Thread by @Aal_Moalim

An argument they make to deny the attribution of Al Naqdh to Uthman b. Sa'eed Al Darimi is that Ibn Al Subki, an Ash'ari, greatly praised Uthman.

And so this book can't have belonged to Uthman, or it did belong to him but was tampered with.

Response:

It is well known that Al Darimi and his works was an extremely influential early figure & source for Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Qayyim

Ibn Qayyim in Ijtima' al Juyush p.231:

وكتاباه من أجل الكتب المصنفة في السنة وأنفعها، وينبغي لكل طالب سنة مراده الوقوف على ما كان عليه الصحابة والتابعون والأئمة أن يقرأ كتابيه وكان شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية يوصي بهذين الكتابين أشد الوصية ويعظمهما جدا وفيهما من تقرير التوحيد والأسماء والصفات بالعقل والنقل ما ليس في غيرهما

Ibn Taymiyyah in Al Hamawiyyah p.250-251:

عين تأويلاتهم هي عين تأويلات المريسي، ويدل على ذلك كتاب الرد الذي صنفه عثمان بن سعيد الدارمي أحد الأئمة المشاهير في زمان البخاري، صنف كتابا سماه: «رد عثمان بن سعيد على الكاذب العنيد فيما افترى على الله في التوحيد»

حكى فيه من التأويلات بأعيانها عن بشرالمريسي بكلام يقتضي أن المريسي أقعد بها، وأعلم بالمنقول والمعقول من هؤلاء المتأخرين الذين اتصلت إليهم من جهته،

ثم رد عثمان بن سعيد بكلام إذا طالعه العاقل الذكي: علم حقيقة ما كان عليه السلف، وتبين له ظهور الحجة لطريقهم، وضعف حجة من خالفهم.

The pair's works are replete with quotes from Al Darimi and reliance upon him and his two works along with encouragement to read and take from these two works.

Quotes that trigger those Jahmis who make the claim above.

Let's take a look @ some of them:

1. Ibn Taymiyyah using Al Darimi to affirm a Hand for Allah which is word-for-word what Al Darimi said in his Naqdh.

See Bayan Talbis Al Jahmiyyah 4/139-142 & Al Naqdh p.694-697

2. Ibn Qayyim using Al Darimi to affirm Allah is above His Throne *Haqiqatan* word-for-word what Al Darimi said in his Naqdh

See Ijtima' Al Juyush Al Islaamiyah p.228-231 & Al Naqdh p.78, p.120-121, p.165, p.166, p.170, p.173, p.195 & p.348

3. Ibn Taymiyyah using Al Darimi to refute the Jahmis on the issue of Al Hadd, Al Ghaayah etc. word-for-word what Al Darimi said in his Naqdh

See Bayan Talbis Al Jahmiyyah 5/163-164 & Al Naqdh

And we can continue with this on and on...but this is sufficient.

Now any Ash'ari who reads these quotes will be 'disturbed' based on his Usul and say this is Tajsim.

And this is clearly seen from the modern reaction of Ash'aris to this book, such that they are in two camps:

Camp 1: Label Uthman b. Sa'eed a Mujassim

OR

(after realising what their Imams and what the early Imams said about Uthman)

Camp 2: say that the work has been tampered with

But the question to this camp is:

Who from the classical Ash'aris preceded you in claiming that Al Darimi's book was tampered with?

Ibn Taymiyyah & Ibn Qayyim are the biggest enemies to ever face the Ash'aris and they did so in an era where Ash'ari Shafi'ism was at its peak

and Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Qayyim are proudly showing off, in their most famous works, Al Darimi's works as a primary source that *every* true seeker of knowledge must have access to.

Listen to how Ibn Qayyim describes Al Darimi & his statements in his Nooniyyah which Taqiyuddin Al Subki (Taj's father) attempted to refute but he did not mention Al Darimi negatively once, although Al Kawthari Al Haalik attempted to in the footnotes on the Hadith of Husayn

If such a work was a forgery attributed to a Shafi'i great like Al Darimi coupled by the fact that its being pushed by your most dangerous enemy, why didn't Taqi Al Subki point it out?

Why did no classical Ash'ari or Shafi'i ever say that Ibn Taymiyyah & his disciple are relying upon a forged work to push their creed and that our great Shafi'i Imam Uthman b. Sa'eed is innocent from them and this is why:

A, B, C, D, E etc.

In fact, what we see is the opposite.

Imams pre, during and post Ibn Taymiyyah either affirmed the book to Uthman, quote from the book or sought an Ijaazah to the author by attending its recital gatherings...

One other claim they make to reply to the fact that Ibn Al Subki praised Al Darimi is that ibn Al Subki blind followed Al Dhahabi, and that ibn Al Subki never actually read the book...

This is a dangerous claim to make since the Naqdh (and the statements that would 'enrage' an Ash'ari) are found in the famous works of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Qayyim, the two men that lived rent free in his and his father's head...

Could this possibly be an admission that ibn Al Subki was a touch unfamiliar with these two individual's works?

Because, today, anybody whose accessed the Taymiyyan Turaath knows the position, influence and status that Al Darimi has, as we briefly touched upon above

There are other claims that I perhaps may speak on at another time.

My advice is to study these works for these are the stations Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Qayyim stopped at for sustenance to produce what they produced.

And @m_alkulify has a commentary on the book which I advise that one listens to for answers to some of the textual criticism the book may have from Sunnis like Al Dhahabi and Al Albani and non-Sunnis as well

youtube.com/playlist?list=…

Note the Intiqa'iyyah in research

'Uthman b. Sa'eed kicked out Ibn Karram from Herat so his book can't be authentic to him because in it there's "Karrami Aqeedah"

On what basis did you accept that this report mentioned Al Dhahabi and Al Subki is authentic?

Where is the chain?

They cry "bring the chain" but have no qualms in building their claim that it must have been Karramites who tampered with the books upon what is essentially a chainless report from the same figures who affirm the book is Al Darimi's and didn't mention any tampering