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)