿarism is his statement, may Allah have mercy on him:

“It must be known that the istiwa of Allah, exalted is He, is not an istiwa of straightening after crookedness, nor a settling in a place, nor contact with anything of His creation. Rather, He is established over His Throne as He informed, without asking how, distinct from all His creation. His coming is not coming from one place to another.

His arrival is not by movement. His descent is not by relocation. His Self is not a body. His Face is not a form. His Hand is not a limb. His Eye is not a pupil.” (see Al Iʿtiqad p. 62)

There are in his books examples of such speech which cannot be accepted from him in an unrestricted way; rather some of it needs detailed explanation.

Shaykh Al Islam, may Allah have mercy on him, clarified that Al Bayhaqi was among the Ashʿaris, and he said: “The virtuous among the Ashʿaris, such as Al Baqillani and Al Bayhaqi, incline towards them.” (see Majmuʿ Al Fatawa 6/053)

Doctor Ahmad Al Ghamidi also carried out a study of the creed of Al Ashʿari in an excellent work that he entitled “Al Bayhaqi and his position regarding the matters of ilahiyyat (theology),” in which he said at one point: “As for Al Bayhaqi and his companions, they are Ashʿaris.” (see Al Bayhaqi wa Mawqifuhu min Al Ilahiyyat p. 314)

Bayhaqi’s transmission from Al Ibanah and his being affected by it

Al Bayhaqi transmitted in his book Al Iʿtiqad from Al Ibanah, relying upon it and using it as a proof. I will discuss this in two branches.

Concerning the issue that the Qur’an is the speech of Allah and not created, he said: “This is the madhhab of all the people of knowledge, in the past and the present.” Then he said: “And this meaning was also mentioned by Ali ibn Ismaʿil in his book Al Ibanah.”

Then he said: “Abu Al Hasan Ali ibn Ismaʿil, may Allah have mercy upon him, said in his book: ‘If someone says, “Inform us, do you say that the speech of Allah, Mighty and Majestic, is in the Preserved Tablet?” It is said to him: “We say that, because Allah has said:

بَلْ هُوَ قُرْآنٌ مَّجِيدٌ ۝ فِي لَوْحٍ مَّحْفُوظٍ

“Rather, it is a Noble Qur’an ۝ in a preserved tablet.” (Surah al Buruj 21–22)

So the Qur’an is in the Preserved Tablet.’” (see Al Iʿtiqad pp. 123–125)

This is clear and manifest in his book Al Iʿtiqad. I will mention just one example of that, because the point is not to conduct a full survey of Al Bayhaqi’s madhhab, but to present a sample of his being affected by Al Ibanah, where he transmitted from it, in wording and meaning, relying upon it and using it as a proof in his book Al Iʿtiqad, even though he did not attribute it to it.

Among that is his statement, may Allah have mercy upon him:

“Chapter: The statement regarding the affirmation of vision of Allah, Mighty and Majestic, in the Hereafter with the eyes.”

He, Mighty and Majestic, said:

وُجُوهٌ يَوْمَئِذٍ نَاضِرَةٌ ۝ إِلَى رَبِّهَا نَاظِرَةٌ

“Faces on that Day will be radiant looking at their Lord” (Surah al Qiyamah 23)

He said: “That is, on the Day of Resurrection. ‘Radiant’ meaning shining. ‘Looking at their Lord.’ Looking has several senses. It could be that Allah, Mighty and Majestic, intended by it the look of reflection and consideration, as in His saying:

أَفَلَا يَنظُرُونَ إِلَى الْإِبِلِ كَيْفَ خُلِقَتْ

“Do they not look at the camels how they are created?” (Surah al Ghashiyah 17)

Or it could be that He intended by it the look of waiting, as in His saying:

مَا يَنظُرُونَ إِلَّا صَيْحَةً وَاحِدَةً

“They are waiting for nothing except a single shout.” (Surah Ya Sin 49)

Or He could have intended by it the look of compassion and mercy, as in His saying:

وَلَا يَنظُرُ إِلَيْهِمْ

“And He will not look at them.” (Surah Al Imran 77)

Or He could have intended by it the look of seeing, as in His saying:

يَنظُرُونَ إِلَيْكَ نَظَرَ الْمَغْشِيِّ عَلَيْهِ مِنَ الْمَوْتِ

“They look at you as one looks who is fainting from death.” (Surah al Ahzab 19)

It is not permissible that Allah, exalted is He, intended by His saying:

وُجُوهٌ يَوْمَئِذٍ نَاضِرَةٌ ۝ إِلَى رَبِّهَا نَاظِرَةٌ

“Faces on that Day will be radiant looking at their Lord” (Surah al Qiyamah 23)

the look of reflection and consideration, because the Hereafter is not a place of deduction and reflection.

Nor is it permissible that He intended the look of waiting, because there is no waiting in any of the affairs of Paradise, for waiting involves deficiency and distress. If that is the case, then it is not permissible that Allah intended by His saying:

وُجُوهٌ يَوْمَئِذٍ نَاضِرَةٌ ۝ إِلَى رَبِّهَا نَاظِرَةٌ

“Faces on that Day will be radiant looking at their Lord” (Surah al Qiyamah 23)

the look of waiting. Moreover, when looking is mentioned together with faces, its meaning is the look of the two eyes which are in the face.

Nor is it permissible that Allah, exalted is He, intended by it the look of compassion and mercy, because the creation cannot show compassion to their Creator. When these three kinds of looking are invalidated, the fourth kind of looking remains correct, which is that the meaning of His saying:

إِلَى رَبِّهَا نَاظِرَةٌ

“Looking at their Lord” (Surah al Qiyamah 23)

is that they are seeing and they see Allah, Mighty and Majestic.

What also indicates that is the saying of Allah, Mighty and Majestic, to Musa, peace be upon him:

فَإِنِ اسْتَقَرَّ مَكَانَهُ فَسَوْفَ تَرَانِي

“If it remains in its place, then you will see Me.” (Surah al Araf 143)

When Allah was able to make the mountain remain firm, He was able to carry out that affair which, if He did it, Musa would see Him. That proves that Allah is able to show Himself to His believing servants and that seeing Him is permissible.” (see Al Iʿtiqad pp. 123–125)

I have been keen to transmit this long passage so that it becomes clear to the reader that what Imam Al Bayhaqi transmitted from Al Ibanah is proof of his being affected by it and its influence upon him. This confirms the value of this book and its importance with the early and later Ashʿaris who came closer to the Salaf in many issues.

It is thus made clear that those who denied the ascription of the book to Al Ashʿari have had their proof cut off. Here is one of the foremost figures of the Ashʿaris affirming it and transmitting from it. So may Allah guide us all to what He loves and is pleased with.

Those whom Al Ibanah affected in an indirect way

After attempting a survey and exerting effort, I did not find anyone whom Al Ibanah clearly affected except Al Bayhaqi. Indeed I did not find among the followers of Al Ashʿari who are known as such anyone besides him who explicitly mentioned it.

The utmost that I found is what Ibn Kathir mentioned in Tabaqat Al Fuqaha Ash Shafiʿiyyin, namely that Qadi Al Baqillani composed a commentary upon it. I exerted effort to obtain this commentary, but I did not find any trace of it, neither printed nor in manuscript form.

I found that Shaykh Al Islam, may Allah have mercy on him, praised Abu Bakr Al Baqillani and said: “He is the best of the mutakallimun who are affiliated to Al Ashʿari; there is none like him among them, neither before him nor after him.” He said in his book Al Ibanah, his own composition:

“If someone says: What is the evidence that Allah has a Face and a Hand? It is said to him: His statement, exalted is He:

وَيَبْقَىٰ وَجْهُ رَبِّكَ ذُو الْجَلَالِ وَالْإِكْرَامِ

“And there will remain the Face of your Lord, full of Majesty and Honour.” (Surah ar Rahman 27)

and His statement, exalted is He:

مَا مَنَعَكَ أَنْ تَسْجُدَ لِمَا خَلَقْتُ بِيَدَيَّ

“What prevented you from prostrating to that which I created with My two Hands?” (Surah Sad 75)

So He affirmed for Himself a Face and a Hand.

And he said: If he says: Do you say that He is in every place? It is said to him: We seek refuge with Allah from that. Rather, He is established over His Throne as He informed in His Book, where He said:

الرَّحْمٰنُ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ اسْتَوَى

“The Most Merciful rose over the Throne.” (Surah Ta Ha 5)

إِلَيْهِ يَصْعَدُ الْكَلِمُ الطَّيِّبُ وَالْعَمَلُ الصَّالِحُ يَرْفَعُهُ

“To Him ascend the good words, and the righteous deed He raises it.” (Surah Fatir 10)

أَأَمِنْتُمْ مَنْ فِي السَّمَاءِ أَنْ يَخْسِفَ بِكُمُ الْأَرْضَ فَإِذَا هِيَ تَمُورُ

“Do you feel secure that He who is above the heaven will not cause the earth to swallow you, and then it would sway?” (Surah al Mulk 16)

If He were in every place, He would be in a person’s belly, mouth, lavatories and places that one is reluctant to mention. It would then be necessary for Him to increase with the increase of places whenever there came into existence from them that which had not existed before, and for Him to diminish when some of them were removed.

It would also be valid to turn towards the earth and towards behind us, to our right and to our left in supplication to Him. The Muslims have unanimously opposed that and declared its proponent to be mistaken.

He also said in this book: “The attributes of Allah’s Self with which He has always been and never ceases to be described are life, knowledge, power, hearing, sight, speech, will, remaining, and the Face, the two Eyes, the two Hands, anger and pleasure.” (see Al Fatawa Al Hamawiyyah pp. 96–97)

Shaykh Al Islam, may Allah have mercy on him, transmitted from this book in many of his works.(he transmitted from it in Talbis Al Jahmiyyah 4/486, in Darʾ at Taʿarud 3/382, 6/206–207, in At Tasʿiniyyah 3/892, and elsewhere) (see Ijtimaʿ Al Juyush Al Islamiyyah p. 178) (see for example Bayan At Talbis 3/474–477, Darʾ at Taʿarud 3/382, 6/206, At Tasʿiniyyah 3/892–895, Majmuʿ Al Fatawa 3/262, 7/21, 15/4, Al Hamawiyyah p. 97)

Imam Ibn Al Qayyim also mentioned Al Ibanah of Al Baqillani in Ijtimaʿ Al Juyush Al Islamiyyah and clarified, may Allah have mercy on him, that Al Ashʿari affirmed in this book for Allah the attribute of the Face, the two Hands and the two Eyes.(see Ijtimaʿ Al Juyush p. 178)

Here we see that Al Baqillani is among those who affirm the attributes. He also has a book more famous than this one, namely At Tamheed, from which Shaykh Al Islam transmitted in many of his works. In At Tamheed it becomes clear to the reader that Al Baqillani is, generally speaking, among those who affirm the attributes.

He does not restrict himself to seven attributes, as most of those Ashʿaris who came after Al Ashʿari did. He divided the attributes into attributes of the Self and attributes of action, and he affirms the attributes based on reports, such as the Face, the two Hands and the two Eyes. He likewise affirms the attributes of highness and istiwa for Allah, exalted is He, and refutes those who interpret istiwa as mere “overpowering.” (see At Tamheed pp. 26–29, 261–263)

Jalal Musa mentioned that Al Baqillani used the same evidences as Al Ashʿari in the issue of istiwa and in negating that it means overpowering. He then said: “Al Baqillani followed his shaykh in affirming istiwa with the transmitted evidences from the Book and the Sunnah.” (see Nashʾat Al Ashʿariyyah pp. 330–331)

This book At Tamheed has been printed in two different editions. One was verified by Mahmoud Al Khudairi and Mahmoud Abu Raydah. They avoided relying in their verification of the book upon Shaykh Al Islam and his student, claiming that Shaykh Al Islam and his student attributed to Al Baqillani that which he did not say and that they distorted the book by cutting from it that which the two Shaykhs had transmitted, following Al Kawthari in this. (see At Tamheed pp. 26–29, 261–263) 

The book was later verified by Macarthy from several manuscript copies, and he affirmed in it what Al Baqillani mentioned and what the two Shaykhs transmitted from him. This edition was printed in the year 1407 and published by Muʾassasat Al Kutub Ath Thaqafiyyah.

Jalal Musa, who is among those who disagree with Ibn Taymiyyah, criticised the work of those two verifiers. After a lengthy discussion, he said: “Comparing the text of Al Baqillani with what Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Al Qayyim transmitted from him confirms for us the correctness of the transmission word for word, without any bias.” (see Nashʾat Al Ashʿariyyah p. 331)(see Nashʾat Al Ashʿariyyah pp. 330–331)

In summary, the issue of the Ashʿaris being affected by Al Ibanah in a direct and openly declared way is not found after research and investigation and effort, except in the case of Al Bayhaqi, and he is sufficient as an imam.

However, its indirect influence and the method of its author is apparent in much of what the most prominent of his followers, namely Qadi Abu Bakr Al Baqillani, may Allah have mercy upon him, mentions. As for the generality of Al Ashʿari’s followers, they oppose their shaykh in many matters.

They interpret the attributes of action and they interpret the highness of Allah as a highness of rank and status, and they interpret His being in the heaven as meaning His overpowering and managing. Among these is Ibn Furak, for he opposed his shaykh in many issues, which confirms that he was not affected by Al Ibanah, or that he became aware of it but turned away from it, because he inclined towards negation in the issue of istiwa and similar matters.

His desire for negation prevented him from pursuing what came in affirmation. (see Mushkil Al Hadith pp. 74–85) (see Bayan At Talbis 1/145, summarised)

The views of the generality of the Ashʿaris did not differ from what Ibn Furak adopted, nor did they go beyond it. This indicates that Al Ibanah did not affect them. For this reason I call upon the generality of the Ashʿaris, if they truly affiliate themselves to this imam, to prove that by relying upon the last of what he wrote, or else to desist from affiliating themselves to him unjustly and falsely. Matters have even reached the point that some of them have fallen into Jahmism and Muʿtazilism. There is no might and no power except with Allah.

Previous editions of the book

There are several common printed editions of the book. The most important and famous among them are as follows.

The first edition: The edition of Doctor Fawqiyyah Mahmoud

This is the most famous edition, and like the others it has merits and defects.

Among the merits of this edition are the following:

First: That it took precedence over others in the verification of this precious manuscript.

Second: That she, may Allah have mercy upon her, exerted great effort in introducing Imam Al Ashʿari, may Allah have mercy upon him, and in mentioning his works.

Third: That she gave brief translations for most of the individuals mentioned.

Fourth: That she traced a large number of narrations with concise referencing without ruling upon them.

Fifth: That she made some beneficial comments.

As for the defects, they are:

The first defect: The abundance of mistakes and distortions, either due to printing or due to mistaken reading of some words or sentences. Sometimes what is certainly mistaken in the original is printed, and then one finds the correct wording in the margin, brought by one of the manuscript copies. Because of these issues, reading the text becomes tiring, and one needs to have at hand some of the other printed editions in order to be sure of the correctness of the wording.

The second defect: This dwarfs the first in front of it. It is her reliance upon one of the manuscript copies which is unique in having additions that do not exist in the other copies. She incorporated these additions into the main text and merely pointed to them in the footnotes. This copy is full of a particular kind of addition which casts a shadow of doubt upon it.

This caught the attention of the verifier. She said, in her discussion of this copy in the study section, that she had considered it the principal copy because it is free of rearrangements that would corrupt the meaning, and it has no gaps of real significance, unlike the other copies, and because its scribe was very careful in vocalising the words.

However, it must be noted that the additions in it require precise review in order to exclude the phrases that have been inserted into it. She then said that in general these additions affirm the Salafi direction, but a statement has appeared in them that contradicts that direction.

An example of that is what is found on page eighty one in the explanation of istiwa, namely that it is by overpowering and power. This, she said, must be the doing of one of the readers of the manuscript who inclined towards the Muʿtazilah and who at the same time was ignorant of the reality of the matters.

hat further confirms that is his comment on page eighty two, the text of which is: “Pause at this chapter, for the author was lenient in presenting these phrases, for they indicate direction explicitly and corporeality implicitly.

The wording here indicates that its author follows absolute negation which the Muʿtazilah hold, and that negation leads to the denial of the attributes as we clarified before.” She said: “Especially as adherence to the Salafi way is clear in these additions to every careful examiner.

It is noticeable that we did not come across the date of copying this original due to the microfilm ending immediately after the end of the text. The microfilm begins with its beginning, which is in a regular script, and I gave it the letter S.” (this is what the verifier said about this copy) (see Mawqif Ibn Taymiyyah min Al Ashʿariyyah 1/353)

Here, certain comments must be made:

First: How can this copy be made the principal one in verification when its date and scribe are unknown? Does the fact that its scribe vocalises the words carefully justify that? Furthermore, it is missing the end, so its defect is like the defect in the other copies.

The presence of inserted additions makes it necessary to set it aside rather than make it the principal copy and then insert its additions into the verified text. At the very least, it should have been treated as a secondary copy.

Second: The claim that these additions were written by the hand of someone inclined to Muʿtazilism has no evidence. Why should he not be someone from the late Ashʿaris who deny highness and the attributes based on reports, such as the Face and the two Hands, on the basis that they entail corporeality?

This copy is full of additions that do not agree with the views of the author which she mentioned in the book, especially in the issue of istiwa and highness.

If the addition of “overpowering and power” in the explanation of istiwa clearly reflects this, and the verifier therefore did not include it, there are other phrases close to these that this copy is alone in containing. Among them is the following:

On page twenty one in the chapter “Clarification of the statement of the people of truth and Sunnah”, the text in the three copies reads: “And that Allah is established over His Throne as He said:

الرَّحْمٰنُ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ اسْتَوَى

‘The Most Merciful rose over the Throne.’” (Taha 5)

As for the copy S, the one with the additions, the wording is:

“And that Allah, exalted is He, rose over the Throne in the manner that He said and with the meaning that He intended, an istiwa that is free of contact, settling, being fixed, inhabiting and moving.

The Throne does not carry Him, and those who carry the Throne are themselves carried by the subtlety of His power and are subdued in His grasp.

He is above the Throne and above everything down to the lowest layers of the earth, with a highness that does not increase Him in nearness to the Throne or the heaven.

Rather, He is elevated in degrees above the Throne just as He is elevated in degrees above the lowest earth. At the same time He is near to every existing thing, and He is nearer to the servant than his jugular vein, and He is a witness over all things.”

Look at the difference between the two wordings. Are these additions in agreement with the madhhab of the Salaf, as the verifier claims? Do his words “a highness that does not increase Him in nearness to the Throne and the heaven” agree with what the Salaf affirm of the attribute of highness? In this issue Al Ashʿari only said what the Salaf said, contrary to the late Ashʿaris. This inserted text has in fact been taken word for word from the book Al Arbaʿin by Al Ghazali.(see Al Arbaʿin fi Usul Ad Din of Al Ghazali pp. 7–8, Dar Al Afaq edition)

Third: There are other additions or omissions that are unique to this copy. Even if some of them are not that significant in themselves, they still support what I mentioned earlier. For example, on page one hundred and fifty six, line three, one finds the wording (يجب نفي ذلك عن الله تعالى)

“It is obligatory that this be negated from Allah, exalted is He”, whereas the correct wording in the other copies is (يجب أن لا يُنفى ذلك عن الله تعالى)

“It is obligatory that this not be negated from Allah, exalted is He.” On page one hundred and ninety three, lines ten to eleven, there is an added phrase (عصمنا الله من ذلك) “May Allah protect us from that”, which is unique to the copy S.

It is an added phrase that disturbs the flow of the discussion, unless it were to be placed somewhere else, such as after his saying (وأشرفهم) “and the most noble of them.”

Fourth: There are other differences that attract attention, but another copy also shares them, especially the copy D, yet they contradict the other printed copies. (see the study section of Al Ibanah p. 188 with the verification of Fawqiyyah Hussein Mahmoud) (see Mawqif Ibn Taymiyyah min Al Ashʿariyyah 1/353–355)

Fifth: Fawqiyyah in her introduction strongly affirms the affiliation of Al Ashʿari to Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, but she looks at the method of the latter as though it were different from the method of the Salaf whom she labels as “hashwiyyah.”

Sixth: She praises the Ashʿari madhhab and its men without distinguishing between the early and later ones and without considering how far some of them departed from the madhhab of Al Ashʿari. This is clear in the comments appended at the end of her verification.

Seventh: She did not trace the reports and did not rule upon the narrations from the angle of authenticity and weakness.

Eighth: There are incorrect cross references, such as what is found on page fourteen in footnote three, where the correct reference is footnote one.

Ninth: There are many typographical errors, such as page seventeen, first line, where (المعبري) “Al Maʿbari” appears instead of (المقري) “Al Muqri”, and page forty seven, where (مقلات) “Muqlat” appears instead of (مقالات) “Maqalat.”

Tenth: There is repetition in the printing, as on page eighteen, footnote fifty and fifty four, (ولما مات) “And when he died…”, and on page ninety three, lines three and four.

Eleventh: Her translations of the individuals are very brief. Often she merely indicates the year of death.

Twelfth: On page fifty three of the verification section she read the phrase (سمع كلامهم) “he heard their speech” as (سمع كل واحد منهم) “he heard each of them”, which is incorrect.

Thirteenth: On page fifty three she added the word (مع) “with” after (ويشاركونهم في ذلك) “and they share with them in that” so that the meaning, according to her, would be correct. This addition actually changes the meaning.

Fourteenth: On page sixty seven (مداداً للكتبة) “madadan lil kutbah” appears, whereas the correct wording is (مداداً لكتّابه) “midadan likuttabihi”.

Fifteenth: On page one hundred and five (استواء يليق به بلا طول استقرار) “istiwa that befits Him without length of settling” appears, whereas the correct text in the other copies is (بلا نزول) “without descending”. This additional wording is not found in the copies before us.

Sixteenth: On page one hundred and thirteen she added the phrase (استواء منزهاً عن الحلول والاتحاد) “an istiwa free of inhabiting and uniting”, which is not present in any of the copies before us.

Seventeenth: On page one hundred and seventeen (ساقطت) “sāqat” is missing, so the wording becomes (ولا أوجبوا لهم المثبتين) “nor did they obligate for them those who affirm…”.

Eighteenth: On page one hundred and thirty six, in all the copies, the wording (راجعونا) “rajaʿuna” appears, whereas the correct wording is (راجعونا) “rajauna”, and she did not point out any difference.

Nineteenth: On page one hundred and seventy seven (ليكونوا مهتدين) “liyakunu muhtadin” appears, whereas the correct is (ليكونوا مهتدين) “liyakunu muhtadin.”

Twentieth: On page two hundred and thirty nine (يقدّر) “yuqdira” appears, whereas the correct wording is (يقرّر الله) “yuqarriru Allah.”

Twenty first: There are countless typographical errors. A few of them have been mentioned earlier, such as on page ten (حثّنا) “haththana”, on page eighteen (يدان) “yadan” instead of (يدين) “yadayn”, on page twenty (والرافعة) “walrafʿah” instead of (والرافضة) “warafidah”, on page twenty (مقلات) “maqalat” instead of (مقالات) “maqalat” and so forth. Many such cases exist in the book.

Twenty second: On page twenty one in the phrase (استواء يليق به بلا طول واستقرار) “istiwa that befits Him without length and settling”, (استواء) “istiwa” is written with (ممارسة) “mumarasah” instead of (مماسة) “mumasah”, and this is a mistake.

Twenty third: Paragraph twenty seven on page twenty one includes an addition from one of the copies, but she did not specify which copy.

Compare her note on page one hundred and eighty eight of the introduction. Compare this passage with the edition of Dar Al Bayan on page eighteen, bearing in mind that the passage in paragraph twenty seven is verbatim from Al Arbaʿin, as mentioned in the general remarks.

Twenty fourth: On page thirty nine there is an omission: the wording should be (لِمَ لم تقولوا) “Why did you not say…”, but (لِمَ قلتم) “Why did you say…” appears. Likewise on page sixty two the wording (لا يدل) “does not indicate” is missing.

Twenty fifth: On page sixty six (يكن) “yakun” appears, whereas the correct wording is (يكنه) “yakunahu.” On page seventy (والخروج) “wal khuruj” appears, whereas it should be (وخروج) “wa khuruj.” On page eighty one (فإذا) “fa idha” appears instead of (فإن) “fa inna.”

On page eighty two (إنما) “innama” appears instead of (لما) “lamma.” On page eighty three (للتفريق) “lil tafriq” appears instead of (للتفريق) “lit tafriq.”

Twenty sixth: On page eighty three the words (وأعداؤه) “and his enemies” are omitted after (إن) “indeed.” Likewise in (والكلام) “And speech” where the correct is (مثل الكلام) “like speech.” Again in (وكما) “and just as” where the correct is (كان) “it was.”

On page eighty four (ولكان) “wa lakana” appears where the correct is (فكان يجب) “fa kana yajibu.” On page eighty nine, fourth line, (طرد) “tard” appears instead of (يتردد) “yatarraddad.”

On page ninety (نقول) “naqul” appears instead of (يقول) “yaqul.”

Twenty seventh: On page eighty nine Al Ashʿari transmits the words of Imam Ahmad in the matter of the creation of the Qur’an, but she did not refer the passage to its source. I have traced it, and all praise is for Allah.

Twenty eighth: On page ninety three (الأشعبي) “Al Ashʿabi” appears, whereas the correct is (الأشعث) “Al Ashʿath.” On the same page (الحراني) “Al Harani” appears, whereas the correct is (الحرالي) “Al Harali.” On that page also (ابن مرثل) “Ibn Murthil” appears, whereas the correct is (ابن مرتضى) “Ibn Murthad.” On page ninety eight (ينهاو) “yanhaw” appears instead of (يبهتون) “yabhtun.”

On page one hundred and three, paragraph one hundred and fifteen, (نستعيد) “nastaʿid” appears instead of (نستعيذ) “nastaʿidh.” On page one hundred and five (يستوي) “yastawi” appears instead of (مستوى) “mostaw.” Similar things occur on pages one hundred and twenty six, one hundred and twenty seven and one hundred and thirty nine.

Twenty ninth: On page one hundred and nine, last line, she read (بمعنى خاص) “with a meaning that is specific” whereas the correct text and what Ibn Taymiyyah transmitted in Naqd At Taʾsis 1/76 is (بمعنى عام) “with a meaning that is general.”

Thirtieth: On page one hundred and forty five, paragraph one hundred and forty four, the correct wording is (إن أثبتّم) “If you affirm”, while the printed text has (إن لم تثبتوا) “If you do not affirm.” Similarly the printed text has (فأقاموا) “so they established” where the correct wording is (فأثبتوا له) “so affirm for Him.” She did note in the margin the wording (فأثبتوا له) “affirm for Him”, and that is the correct one.

Thirty first: On page two hundred and fifty six (علي رضي الله عنه والعباس رضي الله عنه) “ʿAli, may Allah be pleased with him, and Al ʿAbbas, may Allah be pleased with him” appears, whereas the correct wording in the manuscripts is (علي والعباس) “ʿAli and Al ʿAbbas.”

Thirty second: As for the tracing of the narrations, she sufficed with the initials of the book and the place of the hadith without detail, such as “Al Bukhari, Book such and such, chapter such and such.”

There are also narrations she did not trace, as can be seen, for example, on pages twenty six and twenty seven. Furthermore, she did not rule upon the narrations outside the two Sahihs, and they are many.

The second edition: The edition of Bashir ʿUyoon

This is the edition of Dar Al Bayan, Beirut, verified by Bashir ʿUyoon. In this edition the verifier did not rely upon manuscript copies; rather he gathered the printed editions and compared between them. This edition has merits and defects.

Among its merits:

First: He traced the narrations with reasonable referencing.

Second: He made some acceptable creedal comments, though they are incomplete.

Third: He traced the Qur’an verses.

As for its defects:

First: He did not give translations for any of the individuals.

Second: The creedal comments need further elaboration.

Third: He did not trace the athar, despite their abundance.

Fourth: There are many additions and omissions, since he did not rely upon manuscript copies. Here are some examples:

On page thirty (ودانوا) wadaanu appears, whereas the correct wording is (وتكلموا) wa takallamu. On page fifty “and that their caliphate is the caliphate of prophethood” appears, whereas all the other copies have “these are the imams after the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.”

On page fifty three the whole passage “And among what indicates seeing Allah with the eyes” is missing. On page fifty four (فإذا كان) fa idha kana appears instead of (أو إذا كان) aw idha kana.

On page sixty one the phrase “and His statement: When He commanded them to stand and they both stood without falling, that was their standing by His command” is missing.

On page sixty three (مداداً وكتباً) midadan wa kutuban appears, whereas the correct wording is (مداداً لكننه) midadan likunnihi. On page eighty the text has (الأشعث الحراني) Al Ashʿath al Harani, but in the margin he gives a biography for another man, (الأشعث الحمداني) Al Ashʿath al Hamdani, whereas the correct one is the first.

On page eighty nine he added (استواء) istiwa that befits Him without length and settling, which is not found in the manuscripts. In the edition of Fawqiyyah it appears as (استواء) istiwa that befits Him without length.

There are many such issues scattered throughout the book, but what has been mentioned is enough as an indication.

The third edition: The edition of ʿAbbas Sabbagh

This is the edition of Dar An Nafais, Beirut, with verification by ʿAbbas Sabbagh. The verifier mentioned that he relied upon a manuscript copy in the American University in Beirut, which is itself a copy of a manuscript in the Alexandria municipality. This edition has merits and defects.

Among its merits:

First: He traced the Qur’an verses.

Second: He gave brief translations for some individuals.

Third: He explained some unfamiliar terms.

As for its defects:

First: The tracing of the hadith is very brief and does not suffice in any way, and he neglected tracing the athar.

Second: He did not make creedal comments on Al Ashʿari’s statements.

Third: There are many additions, which he includes from himself.

Fourth: There are many omissions in this copy.

Fifth: There are errors in some of the biographies.

Examples include:

On page thirty “and they professed” appears instead of “and they spoke.” On page fifty “and that their caliphate is the caliphate of prophethood” appears, whereas all the manuscripts have “these are the imams after the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.” On page fifty three the phrase “and among what indicates seeing Allah with the eyes” is omitted. On page fifty four (فإذا كان) fa idha kana appears instead of (أو إذا كان) aw idha kana.

On page sixty one the phrase “and His statement: So when He commanded them to stand and they both stood without falling, their standing was by His command” is missing. On page sixty three (مداداً وكتباً) midadan wa kutuban appears instead of (مداداً لكننه) midadan likunnihi.

On page eighty, in the main text, (الأشعث الحراني) Al Ashʿath al Harani appears, while in the margin he gives a biography for another person, (الأشعث الحمداني) Al Ashʿath al Hamdani, even though the one in the text is correct. On page eighty nine he added “(استواء) istiwa that befits Him without descending and settling”, which is only found in the handwritten copies.

And so on from the long list of errors that have been pointed out in the detailed research.

The fourth edition: The edition of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ʿAli ibn Rayhan

On the cover it is mentioned that he relied upon five manuscript copies. It was printed after I had taken permission to print from the University. It was published by Dar Al Ibanah in Cairo. It too has merits and defects.

Among its merits:

First: He mentioned supporting statements for Al Ashʿari in the issues that he raised, by quoting from the people of Sunnah.

Among its defects:

First: He claimed to have carried out verification, but unfortunately he did not mention a single difference between the copies. It is therefore not clear why he called his work a verification.

Second: He only translated one or two individuals.

Third: From tens of athar he traced only one.

Fourth: He relied in his comments on the statements of some contemporary scholars, such as Doctor Muhammad Al Khamees, ʿAbdullah ibn ʿAbdul Hamid Al Attrabi and Al Jawabirah, and this is generally his method in his comments. Unfortunately, he neglected to return to the original Salafi sources, such as Ar Radd ʿala Al Jahmiyyah by Imam Ahmad, As Sunnah by Ibn Abi ʿAsim, As Sunnah by Al Khallal, At Tawhid by Ibn Khuzaymah, At Tawhid by Ibn Mandah, As Sunnah by ʿAbdullah ibn Ahmad, Usul Al Iʿtiqad by Al Lalikaʾi, Ash Sharīʿah by Al Ajurri, Bayan At Talbis, Darʾ at Taʿarud, Al Minhaj, Ash Shariʿah by Ibn Taymiyyah, and other works of the people of Sunnah.

Fifth: He filled his book with hundreds of repeated quotations. I would have hoped that he had called this work “The Creed of Ahl As Sunnah” without presenting it as a verification of Al Ibanah, because it is far removed from proper verification.

Sixth: He commented extensively on the introductory ten pages of Al Ibanah, filling them with nine hundred and fifty seven pages of commentary, while he presented the rest of the book, which is its most important part and contains the detailed issues, in barely one hundred pages that are almost entirely unaccompanied by commentary.

Seventh: He neglected the creedal comments, which are among the most important aspects that a verifier should give attention to.

The fifth edition: The edition of Imam Muhammad ibn Saud University

This edition was issued by Imam Muhammad ibn Saud Islamic University in Riyadh. Shaykh, the ʿAllamah Salih ibn Fawzan Al Fawzan wrote an introduction to it. Like the other editions, it has merits and defects.

Among its merits:

First: That it was issued by a university that adopts the method of the righteous Salaf, and this in itself is a testimony for the author and his book that both of them belong to the Salaf.

Second: That it contains some beneficial creedal notes and corrections, such as those found in footnote one on page forty seven, footnote three on page seventy four and footnote one on page seventy one.

Third: That it explains some of the important creedal issues, such as in footnote one on page fifty six.

Fourth: That it corrects some of the phrases which appeared to them to be mistaken in the other printed editions, such as in footnote one on page sixty six, footnote two on page sixty seven, footnote one on page sixty eight, footnote one on page sixty nine, footnotes one and two on page seventy four.

In summary, the merits of this edition are good and beneficial.

As for its defects, it is not free of them, among them:

First: That it was not copied from manuscript copies, but rather relied upon the printed editions. They excused themselves for this by saying that the problem was the presence of errors in the Indian edition, and they announced their efforts to have it verified in a scholarly way. I ask Allah that this present verification fulfils their hopes.

Second: This edition lacks tracing of the narrations and athar and translations of the individuals.

Description of the manuscript copies of the book: The book was verified on the basis of six manuscript copies.

The first copy: symbol (أ) Alif

The first copy, whose symbol is (أ) Alif, is preserved in the Egyptian National Library in Cairo, in the Taimur section of works on creed, under number 377. On the first page it is written that it is an endowment of Ahmad ibn Ismail, and that it was copied in the year 1310, as the scribe, Abdur Rahman al Farsi ibn the late Muhammad Said, wrote:

“Al Ibana has been completed by the help of the Bestower of assistance, in the handwriting of Abdur Rahman al Farsi, on Friday corresponding to the second of Rabi al Awwal in the year 1310 after the Hijrah.”

The number of its pages is 33 pages, and the number of folios is 65 folios. Each folio contains 23 lines. The size is medium, and its handwriting is good.

At the end of it there is a conclusion of three folios written by Ibn al Qasim Abd al Malik ibn Isa ibn Darbas, in which he explains that al Ashari left the madhhab of the Mutazilah for the madhhab of the salaf, and that this is what he finally settled upon. After that he arranged the book of al Ashari with a complete arrangement.

The researcher made this copy the principal base for the following reasons:

1. The omissions and erasures in it are very few.
2. It contains some extra words, slight in amount, which are not found in the other copies, and these additions are important and are not from the additions of scribes.
3. It does not contain any additions from the scribe, unlike some of the other copies.
4. Its conclusion was written by a man firmly grounded in the Ashari madhhab, namely Abd al Malik ibn Darbas.
5. There are no notes or marginal glosses on its margins.
6. The scribe did not interfere with the wording and did not change the phrasing in which the author wrote it, as is clear from the work of the scribes in the copies (ب) Ba, (د) Dal and (و) Waw, especially the Indian copy whose symbol is (ب) Ba, which will be described. Even though the differences in wording between the copies do not usually change the meaning to a great extent.

This copy has been given the symbol (أ) Alif and has been made the original base for the reasons just mentioned.

The second copy: the Indian copy, symbol (ب) Baa

The second copy is the Indian copy whose symbol is (ب) Baa. It is preserved in the library of Osmania University in Hyderabad in India, under number 502. On its first page it is written:

“Kitab al Ibana of the Imam Abu al Hasan al Ashari al Shafii, may Allah have mercy upon him, copied from the book of our master Mawlay Abd al Wahhab, the possessor, may his lofty shade be prolonged.”

It is written in the hand of its owner, Ahmad Said, may Allah show kindness to him and to his parents.

At the end of the manuscript it is written:

“With the tablet of the pen from the paper, and its writer is decayed,”

and the rest is not clear. No date of copying appears in it.

The number of its pages is 77 pages, and the number of its folios is 154 folios. Each folio has 16 lines, and it is of medium size.

This copy is distinguished by the following:

1. Its handwriting is good.
2. It contains some additions compared to the other copies, but they are not many.
3. This copy is free of comments from the scribes.

As for its defects:

1. There is an omission on page 19 of the manuscript, from the words, “If someone were to say: What is the meaning of the saying of Allah, that He says to it ‘Be’ and it is,” up to the words, “He has never ceased speaking.” There is also an omission on page 67 of the manuscript up to the chapter “Mention of the narrations concerning al Qadar.” This is a long omission. This copy has been given the symbol (ب) Baa.
2. The scribe rephrases the unclear expressions of al Ashari in his own personal style.

The third copy: symbol (ج) Jeem

The third copy, whose symbol is (ج) Jeem, is preserved in the Egyptian National Library in Cairo, in the Taimur section of works on creed, under number 107. At its beginning it is written that the copying was completed on the blessed Saturday, the second of Dhu al Hijjah in the year 1007 after the Hijrah, and its scribe is Muhammad ibn Sulayman al Akhmimi.

At its end there is an introduction by Ibn al Qasim Abd al Malik ibn Isa ibn Darbas, in which he explains that al Ashari left the madhhab of the Mutazilah for the madhhab of the salaf, and that this is what he finally settled upon. After that he arranged the book of al Ashari with a complete arrangement.

The number of folios of the manuscript is 70 folios, and the number of pages is 140 pages. Each page has 17 lines, and the size is medium. Its handwriting is moderate. There are omissions and erasures in it, even though it is close to the first Egyptian copy, and the differences between them are slight, but the first copy is better than it, especially in the clarity of its wording. This copy has been given the symbol (ج) Jeem.

The fourth copy: the American University in Beirut, symbol (د) Daal

The fourth copy is the copy held at the American University in Beirut, whose symbol is (د) Daal. It is preserved at the American University in Beirut and carries the title “Al Tawhid” of Abu al Hasan al Ashari. When it was examined, it became clear that it is in fact the book Al Ibana, copied from the Egyptian original that is in the library of the Municipality of Alexandria.

This is the copy which Doctor Fawqiyyah relied upon in her verification. Reference may be made to what was written about this copy in the discussion of the copy used by Doctor Fawqiyyah when describing the previous printings.

As for the date of copying, it was in al Andalus in the year 1000 after the Hijrah, according to what is written upon it. The number of its folios is 32, and 16 folios of it have reached us. Each folio has 25 lines, and it is of medium size. The name of the scribe is not mentioned. This copy is distinguished by the good quality of its handwriting.

It is very close to the Indian copy symbolised by (ب) Ba, and it contains additions and marginal notes which suggest that its scribe was from the Jahmiyyah or from the later Asharis who incline towards Jahmiyyah and Mutazili tendencies.

The fifth copy: symbol (هـ) Ha

The fifth copy, whose symbol is (هـ) Ha, is preserved in the Azhar Library, under the numbers 904 “khususi” and 46057 “Majami Bakhit”. At its beginning there is an introduction by Ibn al Qasim Abd al Malik ibn Isa ibn Darbas, in which he explains that al Ashari left the madhhab of the Mutazilah for the madhhab of the salaf, and that this is what he finally settled upon. After that he arranged the book of al Ashari with a complete arrangement.

On the first page of the manuscript it is written: “Kitab al Ibana an Usul al Diyana of the Imam Abu al Hasan al Ashari, may Allah have mercy on him.”

At the end of the manuscript it is written:

“The copying of it was completed on the blessed Sunday corresponding to the fifth of the month of Rabi al Awwal in the year 1308 after the Hijrah.”

At its end there is a passage written in the handwriting of Muhammad ibn Sulayman al Akhmimi al Maliki, in which he mentions a dream vision in which he saw the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.

Its scribe is Muhammad ibn Muhammad al Hammadani. This copy has comments, and the more likely view is that the writer of this manuscript had Sufi inclinations, because he mentioned seeking a means by the status of the Prophet ﷺ at the end of the manuscript.

The number of folios of the manuscript is 66 folios, of medium size, and the number of pages is 132 pages. Each page has 17 lines, and its handwriting is good. It is very close to the copy (ج) Jim and the copy (أ) Alif which has been adopted as the base, because the scribe of the copy (ج) Jim wrote a folio at the end of this manuscript and sealed it with his seal, and he is Muhammad ibn Sulayman al Akhmimi. In this copy there are many marginal notes, comments and explanations from the scribe which are beneficial.

The sixth copy: symbol (و) Waw

The sixth copy, whose symbol is (و) Waw, is the copy held in the Revan Roshel Library in Austria, number 26–1 10 Page. On the first page is written “Revan”.

On the second page, at its beginning, it is written: “Majmu Usul al Din, a collection of treatises on creed, among which is Al Ibana of Abu al Hasan al Ashari.” On it there is a note of ownership in the name of al Ismail Shahba Uthman Pasha al Shami, in the year 1154, in the month of Shawwal.

On its flyleaf there is a round seal on which is written the saying of Allah the Exalted:

الحمد لله الذي هدانا لهذا وما كنا لنهتدي لولا أن هدانا الله

“All praise belongs to Allah who has guided us to this, and we would never have been guided if Allah had not guided us.” (Al Araf – 43)

As for the date of copying, it is written at the end of the manuscript:

“The copying of it was completed on the blessed Tuesday from the month of Muharram al Haram, at the beginning of the year one thousand and eighty four after the Hijrah.”

The number of folios of the manuscript is 26 folios, of medium size, and the number of pages is 52 pages. Each page has 32 lines, and its handwriting is acceptable. It is close to the Indian copy symbolised by (ب) Ba, except that it has an omission of more than a page and a half in the whole manuscript, and it is distinguished by containing important additions in some places that have fallen out of the other copies.