Monday, 1 May 2017

Did Ibn Taymiyya Reject Authentically Proven Hadiths?

Ibn Taymiyya is regarded by the Wahhabiyyah(salafiyyah/ahlehadith) as one of the prominent "Mujaddids" (renewers and revivers) of Islam.

Imam Muhammad Abu Zahra (Allah have mercy on him) of Egypt states in his Tarikh al-Madhahib al-Islamiyya: The founder of the Wahhabi movement, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, studied the works of Imam Ibn Taymiyya in depth and became more extreme. He put Ibn Taymiyya’s views into practice rather than keep them in theory. Thus, they (Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and his followers) destroyed many graves of the Companions (Sahaba) and extended the meaning of innovation in a manner that was not heard of before…” (Tarikh al-Madhahib al-Islamiyya, P: 199)
Read more :Here

Indeed, when a wealthy trader from Jeddah brought to life the long-dead ‘aqida [creed] of Ibn Taymiya at the beginning of this century by financing the printing in Egypt of Ibn Taymiya’s Minhaj al-sunna al-nabawiyya and other works,

 The Mufti of Egypt Muhammad Bakhit al-Muti'i, faced with new questions about the validity of anthropomorphism, wrote:

"It was a Fitna (strife) that was sleeping;
May Allah curse him who Awakened it."


Anwar Shah al-Kashmiri  (Deobandi elder) has refuted Ibn Taymiyya in many of his works including his commentary of Imam al-Bukhari’s Sahih, Faydh al-Bari. In an Urdu work in which his student complied his various sayings, he states: “Ibn Taymiyya and others have come close to anthropomorphism.” 
(Malfuzat Muhaddith Kashmiri (Urdu), P: 242)

His student  Sayyid Ahmad Rida al-Bijnori states, "Imam Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim (his student) at times rejected authentically proven Hadiths when they went against their positions. There are many examples of this.

*Imam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani has also condemned Ibn Taymiyya for rejecting authentic (sahih) Hadiths when they go against his position.

*Shaykh Abd al-Aziz al-Dehlawi (Allah have mercy on him), after studying Ibn Taymiyya’s Minhaj al-Sunnah, was immensely distressed by his undermining of the Ahl al-Bayt (members of the Prophet’s family) and the Sufis.

*Shaykh Mawlana Husayn Ahmad al-Madani (Allah have mercy on him) was quite unsympathetic towards Imam Ibn Taymiyya. He even disliked the title of “Shaykh al-Islambeing used for him, hence he became upset when Shaykh Muhammad Zakariyya al-Kandahlawi (Allah have mercy on him) used this title for Imam Ibn Taymiyya in one his works." [End of Quote]
[Malfuzat Muhaddith Kashmiri]

*More InfoHere

Their "Mujaddid" ("Shaykh ul-Islam") Rejected Sahih Hadith!


Imam Is-haaq ibn Raahawayh (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
Whoever hears a report from the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) that he accepts as being sound, then rejects it, not by way of dissimulation (when he has no choice because of a threat), is a disbeliever. End quote

As-Suyooti (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
You should understand, may Allah have mercy on you, that whoever denies that the hadith of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) constitutes shar‘i evidence – whether he denies a report that speaks of something that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said or did, if that hadith fulfils the conditions stipulated in usool al-hadith has committed an act of disbelief that puts him beyond the bounds of Islam, and he will be gathered (on the Day of Resurrection) with the Jews and Christians, or with whomever Allah wills of the disbelieving groups. End quote.  Miftaah al-Jannah fi’l-Ihtijaaj bi’s-Sunnah (p 14)

Al-‘Allaamah Ibn al-Wazeer (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
Rejecting the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) when one is aware that it is his hadith constitutes blatant disbelief. End quote.
Al-‘Awaasim wa’l-Qawaasim (2/274)

It says in Fataawa al-Lajnah ad-Daa’imah:
The one who denies that we should follow the Sunnah is a disbeliever, because he is expressing disbelief in Allah and His Messenger, and rejecting the consensus of the Muslims. End quote.
[Fataawa al-Lajnah ad-Daa’imah (vol. 2, 3/194)]
source: []

*Why was Shaykh Abd al-Aziz al-Dehlawi (d.1824) (rah), immensely distressed after studying Ibn Taymiyya’s Minhaj al-Sunnah ?

Ibn Taymiyya Hatred and Rejection  Sahih Hadiths


We read in Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 5 page 35:
ومثل قوله أنت وليي في كل مؤمن بعدي فإن هذا موضوع باتفاق أهل المعرفة بالحديث
His statement ‘You are the guardian of every believer after me’ is fabricated according to the agreement of hadith scholars.
Al-Hakim recorded it in his book ‘al-Mustadrak’ volume 3, page 134 and declared it as Sahih. Imam Dahabi in his book ‘Talkhis al-Mustadrak’ also declared it as Sahih. 
Albaani in his book ‘Dhilal al-Janah’ volume 2 page 338 declared it as Sahih.

[Musnad Ahmad, Volume 1, p331, Al-Sunnah, by ibn Abi Asem, p552, Tarikh Dimashq, v42, p102]
Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 7 page 278:
قوله هو ولي كل مؤمن بعدي كذب على رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم
“His statement ‘he is the guardian of every believer after me’ is a lie attributed to Allah’s messenger”
Imam Ibn Haban recorded it in his book of Sahih traditions ‘Sahih ibn Haban’ volume 15 page 374. 
Imam Tirmidhi recorded it in his book ‘Sunnan al-Tirmidhi’ volume 5 page 296 and declared it as Hasan. Imam Ibn Uday said: “Nisai recorded it in his Sihah” (Mizan al-Etidal, v1 p410). 
These were the scholars who came before Ibn Taimiyah while the scholars who came after him include Dahabi who was also one of the students of Ibn Taimiyah who recorded it in his book ‘Tarikh al-Islam’ volume 11 page 71 and declared it as Sahih according to the condition of Muslim. 
Imam Ibn Hajar recorded it in his book ‘al-Isaba’ volume 4 page 468 and declared the chain of the tradition as strong. 

Albaani recorded it in his book ‘Silsila Sahiha’ volume 5 page 222 and declared it as Sahih. Hussain Salim Asad in his footnote on ‘Musnad Abi Y’ala’ volume 1 page 294 declared the narrators of this traiditon as the narrators of Sahih.
 Moreover, Albaani commented in ‘Silsila Sahiha’ volume 5, page 222 as follows:
فمن العجيب حقا أن يتجرأ شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية على إنكار هذا الحديث و تكذيبه في ” منهاج السنة “
“It is really strange that Sheikh ul Islam dared to deny this hadith and deemed it a lie in his book Minhaj al-Sunnah”

[Musnad Ahmad, Volume 4, p438, Musnad al-Tiyalsi, p111, Al-Ahad wa al-Methani, by Dahak, Volume 4, p279, Khasaes amir almominin, by Nisai, p98, Mu’ajam al-kabir, by Tabarani, v18, p129, Mwared al-Daman, by Haythami, Volume 7, p136, Tarikh Dimashq, by ibn Asakir, v42, p198]
Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 5 page 17:
قوله وسد الأبواب كلها إلا باب علي فإن هذا مما وضعته الشيعة
“His statement ‘Close all the doors except Ali’s door’; verily, this was fabricated by the Shia”

Al-Hakim recorded it in his book ‘al-Mustadrak’ volume 3 page 125 and declared it as Sahih. Dahabi in his book ‘Talkhis al-Mustadrak’ also declared it as Sahih. Imam Al-Haythami recorded it in his book ‘Majma al-Zawaed’ volume 9 page 114 and declared it as ‘Hasan’. 
Ibn Hajar recorded it in his book ‘Fath al-Bari’ volume 7 page 13 and stated that the narrators are authentic. 
Qadhi Shawkani said in his book ‘al-Fawaed al-Majmoa’ volume 1, page 361 about it: ‘The hadith is true and it is not permissible for any Muslim to deny it’ Ahmad bin al-Sidiq declared it as Hasan in his book ‘Fath al-Malik’ page 61. Abdullah al-Ghemari in his book ‘Ergham al-Mubteda’ page 18 declared it as Sahih.
Albaani declared it as Sahih in his book ‘Sahih al-Tirmidhi’ hadith number 3732. 

[Sunan al-Tirmidhi, Volume 5, page 305, Al-Sunnan al-kubra, by Nisai, Volume 5, p118, Musnad Ahmad, Volume 4, p369, Musnad Abi Y’ala, Volume 2, p62, Al-Mu’ajam al-awsat, by Tabarani, Volume 4, p186, Al-Mu’ajam al-kabir, by Tabarani, v12, p79, Al-sunnah, by ibn Abi Asem, p585, Gharib al-hadith, by al-Harby, Volume 1, p163, Tarikh Baghdad, Volume 7, p214, Tarikh Dimashq, v42, p122, Manaqib, by Khawarezmi, page 315]

Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 7 page 378:
و حديث أنا مدينة العلم و علي بابها اضعف و أوهى و لهذا إنما يعد في الموضوعات
“The tradition of ‘I am the city of knowledge and Ali is the gate’ is weaker (than other traditions). Therefore it is counted among the fabrications”.
Al-Hakim recorded it in his book al-Mustadrak, volume 3, page 126 and declared it as Sahih. 
Imam Yahya ibn Moin declared it as Sahih (Tahdib al-Kamal, v18 p72 Translation 3421).
Imam Ibn Jareer Tabari in his book ‘Tahdib al-Athaar’ page 104 declared it as Sahih. 
Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani declared it as Hasan (al-Fawaed al-Majmoa, Volume 1, p348 by Shawkani). Suyuti said: ‘Hasan’ (Tarikh al-khulafa, v1 p69). Al-Shawkani in his book ‘al-Fawaed al-Majmoa’ volume 1 page 348 declared it as ‘Hasan le Gharyu’. Al-Sakhawi in his book ‘al-Maqasid al-Hasana’ page 123 declared it as ‘Hasan’. Abdullah al-Ghemari in his book ‘Rad Etebar al-Jame al-Saghir’ page 15 declared it as Sahih. Ahmad bin al-Sidiq in his book ‘Fath al-Malik’ page 10 declared it as Sahih. 
Allamah Hassan al-Saqaf in the footnote of his book ‘Tanaqudat Albaani’ volume 3 page 82 declared it as Sahih. Al-Zarkashi in his book ‘al-Leale al-Manthura’ page 163 declared it as Hasan. Muhammad ibn Tulun al-Hanafi (d. 953 H) in his book ‘al-Shazara’ page 130 declared it as Hasan. Imam Al-Zarqani in his book ‘Mukhtasar al-Maqaed’ page 170 declared it as Hasan.

Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 4 page 248:
وأما قوله ورووا جميعا أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال يا فاطمة إن الله يغضب لغضبك ويرضى لرضاك فهذا ككذب منه ما رووا هذا عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ولا يعرف هذا في شيء من كتب الحديث المعروفة ولا له إسناد معروف عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم لا صحيح ولا حسن
His statement that they all narrated that the Prophet (s) said: ‘Oh Fatima, surely Allah gets angry when you are angry and gets pleased when you are pleased’, it is a lie. No one narrated that from the Prophet; and it is not recorded in known hadith books; and it doesn’t have a chain to the Prophet (s), neither Sahih nor Hasan.”
Al-Hakim recorded it in his book ‘al-Mustadrak’ volume 3,page 154 and declared it as Sahih. 
Al-Haythami recorded it in his book Majma al-Zawaed, Volume 9 page 203 and declared it as Hasan. 
Shaykh Salehi al-Shami declared it as Hasan in his book ‘Subul al-Huda’ volume 11 page 44.

It is narrated in other books such as:
[Al-Mujam al-Kabir by Tabarani, Volume 1, p108, Al-Ahad wa al-Methani by Dahak, Volume 5, p363,  Al-Durya al-Tahira by Dulabi, p168, Asad al-Ghaba, by ibn al-Athir, Volume 5, p523, Tarikh Dimashq, Volume 3, p156, Al-Kamil by Ibn Uday, Volume 2, p351, Mujam abi Y’ala, p223, Juzu ibn al-Ghatrif, page 78, Fadhail al-khulafa by Abu Naeem, Volume 1, p251]

Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 4 page 417:
وأما قوله ( من كنت مولاه فعلى مولاه اللهم وال من والاه …. الخ فهذا ليس فى شيء من الامهات الا فى الترمذى وليس فيه الا ( من كنت مولاه فعلى مولاه ) وأما الزيادة فليست فى الحديث
His statement ‘Whoever I am his leader Mawla, Ali is his Mawla, Oh Allah support those who support him…’ etc this is not recorded in the main books except in Tirmidhi. But it is only recorded ‘Whoever I am his leader Mawla, Ali is his Mawla’. However, the addition is not part of the hadith.
Imam Ibn Haban recorded this hadith in his book of Sahih traditions ‘Sahih ibn Haban’ volume 15 page 376 with the additional part. 
Al-Hakim in his book ‘al-Mustadrak’ volume 3 page 109 recorded that hadith with the additional part and declared it as Sahih according to the conditions of the two Sheikh while Dahabi in his book ‘Talkhis al-Mustadrak’ kept silent which means he agreed with al-Hakim. 
Imam Al-Haythami recorded it with the additional part in his book ‘Majma al-Zawaed’ volume 9 page 103 and declared its narrators to be authentic. 
Ibn Hajar said in his book ‘Fath al-Bari’ volume 7 page 61 about the tradition: ‘Many of it chains are Sahih and Hasan’. Al-Ejloni in his book ‘Kashf al-Khefa’ volume 2 page 274 said: ‘Thirty companions narrated it with the addition ‘Oh Allah support whoever support him’ hence the hadith is Mutwatir’

Albaani recorded it with the additional part in his book ‘Silsila Sahiha’ volume 4 page 249 and declared it as Sahih and then he wrote:
أنني رأيت شيخ الإسلام بن تيمية ، قد ضعف الشطر الأول من الحديث ، و أما الشطر الآخر ، فزعم أنه كذب ! و هذا من مبالغته الناتجة في تقديري من تسرعه في تضعيف الأحاديث قبل أن يجمع طرقها و يدقق النظر فيها . و الله المستعان .
I saw Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taimiyah state that he deemed the first part as weak and deemed the second part as a lie! And this is of his exaggerations due to his haste in rejecting the traditions before he collected the other chains and revised them accurately. And it is the help of Allah that is sought in that.

Ibn Taimiyah claimed that it is not recorded in any main book other than Tirmidhi. That is yet another lie on the part of this shameless enemy of Ahulbayt (as). The tradition has been recorded in many other prominent Sunni books that include:

[Sunan Ibn Majah, Volume 1, p45, Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, Volume 5, p347, Sahih ibn Haban, v15, p376, Al-Mujam al-Awsat by Tabarani, Volume 2, p25, Al-Mujam al-Kabir by Tabarani, Volume 5, p166, Al-Musanaf by Abdulrazaq, v11, p225, Al-Sunnan al-Kubra’ by Nisai, Volume 5, p130, Fadhail al-Sahaba by Nisai, p14, Al-Musanaf by Ibn Abi Shayba, Volume 7, p495, Al-Ahad wa al-Mathani by Dahak, Volume 4, p326, Al-sunnah by ibn Abi Asim, p590, Musnad Abi Y’ala, Volume 1, p429]

By Hook or by Crook it’s Weak!

Ibn Taymiyya said in his book "al-qaida al-jaleela fit- tawwasali wal-waseela", with commentary of Dr. Rabi'a bin Hadi 'Umayr al-Mudkhali, professor in the Islamic University of Madinah al-Munawwara, on page 166, para 493:

    "...and like that is the hadith that is narrated by 'Abd ar-Rahman ibn Zayd ibn Aslam from his father from his grandfather from 'Umar ibn al-Khattaab (ra), marfu'an and mawqufan 'alayh, that when Adam (as) has committed the sin, he said, 'O Lord! I ask you for the sake of Muhammad [bi haqqi Muhammad] to forgive me.' He subhanahu wa ta'ala said, 'How did you know Muhammad?' He said, 'because when you created me with Your Hands and blew into me from Your Spirit, I raised my head and I saw on the legs of Your Throne written, 'laa ilaha ill-Allah Muhammadu Rasulullah' so I knew You would not put next to your name except the one who is the most beloved to You.' He said, 'you have said the truth, O Adam, and if it were not for Muhammad, I would not have created you.'" [law laa Muhammadan maa khalaqtuk].

And Ibn Taymiyya continues:

    "And this hadith is narrated by al-Haakim in his Mustadrak, from the hadith of 'Abdillah bin Muslim al-FiHree, from Isma'il bin Salama. And Haakim said, 'and it is the first hadith I have mentioned from 'Abdur-Rahman in this book. And Haakim says that it is sahih. And it is related by Shaykh Abu Bakr al-Aajuri, in the book 'ash-Shari'ah' mawqufan on 'Umar from hadith 'Abdillah bin Isma'il bin Abi Maryam mawqufan from 'Abdur Rahman bin Zayd bin Aslam."

And we see here that Ibn Taymiyya is here presenting a hadith that was verified and certified by al-Haakim as authentic [sahih] and that is the hadith which related from Allah that "If not for Muhammad I would not have created you [O Adam]". And this opposes the many objections to such hadith like the similar hadith of Jaabir which is related about Allah that he said, "law laak maa khalaqtul khalq" - "If not for you [O Muhammad] I would not have created any of the Creation."

Ibn Taymiyya now goes into a lengthy discussion of the authenticity of the hadith which he just stated was authentic according to al-Haakim. He attempts, through various arguments and demonstrations by way of similar cases, that this hadith is weak because al-Haakim is not as strong as some other scholars. Let us examine here some of his arguments.

And on page 172, para 506 Ibn Taymiyya says, in support of his reasoning for weakening the sahih hadith of al-Haakim:

    "Muslim has narrated that 'Allah has created soil on Saturday'. And some people who have more knowledge than him disputed that, like Yahya ibn Ma'een and Bukhari and others and they clarified that this was wrong and it was not the words of the Prophet (saws). And the proof is with them, because it has been proved by the Book and the Sunnah and the Consensus [ijma'a] that Allahu ta'ala has created the heavens and earth in six days and His last creation was Adam and his creation was on Friday. And this hadith that has been disagreed upon indicates that He created that in seven days. And it has been narrated a more authentic isnaad than this that the beginning of creation was on Sunday."

Regarding Ibn Taymiyya's Statement regarding the hadith of Yahya bin Ma'een

It is important to note that in the footnote on this paragraph, by Dr. Rabi'a bin Hadi 'Umayr al-Mudkhali, professor in the Islamic University of Madinah al-Munawwara, says, "I could not find the words of Yahya bin Ma'een about this hadith after I researched it."

The professor gives another footnote about this, saying: "al-Bukhari in al-Taarikh al-Kabeer, 1/1/413/414, in the biography of Ayyub ibn Khalid, 'and Isma'il ibn Ummayya narrated from Ayyub ibn Khalid al-Ansaari from 'Abdullah ibn Raf'i from Abi Hurayrah (ra) from the Prophet (saws) said, "khalaq-Allahu at-turbata yawm as-sabt" - ["Allah created soil on Saturday"]'. And some of them relate it from Abi Hurayrah from Ka'b and that is more authentic"

Finally, Dr. Rabi`a bin Hadi `Umayr al-Mudkhali gives a third footnote, saying: "I did not find a hadith marfu` that is an exact quote that the beginnning of creation was on Sunday. But there are aathar from Ibn `Abbas, Ibn Mas`ud and `Abdullah ibn Sallaam that have been mentioned by Ibn Jareer in his Tareekh, 1/47. And the athar of Ibn `Abbas and Ibn Mas`ud, in it there is Isma'il ibn Abdur Rahman as-Saddi, trustworthy? but he was accused of being Shi`i. And regarding the athar of Ibn Sallaam, in its isnad Abu Ma`ashar, Najeeh bin Abdur Rahman as-Sindi is weak [da`eef] and in it 'Abdullah ibn Saalih. I did not know who he is, and I think he is the writer of Layth, and if he is then he is weak [da`eef]...."

Here we see that Ibn Taymiyya is building a house of cards in order to prove that the hadith of al-Haakim "law laa Muhammadan maa khalaqtuk" is weak, through a series of Byzantine arguments whose major foundation here is seen to be without support. And this is to be seen in a major scholar to be a tremendous weakness and serious indication of corruption, and Allah knows best.

We see here that Ibn Taymiyya states that Muslim was wrong based on the fact that "those more knowledgable than him" disputed it, starting with Yahya bin Ma'een. SURPISE THOUGH IT MAY BE, we find that YAHYA BIN MA'EEN DID NOT SPEAK AGAINST THIS HADITH AT ALL!!!

Ibn Taymiyya then tries to show that A HADITH NARRATED BY Imam Muslim was rejected by other scholars, "more knowledgable than him" and that the hadith Muslim narrated as sahih is not so, because Bukhari rejected it. We THEN FIND that in fact, Bukhari NARRATED IT HIMSELF.

On the contrary, the "hadith" "that the beginning of creation was on Sunday" which Ibn Taymiyya tries to use to support his argument AGAINST the hadith "Allah created soil on Saturday" is in fact no hadith at all but is an athar with no verifiable authenticity! And these are the words of a Wahabi muhaqqiq!

Now in a further footnote to this discussion of Ibn Taymiyya, on the hadith of Muslim by the Professor Rabi`a in which he says, "It was narrated by Muslim in the book 'description of hypocrites and the laws relating to them'/chapter 'the beginning of Creation' hadith 27, and Ahmad 2/327, and Ibn Ma'een in at-Tareekh, 3/52 and Bayhaqi in 'al-'asma was-siffaat', page 364."

Here again we see how Ibn Taymiyya was using misleading arguments against Imam Muslim. Here it is clearly related by Ibn Ma`een, whereas Ibn Taymiyya said, "And some people who have more knowledge than him disputed that, like Yahya ibn Ma`een..."

Subhanallah! How much could a man have hated the Prophet (s) so much to go to such deceitful lengths to weaken a hadith which honors the Prophet (s) so magnificently, and showing that tawassul through him is acceptable!!!

Mullah Ali Qari (rah) eventually came to the "RIGHT OPINION" in regards to Ibn Taymiyyah.
Mullah Ali Qari (rah) praised him in his "former" book called: Mirqaat Sharh al-Mishqaat.
You should Note that
Muallah Ali Qari (rah) in his latter book i.e. Sharh ash-Shifa went to the extent of doing Takfir on Ibn Taymiyyah.

Mullah Ali Qari (rah) said: Ibn Taymiyyah has disputed on the issue of traveling to visit the grave of Prophet (Peace be upon him) as he has declared it "HARAM TO DO SO" Some scholars have gone to the extent of doing Takfir upon a person who forbids this traveling (Mullah Ali Qari said): "This second qawl is closer to soundness and reward" because when on permissibility of something (scholars/Muslims) are unanimous then to reject it is "KUFR" especially when scholars are unanimous on something being Mustahab, then someone calling it Haram is "BY GREATER STANDARDS A KUFR" [Sharh ash-Shifa (3/514)]

Note:  If you have now become quite agitated by reading the above and are unable to digest try from here:

Guru of Anthropomorphism


The Servant which Allah Forsook Misguided,
 Blinded, Deafened, and Debased. 

Note: If you were dissatisfied Here many years ago then you may continue again from  Here ! otherwise you may have already made up your mind Here!

Ibn Taymiyyah Indulged himself in Kufr

Ibn Taymiyyah says Aļļaah needs, is divisible, settles in a place, has 6 limits, has a size, and must be creating (though He can choose what to create – but not whether to create or not.)

Before reading the below, note that Imam Fakhrudin Ar-Raziy said :
 The evidence shows that the one who says that Aļļaah is a body has denied Aļļaah’s existence. The reason is that the God of the World exists, and is not a body or positioned in a body. Therefore, if the one who says that Aļļaah is a body denies this existence (without a body) then he has denied Aļļaah’s existence. It is correct to say then, that the one who says that Aļļaah is a body does not believe in Allah [1]. (Mafaatiiĥ Al-Għayb, 16/24)

Similarly, Imam Al-Qurţubiy in his commentary in the Qur’aan narrates from his Sħaykħ Ibn Al-ˆArabiy regarding the those who say Aļļaah has a body:  The sound verdict is that they are blasphemers, because there is no difference between them and those that worship idols and pictures [2]. (Tafsiir Al-Qurţubiyy, 4/14)

In light of this, to know the reality of the one the Wahabi sect calls "Sheikh al-Islam," read the following.

Ibn Taymiyyah says Aļļaah is divisible

In Ibn Taymiyyah’s book Bayaan Talbiis Al-Jahmiyyah [3]:
[Fakħruddiin Ar-Raaziyy says,] if He (Aļļaah) was divisible, then He would be composed (i.e. and therefore attributed with multitude of parts) which contradicts oneness and we have already showed that this is an invalid claim….

[Ibn Taymiyyah responds:]
Rather, it is clear that if this (i.e. that Aļļaah should be divisible) was impossible, then this would mean nothing could exist….(Bayaan Talbiis Al-Jahmiyyah, 1/33)

Take note of what he is saying. He is saying that if something is not divisible in some sense, then it cannot exist, even Aļļaah. He is affirming his belief that Aļļaah is indeed divisible.
Ibn Taymiyyah says Aļļaah has composition, settles in a place, has different sides/parts, and needs

[Ibn Taymiyyah continues to say:]
We have already clarified what possibilities (in terms of what they mean) are associated with the words composition, settling in place, being other (having different sides or parts), and need, and that the meaning meant by this is something all existing things must be attributed with, whether necessary in existence (he means Aļļaah) or possible in existence (creation.) Verily, to say that this is impossible (for Aļļaah to be attributed with,) is pure sophistry. (Bayaan Talbiis Al-Jahmiyyah, 1/33)

He is saying here that nothing can exist, not even Aļļaah, unless it has a place, parts (such as different physical sides), and needs.

Based on this incredibly ^ugly statement, it is no wonder then, that a number of scholars, as mentioned by TaqiyyudDiin Al-Ĥuşniyy, said that Ibn Taymiyyah was "an absolute kaafir."

 It is no wonder also that ˆAlaa’udDiin Al-Bukħaariyy in fury uttered, "whomsoever calls him Sħaykħ of Islam is himself a kaafir." That is, those who know about his blasphemous beliefs, as being uttered by him, or believe that he died on such beliefs without repenting.

Ibn Taymiyyah says Aļļaah has 6 limits, one of which is adjacent to the ˆArsħ

Ibn Taymiyyah said:
This moderate saying among the three sayings of Al-Qaađii Abuu Yaˆlaa is the one that agrees with what Aĥmad says and others among the imaams. He [i.e. Aĥmad ibn Ĥanbal – and this is a lie, Aĥmad believed what Muslims believe, but that is another matter (Trans.)] has stated, “Aļļaah is in a particular direction, and He is not spread out in all directions. Rather, He is outside the world, distinct from His creation, separate from it, and He is not in every direction.” This is what Aĥmad, may Aļļaah have mercy upon him, meant when he said, “He has a limit that only He knows.” If Aĥmad had meant the direction towards the ˆArsħ (Throne) only, then this would be known to Aļļaah’s slaves, because they know that Aļļaah’s limit from this direction is the ˆArsħ, so we know then that the limit they do not know is unqualified, and is not specified for the direction of the ˆArsħ (Bayaan Talbiis Al-Jahmiyyah, 1/438). [4]

Note from this that He is saying: First he claims that “Aļļaah is in a particular direction,” and that “Aļļaah’s limit from this direction is the ˆArsħ.” This is according to him the known limit. Then by his saying, “He is not in spread in all directions,” he affirms that Aļļaah has limits in all other directions, that is up, left, right, back and front, but that these are unknown in term of where.

Ibn Taymiyyah said Aļļaah has a size

Ibn Taymiyyah said: That something existing should not be increasing, or decreasing, or neither increasing nor decreasing, and yet exist and not have a size – this is impossible (Bayaan Talbiis Al-Jahmiyyah, 3/146). [5]

In other words, he is of the opinion that everything that exists, including the Creator, must have a size
According to Ibn Taymiyyah then, Aļļaah has a size limited by 6 limits.
Ibn Taymiyyah said that Aļļaah’s acts of creating come into existence in Him

Sunnis believe that Aļļaah creates by His Power without changing or going through time. This is because anything that has a beginning must be created. Accordingly, claiming that Aļļaah’s actions have a beginning implies that His actions need to be created by another act, and that act by another act, and so on. This means that an infinite loop of acts need to be completed before anything can be created, and this is impossible, because an infinite loop cannot be completed.

An-Nasafiyy said:  "The Karraamiyyah (pre-Ibn Taymiyyah anthropomorphists) all claimed that Aļļaah’s creating is an event in Aļļaah with a beginning, and that events occur in Aļļaah. Aļļaah is greatly above what the unjust ascribe to Him (Tabşiratu-l-Adillah, 141)."

He also said about them:

I really do not know how these unbelievers in God talk the talk of atheists and Greek philosophers and affirm the beginning of the world, and then accept to believe that the beginninglessly eternal (i.e. Aļļaah) is something in which events (anything with a beginning) take place. How can they, when this necessitates either believing that the Creator has a beginning, or that the world (anything other than Aļļaah) has no beginning….(Tabşiratu-l-Adillah, 501-502)

Ibn Taymiyyah, in contrast to this, said:
It has become clear that nothing can come into existence except from an actor (he means the Creator) that does something one after another.” He also said: “An act is impossible except bit by bit. (Aş-Şafadiyyah, 2/141) [6]

In other words, according to Ibn Taymiyyah, acts of creating come into existence in Aļļaah Himself, after non-existence. This is a blasphemous belief, as mentioned above.
Ibn Taymiyyah said that creation is eternal, and that Aļļaah has no choice, but to create something

Based on his idea that Aļļaah’s actions have a beginning, Ibn Taymiyyah argues that Aļļaah has always been doing one act after another (i.e. creating) without a beginning.
He says:
It is a necessity of Aļļaah’s self to act, but not an act in particular, and not having something done in particular, so there is no eternal object in the world, and He is not eternally a complete influencer for anything (to exist) in the world, but He has in beginningless eternity always been a complete influencer for something (to exist), one after another… (Aş-Şafadiyyah, 2/97) [7]

Note that his statement “It is a necessity of Aļļaah’s self to act, but not an act in particular,” means that Aļļaah has no choice but to create something. 
This is a plain ascription of flaw to the Creator, and the one that has such a belief is light years away from being anything that can be called a Muslim. 
All Muslims must believe that Aļļaah does not need, and is not compelled to, or obligated to create at all.

Note also that the influence for something (to exist) that he speaks of, will be for a body to exist, or something to exist in a body, because he believes nothing can exist except bodies. According to him then, Aļļaah is the only eternal body among an eternal series of other bodies that He was compelled to create, although the type of bodies and events in them was His choice. In other words, he says that the world (which is anything other than Aļļaah) is eternal, because Aļļaah is eternally compelled to create something or another.

What Muslims believe, on the other hand, is that Aļļaah is the Creator of all things, and that He did not have to create anything, because He does not need anything, and is not obligated to do anything. In other words, it is not a necessity for Aļļaah to act, i.e create, anything at all. This is because Aļļaah is perfect, and therefore does not need to do anything.

Ibn Taymiyyah, however, does not accept this, and comments on a statement of Ibn Ĥazm:
And even stranger than that is his (Ibn Ĥazm’s) claim that the scholars are in consensus about declaring a kaafir the one that does not believe that “He was eternally the only one in existence, and there was nothing existing with Him, then He created everything as He willed. (Naqd Maraatibi-l-‘Ijmaaˆ, 303) [8]

This is an attempt to hide his ugly kufr from his followers, for look at what Ibn Ĥajar Al-Asqalaaniy said:

Our shaykħ in his explanation of At-Tirmidħiyy said, “….. and it has been related by Al-Qaađii ˆIiaađ and others that the one who says that the world (anything other than Aļļaah) is eternal is a kaafir (non-Muslim) by scholarly consensus.”
And Ibn Daqiiq Al-ˆIiid said: “It happened from some of those who claim to master intellectual matters, and inclines towards Philosophy, to think that the one that disagrees with the world having a beginning is not declared a kaafir…. and this is from blindness, or pretended blindness, because the world having a beginning is one of those things that are established by scholarly consensus and unequivocal (mutawaatir) narrational evidences. (Fatĥu-l-Baarii, 12/202) [9]


Aş-Şafadiyyah. Aĥmad Ibn Taymiyyah (728 AH) Al-Ĥarraaniyy. Egypt: Maktabah Ibn Taymiyyah, 1406.
Bayaan Talbiis Al-Jahmiyyah. —. Makkah: Maţbaˆah Al-Ĥukuumah, 1392.
Fatĥu-l-Baarii Sħarĥu Şaĥiiĥi-l-Bukħaariyy. Ibn Ĥajar Al-ˆAsqalaaniyy. Beirut, Lebanon: Dar Al-Marefah, 1379.
Jaamiˆu Aĥkaami-l-Qur’aan. Al-Qurţubiyy (671 AH), Sħasuddiin. Ed. Hisħaam Samiir Al-Bukħaariyy. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Daar ˆaalam Al-Kutub, 1423.
Mafaatiiĥ Al-Għayb. FakħrudDiin Al-Raaziy. Beirut, Lebanon: Dar Al-Kotob Al-ilmiyah, 1421.
Naqd Maraatibi-l-‘Ijmaaˆ. Aĥmad Ibn Taymiyyah (728 AH) Al-Ĥarraaniyy. Beirut, Lebanon: Daar Ibn Ĥazm, 1419.
Tabşiratu-l-Adillah. Abu-l-Muˆiin An-Nasafiyy. Ed. Dr. Hüseyin Atay. Turkey: Riʼāsat al-Shuʻūn al-Dīnīyah lil-Jumhūrīyah al-Turkīyah, 1993.
الصفدية. أحمد عبد الحليم بن تيمية الحراني (728). مصر: مكتية ابن تيمية, 1406.
بيان تلبيس الجهمية في تأسيس بدعهم الكلامية. —. Ed. محمد بن عبد الرحمن بن قاسم. مكة المكرمة: مطبعة الحكومة, 1392.
فتح الباري شرح صحيح البخاري. أحمد بن علي بن حجر أبو الفضل العسقلاني الشافعي 852 هـ. بيروت, لبنان: دار المعرفة, 1379.
نقد مراتب الإجماع. أحمد عبد الحليم بن تيمية الحراني (728). بيروت, لبنان: دار ابن حزم, 1998.


[1] يقول الرازي: الدليل دل على أن من قال إن الإله جسم فهو منكر للإله تعالى وذلك لأن إله العالم موجود ليس بجسم ولا حال في الجسم فإذا أنكر المجسم هذا الموجود فقد أنكر ذات الإله تعالى فالخلاف بين المجسم والموحد ليس في الصفة بل في الذات فصح في المجسم أنه لا يؤمن بالله (مفاتيح الغيب ـ ترقيم الشاملة موافق للمطبوع – 16 / 24)
[2] يقول القرطبي: الصحيح القول بتكفيرهم ، إذ لا فرق بينهم وبين عباد الأصنام والصور (تفسير القرطبي – 4 / 14)
[3] قال ابن تيمية: قولك إن كان منقسما كان مركبا وتقدم إبطاله تقدم الجواب عن هذا الذي سميته مركبا وتبين أنه لا حجة أصلا على امتناع ذلك بل بين أن إحالة ذلك تقتضي إبطال كل موجود ولولا أنه أحال على ما تقدم لما أحلنا عليه وتقدم بيان ما في لفظ التركيب والتحيز والغير والافتقار من الاحتمال وإن المعنى الذي يقصد منه بذلك يجب أن يتصف به كل موجود سواء كان واجبا أو ممكنا وإن القول بامتناع ذلك يستلزم السفسطة المحضة (بيان تلبيس الجهمية ج 1 ص 33).
[4]قال ابن تيمية: فهذا القول الوسط من أقوال القاضي الثلاثة هو المطابق لكلام أحمد وغيره من الأئمة وقد قال إنه تعالى في جهة مخصوصة وليس هو ذاهبا في الجهات بل هو خارج العالم متميز عن خلقه منفصل عنهم غير داخل في كل الجهات وهذا معنى قول أحمد “حد لا يعلمه إلا هو” ولو كان مراد أحمد رحمه الله الحد من جهة العرش فقط لكان ذلك معلوما لعباده فانهم قد عرفوا أن حده من هذه الجهة هو العرش فعلم أن الحد الذي لا يعلمونه مطلق لا يختص بجهة العرش (بيان تلبيس الجهمية, ج1/ص438).
[5] قال ابن تيمية: فأما كون الشيء غير موصوف بالزيادة والنقصان ولا بعدم ذلك وهو موجود وليس بذي قدر فهذا لا يعقل (بيان تلبيس الجهمية, ج3/ص146).
[6]قال ابن تيمية في الصفدية : وتبين أنه لا يمكن حدوث شيء من الحوادث إلا عن فاعل يفعل شيئا بعد شيء….” وقال: “الفعل لا يعقل ولا يمكن إلا شيئا فشيئاً….(الصفدية, 2/141)”
[7] قال ابن تيمية في الصفدية (2 / 97): وحينئذ فالذي هو من لوازم ذاته نوع الفعل لا فعل معين ولا مفعول معين فلا يكون في العالم شيء قديم وحينئذ لا يكون في الأزل مؤثرا تاما في شيء من العالم ولكن لم يزل مؤثرا تاما في شيء بعد شيء وكل أثر يوجد عند حصول كمال التأثير فيه.
[8]قال ابن تيمية في: وأعجب من ذلك حكايته الإجماع على كفر من نازع أنه سبحانه "لم يزل وحده، ولا شيء غيره معه، ثم خلق الأشياء كما شاء.(نقد مراتب الإجماع, 303)”
[9]قَالَ شَيْخنَا فِي شَرْح التِّرْمِذِيّ : الصَّحِيح فِي تَكْفِير مُنْكِر الْإِجْمَاع تَقْيِيدُهُ بِإِنْكَارِ مَا يُعْلَم وُجُوبُهُ مِنْ الدِّين بِالضَّرُورَةِ كَالصَّلَوَاتِ الْخَمْس ، وَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ عَبَّرَ بِإِنْكَارِ مَا عُلِمَ وُجُوبه بِالتَّوَاتُرِ وَمِنْهُ الْقَوْل بِحُدُوثِ الْعَالَمِ ، وَقَدْ حَكَى عِيَاض وَغَيْره الْإِجْمَاع عَلَى تَكْفِير مَنْ يَقُول بِقِدَمِ الْعَالَم ، وَقَالَ اِبْن دَقِيق الْعِيد : وَقَعَ هُنَا مَنْ يَدَّعِي الْحِذْق فِي الْمَعْقُولَات وَيَمِيل إِلَى الْفَلْسَفَة فَظَنَّ أَنَّ الْمُخَالِف فِي حُدُوث الْعَالَم لَا يُكَفَّر لِأَنَّهُ مِنْ قَبِيل مُخَالَفَة الْإِجْمَاع ، وَتَمَسَّكَ بِقَوْلِنَا إِنَّ مُنْكِر الْإِجْمَاع لَا يُكَفَّر عَلَى الْإِطْلَاق حَتَّى يَثْبُتَ النَّقْلُ بِذَلِكَ مُتَوَاتِرًا عَنْ صَاحِب الشَّرْع ، قَالَ وَهُوَ تَمَسُّكٌ سَاقِط إِمَّا عَنْ عَمًى فِي الْبَصِيرَة أَوْ تَعَامٍ لِأَنَّ حُدُوث الْعَالَم مِنْ قَبِيل مَا اِجْتَمَعَ فِيهِ الْإِجْمَاع وَالتَّوَاتُر بِالنَّقْلِ (فتح الباري – العسقلاني, 12/202).


(Edited by ADHM)


...and now that you have became more stubborn and insist,  ask your (sheikh/imam) to explain the following: