Friday, 22 February 2013

The Reality of ibn Taymiyya






The Reality of ibn Taymiyya







The Reality of ibn Taymiyya

al-Dhahabi mentions that ibn Taymiyya’s followers weakened, and that he was forbidden from issuing fatawa due to his views on talaq, yet he remained stubborn on his views:
His followers weakened and he involved himself in weighty questions that neither the intellects of his contemporaries nor their learning could bear, such as: the question of the expiation of the oath of repudiation (talaq), the opinion that repudiation (talaq) uttered three times is valid only once, and the opinion that repudiation (talaq) during menstruation is not valid. He composed writings about these topics in the order of some forty quires. Because of this, he was forbidden to issue legal opinions (fatawa). He controlled himself in a strange way and held firm to his own opinion.”
[al-Dhahabi, Nubdha in Bori, "A New Source", 336, (Arabic Text) - 342 (English Translation)]

---

Shaykh al-Islam ibn Hajar al-’Asqalani  has recorded in Lisan al-Mizan (6/319, Hyderabad edn.):
وكم من مبالغة لتوهين كلام الرافضي ادته أحيانا إلى تنقيص علي رضى الله عنه
“How much did he (Ibn Taymiyya) exaggerate in order to weaken the words of the Rafidi (al-Hilli), which at times led him to diminish Ali (radiallahu ‘anh).”




---

Ibn Taymiyya’s Faulting of ‘Umar, and Slander of
‘Uthman and ‘Ali (radhiallahu ‘anhum)

Shaykh al-Islam ibn Hajar al-’Asqalani  quoting Najm al-Din al-Tufi al-Hanbali on his colleague – Ibn Taymiyya, in his al-Durar al-Kamina:

(1/179 – قَالَ الطوفي سمعته يَقُول من سَأَلَني مستفيداً حققت لَهُ وَمن سَأَلَني مُتَعَنتًا ناقضته فَلَا يلبث أَن يَنْقَطِع فأكفي مُؤْنَته وَذكر تصانيفه وَقَالَ فِي كِتَابه أبطال الْحِيَل عَظِيم النَّفْع وَكَانَ يتَكَلَّم على الْمِنْبَر على طَريقَة الْمُفَسّرين مَعَ الْفِقْه والْحَدِيث فيورد فِي سَاعَة من الْكتاب وَالسّنة واللغة وَالنَّظَر مَا لَا يقدر أحد على أَن يُورِدهُ فِي عدَّة مجَالِس كَأَن هَذِه الْعُلُوم بَين عَيْنَيْهِ فَأخذ مِنْهَا مَا يَشَاء ويذر وَمن ثمَّ نسب أَصْحَابه إِلَى الغلو فِيهِ وَاقْتضى لَهُ ذَلِك الْعجب بِنَفسِهِ حَتَّى زها على أَبنَاء جنسه واستشعر أَنه مُجْتَهد فَصَارَ يرد على صَغِير الْعلمَاء وَكَبِيرهمْ قويهم وحديثهم حَتَّى انْتهى إِلَى عمر فخطأه فِي شَيْء فَبلغ الشَّيْخ إِبْرَاهِيم الرقي فَأنْكر عَلَيْهِ فَذهب إِلَيْهِ وَاعْتذر واستغفر وَقَالَ فِي حق عَليّ أَخطَأ فِي سَبْعَة عشر شَيْئا ثمَّ خَالف فِيهَا نَص الْكتاب مِنْهَا اعْتِدَاد المتوفي عَنْهَا زَوجهَا أطول الْأَجَليْنِ وَكَانَ لتعصبه لمَذْهَب الْحَنَابِلَة يَقع فِي الأشاعرة حَتَّى أَنه سبّ الْغَزالِيّ فَقَامَ عَلَيْهِ قوم كَادُوا يقتلونه وَلما قدم غازان بجيوش التتر إِلَى الشَّام خرج إِلَيْهِ وَكَلمه بِكَلَام قوي فهم بقتْله ثمَّ نجا واشتهر أمره من يَوْمئِذٍ وَاتفقَ الشَّيْخ نصر المنبجي كَانَ قد تقدم فِي الدولة لاعتقاد بيبرس الجاشنكير فِيهِ فَبَلغهُ أَن ابْن تَيْمِية يَقع فِي ابْن الْعَرَبِيّ لِأَنَّهُ كَانَ يعْتَقد أَنه مُسْتَقِيم وَأَن الَّذِي ينْسب إِلَيْهِ من الِاتِّحَاد أَو الْإِلْحَاد من قُصُور فهم من يُنكر عَلَيْهِ فَأرْسل يُنكر عَلَيْهِ وَكتب إِلَيْهِ كتابا طَويلا وَنسبه وَأَصْحَابه إِلَى الِاتِّحَاد الَّذِي هُوَ حَقِيقَة الْإِلْحَاد فَعظم ذَلِك عَلَيْهِم وأعانه عَلَيْهِ قوم آخَرُونَ ضبطوا عَلَيْهِ كَلِمَات فِي العقائد مُغيرَة وَقعت مِنْهُ فِي مواعيده وفتاويه فَذكرُوا أَنه ذكر حَدِيث النُّزُول فَنزل عَن الْمِنْبَر دَرَجَتَيْنِ فَقَالَ كنزولي هَذَا فنسب إِلَى التجسيم ورده على من توسل بِالنَّبِيِّ صلّى الله عَلَيْهِ وسلّم أَو اسْتَغَاثَ فأشخص من دمشق فِي رَمَضَان سنة خمس وَسَبْعمائة فَجرى عَلَيْهِ مَا جرى وَحبس مرَارًا فَأَقَامَ على ذَلِك نَحْو أَربع سِنِين أَو أَكثر وَهُوَ مَعَ ذَلِك يشغل ويفتي إِلَى أَن اتّفق أَن الشَّيْخ نصرا قَامَ على الشَّيْخ كريم الدّين الآملي شيخ خانقاه سعيد السُّعَدَاء فَأخْرجهُ من الخانقاه وعَلى شمس الدّين الْجَزرِي فَأخْرجهُ من تدريس الشريفية فَيُقَال أَن الآملي دخل الْخلْوَة بِمصْر أَرْبَعِينَ يَوْمًا فَلم يخرج حَتَّى زَالَت دولة بيبرس وخمل ذكر نصر وَأطلق ابْن تَيْمِية إِلَى الشَّام وافترق النَّاس فِيهِ شيعًا فَمنهمْ من نسبه إِلَى التجسيم لما ذكر فِي العقيدة الحموية والواسطية وَغَيرهمَا من ذَلِك كَقَوْلِه أَن الْيَد والقدم والساق وَالْوَجْه صِفَات حَقِيقِيَّة لله وَأَنه مستوٍ على الْعَرْش بِذَاتِهِ فَقيل لَهُ يلْزم من ذَلِك التحيز والانقسام فَقَالَ أَنا لَا أسلم أَن التحيز والانقسام من خَواص الْأَجْسَام فألزم بِأَنَّهُ يَقُول بتحيز فِي ذَات الله وَمِنْهُم من ينْسبهُ إِلَى الزندقة لقَوْله أَن النَّبِي صلّى الله عَلَيْهِ وسلّم لَا يستغاث بِهِ وَأَن فِي ذَلِك تنقيصاً ومنعاً من تَعْظِيم النَّبِي صلّى الله عَلَيْهِ وسلّم وَكَانَ أَشد النَّاس عَلَيْهِ فِي ذَلِك النُّور الْبكْرِيّ فَإِنَّهُ لما عقد لَهُ الْمجْلس بِسَبَب ذَلِك قَالَ بعض الْحَاضِرين يُعَزّر فَقَالَ الْبكْرِيّ لَا معنى لهَذَا القَوْل فَإِنَّهُ إِن كَانَ تنقيصاً يقتل وَإِن لم يكن تنقيصا لَا يُعَزّر وَمِنْهُم من ينْسبهُ إِلَى النِّفَاق لقَوْله فِي عَليّ مَا تقدم وَلقَوْله إِنَّه كَانَ مخذولا حَيْثُ مَا توجه وَأَنه حاول الْخلَافَة مرَارًا فَلم ينلها وَإِنَّمَا قَاتل للرئاسة لَا للديانة وَلقَوْله إِنَّه كَانَ يحب الرِّئَاسَة وَأَن عُثْمَان كَانَ يحب المَال وَلقَوْله أَبُو بكر أسلم شَيخا يدْرِي مَا يَقُول وَعلي أسلم صَبيا وَالصَّبِيّ لَا يَصح إِسْلَامه على قَول وبكلامه فِي قصَّة خطْبَة بنت أبي جهل وَمَات مَا نَسَبهَا من الثَّنَاء على … وقصة أبي الْعَاصِ ابْن الرّبيع وَمَا يُؤْخَذ من مفهومها فَإِنَّهُ شنع فِي ذَلِك فألزموه بالنفاق لقَوْله صلّى الله عَلَيْهِ وسلّم وَلَا يبغضك إِلَّا مُنَافِق

He used to 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 (r) and faulted him in some matter. This reached the ears of the Shaykh Ibrahim al-Raqi who reprimanded him. Ibn Taymiyya went to see him, apologized, and asked for forgiveness. 

He also spoke against `Ali (r) and said: “He made mistakes in seventeen different matters.”…Because of his fanatic support of the Hanbali school he would attack Ash’aris until he started to insult al-Ghazzali, 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, and they mentioned that he had cited the tradition of Allah’s descent (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. 

They also cited his refutation of whoever uses the Prophet — Allah bless and greet him — as a means or seeks help from him (aw istaghatha)…. People were divided into parties because of him. 

Some considered him an anthropomorphist because of what he mentioned in al-`Aqida al-Hamawiyya and al-`Aqida al-Wasitiyya and other books of his, to the effect that the hand, foot, shin, and face are litteral attributes of Allah 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-inqisam). He replied: “I do not concede that spatial confinement and divisibility are (necessarily) properties of bodies,” whereupon it was adduced against him (ulzima) that he held Allah’s Essence to be subject to spatial confinement. 

Others considered him a heretic (zindiq) due to his saying that the Prophet — Allah bless and greet him — 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 — Allah bless and greet him — …. 

Others considered him a dissimulator (munafiq) because of what he said about `Ali:… 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 authority while `Uthman loved money.” 

He would say that Abu Bakr had declared Islam in his old age, fully aware of what he said, while `Ali had declared Islam as a boy, and the boy’s Islam 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 — Allah bless and greet him — saying (to `Ali): “None but a hypocrite has hatred for you.”


---


Ibn Hajar al-Haytamiibn Taymiyya was a Servant whom Allah Abandoned, Misguided, Blinded, Deafened, and Humiliated’

The Shaykh al-Islam of the Shafi’i Madhhab in his age – Abul Abbas Shihab al-Din Ibn Hajar al-Haytami (d. 974AH) has recorded in a formal legal opinion in his al-Fatawa al-Hadithiyya (1/183-84) the following:

ابْن تَيْمِية عبد خذله الله وأضلَّه وأعماه وأصمه وأذلَّه، وَبِذَلِك صرح الْأَئِمَّة الَّذين بينوا فَسَاد أَحْوَاله وَكذب أَقْوَاله، وَمن أَرَادَ ذَلِك فَعَلَيهِ بمطالعة كَلَام الإِمَام الْمُجْتَهد الْمُتَّفق على إِمَامَته وجلالته وبلوغه مرتبَة الِاجْتِهَاد أبي الْحسن السُّبْكِيّ وَولده التَّاج وَالشَّيْخ الإِمَام الْعِزّ بن جمَاعَة وَأهل عصرهم، وَغَيرهم من الشَّافِعِيَّة والمالكية وَالْحَنَفِيَّة، وَلم يقصر اعتراضه على متأخري الصُّوفِيَّة بل اعْترض على مثل عمر بن الْخطاب وَعلي بن أبي طَالب رَضِي الله عَنْهُمَا كَمَا يَأْتِي. وَالْحَاصِل أنْ لَا يُقَام لكَلَامه وزن بل يَرْمِي فِي كلّ وَعْر وحَزَن، ويعتقد فِيهِ أَنه مُبْتَدع ضالّ ومُضِّلّ جَاهِل غال عَامله الله بعدله، وأجازنا من مثل طَرِيقَته وعقيدته وَفعله آمين


 “Ibn Taymiyya was a servant whom Allah abandoned, misguided, blinded, deafened, and humiliated

This has been frankly expressed by the Imams who explained the corruptness of how he was, and the mendacity of what he said. 

Whoever wants to check this should read the words of the Mujtahid Imam, whose Imamate, greatness, and having reached the rank of Ijtihad are universally acknowledged, Abul Hasan (Taqi al-Din) al-Subki; together with his son Taj (al-Din as-Subki), the Shaykh and Imam al-’Izz Ibn Jama’a, the scholars of their time, and other Shafi’i, Maliki and Hanafi scholars. 

Nor did he confine his criticism to later Sufi’s; but censured the likes of Umar ibn al-Khattab and Ali (may Allah be pleased with them), the outcome of which is that his words are devoid of any worth or consideration, to be scattered across the wilds and wastelands, while the man himself is considered an initiator of bid’ah (reprehensible innovations), misled, misleading, ignorant and spiteful. 

May Allah give him what he deserves, may Allah preserve us from the likes of his way and his beliefs and works, Ameen.”

---


Quoting His History in Context from Reliable Sources






---

(Edited by ADHM)

Sunday, 17 February 2013

The Chinese Emperor’s Poem about The Holy Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم)




The Chinese Emperor’s Poem about
The Holy Prophet Muhammad
(صلى الله عليه وسلم)

Hong-Wu (also known by his given name Zhū Yuánzhāng) was the Emperor of China between 1368 – 1398 CE. He was the first Emperor of the Ming Dynasty, leading an Army that conquered the country and defeated away the Mongol-led Yuan Dynasty.

Despite being a non-Muslim, Hong-Wu ordered the construction of several mosques in Nanjing, Yunnan, Guangdong and Fujian. He rebuilt the Jinjue Mosque in Nanjing and large numbers of Hui (Muslim Chinese) people moved to the city during his rule.
He had around 10 Muslim generals in his army, including Chang Yuchun, Lan Yu, Ding Dexing, Mu Ying, Feng Sheng and Hu Dahai. In addition, Hong-Wu’s spouse, Empress Ma, descended from a Muslim family while he was originally a member of a Muslim rebel group led by Guo Zhixin.

Emperor Hong-Wu wrote a 100 word eulogy praising Islam, Allah and the Prophet Muhammad which he had placed in the mosques which he ordered to be built.
The eulogy is in the form of a poem, each verse containing 4 words (characters) and 4 syllables. 

In the translation below I have strayed away from trying to keep the 4 word per verse translation in favour of a more literal translation which conveys the full meaning in flowing English.

The One-Hundred Word Eulogy:

Since the creation of the Universe,
God had decreed to appoint,
This great faith-preaching man,
From the West he was born,
He received the Holy Scripture,
A Book of thirty parts,
To guide all creation,
Master of all Rulers,
Leader of Holy Ones,
With Support from Above,
To Protect His Nation,
With five daily prayers,
Silently hoping for peace,
His heart towards Allah,
Empowering the poor,
Saving them from calamity,
Seeing through the darkness,
Pulling souls and spirits,
Away from all wrongdoings,
A Mercy to the Worlds,
Traversing the ancient majestic path,
Vanquishing away all evil,
His Religion Pure and True,
Muhammad,
The Noble & Great one.


Translation by Sh. Musa Cerantonio

---


Hadith:"Seek Knowledge as far as China"?




Friday, 1 February 2013

Shaykh al-Hadith of Dar al-Ulum Deoband Concerning Ibn Taymiyya & Mu-hammed bin ‘Abdul Wahhab Najdi








Maulānā Husain Ahmad Madanī
(b.1879 - d.1957)

Shaykh al-Hadith of Dar al-Ulum Deoband
Concerning
Ibn Taymiyya 


حضرت شیخ الاسلام مولانا حسین احمد مدنی شیخ الحدیث دار العلوم دیوبند نور الله مرقده اور لقب شیخ الاسلام براے ابن تیمیه

حضرت الاستاذ شیخ الاسلام مولانا مدنی رحمة الله عليه تو حضرت شاه عبد العزیز رحمة الله علیه سے بهی اس (ابن تیميه كے)  معامله میں سخت تهے کیونکه انهوں نے علامه کی قلمی تالیفات کا بهی مطالعه کیا تها اور وه علامه ابن تیمیه کے لئے شیخ الاسلام کا لقب بهی پسند نه کرتهے تهے اسی ليے حضرت شیخ الحدیث مولانا محمد زکریا صاحب رحمة الله علیه کو بذل المجهود (کاتب کی غلطی؛ صحیح اوجز المسالک) میں علامه کو شیخ الاسلام لکهنے پر سخت ناراضگی کا اظهار کیا تها اور حضرت رحمة الله علیه کی الشهاب الثاقب تو احقاق حق و ابطال باطل کا بے نظیر علمی و تحقیقی شاهکار هے. رحمه الله رحمة واسعة.

ملفوظات محدث کشمیری: صفحه 414
بیت الحکمت دیوبند


Quote


^Translation:

Hadhrat Shaykh al-Islām, Maulānā Husain Ahmad Madanī
the Shaykh al-Hadīth of Dār al-'Ulūm Deoband (may Allāh illuminate his grave) on the title of 'Shaykh al-Islām' for ibn Taymiyyah

Our teacher Shaykh al-Islām Maulānā Madanī (rahmatullāhi 'alaih) was more strict than Hadhrat Shāh 'Abd al-Azīz (rahmatullāhi 'alaih) on this matter regarding ibn Taymiyyah because he had read the written works of 'Allāmah (ibn Taymiyyah), and he didn't like the title of 'Shaykh al-Islām' being used for 'Allāmah ibn Taymiyyah


" This is why he showed severe dislike towards the usage of 'Shaykh al-Islām' for ibn Taymiyyah by Shaykh al-Hadīth Maulānā Muhammad Zakariyyā Sāhib (rahmatullāhi 'alaih) in 'Badhlul Majhūd' (mistake of the scribe; correction - should be - 'Awjāz al-Masālik'), and Hadhrat ([Husain Ahmad Madanī -] rahmatullāhi 'alaih)'s book al-Shihāb al-Thāqib is an incomparable awesome book in terms of 'ilm [knowledge] and tahqīq [research/verification] regarding the establishing of truth and vanquishing of falsehood - may Allāh shower him with mercy in abundance."

[Shaykh Anwār Shāh Kashmīrī, in Malfudhāt Muhaddith Kashmīrī; pg. 414, published by Bait al-Hikmat Deoband]

---

Quote Deobandi:

 “
The fact that Shaykh Husain Ahmad Madani's views changed dramatically once he had access to more of Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah's works seems to indicate that, as with Shaykh Ibn Abdul Wahhab, mixed views from our Akaabir regarding Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah were based on the information available to them at the time."

" While Shaykh Ibn Abdul Wahhab was later exonerated from much of the extremism and deviances his followers exhibited, it appears that those who researched the views of Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah inclined towards the opposite direction.”

^ Quote from Deobandi Forum: Here

---

حضرت شیخ الاسلام مولانا حسین احمد مدنی شیخ الحدیث دار العلوم دیوبند نور الله مرقده

درس بخاری و ترمذی دار العلوم دیوبند کے زمانے میں حافظ ابن تیمیه کے  تفردات عقاید و مسایل فروع کا نهایت شدت سے رد فرمایا کرتهے  تهے اور آپ نے بتلایا که میں نے مدینه منوره کے قیام کے  دوران ان کی تصانیف و رسائل دیکهے هیں اور بعض ایسی کتابیں بهی دیکهی هیں جو هندوستان میں شاید کسی کتب خانه میں موجود ہوں اور ان سب کے مطالعه سے میں اس نتیجه پر علی وجه البصیرت پهنچاهوں که اهل سنت والجماعت کے طریقه سے کهلا هوا انحراف و عدول ان کے اندر موجود هے 

انعام الباری شرح صحیح البخاری: 13 / 463
اداره تالیفات اشرفیه، ملتان، پاکستان


Quote


Translation:

" Hadhrat Shaykh al-Islām Husain Ahmad Madanī, the Shaykh al-Hadith of Dar al-'Ulūm Deoband (may Allāh illuminate his grave) on ibn Taymiyya

'During the Bukhārī and Tirmidhī lectures at Dar al-'Ulūm Deoband he would strongly refute Hafiz ibn Taymiyyah's lone opinions on 'aqā-id and masā-il. 


He also said, "While I was residing in Madīnah al-Munawwarah I read his books and literature, some are such that you would be lucky to find it in a bookshop in India. 

" After studying all these books, I have come to the conclusion through wisdom and foresight that there is a blatant turn away found in him from the way of ahl al-sunnah wa al-jamā'ah".'

[Mufti Taqī al-'Uthmānī, in In'ām al-Bārī Sharh Sahīh al-Bukhārī 463/13; published by Idāra Tālīfāt Ashrafiyyah, Multān, Pakistān]

---

^Shaykh Anwār Shāh Kashmīrī

^Maulānā Muhammad Zakariyyā Sāhib











^Mufti Taqī al-'Uthmānī




---




Shaykh al-Hadith of Dar al-Ulum Deoband
Concerning

Mu-hammed bin ‘Abdul Wahhab Najdi 


 al-Shahab al-Shaqab:
Where Husain Ahmad Madani also claimed that Mu-hammed bin ‘Abdul Wahhab Najdi preached ‘patent falsehood’ (‘aqa‘id-i batila), killed numerous Sunni Muslims and forced many others to accept his ‘false’ creed (‘aqa‘id-i fasida). He referred to him as a ‘tyrant’ (zalim), traitor’ (baghi), and ‘despicable’ (khabis), and labelled him and his followers as the ‘despicable Wahhabis’ (wahhabiya khabisia).

[ Cited in Mahfuz ur-Rahman Faizi, Shaikh Muhammad bin ‘Abdul Wahhab Ke Bare Mai Do Mutazid Nazren, Varanasi: Jami‘a Salafiya, 1986, p.i.]

He wrote that:

Mu-hammed bin ‘Abdul Wahhab Najdi had declared the wealth of all Muslims, including Sunnis, who did not follow him as property that could be rightfully looted (mal-i ghanimat), and their slaughter as a cause of merit (sawab), considering all but his own followers as apostates.
This is why, he claimed, the Arabs ‘detested’ Mu-hammed bin ‘Abdul Wahhab Najdi and his followers, their hatred for them ‘exceeding their hatred for Jews, Christians, Magians and Hindus’.

‘Undoubtedly’, Madani asserted that, Mu-hammed bin ‘Abdul Wahhab Najdi had committed such heinous crimes that ‘such hatred for him is a must’.
[Cited in Qadri, op.cit., p.136.]