Examples Of Blatant Anthropomorphism
From The Works Of Famous Hashawiyah the Imam of
Ibn Taymiyyah and his disciple Ibn al-Qayyim
1) Some examples from
‘Uthmān ibn Sa‘īd al-Dārimi’s book which is known popularly as
Note: Who is not to be confused with another al-Dārimi
‘Uthmān ibn Sa‘īd al-Dārimi al-Sijistāni the famous author of the Sunan that bears his name, wrote a book to refute a famous
Mutazalite, Bishr ibn Ghiyāth al-Murīsi (218AH/833CE; Baghdad).
The two represent opposite extremes:
al-Dārami went to such an extreme in affirming the letter of ambiguous texts that he imputed to Allah imperfect attributes: physical attributes, originated and contingent attributes;
al-Murīsi went to such an extreme in denying the letter of ambiguous texts that he rejected texts that ascribed to Allah perfect attributes for the simple reason that human beings are predicated by attributes of the same name such as will, knowledge, power, life, speech, seeing, and hearing.
In the course of refuting Bishr al-Murīsi, al-Dārami sometimes rejects legitimate interpretations (ta‘wīl) that al-Murīsi had indulged in in order to rightly avoid imputing to Allah physical properties and instead of criticizing al-Murīsi for abandoning tafwīd' he condemns him for not asserting the literal outward meaning of the text.
Thus, in a chapter called Bāb al-Nuzūl dedicated to affirmed that Allah descends literally to the lowest heaven at the end of the night, he condemns al-Murīsi for holding that Allah does not descend in person, rather the hadith refer to the descent of His command or the descent of His mercy, which are fair enough interpretations, in fact the last is reported from none a less personage than Imam Malik.
Refuting his interpretation al-Dārimi declares:
هذا التويل أبطل باطل…لأن الحي القيوم يفعل ما يشاء ويتحرك إذا شاء وينزل ويرتفع إذا يشاء ؛ ويقبض ويبسط ويقوم ويجلس إذا يشاء لأن أمارة ما بين الحي والميت التحرك . كل حي متحرك لا محالة . وكل ميت غير متحرك لا محالة .
“This interpretation is the most preposterous interpretation…because the Living the Sustainer does as He wills: he moves as He wills, and He descends and ascends as He wills, and He extends [His hand] as He wills and stands and sits as He wills, for the criterion that distinguishes the living from the dead is movement: every live thing moves of necessity and every dead thing does not move of necessity.”
This passage befits one of the ancient Greeks or a Hindu describing one of the gods of their pantheon not anyone who ascribes to the transcendent religion of Islam.
After quoting this passage in his article Tah'dhīr al-Ummah Min Du‘āt al-Wathaniyah Muhammad Zāhid al-Kauthari remarked:
“This statement does not leave any room to clear him from the charge of tajsīm [anthropomorphism], and tajsīm is idolatry.”
This type of crass anthropomorphism is quite typical of al- Dārimi and we will give several other examples of it; however, I would like to bring to your attention that this blasphemous book had been relegated to oblivion and it was gathering dust in manuscript form in Medinah until the former Imam of the Haram Abd al-Zāhir Abu al-Samah sent a copy of it to the leader of the Salafis in Egypt in his day, Muhammad Hāmid al-Faqi, requesting him to publish it as al-Faqi recounts in his introduction to its first publication.
In fact, al-Faqi procrastinated in publishing it until as he says distinguished ulama from Najd (the heartland of Saudi Arabia) and students from Makkah and Medinah pressed him saying that the book would benefit the people greatly until they prevailed upon him to publish it.
Since it was first published in Egypt it has been published and republished in various editions in Saudi Arabia and is widely circulated and highly regarded by those who call themselves “Salafis” today.
In fact, Muhammad al-Faqi quoted a glowing tribute to the work by Ibn al-Qayyim, the disciple of Ibn Taimiyah, in the inside cover of the first publication and in the copy published in Pakistan in 1402AH/1982CE:
النقض على بشر المريسي والرد على الجهمية – من أجل الكتب المصنفة في السنة وأنفعها وينبغي لكل طالب سنة , مراده الوقوف على ما كان عليه الصحابة والتابعين والأئمة أن يقرأ كتابيه . وكان شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية رحمه الله يوصي بهما أشد الوصية ، ويعظمها جدا ، وفيهما من تقرير التوحيد والأسماء والصفات بالعقل والنقل ما ليس في غيرهما . —الإمام ابن القيم رحمه الله في كتابه اجتماع الجيوش الإسلامية أهـ
“Al-Naqd ‘alā Bishr al-Murīsi and al-Radd al-Jahmiyah [two books by al-Dārimi] are among the greatest books ever written about the sunnah [that is, belief] and the most beneficial and it behoves every student of the sunnah who desires to learn what the Companions and Followers and the imams used to believe to read his two books.
Shaikh al-Islam Ibn Taimiyah, may Allah show him mercy, used to recommend this book in the extreme, and he used to extol it greatly. In these two books tauheed and the names and attributes are discussed according to rational proofs and transmitted texts in a way that is not to be found in other then them. - Imam Ibn al-Qayyim in his book: Ijtima‘ al-Juyoosh al-Islaamiyah”
So you see Ibn al-Qayyim clearly declares that he fully agrees with whatever al-Darimi has to say in his two books and he testifies that his shaikh Ibn Taimiyah also agrees with whatever al-Darimi says!
In fact they both exalt him as an imam in the field of ‘aqeedah and encourage everyone to study his books and to learn from him.
Imam al-Kauthari was in Cairo when Naqd al-Daarimi was first published.
He observed that now the so-called “Salafis” had shown their true colours and he quoted a famous Arab proverb:
“Baraaqish has offended against herself.”
The proverb refers to a lamb that was gambolling about while her owner was looking for his knife in order to slaughter it but he could not find it anywhere until the lamb whose name was Baraaqish kicked it up from under the dirt whereupon her owner picked it up and slaughtered her.
The proverb is sited in situations where one incriminates oneself or undoes oneself. Before the likes of this book were published people assumed that the pseudo-Salafis did not actually mean tashbeeh although what they said sometimes sounded a lot like it and that because they often say things like “without implying tashbīh” or “in a way that befits His majesty” and “without attributing to him any properties (bi laa kaif)” and so on.
However, when they come right out and commit themselves to clear-cut anthropomorphism then such apologies do not avail them anything just as a person who calls you stupid and then says “But I don’t mean to insult you” doesn’t mitigate his offense against you by adding these empty words.
Al-Dārimi in a chapter called Bāb al-Hadd wa al-‘Arsh remonstrates with al-Murīsi for denying that Allah Ta‘āla has a limit and an end and al- Dārimi plainly and expressly states that Allah Ta‘āla has a limit and a location and he insists on it:
قال أبو سعيد : و ادعي المعارض أيضا أنه ليس لله حد ولا غاية ولا نهاية . و هذا الأصل الذي بنى عليه جهم جميع ضلالته . وأشتق منه أغلوطاته . وهي كلمة لم يبلغنا أنه سبق جهما أحد من العالمين . فقال له قائل ممن حاوره : قد علمت مرادك أيها الأعجمي ، وتعني أن الله لا شيء لأن الخلق كلهم علموا أنه ليس شيء يقع عليه اسم الشيء إلا وله حد وغاية وصفة . وأن لا شيء ليس حد ولا غاية . و "لا حد له" يعنى أنه لاشيء . قال أبو سعيد : والله تعالى له حد لا يعلمه أحد غيره . و لا يجوز لأحد أن يتوهم لحده غاية في نفسه . ولكن نؤمن بالحد . ونكل علم ذلك إلى الله . والمكانة أيضا حد ، وهو على عرشه قوق سمواته . فهذان حدان اثنتان .
“Abu Sa‘eed [al- Dārimi] declares: The opposition [al-Murīsi] claims that Allah does not have any limit or extremity or end. In fact this basic point was the basis of all Jahm’s [ibn Safwān (128 / 745), a notorious heretic] deviation and it is the source of all his captious [deceptive] arguments. We have not heard that anyone in the world before Jahm maintained this doctrine. Someone who debated with him objected to him [presumably he means Jahm, although it is possible he means Bishr] saying:
O foreigner [literally O non-Arab], I have understood what you mean to say: you mean that Allah is not a thing because everybody knows that anything that can be called a “thing” has to have a limit and an extremity and an attribute and anything that is not a “thing” does not have any limit or extremity. So your saying “He has no limit” means that He is not a thing.
Abu Sa‘eed [al-Daarimi] declares: Allah Ta‘aala has a limit that nobody knows other than Him and it is not permitted that anybody should himself imagine the extremity of his limit. Nonetheless, we do believe that He has a limit and we consign the knowledge of it to Allah. Furthermore, location also necessitates a limit and He is above [or on] His Throne [literally, physically] over [or above] the skies and these are two limits.”
Although Bishr al-Mureesi was greatly misguided, he was certainly right in maintaining that Allah Ta‘aala does not have a location or a limit or end because these are the attributes of bodies and originated phenomena not the attributes of the eternal and necessary being for whatever has an originated attribute that is necessarily originated and in need of an originator.
Al-Dārimi makes the mistake that all Hashawiyah make; namely, he applies the concomitants of originated things to the originator without realizing that they don’t apply.
Just because Allah Ta‘aala exists does not mean that He exists as originated things exist just as the fact that He is indeed a thing, and not nothing, does not imply that He is like all other things; rather, He is a thing like no other thing.
The inference he makes about nothing having no limit or end and so whatever has no limit or no end is nothing is clearly fallacious; it’s a non sequitur, or just call it a stupidity. What he is in effect claiming is that A is not B and B is not C, therefore A is C.
According to his logic since a turkey is not a bicycle pump and rubber ball is not a bicycle pump therefore a turkey is a bicycle pump.
Nothing, which is another way of saying not anything, does not have any being and so of course it has no attributes; Allah Ta‘aala on the other hand is a necessary and eternal being and so He possesses eternal and perfect attributes and He alone possesses them.
Al-Daarimi would have Him share with the things He has created some of their attributes and that is the essence of shirk.
Let us recall what Imam al-Tahaawi said in his al-‘Aqeedah al-Tahaawiyah:
Whoever describes Allah, the Exalted, by any human characteristic has disbelieved, so whoever realizes this takes heed, and refrains from saying [about Allah] what the unbelievers say, recognizing that His attributes do not resemble those of human beings.
Al-Tahaawi here proclaims that anthropomorphism (tajseem, or tashbeeh), which involves ascribing to Allah any physical or originated and contingent attribute, is unbelief. Indeed, anthropomorphism is the antithesis of transcendence (tanzeeh), which is the foundation of correct belief. Whoever fails to comprehend the transcendence of Allah has no real knowledge of Allah.
Imam al-Tahaawi elsewhere in his short treatise expressly denied that Allah Ta‘aala can be described by physical attributes like limit and bounds. I will quote him along with the explanatory interpolations within square brackets made by Abd al‑Ghani al-Maidaani al-Ghunaimi (d. 1298 / 1881; Damascus) in his commentary of al-‘Aqeedah al‑Tahaaweeyah:
[Know that] whoever does not refrain from denying the transcendent attributes of Allah (ta‘teel / تعطيل), and does not refrain from ascribing to Him attributes which resemble the attributes of created things (tashbeeh / تشبيه) [as do the anthropomorphists (al-mujassimah)] deviates, and fails to comprehend the meaning of transcendence (tanzeeh). Verily, our Lord, who is great and exalted [that is, surpasses all that does not befit Him], is characterized by the attributes of uniqueness (al‑wahdaaneeyah / الوحدانية), and described by the traits of singularity (al-fardaaneeyah / الفردانية). Nothing He has created resembles Him. He is far above [and untouched by all originated characteristics including] limits (al-hudood / الحدود), bounds (al-ghaayaat / الغايات), props (al-arkaan / الأركان), and instruments (al‑adawaat / الأدوات). The six directions do not encompass Him (Laa tahweehi al-jihatu al-sittu / لا تحويه الجهة الست), nor do any other originated qualities (al‑mubtada‘at / المبتدعات) apply to Him.
Muhammad Zaahid al-Kauthari (1371 / 1952; Cairo), the former Deputy-Grand Mufti just before the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, and the greatest defender of the Islamic principle of the divine uniqueness (al‑tauheed) in the past century, quoted in his article ‘Aqeedah al-Tanzeeh ‘Abd al-Qaahir al‑Baghdaadi (429 h. / 1037), one of Islam’s great authorities on belief, and a renowned specialist in heresiology (al‑firaq) [that is, the study of the heretical sects of Islam, their history, their beliefs, their polemics, their founders and their important spokesmen]:
The Imam Abu Mansoor ‘Abd al-Qaahir al-Baghdaadi said in his book Usool al-Deen which is generally known among the learned as al-Tabsirah al‑Baghdaadiyah (p. 337) after proclaiming “those who liken any attribute of God to something in His creation (al‑mushabbihah / المشبهة) to be idolaters (‘ibaad al‑authaan, عباد الأوثان)”:
As for the anthropomorphists (mujassimah / مجسمة) of Khuraasaan from among the Karraamiyah, declaring them to be unbelievers is obligatory [for every Muslim] because they hold that Allah has a limit, and an extremity beneath Him by which He contacts His Throne, and because they hold that Allah is the site of occurrences, and that He sees things by an act of vision which occurs in Him, and likewise, [because they claim that] He perceives what He hears by a perception which occurs to Him, and were it not for the occurrence of those perceptions, He would not perceive sound or sight. Indeed, they deny themselves the proof of the unitarians [al‑muwahhidoon / الموحدون] that bodies are originated; namely, [the proof of that is] the fact that occurrences take place in bodies. According to their fundamentals (usool), it can not be shown that the world is originated, and so they are left with no way to recognize the Maker of the world. Consequently, they remain ignorant of Him.
[‘Abd al-Qaahir al-Baghdaadi] mentioned in his book al-Asmaa’ wa ’l-Sifaat:
إن الأشعري وأكثر المتكلمين قالوا بتكفير كل مبتدع كانت بدعته كفرا أو أدت إلى كفر كمن زعم أن لمعبوده صورة أو أن له حدا ونهاية أو أنه يجوز عليه الحركة والسكون . ولا إشكال لذي لب في تكفير الكرامية مجسمة خراسان في قولهم إن الله جسم له حد ونهاية من تحته وإنه مماس لعرشه وإنه محل الحوادث وإنه يحدث فيه قوله وإرادته أهــ
Indeed, Abu al-Hasan al-Ash‘ari [(d. 324AH / 936CE; Baghdad) the supreme imam of orthodox Muslims in the field of beliefs and al-tauheed], and most experts in orthodox belief and its proof and defense (al‑mutakallimun) insisted on the unbelief of every sectarian (mubtadi‘) whose heresy was in itself outright unbelief, or directly implied unbelief as, for example, whoever held that what he worshipped had an image (soorah), or a limit (hadd), or extremity (nihaayah), or that [what he worshipped] might move or be still. There is no difficulty for anybody who has a mind to comprehend the unbelief of the Karraamiyah, the anthropomorphists (al-mujassimah) of Khuraasaan, for claiming that He, the Transcendent, is a body, and has a limit, and an extremity underneath Him, and that He contacts His throne, and that He is the site of occurrences, and that speech and will recur to Him again and again, [whereas the truth of the matter is that His speech and His will are pre-eternal (azali / أزلي)].
Al-Kauthari remarked in Khutūrah al-Qaul bi al-Jihah after quoting the above passage from ‘Abd al-Qāhir al‑Baghdādi that all the above is to be found in Naqd al-Dārimi and then al-Kauthair reminded us of the lofty stature of ‘Abd al-Qāhir:
The learned appreciate the exalted rank of Abu al-Mansoor [‘Abd al-Qaahir al‑Baghdaadi] in the science of belief (usool al-deen). Indeed, he was a student of Abu Ishaaq al‑Isfaraayeeni [d. 418 / 1027], the student of Abu al‑Hasan al-Baahili , the disciple of Abu al‑Hasan al‑Ash‘ari [the universally acclaimed imaam in the field of beliefs].
Following the citation of ‘Abd al-Qaahir al-Baghdaadi which we quoted previously, al‑Kauthari continued:
Similar denunciations [of such anthropomorphic heresies (tajseem, or tashbeeh)] are frequently met with in al‑Irshaad and al-Shaamil by Imam al-Haramain [al-Juwaini], al‑Tamheed by [al-Qadi Abu Bakr] al-Baaqillaani, al-Qawaasim wa ’l-‘Awaasim by Abu Bakr ibn al-‘Arabi, Daf‘ Shubah al-Tashbeeh by [Abu al-Faraj] ibn al-Jauzi, and works by other luminaries of Islam. I have had occasion to mention their statements [in condemnation of anthropomorphism] in my writings. All of the above literature is in circulation.
Having reminded ourselves of the seriousness of ascribing physical properties to Allah Ta‘aala let us continue to examine some further examples of al-Daarimi’s anthropomorphism.
Elsewhere in his refutation of al-Mureesi he makes this perverse claim:
وقد اتفقت كلمة من المسلمين والكافرين أن الله في السماء وحدوه بذلك .
“The Muslims and unbelievers are agreed that Allah is in the sky and they attributed that limit to Him.”
Then in a section dedicated to establishing that Allah literally has a hand he perversely insists that He created Adam with His hand touching him in the process:
وولى خلق آدم بيده مسيسا / “He undertook to create Adam with His hand by touching him.”
That was too much even for Muhammad al-Faqi, the pseudo-Salafi editor of the book, but his only objection made in a footnote was that the word “touching” and “touch” had not been mentioned in the Qur’an or sunnah and so we are bound to restrict ourselves to saying that He created Adam with His hand but that we don’t know the manner of action (al-kaifiyah) is unknown to us.
Here we have to be alert to what he means: it might seem to the superficial observer that what al-Faqi is doing is consigning the meaning of the text to Allah and that is tafweed that the early Muslims were agreed about its legitimacy; however, that is not the case.
Al-Faqi like the rest of the pseudo-Salafis maintains that the literal meaning is implied but that the details of His hand and what He did and how He did are unknown to us; that he means this is made clear by his affirming that there is a manner (kaifiyah).
The correct position, the position of the early Muslims and the position of orthodox Muslims is that Allah Ta‘aala has no kaifiyah, that is no mode of existence, for He is not a body and has no physical properties; He exists without a mode and without a cause, for His existence is necessary not contingent.
When orthodox ulama mean affirm something of Allah and add the words bi laa kaif, which should be translated as “without any mode of existence” not inanely as “without any how,” they mean to preclude that we should understand from their words or from the words of the Qur’an or sunnah that any originated or contingent attribute or any physical property is being attributed to Allah Ta‘aala.
That is why Imam Malik in the report of Abd Allah ibn Wahb says:
ولا يقال كيف والكيف عنه مرفوع / “We do not ask how, for mode of existence does not apply to him.”
Elsewhere al-Daarimi makes it very clear what he means when he says that Allah is in the sky, for he objects to al-Mureesi who rightly maintains that the top of a mountain is not closer to Allah than the bottom of it, and then he insists that the top of the mountain is closer to Allah than the bottom of it:
فقال : ألا ترى أنه من صعد الجبل لا يقال أنه أقرب إلى الله . فيقال لهذا المعارض المدعي ما لا علم به : من أنبأك أن رأس الجبل ليس بأقرب إلى الله من أسفله لأن من آمن بأن الله فوق عرشه فوق سمواته علم يقينا أن رأس الجبل أقرب إلى السماء من أسفله ، وأن السماء السابعة أقرب إلى عرش الله من السادسة ، والسادسة أقرب إليه من الخامسة ثم كذلك إلى الأرض . كذلك روى إسحاق بن إبراهيم الحنظلي عن ابن المبارك أنه قال : رأس المنارة أقرب إلى الله من أسفله ، وصدق ابن المبارك . لأن كل ما كان إلى السماء أقرب كان إلى الله أقرب ، وقرب الله إلى جميع خلقه أقصاهم وأدناهم واحد لا يبعد عن شيء من خلقه . وبعض الخلق أقرب إليه من بعض على نحو ما فسرنا من أمر السموات والأرض ، وكذلك قرب الملائكة من الله . فحملة العرش أقرب إليه من جميع الملائكة الذين في السماء السابعة .
“He [al-Murīsi] said: “Don’t you see that you cannot say that whoever went up on a mountain is closer to Allah.” It should be said to this objector who claims that about which he has no knowledge: Who told you that the top of the mountain is not nearer to Allah than the bottom of it? Because those who believe that Allah is above His Throne and above His skies know for certain that the top of the mountain is closer to the sky than the bottom of it and that the seventh sky is closer to the Throne of Allah than the sixth, and that the sixth is closer to it than the fifth and so on down to the earth. Similarly, Ishāq ibn Ibrahīm al-Hanzali [ibn Rahaweh (d. 238)] reported that Ibn al-Mubārak said: “The top of the minaret is closer to Allah than the bottom of it.” Ibn al-Mubārak told the truth for whatever is closer to the sky is closer to Allah. Notwithstanding, Allah is close to all His creation the near and the far and He is not far away from anything in His creation. Yet some of His creation is closer to Him than other as we explained about the skies and the earth. Likewise, with His angels, for the bearers of the Throne are closer to Him than all the [other] angels that are in the seventh sky.”
Al-Dārimi presumed that he
إن كرسيه وسع السموات والأرض وإنه ليقعد عليه فما يفضل منه إلا قدر إربع أصابع - و مدّ أصابعه الأربع .
“Verily, His chair can hold the skies and the earth, and verily He sits down on it and there is no space left over in it except the space of four fingers,” and he extended his four fingers.
I wish to quote one more example of al-Dārimi’s unholy stupidity.
In the course of denouncing Bish al-Murīsi for denying that Allah is physically located on or over the Throne, al-Dārimi shows himself as a thoroughgoing anthropomorphist:
وقد بلغنا أنهم حين حملوا العرش وفوقه الجبار في عزته وبهائه ضعفوا عن حمله واستكانوا وجشوا على ركبهم حتي لقنوا لا حول ولا قوة إلا بالله ، فاستقلوا به بقدرة الله وإرادته . لو لا ذلك ما استقل به العرش ، ولا الحملة ولا السموات ولا الأرض ولا من فيهن . ولو قد شاء لاستقر على ظهر بعوضة فاستقلت به بقدرته ولطف ربوبيته . فكيف على عرش عظيم أكبر من السموات السبع والأرضين السبع ؟ وكيف تنكر أيها النفاج أن عرشه يقله والعرش أكبر من السموات السبع والأرضين السبع ؟
“We have heard that when they [the angels that bear the Throne] lifted up the Throne and on it was the Almighty in His majesty and glory they were too weak to carry it and they began to yield and they fell to their knees until they were inspired to say “There is no power and no strength but in Allah” whereupon they were able to bear Him by the power of Allah and His will. Were it not for that the Throne would not have been able to support Him, nor the bearers [of the Throne], nor the skies, nor the earth, nor those in them [the skies and the earth]. If He had wished to rest on the back of a mosquito, it would be able to support Him by His power and the grace of His lordship. So what do you think about the mighty Throne that is greater than the seven skies and seven earths? And how can you deny, O bigmouth [he is referring to al-Murīsi], that the Throne can support Him when the Throne is bigger than the seven skies and the seven earths?
Just look at what he says! It is as abominable and blasphemous as it is stupid!
After quoting this piece of idolatrous rant Imam al-Kauthari remarked:
That is what he has to say about Allah who I declare to transcend all defect and imperfection! [According to his way of thinking] it is as if His resting on the back of a mosquito is a decided and matter and one [universally] received, so that one may proceed to prove from it the admissibility of His, exalted is He, resting on the Throne that is wider than the back of a mosquito! He is far above all that [since He is not a body and does not occupy space]! I do not know of any human being that uttered such blather as this before this Sijzi [that is a person from Sijistān] and that Harrāni [Ibn Taimiyah] who took him [that is, al-Dārimi] as his imam and their followers [he is referring snidely to the Salafis]. And who does not know that the will [of Allah] does not involve what is impossible? That [the demonstrative refers to al-Dārimi’s statement that if He wanted He could alight on the back of a mosquito] is like saying that if He wanted He could eat or drink or marry or create the likes of Himself and such other impossibilities that Allah is far above.,
It behoves us to bear in mind the point that al-Kauthari makes here: if al-Dārimi is the professed imam of Ibn Taimiyah in the field of belief and Ibn Taimiyah is the professed imam in the field of belief of those who call themselves Salafis then they must agree with al-Dārimi’s views and advocate them.
Or are we supposed to imagine that neither the Salafis know what their imam preached nor did Ibn Taimiyah know what his imam preached?
The truth of the matter is that they believe what al-Dārimi believed but they are usually a little more circumspect in how they phrase things because they know if they come out with it and speak in unequivocal terms they will court the wrath and censure of orthodox Muslims.
However, for one who knows how it is an easy matter to cut through their seemingly innocuous circumlocutions and unmask the hideous face of their stark anthropomorphism.
For example, when they go on about Allah supposedly ascending the Throne in a way that befits His majesty,
one can ask them if He is located somewhere and if so can one point to Him and if so are those in the air closer to Him than those on the ground?
And when they go on about Him supposedly having two eyes literally then one can ask them if they are located on His face and if He sees with them?
If they don’t refuse to answer be ready for a shock!
Apparently some have tried to inanely to defend al-Dārimi’s statement above by claiming that he was just giving an example. Rather than trying to defend him they should have cared more about the majesty and transcendence of Allah.
فَلا تَضْرِبُوا لِلَّهِ الْأَمْثَالَ “Do not make comparisons of Allah (16:74).”
Although Allah is free to make whatever comparisons He likes we are not free to compare Him to anything for that is the essence of shirk.
2) Some examples of clear-cut tashbīh from the writings of
As we mentioned Ibn Taimiyah held al-Dārimi in highest regard and considered him an imam in the field of belief so it is to be expected that Ibn Taimiyah preached the same revulsive tashbīh and indeed that is just what we find.
Consider this passage from Ibn Taimiyah’s Bayān Muwāfaqah Sarīh al-Ma‘qūl li Sahīh al-Manqūl:
الحي القيوم يفعل ما يشاء ويتحرك إذا شاء ويهبط ويرتفع إذا شاء ويقبض ويبسط ويقوم ويجلس إذا شاء لأن أمارة ما بين الحي والميت التحرك كل حي متحرك لا محالة وكل ميت غير متحرك لا محالة .
“The Living the Sustainer does what He wishes and moves when He wishes and descends and ascends when He wishes and grasps and extends and stands and sits when He wishes, for the difference between what is alive and what is dead is movement: whatever is alive moves inevitably and whatever is dead does not move inevitably.”
As you can see Ibn Taimiyah follows his imam in attributing to Allah every type of movement. He arrives at this unholy doctrine by inferring from the movement of living animals that Allah who also is alive must also move.
This is the quintessence of shirk: ascribing to Allah the attributes of other than He.
Al-Kauthari in an article he named Fithah al-Mujassimah wa Sunoof Makaazeehim (“The heresy/temptation of the anthropomorphists and some examples of their blasphemous/offensive statements”)
(p. 319, Karachi edition) quoted a number of statements of Ibn Taimiyyah which are clear-cut and undeniable tajseem from Ibn Taimiyyah’s book that he said was called al-Ta’sees fi Radd Asaas al-Taqdees.
Ibn Taimiyyah wrote this book which is better known by the name Bayaan Talbees al-Jahmiyyah fi Ta’sees al-Bida‘ al-Kalamiyyah or Naqd Ta’sees al-Jahmiyyah attempting to refute Imam Fakhr al-Raazi’s Asaas al-Taqdees which al-Razi (606AH / 1210; CE) wrote in refutation of the anthropomorphism of the Hashawiyyah of his day.
Ibn Taimiyyah and other Hashawiyyah typically refer to the Asharites by the extremely pejorative name al-Jahmiyyah insinuating that they continue the heresies of Jahm ibn Safwaan (d. 128AH / 745CE) who was put to death for his odious heresies and who left no followers to continue his blasphemies.
When al-Kauthari wrote the article referred to above al-Ta’sees existed only in manuscript; however, in 1391 h. it was published in Makkah in two volumes while a second edition was published in Riyadh in 1421 h. in Riyadh. The second edition is merely a copy of the first which was edited by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Rahman ibn Qaasim. I am in possession of a copy of the second edition, so I will locate the texts that al-Kauthari cites and mention their places in footnotes.
Ibn Taimiyyah declared in two different places in his Bayaan Talbees al-Jahmiyyah:
ولو قد شاء لاستقل على ظهر بعوضة فاستقلت به بقدرته ولطف ربوبيته ، فكيف على عرش عظيم أكبر من السموات السبع والأرضين السبع اهــ
“If He wanted He could board/get on the back of a mosquito and it would hold Him up/carry Him by His power and the gracefulness of His Lordship; so what about a great throne greater than the seven heavens and the seven earths?
فمن المعلوم أن الكتاب والسنة والإجماع لم تنطق بأن الأجسام كلها محدثة ، وأن الله ليس بجسم ، ولا قال ذلك إمام من أئمة المسلمين ، فليس في تركي لهذا القول خروج عن الفطرة ولا عن الشريعة اهــ
“It is well-known that neither the Book nor the sunnah has declared [expressly] that all bodies are originated and that Allah is not a body; furthermore, no imam of the Muslims has declared that; therefore, in my refusing this opinion [that is, that all bodies are originated and that Allah is not a body] I do not thereby depart from the fitrah [natural theology or religious opinion based on common sense and a natural or instinctive intuition] or from the shariah.”
Al-Kauthari replied to this enormity saying:
وهذه وقاحة بالغة ، أين ذهبت آيات التنزيه ؟ ولعله ينتظر أن ينص على كل سخافة يراها سخيف ، ألم يكف قوله تعالى : ليس كمثله شيء ؟ أم يبيح أن يقول يأكل هذا ويمضغ هذا ويذوق هذا لأنها لم تذكر ؟ وهذا وهو الكفر المكشوف والتجسيم الصريح اهــ
This is brazen impudence! Where did all the verses declaring Allah’s transcendence go to? Does he expect a text to deny expressly ever stupid allegation any stupid fool might come up with? Do not the words [of the Qur’an] لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ / “nothing is like Him (42:11)” suffice [to repudiate all such stupid allegations]? Does he maintain that it is permissible to profess that He eats this and chews that and tastes this because there is no text to the contrary? Nay, [what he claims here] is out-and-out unbelief and clear-cut tajseem!
He quoted him from another place in the same book:
قلتم ليس هو بجسم ولا جوهر ولا متحيز ولا جهة له ولا يشار إليه بحس ولا يتميز منه شيء من شيء ، وعبرتم عن ذلك بأنه تعالى ليس بمنقسم ولا مركب وأنه لا حد له ولا غاية ، تريدون بذلك أنه يمتنع عليه أن يكون له حد وقدر أو يكون له قدر لا يتناهي ، فكيف ساغ لكم هذا النفي بلا كتاب ولا سنة اهــ
“You [he is making here a rhetorical address to al-Razi] have said that He is not a body nor a jauhar [a point which has location but no extension] and is not located [in place (haiz)] and that He has no direction and that one may not physically point to Him and that one part of Him is not separate from another part and you declared that He, exalted is He, is not divisible and not compounded and that He has no limit and no end by which you mean that He it is impossible that he have a limit or size/measure or that He have an infinite size/measure. Now I ask you: By what rights have you denied these things without having any [text from the] Book or sunnah?”
Al-Kauthari replied to this blasphemous stupidity saying:
ويغني ذكاء المطلع عن التعليق على هذه الكلمات الإلحادية ، وهل يتصور لمارق أن يكون أصرح من هذا بين قوم مسلمين ؟
The intelligence of the reader spares me having to make any comment on these words of unbelief! Can any who are numbered among the Muslim people conceive that any person who has left the religion could be more explicit [in tajseem] than this?
Ibn Taimiyyah repeatedly harangues those who deny that Allah occupies place or that He has a limit and direction and so on alleging that they have no source for such a denial from the Book or the sunnah when in fact all the verses and hadith that bespeak Allah’s transcendent uniqueness (tauheed) are explicit texts denying that Allah has such properties; perhaps the most frequently quoted text in this connection is لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ / “and nothing is like Him (42:11).” This text and those like it categorically deny that Allah has any attribute like any other existent and since all existents other than Allah are originated and contingent it follows of necessity that Allah does not have any originated or contingent attribute.
Is it to be expected after this that Allah list all the originated and contingent attributes and deny that He has such an attribute one by one?
For example, Allah is not red; Allah does not have curly hair; Allah does not have a body temperature or blood pressure and so on ad infinitum.
The fact that Ibn Taimiyyah is asking for such texts and thinking that he has a clever argument by which he has cornered the Asharite ulama puts in dramatic relief how really blind and ignorant Ibn Taimiyyah was in the field of ‘aqeedah; even laymen have a better grasp of basic issues of ‘aqeedah than Ibn Taimiyyah.
He is able to fool the common people and those who have but a smattering of knowledge with his grandiose and pretentious dialectic, but his ignorance and blasphemy is apparent to the truly learned.
Then al-Kauthari quoted Ibn Taimiyyah from another place in Bayaan Talbees al-Jahmiyyah:
ومن المعلوم بالاضطرار أن اسم الواحد في كلام الله لم يقصد به سلب الصفات—يريد ما يشمل المجيء ونحوه—ولا سلب إدراكه بالحواس ، ولا نفي الحد والقدر ونحو ذلك من المعاني التي ابتدع نفيه الجهمية واتباعهم ولا يوجد نفيها في كتاب ولا سنة اهــ
“It is known of necessity that the name “the One” in the speech of Allah does not imply the negation of the attributes [Al-Kauthari interpolates here: he means by attributes what includes the likes of “coming” and so on] and the negation of perceiving [Him] with the senses and the negation of limit and extent/measure [with respect to Allah] and meanings likes of that which [properties] the Jahmiyyah [he means Asharites as I explained above] and their followers heretically denied [could be attributes of Allah], and the denial of them is not to be found in the Book and sunnah.”
Al-Kauthari contented himself with remarking here, “This [statement] is just as explicit [in tajseem and unbelief] as the previous one.” Those who have had to undertake the unpleasant task of poring over Ibn Taimiyyah’s writings to find examples of his heretical statements learn that when Ibn Taimiyyah starts off saying “it is well-known” or “it is known of necessity” that he is preparing a big one—that is an enormous blasphemy and an outrageous departure from the principles of Islam. Keep in mind that there is no authority from the Book or sunnah for calling such ascriptions as “coming” and “hand” and “eyes” and “ascension” and “descent” where applied to Allah attributes; indeed as Ibn al-Jauzi insists calling such ascriptions “attributes” is a deviant innovation. An attribute subsists in the being of a thing so must be appropriate for that being; thus, if the being is a contingent one the attribute must be contingent and if the being is the necessary being the attribute must be necessary. Ibn Taimiyyah and the rest of the Hashawiyyah insist on attributing to Allah attributes that are incontestably contingent and originated and for this reason imperfections as far as the necessary being is concerned.
Al-Kauthari again quoted from Ibn Taimiyyah’s Bayaan Talbees al-Jahmiyyah:
أن العرش في اللغة السرير بالنسبة إلى ما فوقه وكالسقف بالنسبة إلى ما تحته فإذا كان القرآن قد جعل لله عرشا وليس هو بالنسبة إليه كالسقف علم أنه بالنسبة إليه كالسرير بالنسبة إلى غيره وذلك يقتضي أنه فوق العرش اهـ
“Al-‘arsh / “the throne” in Arabic is a seat with respect to what is above it and like a ceiling with respect to what is below it, so since the Qur’an has referred to Allah a throne and that [throne] is [presumably] not like a ceiling to Him it is known that it must be with respect to Him as a seat is to others and that means that He must be above the Throne.”
Al-Kauthari remarked that the Throne then for Ibn Taimiyyah is His seat. We seek refuge in Allah from attributing to Him such blasphemy!
Next al-Kauthari sited some examples from Ibn Taimiyyah’s Bayaan Muwaafiqah Sareeh al-Ma‘qool li Saheeh al-Manqool, which was first published on the margin of the first publication of Minhaaj al-Sunnah:
وصرح في "موافقة المعقول" له في هامش منهاجه (2-75) بقيام الحوادث بالله سبحانه ، وصرح في منهاجه (1-264) بأنه تعالى في الجهة على التقديرين . وقد علمت قول الإئمة فيمن يثبت لله جهة قاصدا معناها بدون أن يكون تلفظه بها من قبيل سبق اللسان أو سبق القلم . وإثبات الحركة له تعالى مع المثبتين في موافقة المعقول في هامش المنهاج (2-26) وفي
“He stated explicitly in his Muwaafiq al-Ma‘qool on the margin of [the publication] of his Minhaaj al-Sunnah, vol. 2, p. 75, that occurrences (hawaadith) take place in Allah who transcends all imperfection and he stated explicitly in his Minhaaj al-Sunnah, vol. 1, p. 264, that Allah “in either case has a direction” and you learned that the opinion of the imams concerning anyone who attributes to Allah a direction intending its meaning rather than uttering it by a slip of the tongue or writing that by a slip of the pen.
Furthermore, he affiliated himself with those who attribute to Allah movement by affirming that He moves in his Muwaafiqah al-Ma‘qool, vol. 2, p. 26 [I cited the text of this reference above as the first example of this section] and vol. 2, p. 13.
And as for his doctrine in denial of the [truth that the unbelievers will] abide eternally in the Fire, the reports of that have filled the world [and in fact he has a book on the subject which has been published], and likewise his doctrine that the world is eternal in kind [that is, the world always existed in infinite regression]. In respect to this last doctrine refer to what he has said in his Naqd Maraatib al-Ijmaa’ p. 169.”
The opinion of the imams referred to here is presumably a reference to citations al-Kauthari made in some of his previous articles among which I find the following statement in his article Khutoorah al-Qaul bi al-Jihah Fadlan ‘an al-Qaul bi al-Tajseem al-Sareeh:
“The opinion that Allah, exalted is He, has a direction is kufr in the opinion of the four imams, the guides of the ummah, as al-‘Iraqi affirmed according to what [Mulla] ‘Ali al-Qaari said in his commentary on Mishkaat al-Masaabeeh.”
What al-Kauthari has referred to as a “slip” is certainly not the case of Ibn Taimiyyah for his statements are premeditated and in full cognizance of the fact that the main community of the ulama of this blessed ummah hold the attribution of direction to Allah to be unbelief. Rather, “slip” is what typically occurs when the common people are surprised by the blasphemous question of where is Allah and answer in confusion “He is everywhere I guess.
In his Muwaafaqah, vol. 2, p. 29, Ibn Taimiyyah writes:
والله تعالى له حدّ لا تعلمه أحد غيره ولا يجوز لأحد أن يتوهم لحده غاية في نفسه ولكن يؤمن بالحد ويكل علم ذلك إلى الله ، ولمكانه أيضا حد وهو على عرشه فوق سمواته ، فهذان حدان اثنان…فهذا كله وما أشبهه شواهد ودلائل على الحد ومن لم يعترف به فقد كفر بتنزيل الله وجحد آيات الله اهــ
“Allah, exalted is He, has a limit which nobody but Him knows. It is not permitted for anybody to imagine himself a demarcation to his limit, and rather he must believe in it and consign the knowledge of it to Allah. Allah’s place also has a limit, namely [His place] on the Throne above His heavens; so that means two limits.…[Here he cited a number of texts from the Qur’an which in his opinion show that Allah has a physical limit then he says:] This and what is like it are proofs that all show that [Allah has a] limit and whoever does not profess that has disbelieved in the revelation and denied the verses of Allah.”
As you see Ibn Taimiyyah here professes in a clear-cut manner that Allah has a place and a limit.
In Majmoo‘ah Fatawaa Ibn Taimiyyah in volume 16, a volume on tafseer, Ibn Taimiyyah reports that the Asharite imam Abu Bakr ibn al-Fooraq (d. 406 / 1015; Neshapur) held that Allah will be seen in the hereafter not be seen in any direction for as he argued direction is not a requirement of vision.
This is the famous Asharite position; the Asharites answered the Mutazalites who argued that Allah cannot been seen by eyes because He is not a body saying that the condition of vision is that a thing exists not that it be a body and since Allah exists there is no reason why He can’t be seen in the hereafter as numerous authentic hadith affirm.
Ibn Taimiyyah reported that Ibn al-Fooraq argued: “The things we see about us are in a direction and a place. However, we are not allowed to judge based on experience without investigating. Now not only do we not see things about us except that they are in a direction and a place but also we do not see them except in color and with particular measurements and size and weight and the things we see have heat and moisture and dryness; yet none of these attributes applies [to Allah].”
Then Ibn Taimiyyah proceeded to try to refute Ibn al-Foorak.
He quoted the famous hadith, “You will see your Lord as you see the sun and the moon etc.” and then declared that the comparison is between the vision of the moon and the vision of Allah not as all of the Asharites held that the comparison is between the seer of the moon and the seer of Allah.
The Asharites insist that since Allah is the transcendent and eternal being He will be seen in a way commensurate with that of the transcendent and eternal being without any of the concomitants of contingency and originatedness such as appearance color direction distance place and so on and for this reason they interpreted the hadith to mean that we shall see Allah just as surely as we see the sun and moon but not as we see the sun and the moon in a particular place in front of our faces with appearance and limit and color and direction and so on.
However, Ibn Taimiyyah does not accept the transcendence of Allah and so he declares in the course of trying to refute Ibn al-Fooraq:
فشبه الرؤية بالرؤية ولم يشبه المرئي بالمرئي / “So he [the Prophet r in the hadith about our seeing as we see the sun and the moon] compared the thing seen with the thing seen and not the seer with the seer.”
So as you can see Ibn Taimiyyah has uttered an enormity for he has claimed that Allah has a likeness although the Qur’an insists:
لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ “Nothing is like Him (42:11).”
Unfortunately it is more than a slip of the tongue for we see that he insists that the hadith shows has a direction and will be see face to face and we find him straining himself to refute the arguments of Ibn al-Fooraq who competently defends the transcendence incomparability of Allah denying him place and limit while insisting on the literal meaning of the vision in the hereafter with the provision that we will see Him as befits His majestic transcendence.
However, Ibn Taimiyyah in insisting that the hadith involves a comparison of the thing seen with the thing seen affirms that Allah has a place direction limit appearance color and in short affirms that Allah has a likeness.
In his Bayaan Talbees al-Jahamiyyah Ibn Taimiyyah took up the same topic this time remonstrating with Fakhr al-Razi, another champion of Allah’s transcendence, for he writes:
فقد علم أنه لا يمكن إثبات الرؤية التي أخبر بها الشارع مع نفي ما يقولون إنه الجسم ، بل إثباتها مستلزم لما يقولون إنه الجسم والجهة. فقد تبين أنه من جمع بين هذين فإنه مكابر للمعقول والمحسوس وهذا مما قد بينه بالدليل فيقبل منه اهــ
Thus it is known that we cannot affirm the vision [of Allah in the hereafter] which the Lawgiver has told us about while we deny what they say about Him being a body; rather, affirming the vision requires that He is a body and has a direction. So it is clear that whoever tries to combine these two [positions; namely, affirming the vision and denying that He is a body and has a direction] is refusing to accept both rational and phenomenal proof. He has established this with proof so it is accepted from him.
One should not imagine that he is raving for what he has said is premeditated and recurs again and again in different forms throughout his book Bayaan Talbees al-Jahmiyyah and his other works.
He says on the next page:
فإن تلك المسالك إنما ضعفت لأن أصحابها أثبتوا رؤية ما ليس في جهة ولا هو متحيز ولا حال في متحيز فاحتاجوا لذلك أن يحذفوا من الرؤية الشروط التي لا تتم الرؤية بدونها لاعتقادهم امتناع تلك الشروط في حق الله تعالى فأما إذا قيل إن الرؤية المعروفة يصح تعلقها بكل قائم بنفسه وإن شرط فيها أن يكون المرئي بجهة من الرائي وأن يكون متحيزا وقائما بمتحيز كانت الأدلة العقلية على إمكان هذه الرؤية مالا يمكن العقلاء أن يتنازعوا في جوازها وإنما ينفيها من نفاها لظنه أن الله تعالى ليس فوق العالم وأنه على اصطلاحهم ليس بجسم ولا متحيز ولا حال في المتحيز ونحو ذلك من الصفات السلبية التي ابتدعوها مع مخالفتها لصحيح المنقول وصريح المعقول اهــ
“For those attempts [that is, the Asharites’ attempts to answer the Mutazilites claim that the vision requires that Allah is a body] were weak because the people who attempted them affirmed a vision that does not have a direction and is not located and does not occupy place, so because of that they [the Asharites] needed to delete from the vision the conditions without which vision does not obtain, for they believed those conditions were impermissible with respect to Allah I. However, if we say [contrary to the Asharites] that it is permissible to have ordinary vision of anything that subsists by itself [only the necessary being subsists by itself] even if that requires that what is seen will have a direction with respect to the one who sees it and that it [that is, what is seen] be located ???, then rational proofs for the possibility of such a vision are such that leave no room for intelligent people to argue about it. Those only deny such a vision [that is a contingent vision of the eternal involving place and direction and such other impossibilities] because of their belief that Allah I is not above the world and that He, according to their technical jargon, is not a body and not located and does not occupy place and the likes of such negative attributes that they innovated although that [position of theirs] is against the authentic texts [of the Book and the sunnah] and obvious reasoning.
[ To be cont’d]
3) Some examples from al-Qaadi Abu Ya‘laa al-Hanbali
Al-Kauthari mentioned during a long note to al-Saif al-Saqeel, pp. 116-117:
ولم يقع ذكر الجهة في حق الله سبحانه في كتاب الله ولا في سنة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ولا في لفظ صحابي أو تابعي ولا في كلام أحد ممن تكلم في ذات الله وصفاته من الفرق سوى أقحاح المجسمة وأتحدي من يدعي خلاف ذلك أن يسند هذا اللفظ إلى أحد منهم بسند صحيح فلن يجد إلى ذلك سبيلا فضلا عن أن يتمكن من إسناده إلى الجمهور بإسناد صحيحة
The mention of direction (jihah*) with respect to Allah [that is, as an attribute of Allah] does not occur in the Book of Allah of the sunnah of the Messenger of Allah r or in the statement of any Companion of Follower or even in any statement of any of those who discoursed on the being of Allah and His attributes among the different heretical sects except in statements of the thorough-going anthropomorphists. I challenge anybody who claims otherwise to ascribe this term to any of them [that is, any other than the Hashawiyyah] with an authentic chain of narration. They will never find any way to do that let alone ascribe it with an authentic chain of narration to the vast majority of the ulama [as Ibn al-Qayyim so shamefacedly claims in his al-Nooniyyah which al-Kauthari and al-Subki are in the process of refuting].
وأول من وقع ذلك في كلامه ممن يدعي الانتماء إلى أحد الأيمة المتبوعين – فيما أعلم – هو أبو يعلى الحنبلي المتوفى سنة 458 حيث قال عند إثبات الحد له تعالى في كتابه إبطال التأويلات لأحاديث الصفات :
In fact the first person who follows any one of the followed imams [that is the imams of the four madhhabs*] to state that was Abu Ya‘laa al-Hanbali d. 458 H. [1066 CE; Baghdad] for he said in his Ibtaal al-Ta’weel li Ahaadeeth al-Sifaat in the course of ascribing a limit to Allah تعالى :
إن جهة التحت تحاذي العرش بما قد ثبت من الدليل والعرش محدود فجاز أن يوصف ما حاذاه من الذات أنه حد وجهة له وليس كذلك فيما عداه لأنه لا يحاذي ما هو محدود بل هو مار في اليمين واليسرة والفوق والأمام والخلف إلى غير غاية ، فلذلك لم يوصف واحد من ذلك بالحد والجهة وجهة العرش تحاذي ما قابله من جهة الذات ولم تحاذ جميع الذات لأنه لا نهاية لها اهـ
The direction of below [with respect to Allah] is opposite the Throne as has been established with proof and since the Throne is limited it is permissible to describe what is opposite the divine self (dhaat*) [of the Throne] as His limit and a direction; however, that is not the case apart from it because He does is not opposite any limited thing [except below] rather He passes to the right and left and above and before and behind infinitely and so for this reason no one said He had a limit in these direction, however the Throne is opposite what faces it of the divine being (al-dhaat*) although it is not opposite all of the being because He has no end.
تعالى الله عما يقول المجسمة علوا كبيرا وهو عين ما ينسب إلى المانوية الحرانية من تلاقي النور من جهة الأسفل مع الظلمة وعدم تناهيه في نسبة الجهات الخمس – سبحانك ما أحلمك – ثم تابعه أناس من الحنابلة في نسبة الجهة إلى الله سبحانه منهم أبو الحسن علي بن عبيد الل الزاغوني الحنبلي المتوفى سنة 527 ووقع بعده في غنية الشيخ عبد القادر وقد سبق ردّه بل قال جمع من الأئمة إن معتقد الجهة كافر كما صرح به العلم العراقي وقال إنه قول أبي حنيفة ومالك الشافعي والأشعري والباقلاني اهـ
Allah is far far exalted above what the anthropomorphists attribute to Him. What [Abu al-Ya‘laa] says is the very thing that is ascribed to the Manicheans of Harraan for they held that light meets with darkness in the direction of below while holding that it is infinite in the other five directions.
[To be continued]
An Account of the Dissension Subversion and Temptation Wreaked Throughout the History of Islam by the Anthropomorphists and Some Examples of Their Infamous Deeds:
The Persecution of the Believers and Their Attempt to Misguide Them by
Attributing Physicality Contingency Movement and Change to Allah
Maulvi Muhammad Yusuf al-Kanadi
“He is Canadian of English decent. He accepted Islam in 1974 on the hands of Dr. Professor Mirza Qadir Baig, who was formerly a professor at the Faculty of Islamic Studies at University of Toronto. My shaikh studied Hanafi fiqh in his company for about eight years. After being employed as a consultant engineer in Libya he went to Pakistan in 1984 were he continued to study under Hanafi ulama in Lahore, Multan, Islamabad and Peshawar. Afterward, in 1987 he went to Umm al- Qura University were he completed their Arabic program. Upon competing that he enrolled in the University of the Qur'an al-Karim in Omdurman untill 1994. At that point he became disatisfied with the level and quality of education in these Universities so he returned to Pakistan and studied with an Afghani shaikh named Maulvi Muhammad Hamid were he remained until 1997.
At this point he returned to Makka and went back to Pakistan every six months in order to retain his visa. While in Pashawar he studied under Hajji Rashid Ahmad, the son of the Mufti of Herat, al-Sayid 'Ubaid al-Rahman ibn al-Sayid Ja'far Badshah min ahl bait, Maulvi Abd al-Hayy al-Samaghani who was the Mufti of Kabul whoes guidence my Shaikh was under for more than ten years. My shaikh's main teacher was maulvi Muhammad Hamid ibn Saif al-Rahman. alist of books my shaikh studied with Maulvi Muhammad Hamid: Nur al-Idah, Sharh fiqh al-Akbar li-al-Muntani, Usul al-Shashi, Kanz Daqa'iq, al-Hidayah, Nur al-anwar Usul fiqh as well as sharh al-Aqa'id. Qatr al-Nada with Moulana Hajji Ahmad Rashid as well as several books on mantiq. He studied Arabic and tafseer with Diya al-Din al-Sabuni, the brother of the famous Muhammad al-Sabuni who he also studied from.
He took ijaza from Abdul Fatah abu ghudah in hadeeth. He studied with Shaikh sa'id Tantawi, the brother of Ali al-Tantawi. He studied from Shaikh Muhammad Awwama.
He attended the lectures and studied under Shaikh Muhammad Alawi al-Maliki al-Makki. Tafseer al-Nasafi with Shaikh Ahmad Jabir Gibran of Yeman. While in Mecca his main teacher was and still is Mufti Aziz al-Rahman who is formerly the Mufti of Dar al-Ifta, Jami'ah Ashrafiyah in Lahore. He studied with him :Kanz, Mukhtasir al-Husami, Qatr al-Nada, Sharh Ibn Aqil, Talkhis al-Miftah, al-Hidayah, tahdhib al-tahdhib etc...”
You can watch his video on
Following a Madhab
Maulvi Muhammad Yusaf al-Kanadi
(Edited by ADHM)