Refutation of
Accusations Against Ibn Taymiyyah
Go to biography of Ibn Taymiyyah
He
is the mujtahid and reformer of his age, Ahmad bin Abd al-Haleem bin Abd
as-Salaam bin Abd Allaah bin Abu Qaasim ibn Taymiyyah al-Harraanee Taqi ad-Deen
Abu al-Abbaas bin Shihaab ad-Deen. He rose the flag of the belief and
understanding of Ahus Sunnah in his time, at a time when innovation,
misguidance, and corruption was widespread, being preached by even some of the
People of Knowledge that became well known in later times.
Due
to ibn Taymiyyah’s firm stance against all that was false and corrupt he earned
the envy and hatred of all those that he opposed - who were many - and as such
had many lies heaped around him. The purpose of this section is to show this
scholar in his true light and expose those lies heaped around him.
Al-Haafidh
al-Bazzaar said, depicting the opponents of ibn Taymiyyah, "you would not
see a scholar opposing him (ibn Taymiyyah), dissuading from him, filled with
hatred for him, except that he was the most greedy of them in gathering the
worldly goods, the most cunning of them in acquiring them, the most
ostentatious of them, the most desirous for reputation…and the most prolific of
them in having lies on his tongue." [ ‘al-A`laam al-Uliyyah’ (pg. 82) of
al-Bazzaar.]
The
Praise of the Scholars of him:
Many
of the scholars of his time and after his time praised Shaykh al-Islaam for his
knowledge, asceticism, piety, and following closely the way of the salaf. Many
of these statements of praise were collected in a book written by al-Haafidh
ibn Naasir ad-Deen entitled ‘Radd al-Waafir’ refuting the extreme claim of the
one that said calling ibn Taymiyyah, ‘Shaykh al-Islaam’, was unbelief.
Al-Haafidh
adh-Dhahabee said, "It was amazing when he mentioned an issue over which
there was a difference of opinion, and when he gave evidence and decided the
strongest opinion - and he could perform ijtihaad due to his fulfilling it’s
conditions. I have not seen one who was quicker than he at recalling a verse
which pertained to the issue that he derived from it, nor a man who was more
strong in recalling texts and referring them to their sources. The Sunnah was
in front of his eyes and upon the tip of his tongue with eloquent phrases and
an open eye.
He
was a sign from the signs of Allaah in tafseer and expounding upon it.
With regards to the foundation of the religion and knowledge of the differing
opinions (on an issue) then he was unequalled - this alongside his generosity,
courage and lack of attention to the joys of the soul.
And
maybe his legal rulings in the various sciences reached three hundred volumes,
rather more and he was always saying the truth for the sake of Allaah, not
caring for the blame that came to him.
Whosoever
associates with him and knows him well accuses me of deficiency/slackness with
regards to him. Whosoever opposes him and differs with him accuses me of
exaggeration, and I have been wronged by both parties - his companions and his
opponents.
He
was white skinned with black hair and a black beard with a few grey hairs. His
hair reached his earlobes. His eyes were eloquent tongues, and had broad
shoulders and a loud, clear voice with a fast recitation. He was quick to anger
but overcame it with patience and forbearance.
I
have not seen his like for supplications (to Allaah) and seeking succour with
Him, and his abundant concern for others. However I do not believe him to be
infallible, rather I differ with him on both fundamental and subsidiary matters
for he - despite his vast learning, extreme courage, fluid mind, and regard for
the sanctity of the religion - was a man from amongst men. He could be overcome
with sharpness and anger in discussion, and attack his opponents (verbally)
hence planting enmity in their souls towards him.
If
only he were gentle to his opponents then there would have been a word of
agreement over him - for indeed their great scholars bowed to his learning,
acknowledged his ability and lack of mistakes, and conceded that he was an
ocean having no limits and a treasure having no equivalent. However they
harboured ill feeling against him….and every person’s saying can be taken or
left.
He
used to preserve the prayers and fasts, glorifying the laws outwardly and
inwardly. He did not give fatwa out of poor understanding for he was extremely
intelligent, nor out of lack of knowledge for he was an overflowing ocean.
Neither did he play with the religion but derived evidence from the Qur`aan,
Sunnah and Qiyaas (analogy) and proved and argued following the footsteps of
the Imaams who preceded him, so he has a reward if he erred and two rewards if
he was correct.
He
fell ill in the castle (in which he was imprisoned) with a serious disease
until he died on the night of Monday 20th Dhul Qa`dah, and
they prayed over him in the mosque of
Ibn
Hajr al-Asqalaanee said, "the shaykh of our shaykhs, al-Haafidh Abu
al-Yu`maree (ibn Sayyid an-Naas) said in his biography of ibn Taymiyyah:
‘al-Mizzi encouraged me to express my opinion on Shaykh al-Islaam Taqi ad-Deen.
I found him to be from those who had acquired a fortunate of knowledge in the
sciences that he had. He used to completely memorise and implement the Sunan
and Aathaar (narrations). Should he speak about tafseer then he would
carry its flag, and should he pass a fatwa in fiqh then he knew its
limits. Should he speak about a hadeeth then he was the companion of its
knowledge and fully cognisant of its narrations. Should he give a lecture on
Religions and Sects then none was seen who was more comprehensive or meticulous
than he, he surpassed his contemporaries in every science, and you would not
see one like him, and his own eye did not see one like himself.
He
used to speak on tafseer and a large number of people would attend his
gatherings, and an agreeable number would return (having drunk) from his sweet,
rich ocean. It continued in this way until the sickness of envy crept (into the
hearts) of the people of his city. The people given to faultfinding gathered
together and picked out anything that could be disapproved of in his beliefs,
and they memorised certain of his statements with respect to this. They
undermined him due to this and laid traps for him by which they could declare
him to be an innovator. They thought that he had left their way, and split off
from their sect. So they argued with him, and he with them, and some of them
cut relations with him, and he with them.
Then
he argued with another group who was attributed to the Fuqaraa (a group
of the Sufis) who thought that they were on the minute details of the inner
reality and upon its truth. And he exposed these Orders….
Then
this reached the first group and they sought help from those who cut relations
with him and harboured malice towards him. So they took the matter to the
rulers, each of them having decided that he was a disbeliever. And they
prepared a meeting and inspired the ignorant people to spread the word amongst
the great scholars. And they took steps to transfer the matter to the king of
And
the sting of their plots crept up on him, and Allaah made futile every plot,
and rescued him at the hands of those who He chose…
Then
he continuously moved from one trial to another and in all his life he did not
move from trouble except into trouble. Then there followed what followed in the
matter of his arrest and he stayed there in prison until he died, and to Allaah
all matters return. On the day of his funeral the streets were crowded, and the
Muslims came from every roadway…’" [ibid]
Ibn
Hajr al-Asqalaanee also said, "I read in the handwriting of al-Haafidh
Silaah ad-Deen al-Balaa`ee in endorsement of the shaykh of our shaykhs
al-Haafidh Bahaa ad-Deen Abdullaah bin Muhammad bin Khaleel: ‘Our shaykh and
master and Imaam in matters that are between Allaah and us, the Shaykh of
research (tahqeeq), traversing, with those that followed him, the best
way. Possessor of many excellent qualities and radiant proofs that all the
nations have acknowledged are beyond enumeration. May Allaah make us benefit
from his outstanding knowledge, and make us benefit from him in this life and
the hereafter. He is the Shaykh, the Imaam, the Aalim who understands the
affairs, the deeply devoted, the ocean (of knowledge), the pole of light, the
Imaam of Imaams, the blessing to the Muslim nation, the sign of the scholars,
the inheritor of the Prophets, the last of the Mujtahids, unique amongst the
scholars of the Religion - Shaykh al-Islaam, proof of the scholars, the example
for the creatures, proof for the learned ones, effacer of the innovators, sword
of the disputers, ocean of knowledge, beneficial treasure, the interpreter of
the Qur`aan, the amazement of the times, unique in this age and others. Indeed
Taqi ad-Deen (ibn Taymiyyah) is the Imaam of the Muslims, the proof of Allaah
against the creation, the joiner of the righteous, the one who is like those who
have preceded, the mufti of the sect, helper of the truth, the sign of
guidance, the pillar of the Huffaadh, Knight of the meanings of words,
cornerstone of the Sharee`ah, originator of new sciences Abu al-Abbaas ibn
Taymiyyah." [Ibid. From this book taken on it’s own it is very difficult
to discern ibn Hajr’s own opinion on ibn Taymiyyah was. For all he did was to
gather all the material he could find on the Shaykh and then start off the
account with all those scholars who wrote against him, and end with all those
scholars who supported him. It would seem likely that ibn Hajr’s own stance
would be in line with those whom he finished off his biography with, due to
their being his Shaykhs. This reasoning is supported with the next quote from
ibn Hajr. Allaah knows best.]
Ibn
Hajr said, "…those of his stances that were rejected from him were not
said by him due to mere whims and desires and neither did he obstinately and
deliberately persist in them after the evidence was established against him.
Here are his works overflowing with refutations of those who held to tajseem
yet despite this he is a man who makes mistakes and is also correct. So that
which he is correct in – and that is the majority – is to benefited from and
Allaah’s Mercy should be sought for him due to it, and that which he is
incorrect in should not be blindly followed. Indeed he is excused for his
mistakes because he is one of the Imaams of his time and it has been witnessed
that he fulfilled the conditions of ijtihaad…
From
the astonishing qualities of this man was that he was the strongest amongst men
against the People of Innovation, the Rawaafidah, and the Hululiyyah, and the
Ittihaadiyyah, and his works on this are many and famous, and his fataawaa
on them cannot be counted, so how the eyes of these innovators must have found
joy when they heard those who declared him to be a kaafir! And how
delighted they must have been when they saw those who did not declare him to be
a kaafir in turn being labelled kaafir! It is obligatory upon the
one who has donned the robe of knowledge and possesses intelligence that he
consider the words of a man based upon his well-known books or from the tongues
of those who are trusted to accurately convey his words – then to isolate from
all of this what is rejected and warn from them with the intention of giving
sincere advice and to praise him for his excellent qualities and for what he
was correct in as is the way of the scholars.
If
there were no virtues of Shaykh Taqi ad-Deen except for his famous student Shaykh
Shams ad-Deen ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, writer of many works, from which both
his opponents and supporters benefited from then this would be a sufficient
indication of his (ibn Taymiyyah’s) great position. And how could it be
otherwise when the Shaafi`ee Imaams and others, not to speak of the Hanbalees,
of his time testified to his prominence in the (Islamic) sciences…" [From
Ibn Hajr’s endorsement of ‘Radd al-Waafir’ contained at the end of the book.]
Ibn
Katheer said, "the least he would do when he heard something was to
memorise it and then busy himself with learning it. He was intelligent and had
much committed to memory, and he became an Imaam in tafseer and
everything linked to it and knowledgeable in fiqh. Indeed it was said he
was more knowledgeable of the fiqh of the madhabs then the
followers of those very same madhabs in his time and other than his
time. He was a scholar in Usul and the branches of the religion and
grammar and the language and other textual and intellectual sciences…no scholar
of a science would speak to him except that he thought that that science was
the speciality of ibn Taymiyyah. As for hadeeth then he was the carrier of its
flag, a haafidh and able to distinguish the weak from the strong, fully
acquainted with the narrators…" [‘al-Bidaayah wan Nihaayah’ (14/118-119)
of ibn Katheer.]
He
also said, "He was, may Allaah have mercy upon him, from the greatest of
scholars, also from those who err and are correct. However his errors with
respect to his correct rulings were like a drop in a huge ocean and they are
forgiven him as is authentically reported by Bukhaaree, ‘when a ruler makes
a ruling, and he is correct then he has two rewards, and if he has erred then
he has one reward.’"
He
also mentioned that when the scholars of his time gathered for a sitting with
ibn Taymiyyah to discuss his work ‘Aqueedah al-Hamawiyyah’ that his replies to
their accusations could not be rebutted. [‘al-Bidaayah wan Nihaayah’ (14/5)]
Similarly
he mentioned that when the scholars sat to argue with him with regards to his
Aqueedah al-Waasitiyyah the argument ended with them accepting all that was
contained in the book as in vol. 14 of ‘al-Bidaayah’ under the heading ‘Aqd
al-Majaalis ath-Thalaatha’
Al-Haafidh
al-Mizzi said, "I have not seen the likes of him, and his own eye had not
seen the likes of himself. And I have not seen one who was more knowledgeable
than him of the Book and the Sunnah of His Messenger, nor one who followed them
more closely." [‘Hayaat Shaykh al-Islaam ibn Taymiyyah’ (pg. 21) of Shaykh
Bahjatul Baitaar.]
Al-Haafidh
ibn Daqeeq al-Eid said, "when I met ibn Taymiyyah I saw a man with all the
sciences in front of his eyes, he took from them what he wished and he left
what he wished." [ ‘Min Mashaheer al-Mujaddidayn’ (pg.26) of Shaykh Saalih
al-Fawzaan] This after he had said, "by Allaah I did not think that there
remained the likes of you." [ ‘al-Bidaayah wan Nihaayah’ (14/27) of ibn
Katheer and ‘Dhail `alaa Tabaqaat al-Hanabilaa’ (2/392) of ibn Rajab.]
The
Qaadee of Qaadees ibn al-Hureeree said, "if ibn Taymiyyah was not Shaykh
al-Islaam than who is?" [‘Hayaat Shaykh al-Islaam’ (pg.26)]
Al-Haafidh
al-Bazzaar said, "I have not seen him mention any of the pleasures and
attractions of this world, he did not delve into worldly conversations and he
never asked for any of its livelihood. Instead he directed his attentions and
conversations to seeking the Hereafter and what could get him closer to
Allaah." [‘al-A`laam al-Uliyyah’ (pg.52) of al-Bazzaar.]
Al-Shaykh
Mullaa Alee al-Qaaree said, "it will become clear to the one who studies
‘Madaarij as-Saalikeen’ (of ibn al-Qayyim) that these two (ibn Taymiyyah and
ibn al-Qayyim) are from the greatest of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaa`ah, and from the
Awliyaa of this nation." [‘Mirqaat al-Mafaateeh’ (8/251-252) his
commentary to ‘Mishkaat al-Masaabeeh’, as quoted from in ‘Shubuhaat Ahl
al-Fitna’ (pg. 442) of Abdurrahmaan Dimisqiyyah.]
Muhammad
bin Abdul Barr as-Subkee said, "by Allaah no one hates ibn Taymiyyah
except for an ignoramus or the possessor of desires which have diverted him
from the truth after he has come to know it." [‘Radd al-Waafir’ (pg.95) of
ibn Naasir ad-Deen]
Al-Haafidh
Abdurrahmaan ibn Rajab al-Hanbalee said, "he is the Imaam, the legal
Jurist, the Mujtahid, the Scholar of Hadeeth, the Haafidh, the Explainer of the
Qur`aan, the Ascetic, Taqee ad-Deen Abu al-Abbaas Shaykh al-Islaam, the most
knowledgeable of the knowledgeable, it is not possible to exaggerate his renown
when he is mentioned….he, may Allaah have mercy upon him, was unique in his
time with respect to understanding the Qur`aan and knowledge of the realities
of faith." [‘adh-Dhail `alaa Tabaqaat al-Hanaabilaa’ (2/387-392) of ibn
Rajab]
The
Imaam of the Hanafees, Badr ad-Deen (Mahmud bin Ahmad) al-`Ainee said,
"whosoever says ibn Taymiyyah is a kaafir the he is in reality
himself a kaafir, and the one who accuses him of heresy is himself a
heretic. How is this possible when his works are widely available and there is
no hint of deviation or dissension contained therein." [‘Radd al-Waafir’
(pg. 245)]
As-Suyutee
quotes from az-Zamlakaanee that he said, "our Master, our Shaykh, the
Imaam, the Scholar, the Unique (al-Awhad), the Haafidh, the Mujtahid,
the Ascetic, the Worshipper (Aabid), the Example, the Imaam of the
Imaams, the example for the Nation, the sign of the scholars, the inheritor of
the Prophets, the Last of the Mujtahids, unique (Awhad) scholar of the
Religion, the Blessing for Islaam, the Proof of the Scholars (A`laam),
the proof of the Mutakallimeen, the effacer of the innovators, endowed with
exalted and amazing sciences, the Reviver of the Sunnah. The one by whom Allaah
has greatly favoured us with, and established the proof with against His
enemies. …Taqee ad-Deen ibn Taymiyyah…"
Then
as-Suyutee follows this up by saying, "I have quoted this biography from
the handwriting of the Allaamah, the unique individual of his time, Shaykh
Kamaal ad-Deen az-Zamlakaanee, may Allaah have mercy on him who used to say,
‘one who had more memorised than him has not been seen in the last five hundred
years.’" [‘al-Ashbaah wa an-Nadhaa’ir an-Nahwiyyah’ (3/681), see also
‘Dhail alaa Tabaqaat al-Hanaabila’ (2/392-393)]
As-Suyutee
said in the course of discussing his biography, "Shaykh al-Islaam, the
Haafidh, the Faqeeh, the Mujtahid, the distinguished Mufassir, the rarity of
his time, Scholar of the Ascetics" [‘Tabaqaat al-Huffaadh’ (pg. 516 no.
1144), and ‘al-Asbaah wa al-Nadhaa’ir’ (3/683) of as-Suyutee.]
We
could mention many more scholars who praised him but insha’Allaah what we have
quoted above is sufficient to paint a more just and true picture of this Imaam.
As for those scholars that applied the title ‘Shaykh al-Islaam’ to him then
they are numerous and would require a separate volume to list them [As has been
done by some scholars, from amongst them ibn Naasir ad-Deen in the
aforementioned book ‘ar-Radd al-Waafir’]
The
Accusations against him:
From
what has preceded it is clear that Shaykh al-Islaam had many enemies, and many
jealous rivalries who plotted against him together to try to make out that he
was an innovator. So we advise anyone who wishes to criticise the Shaykh that
he must make sure that his criticisms are based firmly upon the written works
of ibn Taymiyyah, not merely upon the words of other than him, as done by his
opponents.
What
follows is an investigation of the points of belief that ibn Taymiyyah was
accused of having deviances in. We have left out the various legal positions he
had for which he was attacked for due to their relative unimportance.
On
the works of Taqi ad-Deen Subki and his son Taaj ad-Deen Subki:
Much
of what is written against ibn Taymiyyah are based upon the works of these two
scholars. ‘Rasaa`il as-Subkiyyah’ of Shaykh Taqi ad-Deen and the various
biographical works of Taaj ad-Deen for example ‘Tabaqaat ash-Shaafi`iyyah’.
As
for the works of Taqi ad-Deen then adh-Dhahabee wrote to him, censuring him for
what he had written, and his erroneous claims, to which as-Subkee replied
saying, "As for what you say with regard to ash-Shaykh Taqi ad-Deen, then
I am convinced of the great scope, the ocean-like fullness and vastness of his
knowledge of the transmitted and intellectual sciences, his extreme
intelligence, his ijtihaad and his attainments in that which surpass
description. And I have always held to this opinion. Personally, his status in
my eyes is greater and more esteemed, for the asceticism, piety, religiosity,
his helping the truth and standing firm on it for the sake of Allaah alone, his
adherence to the path of the salaf and his abundant taking from it, and his
strangeness in this time, nay any time." [‘ad-Durar al-Kaamina’ of ibn
Hajr under the biography of ibn Taymiyyah (1/159) and ‘Dhail Tabaqaat
al-Hanaabilah’ (2/392) of ibn Rajab al-Hanbalee.]
As
for his son, Taaj ad-Deen, then unfortunately, he went to extremes in
criticising ibn Taymiyyah, due to his highly partisan and sectarian attitude.
Such that as-Sakhaawee endorsed the following words about him, following his
statement, "did any of the Hanbalees raise their heads (i.e. become
prominent)":
"This
is from the strangest of things, and the most sectarian/partisan of attitudes,
and this is why the Qaadee of our time, and Shaykh of the madhab al-Izz
al-Kanaanee wrote under this statement, ‘and likewise Allaah did not raise the
heads of the Mu`attila’ and then he said about Taaj ad-Deen Subki, ‘he
is a man having little manners, lack of scholarly integrity, ignorant of Ahl
as-Sunnah and their ranks.’" [ ‘al-I`laan bi at-Tawbeekh liman Dhamma
at-Taareekh’ (94-95) of as-Sakhaawee]
A
glimpse of his attacks can be seen in ‘Albani Unveiled’ (pp 114-116) and in
what follows the truth of the above criticism will become clear, and a more
severe and devastating reality will become apparent, and that is the amount of
lies that are heaped around the pillars of Ahlus Sunnah in all ages by
individuals that claim to be supporting the truth.
On
the book ‘Naseehah adh-Dhahabiyyah’:
A
book ascribed to adh-Dhahabee in which he launches a severe attack on ibn
Taymiyyah, but in reality was not written by him, but falsely ascribed to him,
this due to many reasons:
- No one
who is familiar with the works of adh-Dhahabee mentioned this as one of his
works.
-
Adh-Dhahabee remained the student of ibn Taymiyyah until the latters death.
- All of
the sayings of adh-Dhahabee in the books that are affirmed to be from him, to
do with ibn Taymiyyah, revolve around praise and respect of him. (A glimpse of
these has preceded).
- This
letter is written in the handwriting of ibn Qaadee ash-Shuhba, an enemy of ibn
Taymiyyah.
We
have not seen one who ascribes this book to adh-Dhahabee after Qaadee
ash-Shuhba except for his contemporary, al-Haafidh as-Sakhaawee, may Allaah
have mercy on him, who merely followed him. [From the book, ‘at-Tawdeeh al-Jallee
fee ar-Radd alaa Naseeha adh-Dhahabiyyah al-Manhula alaa al-Imaam adh-Dhahabee’
(pp85-86) by Shaykh Muhammad bin Ibraaheem ash-Shaybaanee, with summary]
1. The Accusation that ibn
Taymiyyah held Allaah to be a body, of composite parts having organs.
Amongst
those contemporary, and recent writers who accused Shaykh al-Islaam of this
are: al-Habbashee al-Huraree, as-Saqqaaf and his mentor Zaahid al-Kawtharee. In
fact all the attacks that are about to be raised will find their origins with
one, or all of the three personalities mentioned above, from the writers of
recent and contemporary times.
As-Saqqaaf
says, after previously quoting an-Nawawees ruling of unbelief on the one who
ascribes to Allaah a jism (body):
"Entering
into this category is al-Harraanee (i.e. ibn Taymiyyah)…who has affirmed
tajseem (Allaah having a body) in many of his books. So from this is his saying
in ‘at-Ta`sees’ (1/101): ‘and there is not in the Book of Allaah, nor in the
Sunnah of His Messenger, nor a statement from any of the Salaf of this ummah
and it’s Imaams that He is not a jism, and that His Attributes are not bodily,
consisting of organs…’ I say: By Allaah who originated the heavens and the
Earth - your saying is ignorance and misguidance. Is not Allaah - the Most
High’s - saying, "there is nothing like Him" sufficient in
negating tajseem and it’s reality, O al-Harraanee?!! And what about the Imaams
of the Ummah and the Salaf - O al-Harraanee - and their censure of
tashbeeh…." [‘Daf Shubah at-Tashbeeh’ (pp 245-246) with it’s footnotes by
Saqqaaf. ]
Shaykh
Mashur Salmaan said in reply to this, "these words are from one who does
not know what fairness is, who acts haphazardly in his rulings, and who falsely
accuses the scholars of wickedness. This becomes apparent in a number of ways:
From
them: that the previously stated words are not from the writings of ibn
Taymiyyah in which he is clarifying his own views, or even stating them. Rather
he is quoting the saying of the People of Kalaam (innovated speech and
rhetorics). However as-Saqqaaf has conveniently omitted the beginning of the
quotation from Shaykh al-Islaam ibn Taymiyyah, where he clearly stated: Qaaloo
(they said)!!
From
them: that Saqqaaf overlooks the words of Shaykh al-Islaam ibn Taymiyyah - may
Allaah have mercy upon him - concerning the overall usage of this term in
reference to Allaah - the Mighty and Majestic - and he halted where he halted
upon with knowledge. However justice is very rare - and there is no movement
and power except with Allaah.
Shaykh
al-Islaam said, in the course of this topic, ‘indeed the term al-Jism
(body), al-Arad (organs), al-Mutahayyiz (extent) are newly
invented terminoligies. We have mentioned many a time before that the Salaf and
the Imaams have not spoken about such things - neither by way of negation, nor
by way of affirmation. Rather they declared those who spoke about such matter
to be innovators, and went to great lengths to censure them.’
This
is what has repeatedly been affirmed by Shaykh al-Islaam - may Allaah have
mercy on him - in many of his books, such as: ‘Sharh Hadeeth an-Nuzool’ (pp.
69-76), ‘Majmoo’ al-Fataawaa’ (3/306-310, 13/304-305), ‘Minhaaj as-Sunnah
an-Nabawiyyah’ (2/134-135, 192, 198-200, 527). Indeed in ‘Sharh Hadeeth
an-Nuzool’ Shaykh al-Islaam has labelled ascribing Allaah with the term jism,
by saying, ‘an innovation in the Sharee`ah, a corruption of the language, and a
contradiction to the [sound] intellect. Rather it is repudiated by the
Sharee`ah, the language and the [sound] intellect.’
And
from them: Shaykh al-Islaam mentions the intended meaning of ascribing Allaah
with the term jism, by saying: ‘whosoever alleges that the Lord is a jism
- with the meaning that he accepts divisiion, separation and partition (for
Allaah) - then he is the most disbelieving of people and the most ignorant.
Indeed, his statement is more evil than the one who says that Allaah has a son
- with them meaning that a part of Him spplit and thus became His son.’" [
‘al-Asaalah’ magazine (no.4 pp.54-55), see also his ‘Rudood wat Ta’qubaat’ (pp
21-23) ]
And
at this point we quote from a writer of the own ranks of the accusers: Dr.
Sa`eed Ramadaan al-Bootee who says, "and we are amazed when we see the
extremists declaring ibn Taymiyyah, may Allaah have mercy upon him, of being an
unbeliever. And also at them saying that he was one who held Allaah to be a
body (mujassid), and I have studied long and hard as to where I could find a
statement or a word from ibn Taymiyyah that he wrote or said which would
indicate his holding Allaah to be a body as was quoted from him by as-Subki and
others [This is a clear indication from al-Bootee of the injustice done against
ibn Taymiyyah by the likes of as-Subki and others], and I have not found
anything from him like this. All I found was him saying in his legal rulings,
‘Indeed Allaah has a Hand as He said, and has risen over the Throne as He said,
and He has an Eye as He said’"
And
he adds to this, " I referred to the last work written by Abu al-Hasan
al-Ash`aree, ‘al-Ibaanah’, and I found him saying exactly what ibn Taymiyyah
said [on the issue of the Names and Attributes of Allah]…" [‘Nadwa
Ittjaahaat al-Fiqr al-Islaamee’ (pp 264-265) of al-Bootee.]
The
Claims of ibn Batuta:
Amongst
the contemporaries of ibn Taymiyyah who accused him of tajseem was the
travelling historian, ibn Batuta who said, "I was present in
The
falsehood of this can be seen from many angles
- This
contradicts the madhab of ibn Taymiyyah concerning the Attributes of
Allaah - the Most High - which was the same as the madhab of the Salaf,
being built upon the saying of Allaah, ‘there is nothing like Him, He is the
Hearing and the Seeing’.
- Ibn
Taymiyyah says in ‘at-Tadmuriyyah’ (pg. 20), "It is a must to affirm that
which Allaah affirms for himself, whilst negating any likeness to Him with His
creation…Whosoever says: His Knowledge is like my knowledge, His Power is like
my power, or Love like my love, or Pleasure like my pleasure, or Hand like my
hand, or Ascending like my ascending, or His Nuzool (descent) is like my
descent, then he has resembled and likened Allaah to the creation. Rather it is
a must to affirm (Allaah’s Attributes) without resemblance, and to negate (what
Allaah negates for Himself), without ta`teel (divesting Allaah of His
Attributes)."
-
Likewise he said in ‘Majmoo` al-Fataawaa’ (5/262), "whosoever considers
the Attributes to be like the attributes of the creation - such that Istawaa of
Allaah is like the ascending of the creation, or His Nuzool is like the
descending of the creation, or other than that - then he is a deviated
innovator." And he repeats this principle over and over again in his
works.
- It is
not possible that ibn Batuta witnessed ibn Taymiyyah deliver this speech, since
ibn Batuta clearly states in his ‘Rihla’ (1/102) that he entered Damascus on
the 9th of Ramadhaan in the year 728H. However Shaykh al-Islaam was
- before, during and after that time - inn prison. Ibn Katheer states in
‘al-Bidaayah wan Nihaayah’ (14/135) that ibn Taymiyyah was imprisoned on the 6th
of Sha’baan in the year 728H and remained there until his death on the 20th
of Dhul Qa’dah 728H [These dates are endorsed in ‘al-A`laam al-Uliyyah’ (pg.84)
of al-Bazzaar, and ‘Sahdharaat adh-Dhahab’ (6/80) of ibn al-Amaad.]
- Ibn
Batuta, may Allaah have mercy upon him, did not write the book ‘Rihla’ with his
own hand, rather it was collected by Muhammad bin Jazee al-Kalbee who writes in
the introduction to ‘Rihla’, "and I have quoted the meaning of the words
of Shaykh Abu Abdullaah (ibn Batuta) with words that give the meaning that he
intended…."
- Ibn
Batuta started his journey on the 2nd of Rajab 725H and completed it
on the 3rd of Dhul Hijjah 756H and he did not write anything down,
rather after this journey he dictated to al-Kalbee the events of his journey
from memory. Hence the door is open for mistakes, and it is highly likely that
ibn Batuta did not witness what he claimed to have witnessed, but merely
conveyed the accusations that were in vogue at that time against Shaykh
al-Islaam from his enemies.
- Ibn
Batuta himself was opposed to ibn Taymiyyah, for he states in ‘Rihla’ (1/309),
‘and from the great Hanbalee Legal Jurists of Damascus was ibn Taymiyyah,
except that he was lacking in his intellect.’ Hence it would have been easy for
him to take on board the accusations without verifying them.
- Ibn
Taymiyyah has a separate book concerning Allaah’s Descending called, ‘Sharh
Hadeeth an-Nuzool’. In it is no trace whatsoever of the anthropomorphic beliefs
that he has been falsely accused of.
- Ibn
Taymiyyah was not the khateeb of the aforementioned masjid, rather it
was Qaadee al-Qazwaynee. Ibn Batuta himself says in his ‘Rihla’ (1/107),
"and at the time of my entering it (
- Ibn
Taymiyyah did not used to give admonitions and reminders to the people from the
minbar, rather he used to sit upon a chair. Al-Haafidh adh-Dhahabee
said, "and he became very famous and well-known, and he started giving tafseer
of the Might Book from his memory, on the days of Jumu`ah, sitting upon a
chair." And ibn Batuta states in his ‘Rihla’ (1/108), "it was the
habit of the scholars of hadeeth to read books of hadeeth on a raised
chair." And a raised chair in the Arabic language is called, ‘minbar’.
[‘Lisaan al-Arb’ (5/189)]
- This
is why ibn Hajr mentioned in his ‘Durar al-Kaaminah’, "and he used to
speak on the minbar in the way of the explainers of fiqh and
hadeeth, and he used to mention in an hour, what another was unable to mention
in many sittings, as if the sciences were displayed in front of his eyes"
Meaning by this that he sat on a chair as done by the scholars of hadeeth.
[The
above discussion is taken from ‘Min Mashaaheer al-Mujaddidayn’ (pp 27-29) of
Shaykh Saalih al-Fowzaan, and ‘ibn Taymiyyah al-Muftaraa alayhi’ (pp 50-60) of
Shaykh Saleem al-Hilaalee.
Ibn
Hajr al-Asqalaanee also mentioned in ‘Durar al-Kaaminah’ (pg. 154) quoting from
at-Tufee that, "and they mentioned that he mentioned the hadeeth of
Descent and he descended two steps of the minbar and he said, ‘Like this
descending of mine’ so he was imputed with tajseem (fa nusiba ilaa
at-tajseem)"
This
statement is by no means an evidence against ibn Taymiyyah as it only states
‘they mentioned’ mentioning no eye witnesses, And in fact it only confirms,
along with all that has preceded, that these were lies being spread against ibn
Taymiyyah. This is the reason that at-Tufee only said, ‘he was imputed with tajseem’
using uncertain phraseology.]
So
with the above it is clear that the account of ibn Batuta cannot be depended
upon due to his obvious confusion and the lack of coherency of his account, and
due to it’s clear contradiction to the written words of ibn Taymiyyah.
And
with this the gross exaggeration of Taaj ad-Deen Subki can also be discerned,
where he said, "none of them (scholars) denied that he had said, ‘Allaah
had directions and is a composition of particles coming together’" [ See
‘Albani Unveiled’ (pg.116)]
2. The Accusation that ibn
Taymiyyah held Allaah to be subject to direction (jihha).
Nowhere
in the works of ibn Taymiyyah has he used the word jihha in describing Allaah.
Rather the basis of this accusation arises from his following our Salaf and
clearly stating that Allaah is outside of His creation, above the heavens, over
His Throne. When reading this, the misguided philosophers (mutakallimeen)
argued that this position of ibn Taymiyyah necessitated that Allaah have a
direction.
The
Position of the Salaf as to Allaah being distinct from creation:
Know
that the verses of the Qur`aan on this issue, clear and unequivocal in their
meaning, run into hundreds, and likewise the ahaadeeth, that Allaah is above
His creation and over His Throne. These are well known so we will suffice here
with stating the position of the Salaf on this issue as it is they who
understood the Qur`aan and Sunnah the best.
Below
is a translation of some points from 'Khalq Af`aal al-Ebaad' of Imaam Bukhaaree
(RH), pp.13+. All narrations quoted are authentic insha`Allaah according to the
takhreej done of the works quoted. The narrators are mainly Taabi`ee and
those that came immediately after.
"6) Wahb bin Jareer said,
‘The Jahmiyyah are heretics, they think that He has not risen over His Throne.’
13)
Ibn al-Mubaarak said, ‘we do not say as the Jahmiyyah say that Allaah is on the
earth, rather He has risen over His Throne.’
14)
And it was said to him, ‘how should we know our Lord?’ He said, ‘above the
Heavens, over/upon (`alaa) His Throne’
29)
Sufyaan ath-Thawree was asked about the verse, "and He is with you
wheresoever you are". He said, ‘His Knowledge.’
64)
Sadqa said, ‘I heard Sulaiman at-Taimi saying, ‘if I were asked, "where is
Allaah?" I would say, "above (fee) the heaven". And if it
said, "where was the Throne before the Heaven?" I would say,
"over the water." And if it is said, "where was the Throne
before the water?" I would say, "I do not know."’
And
Imaam Bukhaaree said, ‘and that (i.e. his answer) was because of the saying of
Allaah, "and they cannot encompass anything of His Knowledge except
what He wills." i.e. except what He explains.’
[This
shows that the question ‘where is Allaah’ was considered allowed by the Salaf,
and how could it be otherwise when the Prophet (SAW) himself asked the slave
girl, "where is Allaah" as is established firmly in the saheeh of
Imaam Muslim. So do not be misguided by the neo-Jahmiyyah of today, Saqqaaf and
al-Habbashee and their likes who try to declare the above hadeeth of Muslim as
weak, and make out that the above question is a bid`ah, having only the
classical Jahmiyyah as their precedents.]
66)
Muhammad bin Yusuf said (one of the teachers of Bukhaaree), ‘the one who says
that Allaah is not over (`alaa) His Throne is a kaafir. And the
one who thinks that Allaah did not speak to Moses is a kaafir.
103)
Ibn Mas`ud (RA) said about His saying, "then He rose over His
Throne", - ‘the Throne is over the water, Allaah is above (fawqa)
the Throne and He knows what you are upon.’
104)
Qataada said about His saying, "and He is Allaah in the Heaven and in
the Earth" - ‘the One Who is worshipped in the heaven and in the
earth.’"
Below
are further points translated from ‘Sharh Usul I`tiqaad Ahlus Sunnah’ of
al-Laalikaa`ee (d.414, pp396+)
"660)
Abdullaah bin Abbaas (RA) said, ‘Verily Allaah was above His Throne before He
created anything, then He created the creation and decreed what was to exist
until the Day of Judgement.’
662)
Bashr bin Umar said, ‘I heard more then one of the Mufassir say about the
verse, "The Most Merciful istawaa upon the Throne" - istawaa
means rose above.’
665)
Rabee`(one of the teachers of Maalik) was asked about the verse, "The
Most Merciful rose over His Throne" - ‘how did He rise?’ He replied,
‘al-Istawaa (rising) is known, and the how is not comprehensible, and from
Allaah is the message, and upon the Messenger is the preaching, and upon us is
believing.’
670)
Maqaatil bin Hayaan said about His saying, "and there is no secret
discourse of 3 people except He is the fourth, or of 5 people and He is the
sixth" - ‘He is above His Throne, and nothing is hidden from His
knowledge.’
673)
Imaam Ahmad was asked, ‘Allaah is above the seventh heaven, above His Throne,
distinct from his creation, and His Power and Knowledge are in every place?’ He
replied, ‘yes, above the Throne and His Knowledge is in every place.’
675)
Imaam Ahmad was asked about the verse, "and He is with you wheresoever
you are", and the verse, "there is no secret discourse of 3
people except that he is the fourth." – he replied, ‘(meaning) His
Knowledge, He is the Knower of the seen and the unseen, His knowledge
encompasses everything, and our Lord is above the Throne without setting limits
and giving description, and His Kursi is as the expanse of the heavens and the
earth with His Knowledge.’"
Imaam
Awzaa`ee said, "we used to say, while the Taabi`een were many, ‘indeed
Allaah is above His Throne, and we believe in what occurs in the Sunnah to do
with His Attributes’" [ Related by al-Bayhaqi in ‘Asmaa was Sifaat’ (pg.
408) and ibn Hajr declared it’s chain of narration to be good as in ‘Fath
al-Baaree’ (13/406).]
Imaam
Abdullaah bin Ahmad quoted Abdullaah ibn Mubaarak as saying, ‘...I bear witness
that You are above Your Throne above the seven heavens and this is not as the
enemies of Allaah say, the heretics.’ [ ‘Sharh as-Sunnah’ of Imaam Abdullaah]
He
also quoted Abdullaah ibn Mubaarak as saying, ‘we know that our Lord is above the
seven heavens over the Throne, and we do not say as the Jahmiyyah say that he
is here,’ pointing with his hand to the earth. [Ibid.]
Abu
Haneefah (RH) said, when asked of his opinion of the one who says, ‘I do not
know whether Allaah is in the heavens or on the earth.’ -
‘He
has disbelieved, because Allaah says, "The Most Merciful rose above the
Throne.", and His Throne is above His seven heavens.’ He was then
asked, ‘what if he said that Allaah is above His Throne but he does not know
whether the Throne is in the heavens or on the earth?’ He said, ‘He has
disbelieved, because He has denied that He is above the heavens and whosoever
denied that He is above the heavens has disbelieved.’ [‘al-Uluww’ of
adh-Dhahabee, also ‘Sharh Aqueedah at-Tahaawiyyah’ of ibn Abee al-Izz
al-Hanafee.]
Ibn Khuzaymah (the Imaam of the
muhadditheen of his time) said, ‘whosoever does not affirm that Allaah is above
His heavens, over/upon (`alaa) His Throne and He is distinct from His
creation, must be forced to repent. If he does not repent then he must be
beheaded and thrown in the garbage dump so that the Muslims and thimmis
(Jews and Christians living under the Islamic State) would not suffer from his
stinking smell.’ [‘at-Tawheed’ of ibn Khuzaimah, also quoted by al-Haakim in
‘al-Ma`rifah’]
Imaam
Abul Hasan al-Ash`aree (d.290) in ‘al-Ibaanah’ brings a whole chapter on
‘Istawaa’ (Allaah Rising over His Throne), in the course of his discussion he
said, ‘and some people say, from the Mu`tazila and Jahmiyyah and Hururiyya,
about the saying of Allaah, "The Most Merciful rose upon His
Throne", that he istawla (conquered), Milak (owned), Qahr (dominated),
and that Allaah is in every place, and they denied Allaah being above His
Throne, as the People of Truth say...’
[‘al-Ibaanah’
(pg. 120+) containing an excellent refutation of the above claim. This also
refutes clearly what Abu Mansur al-Baghdaadee states in his ‘Farq bayna
al-Firaq’ that, "The majority go the way of saying that the meaning of
"Istawaa" is establishing dominance (al-qahr) and victory (al
ghalaba), that is, the Merciful vanquished the Throne (al-rahmanu ghalaba
al-`arsh) and overcame it (wa qaharahu). He mentioned the Throne specifically
because it is the greatest of created things (a`dhamu al-makhluqat)."
It
should be said to him, ‘establish the throne and then sit on it’, what
majority? When the totality of the Salaf held that Istawaa meant that Allaah
has risen over His Throne. Not only that but the very Imaam that Abu Mansur
claims to follow, al-Ash`aree refutes his very claim as being misguidance!]
The
quotes on this run into the hundreds from the salaf, and the books written on
this by the early scholars of Islaam are many but we do not wish to lengthen
the discussion beyond what is necessary.
So
we say to those that accuse ibn Taymiyyah of giving Allaah a direction, because
of this belief of his: Your accusation necessitates that all of the above Salaf
also held Allaah to have a jihha, including the two great Companions,
ibn Mas`ud and ibn Abbaas. So if you were to declare ibn Taymiyyah as misguided
due to this, then you must do the same with the Salaf. We seek refuge with
Allaah from such misguidance!
Ibn
Taymiyyah said,
"And
when it became established in the souls of the addressees (of the revelation)
that Allaah is the Highest of the High, and the He is Above everything, the
understanding of His saying, "Indeed He is (fee) the
Heaven" became that He was High and Above everything. Likewise the
slave girl when it was said to her, "where is Allaah," she
said, "(fee) the Heaven," meaning above, without
designating for Him a created body or His being contained in His
Creation….Furthermore whosoever thinks that Allaah being (fee) the
Heaven means that the Heaven surrounds or encloses Him, then he is a liar if he
is quoting someone else or misguided if He believes this with respect to His
Lord. We have not heard anyone understand this from this word (fee) just
as we have not seen anyone quote this from anyone else" [‘Bayaan Talbees
al-Jahmiyyah’ (1/559) of ibn Taymiyyah]
He
said in ‘Darr at-Ta`aarud’ (1/253), "so when the Creator, the Exalted is
separate and distinct from the creation, high above it, and there is nothing in
existence save the Creator and created, then there is nothing that exists
alongside Him which is besides Him, let alone that He – Subhaanahu – should be
in some existing thing which surrounds and encompasses Him."
Ibn
Taymiyyah said,
"The
people fall into three groups over the convention of the use of the word jihha.
A group that negates it, another that affirms it, and a third that explains the
issue. This difference is present amongst the followers of the Four Imaams who
affirmed the Attributes of Allaah and the difference of the Ahlul Hadeeth and
Sunnah, specifically, over this is a difference in wording, not in meaning.
This is why a group from the Companions of Ahmad - like the Tameemiyyeen and
al-Qaadee in one of his two sayings - negated it yet another, larger group,
affirmed it - and this is the last saying of al-Qaadee. This is because the
word jihha could be used to refer to that which is subject to time and
space (wujood) or that which is not (ma`doom) and it is known
that there is nothing present except for the Creator and creation.
So
if the word jihha is used to refer to something that exists other than
Allaah then it refers to something created by Allaah and Allaah is not
encompassed or confined by any of his creation. If the word is used to refer to
something outside time and space, i.e. above the creation, then there is
nothing there except Allaah." [‘Minhaaj as-Sunnah’ (1/216) of ibn
Taymiyyah.]
So
it is clear with all of this that ibn Taymiyyah did not believe Allaah to be
subject to any of the created direction, nor did he believe Allaah to be
surrounded in any way by His creation.
3)
The Accusation that ibn Taymiyyah held Allaah to be subject to limitation (hadd)
The
innovators looked into the works of ibn Taymiyyah and saw him mentioning the
word hadd with respect to Allaah and immediately assumed that he held
Allaah to be subject to limitation and without and further research declared
him as a deviant or kaafir. The error of this accusation will become
clear, by the Permission of Allaah.
The
basis of this accusation lies with the authentic saying related from Abdullaah
bin Mubaarak as is related in ‘Tabaqaat al-Hanaabila’ (1/267), "I said to
Ahmad: it is reported from ibn al-Mubaarak that it was asked him, ‘how should
we know our Lord?’ to which he replied, ‘over (fee) the Seventh Heaven,
over His Throne with hadd.’ So Imaam Ahmad said: this is how we believe
it." [Related by ad-Daarimee in ‘Radd alaa Mareesee’ (pg.34), Abdullaah
bin Ahmad in ‘as-Sunnah’ (1/175), al-Bayhaqi in ‘Asmaa was Sifaat’ (pg. 467).
Imaam adh-Dhahabee said in ‘al-Uluww’ (pg. 152 - of the mukhtasar), "this
is saheeh, established from ibn al-Mubaarak and Ahmad may Allaah be pleased
with him." Ibn Taymiyyah said in ‘al-Hamawiyyah’ (5/184 - of Majmoo
al-Fataawaa), "this is famous and established from ibn Mubaarak via many
routes, and it is also established from Ahmad bin Hanbal, and Ishaaq bin
Raahawayyah and other Imaams." See also ‘Sharh Aqueedah at-Tahaawiyyah’
(pg. 240). See also the refutation of al-Kawtharees feeble attempts to declare
this narration da`eef in ‘Daf` Shubah al-Ghawiyyah’ (pp73-74) of Shaykh Muraad
Shukree.]
But
was the meaning of the Imaams in saying this? Was it establishing limits for
Allaah with the meaning of the walls of a house setting its limits, or
something else? Or does Allaah have an Attribute of hadd? What is the
reconciliation between this narration from Imaam Ahmad and the previous one
mentioned above (no.675)?
Ibn
Taymiyyah says,
"These
words that he mentioned would be applicable if they had said that He has an
Attribute and it is hadd, as suggested by this person who tries to
refute them. This has not been said by anyone and neither would any intelligent
person say this, for this statement has no reality to it due to their not
existing a single Attribute from the Attributes that He is described with, such
as Hand and Knowledge, that has been specified as hadd. All that is
meant here is what distinguishes something from something else with regards to
its description and measure as is well known of the word hadd when
dealing with the clearly defined things. For example it is said: the hadd
of man, meaning those characteristics that distinguish him as being a
man." [ ‘Talbees al-Jahmiyyah’ (1/442) of ibn Taymiyyah.]
So
historically when the Jahmiyyah, denied the Attributes of Allaah, and denied
his being above His Throne, rather they said He is everywhere, then some of the
Salaf replied to this by saying that indeed Allaah has a hadd with
the meaning: that which distinguishes Him from anything else, in that He
has Risen over His Throne and is distinct from creation. Ibn Taymiyyah said,
"So
when the Jahmiyyah said: indeed the Creator is not distinguished from the
creation, and they denied the Attributes which distinguish Him, and they denied
His Power (qadr), to the extent that the Mu`tazila said, when we
acknowledge that He is Living, Knowing and all-Powerful (only), then we have
come to know His reality. They say: indeed He is not distinct from other than
Him. Rather they depict Him, either with negative descriptions such as: He is
not in the world, nor out of the world, and not this and not that, or they make
Him to be encompassed by the creation.
So
Abdullaah bin Mubaarak made clear that the Lord is over His Throne, distinct
from the creation, and he mentioned hadd because the Jahmiyyah used to
say: He does not have a hadd, and whatsoever does not have a hadd
cannot be distinct from creation, and cannot be above the creation because that
would necessitate a hadd. So when the Ameer al-Mu`mineen Abdullaah ibn
al-Mubaarak was asked: ‘How should we know Him?’ He said, ‘above His Heavens,
over His Throne, distinct from His creation.’ So they said, ‘this implies that
which the Jahmiyyah negate, and with this negation of theirs they negate the
fact that He is present over the Throne, distinct from creation.’ So they asked
him, ‘with hadd?’ And he replied ‘with hadd’.
So
this is what is understood by anyone who understands what was between the
sayings of the believers of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaa`ah and the Jahmiyyah."
[Ibid (1/443)]
Then
ibn Taymiyyah discusses the statements of those from the salaf who negated the
usage of the word hadd, and those who used it, and explains that in
reality both groups were saying the same thing, and the difference was merely
one of wording not of meaning:
"If
the understood meaning of this word is that Allaah is in any way enclosed by
His creation, then Allaah is Greater and more Mighty, rather His Kursi is as
the expanse of the Heavens and the earth…and if what is meant by this word is
that he is distinct from His creation, then He is as the Imaams of Ahlus Sunnah
said about Him: over His Heavens, above His Throne, distinct from
creation." [‘at-Tadmuriyyah’ (pg.46)of ibn Taymiyyah, see also for further
detail, ‘Talbees al-Jahmiyyah’ (2/163)]
So
after all this, it becomes clear that ibn Taymiyyah did not hold Allaah to be
subject to limitation, and it becomes clear that the word hadd was used
by some of the Salaf with the meaning: distinguishing characteristics, when it
became necessary to do so to refute the various deviant groups at that time.
4. The Accusation that ibn Taymiyyah held Allaah subject to
movement (Harakah)
The
basis of this accusation is that, like the Salaf, ibn Taymiyyah believed that
Allaah descends to the Lowest Heaven in the last third of the night, and that
He has the Attribute of Coming (Majee`). So the opponents adduced
against him that he held Allaah to move from one place to another, and this
resembles Allaah to His creation.
A
glimpse at the belief of the Salaf to do with Descent:
Imaam
al-Aajurree (d.360) says in his exposition on Aqueedah, under the chapter ‘to
have faith and trust that Allaah descends to the lowest heaven every night.’
"Faith
in this is obligatory, and it is not allowed for the intelligent Muslim to say,
‘how does he descend?’ - and none would answer this except the Mu`tazila. [For
example the saying of some, that His command descends, and the saying of others
that His angels descend etc.] As for the people of truth, then they say, ‘faith
in this is obligatory without asking how. Because the narrations are authentic
to the Messenger (SAW) - that Allaah descends to the lowest heaven every night
- and the ones who transmitted this narraation to us are the ones that
transmitted the rules of the lawful and prohibited, the knowledge of salaah,
zakaah, fasting, hajj, and jihaad. So just as the
scholars accepted these from them then like this they accepted from them these
Sunan. They said, ‘the one who opposed these is horribly misguided’ - warning him
and warning against him." [ ‘ash-Sharee`ah’ (pg. 272)]
Then
he goes on to mention the ahaadeeth that occur on this subject.
The
great hadeeth master, ibn Khuzaymah brings a chapter heading in his work
‘at-Tawheed’, "mentioning the narrations of Descent," in which he
mentions many ahaadeeth to do with this Attribute.
al-Laalikaa`ee
(d.414) brings a chapter heading in his encyclopaedic work on aqueedah - Sharh
Usul I`tiqaad - , "what is related about the Descent of the Lord, Blessed
and Exalted, is He"
He
states that the ahaadeeth that Allaah descends to the lowest heaven have been
reported by twenty companions and then....
"775)
Fudail bin Ayaad (Taabi`ee) said, ‘when you hear the Jahmi say, "I
disbelieve in a Lord Who descends"- say - "I believe in a Lord Who
does what He wills"’
776)
Yahya bin Ma`een said, ‘when you hear the Jahmi say, "I disbelieve in a
Lord Who descends", then say, ‘I believe in a Lord Who does what He
desires."’
777)
Imaam Ahmad said, ‘He descends as He wills, according to His Knowledge and
Power and Greatness. He encompasses everything with His Knowledge.’
Similar
narrations occur in Khalq Af`aal al-Ebaad of Imaam al-Bukhaaree and ‘Ghunya
at-Taalibeen’ of Abdul Qaadir Jeelaanee.
Imaam
Abdullaah bin Ahmad narrates in his work ‘as-Sunnah’,
"508)
After mentioning the hadeeth of Descent the people said to Shareek, ‘verily
there are a people who reject these ahaadeeth.’ He said, ‘what do they say?’
They
said, ‘they abuse these ahaadeeth.’
He
replied, ‘Those who brought (i.e. Companions) these ahaadeeth, are those who
brought the Qur`aan, and that the prayers are five, and the Hajj to the House,
and the fast of Ramadaan. And we do not know Allaah except by these ahaadeeth.’
509)
Abaad bin al-Awaam said, Shareek bin Abdullaah came to us about fifty years
ago. He said (Abaad), ‘I said, "O Abu Abdullaah, verily there is a people
with us from the Mu`tazila who reject these ahaadeeth."’
He
said, ‘so he narrated to me about ten ahaadeeth to do with this (i.e. the
Descent of Allaah) and said, "as for us we take our religion from the
taabi`een from the companions of the Messenger (SAW), from where do they take
theirs?"’"
Abul
Hasan al-Ash`aree (d.294) said, "and we believe in all the narrations that
the People of Transmission have established about the Descent to the lowest
heaven and that the Lord says, ‘is there one who is asking? Is there one who is
seeking forgiveness?’ And in the generality of what they transmit and
establish, at odds to what the people of deviancy and misguidance say."
[‘al-Ibaanah’ (pg. 60) of Abu Hasan al-Ash’aree]
He
also said, "and we believe in the ahaadeeth that have come from the
Messenger (SAW) that Allaah descends to the lowest Heaven and says, ‘is there
one who is seeking forgiveness?’" [‘al-Maqaalaat’ (pg. 224) of Abu Hasan
al-Ash’aree]
So
we say yet again, if by ibn Taymiyyah’s affirmation of this Attribute, that
Allaah indeed Descends to the lowest heaven as befits His Majesty, is
misguidance then so are all of the above scholars, and in fact Ahlus Sunnah
itself misguided! And so is the very Imaam that the accusers claim to follow
misguided, Abu Hasan al-Ash`aree!
Ibn
Taymiyyah says, while discussing the use of the word ‘harakah’,
"…like
Harb al-Kirmaanee, and Uthmaan bin Sa`eed ad-Daarimee and others. Indeed these
clearly used the word harakah and they made clear that this was the madhab
of the Imaams of Ahlus Sunnah and Hadeeth from the early and the later.
Harb
al-Kirmaanee mentioned that this was the saying of the Imaams of Ahlus Sunnah
that he had met, like Ahmad bin Hanbal, and Ishaaq bin Raahawiyyah, and
Abdullaah bin Zubair al-Humaidee and Sa`eed bin Mansur.
Sa`eed
bin Mansoor and others said: indeed harakah (movement) is from the
necessary qualities of life and every living thing moves. They made out that
denying this was from the saying of the Jahmiyyah upon whom Ahlus Sunnah are
agreed with respect to their misguidance and innovation.
Another
group from the Salaf, like Nu`aym bin Hammad al-Khazaa`ee, and Bukhaaree the
author of the ‘Saheeh’, and Abu Bakr ibn Khuzaymah, and others like Abu Umar
bin Abd al-Barr, affirmed the meaning of what they (the first group) affirmed
but they named it Actions (of Allaah). From these were those that forbade the
use of the word harakah due to its not being narrated." [‘Dar
at-Ta`aarud’ (7/2)]
He
said, "the word harakah was affirmed by a group from Ahlus Sunnah
and Hadeeth and this is what was mentioned by Harb bin Ismaa`eel al-Kirmaanee
in his ‘Sunnah’ which he relates from a group of Imaams that he met like al-Humaidee
and Ahmad bin Hanbal….
Some
groups of Ahlus Sunnah negated the usage of the word harakah like Abu
al-Hasan at-Taymee and Abu Sulaymaan al-Khattaabee….
What
is narrated from Imaam Ahmad is the rejection of the one that negates movement
but neither is the usage of the word harakah established from him, even
though he may have affirmed some types (of Attributes and Actions) that the
affirmer (of the word harakah) would have placed within the ranks of the
word harakah. For when he heard someone narrating the hadeeth of Descent
and saying, ‘He Descends without movement and transmission, and without
change.’ So Imaam Ahmad rejected this and said, ‘say as the Messenger (SAW)
said, for he was more shy of His Lord than you.’" [‘al-Istiqaamah’ (1/70)]
So
from this we learn that:
- From
the salaf were those who negated the usage of the word harakah because
it did not occur in the Qur`aan and Sunnah when describing Allaah, but they
affirmed the Attributes of Descent, Coming etc.
- From
the salaf were those who affirmed the word harakah meaning that Allaah
Comes, and Descends etc. and it is not like the movement of the Creation but
rather as it befits His Majesty.
- Shaykh
al-Islaam quotes the two sayings stating that in meaning that they are the same
and that there is no resembling Allaah to His creation in this. He himself only
affirms the Attributes of Allaah without adding anything further.
Finally
ibn Taymiyyah belonged to the first group above. So with all of this, the
fourth accusation is cleared and all praise is due to Allaah.
5)
The Accusation that ibn Taymiyyah held the Hellfire to come to an end:
Another
accusation by which the opponents declared ibn Taymiyyah to be misguided due to
his contradicting the ‘consensus’ on this issue. Yet nowhere in the works of
ibn Taymiyyah does he say this, in fact what we find from him is the exact
opposite, and we challenge anybody who accuses ibn Taymiyyah of this to bring
his proof.
Ibn
Taymiyyah says,
"The
Salaf of this nation, its Imaams, and the whole Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaa`ah are
agreed that there are some things from the creation that will not come to an
end in their entirety like
This
is from one perspective, as for the other than it is over the issue of the
Punishment of the Hellfire coming to an end. This is an issue over which there
is a difference of opinion emanating from the Salaf themselves as the reader of
the Tafseers of at-Tabari, as-Suyuti and others can see under the verse 11:107
and 6:128. It is possible to explain these narrations in two ways: the first
being that the saying of some of the Companions and Taabi`een that, ‘their will
come a time when there will be no-one in Hellfire’ is to be taken literally.
The second is that it is to be taken to refer only to the Muslims in the
Hellfire.
No
matter how we take it, to rule someone’s deviancy or unbelief based on this is
not possible, for only one who contradicts a consensus that is firmly
established to exist, and unequivocal in it’s meaning can be ruled to be a
deviant or a disbeliever. This is not the case here despite the efforts of some
scholars to make it seem so. Even if it were so, then neither ibn Taymiyyah or
ibn al-Qayyim held this view, so do not be deceived by what the likes of
as-Subki writes in his ‘al-I`tibaar bi Baqaa al-Jannah wa an-Naar’ (forming
part of his ‘Risaa`il’).
As-Subki
says, in the course of his discussion on this point,
"…I
came across the aforementioned book and he mentioned in it three opinions over
the Hellfire coming to an end. 1) both
The
opponents who read this book, thought that as-Subki was referring to ibn
Taymiyyah and hence the origin of this accusation against ibn Taymiyyah. But in
reality this is from the words of ibn al-Qayyim and it seems that as-Subki did
not even fully read what this Imaam had to say!"
Ibn
al-Qayyim says: ‘Al-Haadee al-Arwaah’ (pg. 429+),
"And
this is an issue over which the latter people differed over, falling into three
opinions:
1. That
both
2. That
both will remain, never coming to an end.
3. That
We
will mention these opinions and their proponents along with their evidences,
and we will reject what contradicts the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His
Messenger.
1)
As for the first saying, then it was said by Jahm bin Safwaan, the Imaam of the
Jahmiyyah, and he did not any precedent in this from the Salaf - neither in the
Companions, nor the Taabi`een, nor any of the Imaams of Islaam, or indeed
anyone from Ahlus Sunnah. Rather this saying was one that was rejected by the
Imaams and they declared the unbelief of the ones that held to it, as is
mentioned in ‘as-Sunnah’ of Abdullaah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal reporting from
Khaarijah bin Mus`ab that he said, "I declare the Jahmiyyah to be
unbelievers due to three verses from the Book of Allaah, Azza wa Jall, ‘its
(Paradise) provision and food is eternal’ and they say it will end. ‘Verily
this is Our provision which will never finish’, and they say they will.
‘Whatever is with you will pass away, and what is with Allaah will remain’"…
2)
As for the saying that the Hellfire is eternal, then Shaykh al-Islaam said,
"there are two famous opinions from the Salaf and Khalaf and this
difference is known to exist amongst the Taabi`een." I say: and here are
seven opinions on this:
1. That
the one entering it will never leave, this being the saying of the Khawaarij
and Mu`tazila.
2. That
it’s inhabitants will be punished for a time but then this punishment will be
changed for them and they will live in a normal manner, gaining pleasure from
the Fire, due to its being in conformity to their nature. This is the saying of
the Imaam of the Ittihaadiyyah (anthropomorphists) ibn Arabee at-Taa`ee…
3. That
its inhabitants will be punished for a time, then they will be removed from it,
and another creation placed in Hell. This opinion was one that the Jews related
to the Messenger (SAW) and he declared them liars due to it as did Allaah by
saying, "and they (the Jews) say: the Fire will not touch us but for a
few days. Say: have you taken a covenant from Allaah, so that Allaah will not
break His Covenant? Or is it that you say of Allaah what you know not. And
those who believe and do righteous deeds, they are dwellers of
4. That
its inhabitants will leave it and the Fire will remain, being empty, this is
related by Shaykh al-Islaam (ibn Taymiyyah). And this opinion is also refuted
by the Qur’aan and Sunnah as has preceded.
5. That
it will come to an end due to its being created. It is impossible for anything
that is created to remain forever, this is the saying of Jahm bin Safwaan, and
he does not distinguish in this between the Fire and
6. That
its inhabitants will die and lose movement and remain in there as inanimate
things, and they will not be affected by pain. This is the saying of Abu
al-Hudhail al-Alaaf, the Imaam of the Mu`tazila, and in this ruling he does
distinguish between
7. That
its Creator and Lord will cause it to come to an end, for He has given it a
limited period.
Shaykh
al-Islaam said, "this (last) saying was related from Umar, ibn Mas`ud, Abu
Hurayrah, Abu Sa`eed and others." Abd bin Humaid related - and he is from
the most noble of the scholars of hadeeth - in his famous tafseer,
‘Sulaymaan bin Harb reported to us, from Salma, from Thaabit from Hasan who
said, "Umar said: if the people of Hell were to remain in the Fire to the
extent of the stones in a mountain there would be a day that they would leave
it."’
And
he said, ‘Hajaaj bin Minhaal, from Hammaad bin Salma, from Humaid from Hasan
that Umar bin al-Khattaab said, "if the People of the Fire were to remain
in the Fire to the extent of the stones in a mountain there would be a day that
they would leave it.’" He mentioned this in the tafseer of His
saying, "they will stay in there for periods" (Naba`a: 23).
So
Abd, who is from the Imaams of the Huffaadh and scholars of Sunnah relates from
these two noble personalities: Sulaymaan bin Harb and Hajjaaj bin Minhaal, who
in turn narrate from Hammad bin Salma, and he narrates from Thaabit and Humaid,
and these two from Hasan. And this is sufficient to show the excellence of this
isnaad.
And
Hasan, even if he did not hear anything from Umar, relates this also from some
of the Taabi`een. If this was not authentic from Umar, according to him, then
why did he narrate it and designate his narration with certainty by saying,
"Umar said"? And why did those Imaams narrate it from him without
rejection or refutation when it is known that they rejected anything that
contradicted the Sunnah and refuted matters less than this? So if this saying
was from those that contradicted the Qur’aan and Sunnah and ijmaa of the
Imaams then they would have been the first to reject it.
There
is no doubt that the one who sticks to this opinion of Umar, and narrates it
from him means a portion/type of the inhabitants of the Fire. For the
people (i.e. Muslims) that are punished due to their sins, then these people
would leave it and they would not stay in it the extent of the stones in a
mountain. And the word, ‘People of the Fire’ is not specific to the believers
in the Oneness of Allaah, rather it is specific to their enemies, as the
Prophet (SAW) said, "as for the People of the Fire who are it’s
inhabitants, then they will neither live or die in their." [Saheeh
Muslim]What has preceded does not contradict His saying, ‘they will remain
in their forever’ and His saying, ‘and they will never leave it’."…
…Ibn
Mas`ud said, "there will come a time in which there will be no-one in the
Fire and that is after they have remained in there for periods." The likes
of this is related from Abu Hurayrah, both being reported by al-Baghawee in his
tafseer. Then he says after this, "and the meaning of these
according to Ahlus Sunnah, if they are established, is that no one of the
People of faith will remain in there."…." [‘al-Haadee al-Arwaah’ (pp.
429 +)]
So
with this it is clear that both ibn Taymiyyah and his student did not hold the
Hellfire to come to an end or that the punishment would cease for the
unbelievers. Were it not for the fear of lengthening the discussion beyond what
is necessary, we would quote from the tafseer of ibn Taymiyyah in which
he makes clear that certain types of people would remain in the Hellfire
forever, for example, Pharaoh.