Tuesday, 22 December 2009

Part 3 - The Trunk

The Wahhabi Tree
The Trunk

Ibn Taymiyyah
(661-728 AH / 1263-1328 CE)
(The prophet of Wahabi/Salafism)

Ahmad ibn `Abd al-Halîm ibn `Abd Allâh ibn Abî al-Qâsim ibn Taymiyya, Taqî al-Dîn Abû al-`Abbâs ibn Shihâb al-Dîn ibn Majd al-Dîn al-Harrânî al-Dimashqî al-Hanbalî

The Fatwâ Hamawiyya

Attributing Direction to Allâh Most High

His first clash with the scholars occurred in 698.A.H in Damascus when he was barred from teaching after he issued his Fatwâ Hamawiyya in which he unambiguously attributes literal upward direction to Allâh (swt).
He was refuted by his contemporary, Imâm Ibn Jahbal al-Kilâbî (d. 733), in a lengthy reply which Tâj al-Dîn al-Subkî reproduced in full in his Tabaqât al-Shâfi`iyya al-Kubrâ.
Ibn Jahbal wrote: "How can you say that Allâh is literally (haqîqatan) in () the heaven, and literally above (fawq) the heaven, and literally in (fî) the Throne, and literally on (`alâ) the Throne?!"
Qâdî Yûsuf al-Nabahânî also refuted the Hamawiyya in his magnificent epistle Raf` al-Ishtibâh fî Istihâlat al-Jiha `alâ Allâh ("The Removal of Uncertainty Concerning the Impossibility of Direction for Allah (swt)") cited in full in his Shawâhid al-Haqq (p. 210-240).

Aqîda Wâsitiyya

Ibn Taymiyyah then returned to his activities until he was summoned by the authorities again in 705 AH to answer for his `Aqîda Wâsitiyya?
He spent the few following years in and out of jail or defending himself from various "abhorrent charges" according to Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalânî.

"Because he officially repented, his life was spared, although at one point it was officially announced in Damascus that:

"Whoever follows the beliefs of Ibn Taymiyya
his life and property are licit for seizure."

These events instigated great dissension among the scholars in Damascus and Cairo as detailed in Imâm Taqî al-Dîn al-Hisnî's Daf`u Shubahi Man Shabbaha wa Tamarrad wa Nasâba Dhâlika ilâ al-Sayyid al-Jalîl al-Imâm Ahmad ("Repelling the Sophistries of the Rebel who Likens Allâh to Creation, Then Attributes This Doctrine to Imâm Ahmad").

His Equivocations Under Interrogation
Ibn Taymiyya at various times declared himself a follower of the Shâfi`î school - as did many Hanbalîs in Damascus - and an Ash`arî.

Ibn Hajar wrote in al-Durar al-Kâmina:
"An investigation [of his views] was conducted with several scholars [in Cairo] and a written statement was drawn in which he said:
"I am Ash`arî."
His handwriting is found with what he wrote verbatim, namely:
"I believe that the Qur'ân is a meaning which exists in the Divine Essence, and that it is an Attribute from the pre-eternal Attributes of His Essence, and that it is uncreated, and that it does not consist in the letter nor the voice, and that His saying: The Merciful established Himself over the Throne (20:5) is not taken according to its literal meaning (laysa `alâ zâhirihi), and I do not know in what consists its meaning, nay only Allâh knows it, and one speaks of His 'descent' in the same way as one speaks of His 'establishement.'"
It was written by Ahmad ibn Taymiyya.
They witnessed over him that he had repented of his own free will from all that contravened the above. This took place on the 25th of Rabî` al-Awwal 707 and it was witnessed by a huge array of scholars and others."
Sources report that Ibn Taymiyya was forced to repent many times -for one reason or another?
Al-Tûfî's Summary of the Charges Brought Against Him
The Hanbalî scholar Najm al-Dîn Sulaymân ibn `Abd al-Qawî al-Tûfî said:
He [Ibn Taymiyya] could bring up in one hour from the Book, the Sunna, the Arabic language, and philosophical speculation, material which no one could bring up even in many sessions, as if these sciences were before his very eyes and he was picking and choosing from them at will.
A time came when his companions took to over-praising him and this drove him to be satisfied with himself until he became conceited before his fellow human beings. He became convinced that he was a scholar capable of independent reasoning (mujtahid). Henceforth he began to answer each and every scholar great and small, past and recent, until he went all the way back to `Umar raDiy-Allahu-anhu.gif and faulted him in some matter.
This reached the ears of the Shaykh Ibrâhîm al-Râqî who reprimanded him. Ibn Taymiyya went to see him, apologized, and asked forgiveness.
He also spoke against `Alî raDiy-Allahu-anhu.gif and said:
"He made mistakes in seventeen different matters."... Because of his fanatic support of the Hanbalî School he attacked Ash'aris until he started to insult al-Ghazzâlî, at which point some people opposed him and would almost kill him.... They ascertained that he had blurted out certain words, concerning doctrine, which came out of his mouth in the context of his sermons and legal pronouncements, several battles mentioned that he had cited the tradition of the descent of Allâh (swt) (to the nearest heaven), then climbed down two steps from the minbar and said: "Just like this descent of mine" and so was categorized as an anthropomorphist.
More info: Here
They also cited his refutation of whoever uses the Prophet as a means or seeks help from him (aw istaghâtha).... People were divided into parties because of him.
Some considered him an anthropomorphist because of what he mentioned in al-`Aqîda al-Hamawiyya and al-`Aqîda al-Wâsitiyya and other books of his, to the effect that the Hand, Foot, Shin, and Face are litteral Attributes of Allâh and that He is established upon the Throne with His Essence.
It was said to him that were this the case He would necessarily be subject to spatial confinement (al-tahayyuz) and divisibility (al-inqisâm). He replied: "I do not concede that spatial confinement and divisibility are necessarily properties of bodies," so it was recorded against him (ulzima) that he held the Divine Essence to be subject to spatial confinement.
Others considered him a heretic (zindîq) due to his saying that the Prophet is not to be sought for help and the fact that this amounted to diminishing and impeding the establishing of the greatness of the Prophet .... Others considered him a dissimulator (munâfiq) because of what he said about:
"`Alî:... namely, that he had been forsaken everywhere he went, had repeatedly tried to acquire the caliphate and never attained it, fought out of lust for power rather than religion, and said that "he loved leadership while `Uthmân loved money."
He would say that:
Abû Bakr had declared Islâm in his old age, fully aware of what he said, while `Alî had declared Islâm as a boy, and the boy's Islâm is not considered sound upon his mere word....
In sum he said ugly things such as these, and it was said against him that he was a hypocrite, in view of the Prophet's saying (to `Alî):
"Only a hypocrite has hatred for you."
Minhaj al-Sunnah

Volume 8 page 230:
“Ali fought to secure obedience and rule the people and money, 
so how can that be deemed as fighting for sake of religion?”
Also see:
Minhaj al-Sunnah, Vol. 5, p. 47


In Tafsir named "an-Nahrul-Madd", the Grammarian Abu Hayyan al-'Andalusi reported about Ibn Taymiyah having this belief.

He said: In his handwriting, a book of Ahmad Ibn Taymiyah, who was contemporary with us, which he called "Kitab-ul-‘Arsh",
I read: Allah sits on al-Kursi and has left a space for the Messenger of Allah to sit with Him.
At-Taj Muhammad Ibn ‘AliIbn ‘Abdil-Haqq al-Baranbari pretended that he is a promoter of his ideas and tricked him, until he took it from him; we read that in it. [The author of "Kashf-uz-Zunun" reported that about him also in Volume 2, page 1438.]
This reporting of Abu Hayyan was omitted from the old printed copy. However, the manuscript confirms it.
In his commentary on "as-Sayf-us-Saqil", page 85, Az-Zahid al-Kawthari said explaining the reason of omitting these statements of Ibn Taymiyah:
The editor of as-Sa‘adah Printing House told me that he found it very ugly and he omitted it upon printing so that the enemies of al-'Islam would not use it. Then he requested that I record that here to catch up what he missed and out of sincerity to the Muslims.


Ibn Taymiyah

726 A.H.

1 - Al-Qadi al-Mufassir Badru-d-Din Muhammad Ibn Ibrahim as-Shaf'i.
2 - Al-Qadi Muhammad Ibn al-Hariri al-Ansari al-Hanafi.
3 - Al-Qadi Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr al-Maliki

4 - Al-Qadi Ahmad Ibn Omar al-Muqaddasi al-Hanbali, rahimahum-Allahu ajma'in.Ibn

Ibn Taymiyah was imprisoned by a fatwa signed by them in the year 726 A.H.

See: (‘Uyun At-Tarikh by Al-Kutubi and Najmul-Muhtadi by Ibnul-Mu‘allim Al-Qurashi)

Among the Ulema of the past who refute Ibn Taymiyyah and unveiled his kufr there are:
al-Hafiz Waliyyu-d-Din al-Iraqi, al-'Allamah Taqiyyu-d-Din as-Subki, Shaykhu-l-Islam Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, al-Qadi Ibn Makhluf al Maliki, and Imam al-Kawthari, may Allah Ta`ala be pleased with all of them... others

Refuting Ibn Taymiyya

In "Fath al-Bari" Amiru-l-Mu'minin fi-l-hadith al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani refuted Ibn Taymiyyah's aberrant fatwa according to which "a travel for ziyaratu-n-Nabi is sinful and does not permit shortening of salah", and also refuted his neo-Kharramite anthropomorphism in claiming from the minbar - wa na'udhu bi-Llah - "Allah descends ka-nuzuli".

The noble scholars who choose to safeguard the Iman of Muslims by issuing the verdict of imprisonment against him were:

- Al-Qadi al-Mufassir Badru-d-Din Muhammad Ibn Ibrahim as-Shaf'i.
- Al-Qadi Muhammad Ibn al-Hariri al-Ansari al-Hanafi.
- Al-Qadi Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr al-Maliki
- Al-Qadi Ahmad Ibn Omar al-Muqaddasi al-Hanbali, rahimahum-Allahu ajma'in.

The Muhaddith Waliyyu-d-Din al-'Iraqi, radi Allahu 'anh, in his book"Al-'Ajwibatu-l-Mardiyyah" said about Ibn Taymiyyah:
"He infringed the ijma' in many issues, which was said to be (60sixty issues, some of which are in the usul and others in the furu'."
Infringing the ijma' in usul is kufr, while infringing the ijma' in furu' is bid'ah.

Al-Hafiz Shaykhu-l-Islam Taqiyyu-d-Din 'Ali Ibn 'Abdi-l-Kafi as-Subki, radi Allahu 'anh, wrote in "Ad-Durratu-l-Mudiyyah":
"Ibn Taymiyyah innovated the foul things in usul al-Iman, and infringed the foundations of Islam, after he was covering himself with following Kitab and Sunnah, showing outwardly that he is a caller to truth and a guide to Heaven. Consequently, he deviated from following Kitab and Sunnah to innovation, and deviated from Jama'at al-Muslimin, by infringing Ijma'.
He said what leads to the jismiyyah and composition in the Holy Self of Allah and that it is not impossible that Allah needs a part. He said that the Self of Allah contains hawadith, that the Qur'an is muhdath and Allah spoke it after it was not, that Allah speaks and stops speaking, and that created beings produce changes in Him. He transgressed to say that the world did not have a beginning.
He adhered to his saying that there is no beginning for the creations, thereby saying of the existence of hawadith without a beginning. Hence, he confirmed that the eternal attribute (of Allah) is created and the created hadith is eternal.

No one has ever said both sayings in any religion.

He was not among the seventy-three groups into which the Muslim Ummah was divided. In spite of all of this being evident kufr, it is little compared to what he innovated in the Furu'."

The chief Maliki Qadi Shaykh 'Ali Ibn Makhluf, radi Allahu 'anh, also issued the fatwa saying:
"Ibn Taymiyyah attributes to Allah having a body, and according to us whoever abides by this belief abides by kufr, and executing him is compulsory."

Shaykh Ala'u-d-Din al-Bukhari al-Hanafi, radi Allahu 'anh, wrote:
"He [Ibn Taymiyyah] is verily a kafir, and the one who calls him, or refers to him by using the title 'Shaykhu-l-Islam' - if he understand what he is doing - also utters words of kufr."

This verdict was confirmed by the noble Shaykhu-l-Islam of the Ottoman Khilafah, Shaykh Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari, radi Allahu 'anh.

Shaykh Ibn Hajar al-Haytami wrote:
"Verily he [Ibn Taymiyyah] was declared a kafir by plenty of Ulema" (laqad kafarahu kathirah mina-l-'ulama'). The reasons were explained in "Fatawa Hadithiyya":

"Ibn Taymiyyah is a servant which Allah forsook, misguided, blinded, deafened, and debased. That is the declaration of the imams who have exposed the corruption of his positions and the mendacity of his sayings.

Whoever wishes to pursue this must read the words of the Mujtahid Imam Abu al-Hasan Taqi al-Din al-Subki, of his son Taj al-Din Subki, of the Imam al-`Izz ibn Jama`a and others of the Shafi`i, Maliki, and Hanafi shaykhs who opposed him. It must be considered that he is a misguided and misguiding innovator (mubtadi` dall mudill) and an ignorant who brought evil (jahilun ghalun) whom Allah treated with His justice.

May He protect us from the likes of his path, doctrine, and actions!... Know that he has differed from people on questions about which Taj al-Din Ibn al-Subki and others warned us.

Among the things Ibn Taymiyyah said which infringe ijma' are:

1 - that whoso violates the consensus commits neither disbelief (kufr) nor grave transgression (fisq);
2 - that our Lord is subject to created events (mahallun li al-hawadith) - glorified, exalted, and sanctified is He far above what the depraved ascribe to Him!
3 - that He is complex or made of parts (murakkab), His Entity standing in need similarly to the way the whole stands in need of the parts, elevated is He and sanctified above that!
4- that the Qur'an is created in Allah's Entity (muhdath fi dhatillah), elevated is He above that!
5 - that the world is of a pre-eternal nature and exists with Allah since pre-eternity as an "ever-abiding created object" (makhluqan da'iman), thus making it necessarily existent in His Entity (mujaban bi al-dhat) and not acting deliberately (la fa`ilan bi al-ikhtyar), elevated is He above that!
6 - his raving attribution to Allah of corporeality, direction, displacement, (al-jismiyya wa al-jiha wa al-intiqal), and that He fits the size of the Throne, being neither bigger nor smaller, exalted is He from such a hideous invention and wide-open kufr, and may He forsake all his followers, and may all his beliefs be scattered and lost!
7 - his saying that the fire shall go out (al-nar tafni);
8 - and that Prophets are not sinless (al-anbiya' ghayr ma`sumin),
9 - and that the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- has no special status before Allah (la jaha lahu) and must not be used as a means (la yutawassalu bihi)
10 - and that the undertaking of travel (al-safar) to the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- in order to perform his visitation is a sin, for which it is unlawful to shorten the prayers, and that it is forbidden to ask for his intercession in view of the Day of Need,
11 - and that the words (alfaz) of the Torah and the Gospel were not alterated, but only their meanings (ma`ani) were.

"Some said: 'Whoever looks at his books does not attribute to him most of these positions, except that whereby he holds the view that Allah has a direction, and that he authored a book to establish this, and forces the proof upon the people who follow this school of thought that they are believers in Allah's corporeality (jismiyya), dimensionality (muhadhat), and settledness (istiqrar).'

That is, it may be that at times he used to assert these proofs and that they were consequently attributed to him in particular. But whoever attributed this to him from among the imams of Islam upon whose greatness, leadership, religion, trustworthiness, fairness, acceptance, insight, and meticulousness there is agreement - then they do not say anything except what has been duly established with added precautions and repeated inquiry. This is especially true when a Muslim is attributed a view which necessitates his disbelief, apostasy, misguidance, and execution. Therefore if it is true of him that he is a disbeliever and an innovator, then Allah will deal with him with His justice, and other than that He will forgive us and him."


Fatawa al Hadithiyyah 

Sheikh ul Islam Imam Ibn Hajr al Haythami al Makki
Published by 
Dar ut Taqwa, Damuscus, Syria.

Imam Ibn Hajr Haythami said: Ibn Taymiyya is a servant whom Allah forsook, misguided, blinded, deafened, and debased. That is the declaration of the imams who have exposed the corruption of his positions and the mendacity of his sayings. Whoever wishes to pursue this must read the words of the mujtahid Imam Abu al-Hasan (Taqi al-Din) al-Subki, of his son Taj al-Din Subki, of the Imam al-`Izz ibn Jama`a and others of the Shafi`i, Maliki, and Hanafi shaykhs... It must be considered that he is a misguided and misguiding innovator (mubtadi` dall mudill) and an ignorant who brought evil (jahilun ghalun) whom Allah treated with His justice. May He protect us from the likes of his path, doctrine, and actions

[Fatawa al Hadithiyyah Page No. 205]


"Letter to the Master"

al-Nasihah al-Dhahabia li ibn Taymiyya

(Sincere Advice to Ibn Taymiyya, Maktab al-Misria 18863)

The Letter

Dear Master,


"...How long will you see the speck in your brother's eye and forget the log in your own? How long will you praise yourself, your prattle, your style, while blaming religious scholars and searching out people's shameful points, knowing as you do that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) forbade it saying:
"...How long will you disinter the details of philosophical expressions of kufr for us to refute with our minds? You've swallowed, man, the poison of the philosophers and of their works more than once; and by too much using of a poison one's constitution gets addicted. It collects, by Allah, in the body.
"... The sword of al-Hajjaj and the tongue of Ibn Hazm were brothers [ie no Muslims was safe from them], and now you have joined the family.

By Allah, give us a break from talking about "the bid`a of Thursday", and "eating the grains", and rather make a serious effort to remember the bid`as we used to consider the source of all misguidance, which have now become the "genuine sunna" and the "basis of tawhid", and whoever doesn't know them is a Kafir, or a donkey, and whoever doesn't call him a Kafir is a bigger Kafir than Pharaoh. You consider the very Christians like us.
" ...What are your followers but hidebound do-nothings of little intelligence, common liars with dull minds, silent outlanders strong in guile, or dryly righteous without understanding?

If you don't believe it, just look at them and honestly assess them.

The donkey of your lusts, O Muslim, has stepped forward to applaud your self. How long will you dote on your ego and attack the finest people?

How long will you credit it, and disdain the pious?
How long will you exalt it, and despise the devotees?
How long will you be its closest friend, and detest the abstinent?
How long will you praise your own words in a manner you do not even use for the Sahihs of Bukhari and Muslim?

Would that the hadiths of the two Sahihs were safe from you, as you continually attack them, by suggesting weakness, considering them fair game, or with figurative explanations and denial. Hasn't the time come to give up?

Is it not it time to repent and atone? Aren't you at that tenth of a man's life when he reaches seventy years and the final departure has drawn near?
"...By Allah among your enemies, there are the righteous and intelligent men and virtuous ones, just as among your friends there are the wicked, liars, ignoramuses, layabouts, the vile, and cattle.
"I can accept that you should publicly disparage me, while secretly benefiting from what I have said. "May Allah have mercy on the man who shows me my faults" [words attributed to `Umar (Allah be pleased with him)]. For I have many faults and sins, and woe to me if I myself do not repent, and how enormous my disgrace from Him who knows the Hidden. The sole remedy for me is the forgiveness of Allah and His clemency, His giving success and His guidance.
Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds. Allah bless our lieglord Muhammad, the Last of the Prophets, his folk and companions one and all."

Also read: Here


An epistle entitled al-Nasiha al-Dhahabiyya written when al-Dhahabi was around fifty-five years of age and addressed to Ibn Taymiyya towards the end of his life.

In this brief but scathing epistle the author distances himself from his contemporary and admonishes him without naming him, calling him "an eloquent polemicist who neither rests nor sleeps."

A "Salafi" apologist recently cast doubt on the authenticity of al-Dhahabi's authorship of this epistle, also claiming that, even if al-Dhahabi wrote it, then it is directed to someone other than Ibn Taymiyya.

However, both Salah al-Din al-Munajjid and Dr. Bashshar `Awwad Ma`ruf declared that there was no doubt al-Dhahabi wrote it towards the end of his life and addressed Ibn Taymiyya.

Ibn Hajar voiced no doubt as to the authenticity of this epistle as attributed to al-Dhahabi,nor al-Sakhawi who calls it "a glorious statement of doctrine."

In particular the Nasiha contains the following prophetic description of Taymiyya-followers in our time:

"Oh the disappointment of him who follows you! For he is exposed to corruption in basic beliefs and to dissolution. Particularly if he is short of learning and religion, a self-indulgent idler who does well for you by fighting on your behalf with his hand and tongue, while he is actually your enemy in his being and heart. What are your followers but hidebound do-nothings of little intelligence, common liars with dull minds, silent outlanders strong in guile, or dryly righteous without understanding? If you do not believe it, just look at them and honestly assess them.

Imam al-Dhahabi had a son who was known as Abu Hurayra. Abu Hurayra was a teacher to both: Hafiz ibn Hajar al Asqalani and his student: Hafiz al-Sakhawi. Hence, both of these Hadith Masters could have easily verified with Abu Hurayra, if his father - Hafiz al-Dhahabi, had actually compiled this or not for sure.
The fact that al-Sakhawi quoted from al-Dhahabi verbatim in his al-I'lan is proof that he accepted the authenticity of al-Dhahabi's attack on ibn Taymiyya! Al-Sakhawi did not say that it was forged against Dhahabi or that it came down in the handwriting of Ibn Qadi Shuhba!
The Nasiha is preserved in Dar al-Kutub al Misriyya (no. 18823), Cairo, Egypt, and in the former Maktaba al-Zahiriyya (no. 1347), Damascus, Syria.
What gives strength to the authenticity of this letter being by Hafiz al-Dhahabi is the fact that Ibn Qadi Shuhba, who is known as a biographer of the later Shafi'i Madhhab, as well as being a Historian, had actually given his Sahih Isnad back to al-Dhahabi. This letter reached him from: al-Qadi Burhan ibn Jama'a (d. 790 AH) from the Hafiz of Hadith: Abu Sa'eed al-Alai'e (d. 761 AH), who took it from his teacher: Hafiz al-Dhahabi.

Ad-Dhahabi writes:

"He (Ibn Taymiyya) was an outstanding scholar, very accurate and meticulous in his intellectual examinations, but guilty of introducing innovations in the Religion (mubtadi‘)".

This was reported by al-Sakhawi in his book:

al-I`lan wa al-tawbikh.

Dhahabi's own disclaimer of the errors of Ibn Taymiyya is stated explicitly in his stern:
al-Nasiha al-dhahabiyya,
which was published in Damascus in 1347 (1929) together with his Bayan zaghal al-`ilm.

Ibn Hajar mentioned Dhahabi's Nasiha in al-Durar al-kamina (1:166), and so did al-Sakhawi in al-I`lan wa al-tawbikh (p. 504). Two extant manuscripts of the Nasiha are kept, one in Cairo at the Dar al-kutub al-misriyya (#B18823) and one in Damascus at the Zahiriyya library (#1347).



Imam and al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Haytami's Fatawa Hadithiyyah
All these matters have been explained by the hadîth Master, Imâm Ab al-Faraj Ibn al-Jawzî, who belongs to his [Imâm Ahmad's] school. He has cleared the Imâm's name of such foul slanders and has provided explicit proofs exposing the lies of the slanderers.

And beware of what Ibn Taymiyya, his student Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya and others wrote; he [Ibn Taymiyya] is a man who took his lusts for his Lord, for which Allâh led him astray despite his learning, sealed upon his hearing and heart, and put a veil upon his sight; and who can guide him after Allâh let him be misguided?

Why should He not, when these heretics have gone past the boundaries set by the Sharî`a and trampled them?

Yet they imagine that they are the guided ones, that they are guided by their Lord Almighty when the truth is that they are not. Rather, they are on the wrong path, the most heinous, misleading way and most abominable traits. They are afflicted by vices and have incurred a great loss. May Allâh humble their followers and wipe the earth clean from their likes!
For those that might think that Aliyy Al-Qaariy was soft on believers in Aļļaah having a direction, or bodily attributes, because he did not hate Ibn Taymiyyah should think again. The only reason for this was that he did not think that Ibn Taymiyyah had such beliefs. There are many scholars that were in this boat in the past, because Ibn Taymiyyah’s works had not been gathered and consolidated.

Aliyy Al-Qaariy’s

view on anthropomorphic beliefs, he states in Sħarĥ Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar:

“فمن أظلم ممن كذب على الله أو ادعى ادعاء معينا مشتملا على اثبات المكان والهيئة والجهة من مقابلة وثبوت مسافة وأمثال تلك الحالة، فيصير كافرا لا محالة) اهـ.

“Who is more unjust than the one that lied about Aļļaah, or claimed something that included affirming (to Him) a place, shape or direction such as facing, distance and the like… Such a person becomes a kaafir (non-Muslim) without doubt (P. 355).”

[Sharh Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar, Ali Al-Qari, Dar Al-Basħa’ir Al-Islamiyah, Beirut, 1998.]


Mullah Ali Qari (rah) eventually came to the "RIGHT OPINION" in regards to Ibn Taymiyyah.
Mullah Ali Qari (rah) praised him in his
"former" book called:
Mirqaat Sharh al-Mishqaat.


Muallah Ali Qari (rah) in his latter book i.e. Sharh ash-Shifa went to the extent of doing Takfir on Ibn Taymiyyah.
Here is the proof:
Mullah Ali Qari (rah) said: Ibn Taymiyyah has disputed on the issue of traveling to visit the grave of Prophet (Peace be upon him) as he has declared it "HARAM TO DO SO" Some scholars have gone to the extent of doing Takfir upon a person who forbids this traveling (Mullah Ali Qari said): "This second qawl is closer to soundness and reward" because when on permissibility of something (scholars/Muslims) are unanimous then to reject it is "KUFR" especially when scholars are unanimous on something being Mustahab, then someone calling it Haram is "BY GREATER STANDARDS A KUFR" [Sharh ash-Shifa (3/514)]


“ like a sparrow,flying here and there 
Ibn Taymiyyah
was, like Al-Urmawiyy said,

“like a sparrow,flying here and there,” in his arguments.
Ibn Taymiyyah was rarely very explicit, he plays word games, changing definitions, not stating them, discussing what the opponent might mean by a word when he know very well what he means, arguing through a fictive person so that it would not be directly related to him, and so on. If they finally caught him, he would simply pretend to repent, as he did in Cairo.
I don’t think his mind was all that lacking, he was evil, like Ibliis, and used deception and lies to make people follow him in kufr."


Ibn Taymiyyah condones of the claim that Aļļaah sits saying:
It has been narrated through the acceptable scholars and Muslim saints (‘awliyaa’) that Muĥammad, the Messenger of Aļļaah (Sallallahu Alaihe-e-Wa-Sallam) 
will be seated by His Lord on His throne with Him.
[Aĥmad Ibn Taymiyyah (728 AH) Al-Ĥarraaniyy, Majmuuˆu-l-Fataawaa, 4 / 374.]

This is further to the quotes we have shown earlier regarding Ibn Taymiyyah’s extremely blasphemous anthropomorphism, which includes affirming 6 physical boundaries, divisibility in the mind’s eye due to size, ability to shrink, possibility of being hit by a bucket, having the world physically inside of Him, and more.

All of this, of course, he claims is affirmed by the Qur’aan and the Sunnah and the Salaf and Muslim saints! Such statements of his are buried in ridiculously long books saying very much about very little, and that is why some scholars did not discover him, and praised him based on other things.
Those who did discover him, however, such as Taqiyyu-d-Diin Al-Ĥuşniyy, the famous Shaafiˆiyy jurist and author of the widely studied fiqh manual “Kifaayatu-l-’Akħyaar” called himan absolute kaafir (zindiiq – which originally means fire worshiper, but later used to mean a particularly mean kaafir),” and alluded to how he considered having his remains extracted from his grave and burned in public as an admonition to the public.

"... justify takfir upon people 
who claim to be Muslims."

To have belief as defined in Islamic terminology, one must label as true in one’s heart, and accept in submission, what is necessarily known to be of the Prophet Muĥammad’s religion. When someone denies any of it, he is not a Muslim.
Now, when someone utters the creedal statement to show his Islam, we have apparent belief from him, but the reality of the person’s heart is unseen to us. Accordingly, when someone later makes an expression which shows that he denies some of the religion, it is apparent to us that he is not a Muslim.

The blasphemy of a person is established by utterances that reflect blasphemous positions if the apparent language provides for only a blasphemous meaning.

For example, Aļļaah gave us the judgment in the Qur’aan that those that say that God is three, or Jesus is the son of God, or Jesus is God are blasphemers. This is without regard to what they intend to mean; they commit blasphemy merely by saying that...

Read the rest: Here


The Sources
Ibn Taymiyya's

Uthman Ibn Sa`id al-Darimi al-Sajzi
(d.280 A.H.)
"Allah Ta'ala has a limit that no one knows but Him and it is not allowed for anyone to imagine a limit to His limit in himself, however, he is to beleive in the limit and relegate the knolwedge of that to Allah. His place (Makan) also has a limit and He is upon His 'Arsh above the seven heavens- so these are two limits."
[Dar' at-Ta'arud]

Abu Hamid Ibn Marzuq rahimahullah quotes exactly the same statement from Ibn Taymiyya's book:

Minhaj al-Sunnah

The resemblance of Kawthari's censure of ibn taymiyya to ibn al-jawzi's censure of the anthropomorphizing hanbalis of his time is striking. 
It comes as no surprise, therefore, that ibn taymiyyah in fact took his own materials from a related group.

As kawthari says, "Ibn taymiyya replicates part and parcel what is found in Uthman ibn Said al-Darimi's al-Radd ala al-jahmiyya, and the kitab al sunna attributed to Abd Allah ibn ahmad ibn hanbal, and ibn khuzayma's al-tawhid wa sifat al-rabb."


Bidah Tawhid

The concept to classify tawĥīd into 2,3 and 4 categories was started by 
Ibn Taymiyyah

His Invention of a Double or Triple Tawhîd

Also among Ibn Taymiyya's kalâm innovations was his division of tawhîd into two types:

al-rubûbiyya and tawhîd al-ulûhiyya,

respectively, Oneness of Lordship and Oneness of Godhead.


" Sura Ibn Taymiyya"

1. Tawheed ur-Ruboobiyyah
2. Tawheed ul-Ibadah
3. Tawheed ul-Asmaa was-Sifaat

"Salafi Trinity"
Wahhabi/Salafi use Kitab at Tawhid

We use Surah Al Ikhlaas!
The best Tawheed is in Surat Al Ikhlaas , and To follow the Aqeedah of the Salaf full stop!


Ibn Taymiyyah

An Absolute Kaafir

His saying:

Based on this incredibly ugly statement, it is no wonder then, that a number of scholars, as mentioned by Taqiyyud Diin Al-Ĥuşniyy, said that

"Ibn Taymiyyah was

 an absolute kaafir "

It is no wonder also that ˆAlaa’udDiin Al-Bukħaariyy in fury uttered,

“whomsoever calls him Sħaykh of Islam is himself a kaafir.”

He was not entirely right about this, because some people might call him that, not knowing about his blasphemous beliefs, but in light of the above we can understand the circumstances of why he made this fatwa.

al-Hafiz al-Ghumari and al-Hafiz al-Harari as a proof against those who - like Wahhabis do - make the heretic Ibn Taymiyyah a "Shaykh al-Islam".

Shaykh Ghumari authenticates the fatwa,
"The one who uses the title "Shaykh al-Islam" for Ibn Taymiyyah proves himself to be a kafir."

According to a request coming from Shaykh 'Ali al-Mo'allim al-Qadiri, we have asked for an explanation of this fatwa to Shaykh al-Ash'ari, and the explanation was:

"It means that those who make so out of ignorance, and not being informed about Ibn Taymiyyah's apostasy are to be warned, and are under wajib to learn that doing so is kufr.

As for the one who goes on doing using that title even when informed about al-Jama'ah, he is cut from the Jama'at of this Ummah with the same sentence that our Ulema issued against Ibn Taymiyyah, and cannot enter Islam again, except by tawbah and Shahadah."

...continue to: Part4

First clash with Ahle Sunnh wal Jamaah scholars: 698AH- age (around) 37 year old
(al- Dhahabi- 25 years old )
(ibn al Qayyim -7 years old)
(ibn Kathir was not even born- he was born 701AH)
Summoned again in 705AH- age  (around) 44 years old 
Ibn Taymiyyah Repented in 707AH - age 46 years old
(al-Dhahabi -34 years old)
(ibn al Qayyim- 16 years old)
(ibn Kathir -6 years old)
Final imprisonment (726AH) : age 65 years old - Fatwa by  Four Sunni Orthodox Judges
Ibn Taymiyyah died: 728AH at the age of 67 year old

Note: (Ibn Kathir – was around 27 years old)

or You may start again from here: ^ "Above" ^

(Edited by ADHM)