“He [ibn Taymiyya] was immensely learned
but he had
but he had
(عقله ناقص ‘)!”
[Said by Imam Salahud-Din As-Safadi]
This is a brief review of the book
The Refutation of Him
Who Attributes Direction to Allah,
that was recently published by
Arabic written by:
Imam Ibn Jahbal al-Kilbi
Adh-Dhahabi as “the erudite scholar, the guiding leader of the Muslims” and also “The Mufti of the Muslims”[Al-’Ibar 4:96]
Ibn Kathir said of him, “The Shaykh, the admirable Imam, the Mufti of the Muslims” and “He was from the authoritative (jurists)!”
Translated into English by: Dr. G.f. Haddad Foreword by: a master Shafi’i of our time, Shaykh Muhammad Afifi Al-Akiti, May Allah (SWT) continue to preserve him! Introduction by Shaykh Wahbi Sulayman Ghawji Al-Albani, as reviewed by Shaykh G.f. Haddad with him in his home.
Shaykh Gibril Haddad walks the reader through page after page of the masters of Islam condemning Ibn Taymiyya for his heresies which include, but are not limited to:
§ His innovative Nullification of Triple Divorce –
a point in which there is Ijma’ of the Ummah regarding, and a point which Ibn Rajab refuted after having himself held the devious opinion of Ibn Taymiyya regarding it. (48-50)
It is interesting to note that Imam Salahud-Din al-’Ala’i
whoever violates Ijma’ commits apostasy – a declaration he seemingly makes against Ibn Taymiyya! [see page 28]
§ His Prohibition of Travel to Visit the Prophet Muhammad
The Book contains the Hanbalis’ view of this fatwa being ridiculous, as well as As-Subki’s as well as Hafith al-’Iraqis as well as Hafith Ibn Hajr al-’Asqalani’s, as well as Hafith Safadi’s, Hafith al-Qari’s rejection, Imam Al-Khafaji’s and goes on to quote around 10+ more rejections of this specific heretical fatwa of Ibn Taymiyya! pg 51-57)
a claim he was put in jail for by the Sunnis, and that had no scholarly precedent before it!
§ His revival of Ibn Hazm’s vicious non-Sunnah style, which has been refuted by the masses. This was pointed out by Imam As-Safadi, and his poor etiquette also manifested in his followers, was pointed out by Adh-Dhahabi (see page 67)
§ His excessive involvement into philosophy
despite that fact that his followers bash Sunni Kalam! [See page 68]
§ His deviations in his creed,
specifically holding them to be literal and thus anthropomorphic – unfounded in Sunni Doctrine, and a doctrine Ibn Taymiyya repented of in front of many scholars – signed by ibn taymiyya as well as many scholars that were present at the time (reference in the book) - early in his career, which Shaykh Gibril covers in his introduction!
Shaykh Gibril includes a brief refutation of Ibn Taymiyya’s deviant creed by the Ottoman Imam, Al-Kawthari exposing Ibn Taymiyya’s true and on pages 80-83.
§ His incredulity of Imam Ahmad’s fatwa on seeking with the Grave of the Prophet Muhammad !
This particular incident is authentic and mentioned by Badrud-Din al-’Ayni in his Sharh of the Sahih of Imam al-Bukhari! See (page 77.)
§ His denial of through the Prophet Muhammad and Righteous, a bida’ah on his behalf, and refuted thoroughly by his contemporaries, as well as those before him! (page 78)
§ His lie, and invention that Imam al-Asha’ri supposedly converted then re-converted back to the way of the “salaf”, when ibn taymiyya himself was not upon the way of the salaf in order to make such a claim to begin with! See page 79!
§ His denial of the eternity of hell fire
(page,84-85) which is covered well by Shaykh Gibril and shown to contradict ‘ once again.
§ Synonymously with .
§ General ta’wil
§ Specific Ta’wil
§ et cetera
While looking through the many biographies, as I checked some 15 different bios, of Imam An-Nawawi, I found upon the fact that he was a stalwart Sunni. Yet, when we look to the biographies of Ibn Taymiyyah by those same Sunnis,we see that this was a man full of creedal problems, as well as social problems. This is a man who was troubled, as can be seen by many of his egotistical actions. It is why Imam As-Safadi said that his intellect was . Yes, he was a jurist, maybe even a Mujtahid, but he thought himself more than what he was and allowed himself to say what he had no authority to say.
The pseudo-salafis would have us believe that he was a Mujtahid Mutlaq, yet the Mujtahidin do not contradict ‘, and most of all they have impeccable adab towards Allah and the Muslims, both lacking from Ibn Taymiyyah, as described by Ibn Jahbal in his work, as well as Taqiy-ud-Din Al-Hisni Al-Husayni in his refutation of Ibn Taymiyyah as well.
May Allah (SWT) bless our Beloved Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu Alaihe-e-Wa-Sallam) , His family, and His followers. Amin!
1 Al-’Ibar 4:96
We say to him: What do you say concerning the mention of “several eyes” (a‘yun), the mention of the “flank” (janb), the mention of the single “shin” (saq), and the mention of the “several hands” (aydi)?
If we take these literally then we must affirm a being that has one face with many eyes, a single side, many hands, and a single shin!
What being on earth is possibly uglier?
And if you take the liberty of interpreting this and that to be dual or singular, then why does Allah not mention it, nor the Prophet, nor the Salaf of the Community?
Ismail Ebrahim Patel
(Harris Hammam of the IA and other Wahhabi/Salafi Forum's)
This Pseudo-Hanbali admits Imam Tabari believed in creation of place yet persists!
This Wahhabi is hell-bent on refuting anything that the Ahlus Sunnah Mutakallimun hold, this topic being one of them, not only does he continue to go down the road of ‘refuting negation of makan’, but he says that some of the early Salaf ascribed makan to Him.
Wahhabis explicit statements in which he says:
that at one point ‘makan’ wasn’t there, but came into being, thus it (makan) being a creation.
In the quotes below he says:
“The most that can be deduced from all of this is that Allah was present when there was no place.”
This is an explicit statement from him saying:
“ Imam Tabari’s quote means that there was NO PLACE when Allah ta’ala was present in pre-eternity.”
Now if he wants to continue with his stubborn rant about ascribing place to Him, then that would mean that He is in creation, as he himself has said at one time or another there was not place, hence it’s a creation.
In the second quote he says:
“when in fact he was clearly referring to pre-creation.
Why did you say ‘is’, which denotes the present tense, when in fact the Khalifah was talking about pre-creation when nothing had been created, including place? Why didn’t you say ‘was’?”
This quote is explicit that the psuedo-hanbali believes makan to be a creation, yet he continues to argue that it’s wrong to negate it and it’s fine to say He is in makan, as his quote “Why didn’t you say ‘was’? implies since he’s arguing that it’s fine to say makan is created, yet it’s ok to say He’s in place now, and we seek refuge in Allah ta’ala from such beliefs.
Imam Ibn Hamdan al-Hanbali on one who says Allah ta’ala in a place!
“Whoever says He is, with His essence, in every place or in a place is a Kafir, because the statement necessitates pre-eternity of place…”
[Nihayatul Mubtadi’in li Ibn Hamdan Pg. 33]
The same ^Wahhabi Devil says:
(edited by ADHM)