500AH
==============
Shaykh
al-Islam Imam Al-Ghazali (d.505 AH) says
in “Iljaam Al-Awaam” that denying bodily characteristics
for Aļļaah is a primary duty of all Muslims, scholars and commoners
alike.
He makes it clear that believing that Allaah
is a body (i.e. something that
has size) is kufr and idolatry: I mean
by “body” something with length, width and depth that prevents
something else to exist where it exists….
So if
it came to someone’s mind that Aļļaah is a body composed of
limbs, then this person is an idol worshipper.
The
reason is that all bodies are created, and to worship something
created is kufr.
After all, idol worship is kufr because the idol is created, and the idol is created because it is a body. Hence, the one who worships a body is a kaafir by the consensus of the Muslim Nation, both the salaf and those later.
Imam al-Ghazali also makes the same point about Ru’yah in a detailed section of his al-Iqtsad fil I’tiqad (his masterpiece on ‘Aqidah).
Please
read his clear discussion (starting from فلنبحث
عن الحقيقة ما هي؟)
translated below:
“We
should therefore discuss the reality (of Ru’yah) what is it? It has
no reality but that it is a type of perception, which is a more
complete and a greater disclosure in relation to imagination. For
example, we see a friend and then shut our eyes, so the image of the
friend is present in our brain in the sense of imagination and
conceptualisation. But if we opened the eye, we would perceive a
difference.
That difference is not due to perceiving an image different to what was in the imagination. Rather, the image that was seen is in conformity to the one imagined without difference. So there is no distinction between them, except that this second state is like a completion for the state of imagination and is like an opening-up of it. So when opening the eye, an image of the friend is created in a way that is more clear, complete and perfect…Hence, imagination is a type of perception at a level, and beyond it is another level which is more complete than it in clarity and disclosure, and is like a completion of it. So we call this completion with respect to the imagination: Ru’yah and Ibsar.
“Similarly
there are some things which we know but we cannot imagine, which is
the essence of Allah and His attributes, and everything that doesn’t
have a form, meaning no colour and no size, like power, knowledge,
love, sight and imagination. These are things we know but do not
imagine. Knowledge of them is a kind of perception. So we should
contemplate: Does the intellect (‘aql) find it impossible that this
perception can be more complete – its relation to it (meaning the
more complete perception’s relation to knowledge) is like the
relation of seeing to imagination? If that is possible, we refer to
that disclosure and completion in relation to knowledge: Ru’yah,
like we referred to it in relation to imagination: Ru’yah. It is
known that the possibility of this completion in opening-up and
disclosure is not impossible in known things that exist which are not
imagined, like knowledge, power etc. and likewise, in the essence and
attributes of Allah (Most High)…So we say that is not impossible,
as there is nothing making it impossible, but ‘aql is proof of its
possibility…However, this completion in disclosure is not expended
in this world, while the soul is in the occupation of the body and
the impurity of its attributes, so because of it, it (complete
disclosure) is hidden to him. Just as it is not farfetched that the
eyelid or a screen or a stain in the eye is a cause – according to
the normal course of nature – of the impossibility of viewing
imagined things, so it is not farfetched that the impurity of the
self and the overloading of the veils of occupations – according to
the normal course of nature – prevents viewing (ibsar) of known
things. So when what is in the graves are scattered…and the hearts
are purified by pure drink…it is not impossible that because of it,
it becomes ready for greater completion and perception of the essence
of Allah (Most High). Since in all known things, the elevation of its
level from the recognised type of knowledge is like the elevation of
the level of sight from imagination, this is expressed as meeting
Allah (Most High), witnessing Him, seeing Him, and observing Him, or
whatever expression you please, as there is no tenacity in that after
the meanings are made clear.
“When
that is possible, when this reality is created in the eye, the term
Ru’yah in terms of the applicability of language to it is even more
true. Creating it in the eye is not impossible, just as creating it
in the heart is not impossible. Once it is understood what the people
of truth intend by Ru’yah, it is known that the intellect does not
find it impossible, but necessary as the Shari’ah attests to it, so
there is no room for disagreement except by obstinacy or tenacity in
using the term Ru’yah or deficiency in understanding these subtle
meanings we described. We should limit ourself to this quantity in
this summary.”
---
Alhamdulillah,
his discussion beautifully explains what I had in my mind and what I
tried to convey above. Towards the end of his discussion on
Ru’yah,
Imam
al-Ghazali says
(from: ولينظر
المنصف كيف افترقت الفرق)
“Let
the fair person consider how the splinter groups divided, and parted
into the extremist and the negligent:
As for the Hashawiyyah,
they were not able to understand something that exists which is not
in a direction, so they affirmed direction, so by necessity,
corporealism, measurement, and having the qualities of temporality
became necessary for them. As for the Mu’tazilah, they negated
direction, and they were not able to affirm Ru’yah without it, and
because of it they opposed the absolute decrees of Shari’ah, and
they believed that in affirming it (Ru’yah) there is affirmation of
direction
“These (Mu’tazilah) became immersed in
tanzih trying to avoid tashbih, so they were negligent. And the
Hashawiyyah affirmed direction, trying to avoid ta’til so they made
(Allah) similar [to creation].
So Allah guided the Ahlus
Sunnah to establish the truth. So they acquired the middle path, and
they knew that direction is negated, because it is a complement and
completion of corporealism, and that Ru’yah is established, because
it is a passenger of knowledge and its close relative, and it
(Ru’yah) is a completion of it (knowledge). Hence, negation of
corporealism necessitated the negation of direction which is from its
necessites. And the establishment of knowledge necessitated the
establishment of Ru’yah which is from its follow-ups and completors
and shares with it in its quality which is that it does not
necessitate any change in the essence of the object that is seen, but
pertains to it as it is, like knowledge. It is not hidden to the
intelligent person that this is moderation in belief [Iqtisad fil
I’tiqad].”
Imam
al-Ghazali on seeking
intercession through
the Prophet,sallallahu
‘alayhi wa sallam:
ثم
يقول ” اللهم إنك قد قلت وقولك الحق {
ولو
أنهم إذ ظلموا أنفسهم جاءوك فاستغفروا
الله واستغفر لهم الرسول لوجدوا الله
تواباً رحيماً }
اللهم
إنا قد سمعنا قولك وأطعنا أمرك وقصدنا
نبيك متشفعين به إليك في ذنوبنا وما أثقل
ظهورنا من أوزارنا تائبين من زللنا معترفين
بخطايانا وتقصيرنا فتب اللهم علينا وشفع
نبيك هذا فينا وارفعنا بمنزلته عندك وحقه
عليك
“Then
he (i.e. the person who is visiting the grave of the Prophet,
sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) should say:
O Allah, You spoke
and your saying is the truth: { If they had only, when they were
unjust to themselves, come unto thee and asked Allah’s forgiveness,
and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have
found Allah indeed Oft-returning, Most Merciful } [4:64].
O
Allah, we’ve indeed heard your statement and followed your command
and came to your Prophet seeking intercession through him unto You
for our sins and burdens that weigh [heavily] on our backs, repenting
from our faults and confessing our errors and shortcomings.
So
grant us forgiveness, o Allah, and let this your Prophet intercede
for us, and elevate us by virtue of his rank and right with You.”
Source: “Ihya` ‘Ulum al-Din”
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shaykh
Abul-Wafa’ ‘Ali Ibn ‘Aqil
al-Baghdadiyy (d. 513 AH), the
head of the Hanbali School at the time, was quoted in a book
called ‘Al-Baz al-Ashhab’:
“Allah is clear of having the
attribute of occupying places, for this is exactly the blasphemous
belief of tajsim (attributing
Allah with bodily concepts)”.
Ibn `Aqil al-Hanbali - One of the great early authorities of the Hanbali school said: “Exalted is Allah above having an attribute which occupies space — this is anthropomorphism itself! Nor is Allah divisible and in need of parts with which to do something. Does not His order and His fashioning act upon the fire? How then would He need the help of any part of Himself, or apply Himself to the fire with one of His attributes, while He is the one Who says to it: “Be coolness and peace” (21:69)? What idiotic belief is this, and how far remote it is from the Fashioner of the dominions and the firmaments! Allah gave them the lie in His book when He said: “If these had been gods, they would never have gone down to it” (21:99): how then can they think that the Creator goes down to it? Exalted is Allah above the ignorant pretenses of the mujassima!”” [Ibn al-Jawzi, Daf` shubah al-tashbih p. 172-174. ]
-------------------------------------------Imam
Abu Nasr ibn al-Qushayri (d.514 AH) described the method that the
anthropomorphists use to lead people to adopt wrong beliefs. He
mentioned this in his book at-Tadhkirat ash-Sharqiyyat. Imam Murtada
az-Zabidi quotes an excerpt of this book in volume 2 of his own book
Ithaf Sadat al-Muttaqin pages 176-177 (last paragraph of page 176,
first paragraph of page 177), where Ibn al-Qushayri says :
A
group of people has appeared, and if it were not for the fact that
they approach laymen by what is close to their way of thinking and
what is imagined in their illusions, I would have honoured this book
by avoiding to [even] mention them.
They
say: ‘We follow the apparent meaning, and the verses which suggest
resemblance [between Allaah and His creations], for example the
narrations which suggest a limit and a member [to Allaah], we give
them the apparent meaning, and it is not permissible to interpret in
another meaning, for any of those issues.‘ They pretend to be
following the saying of Allaah ta’aala وما
يعلم تأويله إلا الله (wa
ma ya’lamu ta’weelahu ‘illallaah) which means “And only
Allaah knows its ta’weel”, and these people, by Allaah, are more
harmful to Islam than the Jews, the Christians, the fire-worshippers
and the idol-worshippers. Indeed, the deviations of the non-Muslims
are obvious, and the Muslims steer clear away from them, whereas
these people have launched an attack on the religion and on the
laymen in a way which can fool the weakest among them. They have
suggested these bad innovations to their followers, and they have
introduced in their hearts the fact of attributing to the one who is
worshipped subhaanah:members, senses, ascending, descending, lying
down, sitting, as well as moving into the different directions.
Therefore, the one who goes by the apparent meaning, he will start to
imagine, with his illusions, things which are perceptible by our
senses, and he will then have as a belief unacceptable things, and
the tide will take him away without him even realising. He also says,
page 179:
The
truth of the matter is that the very people who prohibitothers to
make interpretations [actually] believe in assimilation, tashbih
[i.e. making Allah resemble His creations] but they try to hide it by
saying “Allah is attributed with a Yad which is not like other
yads, and Allah is attributed with a Qadam but not like other qadams,
and Allah is attributed with al-Istiwa’ by Himself, but not like
the istiwa’ we can perceive.”
Let
the person who is among the people of the truth and who has been
granted [proper] understanding say to them: ‘These statements need
further clarification. For you to say ‘We take the text according
to its apparent meaning, but we cannot understand its meaning’, is
contradictory.
If
you take the literal meaning of the ayah يوم
يكشف عن ساق ‘Yawma
yukshafu ‘an saaq,’ which means: ‘A day when a saq is
uncovered” then the literal meaning of ‘saq’ is the organ which
is composed of skin, flesh, nerves, bone and marrow. And if you take
this literalmeaning, and make it binding upon yourself to accept
these otherorgans, it is therefore blasphemy. And if it is not
possible for you to take this literal meaning, then where is your
rule of taking the apparent meaning (i.e. how is it that you claim to
adhere to the literal meanings?). Wouldn’t you [actually] leave out
the apparent meaning and acknowledge that the Lord ta’aala is free
from what is suggested by the apparent meaning? And if the enemy says
“These literal interpretations (adh-dhawaahir) do not have a
meaning in the first place” then it is as if he is saying that
these ayahs are invalid and that there is no benefit in these verses,
and this is impossible.
Imam
Abu Nasr ibn al-Qushayri is the son of the renowned Imam Abu l–Qasim
al-Qushayri (d.465 AH) Imam Murtada az-Zabidi, who quotes this
statement, is also a great scholar who died in (d.1205 AH) and who
wrote Taj al-Arus min Jawahir al-Qamus which is an Arabic dictionary
in twenty volumes and the absolute reference in its genre. The book
from which this statement by al-Qushayri is taken is from another one
of his famous books entitled Ithaf Sadat al-Muttaqin and it is a
commentary of the book Ihya’u ‘Ulum ad-Dinby Imam al-Ghazali
(d.505 AH).
Look
at how contemporary his sentences sound! He says: ‘these people, by
Allaah, are more harmful to Islam than the Jews, the Christians, the
fire-worshippers and the idol-worshippers. Indeed, the deviations of
the non-Muslims are obvious, and the Muslims steer clear away from
them, whereas these people have launched an attack on the religion
and on the laymen in a way which can fool the weakest among them.’
Also pay attention to ‘Therefore, the one who goes by the apparent
meaning, he will start to imagine, with his illusions, things which
are perceptible by our senses, and he will then have as a belief
unacceptable things, and the tide will take him away without him even
realising.’
And
finally: ‘The truth of the matter is that the very people who
prohibit others to make interpretations [actually] believe in
assimilation, tashbih [i.e. makingAllah resemble His creations] but
they try to hide it by saying “Allah is attributed with a Yad which
is not like other yads, and Allah is attributed with a Qadam but not
like other qadams, and Allah is attributed with al-Istiwa’ by
Himself, but not like the istiwa’ we can perceive.’
It
is obvious that the arguments he was refuting at the time are those
still in use nowadays by some people. Instead of only saying “We
recite the revelation in Arabic and do not add anything to it (which
would have been correct), they say: “We take the verses according
to their apparent meaning, but we do not know how“, which Imam Ibn
al-Qushayri rigorously exposed as a nonsensical statement. [More
info/Scans:Here]
Imam Ibn Abi Ya'la (d. 526 AH)
has a famous book which he named as Tabaqat
al-Hanabila.
In
it he mentions the biographies of the Hanbali scholars from the time
of Imam
Ahmad bin Hanbal (d. 241 AH)
until his time.
Under
the chapter regarding his
father al-Qadhi
Abu Ya'la (d. 458 AH)
- who is one of the greatest scholars of the Hanabila and has a great
role in transmitting and spreading the Madhhab and is one of the
pillars (Arkan) of the Madhhab (as mentioned by Imam
al-Saffarini (d.
1188 AH)) - he mentions the beliefs of his father and those of his
[Hanbali] predecessors (meaning: the early Hanbalis) by saying […]Tabaqat al-Hanabila:
فأما الرد عَلَى المجسمة لله: فيرده الوالد السعيد بكتاب وذكره أيضا فِي أثناء كتبه فَقَالَ: لا يجوز أن يسمى اللَّه جسما. قَالَ أَحْمَد: لا يوصف اللَّه تعالى بأكثر مما وصف به نفسه. قَالَ الوالد السعيد: فمن اعتقد أن اللَّه سبحانه جسم من الأجسام وأعطاه حقيقة الجسم من التأليف والانتقال: فهو كافر لأنه غير عارف بالله عز وجل لأن اللَّه سبحانه يستحيل وصفه بهذه الصفات وَإِذَا لم يعرف اللَّه سبحانه: وجب أن يكون كافرا
As for the response against the Mujassima (those who regard Allah a body), then [my] blissful father has also responded to them with a book and has mentioned [their refutation] in [other] books, so he said: It is not allowed to name Allah a body. [Imam] Ahmad said: Allah ta'ala is not described with more than what He described Himself with. [My] blissful father said: So whoever believes that Allah - glory be to Him - is a body from among the bodies (Jism min al-Ajsam) and describes Him with the reality of a body from composition (Ta`lif) and change [of place or state] (Intiqal), then he's a disbeliever (!) (Kafir) because he does not know Allah - azza wa jall. For it is impossible regarding Allah - glory be to Him - to be described with these attributes [in reality]; and if someone does not know Allah - glory be to Him -, then it necessitates him being a disbeliever.””
Imam an-Nasafi (d.537 AH) in Aqaid an-Nasafi, states:
ولا جسم، ولا جوهر، ولا مصوَّر، ولا محدود، ولا معدود، ولا متبعض، ولا متجزءٍ، ولا متركب، ولا متناه، ولا يوصف بالماهية، ولا بالكيفية، ولا يتمكن في مكان، ولا يجري عليه زمان، ولا يشبهه شيء
Translation: "ALLAH is not a body (جسم), ALLAH is not an atom, ALLAH is not shaped, ALLAH is not limited…ALLAH is not described by quiddity, or by modality, ALLAH does not put Himself in a place (ولا يتمكن في مكان) nor does time pass over Him (ولا يجري عليه زمان) and nothing is comparable unto Him [Aqa'id an-Nasafi by Imam Abu Hafs Umar bin Muhammad an-Nasafi, Page # 67-69]
Which has been highly praised by all the scholars for its brevity, accuracy and completeness. Some 25 commentaries have been written on it. One of the most popular was the commentary written by S’ad ud-Din Taftazaani (d. 793 AH).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------Malik Ibn Anas’ al-Qadi (The Judge)
Abu Bakr Ibn
al-‘Arabi(d. 543 AH), a
great Maliki scholar from Andalusia (presently known as Spain)
In his book ‘al-Qabas fi sharh
Muwatta’ said:“Allah,
Who is ‘Al-Bari’ (The Creator) is clear from the limitation of
the six directions or the envelopment of places”.
"Those
who believe that Allah عزوجل
is
in a direction “followers of Pharaoh”. Your conclusion shows that
you are indeed the followers of Pharaoh, who believed that the
Creator lies in a certain direction, and so he desired to climb up to
Him on a ladder. He congratulates you for being among his followers,
and he is your imam!"
[Imam
Abu Bakr ibn al-`Arabi al-Maliki al-Ash'ari in Aridat al-Ahwadhi]
The Sunni Aqeedah of Qadi Abu Bakr ibn Al-'Arabi, Ibn al-`Arabi al-Maliki's Refutation of the mujassima in the Commentary on the Hadith of Descent: [More Info:Here]
----------------------------------------------Imam Muhammad al-Shahrastani (d. 548 AH)
For
post-classical Sunni theologians, tafwid and ta’wil were the two
ways of warding off the literalist interpretations that they
attributed to heretical corporealist (mujassima) groups such as the
Karramiyya and Hashwiyya.
Ibn Taymiyya rejected both
options, and it is thus not surprising that a scholar such as Ibn
Hajar al-Haytami should have castigated him for having the same
heretical views. Already the
theologian and heresiographer al-Shahrastani hadexpressed
the view that the origin of all shades of heretical
anthropomorphism (tashbih) lay in the insistence on
going beyond the tafwid of the salaf: A
group of later people added to what the salaf have said. They said:
It is imperative to keep to the literal sense and to understand it as
it appears, without presuming to reinterpret or suspend judgement as
regards the literal meaning (la budda min ijra’iha ‘ala dhahiriha
wa-al-qawl bi-tafsiriha kama waradat min ghayr ta’arrud
li-al-ta’wil wa la tawaqquf fi al-zahir). Hence they fell
into pure anthropomorphism (tashbih). This is contrary to what the
salaf believed. [Muhammad
al-Shahrastani, Kitab al-milal wa-al-nihal, ed. by W. Cureton
(Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1923 [reprint of 1846 edition],
64.]
Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdil-Karim
ash-Shahrastaniyy, a great Shafi’i scholar (d.548 AH) In
his book: ‘Nihayat al-‘Iqdam’, said: “The
creed of the People of Truth is that Allah, the Exalted, does not
resemble any of the creations, and none of them resembles Him in any
sort of similarity or equivalence. Verse 11 of Surat ash-Shura
means: [There is absolutely nothing that resembles Allah, and He is
attributed with Hearing and Sight]. Hence Allah is not a
constituent part of an object, a mass, a bodily characteristic, nor
is He located in any place or subject to time”.
Imam
Shahrastani relates that Imam Ash`ari said: The
vision of Allah does not entail direction, place, or form, or face to
face encounter either by impingement of rays or by impression, all of
which are impossible
[Shahrastani, al-Milal wa al-nihal as
translated by A.K. Kazi and J.G. Flynn, Muslim Sects and Divisions
(London: Kegan Paul International, 1984) p. 85.]
--------------------------------------------------------------
Muhiyudeen Shaikh Abd Al Qadir Al Jilani al Hanabali (d.561AH) in his Kitab sirr al Asrar wa Mazhar al Anwar said: ” Our Master the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wassallam) said, ‘ The hearts of the children of Adam are between the two fingers of the All-Merciful. He turns them whichever way He wills.’ The two fingers of Allah are His attributes of the irresistible power of punishment and the loving and delicate beauty of the beneficence. “ (chapter 14, interpreted/translated by Shaykh Tosun Bayrak al-Jerrahi al-Halveti) From his book:
al-Ghunya li-Talibi Tariq al-Haqq
Concerning the doctrine of the Anthropomorphists [al-Mushabbiha], we have three sub-sects to consider: The Hishamiyya, the Muqatiliyya and the Wasimiyya. The point on which all three of these sub-sects are in unanimous agreement is that Allah (Exalted is He) is a physical body [jism], and that it is impossible to conceive of that which exists [al-mawjud] in anything other than strictly physical terms. They were persuaded to adopt the anthropomorphic doctrine [tashbih] under the influence of the sects known as the Rawafid and the Karramiyya. The author who compiled their text books was a certain Hisham ibn al-Hakam, whose works include a book on the proof of the reality of the physical body [fi ithbat al-jism].
The Mushabbiha
1. The Hishamiyya trace their name and origin to Hisham ibn al-Hakam, who maintained that Allah (Exalted is He) is a physical body with the dimensions of length, breadth and depth [jism tawil ‘arid ‘amiq]; a brilliant light [nur sati’]; having a definite, measurable quantity [qadr mina’l-aqdar], like a pure ingot; capable of moving and of being at rest, of standing up and of sitting down. According to a story that has been told about him, he once said: “The best of all measurements would be seven spans.” When someone asked him: “Is your Lord Supreme [A’zam], or One [Ahad]?” he replied: “My Lord is Supreme.”
2. The Muqatiliyya trace their name and origin to Muqatil ibn Sulaiman. He is reported as having said that Allah (Exalted is He) is a physical substance; that He is a body [juththa] in the form of a human being-flesh and blood; that He has limbs and organs, such as a head, a tongue and a neck; and yet in all of the above He does not bear any resemblance to things [la yushbihu’l-ashya’], nor do they resemble him. [ al-Ghunya li-Talibi Tariq al-Haqq]
------------------------Imam Ibn Asakir (d.571AH) in his book: Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari fima nusiba ila l-imam al-Ash’ari
Page,150: Also, the ‘Najjariyyah’ say that the Creator, may He be exalted, is in all places without being diffused and without a direction, whereas the ‘Hashawiyyah’ and the ‘Mujassimah’ say that He is present on the Throne, that the Throne is His place, and that He is sitting on it. As for him [i.e. al-Ash’ari], he chose a middle way between the two, and he said that Allah existed and there was no place, then He created the Throne and the Kursi’, He does not need a place, and He is, after having created the places, as He has always been before He created them. He explains here that the belief of Imam al-Ash’ari is that Allah does not need places.
Abul-Qasim ‘Ali Ibn al-Husayn Ibn Hibatillah known as Ibn ‘Asakir ad-Dimashqiyy (d.571 AH) In his book ‘Tabyin kadhib al-Muftari’ on the subject of the Attributes of Allah, the Exalted, said: “He (Allah) is eternally existent and eternally place did not exist, He created the ^Arsh and Kursiyy without the need for place. He still exists, after place was brought into existence, as He was before creating the place (i.e. without a place)”.
Imam
Ibn ‘Asakir (d. 571 AH) has mentioned in his “Tabyin Kadhib
al-Muftari” thatImam Ibn Abi Zayd wrote a letter against someone
from the Mu’tazilah and he also quoted some passages from that
letter:
وقد
قرأت بخط علي بن بقاء الوارق المحدث المصري
، رسالة كتب بها أَبُو مُحَمَّدٍ عَبْدُ
اللَّهِ بْنُ أَبِي زيدالقيرواني الفقيه
المالكي ، وكان مقدم أصحاب مالك رحمه
اللَّه بالمغرب في زمانه إلى علي بن
أَحْمَدَبْنِ إِسْمَاعِيلَ البغدادي
المعتزلي جوابا ، عن رسالة كتب بها إلى
المالكيين من أهل القيروان يظهرنصيحتهم
بما يدخلهم به في أقاويل أهل الاعتزال ،
فذكر الرسالة بطولها في جزء وهي معروفة
فمنجملة جواب ابْن أَبِي زيد له ، أن قَالَ
ونسبت ابْن كلاب إلى البدعة ، ثملم تحك
عنه قولا ، يعرف أنهبدعة ، فيوسم بهذا
الاسم ، وما علمنَا مَنْ نسبَ إلى ابْن
كلاب البدعة ، والذي بلغنَا :
أنهيتقلد
السنة، ويتولى الرد على الجهمية ، وغيرهم
من أهل البدع يعني عَبْد اللَّهِ بن سعيد
بن كلاب وذكرتَالأشعري ، فنسبته إلى الكفر
، وقلتَ إنه كان مشهورا بالكفر ، وهذا ما
علمنَا أن أحدا رماه بالكفرغيرك ، ولم
تذكر الذي كفر به وكيف يكون مشهورا بالكفر
من لم ينسب هذا إليه أحد علمنَاه فيعصره
، ولا بعد عصره ؟ وقلتَ إنه قدم بغداد ولم
يقرب أحدا من المالكيين ، ولا من آل حماد
بن زيدلعلمه أنهم يعتقدون أنه كافر ، ولم
تذكر ما الذي كفروه به ؟ ثم ذكر ابْن أَبِي
زيد تشنيع علي بن أَحْمَدَالبغدادي على
الأشعري في مسألة اللفظ ، ثم قَالَ ابْن
أَبِي زيد في الرد على البغدادي :
والقارئ
إِذَا تلاكتاب اللَّه لو جاز أن يقال إن
كلام هذا القارئ ، كلام اللَّه على الحقيقة
لفسد هذا ، لأن كلام القارئمحدث ، ويفني
كلامه ويزول ، وكلام اللَّه ليس بمحدث
ولا يفني ، وهو صفة من صفاته ، وصفته لاتكون
صفة لغيره ، وهذا قول مُحَمَّد بن
إِسْمَاعِيلَ البخاري ، وداود الأصبهاني
، وغيرهم ممن تكلم فيهذا ، وكلام مُحَمَّد
بن سحنون إمام المغرب ، وكلام سعيد بن
مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الحداد ، وكان من المتكلمينمن
أهل السنة ، وممن يرد على الجهمية
Source: الكتب
– تبيين كذب المفتري فيما نسب إلى الأشعري
– باب ما ذكر في ذم الأشعريوأصحابه
As
you see he defends and praises Imam Ibn
Kullab (d.
240 AH) and also Imam al-Ash’ari (d. 324 AH) and even defends his
position regarding the Kalam of Allahsubhanahu wa ta’ala.
-----------------
Shaykh Ahmad Ar-Rifa’i ash-Shafi’i (d. 578 AH) In his book ‘Al-Burhan al-Mu’ayyad’ (The Substantiated Proof), the prominent Shaykh and Imam of true sufis, said: “Clear your beliefs from interpreting the Arabic term ‘Istiwa’’, when in reference to Allah, as physical establishment in a way similar to the ‘istiwa’’ ofbodies upon other bodies which dictates the act of occupation because Allah is clear of that. And do not sanction attributing to Allah a directional above or below, a location, a physical hand or an eye or interpreting the word ‘Nuzul’ as physically descendingor moving”.
----------------Imam Abu Faraj ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Jawzi, (d.597 AH)
Ibn al-Jawzi’s book against the so-called Hanbali anthropomorphists has received many editions and is widely available. The title is: ‘Daf` shubah al-tashbih bi akuffi al-tanzih‘, “The Repelling With the Hands of Purification of the Sophistries of Anthroporphism”, also known as ‘al-Baz al-ashabb al-munqadd `ala mukhalifi al-madhhab al- hanbali’, “The Flaming Falcon Swooping Down on the Dissenters of the Hanbali Madhhab”! Editions: Damascus, 1926; Cairo, 1977?; Beirut, 1987; Amman, 1991; and recently, a new edition by Imam Abu Zahra]
-Ibn al-Jawzi: “You have made this madhhab such a shameful disgrace that when it is said, “Humbali,” it is understood that he is someone who likens GOD to His creation. You have then made your way to be that of bigotry and intolerance, showing fanatical support for Yazid ibn Muawiyyah, when you well know that the founder of the madhab permitted cursing him”. (Ibn al Jawzi rejected and repudiated Yazid for his behavior) And, Abu Muhammed Tamimi used to say about one of your imams that: “[he] has disgraced the madhhab in a terrible way and it will not be cleansed until the day of resurrection.” [Daf` Shubah al-Tashbih bi Akuff al-Tanzih]More Info:Here
-Ibn al-Jawzi: “After they imagined a huge image on the Throne, they took to interpreting away all that contradicts its being located on the Throne.
So I ask you where is Allah?…They also said that the statement of Allah should come unto them in the shadows of the clouds (2:210) must be understood literally to mean the coming of His very Essence. So they declare it permissible one year and they declare it forbidden another. They said: ‘We affirm this according to its external sense!’ Then they placated the commonality by adding: ‘But we do not affirm limbs.’ It is as if they said: ‘So-and-so is standing but he is not standing.’ Those are less intelligent than Juha…
… CAUTIONING AGAINST SUCH PEOPLE IS WORSHIP.”
[Ibn al-Jawzi, Sayd al-Khatir (p. 91-95).]More Info: Here
============
600AH
============
Imam
Fakhrud-Din ar-Raziyy (d.606 AH), In his book authored on
interpreting the Qur’an known as ‘at-Tafsir al-Kabir’ (The
Great Interpretation) said: “Regarding the Ayah { وهوالعلي
العظيم }
it is impossible for the meaning of the word ‘Aliyy’, when
attributed to Allah, to refer to aboveness in terms of an upward
direction or place, as evidence confirms the fallacy therein. Hence,
this mandates that the meaning of the word ‘Aliyy’ is that Allah
is clear of resembling all intellectual possibilities and of any
similarity to the creation”.
As for the saying of the Most High, ‘What prevented you from prostrating to the one that I created with My Two Hands [yaday]?’ we reply:
Imam al-Razi’s Interpretation of ‘Two Hands’
Imam al-Razi:
Proofs tell us that the who says that God is a body is a disbeliever in God (who is greatly above and clear of flaws). The reason is that the God of the World exists, and He is not a body, or stationed in a body. So if the one who believes that God is a body denies this non-bodily existence, then he has disbelieved in God Himself. This means that the disagreement between the one that believes that God is a body, and the monotheist (i.e. in the Islamic sense, namely that God does not have a partner, part or a like in His self of attributes), is not based on a disagreement regarding attributes, but regarding the self (i.e. the identity of the one attributed with godhood.) It is sound to say then, that the one who believes that God is a body does not believe in Allah….
As for the Hululiyyah (those who believe that Allah settles in created things, such as the sky or a human body) and Hurufiyyah(those who believe that Allah’s attribute of Kalam/Speech consists of letters and sounds) sects, we say that they are unequivocally disbelievers. This is because Allah declared the Christians blasphemers for believing that Allah’s speech entered into Jesus, whereas the Hurufiyyah believe that it settles in the tongue of all those who recite Quran, and in all physical things that the Quran was written on. Accordingly, if the belief in its settlement in one single body (Jesus) is blasphemy, then it is even more blasphemous to believe that it settles in all shapes and bodies
[Fakhruddin Al Razi. Mafatiĥ Al-Għayb. altafsir.com] (More Info: Al Tafsir Al Kabeer in Arabic: Here
Ibn Qudamah al-Maqdasi (d.620AH) The Imām said:
وما أشكل من ذلك وجب إثباته لفظا، وترك التعرض لمعناه ونرد علمه إلى قائله
[لمعة الإعتقاد ج ١ ص ٦]
“And whatever is ambiguous from these [verses referring to the Sifāt of Allāh], it is compulsory to affirm its words, to leave the seeking of its meaning and consign its knowledge to the One [Allāh] who said it.” [Lum’at al-I’tiqād, 1/6]
The Imām has very clearly stated that the affirmation of these Attributes of Allāh are upon their words and their meanings are consigned, which gives validity to the fact that wherever he says Dhāhir, his intent is the apparent words and not the apparent meaning. [Read more/Info: Here]
Imam
Ibn Qudama said
in his
Lum'at al-I'tiqad:
موصوف
بما وصف به نفسه في كتابه العظيم وعلى
لسان نبيه الكريم وكل ما جاء في القرآن
أو صح عن المصطفى عليه السلام من صفات
الرحمن وجب
الإيمان به وتلقيه بالتسليم والقبول وترك
التعرض له بالرد والتأويل والتشبيه
والتمثيل
وما
أشكل من ذلك وجب إثباته لفظا وترك التعرض
لمعناه ونرد علمه إلى قائله ونجعل
عهدته على ناقله اتباعا لطريق الراسخين
في العلم الذين أثنى الله عليهم في كتابه
المبين بقوله سبحانه وتعالى:
{ والراسخون
في العلم يقولون آمنا به كل من عند
ربنا } وقال
في ذم مبتغي التأويل لمتشابه تنزيله:
{ فأما
الذين في قلوبهم زيغ فيتبعون ما تشابه
منه ابتغاء الفتنة وابتغاء تأويله وما
يعلم تأويله إلا الله
[Allah]
is described with what He described Himself in his magnificent book
and upon the tongue of his honorable Prophet. Whatever has been
mentioned in the Qur`an or has been authentically reported from
al-Mustafa - peace be upon him - regarding the attributes of the Most
Gracious (al-Rahman): It
is obligatory to have belief in it and to welcome it with submission
and acceptance and to abstain from going against it by rejection
(Radd) or interpretation (Ta`wil) or attributing similarity (Tashbih)
or likeness (Tamthil).
And
whatever is ambiguous from these [verses and narrations]: It is
obligatory to affirm its wording (Lafdh) and to abstain from seeking
its meaning (Ma'na) while consigning its knowledge to the One who
said it and we entrust it upon the
one who transmitted it, following the way of those having sound
knowledge, those whom Allah has praised in his manifest book by His -
subhanahu wa ta'ala - statement: {And
those having sound knowledge say, “We believe in it, all of it is
from our Lord”} [3:7]
And He said
censuring those seeking the interpretation of the Mutashabih (those
verses which are indistinct in their meanings) of His
revelation:
{Those in whose hearts
is deviation pursue the verses having indistinct meanings, in order
to cause turmoil and seeking its (wrongful) interpretation; and only
Allah knows its proper interpretation}
[3:7]
Imam Ibn ‘Abd al-Salam (d.660 AH) said, in his statement of doctrine: He was before He brought place and time into existence, and He is now as He ever was. [ Ibn ‘Abd al-Salam, al-Mulha fi I`tiqad Ahl al-Haqq in his Rasa’il al-Tawhid (p. 11).] The position of Imam Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’ari is similarly summed up by Abu al-Qasim ibn ‘Asakir: The Najjariyya said: ‘The Creator is in every place without indwelling (hulû) nor direction (jiha).’ The Hashwiyya and mushabbiha said: ‘The Creator took His place (hâ llun) on the Throne, the Throne is His location (makâ n), and He is sitting on top of it.’ Imam Al-Ash’ari took a middle ground and said: ‘Allah existed when there was no place; then He created the Throne and the Footstool (al-‘arsh wa al-kursî ) without ever being in need of place, and He is, after creating place, exactly as He was before creating it.‘ (In Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari (Saqqa ed. p. 150). This is the position of al-Ash’ari also as given byIbn Jahbal al-Kilabi (d. 733AH): “The words of the Shaykh[Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’ari] concerning direction are: ‘Allah was when there was no place, then He created the Throne and the Footstool, without ever needing place, and He is, after creating place, exactly as He was before creating it.'” (In Tabaqat al-Shafi`iyya al-Kubra (9:79).
Imam al-Izz ibn Abd al-Salam was asked in his Fatawa: “What do you say about Abu Zayd al-Qayrawani al-Maliki’s(d. 386) saying: “Allah is above His exalted Throne in person (bi dhatihi), and He is in every place with His knowledge“: Does such an affirmation attribute a direction to Allah or not? And is the one who holds such belief declared a disbeliever (kafir) or not?”
He replied: “The apparent meaning of what Ibn Abi Zayd said attributes direction for Allah, because he has made a difference between Allah’s being on the Throne and His being with His creation.
As for the second question: the more correct position is that the one who holds belief in Allah’s direction is not declared a disbeliever, because the scholars of Islam did not bring such as these out of Islam, rather, they adjudicated inheritance from Muslims for them, burial in Muslim grounds, sanctity of their blood and property, and the obligation to pray over their remains. The same is true of all the upholders of innovations: People never ceased to apply to them the rulings that apply to Muslims. Pay no attention to what the common people claim about their disbelief.”
Imam Ibn ‘Abd al-Salam said: “Allah is not a body and thus Has no form, He is not an entity and thus Has no measured limits. He does not resemble anything and nothing resembles Him. The six directions do not surround Him, nor do the earths and skies enclose Him. He is eternally existent before creating the creations. He created time, and He still exists as He eternally was (i.e. without a place)”.‘Mulhat al-I’tiqad’ [More Info: Here ]
-------
Note: Ibn
Tayimyyah was born (661 AH)
-------
Imam Al-Qurţubi (d.671 AH)
Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Ahmad al-‘Ansariyy al-Qurtubi a well-known Maliki scholar and explainer of the Holy Qur’an
Imam Al-Qurtubi states: I say accordingly that Aļļaah’s aboveness and His highness refers to His highness of glory and attributes and greatness. That is, nothing is above Him when it comes to the meanings of greatness that are necessarily ascribed to Him, and there is nothing that shares His aboveness with Him. Rather He is the most High in the absolute sense, subĥaanah. (Tafsiir Al-Qurţubi, 7 / 220)
Note that because aboveness in location is relative, unlike the absolute aboveneness that Al-Qurţubiyy affirms, those who believe in it are bound to attribute flaw to Aļļaah.
In Al-Asnaa Al-Qurţubiy says this explicitly: It is said to them [the anthropomorphists who believe Aļļaah is in a place or direction, etc.]: “If Allaah was specified by a specification, formed by a form, limited by a limit and end, existing in a specific direction, [or] changing by emergent [previously non existing] attributes in Himself, then He would have been emergent and specified by whatever He was specified with in terms of quantity and form, and [thus] requiring a specifier [for the quantity and form], and if He required a specifier, then He would have been in need and emergent. And if this is invalid, then it is true that He is without a limit or an end, and that He is Self-existent in the sense that He does not need a place to confine Him or a body to be in, or something to hold Him, or another that He gets help from. His attributes of His self do not change by His actions or leaving them. (Al-Asnaa, 2/21)
In short, Al-Qurţubi says that believing Allaah’s aboveness is one of direction/ location necessitates believing He has a flaw.This is because it necessitates likening Him to things that need a creator to specify it.
It also necessitates another flaw.
This additional flaw is that they will either have to say that Aļļaah can create a body above Himself, and thereby become below, or that He cannot, and have thereby attributed to Him lack of power to create bodies anywhere He chooses.
They have also made Him, according to their belief, dependent on creating something below Himself, in order to achieve aboveness.No wonder then, that Ibn Taymiyyah said Aļļaah must create something or another. According to him, the Creator would lose His aboveness if He did not! Such is the dilemma of the relative aboveness doctrine of wahabism.
Al-Qurtubi
said in his book al-Asnaa, page,193:
It
is a duty for every accountable person to know that Allaah is
attributed with absolute greatness [of status], and there is nothing
greater than Him [in status]. Further, He is clear of any attribute
that is bodily or related to having size, as He cleared Himself of
that by His saying: الكبير
المتعال
[which
may be interpreted to mean : Allaah is the One attributed with
absolute greatness and being above non-befitting attributes such as
having a shape or size. –Ed.]
By this He informed us that
He is Al-Kabiir, and the definitive particle “Al” indicates
absoluteness. Then Allaah said “Al-Mutaˆaal” and by that He
declared Himself clear of what makes bodies and bulky things great.
[For] who believes that [Allaah
has bodily greatness, i.e. in terms of shape or size]
is likening Allaah to a body, and is
an idolater.
—
Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Ahmad
al-‘Ansariyy al-Qurtubi (d. 671 AH), In his
book ‘Al-Jami’ li‘Ahkam al-Qur’an’ said: “The
name of Allah ‘Al-^Aliyy’ refers to His greatness in status, and
does not refer to an elevated place because Allah is clear of
occupying space”.
—
Note: Imam
al-Qurtubi did not say: “ the
salaf believed Allah was in a direction”
Al-Qurţubi explains why Aļļaah is not in a place or direction, and does not change.
Al-Qurţubi said: “It is said to them [the anthopomorphists who believe Aļļaah is in a place or direction, etc.]: “If Allaah was specified by a specification, formed by a form, limited by a limit and end, existing in a specific direction, [or] changing by emergent [previously non existing] attributes in Himself, then He would have been emergent and specified by whatever He was specified with in terms of quantity and form, and [thus] requiring a specifier [for the quantity and form], and if He required a specifier, then He would have been in need and emergent. And if this is invalid, then it is true that He is without a limit or an end, and that He is Self-existent in the sense that He does not need a place to confine Him or a body to be in, or something to hold Him, or another that He gets help from. His attributes of His self do not change by His actions or leaving them (Al-Asnaa, 2/21).”
Imam al-Qurtubi’s tafsir:
Translation [Ibn Ahmad]:
Ibn Al-‘Arabi said: I have been informed by more than one of our colleagues about the incident pertaining to the Imam of the two Holy Mosques, Abi Al-Ma’ala ‘Abd Allah bin Yusuf Al-Juwayni, when he was asked about The Creator being in a direction. He said, No! He transcends that. It was then said to him: What is the proof for this? He said: The proof for this is the saying of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم): “Do not give preference to me over Yunus Bin Mata (عليه السلام).”
Then it was said to him: What is the level of proof in this report? He said: I will not disclose it until my guest takes the following: 1000 dinars in order to repay outstanding loans. Two men then stood up and said: we will take up this task. He said: this task should not be undertaken by two, because they will split the financial obligation. Then an individual (amongst them) said: Then I will (personally) take up the task.
Thereafter,
the Imam proceeded to narrate the hadith and he said: Yunus bin Mata
flung himself into the ocean and the whale swallowed him up, and he
was thereafter surrounded by three layers of darkness at the very
bottom of the ocean. He cried out: “There is no god except You, be
You glorified. No doubt I have been amongst the transgressors.”
(Al-Ambiya, 87). This is as Allah (ta’ala) has reported it in the
Qur’an. And Muhammad (صلى
اللهعليه وسلم)
was not present when (Yunus) sat in the green meadows and ascended
high above them until he reached a place where he heard the squeaking
of pens, and his Lord entrusted him with that which the lord
entrusts. He thereafter sent revelation unto him (and) Allah (ta’ala)
has not revealed to anyone closer to Him than Yunus in the belly of
the whale in the darkness of the ocean.
Shaykh ul-Islam Imam An-Nawawi (d.676 AH)
————————————————
Imam An-Nawawi said in his commentary on Muslim’s ĥaditħ collection:
المنهاج شرح صحيح مسلم بن الحجاج , النووي , دار إحياء التراث العربي , 1392 – (3 / 19): اِعْلَمْ أَنَّلِأَهْلِ الْعِلْم فِي أَحَادِيث الصِّفَات وَآيَات الصِّفَات قَوْلَيْنِ : أَحَدهمَا : وَهُوَ مَذْهَب مُعْظَم السَّلَف أَوْ كُلّهمْ أَنَّهُ لا يُتَكَلَّم فِيمَعْنَاهَا ، بَلْ يَقُولُونَ : يَجِب عَلَيْنَا أَنْ نُؤْمِن بِهَا وَنَعْتَقِد لَهَا مَعْنًى يَلِيق بِجَلَالِ اللَّه تَعَالَى وَعَظَمَته مَعَ اِعْتِقَادنَا الْجَازِمأَنَّ اللَّه تَعَالَى لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْء وَأَنَّهُ مُنَزَّه عَنْ التَّجَسُّم وَالِانْتِقَال وَالتَّحَيُّز فِي جِهَة وَعَنْ سَائِر صِفَات الْمَخْلُوق ، وَهَذَاالْقَوْل هُوَ مَذْهَب جَمَاعَة مِنْ الْمُتَكَلِّمِينَ ، وَاخْتَارَهُ جَمَاعَة مِنْ مُحَقِّقِيهِمْ وَهُوَ أَسْلَم . وَالْقَوْل الثَّانِي : وَهُوَ مَذْهَبمُعْظَم الْمُتَكَلِّمِينَ أَنَّهَا تُتَأَوَّل عَلَى مَا يَلِيق بِهَا عَلَى حَسَب مَوَاقِعهَا ، وَإِنَّمَا يَسُوغ تَأْوِيلهَا لِمَنْ كَانَ مِنْ أَهْله بِأَنْ يَكُونَعَارِفًا بِلِسَانِ الْعَرَب وَقَوَاعِد الْأُصُول وَالْفُرُوع ، ذَا رِيَاضَة فِي الْعِلْم
Know that the scholars, with regard to the ĥadiths and ayahs that mention attributes, have two sayings:
One of them, and it is the saying of most of the Salaf, or all of them, is that one does not speak about their meaning. Instead they say, “we must believe in them and be sure that they have a meaning that befits the greatness and glory of Aļļaah, with the firm belief that Aļļaah does not resemble anything, and that He is clear of having a size, movement, a location in a direction, and all other attributes of creation. This saying is the saying of a number of the Kalaam scholars, and it is the chosen saying of a number of scholarly authenticators and verifiers, and it is the safest path.
The second saying, and it is the choice of most kalaam scholars, is that they are interpreted according what befits the context. This interpretation, however, is only acceptable from someone that is qualified by being an expert in the Arabic language (i.e. as used and understood by the companions) as well as the rules and principles of the religion, both in fundamentals and details, and this (work of interpretation) is a kind of exercise of (one’s) knowledge (i.e. for those qualified). [Al-Nawawiy, Sharĥ Saĥiiĥ Muslim Li-l-Nawawiy (Beirut, Lebanon: Dar Ihyaa’ Al-Turath Al-Arabi, 1392), 3/19.]
المنهاج شرح صحيح مسلم بن الحجاج , النووي , دار إحياء التراث العربي , 1392 – (6 / 36-37):قَوْله صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : ( يَنْزِل رَبّنَا كُلّ لَيْلَة إِلَى السَّمَاء الدُّنْيَا فَيَقُول : مَنْ يَدْعُونِي فَأَسْتَجِيب لَهُ ) هَذَا الْحَدِيثمِنْ أَحَادِيث الصِّفَات ، وَفِيهِ مَذْهَبَانِ مَشْهُورَانِ لِلْعُلَمَاءِ سَبَقَ إِيضَاحهمَا فِي كِتَاب الْإِيمَان وَمُخْتَصَرهمَا أَنَّ أَحَدهمَاوَهُوَ مَذْهَب جُمْهُور السَّلَف وَبَعْض الْمُتَكَلِّمِينَ : أَنَّهُ يُؤْمِن بِأَنَّهَا حَقّ عَلَى مَا يَلِيق بِاَللَّهِ تَعَالَى ، وَأَنَّ ظَاهِرهَاالْمُتَعَارَف فِي حَقّنَا غَيْر مُرَاد ، وَلَا يَتَكَلَّم فِي تَأْوِيلهَا مَعَ اِعْتِقَاد تَنْزِيه اللَّه تَعَالَى عَنْ صِفَات الْمَخْلُوق ، وَعَنْالِانْتِقَال وَالْحَرَكَات وَسَائِر سِمَات الْخَلْق . وَالثَّانِي : مَذْهَب أَكْثَر الْمُتَكَلِّمِينَ وَجَمَاعَات مِنْ السَّلَف وَهُوَ مَحْكِيّ هُنَاعَنْ مَالِك وَالْأَوْزَاعِيِّ : أَنَّهَا تُتَأَوَّل عَلَى مَا يَلِيق بِهَا بِحَسْب مَوَاطِنهَا . فَعَلَى هَذَا تَأَوَّلُوا هَذَا الْحَدِيث تَأْوِيلَيْنِ أَحَدهمَا: تَأْوِيل مَالِك بْن أَنَس وَغَيْره مَعْنَاهُ : تَنْزِل رَحْمَته وَأَمْره وَمَلَائِكَته كَمَا يُقَال : فَعَلَ السُّلْطَان كَذَا إِذَا فَعَلَهُ أَتْبَاعهبِأَمْرِهِ . وَالثَّانِي : أَنَّهُ عَلَى الِاسْتِعَارَة ، وَمَعْنَاهُ : الْإِقْبَال عَلَى الدَّاعِينَ بِالْإِجَابَةِ وَاللُّطْف . وَاللَّهُ أَعْلَم .
The saying of the Prophet (صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ) (literal unmeant translation):”Our Lord descends every night to the sky of the world, then says ‘who calls me, so that I will answer him?” This ĥaditħ are one of the ĥaditħs mentioning attributes. There are two famous ways of the scholars regarding them, that have been explained previously in the chapter on belief. Their brief description is that one is the approach of most of the Salaf, and some Kalaam scholars, which is to believe it is true in a sense that befits Aļļaah, and that its apparent, usual meaning for us, is not meant, and one does not speak about its meaning. This is accompanied with the belief that Aļļaah is clear of having attributes of created things, and of movement, movements, and all descriptions that are for created things.
The other approach is that of most Kalaam scholars, and groups among the Salaf, and they are narrated here from Malik and Al-‘Awzaaˆiy, is to interpret these according to what befits the context. Accordingly, they interpreted this ĥadiitħ in two ways. One of them is that of Malik and others, which is to say that it means: Aļļaah’s mercy, orders and angels descend, just as it is said, “the king did so and so”, when it was actually his followers that did it. The other interpretation is metaphorical, and its meaning is: “accepting those who call by answering them and showing them mercy.” [Ibid., 6/36-37.]
His commentary in his Sharh of Sahih Muslim regarding the narration of “descent/an-Nuzul”:
هذا الحديث من أحاديث الصفات، وفيه مذهبان مشهوران للعلماء: أحدهما وهو مذهب السلف وبعضالمتكلمين أنه يؤمن بأنها حق على ما يليق بالله تعالى وأن ظاهرها المتعارف في حقنا غير مراد، ولايتكلم في تأويلها مع اعتقاد تنزيه الله تعالى عن صفات المخلوق وعن الانتقال والحركات وسائر سماتالخلق، والثاني مذهب أكثر المتكلمين وجماعات من السلف وهو محكي هنا عن مالك والأوزاعي علىأنها تتأول على ما يليق بها بحسب مواطنها، فعلى هذا تأولوا هذا الحديث تأويلين أحدهما: تأويل مالكبن أنس وغيره، معناه تنزل رحمته وأمره وملائكته، كما يقال فعل السلطان كذا إذا فعله أتباعه بأمره،والثاني: أنه على الاستعارة ومعناه الإقبال على الداعين بالإجابة واللطف.
This hadith is from the hadith of the Sifat (of Allah), and regarding it there are two well known madhdhabs: the first, and it is the madhhab of the salaf and some of the Mutakallimin (scholars of kalam) that it is believe in their [i.e. the attributs] reality according to what befits Allāh ta’ala, and that the literal meaning that we commonly apply to ourselves is not what is meant, and that one does not speak regarding its interpretation while holding the belief that Allah ta’alā is free from the attributes of the created, and from translocation, and movement, and the rest of the attributes of created beings. The second is the madhdhab of the majority of the Mutakallimīn, and a group from amongst the Salaf, and it is what is reported from Mālik and al-Awzā’ī that they are interpreted figuratively but only according to their appropriate contextual meanings. On this basis there are two interpretations (ta’wils).
The first is the ta’wil of Imam Malik ibn Anas and other than he, that its meaning is the descent of His mercy and decree and His angels. [as is said regarding the Sultan …] and the Second interpretation is that it is an Isti’arah (metaphor) to signifiy turning to (iqbal) to those who supplicate to Him with fulfillment by answering [the du’aa] and showing lutf (kindness, generosity) [to those beseeching Him].[Sharh Sahih Muslim; Kitab Salat al-Musafirin]
Imam an-Nawawi denies the literal meaning, the creed of Ibn Tayimyyah, for Allah’s descent, and says the way of the salaf and the Mutakallimin is both tafwid and ta’wil.
Imam An-Nawawi also quoted Imam Malik elsewhere in his Sharh of Sahih Muslim regarding this issue of the “descent” of Allah,
فقد سئل الإمام مالك رحمه الله عن نزول الرب عزّ وجلّ، فقال “ينزل أمره تعالى كل سَحَر، فأما هوعزّوجلّ فإنه دائم لا يزول ولا ينتقل سبحانه لا إله إلى هو
Imam Malik was asked about the “descent” of Allah and he said, “His, the majestic’s, command descends every night, and as for Allah ‘azza wa jall, then he is eternal, he does not move or displace, glorified be He, and there is no god but He!”[6/37]
—
He says regarding the hadith of the “slave girl”:
هذا الحديث من أحاديث الصِّفات، وفيها مذهبان تقدَّم ذكرهما مرَّات في كتاب الإيمان: أحدهما:الإيمانبه من غير خوض في معناه، مع اعتقاد أنَّ الله ليس كمثله شيء،وتنزيهه عن سماتالمخلوقات.والثَّاني:تأويله بما يليق به. فمن قال بهذا – أي التأويل – قال: كان المراد امتحانها هل هيموحِّدة تقرُّ بأنَّ الخالق المدبِّر الفعَّال هو الله وحده، وهو الَّذي إذا دعاه الدَّاعي استقبل السَّماء،كماإذاصلَّى المصلِّي استقبل الكعبة،وليس ذلك لأنَّه منحصر في السَّماء، كما أنَّه ليس منحصراً في جهةالكعبة، بل ذلك لأنَّ السَّماء قبلة الدَّاعين، كما أنَّ الكعبة قبلة المصلِّين.أو هي من عبدة الأوثان العابدينللأوثان الَّتي بين أيديهم، فلمَّا قالت: في السَّماء علم أنَّها موحِّدة وليست عابدة للأوثان.
“This hadith is from the narrations of the attributes of Allah, and there are two madhdhabs regarding this, and I have mentioned them both in the chapter of Iman. The first is to believe in it without delving into its meaning, while believing that Allah has no similitude to Him at all, and negating for him the attributes of created beings. And the second school is that it is interpreted in a manner that befits Him.” […then he gives the interpretations…]
—
When Muslims lift their hands and face towards the sky when performing du^aa (supplicating to Allàh for something beneficial), it does not mean that Allàh exists in the skies.
Imam Al-Nawawi said:
في شَرْحِ صَحِيح مُسْلِم يَقولُ الإِمَامُ النَّوَوِيُّ : السَّمَاءُ قِبْلَةُ الدُّعَاء.
Means: The skies are the direction for the du^aa (i.e. supplication). Muslims lift their hands and face towards the skies, because it is the direction for the du^aa, just as the Ka^ba (Mecca) is the direction for all Muslims around the world to face towards when praying to Allàh. It is from the skies that the mercies and blessings from Allah descend. The Mushabbihah say that the skies are the direction to perform du^aa to use it as their so-called proof that Allàh occupies the skies. The Prophet made du^aa when his forehead was facing the ground while in prayer.
The Messenger of Allàh, Muhammad (peace and blessing be upon him) said:
Means: There is no space in the sky equal to the width of four fingers, except one would find an Angel worshipping and glorifying Allàh, either in standing, bowing or prostrating position. The Angels stay as such until the Day of Judgement, worshipping Allàh their Creator. This saying of the Messenger of Allàh is another proof that Allàh does not exist in the skies. This is because those whoever claim that Allàh exists in the upper skies, are claiming that Allàh is in between the Angels and His size is the width of four fingers? This is impossible, because the Creator is not a body, object, size, form or shape.
Imam an-Nawawi makes no mention of the madhdhab of the literalists who delve into the literal meaning and affirm it for Allah!
He also says in his Sharh of Sahih Muslim:
“Verily there is nothing like Allah ta’ala, and he is free from tajsim (corporeality), and displacement, and being within direction, and from the rest of the attributes of the created beings.” [3/19]
This is in direct contradiction to the creed of Ibn Taymiyyah who said that he does not deny “jism” – body/corporeality – for Allah.
He said, “It is well known that the Book , the Sunnah, and the Consensus nowhere say that all bodies (ajsaam) are created, and nowhere say that Allah Himself is not a body! Nor did any of the Imams of the Muslims ever say such a thing. Therefore if I also choose not to say it, it does not expel me from fitra nor from Shari’ah!” [At-Ta’sis 1:118 ]
Such stupidity only shows the ignorance of Ibn Taymiyyahin issues of creed! “The Book” does say He is not a body when He says “There is nothing like unto Him, and He is As-Sami’ al-Basir!” This is a verse of denial of everything in similitude with creation! For jism (corporeality/body) is an attribute of the created, and is thus tamthil.
Allah never ascribes himself with a body (jism), yet Ibn Taymiyyah is more than happy to do so for Him, exalted is He above what this deviant ascribed to Him!
Imam An-Nawawi disagreed with Ibn Taymiyyah, and this is a clear refutation of the claim of “Ijma’” by Ibn Taymiyyah
As Allah says in the Qur’an,
فَمَنْ أَظْلَمُ مِمَّنِ افْتَرَىٰ عَلَى اللَّهِ كَذِبًا أَوْ كَذَّبَ بِآيَاتِهِ
“And who is more unjust than one who invents about Allah a lie or denies His verses?” [7:37]
So the Qur’an does say He is not a body. But a question to ask the proponents of Tajsim (and this is what it is): Where does Allah ascribe to Himself a “body”? What proof do you have? Or is it that you do take the literal meaning of hand, shin, waist, foot, eyes, and with your sensual perception imagine Allah as the pagan Christians do as a body (jism), unlike other bodies – in other words with a bigger hand than humans. These folk have invented a lie upon Allah by saying about Him what He has denied about Himself!
Imam An-Nawawi is the complete opposite in creed of Ibn Taymiyyah. In fact, Imam An-Nawawi does not even recognize the school of Ibn Taymiyyah as being from Ahlus Sunnah, as you can see from his commentary in Sahih Muslim, rejecting the “literal” meanings as what is intended.
Imam An-Nawawi also said in his Sharh of Sahih Muslim:
من العلماء من يمسك عن تأويلها ويقول نؤمن بأنها حق وأن ظاهرها غير مراد ولها معنى يليق بهاوهذا مذهب جمهور السلف وهو أحوط وأسلم والثاني أنها تتأول على حسب ما يليق بتنزيه الله تعالىوإنه ليس كمثله شيء
“And from the scholars are those who refrain from interpretating [the narratives of attributes]. They say we believe that they are real and that the literal meanings of the texts are not what are intended, and the meaning is what befits His majesty and this is the madhhab of the majority of the Salaf, and it is most upright, and safest. The second school is one of interpretation of the texts in a manner which befits His Majesty, while denying any imperfections from Allah ta’ala, as there is nothing like unto Him!” [16/166]
Also Imam An-Nawawi quotes Imam Al-Mazari, the Maliki Asha’ri, in refutation of Ibn Qutaybah regarding his belief that Allah has an “image unlike other images” regarding the hadith “Allah created Adam in His image…”.
Imam al-Nawawi has also stated in his Sharh of Saheeh Muslim;
وهذا أشهر المذهبين للمتكلمين: وقال آخرون لا تتأول بل يمسك عن الكلام في معناها ويوكل علمها إلى اللهتعالى ويعتقد مع ذلك تنزيه الله تعالى وانتفاء صفات الحادث عنه: فيقال مثلا نؤمن بأن الرحمن على العرشاستوى ولا نعلم حقيقة معنى ذلك والمراد به مع أنا نعتقد أن الله تعالى (ليس كمثله شئ وانهمنزه عن الحلول وسمات الحدوث وهذه طريقة السلف أو جماهيرهم وهي أسلم إذ لا يطالب الانسان بالخوضفي ذلك فإذا اعتقد التنزيه فلا حاجة إلى الخوض في ذلك والمخاطرة فيما لا ضرورة بل لا حاجة إليه فاندعت الحاجة إلى التأويل لرد مبتدع ونحوه تأولوا حينئذ: وعلى هذا يحمل ما جاء عن العلماء في هذا واللهأعلم
"If there is a need for interpretation (ta'wil) in order to refute innovators and their like, then they (the Salaf) went ahead and applied interpretation. This is the correct understanding of what has reached us from the scholars concerning this subject, and Allah knows best.”
An-Nawawi and Al-Qadi Iyad said they are not Muslims:
قوله صلى الله عليه و سلم ( فليكن أول ما تدعوهم إليه عبادة الله فإذا عرفوا الله فأخبرهم إلى آخره ) قال القاضيعياض رحمه الله هذا يدل على أنهم ليسوا بعارفين الله تعالى وهو مذهب حذاق المتكلمين في اليهود والنصارىأنهم غير عارفين الله تعالى وان كانوا يعبدونه ويظهرون معرفته لدلالة السمع عندهم على هذا وان كان العقل لايمنع أن يعرف الله تعالى من كذب رسولا قال القاضي عياض رحمه الله ما عرف الله تعالى من شبهه وجسمه مناليهود أو اجاز عليه البداء أو أضاف إليه الولد منهم أو أضاف إليه الصاحبة والولد وأجاز الحلول عليه والانتقالوالامتزاج من النصارى أو وصفه مما لا يليق به أو أضاف إليه الشريك والمعاند في خلقه من المجوس والثنويةفمعبودهم الذى عبدوه ليس هو الله وان سموه به اذ ليس موصوفا بصفات الاله الواجبة له فاذن ما عرفوا اللهسبحانه فتحقق هذه النكتة واعتمد عليها وقد رأيت معناها لمتقدمى أشياخنا وبها قطع الكلام ابوعمران الفارسى بينعامة اهل القيروان عند تنازعهم في هذه المسألة هذا آخر كلام القاضي رحمه الله تعالى.
- (المنهاج شرح صحيحمسلم بن الحجاج , النووي , دار إحياء التراث العربي , 1392, 1 / 199-200 )
The saying of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) "let the first you call them to be the worship of Aļļaah, then when they know Aļļaah tell them…" etc.
Al-Qadi ˆIyad (رحمه الله) said: "This (i.e. the foregoing statement of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم)) indicates that they (the Christians) do not know Aļļaah, and this is the saying of the brilliant kalaam scholars regarding the jews and the Christians; that they do not know Aļļaah (تعالى) even if they worship Him (i.e. call what they worship by His name) and making it appear as if they know Him, based on what they narrate amongst themselves, even though it is not impossible in the mind’s eye that someone who disbelieves in a messenger does know Aļļaah."
Al-Qadi Iyad (رحمه الله) said: The one that likened Aļļaah to His creation, or believed Him to be bodily among the jews and Christians, or believed that He gains knowledge over time, or claimed He has a child, or a female companion and a child, or said he could exist in created things, or move from one place to another, or be mixed with creation, among the Christians or attributed to Him what is not befitting, or associated with Him a partner or opponent in creating among the Magians an dualists; what they worship is not Aļļaah, even if they called it that. This is because it is not attributed with the attributes that are necessarily His. Accordingly, they do not know Aļļaah (سبحانه), so realize this point well, and depend on it, and I have seen this point made by our predecessor shaykhs."
Al Imâm Al Hafidh Abu Zakariyya Muhyi d-Din Yahya Ibn Sharaf An-Nawawiyy in his very famous explanation of Sahih Muslim about Hadith al Jariyah, said:
“This hadith is among the hadith of attributes, and there are two methods in explaining it... One is to believe in it without delving into its meaning, confirming:
{(ليس كمثله شيء وهو السميع البصير)}
and that He is clear of the attributes of the creations.
The second (method) is to make ta’wil in a way that befits Him. So whoever takes by that (second method) says that what is meant is to subject her to a test: Is she a monotheist who confesses that the Creator, Manager, and Doer (of whatever He willed) is indeed Allâh alone, the one whom if the invoker supplicates to Him he directs himself to the sky, just as the one who prays directs himself towards the Ka^bah - and that is not because He is limited to the sky, nor is He limited to the direction of the Ka^bah, rather the sky is the Qiblah of those who supplicate, just as the Kabah is the Qiblah of those who pray - or is she an idol worshipper, among the pagans who worship the idols that are in their presence? So when she said: في اُلسّماء
which literally means “in the sky”; he knew that she was a monotheist, and not an idol worshipper.
Al-Qadi Iyad said, “There is no difference between the Muslims altogether; the scholar of fiqh, the scholar of hadith, the scholar of belief, the skillful debater, and the common Muslim, that the outward meanings of what is narrated in mentioning Allâh the exalted being in the sky, like His saying: {( أَأَمِنتُم مَن فِي السَّماءِ أَن يَخسِفَ بِكُمُ الأَرضَ)}
and texts like it, are not by their literal meanings, rather they are all given ta’wil according to all of the Muslims.”
This clearly indicates that Imâm an-Nawawiyy did not attribute a body or a place to Allâh Subhanahu wa Ta^ala and at the same time he related to us the consensus of the Muslims that was transmitted by Qadi Iyad.
--
Imam Abu Bakr al-Khatib al-Baghdadiy who was described as “the expert authors of Hadith are beginners compared to his books”. The sahih Hadith is not accepted if it opposed the Mutawatir hadith when it cannot be interpreted properly. So for the hadith of slave woman, we either interpret it as we mentioned, or we say as the other Ash^aris and Maturidis said that it’s an inconsistent hadith and cannot be used in Aqeedah. That’s why Imam Nawawiy did not mention it under the chapter of Eman, rather he mentioned it under “the chapter of prohibition of speaking in prayer” to show that it cannot be used in Aqeedah. [more Info:Here]
-------------------------------
NOTE: Ibn Taymiyyah (b.661AH) was 15 years old when the great Imâm an-Nawawi passed away. He lived in the era of such a great scholar who passed on the consensus of Qadi Iyad which clearly states that the literal meanings of certain texts cannot be taken and that ta’wil must be made for these texts.
Ibn Taymiyyah contradicted this consensus and he contradicted the scholars of his time as well as those who came before him.
--------------------------------
al-Imam 'Abdullah bin Mahmud bin Mawdud al-Mawsili
(d. 683 AH) major Hanafi scholar [it's in the context of the Ziyarah], who's buried near to Imam Abu Hanifah (d. 150 AH):
وقد قال الله تعالى : ( ولو أنهم إذ ظلموا أنفسهم جاءوك فاستغفروا الله واستغفر لهم الرسول لوجدوا الله توابا رحيما ) وقد جئناك ظالمين لأنفسنا ، مستغفرين لذنوبنا ، فاشفع لنا إلى ربك ، وأسأله أن يميتنا على سنتك ، وأن يحشرنا في زمرتك ، وأن يوردنا حوضك ، وأن يسقينا كأسك غير خزايا ولا نادمين ، الشفاعة الشفاعة يا رسول الله ، يقولها ثلاثا : ( ربنا اغفر لنا ولإخواننا الذين سبقونا بالإيمان ) الآية .ويبلغه سلام من أوصاه فيقول : السلام عليك يا رسول الله من فلان بن فلان ، يستشفع بك إلى ربك فاشفع له ولجميع المسلمين
"Allah ta'ala says: { If they had only, when they were unjust to themselves, come unto thee and asked Allah's forgiveness, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah indeed Oft-returning, Most Merciful } [4:64].
So we've come to you, having wronged ourselves and asking [Allah] for forgiveness regarding our sins, so intercede for us to your Lord and ask Him that He lets us die upon your Sunnah, and that He gathers us [on the day of reckoning] among your group, and allows us to get to your Hawdh and drink from your bowl without disgrace or regret.
Intercession intercession, O Messenger of Allah (al-Shafa'ah al-Shafa'ah, Ya Rasulallah) - he (the visitor) should say this thrice -, { “Our Lord, forgive us and those of our brothers who preceded us in faith” } [59:10] [till the end of] the Ayah.
[Then] he should deliver the greeting of those who have told him to do so by saying: 'Peace be upon you, o Messenger of Allah, from Fulan bin Fulan, he seeks intercession through you unto your Lord, so intercede for him and for all believers'."
Source: "al-Ikhtiyar li Ta'lil al-Mukhtar"
------------------------------------
Shaykh
Ahmad Ibn Idris al-Qarafiyy (d.684 AH),
an Egyptian Malikiyy scholar, In his book ‘Al-Ajwibah al-Fakhirah’
said: “And He (Allah) is not in any direction, and when we
are admitted to Paradise Allah will grant us the honour of seeing Him
without Him being in any direction”.
----------------------------------------
Shaykh Ahmad bin Hamdan al Hanbali (d.695 AH) Allah is not in a place (Read: Here )
Imam
Ibn Hamdan
(d. 695
AH)
said in his book Nihayat
al-Mubtadi`in -
which was written for teaching
purpose and is relied
upon by the Hanabila after him - the
following:
https://ia801601.us.archive.org/Book...ale=6&rotate=0
Allah
ta'ala is not a
particle (Jawhar) or an accident ('Aradh) or a
body (Jism) and temporality (Hawadith) does not indwell
in Him and He does not indwell
in what is emergent (Hadith) nor is
He confined by it, rather He is beyond His creation (ba`in min
khalqih).
Allah is upon the throne ('ala al-'Arsh) not with
a limitation [that
limits Him],
rather the limitation is that of the throne and of that which is
besides it (or below it) [from the creation]; and Allah is above
(fawq) [all of] that without place (Makan) or limitation (Hadd),
because He existed and there was no place (Makan), then He created
place and He is as He was before creating place.
Note: Ibn Taymiyyah’s first clash with the scholars occurred in (698 AH) in Damascus when he was barred from teaching after he issued his Fatwâ Hamawiyya in which he unambiguously attributes literal upward direction to Allâh.
**700AH**
Ibn Taymiyyah then returned to his activities until he was summoned by the authorities again in (705AH) to answer for his`Aqîda Wâsitiyya.
He spent the few following years in and out of jail or defending himself from various “abhorrent charges” according to Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalânî.
They witnessed over him that he had repented of his own free will from all that contravened the above. This took place on the 25th of Rabî` al-Awwal (707AH) and it was witnessed by a huge array of scholars and others.”
Ibn
‘Ata’ Allah al-Sakandari (d. 709 AH) cites it as one of his Hikam
(#34):
The Prophet (صلى
الله عليه وسلم)
said: “Allah was when there was nothing else than Him,
and His Throne was upon the water, and He wrote in the Reminder
(al-dhikr) all things, and He created the heavens and the earth.”
[
Narrated from ‘Imran ibn Husayn by al-Bukhari, Sahih, book of the
Beginning of Creation.]
Ibn `Ata’ Allah al-Iskandari – Debate with Ibn Taymiyya (Read: Here More Info: Here )
-------------------Imam An-Nasafi (d.710 AH) states in his Tafsir:
إنه تعالى كان ولا مكان فهو على ما كان قبل خلق المكان، لم يتغير عما كان.
“Verily He, the exalted, was without place, and He is as He was before creating (the entity of) ‘place’, not changing as He was [Tafsīr An-Nisfi ,Surah Taha, Volume: 2]
Imam
al-Nasafi states; “ He (Allah) is not a body
(jism), nor an atom (jawhar), nor is He something formed (musawwar),
nor a thing limited (mahdud), nor a thing numbered (ma’dud), nor a
thing portioned or divided, nor a thing compounded (mutarakkab), nor
does He come to end in Himself. He is not described by quiddity
(al-ma’hiya), or by quality (al-kayfiyya), nor is He placed in
space (al-makan), and time (al-zaman) does not affect Him. Nothing
resembles Him, that is to say, nothing is like Him.” (See:
Sa’d al-Din al-Taftazani & Najm al-Din al-Nasafi, Sharh
al-Aqa’id al- Nasafiyya, 92-97).
Imam Abu l-Barakat Abdullah ibn Ahmad an-Nasafi, wrote on page 164, volume: 2 of his Tafsir of the Qur’an :
[About the following verse :
وَلِلّهِ الأَسْمَاء الْحُسْنَى فَادْعُوهُ بِهَا وَذَرُواْ الَّذِينَ يُلْحِدُونَ فِي أَسْمَائه
Walillaahi l-asmaa’u l-husna fa-d’uhu bihaa wa dharu l-ladheena yulhiduna fi asmaa-ihi
which means : “And ALLAAH has the perfect names, therefore invoke Him by these names, and stay away from those who are guilty of ilhaad [atheism] towards these names”. Surate al-A’raf verse 180].
‘It is atheism (ilhaad) to call ALLAAH a ‘body’ (jism) or an ‘elementary particle’ (jawhar)
or a ‘mind/reason’ (‘aql) or a ’cause’ (‘illah)’
Imam Abu l-Barakat Abdullah ibn Ahmad an-Nasafi was a great exegete, i.e. a scholar specialised in the interpretation of the Qur’an. His Tafsir is famous. He is not to be confused with other great Hanafi scholars also named an-Nasafi, such as Najm ad-Din Abu Hafs an-Nasafi (d..537 AH) who wrote the book al-Aqaid, which has been commented by at-Taftazaani, and which a reference in terms of books of belief, or Maymun ibn Muhammad an-Nasafi, the theologian who wrote the book Tabsirat al-Adillah (d.508AH).
To
explain what ‘ilhaad’ means in this verse, Imam an-Nasafi says
that it is a type of atheism to call ALLAAH ‘jism’ or ‘illah’,
i.e. ‘body’ or ’cause’ . Indeed, these two names are not
among the names of Allaah narrated in the religious texts, and on top
of that their meaning does not comply with Islamic teachings. ALLAAH
is not a body, He is not composed of parts. And He is not a ’cause’
because this would equal saying that He does not have a will, and
that is the reason why imam an-Nasafi has considered this naming as
an act of blasphemy.
--------------------------------
Imam
Shams al-Din al-Jazari (d. 711 AH) refuting Ibn
Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH)
on seeking aid with
the Prophet, sallallahu
‘alayhi wa sallam
Imam Najm al-Din al-Tufi
al-Hanbali (d. 716 AH) mentioned
what Imam al-Jazari said and added some comments to it:
فاستغاثه
الذي من شيعته على الذي من عدوه)
[القصص
:15]
احتج
بها الشيخ شمس الدين الجزري شارح المنهاج
في أصول الفقه على الشيخ تقي الدين ابن
تيمية فيما قيل عنه أنه قال :
لا
يستغاث برسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم
لأن الاستغاثة بالله عز وجل من خصائصه
وحقوقه الخاصة به فلا تكون لغيره
كالعبادة.
وتقرير
الحجة المذكورة :
أنه
قال :
يجب
أن ينظر في حقيقة الاستغاثة ماهي وهي
الاستنصار والاستصراخ ثم قد وجدنا هذا
الإسرائيلي استغاث بموسى واستنصره
واستصرخه بنص هذه الآيات وهي استغاثة
مخلوق بمخلوق وقد أقر موسى عليها الإسرائيلي
وقد أقر الله عز وجل موسى على ذلك ولم ينكر
محمدا صلى الله عليه وسلم ذلك لمانزلت
هذه الآيات أي فكان هذا إقرارا من الله
عز وجل ورسوله على استغاثة المخلوق
بالمخلوق وإذا جاز أن يستغاث بموسى فبمحمد
صلى الله عليه وسلم أولى لأنه أفضل
بإجماع.
ومما
يحتج به على ذلك :
حديث
هاجر أم إسماعيل حيث التمست الماء لابنها
فلم تجد فسمعت حسا في بطن الوادي فقالت :
قد
أسمعت إن كان عندك غواث وهذا في معنى
الاستغاثة منها بجبريل وقد أقرها على ذلك
ولم ينكره النبي -صلى
الله عليه وسلم-
عليها
لما حكاه عنها.
ولأن
اعتقاد التوحيد من لوازم الإسلام فإذا
رأينا مسلما يستغيث بمخلوق علمنا قطعا
أنه غير مشرك لذلك المخلوق مع الله عز وجل
وإنما ذلك منه طلب مساعدة أو توجه إلى
الله ببركة ذلك المخلوق وإذا استصرخ الناس
في موقف القيامة بالأنبياء ليشفعوا لهم
في التخفيف عنهم جاز استصراخهم بهم في
غير ذلك المقام وقد صنف الشيخ أبو عبدالله
النعمان كتبا سماه :
(مصباح
الظلام في المستغيثين بخير الأنام)
واشتهر
هذا الكتاب وأجمع أهل عصره على تلقيه منه
بالقبول وإجماع أهل كل عصر حجة فالمنكر
لذلك مخالف لهذا الإجماع فإن قيل :
الآية
المذكورة في قصة موسى والإسرائيلي ليست
في محل النزاع من وجهين :
أحدهما
:
أن
موسى حينئذ كان حيا ونحن إنما نمنع
الاستغاثة بميت.
الثاني:
أن
استغاثة صاحب موسى به كان في أمر يمكن
موسى فعله وهو إعانته على خصمه وهو أمر
معتاد ونحن إنما نمنع من الاستغاثة
بالمخلوق فيما يختص فعله بالله عز وجل
كالرحمة والمغفرة والرزق والحياة ونحو
ذلك فلا يقال :
يامحمد
اغفر لي أو ارحمني أو ارزقني أو أجبني
[وفي
نسخة أخرى :أحييني
بدل أجبني]
أو
أعطني مالا وولدا لأن ذلك شرك بإجماع.
وأجيب
عن الأول :
بأن
الاستغاثة إذا جازت بالحي فبالميت المساوي
فضلا عن الأفضل أولى لأنه أقرب إلى الله
عز وجل من الحي لوجوه :
أحدها:
أنه
في دار الكرامة والجزاء والحي في دار
التكليف.
الثاني:
أن
الميت تجرد عن عالم الطبيعة القاطعة عن
الوصول إلى عالم الآخرة والحي متلبس
بها.
الثالث:
أن
الشهداء في حياتهم محجوبون وبعد موتهم
أحياء عند ربهم يرزقون.
وعن
الثاني:
أن
ماذكرتموه أمر مجمع مجمع عليه معلوم عند
صغير المسلمين فضلا عن كبيرهم أن المخلوق
على الإطلاق لايطلب منه ولا ينسب إليه
فعل ما اختصت القدرة الإلهية به وقد رأينا
أغمار الناس وعامتهم وأبعدهم عن العلم
والمعرفة يلوذون بحجرة النبي صلى الله
عليه وسلم ولا يزيدون على أن يسألو الشفاعة
والوسلية يارسول الله [وفي
نسخة أخرى :
برسول
الله]
اشفع
لنا يالله ببركة نبيك اغفر لنا فصار الكلام
في المسألة المفروضة فضلا لا حاجة بأحد
من المسلمين إليه.
وإذا
لم يكن بد من التعريف بهذا الحكم خشية أن
يقع فيه أحد فليكن بعبارة لا توهم نقصا
في النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ولا غضا من
منصبه مثل أن يقال:
ما
استأثر الله عز وجل بالقدرة عليه فلا يطلب
من مخلوق على الإطلاق أو نحو هذا ولا يتعرض
للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بسلب الاستغاثة
عنه مطلقا ولا مقيدا ولا يذكر إلا بالصلاة
والسلام عليه والرواية عنه ونحو ذلك.
هذا
حاصل ماوقع في هذه المسألة سؤالا وجوابا
ذكرته بمعناه وزيادات من عندي
“‘So the one of his own caste seeked assistance against the one who was of his enemies’ [quoting the verse from chapter al-Qasas, aya 15of the Qur’an]; The Shaykh Shams ud-Deen al Jazari, the commentator of the Minhaj in Usul al Fiqh (the science of foundation of Legal Jurisprudence) used it [i.e. this verse] as evidence against Shaykh Taqi udDeen Ibn Taymiyyah and his reported statement: “The assistance of the Messenger of Allah, May Allah send his peace and blessings upon him, is not sought as seeking assistance of Allah, the Exalted and Mighty, is from His specific characteristics and rights so it is not for other than Him just like (acts of) worship.’ “
The aforementioned refutation is as follows:
He
said, “It is necessary that one considers the true nature of
seeking assistance.
What is it and what is meant by seeking help and calling for help?
We find this man from the tribe of Israel sought the assistance of Musa [may the peace and blessings be upon him and the Seal of Prophets], and sought and called for his help as is explicitly stated in the text of this verse. This is the seeking assistance of a created being from another created being and Musa affirmed the man from the tribe of Israel in it and Allah, the exalted and Mighty affirmed Musa doing so. Furthermore Muhammad, May Allah send His peace and blessing upon him, did not find fault in it when these verses were revealed. In other words, this was affirmation from Allah, the Exalted and Mighty, and His Messenger for the seeking assistance of one created being from another created being and as seeking the assistance of Musa is permissible then it even more so of Muhammad as he is by consensus superior.
He also uses as evidence the narration of Hajar, the mother of Ismail, when she sought water for her son and did not find it. She heard a sound at the bottom of the valley and said, “[Oh whoever you may be,] you have made me hear your voice, [help us] if you can offer any help.” This statement conveys the meaning of her seeking the assistance of (the angel) Jibreel and the Prophet, May God send his peace and blessings upon him, affirmed her in this and did not disapprove of her.
Certainty in the oneness of God is one of the conditions of Islam. So when we find a Muslim seeking the assistance of a created being we know, without doubt, that he is not associating that created being with God, the Exalted and Mighty. Such an action is only his seeking help or turning to Allah by the blessing of that created being. People at the station of reckoning (on the Day of Judgement) will call for the help of the prophets seeking their intercession in bringing ease for themselves, hence it is permissable to call upon the prophets in other situations. Shaykh Abu Abdillah anNu’maan has written a book that he titled, “The lamp in darkness of those seeking assistance by the best of mankind.” This book has become famous and the people of his time have agreed upon this book in consensus. The consensus of the people of every age is considered a proof such that the one who disapproves is considered to be acting against the consensus.
If it is said that the aforementioned verse is regarding the story of Musa and the man from the tribe of Israel and it is not relevant to the point in contention for two main objections. The first being that Musa was alive at that time and we only decline to accept the seeking assistance of a dead being. The second is that the companion of Musa sought his assistance in a matter that Musa was able to undertake and that was his help with an opponent and that is a natural matter.
Yet we only contend with the seeking assistance of a created being in matters that are specific to God, the Exalted and Majestic, such as divine mercy, forgiveness, sustenance, giving life and so on.So one must not say, “Oh Muhammad forgive me or have mercy upon me or sustain me or answer me (and in another manuscript of the same text ‘give me life’ was mentioned) or give me money and a child” as all of that is associating a partner to God by consensus.
A response to the first objection is that if seeking of assistance of the living is allowed then so should it be allowed for the dead, if not even more so, as he they are closer than the living to God, the Exalted and Mighty for many reasons.
The first of which is that he is in the abode of Generosity and Recompense and the living is in the abode of legal responsibility.
The second is that the dead person, unlike the living, has broken free from the natural world that cuts of from reaching the other world.
The third reason is that the martyrs in their lives are veiled and after their death are alive with their Lord being sustained (alluding to Surah 2 V 154).
In response to the second objection it can be said that what you have mentioned is an agreed upon matter known to the youngest of Muslim let alone the eldest, i.e. that with regards to Divine Omnipotence another created being is not to be sought under any circumstance and that neither should be attributed to it. We have seen rabbles of people and their common-folk and the furthest of them from knowledge and divine certainty (gnosis) seeking refuge at the room of the Prophet (i.e. his resting place), may God send his peace and blessings upon him, and they do not go beyond asking for intercession and his being a medium, “Oh Prophet, intercede on behalf of us. Oh God, by the blessing of your Prophet, forgive us.” Hence such discussion about the matter becomes presumptuous and no one from amongst the Muslims is in need of it. If it is inevitable that by announcing this ruling it is feared that someone may fall into it then putting it another way do not delude yourself in finding fault in the Prophet, May God’s peace and blessings be upon him, or defect in his rank such as saying that which God has taken upon himself by Divine ability should not be sought from a created being at all and do not oppose the Prophet by stripping seeking assistance from Him unrestrictedly or restrictedly and do not mention him except by sending peace and blessings upon him and narrating from from and so forth.
This is that which concerns this matter and I have relayed it in a question and answer format with additional points from myself.” Source: “al-Isharat al-Ilahiyyah ila al-Mabahith al-Usuliyyah” 3/89-93 and translation taken from Here
----------------------------------------------------------
Fatwa (726AH) by The Four Orthodox Sunni Judges:
Qadi [Judge] Muhammad Ibn Ibrahim Ibn Jama’ah, ash-Shafi’i,
Qadi [Judge] Muhammad Ibn al-Hariri, al-`Ansari, al-Hanafi,
Qadi [Judge] Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr, al-Maliki, and
Qadi [Judge] Ahmad Ibn `Umar, al-Maqdisi, al-Hanbali.
Ibn Taymiyah was imprisoned by a Fatwa (religious edict) signed by four orthodox Sunni judges in the year (726 AH) for his deviant and unorthodox positions.
Note that each of the four judges represents the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence that Sunni Muslims belong to today. This illustrates that Ibn Taymiyah did not adhere to the authentic teachings of orthodox Sunni Islam as represented by the four schools of Sunni jurisprudence. There is no evidence to indicate that there was a “conspiracy” against Ibn Taymiyyah to condemn him, as Wahhabis and other Salafis purport in his defence.
Note: Ibn
Tayimyyah died in (728AH)
Also
amid with charges of kufr for declaring that one who travels to
visit the Prophet(s) commits a prohibition (Harâm), a sin (ma`siya),
and an innovation (bid`a).
------------------------
In the final five months of his last two-year period in jail Ibn Taymiyya was prevented from writing, at which time he turned to prayer and the intensive recitation of the Qur’ân and repented from having spent time writing doctrinal refutations instead of focussing on the commentary of the Qur’ân.
At that time he confided to his faithful student Ibn al-Qayyim: “My Paradise and my Garden are in my breast – meaning his faith and knowledge – and wherever I go they never depart from me. My prison is seclusion, my execution is martyrdom, and my exile is an excursion.” [In Ibn al-Qayyim, al-Wâbil al-Sayyib min al-Kalim al-Tayyib (p. 66).]
Al-Safadî said: “He wasted his time refuting the Christians and the Râfida, or whoever objected to the Religion or contradicted it, but if he had devoted himself to explaining al-Bukhârî or the Noble Qur’ân, he would have placed the guarland of his well-ordered speech on the necks of the people of knowledge.” [Al-Safadî, al-Wâfî bi al-Wafayât (7:19-22), cf. Ibn Taymiyya as related from al-Dhahabî by Ibn Rajab in Dhayl Tabaqât al-Hanâbila (2:401-402).]
Al-Nabahânî said in Shawâhid al-Haqq: “He refuted the Christians, the Shî`îs, the logicians, then the Ash`arîs and Ahl al-Sunna, in short, sparing no one whether Muslim or non-Muslim, Sunni or otherwise.”
--
Al-Tawfiq
al-Rabani written
by a group of Sunni scholars,
page
32:
علمه
أكثر من عقله فأداه اجتهاده إلى خرق
الاجماع في مسائل كثيرة قيل انها تبلغ
ستين مسألة فأخذته الألسنة بسبب ذلك وتطرق
إليه اللوم وامتحن بهذا السبب وأسرع علماء
عصره في الرد عليه وتخطئته وتبديعه ومات
مسجونا بسبب ذلك.
Sheikh
Iraqi regarding (ibn
Tayimyyah) said
“… his knowledge exceeded the capabilities of his brain, and he
therefore contradicted the ‘Ijma’ of Muslims on many issues. They
said on around 60 matters. They therefore criticized and blamed him,
and he has been examined due to that. The scholars of his time
refuted him, presented his mistakes, and deemed him a heretic. He was
also imprisoned due to that.”
-------------------------------------------------------
Ibn Tayimyyah was refuted by his contemporary:
Imâm Ibn Jahbal al-Kilâbî (d.733 AH), in a lengthy reply which Tâj al-Dîn al-Subkî reproduced in full in his Tabaqât al-Shâfi`iyya al-Kubrâ.
Ibn Jahbal wrote: “How can you say that Allâh is literally (haqîqatan) in (fî) the heaven, and literally above (fawq) the heaven, and literally in (fî) the Throne, and literally on (`alâ) the Throne?!”
Ibn Jahbal also says in his Refutation of Ibn Taymiyya: 22. We say: Our doctrine is that Allah is pre-eternal and pre-existent (qadî azalî ). He does not resemble anything nor does anything resemble Him. He has no direction nor place. He is not subject to time nor duration. Neither “where” (ayn) nor “at” (hayth) applies to Him. He shall be seen, but not as part of an encounter, nor in the sense of an encounter (yurâ lâ’an muqâ bala wa lâ ‘alâ muqâ ‘ala). He was when there was no place, He created place and time, and He is now as He ever was. This is the madhhab of Ahl al-Sunna and the doctrine of the shaykhs of the [Sufi] Path – may Allah be well-pleased with them. (Tabaqat al-Shafi`iyya al-Kubra(9:41).
Ibn Jahbal refuted such kufristic insinuations in his refutation of Ibn Taymiyyah that has been translated and published:
The Refutation of Him (Ibn Taymiyyah) Who Attributes Direction to Allah by Ibn Jahbal
We say to him: What do you say concerning the mention of “several eyes” (a‘yun), the mention of the “flank” (janb), the mention of the single “shin” (saq), and the mention of the “several hands” (aydi)?
If we take these literally then we must affirm a being that has one face with many eyes, a single side, many hands, and a single shin! What being on earth is possibly uglier?
And if you take the liberty of interpreting this and that to be dual or singular, then why does Allah not mention it, nor the Prophet(s), nor the Salaf of the Community? (Chapter 7: The Absurdity of His Literalism, pp. 221-223)
Ibn Jahbal al-Kilabi al-Halabi (d.733 AH) wrote:
''Whenever Hasan al-Basri (d.110AH) spoke on the science of al-Tawhid, he would begin by taking out of his gathering all those that were not fit to hear. May Allah have mercy on the Salaf! They did not speak about doctrine except with the Ahlus Sunnah among them - for the Sunnah is the basis of the verifying authorities - and they withheld any such discourse from newcomers. They said; "Newcomers see things for the first time and are barely starting on their way. They have no prior experience and no firm foothold in these matters - even if they are seventy years old.
Sahl ibn `AbdAllah al-Tustari (d.283AH) said; "Do not acquaint newcomers with the secrets before they become firmly settled in their belief that the Allah عزوجل is One and that the subject of monotheism is Unique, Everlasting, and transcends modality and place. Thoughts cannot encompass Him nor can hearts conceive of Him in terms of `How''. [Shaykh Ibn Jahbal al-Kilabi al-Halabi ash-Shaf'i' al-Ash'ari . al-Radd `ala Man Qala bi al-Jiha (Refutation of Ibn Taymiyya) Point 12]
The Refutation of Him (Ibn Taymiyyah) Who Attributes Direction to Allah by Ibn Jahbal
We say to him: What do you say concerning the mention of “several eyes” (a‘yun), the mention of the “flank” (janb), the mention of the single “shin” (saq), and the mention of the “several hands” (aydi)? If we take these literally then we must affirm a being that has one face with many eyes, a single side, many hands, and a single shin!
What being on earth is possibly uglier?
And if you take the liberty of interpreting this and that to be dual or singular, then why does Allah not mention it, nor the Prophet(s), nor the Salaf of the Community? (Chapter 7: The Absurdity of His Literalism, pp. 221-223) More Info: Here
Ibn Juzayy al-Kalbi al-Gharnaouti (d.741AH), in his commentary work on the Quran “Tasheel li Ulum al-Tanzeel”, comments on the verse:
And your god is one God. There is no god except Him, the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful. [2:163]
{ وَإِلَـٰهُكُمْ إِلَـٰهٌ وَٰحِدٌ } الواحد له ثلاثة معان كلها صحيحة في حق الله تعالى: أحدها: أنه لا ثاني له فهو نفي للعدد، والآخر: أنه لا شريك له، والثالث: أنه لا يتبعض ولا ينقسم، وقد فسر المراد به هنا في قوله؛ لا إلٰه إلاّ هو.
واعلم أن توحيد الخلق لله تعالى على ثلاث درجات الأولى: توحيد عامة المسلمين وهو الذي يعصم النفس من الهلك في الدنيا، وينجي من الخلود في النار في الآخرة، وهو نفي الشركاء والأنداد، والصاحبة والأولاد، والأشباه والأضداد.
الدرجة الثانية: توحيد الخاصة، وهو أن يرى الأفعال كلها صادرة من الله وحده ويشاهد ذلك بطريق المكاشفة لا بطريق الاستدلال الحاصل لكل مؤمن، وإنما مقام الخاص في التوحيد يغني في القلب بعلم ضروري لا يحتاج إلى دليل، وثمرة هذا العلم الانقطاع إلى الله والتوكل عليه وحده واطراح جميع الخلق، فلا يرجو إلا الله، ولا يخاف أحداً سواه إذ ليس يرى فاعلاً إلاّ إياه ويرى جميع الخلق في قبضة القهر ليس بيدهم شيء من الأمر، فيطرح الأسباب وينبذ الأرباب،
والدرجة الثالثة: ألا يرى في الوجود إلا الله وحده فيغيب عن النظر إلى المخلوقات، حتى كأنها عنده معدومة. وهذا الذي تسميه الصوفية مقام الفناء بمعنى الغيبة عن الخلق حتى أنه قد يفنى عن نفسه، وعن توحيده: أي يغيب عن ذلك باستغراقه في مشاهدة الله. Source
Rough Translation:
{And your god is one God} Wahid (i.e., “one”), has three meanings all of which are correct in right of Allah Almighty:
First: That He is not a second, He denied the number;
Second: That He does not have a partner; and
Third: That He is not distributed nor divided, (which is) the interpretation intended here by the saying {There is no god except Him}. And know that Tawhid has three stations,
First: Tawhid of the generality of Muslims, it will protect him in this created world, and save him from eternity in the Hell fire in the next life. He denies Him a partner or an equal, an associate or a child, likeness or an opposite.
The second station: Tawhid of the special/distinguished, He believes that all his actions are issued from Allah alone and witness it by way of disclosure and not by way of reasoning (as done) by all believers, but rather this special station of Tawhid enriches the heart with the necessary knowledge without the need for proof. The fruit of this knowledge is the dedication to Allah and trust in Him alone and discarding all of creation, having no hopes or requests but from Allah, and fearing none else (but Him), he would see that nothing can cause effect but by Him, and sees all of creation in the grip of the Subduer, not in his (own) hands is any command over matters, he discards the (correlative natural) causes and discards (false) lords.
The third station: He does not see anything in existence but Allah alone, the creation is hidden from his sight until like non-existent. This is what the Sufis call the station of Fana, meaning he stays away (hides) from creation until he annihilates his self, and (hence) tawhid: to be concealed by immersing himself in the Sight of God.
----------------------------------------------------
Imam Abu Zayd ibn al-Imam Tilimsani (d.742 AH)
Successfully Disputed with ibn Taymiyya in Egypt
Changing Views of ibn Taymiyya by Khaled el-Rouayheb:
Ibn
Taymiyya had also gained notoriety for his literal interpretation of
the hadith al-nuzul to which Sanusi alluded, i.e. the tradition
stating that Allah descends to the lowest heaven during the last
third of the night (or according to a variant, on the night of
mid-sha’ban). The later North African scholar Baba al-Tunbukti (d.
1624; 1036AH), author of a popular biographical dictionary of Maliki
scholars, referred precisely to Ibn Taymiyya’s literal
interpretation of this Hadith.
Al-Tunbukti noted that the
scholar Abu Zayd ibn al-Imam Tilimsani (d. 742AH) had gone
to Egypt and while there had disputed successfully with Taqi
al-Din ibn Taymiyya. He added that: The
mentioned Taqi al-Din had some repugnant claims, such as taking
literally the Hadith al-nuzul, saying: “like I descend now”….
May Allah protect us from this claim! And someone said that the
attribution of this to him is not certain, and Allah knows best. [Ahmad
Baba al-Tunbukti, Nayl al-ibtihaj bi-tatriz al-Dibaj. Printed on the
margins of Ibn Farhun, al-Dibaj al-mudhahhab fi ma’rifat a’yan
al-madhhab (Cairo: Matba’at al-Sa’ada, 1329AH), 166.]
-------------------------------------------
Imam al-Dhahabi (d.748 AH)
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)]
Imam al- Dhahabi said about his teacher Ibn Taymiyyah:
مع أني مخالف له في مسائل أصلية وفرعية
“However I disagree with him in creedal and legal issues.”
on page,329: of Dhayl Tareekh Al Islam: Here
al- Dhahabi’s biography of Ibn Taymiyyah included in the compilation called, “From the Legacy of Shaikhul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah”, found : Here on page, 244:
وله حدة قوية تعتريه في البحث حتى كأنه ليث حرب. أهـــ
“He had an acute harshness that would overcome him during debate, making him like a lion of war.”
وفيه قلة مداراة وعدم تؤدة غالبًا , والله يغفر له. أهـــ
“He often lacked congeniality and prudence. May Allah forgive him.”
وَقَدْ يُعَظِّمُ جليسه مرة ويهينه في المحاورة مرات. أهـــ
“He may honor his company once, yet disrespect them during debate repeatedly.”
al- Dhahabi said: Regarding ibn Taymiyya’s conduct with his opponents during debate, on page 326 and 327 of his book Dhaylu Tareekhil Islam: Here
مع اننى لا اعتقد فيه العصمة كلا فانه مع سعة علمه و فرط شجاعته و سيلان ذهنه و تعظيمه لحرماتالدين بشر من البشر تعتريه حدة فى البحث و غضب وشظف للخصم يزرع له عداوة فى النفوس ونفورا عنه وإلا والله لو لاطف الخصوم و رفق بهم ولزم المجاملة و حسن المكالمة لكان كلمة اجماع
“…although I do not believe him to be infallible (ma’soom). Most definitely not! Because despite his vast knowledge, extreme courage, overflowing intellect, and reverence for the sanctities of the religion, he was but a man. During debates he would be overcome with harshness, hot temper, and toughness with his opponents which would plant in the souls the seeds of enmity, aversion, and dislike for him. Otherwise, had he been polite and kind with his opponents and observed etiquette and a graceful mode of speech, he would have been a word of consensus.”
al- Dhahabi describes the position of Ibn Taymiyyah’s closest companions and “fans” from the unique opinions that he has:
ولا ريب انه لا اعتبار بمدح خواصه والغلاة فيه فان الحب يحملهم على تغطية هناته بل قد يعدونهامحاسن. أهـــ
“And without doubt, no consideration should be given to the praise of his closest companions or those who are extreme in their admiration for him. Their love for him will make them cover his mistakes, nay they may even count them to be from his good deeds.”Dhayl Tareekhil Islam pg. 328 – 329 : Here
al-Dhahabi said on page 327 and 328 of his book Dhailu Tareekhil Islam: Here
وإن أنت عذرت كبار الائمة فى معضلاتهم ولم تعذر ابن تيمية فى مفرداته فقد أقررت على نفسك بالهوىو عدم الانصاف. أهـــ
“If you were to excuse the eminent Scholars for their problematic verdicts yet not excuse Ibn Taymiyyah for his unique fatawas, you would be acknowledging that you yourself have leanings and unfairness.”
al-Dhahabi said in Dhuyool Al ‘Ibar fee Khabari man Ghabar, page 84: Here
وله مسائل غريبة نيل من عرضه لأجلها
“And he has strange (rulings on) issues, due to which his repute was under fire”
al-Dhahabi said in Al Mu’jam Al Mukhtass bil Muhadditheen, on page 25 (pg 45 in the PDF reader), bio #22: Here
وانفرد بمسائل فنيل من عرضه لأجلها, وهو بشر له ذنوب وخطأ ومع هذا فوالله ما مقلت عينِي مثله ولارأى هو مثله نفسه. أهــ
“And he went alone on issues that, because of them his repute was under fire. And he is a man. He has sins and mistakes. Yet despite this, by Allah, my eyes have never seen the likes of him, nor has he seen the likes of himself.”
al- Dhahabi in his book, Tadhkiratul Huffaadh on page 1497, mentions about his teacher Ibn Taymiyyah: Here
وقد انفرد بفتاوى نيل من عرضه لأجلها وهي مغمورة في بحر علمه, فالله تعالى يسامحه ويرضى عنهفما رأيت مثله. وكل واحد من الأمة فيؤخذ من قوله ويترك فكان ماذا؟ أهـــ
“And he went alone to make unique fatawas, due to which his repute came under fire. Yet they are submerged in the ocean of his knowledge. So may Allah forgive him and be pleased with him, for I have never seen anyone like him. And since the case with everyone in the Muslim Ummah is that some of their statements may be accepted and others may be rejected, what is the problem?”
al- Dhahabi said about his teacher Ibn Taymiyyah:
ولقد نصر السنة المحضة، والطريقة السلفية، واحتج لها ببراهين ومقدمات، وأمور لم يسبق إليها،وأطلق عبارات أحجم عنها الأولون والآخرون وهابوا، وجسر هو عليها، حتى قام عليه خلق من علماءمصر والشام قياماً لا مزيد عليه. أهـــ
“And he supported the pure Sunnah, and the Salafi methodology. And he argued using proofs, premises and matters that he was not preceded to. And he made statements that the earlier and later people refrained from saying and were afraid to utter. Yet he boldly said those things, until a huge group of Scholars from Egypt and Syria confronted him most sternly.”
See pg. 243: Here
al- Dhahabi on page 38 of the book, Zaghlul ‘Ilm , said about his teacher Ibn Taymiyyah:
وقد تعبت في وزنه وفتشته حتى مللت في سنين متطاولة ، فما وجدت قد أخره بين أهل مصر والشامومقتته نفوسهم وازدروا به وكذبوه وكفروه إلا الكبر والعجب ، وفرط الغرام في رياسة المشيخةوالازدراء بالكبار ، فانظر كيف وبال الدعاوي ومحبة الظهور ، نسأل الله تعالى المسامحة ، فقد قام عليهأناس ليسوا بأورع منه ولا أعلم منه ولا أزهد منه ، بل يتجاوزون عن ذنوب أصحابهم وآثام أصدقائهم ،وما سلطهم الله عليه بتقواهم وجلالتهم بل بذنوبه ، وما دفعه الله عنه وعن أتباعه أكثر ، وما جرى عليهمإلا بعض ما يستحقون ، فلا تكن فى ريب من ذلك. أهـــ
“And I have tired myself from weighing him and examining him, until over the long years I became exausted. At last, what I found to be holding him back among the scholars of Egypt and Syria (Shaam), caused their souls to loathe him, and them to disdain him, and call him a liar and accuse him of disbelief was nothing else but arrogance (kibr), self admiration (‘ujb), the ardent desire to be the “head shaikh”, and belittling the eminent (figures in Islam)! So look at the outcome of false claims and love of fame! We ask Allah, the Exalted, for pardon. For indeed, the people who confronted him were not more pious than he, or more knowledgeble or more ascetic. On the other hand, they would overlook the sins of their companions and the misdeeds of their friends. Allah did not afflict him with them due to their piety (taqwa) and their nobility, but because of his sins. And what Allah deflected from him and his followers was even greater. And nothing befell them except for some of what they deserved, so do not be in doubt concerning this.” See page, 38: Here
al- Dhahabi said in his book called Zaghlul ‘Ilm:
فما أظنك فى ذلك تبلغ رتبة ابن تيمية ولا والله تقربها وقد رأيت ما اَل أمره إليه من الحط عليه والهجروالتضليل والتكفير والتكذيب بحق و بباطل فقد كان قبل أن يدخل فى هذة الصناعة منوراً مضيئاً علىمحياه سيما السلف ثم صار مظلماً مكسوفاً عليه قتمة عند خلائق من الناس ودجالاً أفاكاً كافرا عند أعدائهومبتدعاً فاضلاً محققا بارعا عند طوائف من عقلاء الفضلاء وحامل راية الإسلام وحامى حوزة الدينومحي السنة عند عوام أصحابه هو ما أقول لك. أهـــ
“…I still don’t believe you would reach the level of Ibn Taymiyyah nor, by Allah, would you even come close to it. And I have witnessed what his affair led to, with people putting him down, abandoning him, declaring him to be a deviant, declaring him to be a disbeliever, and accusing him oflying, rightfully and wrongfully. But before he got into this field he was radiant, shining, and bearing the appearance of the Salaf on his face…” page 42 and 43: Here
——–
al-Nasiha al-Dhahabiyya to Ibn Taymiyya
Link provided: Here
al-Nasihah
al-Dhahabia li ibn Taymiyya
(Sincere Advice to Ibn
Taymiyya, Maktab al-Misria 18863)
—————————————-
Note: Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (b.691 AH – d.751 AH) Ibn Tayimyyah’s Disciple!
Ibn al- Qayyim followed the same path as his teacher in his infamous poem entitled:
al-Qasida al-Nuniyya. More Info: Here also not to forget: Here
——————————————
al-Imam al-Mufassir Abu Hayyan al-Andalusi (d.754AH) on ibn Taymiyya’s Belief that: “Allah Most High is sitting (yajlisu) on the Kursi but has left a place of it unoccupied, in which to seat the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace)” Excerpt from the article – ‘Reforming Classical Texts’ by Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller:
…the two-volume Qur’anic exegesis of Abu Hayyan al-Nahwi (d. 754/1353), Tafsir al-nahr al-madd [The exegesis of the far-stretching river] condensed mainly from his own previous eight-volume exegesis al-Bahr al-muhit [The encompassing sea], arguably the finest tafsir ever written based primarily on Arabic grammar. Abu Hayyan, of Andalusion origin, settled in Damascus, knew Ibn Taymiya personally, and held him in great esteem, until the day that Barinbari (d. 717/1317) brought him a work by Ibn Taymiya called Kitab al-‘arsh [The book of the Throne]. There they found, in Ibn Taymiya’s own handwriting (which was familiar to Abu Hayyan),anthropomorphic suggestions about the Deity that made Abu Hayyan curse Ibn Taymiya until the day he died. This was mentioned by the hadith master (hafiz) Taqi al-Din Subki in his al-Sayf al-saqil (85). Abu Hayyan, in his own Qur’anic exegesis of Ayat al-Kursi (Qur’an 2:258) in surat al-Baqara, recorded something of what so completely changed his mind:
I have read in the book of Ahmad ibn Taymiya, this individual whom we are the contemporary of, and the book is in his own handwriting, and he has named it Kitab al-‘arsh [The book of the Throne], that “Allah Most High is sitting (yajlisu) on the Kursi but has left a place of it unoccupied, in which to seat the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace)” [italics mine]. Al-Taj Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn ‘Abd al-Haqq Barinbari fooled him [Ibn Taymiya] by pretending to be a supporter of his so that he could get it from him, and this is what we read in it (al-Nahwi, Tafsir al-nahr al-madd, 1.254).
--Abu Hayyan al-Andalusi stated that he had seen this work Kitab al-‘arsh, of Ibn Taymiyya who had written there that God is literally seated on the throne, and had left a place on it for the Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) to sit next to him.[ Ibid., 2:1438]
--
Muhammad Ibn Yusuf known as Abu Hayan al-Andalusiyy In his book ‘al-Bahr al-Muhit’ explaining verse 19 of Suratal-Anbiya’ the great linguist and interpreter and reciter of the Holy Qur’an, said: “The word ‘inda’ in this Ayah does not have the function of an adverb of place because Allah is clear of occupying places. Rather, it is used in the context of honourable status and high standing.”
Abu Hayyan al-Andalouci denounces kufr of Ibn Taymiyya.
Indeed, Abu Hayyan al-Andalouci questioned Ibn Taymiyya whereas before he was just doing his praise, and he could not conceive that we can not love Ibn Taymiyya. But after I visited Al-Andalouci walked away disappointed having seen the arrogance of Ibn Taymiyya. But mostly he began to curse him after seeing the book Kitabou l-‘Arsh of Ibn Taymiyya his word that Allah would sit on the Koursiyy and He would have left room to seat His Prophet.
Abu Hayyan al-Andalouci said: “I saw it in his book, his own book and I know his handwriting. ”He mentioned this in his Tafsir, exegesis of his Qour-year Nahrou called An-l-Madd mina l-Bahr.
--In his Tafsir named “an-Nahrul-Madd”, the Grammarian Abu Hayyan al-‘Andalusi said about Ibn Taymiyah the following: In his handwriting, a book of Ahmad Ibn Taymiyah, who was contemporary with us, which he called “Kitab-ul-‘Arsh”, I read: Allah sits on al-Kursi and has left a space for the Messenger of Allah to sit with Him.
At-Taj Muhammad Ibn ‘Ali Ibn ‘Abdil-Haqq al-Baranbari pretended that he is a promoter of his ideas and tricked him, until he took it from him; we read that in it. [The author of “Kashf-uz-Zunun” reported that about him also in Volume 2, page 1438.]
This reporting of Abu Hayyan was omitted from the old printed copy.
However, the manuscript confirms it. In his commentary on “as-Sayf-us-Saqil”, page 85, Az-Zahid al-Kawthari said explaining the reason of omitting these statements of Ibn Taymiyah: The editor of as-Sa‘adah Printing House told me that he found it very ugly and he omitted it upon printing
so that the enemies of al-‘Islam would not use it. Then he requested that I record that here to catch up what he missed and out of sincerity to the Muslims [Scan: An_Nahrul_Madd ]
————————————————
Shaykh
al-Islam Taqi al-Din al-Subki (d.756 AH)
Al-Dura
al-Mudhia, page 5:
أحدث
ابن تيمية ما أحدث في أصول العقائد ونقض
من دعائم الإسلام الأركان والمعاقد بعد
أن كانمستترا بتبعية الكتاب والسنة مظهرا
أنه داع إلى الحق هاد إلى الجنة فخرج عن
الاتباع إلى الابتداعوشذ عن جماعة المسلمين
بمخالفة الاجماع
“When
Ibn Taimiyah caused what he caused in ideology and abolished the
pillars of Islam after which he pretended to be an adherent of the
Book and Sunnah, and pretended that he was an advocate for truth and
guiding others to heaven, he went astray and (went) towards
originating a heresy, and became odd by contradicting the Ijma of
Muslims.”
Shaykh
al-Islam Taqi al-Din al-Subki on ibn
Taymiyya and
his followers being from the deviant Hashwiyya sect, and that they
were a minority fringe group who would teach their beliefs in
secret
“As for the Hashwiyya, they are a despicable and
ignorant lot who claim to belong to the school of (Imam) Ahmad (ibn
Hanbal)… They have corrupted the creed of a few isolated Shafi’is,
especially some of the Hadith scholars among them who are lacking in
reason… They were held in utmost contempt, and then towards the end
of the seventh century (AH) a man appeared who was diligent,
intelligent and well-read and did not find a Shaykh to guide him, and
he is of their creed and is brazen and dedicated to teaching his
ideas… He said that non-eternal attributes can subsist in Allah,
and that Allah is ever-acting, and that an infinite chain of events
is not impossible either in the past or the future. He split the
ranks and cast doubts on the creed of the Muslims and incited
dissension amongst them. He did not confine himself to creedal
matters of theology, but transgressed the bounds and said that
travelling to visit the tomb of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa
sallam) is a sin… The scholars agreed to imprison him for a long
time, and the Sultan imprisoned him… and he died in prison. Then
some of his followers started to promulgate his ideas and teach them
to people in secret while keeping quiet in public, and great harm
came from this.”
[al-Zabidi, Ithaf al-Sada al-Muttaqin,
2:11. al-Zabidi is quoting from al-Subki’s al-Sayf al-Saqil fi
al-Radd ‘ala ibn Zafil, see al-Rasa-il al-Subkiyya, 84-85]
Shaykh
al-Islam Taqi al-Din al-Subki on ibn
Taymiyya’s view on Tawassul as
cited by Imam ‘Abd al-Ra’uf al-Munawi (d. 1031AH): “It is
proper to entreat and ask for the help and intercession of the
Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) with Allah. No one from
amongst the salaf and the khalaf denied this, until ibn Taymiyya came
along and disapproved of this, and deviated from the straight path,
and invented a position that no scholar has said before, and he
became a deterrent example for Muslims” [al-Munawi, Faydh al-Qadir,
2:170]
This was also mentioned by Imam
Muhammad Amin ibn ‘Abidin al-Shami al-Hanafi (d.
1252AH) via Imam
al-Munawi as
follows:
نَعَمْ
ذَكَرَ الْعَلَّامَةُ الْمُنَاوِيُّ
فِي حَدِيثِ «اللَّهُمَّ
إنِّي أَسْأَلُك وَأَتَوَجَّهُ إلَيْك
بِنَبِيِّك نَبِيِّ الرَّحْمَةِ»
عَنْ
الْعِزِّ بْنِ عَبْدِ السَّلَامِأَنَّهُ
يَنْبَغِي كَوْنُهُ مَقْصُورًا عَلَى
النَّبِيِّ – صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ
وَسَلَّمَ – وَأَنْ لَا يُقْسِمَ عَلَى
اللَّهِ بِغَيْرِهِ وَأَنْ يَكُونَ
مِنْخَصَائِصِهِ قَالَ وَقَالَ
السُّبْكِيُّ:
يَحْسُنُ
التَّوَسُّلُ بِالنَّبِيِّ إلَى رَبِّهِ
وَلَمْ يُنْكِرْهُ أَحَدٌ مِنْ السَّلَفِ
وَلَا الْخَلَفِ إلَّا ابْنَ
تَيْمِيَّةَفَابْتَدَعَ مَا لَمْ يَقُلْهُ
عَالِمٌ قَبْلَهُ اهـ
[Radd
al-Muhtar ‘ala al-Durr al-Mukhtar Hashiya ibn ‘Abidin, vol. 6,
pg. 397, Dar al-Fikr, Beirut ed.]
Imam
Mustafa ibn Ahmad al-Shatti al-Hanbali (d.
1348AH) also mentioned this from Shaykh
al-Islam Taqi al-Din al-Subki as
follows: “It is good to make intercession with the Prophet
(sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) to his Lord. No one from the first
generations (salaf), or those who followed (khalaf), repudiated this
until Ibn Taymiyyah arrived. He repudiated intercession, went out
from the straight path and innovated what no scholar before him had
said, and became known for that among the people of
Islam.”
[al-Shatti, al-Nuqul al-Shar’iyya fi al-Radd ‘ala
al-Wahhabiyya, translated into English by al-Hajj Abu Ja’far
al-Hanbali as The Divine Texts, pg. 57]
Shaykh
al-Islam Taqi al-Din al-Subki on ibn
Taymiyya’s book
on hell
being non-eternal:
[(al-Hut,
Kamal Yusuf, ed.) al-Rasa’il al-Subkiyya fi radd ‘ala ibn Taymiya
wa tilmidhihi ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, 196-208 (documents, letters,
and passages by Taqi al-Din al-Subki and others edited and
commentated upon by al-Hut). Beirut: ‘Alam al-Kutub]
Imam
al-Dhahabi praised Shaykh al-Islam Taqi al-Din al-Subki denouncing
Ibn Taymiyya.
Ibn
Taymiyya was
challenged by someone who had more knowledge and piety that we, ie
Hafidh Taqiyyou d-Din As-Subki, and Adh-Dhahabi greatly praised in
two verses of Arabic poetry: Minbar of the Umayyad be proud when the
wise ocean science, taqiyy the climbs.
Whoever remembers
the most of all the Shaykh of his era,
The most eloquent of
them, who control most of the laws of science ‘Ali.
This is
‘Ali, Ibn’ Abdi Kafi l-As-Subki, aptly known as the Al-Hafidh
Taqiyyou d-Din As-Subki.
Shaykh
al-Islam al-Subki was
a contemporary of Ibn
Taymiyya and
he repeatedly denounced, for example, in his book Ad-l-Dourratou
Moudiyyah, as the Hafidh Abu Sa’id Al-‘Ala-iwhich also denounced
Ibn Taymiyyah in his time.
Shaykh
al-Islâm al-Subkî’s Rejection of Ibn
Tayimyyahs Fatwa
This
most notorious of all fatwas was refuted by his contemporary the
hadîth Master and Shaykh al-Islâm Taqî al-Dîn al-Subkî in his
landmark book Shifâ’ al-Siqâm fî Ziyârati Khayri al-Anam (“The
Healing of Sickness Concerning the Visitation to the Best of
Creatures”) , also titled Shann al-Ghâra `alâ man Ankara al-Safar
li al-Ziyâra (“The Raid Against Him Who Denied the Lawfulness of
Travel for the Purpose of Visitation”).
Shaykh
al-Islâm adduced
the hadîth “Whoever visits my grave, my intercession will be
guaranteed for him” as proof against Ibn Taymiyya’s claim that
“all the hadîths that concern the merit of visitation are weak or
rather forged” and denounced Ibn Taymiyya’s unprecedented fatwâ
as a flagrant innovation.
As-Subkiyy calls
them idol
worshipers:
As-Subkiyy
in his Tabaqaatu-sħ-Sħaafiˆiyyatu-l-Kubraa says regarding
scripture texts that appear to be referring to bodily
attributes:
طبقات
الشافعية الكبرى :
إنما
المصيبة الكبرى والداهية الدهياء الإمرار
على الظاهر والاعتقاد أنهالمراد وأنه لا
يستحيل على الباري فذلك قول المجسمة عباد
الوثن الذين في قلوبهم زيغ يحملهم الزيغعلى
اتباع المتشابه ابتغاء الفتنة عليهم
لعائن الله تترى واحدة بعد أخرى ما أجرأهم
على الكذب وأقلفهمهم للحقائق طبقات
الشافعية الكبرى ج 5
ص
192
“the
saying of the mujassimah (anthropomorphists), worshipers of the idol,
makes them always focus onambiguous aayahs.”
-------------------------------
Al Imam As Safadi (d.764 AH) (Direct student of ibn Tayimyyah)
As Safadi said in his explanation of the poem called “Laamiyyatul ‘Ajam”
:شرح لامية العجم
يقال إن الخليل بن أحمد اجتمع يوما هو وعبد الله بن المقفع فتحادثا إلى الغداة. فلما تفرقا قيل للخليل كيفرأيته قال رأيت رجلا علمه أكثر من عقله. وقيل لابن المقفع كيف رأيت الخليل قال رأيت رجلا عقلهأكثر من علمه. وكذا كان فإن ابن المقفع قتله قلة عقله وكثرة كلامه شر قتلة وشر ميتة. قلت: وكذا كانالشيخ الإمام العلامة تقي الدين أحمد بن تيمية علمه متسع جدا إلى الغاية وعقله ناقص يورطه فيالمهالك ويوقعه في المضايق. أهـــ
“It’s
been said that one day Al Khaleel bin Ahmad met Abdullah bin Al
Muqaffa’, and they talked until the morning. When they dispersed,
Al Khaleel was asked, what do you think about him? He answered, he’s
a man whose knowledge exceeds his intellect. And Ibn Al Muqaffa’
was asked about Al Khaleel. He answered, “His intellect exceeds
his knowledge.” And thus it was. For the lacking intellect and
excessive speech of Ibn Al Muqaffa’ led him to a most terrible
slaughter and horrible death.
I’ll say (As Safadi)
thus was the Shaikh, the Imam, the ‘Allaamah Taqiyyud Deen
Ahmad bin Taymiyyah. His knowledge was extremely vast, yet his
intellect was lacking. It would lead him to destruction and make him
fall into tight spaces.”
Imam Salahud Deen As Safadi : the student of ibn Taymiyya, said in his biography of Ibn Taymiyyah in his book, “Al Waafi bil Wafayaat”:
:وقال الصفدي أثناء ترجمة ابن تيمية في الوافي بالوفيات
وحكى لي عنه الشيخ شمس الدين ابن قيم الجوزية قال: كان صغيرا عند بني المنجا فبحث معهم فادعواشيئا أنكره فأحضروا النقل فلما وقف عليه ألقى المجلد من يده غيظا، فقالوا له: ما أنت إلا جريء ترميالمجلد من يدك وهو كتاب علم، فقال سريعا: أيما خير أنا أو موسى? فقالوا موسى، فقال: أيما خير هذاالكتاب أو ألواح الجوهر التي كان فيها العشر كلمات? قالوا: الألواح، فقال: إن موسى لما غضب ألقىالألواح من يده، أو كما قال. أهـــ
“Ash Shaikh Shamsud Deen Ibnu Qayyim Al Jawziyyah told me about him saying: When he was young he was in the company of (the Hanbali family of Scholars) Banu Al Munajja, so he debated with them. So they claimed something he denied. Then they brought the quote. When he saw it, he threw the book down in anger. They said to him, “You sure are bold to throw down the book when it is a book of Religious Knowledge!” Whereupon he immediately said, “Who is better, me or Musa?” So they said, “Musa”. Then he said, “Which is better, this book or the Tablets containing the Ten Commandments?” They said, “The Tablets.” So Ibn Taymiyyah said, “Well, when Musa became angry he threw the Tablets down!” – or something to this effect”
This quote can also be found translated into English on page 110 and 111 of “Al Albani Unveiled”, a book definitely worth owning.
———————————————–Note:
Imam Ibn Kathir (b.701AH – d. 774 AH) is a scholar of Ahl al-Sunna who was of the Shafi‘i school (according to the first volume of his main work, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim, 1.2)
Whatever length of time Ibn Kathir studied with Ibn Taymiya, he was in his twenties when the latter died, and his long and fruitful career extended over the next 46 years!
Note:
Ibn
Taymiyyah born: 661AH
First clash with
Ahle Sunnh wal Jamaah scholars: 698AH-
at age 37 year old
Note:
(al-
Dhahabi- 25 years old )
(ibn
al Qayyim –7 years old)
(ibn
Kathir was not even born– he was born 701AH)
Summoned again
in 705AH-
age 44 years old
Ibn
Taymiyyah Repented in 707AH
– age 46 years old
Note:
(al-Dhahabi
-34 years old)
(ibn
al Qayyim- 16 years old)
(ibn
Kathir –6 years old)
Final imprisonment (726AH)
: age 65 years old – Fatwa by Four
Sunni Orthodox Judges
Ibn
Taymiyyah died: 728AH
at the age of 67 year old
Note:
(Ibn kathir –27 years old)
Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani is reporting in ad-durar al-kamina chapter 1,page 65 a short discussion between Ibn Kathir and the son of Ibn Al-Qayyim Al-Jawziyya.
Ibn Kathir said to him: “You do not like me because I am an Ash’ ari”.
The son of Ibn Al-Qayyim replied: “Even if you had hair from head to feet, people would not believe that you are Ash’ ari as your sheikh is Ibn Taymiyyah!!”
Imam
al-Subki mentions in “Tabaqat ash-shafi’ iyya”
volume: 10 page, 398 that:
“A condition to
teach at the house of hadith “Al-Ashrafiyya” was to
be Ash’ari in ‘Aqida and that
apparently Imam Ibn Kathir occupied the post
of professor at this house of Hadith in the month of
Muharam in the year (772 AH).
He (ibn Tayimyyah) says, “Every word in the Book of Allah and His messenger is conditioned by that which clarifies its meaning, in none of which is there any figurative expression (majaz); rather, all of it is literal (haqiqa)” (ibid., 78).
Compare ^this with what Ibn Kathir says about the verse “Then He ‘was established’ (istawa) upon the Throne” (Qur’an 7:54), (istawa here rendered as “was established” not by way of definitive interpretation, but rather out of need to answer the question):
People have many positions on this matter, and this is not the place to present them at length. On this point, we follow the position of the early Muslims (salaf)—Malik, Awza‘i, Thawri, Layth ibn Sa‘d, Shafi‘i, Ahmad, Ishaq ibn Rahawayh, as well as others among the Imams of the Muslims, ancient and modern—namely, to let the verse pass as it has come, without saying how it is meant (bi la takyif), without any resemblance to created things (wa la tashbih), and without nullifying it (wa la ta‘til): the literal outward meaning (dhahir) that comes to the minds ofanthropomorphists (al-mushabbihin) is negated of Allah [italics mine], for nothing created has any resemblance to Him: “There is nothing whatsoever like unto Him, and He is the All-hearing, the All-seeing“ [ (Qur’an 42:11) (Ibn Kathir: Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim, 2.220).] More Info: Here
--Arabic passage of what Imam al Hafidh Ibn Kathir said:
قال الإمام ابن كثير في التفسير القران العظيم
: تفسير:{ثُمَّ ٱسْتَوَىٰ عَلَى ٱلْعَرْشِۚ} فللناس في هذا المقام مقالات كثيرة جداً ليس هذاموضع بسطها وإنما نسلك في هذاالمقام مذهب السلف الصالح مالك والأوزاعيوالثوري والليث بن سعد والشافعي وأحمد بن حنبل وإسحاق بن راهويهوغيرهم منأئمة المسلمين قديماً وحديثاً وهو إمرارها كما جاءت من غير تكييف ولا تشبيه ولاتعطيل والظاهرالمتبادر إلى أذهان المشبهين منفي عن الله لا يشبهه شيء من خلقهو{لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِۦ شَىْءٌۖ وَهُوَ ٱلسَّمِيعُ ٱلْبَصِيرُ
Original Translation:
{Then He did Istawa (As it befits His Majesty) upon the Throne”} People have “TOO MANY POSITIONS ON THIS MATTER AND THIS IS NOT THE PLACE TO PRESENT THEM AT LENGTH” [فللناس في هذا المقام مقالات كثيرة جداً ليس هذا موضع بسطها] On this point, we follow the position of the righteous early Muslims (Salaf) i.e. Imam Malik, Imam al-Awza‘i, Imam Sufyan ath-Thawri, Imam Layth ibn Sa‘d, Imam ash-Shaf’i, Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, Imam Ishaq ibn Rahawayh, as well as others among the Imams of the Muslims, past and present—(namely) ” TO LET IT PASS AS IT HAS COME WITHOUT SAYING HOW IT IS MEANT “[، وهوإمرارها كما جاءت من غير تكييف], without any resemblance (to created things), and without nullifying it (wa la ta‘til): “THE OUTWARD (LITERAL)” meaning that comes to the minds of anthropomorphists is negated of Allah[والظاهر المتبادر إلى أذهانالمشبهين منفي عن الله] for nothing created has any resemblance to Him: {“There is nothing whatsoever like unto Him, and He is the All-hearing, the All-seeing” (Qur’an 42:11)} [Tafsir Ibn Kathir Under 7:54]
Now: Wahhabi/Salafi Fabrication:
Please note at the blue highlighted parts above and the red highlighted parts below in Wahhabi/Salafi translation:
Fabrication: (and then He rose over (Istawa) the Throne) the people had several conflicting opinions over its meaning. However, we follow the way that our righteous predecessors took in this regard, such as Malik, Al-Awza`i, Ath-Thawri, Al-Layth bin Sa`d, Ash-Shafi`i, Ahmad, Ishaq bin Rahwayh and the rest of the scholars of Islam, in past and present times. Surely, we accept the apparent meaning of, Al-Istawa, without discussing its true essence, equating it (with the attributes of the creation), or altering or denying it (in any way or form). We also believe that the meaning that comes to those who equate Allah with the creation is to be rejected, for nothing is similar to Allah. [Taken from http://www.tafsir.com which has been down now so you can check in hard copy of Tafsir Ibn Kathir published by Dar us Salaam, Najd (Riyadh), Saudi Arabia] Here -Also read: Tafsir of Ayat-ul-Kursi More Info: Here
Ibn Rajab Al Hanbali (d. 795 AH), the student of Ibn Taymiyyah’s student Ibn Qayyim Al Jawziyyah, acknowledges that Ibn Taymiyyah had unique rulings when he said in his update of Al Qaadi Abu Ya’la’s son’s book on biographies of the Hanbalis called Dhaylu Tabaqaatil Hanaabilah vol. 4 pg. 505 (507 on the PDF reader) Here
ولكن كان هو وجماعة من خواص أصحابه ربما أنكروا من الشيخ كلامه في بعض الأئمة الأكابرالأعيان، أو في أهل التخلي والانقطاع ونحو ذلك.
وكان الشيخ رحمه اللّه لا يقصد بذلك إلا الخير، والانتصار للحق إن شاء الله تعالى.
وطوائف من أئمة أهل الحديث وحفاظهم وفقهائهم: كانوا يحبون الشيخ ويعظمونه، ولم يكونوا يحبون لهالتوغل مع أهل الكلام ولا الفلاسفة، كما هو طريق أئمة أهل الحديث المتقدمين، كالشافعي وأحمدوإسحاق وأبي عبيد ونحوهم، وكذلك كثير هن العلماء من الفقهاء والمحدثين والصالحين كرهوا لهالتفرد ببعض شذوذ المسائل التي أنكرها السلف على من شذ بها، حتى إن بعض قضاة العدل منأصحابنا منعه من الإفتاء ببعض ذلك. أهـــ
“However he (‘Imaad Ad Deen Al Waasiti) and a group of Ibn Taymiyyah’s closest companions disapproved of the Shaikh’s statements about some of the eminent and high-standing Imams, or the likes of those people who would disconnect themselves from the world to be alone with their Lord (the Sufis). And the Shaikh may Allah have mercy on him did not intend anything by that but good, and defense of the truth Inshaa Allahu ta’aala. And various circles of the people of Hadeeth; including Imams, Huffaadh (memorizers of more than 100,000 hadeeths) and Fuqahaa (Jurists) used to love the Shaikh (i.e. Ibn Taymiyyah) and hold him in high regard. But they did not like for him to go into in-depth issues with the theologians and philosophers – as was the methodology of the Imams of Ahlul Hadeeth like Ash Shaafi’ee, Ahmad, Ishaaq, Abu ‘Ubaid and others like them. Additionally, many ‘Ulamaa, Fuqahaa, Muhadditheen, and Saaliheen (Righteous people) disliked that he go on his own with some of his unique rulings that the Salaf disapproved of whoever went alone with. Until one of the just judges from our colleages prevented him from making those fatawas.”
Imam al-Hafidh ibn Rajab al-Hanbali The student of ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (who in turn was the student of ibn Taymiyya)
عبد الرحمن بن أحمد بن رجب البغدادي ثم الدمشقي الحنبلي، الحافظ زين الدين بن رجب. وُلد ببغداد سنة ستٍ وثلاثين وسبعمائة، وسمع بمصر من الميدومي وبالقاهرة من ابن الملوك وبدمشق من ابن الخباز وجمع جمٍّ، ورافق شيخنا زين الدين العراقي في السماع كثيرًا، ومهر في فنون الحديث أَسماءً ورجالًا وعِللًا وطرقا واطلاعًا على معانيه.
صنَّف “شرح الترمذي” فأَجاد فيه في نحو عشرين مجلدة، وشرح قطعة كبيرة من “البخاري” وشرح “الأَربعين للنووي” في مجلدة، وعمل “وظائف الأَيام” سمَّاه “اللطائف” وعمل “طبقات الحنابلة” ذيلًا على “طبقات أبي يعلى”.
وكان صاحبَ عبادَةٍ وتهجد، ونُقِم عليه إِفتاؤه بمقالات ابن تيمية ثم أَظهر الرجوع عن ذلك فنافره التيميون فلم يكن مع هؤلاءِ ولا مع هؤلاءِ، وكان قد ترك الإِفتاءَ بآخره.
قال ابن حجي:
“أَتْقَنَ الفنَّ وصار أَعرف أَهل عصره بالعلل وتتبُّع الطرق، وكان لا يخالط أَحدًا ولا يتردد إِلى أَحد”. مات في رمضان رحمه اللّٰه، [و]تخرج به غالب أَصحابنا الحنابلة بدمشق.
– ابن حجر العسقلاني في كتابه “إنباء الغمر بأنباء العمر”، المجلس الأعلى للشئون الإسلامية ١٩٩٨:١٩٦٩، الجزء الاول، ص. ٤٦٠-٤٦١
Imam al-Hafidh ibn Rajab al-Hanbali stopped issuing fatawa in accordance to the views of ibn Taymiyya and was loathed by the Taymiyyun because of it:
al-Hafidh
Zayn al-Din ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Ahmad ibn Rajab al-Hanbali
al-Baghdadi – then al-Dimashqi.
The son of Rajab, born
in Baghdad in the year 736 (AH).
In Egypt he heard from al-Maydumi, in Cairo from ibn al-Muluk, in Damascus from ibn al-Khubbaz, as well as the addition of numerous others. He kept the company of our Shaykh, Zayn al-Din al-‘Iraqi in hearing (from him) a great deal. He was proficient in the disciplines of hadith – the names (asma’), the narrators (rijal), hidden defects (‘ilal), the different routes/chains (turuq), and insight in explaining (itla’) their meanings.
He authored “Sharh al-Tirmidhi” in around twenty volumes, regarding which he achieved excellent results, (he also authored) a commentary of a major portion of (Sahih) “al-Bukhari”, as well as a commentary of “al-Arba’in li al-Nawawi” (Imam al-Nawawi’s collection of fourty ahadith) in one volume. He worked on “Wadha’if al-Ayyam” (the recommended actions of each specific day) which he named “al-Lata’if”, and also worked on “Tabaqat al-Hanabila” (the ranks of the Hanbali scholars) as a follow up of “Tabaqat Abi Ya’la”.
He was a man devoted to worship and tahajjud. He was resented because of his deliverance of religious legal edicts (ifta’) based on the sayings of ibn Taymiyya. He then proclaimed retraction from that and the Taymiyyun loathed him, so he was neither (aligned) with this group, not that group. In the end, he abandoned issuing religious legal edicts (ifta’).
Ibn Hajji said: “He mastered the science (of hadith and it’s branches) and became the most recognised of the people of his time in the field of hidden defects (‘ilal) and the pursuit of the different chains of transmission (tatabbu’ al-turuq). He would not intermingle with anyone and would also rarely visit anyone.”
He passed away during the month of Ramadhan, may Allah have mercy upon him. Most of our Hanbali companions were trained/educated by him in Damascus. [ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Inba al-Ghumr bi Anba al-‘Umr, ed. al-Majlis al-A’la li al-Shu’un al-Islamiyya 1969:1998, pt. 1, pg. 460-461]
Imam Zayn al-Din ibn Rajab al-Hanbali (d.795AH) mentions the following regarding Allah’s Nuzul within his Fath al-Bari* – his Commentary upon Sahih al-Bukhari:
“What is meant by it is that His Nuzul (lit. descent) is not (in terms of) spatial movement from (one) place to (another) place, like the descent (Nuzul) of created things.”
[Fath al-Bari Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari of ibn Rajab al-Hanbali, chapter on facing towards the direction of the Qibla]
*Not to be confused with the Fath al-Bari of Shaykh al-Islam ibn Hajar al-’Asqalani (d.825AH) – also a commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari. Incidentally, Imam ibn Rajab al-Hanbali’s commentary is only partial as he did not have the opportunity to complete it during his lifetime.
---
Imam Taqi al-Din al-Hisni al-Shafi’i (d.829AH) mentions some points regarding Imam ibn Rajab al-Hanbali (d.795AH) and some of his negative views concerning ibn Taymiyya:
al-Shaykh Zayn al-Din ibn Rajab al-Hanbali was from among those who firmly believed in ibn Taymiyya’s kufr (disbelief), and had (authored) refutations against him. He would say at the top of his voice during some gatherings: “al-Subki is excused – meaning in regards to his takfir“.
[al-Hisni, Daf’ Shubah man Shabbaha wa Tamarrad, ed. Dar al-Mustafa, pg. 535]
وكان الشيخ زين الدين بن رجب الحنبلي ممن يعتقد كفر ابن تيمية وله عليه الرد. وكان يقول بأعلى صوته في بعض المجالس: معذور (173/أ) السبكي – يعني في تكفيره ([1]).
__________
([1]) في ب: معذور السبكي في تكفيره
دفع شبه من شبه وتمرد، دار المصطفى، ص. ٥٣٥
---------------------------
