Who Attributes Direction to Allah
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 fuquha
(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.
*This is, to our knowledge, the
first of the many refutations of Ibn Taymiyyah by his contemporaries
translated into the English language.
A marvellous refutation,
and one that was preserved and reproduced by
Taqiyud-Din
as-Subki for the Muslims to benefit from some 700 years later.
The
first 94 pages of the introduction of this masterpiece explores all
that was said, in both praise as well as condemnation, of Ibn
Taymiyya.
*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:
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]
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
(and in fact his holding of many Aristotelian views)
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 tajsim (ascribing corporeality to Allah ) and tashbih on pages 80-83.
§ His incredulity of Imam Ahmad’s fatwa on seeking tabarruk with the Grave of the Prophet Muhammad (s)
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 tawassul through the Prophet Muhammad (s) 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!
This
masterpiece includes fatwas and quotes of the contemporaries, not
restricted to Ibn Jahbal as the title professes, of Ibn Taymiyya
refuting his heresies and reviling his bida’ah. It includes fatwa
after fatwa, and reference after reference for the Sunni to show his
pseudo-salafi opponent, most of whom are ignorant of the facts
regarding this figure.
Ibn Taymiyya was in fact
prohibited by the Sunnis from giving fatawa, according to Ibn Rajab
in his Dhayl Tabaqat Al-Hanabilah [see page 36 of this work we are
reviewing].
After the detailed introduction to the
book by the translator, the book is then given an introduction by
Shaykh Wahbi Sulayman Ghawji Al-Albani, a defender of Ahlus Sunnah in
this era, particularly against the evil insinuations brought forth by
the pseudo-salafi and neo-Muqatili movement of our sad time. Shaykh
Wahbi begins his introduction by defining “who” the “salaf”
are.
Quoting Imam Abul Hasan Al-Asha’ri,
“They
are the companions with regards to their sayings and deeds and in
[all the rulings] they interpreted and extracted through their
juridical exertion.” [page 107]
He continues with other
sayings and explanations from giants such as Imam al-Ghazzali,
Khafaji as well as later ‘Ulama’ such as Dr. Buti, a true thorn
in the sides of the pseudo-salafi movement. He discusses the khalaf -
the opposite of the salaf – and their place in Islam as well. The
real fruit of his introduction is his detailed discussion on ta’wil
and its different meanings used within the law, as well as its
establishment amongst the salaf, much to the dismay of the
anti-ta’wil movement that is paid for by oil dollars.
Examples
of its usage:
§ Synonymously with tafsir.
§ General
ta’wil
§ Specific Ta’wil
§ et cetera
He
goes on to quote the explanations of the Shaykh M. Abu Zahra and Imam
Ibn Daqiq al-’Id who argued “if ta’wil is close to the language
of the ‘arabs it is not disapproved…!” [pg 119]
It is
interesting to note that Ibn Daqiq Al-’Id, one the scholars praise
more than ibn Taymiyyah, once met ibn Taymiyyah and disagreed with
his propositions.
He was asked why he didn’t refute him, and
Ibn Daqiq Al-’Id stated that Ibn Taymiyyah loved to talk (kalaam),
whereas Ibn Daqiq Al-’Id didn’t!
In the footnotes Shaykh
Haddad quotes Hafith Ibn Hajr who quotes Ibn Daqiq Al-’Id as
stating the Sunni stance,
“We say concerning the various
Attributes that they are real and true according to the meaning Allah
ta’ala wills for them. As for those who interpret them, we look at
their interpretations: if it is close to the rules of language in use
among the Arabs we do not reject it, and if it is far we relinquish
it and return to basic belief while declaring transcendence.” (pg
119)
One of the most ridiculous beliefs held by Ibn Taymiyya is
that insinuated, as well as refused to deny for Allah , a body
“jism“.
Ibn Jahbal refutes this claim in depth
within his treatise, as well as the many other ridiculous
insinuations and claims of ibn Taymiyyah.
When one
reads what the ‘Ulama’ of his time have said about him – what
they witnessed first hand – one realizes why Ibn Taymiyyah was
imprisoned. The pseudo-salafis would have us believe that it was
because of jealousy by other scholars, a claim they wish were true,
but one realizes very quickly that this was a man who said one thing
and believed another.
He was a man who openly, boastfully even,
contradicted the Ijma’ of the Muslims multiple times without even
taking a second look at the results of what he was saying. In one
moment he repents from his heresies and a few years later his
continues preaching his evil.
This work clearly exposes Ibn
Taymiyyah, not by wishy washy modern scholars, but by the scholars,
masters, and fuquha’ of his era and those after him; the Ibn
Jahbals, As-Subkis, his own students, and many who had befriended him
only to see that his opinions were truly anthropomorphic (Abu Hayyan
for example).
This book is a must read for all English speaking
Muslims.
It details the life of a controversial figure in Muslim
history who has shaped Muslim thought in our era, due to big oil
dollars of course. It reveals views he held that no pseudo-salafi
would dare tell the layman.We recently compiled: an
article regarding Imam An-Nawawi being an Asha’ri.
While
looking through the many biographies, as I checked some 15 different
bios, of Imam An-Nawawi, I found agreement 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 lacking. 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 Ijma‘,
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
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!
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?
Chapter Seven. The Absurdity of His Literalism, pp. 221-223)
from UK
(Harris Hammam of the IA and other Wahhabi/Salafi Forum's)
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. [ 1st quote and 2nd quote]
-------------------------
Note!
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:
Quote:
“Firstly, Janb and Saq are affirmed by us no problem. We stick to the Nass.
Secondly, A’yun and Aydee only come when they are Mudaaf to the plural 1st person pronoun (denoting the Ta’dheem of Allah ). In this case, if the Mudaaf Ilaih is plural by word, the Mudaaf also has to be plural by word. This is the Arabic way of expressing things. It does not mean that Allah has several eyes or hands.
Thirdly, some scholars have said that such verses refer to the angels. This is a strong opinion.
Fourthly, a question (forgive me for my ignorance): Where has Aydee come for Allah ?
Fifthly, who are they to question the kayfiyyah of Allah ’s Jamaal?
Sixthly, these people are the same guys who do not affirm Soorah, Yad and Wajh for Allah as literal attributes as befit His Majesty. I guess they have nothing to look forward to in Jannah in terms of Ru’yah, with Allah outside place and their created gazes confined to space… Absolutely illogical”
---
It is very telling that part of the literalist defense is rebuking others for delving into the kayf (modality, the how) of Allah ’s existence, and how their attitude contradicts the manner of the right-guided Salaf that we affirm these truths without interpretation or we accept a suitable interpretation the reaches beyond what is blatantly “illogical” in contradicting what Allah has said about Himself and commanded us to say about him: namely Surah Ikhlas.
The literalist response at some point often rebukes this by saying, “well, why can’t Allah be however He likes? Why does he have to conform with your own preconceptions about reality” Subhan Allah ! I only recalling here such terms from Trinitarian Christians defending their three-headed Godhead! And yet we see in the Quran that the Trinity is denied and reject through a rational argument that denies the notion of a Trinity (or polytheism) not because Allah doesn’t ‘want to be that way’, but saying that Allah is exalted above it, His Existence is beyond having a consort or son. Despite Allah ’s unfathomable transcendence, the Christians claim that He needed a son to save humanity, and the anthropomorphists say that He has eyes, all the better to see with, my dear.
Sh Hamza Yusuf mentioned something interesting, I think in a talk on Sura Yasin. He mentioned that the first verse he looked for to judge a translation is 42:9. He mentions here that how the translator deals with this verse demonstrates how careful he is with the grammar, because the “wa” of this verse is not one of conjunction (in the same sense of ‘and’) as if to say “There is nothing alike to Him, (yet, despite that) He is the Hearing, the Seeing” — negating that this Hearing and Sight is anything like that of humanity’s. For your information, AJ Arberry (which more people should rely upon) has the verse: Like Him there is naught; He is the All-hearing, the All-seeing.
---
So I wanted to expound on the athar of Al-Hasan Al-Basri where he stated that that the Prophet Muhammad (s) was asked “Where is Allah ?” To which Allah revealed,
وَإِذَا سَأَلَكَ عِبَادِي عَنِّي فَإِنِّي قَرِيبٌ أُجِيبُ دَعْوَةَ ٱلدَّاعِ إِذَا دَعَانِ فَلْيَسْتَجِيبُواْ لِي وَلْيُؤْمِنُواْ بِي لَعَلَّهُمْ يَرْشُدُونَ
And when My slave asks regarding me, [tell him] I am near (Innee qareeb)…
I wrote the following over at ma’rifah:
Yes May Allah bless the brother. It seemed though that some question this chain up to Hasan Al-Basri, which I can not really see how it would be da’if as I read some no name pseudo-salafi claiming. Here is the basic breakdown in brief:
Al-Hasan ibn Yahyah is thiqah, Abdur-Razzaq is thiqah,
The only possible slight defect mentioned by some dumb wahhabi was that Ja’far ibn Sulayman was accused of “Shi’ism”. But we know that the wahhabis are ignorant of what “shi’ism” used to mean – as they think it is the same as the Irani shi’ism of today. It only shows their own stupidity, and I wish they would gain some knowledge on this issue as I am tired of having to trash their ridiculous comments on SeekingIlm.com because of this point!
Ja’far ibn Sulayman [Ad-Duba'i] is Saduq (honest) – and was accused of having some “Shi’ism” in him [grading of Ibn Hajr and was agreed to by Hafith S. Arna'ut] which is common amongst many trustworthy narrators – though many deemed him thiqah as well.
Imam Ahmad had said of him, “There is nothing wrong with him.” It was said to Ahmad that some say his hadith should not be recorded to which Imam Ahmad said, “That is only because he had shi’i tendencies, as he would narrate ahadith regarding the virtues of ‘Ali and the people of Basrah were extreme regarding ‘Ali.” [tahthib at -tahthib]
In other words, Imam Ahmad rejected the notion his hadith should not be narrated and deemed him acceptable!
Ibn Ma’in declared him thiqah. Though ‘Abbas narrates from Ibn Ma’in that he said, ‘Yahya ibn Sa’id did not [deem it fit] to record his narrations’ – in other words he weakened him. Ibn Sa’d said that he was trustworthy, though had weakness in him, and was of a shi’i persuasion. Ibn Hajr quotes Imam ‘Abdu-Razzaq defending him, calling him a virtuous man!
Abu Ahmad declared that his hadith were passable (salih), and that he had ‘many reports, and he was Hasan Al-Hadith, well known for his shi’i tendencies, ‘and I hope that he has nothing wrong with him, and he reported narrations regarding the two shaykhs [i.e. Abu Bakr and Umar] virtues with narrations that are not munkarah … and he is according to me (‘indi), one whose hadith must be accepted!
Ibn Hajr quotes several people as saying that he did not revile the two shaykhs, but that he did have anger towards them. Ibn Hibban basically states that he was of the trustworthy narrators, and that as long as there is not a hadith from that supports his specific madhdhab of bid’ah then his narrations, according to “our Imams of Ahlul Hadith” are to be accepted.
Ibn Al-Madini said of him, “He is thiqah according to us!”
Imam Al-Bazzar said, “And we have not heard a single person disparaging him in his hadith, as there are no mistakes in them, rather they mentioned him due to his shi’i tendencies, and as for his hadith then they are mustaqim (upstanding).”
[All quotes from Hafith Ibn Hajr's Tahthib At-Tahtib entry vol 1. 1106 ihya turath al-arabi]
‘Awf is ‘Awf ibn Abi Jamilah Al-’Arabi who Al-Hafith said is, “thiqah, he delved into Qadr, and had shi’i tendencies.”
It amazes me how some of the ignorant pseudo-salafis can not seem to get their minds around the fact that just because someone has some bida’ah in them, the scholars accepted his hadith as long as his memory was sound and he was virtuous, as Ibn Hibban stated.
This is a man who was criticized for two bida’ahs of his era: shi’i tendencies and Qadari tendencies, yet Imam Ahmad declared him “Thiqah, acceptable hadith!” Ibn Ma’in, “Thiqah!” Abu Hatim, “Saduq, Salih!” An-Nasa’i says about him, “Thiqah, established!” Ibn Sa’d, “Thiqah, he had many hadith!” He also said, “Some of them [scholars of hadith] said that His affair was elevated as he took from Al-Hasan that no other took from him!” Muhammad ibn Abdullah Al-Ansari said, “He was, according to them all, declared established!”
And then there is Al-Hasan Al-Basri (radiya Allahu anhu, wa qaddasa Allahu ruhu) and we all know of his status!
One could argue it is mursal, but such an athar is a proof according to the majority. Furthermore, how would he have known that this question was posited to the Nabi ‘alayhis salam from the Sahabah? They told him of course! Such is why the mursal athar from an established and trustworthy tabi’i, and by Imam Ash-Shafi’i's standard ‘of the elders of the tabi’in’, is accepted!
---
Wahhabi/salafi says:
"If you want to know the answer to the question “Where is Allah ” meaning where is Allah ’s Essence, then see the slave girl hadeeth."
Answer/response:
The Nabi ‘alayhis salam did not say “essence”. You are putting words, and thus meanings, as well as beliefs in a hadith, and for it you are a distorter of the Sunnah! You should fear Allah and remain silent about these narrations as the Salaf did, but instead you delve into them and distort the wordings and the meanings!
He (‘alayhi salam) asked her “where is Allah ”, and she pointed – according to one narrative – to the heavens. In the hadith in Sahih Muslim, which according to some has shadh wording, she says “fis-samaa’”. And there is no proof in this at all that she meant it literally. And the same can be said for the aayah “He is near”, for it is not meant literally either! In this case the Nabi was asked “Where Allah ” was, and he answered, “He is Near!” as commanded by Allah . Allah did not command him to say “in the heavens”, and Allah himself, glorified and exalted above what you claim upon him, has squelched you!
So it is funny how you pseudo-salafis take one literally and not the other – both cases without any clear proof that they should be taken either way! Your response shows clearly that you people interpret the texts away from the words of the Prophet Muhammad (‘alayhis salam)!
---
Imam Ibn Jahbal and his reply to
Ibn Taymiyya’s al Aqida al Hamawiyya on Jiha
The following is an English translation of Imam Ibn Jahbal al-Kilabi's (d. 733 AH) al-Raddu ‘ala Man Qala bil-Jiha published under the title: The Refutation of Him [Ibn Taymiyya] Who Attributes Direction (Jiha) to Allah. The Introduction was by the late Shaykh Wahbi Sulayman Ghawji (d. 2013), and translation and notes by Dr. Gibril Fouad Haddad.
The following is a foreword by Dr. Muhammad Afifi al-Akiti from Oxford, England:
Like the Judaic and Christian theological traditions, the Islamic one also, - arguably with less crassness - faced the problems of scriptural literalism that result in an anthropomorphic theology. As the early (salaf) Muslim community became more sophisticated and began to lead the world in scientific progress - and especially from the time of Islam’s Doctor Angelicus, al-Ghazali (d. 505/1111) - Muslim theologians came to embrace and institutionalize the case for tawil. This was Islam’s systematic solution of the problem, through a canon of figurative interpretation of scripture as a necessary tool of hermeneutics.
Not only did the method of tawil keep anthropomorphism in check through offering a middle way in the understanding of Divine Attributes as limited by human language, but it served to reconcile Divine Scripture with the discoveries afforded by human reason. This legitimization of tawil by the classical ' ulama and its systematic treatment in the Golden Age of Islam made it an established doctrine among Muslim theologians. It became the standard position in later (khalaf) orthodoxy within the Sunni tradition (alongside the formerly dominant, simpler alternative, and utterly unexplainable “non-method”: tafwid) - the cultural milieu that brought forth this work.
This short theological tract, Fi Nafi al-Jiha, or On Denying Direction to God, by the Ash'ari theologian and celebrated Shafi'i jurist, Qadi Ibn Jahbal (d. 733/1333), is a clinical rebuttal of the controversial fatwa, the 'Aqida Hamawiyya, penned by his legendary contemporary, Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328). It is considered, rightly, a classic manifesto of anti-literalism, which embraces the successful pro-tawil Ghazalian theses advocated centuries earlier - to the extent that Ibn al-Subki (d. 771/1370) reproduced the whole of Ibn Jahbal’s work in his magisterial Tabaqat.
The present volume is a special “all-Damascene” edition, which contains the very first (and definitive) English translation of Ibn Jahbal’s Arabic text; completed by an authorized, nay Damascus-trained and native scholar, Shaykh Gibril Fouad Haddad, who possesses the complete and exclusively Dimashqi ijaza going back to the original Damascene author; and supplemented by superb scholarly documentation and a running commentary. The volume includes the Muqaddima of one of Damascus’s senior living Hanafi jurists, Shaykh Wahbi Sulayman Ghawji, which presents an up-to-date explanation of figurative interpretation in Islamic theology The volume is also prefaced by another introduction, which catalogues the problematic positions of the redoubtable Ibn Taymiyya raised by scholars throughout the ages including his own students, regarding which a Dimashqi muhaddith recently quipped: “The mistakes of the great are the greatest mistakes.”
This convenient Collectio Errorum by Shaykh Haddad is not a zero-sum critique. In fact, it will be appreciated for it isolates Ibn Taymiyya’s unquestionably controversial materials from the rest of his vast corpus - thus enabling one to take the good and leave the bad; and this list will be a service to the non-scholar who might want to benefit from reading the works of this prolific Hanbali jurist, one who is now enjoying a greater following and who indeed can be said to be a phenomenon of present-day Islam.
Along with a work by an earlier Hanbali theologian, the Daf Shubah al-Tashbih of Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 597/1200), this medieval contribution by Ibn Jahbal remains one of the most important texts refuting the anthropomorphists of the Muslim world. This will be an indispensable reference for advanced students of Islamic theology, other professional theologians, and modern academics needing primary source materials in English or a source book on the controversies surrounding Ibn Taymiyya’s theology.
This same work embodies, moreover, a contemporary exercise in polemic representing the longstanding views in the conformist tradition of Muslim theology, whether via tawil or tafwid, and whether in the schools of the Ash'aris, Maturidls or Hanbalis. In particular, it pits itself against one of the two opposite non-conformist readings of the Qur’an and Sunna; and in general, it highlights the pitfalls of a literalistic mindset which plagues all scripturally-based religions.
Muhammad Afifi al-Akiti
Research Fellow in Islamic Theology, Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, Oxford University.
CONTENTS
