The “Mufti” of Leicester denies that Allaah is above his Throne


Muhammed ibn Adam al-kawtahri has left the belief of his predecessors from elders of theDeodandi sect which was that Allaah and his creation are United and inseparable a concept that is called Wahadutul Wujud.Al-kawathari has gone to another extreme and has adopted the beleif of the Jamite sect with regards to the belief of where Allaah is.Alkawathari believes that you cannot say that Allah is Above the heavens and above his throne as to say that Allah is above is to put him in a specific place and this is a characteristic of the creation.This Jamite  belief has its origin in Greek philosophers like Aristotle.

Muhammed ibn Adam was asked on his blog the following question

“How should a Muslim respond to where Allah Almighty is? As this is great Aqidah confusion between the ummah.”

At the conclusion of his long answer he said the following

“In conclusion, one must have the Aqidah that Allah Most High is pure from space and time. It is wrong to say that He is everywhere and it is also wrong to believe that He is on something, as all these are limited whereas Allah Almighty is limitless. However, we must believe that His knowledge encompasses everything, and he knows, sees and listens to everything.”


This response of Muhaamed ibn adam is in agreement with the Jamite sect the way of the philosophers and is a deviation and a contradiction of the clear ayaat of the Quran and the prophetic Sunnah below is a few of the many proofs that Allah the mighty and the majestic is above the heavens above his throne in a manner that befits his majesty.There are over 1000 proofs on this subject here are a few


Seven clear Ayah establish that Allah is above his Throne above the heavens

Indeed your Lord is Allâh, Who created the heavens and the earth in Six Days, and then He Istawâ (rose over) the Throne (really in a manner that suits His Majesty). He brings the night as a cover over the day, seeking it rapidly, and (He created) the sun, the moon, the stars subjected to His Command. Surely, His is the Creation and Commandment. Blessed be Allâh, the Lord of the ‘Alamîn (mankind, jinns and all that exists)! (Al-A’raf 7:54)

The Ayaat below carry a similar Meaning

Surah yunus ayah 3, Surah raad ayah 2 surah Taha ayah 5 surah furqaan ayah 59 surah Sajda ayah 4-5 suah Hadeed ayah 4


From the sunnah the hadith of the slave girl

Muawiyah bin Al-Hakam As-Salmi said:

“I had a slave-girl who used to herd sheep for me. One day I discovered that a wolf had killed one of her sheep, and I’m a man from the children of Adam, I get upset like they get upset, and I slapped her in the face. Then I went to the Prophet who impressed upon me the seriousness of my act. I said, ‘O Messenger of Allah, should I not set her free?’ He said, ‘Bring her to me.’ He asked her, ‘Where is Allah’, She said, ‘He is above the heavens.’ He said, ‘Who am I?’ She said, ‘You are the Messenger of Allah.’ He said, ‘Free her, for she is a believer.’ (Muslim and Abu Dawud)

The Ijma of the Sahaba and Their Sayings

As Muslims, we have three main sources of our deen. Two have already been mentioned. The third is Ijma’ of the Sahaba because the Sahaba would never agree on falsehood. Let us examine one of the statements from this generation:

From the first Khalifa:

Abu Bakr As-Sideeq said: “Whoever worshipped Mohammed, Muhammed has died. Whoever worshipped Allah, Allah is Alive fis-Sama (above the heavens), and death does not touch Him.” [Ad-Darimi in Ar-Radd ‘Alal-Jahmiyyah].

The saying of the wife of the prophet (salla allah alai  wasalam)

Zaynab (May Allah be plesed with her) Used to boast to the other wives of the prophet(Salla Allah alahi Wasalam) and she used to say your families married you of but Allah married me of (to the prophet) from above the seven heavens.(dhahabi mentioned it in Uluw)

The poistion of Abu hanifa(rahimullah)

Abu hanifa was asked about somone who says “I dont know If my lord is in the Heavens or the Earth”.”He responded by saying “If he rejects that he(Allah) is above the heavens or in the earth he has disbelieved because Allah the most high has said”The Merciful Rose above The throne” and the Throne  is above his heavens.So it was it said to him if  he affirms that he rose over his throne but he doesnt know if his throne is in the heavens or the earth(What is his situation?).Abu hanifa said that if he rejects  that(The Throne) is above the heavens he has Indeed disbelieved(Adhahabi mentioned this in Aluluw page 101)

Editors comment

It has reached me that some members of the community are upset as they feel that We are attacking their Ulama I would like to respond with the following points.

1.Our intention is not to upset anyone but rather to clarify Some of the mistakes of Individuals within Our Community That are openly spreading beliefs of  Major Shirk and Major disbelief .These beliefs are being openly propagated on blogs and website,`s Had these individuals kept these beliefs to themselves there would be no need to mention names but as they openly propagate they will be openly named

2.These refutataions and clarifications are not a personal attack on an individual rather it is a refutation of the false concepts that are being are being spread.They are a Knowledge based responses to very dangerous beliefs that are being disseminated within the community

3.That some of these individuals openly attack the Salafis and Salafi ulama Like sheikh ul Islam Ibn taymeeyah on their blogs and website`s.

So We will not remain silent rather we will respond according to our ability and level and we put our trust in Allah that the sincere seekers of truth will recognize the truth and accept it and recognise falsehood and reject it.

Allah the most high said “

And thus do We explain the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) in detail, that the way of the Mujrimûn (criminals, polytheists, sinners), may become manifest. (Al-An’am 6:55)

Posted by Jafar Jeffrey

Advertisements
  1. May 13, 2011 at 14:48

    you Wahabis ought to make tawba for your belief that Almighty Allah is physically on his throne and is limited to space and time. To accept a body and limbs for Allah (SWT), is Shirk Fis Sifaat-e-Elahi,, an unpardonable sin. This is entirely against the beliefs of Ahle Sunnah.

    • deenulhuq
      May 15, 2011 at 12:18

      assalamu alaykum,

      firstly, you ought to make tawba for using one of the names of Allah subhanahu wa ta’aala in a derogatory manner and secondly for speaking without knowledge.

      Indeed the salafis have understood the concept of tawheed al asmaa was sifaat through ayaat of the qur’aan and through authentic narrations regarding the attributes of Allah subhanahu wa ta’aala by which He, jalla wa ‘aala has described Himself and by which His messenger (peace be upon him) described Him.

      We do not liken Allah subhanahu wa ta’aala to His creation, nor do we negate His Attributes and deny them.

  2. May 15, 2011 at 02:26

    We salafis do not believe Allah is limited to space and time As Allah Almighty is Outside his creation and not subjected to time and space which are his creations.We Affirm for ALLAAH What he affirmed for himself and he affirmed that he is Above his Throne and his throne is above the heavens.Its simple do not be confused and do not let people confuse you.

  3. May 16, 2011 at 15:59

    Alhamdulillah. We Sunnis don’t confuse people. You the Pseudo-Salafi Wahabis are specialist on this field. your ability to play with words are amazing. By means of your word-game you mislead the innocent masses.You are anthropomorphists. But you endeavour to deceive by saying that you do not believe Allah is limited to space and time and that you Affirm for ALLAAH What he affirmed for himself and he affirmed that he is Above his Throne and his throne is above the heavens.

    But the fact is, You believe that Allah is one, independent, neither beget, nor begotten and there is no one like Him, but ascribe creature characteristics, like hands, ears, eyes with Him. In one breath you say He is formless, and in other you claim hands, eyes, face for Allah (SWT). Not only that.Your Scholars say Allah Almighty descends as man descends and sits on His throne.They also cherish following blasphemous beliefs:

    ■Allah (SWT) needs

    ■Allah (SWT) is divisible

    ■Allah (SWT) settles in a place

    ■Allah (SWT) has six limits

    ■Allah (SWT) has a size

    ■Allah (SWT) must be creating continuously, though He can choose what to create, but cannot choose whether to create or not.

    Strange belief. You took the literal meaning of the concerned Ayats and departed from Ahle Sunnat Wa Zamaat.May Allah protect Muslims from the Wahabi-salafi fitna.

    • May 16, 2011 at 22:59

      You have been misinformed about us salafis.We affirm for Allah what Allah affirmed for himself without saying

      1.How these characteristics are (kayf)

      2.Without likening these Attributes(tashbeeh)to the creation

      3.Without making examples (tamtheel)

      4 Without giving a false interpretation (taweel)

      5. without Negating his Attributes (Tateel)

      Allaah did not affirm for himself ears as you said.Our scholars did not say Allah

      descends as a man descends and sits on his throne these are lies please bring your proof if you are truthful.

      has needs? is divisible? settles in place? has six limits? has a size? must be creating continuously?I a afraid your maulana`s have lied to you about us and you have believed them

      All lies against us Salafis please bring your proof

  4. May 18, 2011 at 15:57
    Brother, I myself am an ex-Wahabi i.e., salafi. Once I fell victim to their propaganda. But thanks to the mercy of Almighty Allah. He has rescued me from this Kharizi takfiri sect and led me to embrace the sawade Azam mainstream Ahle Sunnat Wa Zamaat. You have demanded proof. InshaAllah I’ll furnish exclusive proof now. Brother, please don’t be obstinate. please don’t be stubborn. Through your website , I implore you and other Salafi Brothers to Return to tne path of Allah’s beloved servants and strengthen the unity of Muslim Ummah. POSTMORTEM OF THE CREEDS OF IBNE TAIMIYA, SHAYKHIL ISLAM OF MODERN_DAY KHARIZIS You remarked,” We say when the Scholars look into the creed of any sect they look into the books and statements of the founders and scholars of that sect, not local Imams or Sheikhs” (Editor’s comment:A Critical Analysis of the Sufi Creed of the Elders of the Deobandi and the Tableeghi Jamaah-March 14, 2010). So in lieu of forwarding any mosque-imam or t.v.-channel speaker’s view, I am presenting the creeds of Allama Ibne Taimiya, the Shaikhul Islaam of the Kharizis and the most controversial figure in the History Of Muslim Ummah. WITNESS OF RENOWNED HISTORIAN IBNE BATUTA The contemporary scholar of Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Battuta relates in his Tuhfat al-nuzzar or “Travels” about Ibn Taymiyya’s Literal Representation of Allah’s “Descent” : “When I came to Damascus there was a man called Ibn Taymiyya speaking about religious science, but there was something strange in his mind One day he was giving the Jum`a sermon and he said, ”Our Lord descends to the nearest heaven thus,” then he went down two steps on the minbar and he said “like my descending” (kanuzuli hadha).” This well-known incident is confirmed both internally through Ibn Taymiyya’s own writings, and externally as related in Ibn Hajar’s Durar:(Najm al-Din Sulayman ibn `Abd al-Qawi) al-Tufi (al-Hanbali) said: “They ascertained that he had blurted out certain words concerning doctrine which came out of his mouth in the context of his sermons and legal decisions, and they mentioned that he had cited the hadith of Allah’s descent, then climbed down two steps from the minbar and said: “Just like this descent of mine” and he was categorized as an anthropomorphist.” ( Ibn Hajar, al-Durar 1:153) Ibn Taymiyya’s conception of Allah’s bodily descent is also stated in his own writings, as shown from the following excerpt from his al-Ta’sis fi al-radd `ala asas al-taqdis, written as a refutation of Imam al-Razi who was a fierce enemy of the Karramiyya and other anthropomorphists: The Creator, Glorified and Exalted is He, is above the world and His being above is literal, not in the sense of dignity or rank. It may be said of the precedence of a certain object over another that it is with respect to dignity or rank, or that it is with respect to location. For example, respectively: the precedence of the learned over the ignorant and the precedence of the imam over the one praying behind him. Allah’s precedence over the world is not like that, rather, it is a literal precedence (i.e. in time). Similarly the elevation above the world could be said to be with respect to dignity or rank, as for example when it said that the learned is above the ignorant. But Allah’s elevation over the world is not like that, rather He is elevated over it literally (i.e. in space). And this is the known elevation and the known precedence(Ibn Taymiyya, al-Ta’sis al-radd `ala asas al-taqdis 1:111) It should be clear that the above in no way represents the position of Imam Ahmad or his school. As Ibn al-Jawzi reported in his Daf` shubah al-tashbih: `Ali ibn Muhammad ibn `Umar al-Dabbas related to us that Rizq Allah ibn `Abd al-Wahhab al-Tamimi said: “Ahmad ibn Hanbal did not attribute a direction to the Creator.” (Ibn al-Jawzi, Daf` shubah al-tashbih p. 135) Ibn Taymiyyah’s blasphemous believes about Allah (SWT) are categorized as below. ■Allah (SWT) needs ■Allah (SWT) is divisible ■Allah (SWT) settles in a place ■Allah (SWT) has six limits ■Allah (SWT) has a size ■Allah (SWT) must be creating continuously, though He can choose what to create, but cannot choose whether to create or not. Ibn Taymiyyah says Allah (SWT) needs, He is divisible and Settles in a Place أبو عبدالله محمد بن عمر بن الحسین فخرالدین الرازي – Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn Umar ibn al-Husayn al-Taymi al-Bakri al-Tabaristani Fakhr al-Din ar-Razi or Fakhruddin Razi was a well-known Persian Sunni Muslim theologian. He was born in 1149 AD (543 AH) in Ray of Persia (presently located in Iran) and died in 1209 AD (606AH) in Herat (now located in Afghanistan). Ar-Razi said – ” The evidence (from Quran and Ahadith) shows that the one who says ‘Allah (SWT) is a body’, has denied Allah’s (SWT) existence. The reason is that the God of the World exists, and is not a body or positioned in a body. Therefore, anyone who says that Allah (SWT) is a body, denies His existence (which is free from the considerations of body and form). In other words, he has denied Allah’s (SWT) existence (altogether). (Therefore) it is correct to say that the one who says Allah (SWT) is a body, does not believe in Allah (SWT) “. (Mafaatiĥ Al-Għayb, 16/24) يقول الرازي: الدليل دل على أن من قال إن الإله جسم فهو منكر للإله تعالى وذلك لأن إله العالم موجود ليس بجسم ولا حال في الجسم فإذا أنكر المجسم هذا الموجود فقد أنكر ذات الإله تعالى فالخلاف بين المجسم والموحد ليس في الصفة بل في الذات فصح في المجسم أنه لا يؤمن بالله (مفاتيح الغيب ـ ترقيم الشاملة موافق للمطبوع – 16 / 24 Imam Abu ‘Abdullah Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Abu Bakr al-Ansari al-Qurtubi ( أبو عبدالله القرطبي‎) (1214 – 1273 AD) was a famous classical Sunni Maliki Scholar. He was born in Cordoba, Spain and was an eminent Maliki scholar specialized in Fiqh and Hadith. Many Muslim scholars say that the breadth and depth of his scholarship are evident in his writings. The most famous of them is his twenty-volume Tafsir al Jami’ li-ahkam al-Qur’an. He died in 1273 in Munya Abi’l-Khusavb, Egypt. Al-Qurţubi, in his commentary of Quran stated about those who say Allah (SWT) has a body, as follows. “The sound verdict is that they are blasphemers, (Kuffar) because there is no difference between them and those that worship idols and pictures. (Tafsir Al-Qurţubi, 4/14). يقول القرطبي: الصحيح القول بتكفيرهم ، إذ لا فرق بينهم وبين عباد الأصنام والصور (تفسير القرطبي – 4 / 14) Ibn Taymiyyah criticizes Fakhruddin Ar-Raazi’s arguments against anthropomorphism (the attribution of human form and character to Allah -SWT) in his book “Bayaan Talbiis Al-Jahmiyya.” قولك إن كان منقسما كان مركبا وتقدم إبطاله تقدم الجواب عن هذا الذي سميته مركبا وتبين أنه لا حجة أصلا على امتناع ذلك بل بين أن إحالة ذلك تقتضي إبطال كل موجود ولولا أنه أحال على ما تقدم لما أحلنا عليه وتقدم بيان ما في لفظ التركيب والتحيز والغير والافتقار من الاحتمال وإن المعنى الذي يقصد منه بذلك يجب أن يتصف به كل موجود سواء كان واجبا أو ممكنا وإن القول بامتناع ذلك يستلزم السفسطة المحضة (بيان تلبيس الجهمية ج 1 ص 33). (Bayaan Talbiis Al-Jahmiyyah, Ahmad Ibn Taymmiyyah, Matba Al-Hukuumah, Makkah – 1392) بيان تلبيس الجهمية في تأسيس بدعهم الكلامية ، اسم المؤلف: أحمد عبد الحليم بن تيمية الحراني أبو العباس الوفاة: 728 ، دار النشر : مطبعة الحكومة – مكة المكرمة – 1392 ، الطبعة : الأولى ، تحقيق : محمد بن عبد الرحمن بن قاسم Fakħruddin Ar-Raazi says – “ If He (Allah – SWT) was divisible, then He would be composed (meaning attributed with multitude, which contradicts oneness and we have already showed that this is an invalid claim.)….” Ibn Taymiyyah responds – “Rather, it is clear that if this was impossible (divisibility of Aļļah-SWT), then this would mean, nothing could exist”. Ibn Taymiyyah is saying that if something is not divisible in some sense, then it cannot exist, even Allah (SWT). In other words he is affirming his belief that Allah is indeed divisible. Ibn Taymiyyah continues – “We have already clarified what possibilities (in terms of what they mean) are associated with the words ‘composition, settling in place, being other (having different sides or parts) and need, and that what is meant by this, is something all existing things must be attributed with, whether necessary in existence ( Allah – SAWT) or possible in existence (Creation). Verily to say that this is impossible (for Allah – SWT), to be attributed with, is pure sophistry (literalism). Ibn Taymiyyah is saying that nothing can exist, not even Allah (SWT), unless it has a place, parts (such as different physical sides) and needs. This is indeed an ugly belief as far as Islamic faith is concerned. Based on the above statement of Ibn Taymiyyah, it is no wonder that a number of Islamic scholars, as mentioned by TaqiyyudDiin Al-Ĥuşniyy, gave a fatwa that “Ibn Taymiyyah was an absolute apostate (kaafir).” Islamic scholars were so upset with Ibn Taymiyyah’s blasphemous beliefs that Alaa’udDin Al-Bukħari said, “whosoever calls Ibn Taymiyyah as Sħaykħul Islam, is himself a Kaafir.” Ibn Taymiyyah says Allah (SWT) has 6 limits and one of which is adjacent to the Arsh Ibn Taymiyyah says: ” This moderate saying, among the three sayings of Al-Qaađi Abu Yaˆlaa, is the one that agrees with what (Imam) Aĥmad says and others among the Imaams. He has stated (this is a lie and allegation on Imam Aĥmad), “Allah (SWT) is in a particular direction, and He is not spread out in all directions. Rather, He is outside the world, distinct from His creation, separate from it, and He is not in every direction.” This is what Aĥmad (may Allah have mercy upon him) meant when he said, “He has a limit that only He knows.” (This is a clear cut mis-interpretation of Imam Hanbal’s statement). If Aĥmad had meant the direction towards the ˆArsħ (Throne) only, then this would be known to Allah’s slaves, because they know that Allah’s limit from this direction is the Arsħ, so we know then that the limit they do not know is unqualified, and is not specified for the direction of the Arsħ (Bayaan Talbis Al-Jahmiyyah, 1/438). Click Here to read Imam Ahmad’s beliefs about Allah (SWT) قال ابن تيمية: فهذا القول الوسط من أقوال القاضي الثلاثة هو المطابق لكلام أحمد وغيره من الأئمة وقد قال إنه تعالى في جهة مخصوصة وليس هو ذاهبا في الجهات بل هو خارج العالم متميز عن خلقه منفصل عنهم غير داخل في كل الجهات وهذا معنى قول أحمد “حد لا يعلمه إلا هو” ولو كان مراد أحمد رحمه الله الحد من جهة العرش فقط لكان ذلك معلوما لعباده فانهم قد عرفوا أن حده من هذه الجهة هو العرش فعلم أن الحد الذي لا يعلمونه مطلق لا يختص بجهة العرش (بيان تلبيس الجهمية, ج1/ص438). In other words, Ibn Taymiyyah is claiming that “Allah (SWT) is in a particular direction,” and that “Allah’s (SWT) limit from this direction is Arsħ.” According to Ibn Taymiyyah this is a known limit. Then by saying, “He is not spread in all directions,” Ibn Taymiyyah claims that Allah (SWT) has limits in all other directions, ie, (i) up, (ii) left, (iii) right, (iv) back and (v) front and further says that these are unknown in term of where. Ibn Taymiyyah says Allah (SWT) has a size Ibn Taymiyyah says ” That something existing should not be increasing, or decreasing, or neither increasing nor decreasing, and yet exist and not have a size – this is impossible ” (Bayaan Talbiis Al-Jahmiyyah, 3/146). قال ابن تيمية: فأما كون الشيء غير موصوف بالزيادة والنقصان ولا بعدم ذلك وهو موجود وليس بذي قدر فهذا لا يعقل (بيان تلبيس الجهمية, ج3/ص146) Here, Ibn Taymiyyah is saying that everything that exists, including (Allah -SWT), must have a size. This means, Allah (SWT) has a size that is limited by 6 limits (Astaghfirullah) Ibn Taymiyyah says that Allah’s (SWT) acts of creating come into existence in Him (Zaat) Ahle Sunnah Wal Jama’a believe that Allah (SWT) creates by His Power without (self) changing or going through time. This is because anything that has a beginning is only created. To believe that Allah’s (SWT) actions have a beginning implies that His actions need to be created by another act, and that act by another act, and so on. Thus an infinite number of acts have to be completed before anything can be created. This is an impossibility, because an infinite loop cannot be completed. An-Nasafi was a great Muslim scholar who lived over 900 years ago. He explained the Qu’ran and authored many books. He says: “TheKarraamiyyah (pre – Ibn Taymiyyah anthropo-morphists) all claimed that Allah’s creating is an event in Allah with a beginning, and that events occur in Allah (SWT). (He quotes this Qranic verse) – Transcendent (magnificent) is your Lord, the Lord of All-Greatness, far above what they ascribe to Him. (As-Saaffaat – 180)”. (Tabşiratu-l-Adillah, 141).” An-Nasafi also says: ” I really do not know how these unbelievers in God speak the chatter (talk) of atheists and Greek philosophers and affirm the beginning of the world, and then accept to believe that the beginning-less and eternal ( Allah – SWT) is something in which events (anything with a beginning) take place. How can they, when this necessitates either believing that the Creator has a beginning, or that the world (anything other than Allah) has no beginning….(Tabşiratu-l-Adillah, 501-502). In contrast to the above, Ibn Taymiyyah says: It has become clear that nothing can come into existence except from an actor (he means Allah -SWT) that does something one after another.” Ibn Taymiyyah also says: “An act is impossible except bit by bit. (Aş-Şafadiyyah, 2/141) قال ابن تيمية في الصفدية : وتبين أنه لا يمكن حدوث شيء من الحوادث إلا عن فاعل يفعل شيئا بعد شيء….” وقال: “الفعل لا يعقل ولا يمكن إلا شيئا فشيئاً….(الصفدية, 2/141)” According to Ibn Taymiyyah, acts of creating come into existence in Allah (SWT) from non-existence. This is a blasphemous belief (Aqida-e-Kufr). Ibn Taymiyyah says creation is eternal, and that Allah (SWT) has no choice, but to create things Based on his idea that Allah’s (SWT) actions have a beginning, Ibn Taymiyyah argues that Allah (SWT) has always been doing one act after another (i.e., creating) without a beginning. Ibn Taymiyyah says: “It is a necessity of Allah’s self (Zaat-e-Elahi) to act, but not an act in particular, and not having something done in particular, so there is no eternal object in the world, and He (Allah) is not eternally a complete influencer for anything (to exist) in the world, but He (Allah) has in beginning-less eternity always been a complete influencer for something (to exist), one after another… (Aş-Şafadiyyah, 2/97). قال ابن تيمية في الصفدية (2 / 97): وحينئذ فالذي هو من لوازم ذاته نوع الفعل لا فعل معين ولا مفعول معين فلا يكون في العالم شيء قديم وحينئذ لا يكون في الأزل مؤثرا تاما في شيء من العالم ولكن لم يزل مؤثرا تاما في شيء بعد شيء وكل أثر يوجد عند حصول كمال التأثير فيه. Ibn Taymiyyah is saying – “It is a necessity of Allah’s self to act, but not an act in particular”. This means that Allah (SWT) has no choice but to create something. This is a plain ascription of flaw in Allah (SWT). A person who believes like this cannot be called a Muslim. The Correct Islamic Faith is that Allah (SWT) does not need, and is not compelled to or obligated to do anything. The influence for something (to exist) that Ibn Taymiyyah speaks of, will be for a body to exist, or something to exist in a body, because he believes nothing can exist except bodies. Thus, according to Ibn Taymiyyah, Allah is the only eternal body among an eternal series of other bodies that He was compelled to create, although the type of bodies and events in them was His choice. In other words, Ibn Taymiyyah says that the world is eternal, because Allah (SWT) is eternally compelled to create something or another. Ahle Sunnah believe that Allah is the Creator of all things, and that He did not have to create anything, because He does not need anything and is not obligated to do anything. Meaning, it is not a necessity for Aļļah to act, i.e create, anything at all. This is because Allah is perfect, and it is not compulsory for him to do anything, whatsoever. Ibn Taymiyyah, however, does not accept the above and comments on a statement of Ibn Ĥazm (994-1064 AD / 384-456 AH) : “And even stranger than that is his (Ibn Ĥazm’s) claim that the scholars are in consensus about declaring a kaafir the one that does not believe that “He (Allah -SWT) was eternally the only one in existence, and there was nothing existing with Him, then He created everything as He willed. (Naqd Maraatibi-l-’Ijmaaˆ, 303) قال ابن تيمية في: وأعجب من ذلك حكايته الإجماع على كفر من نازع أنه سبحانه “لم يزل وحده، ولا شيء غيره معه، ثم خلق الأشياء كما شاء.(نقد مراتب الإجماع, 303)” Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalaani is regarded to be one of the rare people in Islamic history. Salalfi scholar al-Albaani says, “Ibn Hajar was the strongest of those ‘Ulama who had memorised Hadith” and so there was no one really the same as him in regards to what he memorized and to the precision that he done it. Ibn Ĥajar Al-ˆAsqalaani says “Our shaikħ, in his explanation of At-Tirmidħiyy said, “….. and it has been related by Al-Qaađii Iiaađ and others that the one who says that the world (anything other than Allah) is eternal is a kaafir (non-Muslim) by scholarly consensus.” قَالَ شَيْخنَا فِي شَرْح التِّرْمِذِيّ : الصَّحِيح فِي تَكْفِير مُنْكِر الْإِجْمَاع تَقْيِيدُهُ بِإِنْكَارِ مَا يُعْلَم وُجُوبُهُ مِنْ الدِّين بِالضَّرُورَةِ كَالصَّلَوَاتِ الْخَمْس ، وَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ عَبَّرَ بِإِنْكَارِ مَا عُلِمَ وُجُوبه بِالتَّوَاتُرِ وَمِنْهُ الْقَوْل بِحُدُوثِ الْعَالَمِ ، وَقَدْ حَكَى عِيَاض وَغَيْره الْإِجْمَاع عَلَى تَكْفِير مَنْ يَقُول بِقِدَمِ الْعَالَم Ibn Daqiq Al-Iid says: “It happened from some of those who claim to master intellectual matters, and incline towards Philosophy, to think that the one that disagrees with the world having a beginning is not declared a kaafir…. and this is from blindness, or pretended blindness, because the world having a beginning is one of those things that are established by scholarly consensus and unequivocal (mutawaatir) narrational evidences. (Fatĥu-l-Baarii, 12/202) ، وَقَالَ اِبْن دَقِيق الْعِيد : وَقَعَ هُنَا مَنْ يَدَّعِي الْحِذْق فِي الْمَعْقُولَات وَيَمِيل إِلَى الْفَلْسَفَة فَظَنَّ أَنَّ الْمُخَالِف فِي حُدُوث الْعَالَم لَا يُكَفَّر لِأَنَّهُ مِنْ قَبِيل مُخَالَفَة الْإِجْمَاع ، وَتَمَسَّكَ بِقَوْلِنَا إِنَّ مُنْكِر الْإِجْمَاع لَا يُكَفَّر عَلَى الْإِطْلَاق حَتَّى يَثْبُتَ النَّقْلُ بِذَلِكَ مُتَوَاتِرًا عَنْ صَاحِب الشَّرْع ، قَالَ وَهُوَ تَمَسُّكٌ سَاقِط إِمَّا عَنْ عَمًى فِي الْبَصِيرَة أَوْ تَعَامٍ لِأَنَّ حُدُوث الْعَالَم مِنْ قَبِيل مَا اِجْتَمَعَ فِيهِ الْإِجْمَاع وَالتَّوَاتُر بِالنَّقْلِ (فتح الباري – العسقلاني, 12/202 Ibn Taymiyyah says Allah is divisible into quantities and areas Some Salafis are scrambling around the web like headless chicken, trying to deny that Ibn Taymiyyah, said that Allah (SWT) is divisible. They are frustrated to see that their real beliefs are getting exposed. Let us look at what they generally quote from Ibn Taymiyyah. (we are providing below Salafi translation) The Salafis quote Ibn Taymiyyah as saying ” And these two meanings of divisibility (at-tajazzee and al-inqisaam) are from those (meanings) that the Muslims are agreed upon that Allah (SWT) should be purified and sanctified from, for indeed Allah, the Sublime, is “Ahad” and “Samad”. He does not separate into parts (yatajazzee, yataba’ad) and is not divisible (munqasim) with the meaning that part of Him separates from another (part) just like a divided, split-up body is separated – like what is divided of the connected bodies, such as bread, meat and clothing and so on. A part of Him does not separate (from Him) like what separates from the hawayaan (animate, mammals) of its superfluities. And He (Allah) is purified of such meanings with the meaning that they are non-existent (regarding Him) and are impossible for Him. Thus, His Essence does not accept tafreeq or tab’eed (meanings of division, separation)”. Bayaan Talbiis Al-Jahmiyyah, 3/12) قال ابن تيمية في بيان تلبيس الجهمية في تأسيس بدعهم الكلامية – (3 / 12) : وهذان المعنيان مما اتفق المسلمون فيما أعلمه على تنزه الله وتقدسه عنهما فإن الله سبحانه (أحد) (صمد) لا يتجزى ويتبعض وينقسم بمعنى أنه ينفصل بعضه عن بعض كما ينفصل الجسم المقسوم المعضى مثل ما تقسم الأجسام المتصلة كالخبز واللحم والثياب ونحو ذلك ولا ينفصل عن الحيوان ما ينفصل من عضلاته وهذه المعاني هو منزه عنها بمعنى أنها معدومة وأنها ممتنعة في حقه فلا تقبل ذاته التفريق والتبعيض The above quotation is confusing, isn’t not, because we have already described ample quotes of him saying that Allah (SWT) needs, he is divisible, settles in a place, has 6 limits, has a size and must be creating (though He can choose what to create – but he cannot choose whether to create or not. Is Ibn Taymiyyah contradicting himself, as is so often the case of a deviant, trying to escape FakħrudDin Ar-Razis compelling arguments? Or is there something else? Let us evaluate Wahhabis’ claim Ibn Taymiyyah says: “Allah (SWT) does not separate into parts and is not divisible, with the meaning that, part of Him separates from another (part) just like a divided, split-up body is separated….He (Allah-SWT)) is purified of such meanings with the meaning that they are non-existent (regarding Him) and are impossible for Him”. Pay attention to this line in the above statement: “with the meaning that part of him separates from another part just like a divided, split-up, body is separated.” What Ibn Taymiyyah claims from the above statement is as follows. ◦Actual separation – “He (Allah -SWT) does not separate into parts and is not divisible; with the meaning that part of Him separates from another”. ◦ “The practical possibility of actual separation is impossible for Allah (SWT).” ◦These two meanings of divisibility are from those (meanings) that Muslims have agreed upon that Allah should be purified and sanctified from. Note also that there are other meanings of divisibility that Ibn Taymiyyah does not deny as being true of Allah. Ibn Taymiyyah says: “….the Imams behind this saying (he means Ar-Raazi and others) of negating divisibility and separation, is not the (meaning) of the presence of divisibility (al-inqisaam) where part of Him separates from another part, or the possibility of that (actual separation). (Bayaan Talbiis Al-Jahmiyyah, 3/12) The definition of divisibility, i.e. divisibility into measurable quantities and areas, is what he affirms to Allah when he said “…this (i.e. quantitative divisibility, as stated by Ar-Raazi and the others) is something all existing things must be attributed with, whether necessary in existence (he means Allah) or possible in existence (creation.) Verily, to say that this is impossible (for Allah to be attributed with) is pure sophistry”. (Bayaan Talbiis Al-Jahmiyyah, 1/33) In essence, Ibn Taymiyyah is saying that nothing can exist, not even Allah (SWT), unless it is quantitative and has an area. This is clarified even further by his statement “That something existing should not be increasing, or decreasing, or neither increasing nor decreasing, and yet exist and not have a size – this is impossible”. (Bayaan Talbiis Al-Jahmiyyah, 3/146). قال ابن تيمية: فأما كون الشيء غير موصوف بالزيادة والنقصان ولا بعدم ذلك وهو موجود وليس بذي قدر فهذا لا يعقل (بيان تلبيس الجهمية, ج3/ص146 Here, Ibn Taymiyyah is affirming his opinion that Allah (SWT) must have a size. In a nutshell, Ibn Taymiyyah is saying that, although Allah(SWT) has a size with six boundaries, He is not divisible. And His body, (according to him) although quantitative and divisible by measuring into half a size, a quarter size and so on, no power can actually make it split at ¼ or ½. This divisibility into quantities and areas is the definition of divisibility of which Ibn Taymiyyah claims Aĥmad ibn Ĥanbal said (Salafi translation) ” They speak with the ambiguous of speech, and they deceive the ignorant people on account of the doubts they place over them”. Ibn Taymiyyah denies Tajsim Ibn Taymiyyah says – ” Al-Aĥad and Aş-Şamad (are two names that) Allah did not mention except in this Surah, and they negate from Allah what does not befit Him in terms of likeness and resemblance and composition and separation and being a body (Tajsiim), for verily His name Al-Aĥad negates a like or something similar”. (Bayaan Talbiis Al-Jahmiyyah, 4 / 61) الأحد والصمد لم يذكرهما الله إلا في هذه السورة وهما ينفيان عن الله ما هو متنزه عنه من التشبيه والتمثيل ومن التركيب والانقسام والتجسيم فإن اسمه الأحد ينفي المثل والنظير (بيان تلبيس الجهمية في تأسيس بدعهم الكلامية – 4 / 61) The above is indeed an strange statement from Ibn Taymiyyah. How come Ibn Taymiyyah is denying a Body for Allah (SWT) because he says that Allah has borders in all six direction and that He has a size, and a bucket might bump into Him? How come he is saying all of a sudden that Allah (SWT) is not a body!? Well, he is beating around the bush, as usual. Ibn Taymiyyah says at another place – “And the purpose is to say that whatever the Messenger (صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ) brought is not denied by vague utterances such as Jism (body) and others that may have meanings that are invalid, while the one who denies them, denies both what is true and what is false”. (Majmuuˆu-l-Fataawaa, 5/433) وَالْمَقْصُودُ هُنَا : أَنَّ مَا جَاءَ بِهِ الرَّسُولُ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لَا يُدْفَعُ بِالْأَلْفَاظِ الْمُجْمَلَةِ كَلَفْظِ التَّجْسِيمِ وَغَيْرِهِ مِمَّا قَدْ يَتَضَمَّنُ مَعْنًى بَاطِلًا وَالنَّافِي لَهُ يَنْفِي الْحَقَّ وَالْبَاطِلَ . (مجموع الفتاوى , 5 / 433 In the above statement, Ibn Taymiyyah is affirming a body for Allah (SWT). Therefore, meaning of Jism, Ibn Tayimiyyah is denying then, is that of actual composition and the possibility of actual separation of parts. What he does not deny is the size, shape and taking on different shapes. Ibn Taymiyyah likes to say that his opponents were influenced by Greek Philosophy. However, from the above discussion, it is abundantly clear that Ibn Taymiyyah himself was heavily influenced by Greek Mythology. Q – Why word games are played by Ibn Taymiyyah? Why is he fond of twisting the meanings of the statements of Ibn Hanbal? We all know, Ibn Taymiyyah is famous for rhetorical acrobatics. There are several reasons for these twist and turns in his writings in his various books. The following two reasons look very prominent. ◦The first, by having a special and restricted definition of divisibility, he can hide his belief whenever he wants. Ibn Tymiyyah was a highly controversial figure in his life time and he often served Jail terms for propagating outrageous beliefs. Frequently, he had to face Judges to explain his controversial beliefs. So if a judge asked him; does he believe Allah (SWT) to be divisible? He would answer, “Of course not!” and thereby saving his neck. For this purpose he has his own definitions of what words like “body” or “create” means. And when he comes back to his followers, he would tell them what he actually means by divisibility of Allah (SWT). The followers of Ibn Taymiyyah even now play the same polemic games. When they face Sunni Scholars, they twist the meanings of divisibility and when teaching their fellow Salafis recruits, they teach their implied meaning of divisibility of Almighty. ◦The second reason is to confuse innocent Muslims who were impressed by a lot of words, phrases, misinterpreted statements of Imams and Quranic verses and Ahadith. Even now followers of Ibn Taymiyya do the same thing. Ibn Taymiyyah’s attempted refutation of Ar-Raazi is a multi-volume work with several hundred pages of beating around the bush, as we have described above. A glaring example is his book “Bayaan Talbiis Al-Jahmiyyah,” which was written by Ibn Taymiyyah to refute Ar-Raazi’s small book ‘Asaas At-Taqdis’ of 150 pages. Ibn Baţuţah, the famous historian who met Ibn Taymiyyah has written in his memoirs – “There was something wrong with his (Ibn Taymiyyah’s) mind.” Indeed, it is more than a fair assessment of Ibn Taymiyyah by a celebrated Historian. What is Ahle Sunnah’s creed (faith) as compared to the beliefs of Ibn Taymiyyah? Aţ-Ţaĥaawi’s statements below best describe ahle Sunnah’s creed. Aţ-Ţaĥaawi’s stated: Allah is above the status of having limits, extremes, corners, limbs or instruments. The six directions – up, down, front, back, left and right do not contain Him because that would make Him Like all created things. At-Tahaawiyy also agreed that believing anything else is an insult to Islam. He said, whoever attributes to Allah (SWT) an attribute that has a meaning, among the meanings that apply to humans, has committed blasphemy.) The six directions apply to all created things, which includes humans. In other words, the Sunni belief is that attributing a limit to Allah makes the person an un-believer. Ibn Taymiyyah’s Bucket theology It is in Hadith – Prophet Mohammad (SAWS) said, “If one of you lowered a bucket by a rope (into a well), then it would fall on Allah.” narrated by At-Tirmidhi. Muslim scholars did not take literal meaning of this Hadith because Allah(SWT) is not a body for something to bump into. They said it means that it would fall by Allah’s knowledge. This meaning was the consensus after hypothesizing the authenticity of this Hadith (as this Hadith has a weak narration). Ibn Taymiyyah’s understanding of the Hadith is as follow. He says in his book ‘Majmuuˆu-l-Fataawaa’ ” Verily his (the Prophet’s (SAWS)) statement: “If one of you lowered a bucket by a rope, then it would fall on Allah.” is a hypothetical consideration, that is, if the lowering happened, then it would fall on Allah (SWT). It is not possible for anyone to lower anything on Allah, however, because, Allah’s self is high, and if anything was lowered in the direction of the Earth, then it would stop at the center and would not go up in the opposite direction (from there). However, if there was a hypothesized lowering, then what he (the Prophet -SAWS) said would happen”. (6/571) فَإِنَّ قَوْلَهُ : { لَوْ أُدْلِيَ أَحَدُكُمْ بِحَبْلِ لَهَبَطَ عَلَى اللَّهِ } إنَّمَا هُوَ تَقْدِيرٌ مَفْرُوضٌ ؛ أَيْ لَوْ وَقَعَ الْإِدْلَاءُ لَوَقَعَ عَلَيْهِ لَكِنَّهُ لَا يُمْكِنُ أَنْ يُدْلِيَ أَحَدٌ عَلَى اللَّهِ شَيْئًا ؛ لِأَنَّهُ عَالٍ بِالذَّاتِ وَإِذَا أُهْبِطَ شَيْءٌ إلَى جِهَةِ الْأَرْضِ وَقَفَ فِي الْمَرْكَزِ وَلَمْ يَصْعَدْ إلَى الْجِهَةِ الْأُخْرَى لَكِنْ بِتَقْدِيرِ فَرْضِ الْإِدْلَاءِ يَكُونُ مَا ذَكَرَ مِنْ الْجَزَاءِ .(مجموع الفتاوى – (6 / 571 Ibn Taymiyyah explains further by saying: “Likewise, what descends from a high point on Earth to its lowest point, which is it’s center, does not rise from there in that direction, except by someone lifting it, resisting its downwards pull down towards the center (i.e. the gravity pull.) If it was hypothesized that the lifter was stronger (than the gravity pull), then it would be rising towards the celestial sphere from there, and would rise to Allah. It was only called lowering from the viewpoint of what is in the minds of the listeners in that what faces their feet is called falling…. Even if it was actually lowering only to the point of the (Earth’s) center, and from there one would only be giving rope to the bucket, and there would be no actual lowering….. However, the beneficial point is to clarify the surrounding and highness from all directions (of the Earth)…. The purpose (of the Hadith) is to clarify the meaning of the Creator’s surrounding (سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَى) just as He said that He grabs the Skies and folds the Earth and the like, which all explains His surrounding of created things. (6/572-573)” فَكَذَلِكَ مَا يَهْبِطُ مِنْ أَعْلَى الْأَرْضِ إلَى أَسْفَلِهَا – وَهُوَ الْمَرْكَزُ – لَا يَصْعَدُ مِنْ هُنَاكَ إلَى ذَلِكَ الْوَجْهِ إلَّا بِرَافِعِ يَرْفَعُهُ يُدَافِعُ بِهِ مَا فِي قُوَّتِهِ مِنْ الْهُبُوطِ إلَى الْمَرْكَزِ فَإِنْ قُدِّرَ أَنَّ الدَّافِعَ أَقْوَى كَانَ صَاعِدًا بِهِ إلَى الْفَلَكِ مِنْ تِلْكَ النَّاحِيَةِ وَصَعِدَ بِهِ إلَى اللَّهِ وَإِنَّمَا يُسَمَّى هُبُوطًا بِاعْتِبَارِ مَا فِي أَذْهَانِ الْمُخَاطَبِينَ أَنَّ مَا يُحَاذِي أَرْجُلَهُمْ يَكُونُ هَابِطًا وَيُسَمَّى هُبُوطًا…. وَهُوَ إنَّمَا يَكُونُ إدْلَاءً حَقِيقِيًّا إلَى الْمَرْكَزِ وَمِنْ هُنَاكَ إنَّمَا يَكُونُ مَدًّا لِلْحَبْلِ وَالدَّلْوِ لَا إدْلَاءَ لَهُ…. وَلَكِنَّ فَائِدَتَهُ بَيَانُ الْإِحَاطَةِ وَالْعُلُوِّ …. وَالْمَقْصُودُ بِهِ بَيَانُ إحَاطَةِ الْخَالِقِ سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَى كَمَا بَيَّنَ أَنَّهُ يَقْبِضُ السَّمَوَاتِ وَيَطْوِي الْأَرْضَ وَنَحْوَ ذَلِكَ مِمَّا فِيهِ بَيَانُ إحَاطَتِهِ بِالْمَخْلُوقَاتِ. (مجموع الفتاوى – 6 / 572-573) The above statement shows that the ” surrounding of Allah (SWT) is the physical surrounding of something with physical boundaries, size and shape. Ibn Taymiyyah’s view on the Hadiith from a viewpoint of his belief In the final analysis of this Hadiith Ibn Taymiyyah says: “Likewise, interpreting this Haditħ in term of knowledge (i.e falling by Allah’s knowledge, it is clearly false, and of the Jahmiyy kind of interpretation. Rather, based on the assumption that the Haditħ is authentic, then it explains (Allah’s) surrounding, and it is known that Allah is able to surround and that it is going to be on the Day of Judgment as stated in the Qur’an and the Sunnah. There is nothing, in general, in affirming this Hadiith that is in conflict with reason or Islamic Law.” (6/574) وَكَذَلِكَ تَأْوِيلُهُ بِالْعِلْمِ تَأْوِيلٌ ظَاهِرُ الْفَسَادِ مَنْ جِنْسِ تَأْوِيلَاتِ الْجَهْمِيَّة ؛ بَلْ بِتَقْدِيرِ ثُبُوتِهِ يَكُونُ دَالًّا عَلَى الْإِحَاطَةِ . وَالْإِحَاطَةُ قَدْ عُلِمَ أَنَّ اللَّهَ قَادِرٌ عَلَيْهَا وَعُلِمَ أَنَّهَا تَكُونُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ بِالْكِتَابِ وَالسُّنَّة وَلَيْسَ فِي إثْبَاتِهَا فِي الْجُمْلَةِ مَا يُخَالِفُ الْعَقْلَ وَلَا الشَّرْعَ . The above shows that Ibn Taymiyyah was an extreme anthropomorphist (one who attributes human form and character to Allah -SWT). He believed that Allah is a body with a shape that surrounds things. He saw no problem in claiming that the world could be inside Allah (SWT) and one could hypothetically bump into Allah’s (SWT) alleged borders. قال ابن تيمية: فَإِنَّ قَوْلَهُ : { لَوْ أُدْلِيَ أَحَدُكُمْ بِحَبْلِ لَهَبَطَ عَلَى اللَّهِ } إنَّمَا هُوَ تَقْدِيرٌ مَفْرُوضٌ ؛ أَيْ لَوْ وَقَعَ الْإِدْلَاءُ لَوَقَعَ عَلَيْهِ لَكِنَّهُ لَا يُمْكِنُ أَنْ يُدْلِيَ أَحَدٌ عَلَى اللَّهِ شَيْئًا ؛ لِأَنَّهُ عَالٍ بِالذَّاتِ وَإِذَا أُهْبِطَ شَيْءٌ إلَى جِهَةِ الْأَرْضِ وَقَفَ فِي الْمَرْكَزِ وَلَمْ يَصْعَدْ إلَى الْجِهَةِ الْأُخْرَى لَكِنْ بِتَقْدِيرِ فَرْضِ الْإِدْلَاءِ يَكُونُ مَا ذَكَرَ مِنْ الْجَزَاءِ . فَهَكَذَا مَا ذَكَرَهُ السَّائِلُ : إذَا قُدِّرَ أَنَّ الْعَبْدَ يَقْصِدُهُ مِنْ تِلْكَ الْجِهَةِ كَانَ هُوَ سُبْحَانَهُ يَسْمَعُ كَلَامَهُ وَكَانَ مُتَوَجِّهًا إلَيْهِ بِقَلْبِهِ لَكِنَّ هَذَا مِمَّا تَمْنَعُ مِنْهُ الْفِطْرَةُ ؛ لِأَنَّ قَصْدَ الشَّيْءِ الْقَصْدَ التَّامَّ يُنَافِي قَصْدَ ضِدِّهِ ؛ فَكَمَا أَنَّ الْجِهَةَ الْعُلْيَا بِالذَّاتِ تُنَافِي (مجموع الفتاوى – 6 / 571) الْجِهَةَ السُّفْلَى فَكَذَلِكَ قَصْدُ الْأَعْلَى بِالذَّاتِ يُنَافِي قَصْدَهُ مِنْ أَسْفَلَ وَكَمَا أَنَّ مَا يَهْبِطُ إلَى جَوْفِ الْأَرْضِ يَمْتَنِعُ صُعُودُهُ إلَى تِلْكَ النَّاحِيَةِ – لِأَنَّهَا عَالِيَةٌ – فَتَرُدُّ الْهَابِطَ بِعُلُوِّهَا كَمَا أَنَّ الْجِهَةَ الْعُلْيَا مِنْ عِنْدِنَا تَرُدُّ مَا يَصْعَدُ إلَيْهَا مِنْ الثَّقِيلِ فَلَا يَصْعَدُ الثَّقِيلُ إلَّا بِرَافِعِ يَرْفَعُهُ يُدَافِعُ بِهِ مَا فِي قُوَّتِهِ مِنْ الْهُبُوطِ فَكَذَلِكَ مَا يَهْبِطُ مِنْ أَعْلَى الْأَرْضِ إلَى أَسْفَلِهَا – وَهُوَ الْمَرْكَزُ – لَا يَصْعَدُ مِنْ هُنَاكَ إلَى ذَلِكَ الْوَجْهِ إلَّا بِرَافِعِ يَرْفَعُهُ يُدَافِعُ بِهِ مَا فِي قُوَّتِهِ مِنْ الْهُبُوطِ إلَى الْمَرْكَزِ فَإِنْ قُدِّرَ أَنَّ الدَّافِعَ أَقْوَى كَانَ صَاعِدًا بِهِ إلَى الْفَلَكِ مِنْ تِلْكَ النَّاحِيَةِ وَصَعِدَ بِهِ إلَى اللَّهِ وَإِنَّمَا يُسَمَّى هُبُوطًا بِاعْتِبَارِ مَا فِي أَذْهَانِ الْمُخَاطَبِينَ أَنَّ مَا يُحَاذِي أَرْجُلَهُمْ يَكُونُ هَابِطًا وَيُسَمَّى هُبُوطًا مَعَ تَسْمِيَةِ إهْبَاطِهِ إدْلَاءً وَهُوَ إنَّمَا يَكُونُ إدْلَاءً حَقِيقِيًّا إلَى الْمَرْكَزِ وَمِنْ هُنَاكَ إنَّمَا يَكُونُ مَدًّا لِلْحَبْلِ وَالدَّلْوِ لَا إدْلَاءَ لَهُ لَكِنَّ الْجَزَاءَ وَالشَّرْطَ مُقَدَّرَانِ لَا مُحَقَّقَانِ . فَإِنَّهُ قَالَ : لَوْ أَدْلَى لَهَبَطَ ؛ أَيْ لَوْ فُرِضَ أَنَّ هُنَاكَ إدْلَاءً لَفُرِضَ أَنَّ هُنَاكَ هُبُوطًا وَهُوَ يَكُونُ إدْلَاءً وَهُبُوطًا إذَا قُدِّرَ أَنَّ السَّمَوَاتِ تَحْتَ الْأَرْضِ وَهَذَا التَّقْدِيرُ مُنْتَفٍ ؛ وَلَكِنَّ فَائِدَتَهُ بَيَانُ الْإِحَاطَةِ وَالْعُلُوِّ مِنْ كُلِّ جَانِبٍ وَهَذَا الْمَفْرُوضُ مُمْتَنِعٌ فِي حَقِّنَا لَا نَقْدِرُ عَلَيْهِ فَلَا يُتَصَوَّرُ أَنْ يُدْلِيَ وَلَا يُتَصَوَّرُ أَنْ يَهْبِطَ عَلَى اللَّهِ شَيْءٌ لَكِنَّ اللَّهَ قَادِرٌ عَلَى أَنْ يَخْرُقَ مِنْ هُنَا إلَى هُنَاكَ بِحَبْلِ وَلَكِنْ لَا يَكُونُ فِي حَقِّهِ إدْلَاءً فَلَا يَكُونُ فِي حَقِّهِ هُبُوطًا عَلَيْهِ . كَمَا لَوْ خَرَقَ بِحَبْلِ مِنْ الْقُطْبِ إلَى الْقُطْبِ أَوْ مِنْ مَشْرِقِ الشَّمْسِ إلَى مَغْرِبِهَا (مجموع الفتاوى – 6 / 572) وَقَدَّرْنَا أَنَّ الْحَبْلَ مَرَّ فِي وَسَطِ الْأَرْضِ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ قَادِرٌ عَلَى ذَلِكَ كُلِّهِ وَلَا فَرْقَ بِالنِّسْبَةِ إلَيْهِ عَلَى هَذَا التَّقْدِيرِ مِنْ أَنْ يَخْرُقَ مِنْ جَانِبِ الْيَمِينِ مِنَّا إلَى جَانِبِ الْيَسَارِ أَوْ مِنْ جِهَةِ أَمَامِنَا إلَى جِهَةِ خَلْفِنَا أَوْ مِنْ جِهَةِ رُءُوسِنَا إلَى جِهَةِ أَرْجُلِنَا إذَا مَرَّ الْحَبْلُ بِالْأَرْضِ فَعَلَى كُلِّ تَقْدِيرٍ قَدْ خَرَقَ بِالْحَبْلِ مِنْ جَانِبِ الْمُحِيطِ إلَى جَانِبِهِ الْآخَرِ مَعَ خَرْقِ الْمَرْكَزِ وَبِتَقْدِيرِ إحَاطَةِ قَبْضَتِهِ بِالسَّمَوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ فَالْحَبْلُ الَّذِي قُدِّرَ أَنَّهُ خَرَقَ بِهِ الْعَالَمَ وَصَلَ إلَيْهِ وَلَا يُسَمَّى شَيْءٌ مِنْ ذَلِكَ بِالنِّسْبَةِ إلَيْهِ إدْلَاءً وَلَا هُبُوطًا . وَأَمَّا بِالنِّسْبَةِ إلَيْنَا فَإِنَّ مَا تَحْتَ أَرْجُلِنَا تَحْتٌ لَنَا وَمَا فَوْقَ رُءُوسِنَا فَوْقٌ لَنَا وَمَا نُدْلِيهِ مِنْ نَاحِيَةِ رُءُوسِنَا إلَى نَاحِيَةِ أَرْجُلِنَا نَتَخَيَّلُ أَنَّهُ هَابِطٌ فَإِذَا قُدِّرَ أَنَّ أَحَدَنَا أَدْلَى بِحَبْلِ كَانَ هَابِطًا عَلَى مَا هُنَاكَ لَكِنَّ هَذَا تَقْدِيرٌ مُمْتَنِعٌ فِي حَقِّنَا وَالْمَقْصُودُ بِهِ بَيَانُ إحَاطَةِ الْخَالِقِ سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَى كَمَا بَيَّنَ أَنَّهُ يَقْبِضُ السَّمَوَاتِ وَيَطْوِي الْأَرْضَ وَنَحْوَ ذَلِكَ مِمَّا فِيهِ بَيَانُ إحَاطَتِهِ بِالْمَخْلُوقَاتِ . وَلِهَذَا قَرَأَ فِي تَمَامِ هَذَا الْحَدِيثِ { هُوَ الْأَوَّلُ وَالْآخِرُ وَالظَّاهِرُ وَالْبَاطِنُ وَهُوَ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ } . وَهَذَا كُلُّهُ عَلَى تَقْدِيرِ صِحَّتِهِ فَإِنَّ التِّرْمِذِيَّ لَمَّا رَوَاهُ قَالَ : وَفَسَّرَهُ بَعْضُ أَهْلِ الْحَدِيثِ بِأَنَّهُ هَبَطَ عَلَى عِلْمِ اللَّهِ وَبَعْضُ الْحُلُولِيَّةِ والاتحادية يَظُنُّ أَنَّ فِي هَذَا الْحَدِيثِ مَا يَدُلُّ عَلَى قَوْلِهِمْ الْبَاطِلِ ؛ وَهُوَ أَنَّهُ حَالٌّ بِذَاتِهِ فِي كُلِّ مَكَانٍ وَأَنَّ وُجُودَهُ وُجُودُ الْأَمْكِنَةِ وَنَحْوُ ذَلِكَ . وَالتَّحْقِيقُ : أَنَّ الْحَدِيثَ لَا يَدُلُّ عَلَى شَيْءٍ مِنْ ذَلِكَ إنْ كَانَ ثَابِتًا فَإِنَّ قَوْلَهُ : (مجموع الفتاوى – 6 / 573) { لَوْ أَدْلَى بِحَبْلِ لَهَبَطَ } يَدُلُّ عَلَى أَنَّهُ لَيْسَ فِي الْمُدْلِي وَلَا فِي الْحَبْلِ وَلَا فِي الدَّلْوِ وَلَا فِي غَيْرِ ذَلِكَ وَأَنَّهَا تَقْتَضِي أَنَّهُ مِنْ تِلْكَ النَّاحِيَةِ ؛ وَكَذَلِكَ تَأْوِيلُهُ بِالْعِلْمِ تَأْوِيلٌ ظَاهِرُ الْفَسَادِ مَنْ جِنْسِ تَأْوِيلَاتِ الْجَهْمِيَّة ؛ بَلْ بِتَقْدِيرِ ثُبُوتِهِ يَكُونُ دَالًّا عَلَى الْإِحَاطَةِ . وَالْإِحَاطَةُ قَدْ عُلِمَ أَنَّ اللَّهَ قَادِرٌ عَلَيْهَا وَعُلِمَ أَنَّهَا تَكُونُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ بِالْكِتَابِ وَالسُّنَّة وَلَيْسَ فِي إثْبَاتِهَا فِي الْجُمْلَةِ مَا يُخَالِفُ الْعَقْلَ وَلَا الشَّرْعَ ؛ لَكِنْ لَا نَتَكَلَّمُ إلَّا بِمَا نَعْلَمُ وَمَا لَا نَعْلَمُهُ أَمْسَكْنَا عَنْهُ وَمَا كَانَ مُقَدِّمَةُ دَلِيلِهِ مَشْكُوكًا فِيهَا عِنْدَ بَعْضِ النَّاسِ كَانَ حَقُّهُ أَنْ يَشُكَّ فِيهِ حَتَّى يَتَبَيَّنَ لَهُ الْحَقُّ وَإِلَّا فَلْيَسْكُتْ عَمَّا لَمْ يَعْلَمْ . (مجموع الفتاوى – 6 / 574 As-Sanusi does not agree with Ibn Taymiyyah regarding composition and need of Allah (SWT) Salafis and their like minded groups, in their desperation, are trying to make people think that As-Sanusi [Sīdī Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī al-Sanūsī al-Mujāhirī al-Ḥasanī al-Idrīsī, born 1787 in Northern Africa and died 1859, Cyrenaica.] agrees with Ibn Taymiyyah regarding Ar-Raazi’s argument of the need for composition for something with size. The need for composition Ar-Raazi speaks of, and denies, could be true of Allah, is an argument As-Sanusi accepts, and validates. That is, his quoted refutation of the argument for implied composition is not absolute, but for its use in a different context than this, and without admitting that there is any implied need for composition. As-Sanusi denies that affirming that Allah has attributes such as knowledge, implies composition. The context in which As-Sanusi criticizes Ar-Raazi, is for the latter’s weakness in facing up to the argument of the philosophers for denying that Allah has attributes. They argued that since the attributes are many, they would need to be composed. As-Sanusi refutes this absolutely and says that the argument for need is false, because there is no composition implied. Why is that? Because the attributes are necessary, perfect, eternal and unchanging. This is the essence of what As-Sanusi says. As-Sanusi affirms that things with size do need composition, and validates this argument. Ar-Raazi is not talking about Allah having attributes in the argument against anthropomorphists which Ibn Taymiyyah responds to. In essence Ar-Raazi says that declaring Allah to be something that can be pointed at, means that He would then have a border, and therefore be in need of composition, like all things with size. This is true, because all shapes are possible and in need of specification. This is not an argument that As-Sanusi is against. His books are full of this type of arguments. The need for bodies to be specified in shape and composition is a theme throughout, on which he bases the proof for the createdness of all things with a size. Accordingly, As-Sanusi’s refutation of the argument of the need for composition of parts does not apply for the issue of physical aboveness, and is not intended by him. This is because shapes are possible, and not intrinsically necessary in themselves, so they do need to be specified and composed. Why Ibn Taymiyyah affirms implied composition and need? Since Allah has a size in Ibn Taymiyyah’s view, and its shape is possible, there is an implied need for composition. He says in affirmation of size: “That something existing should not be increasing, or decreasing, or neither increasing nor decreasing, and yet exist and not have a size – this is impossible”. Bayaan Talbiis Al-Jahmiyyah, 3/146). قال ابن تيمية: فأما كون الشيء غير موصوف بالزيادة والنقصان ولا بعدم ذلك وهو موجود وليس بذي قدر فهذا لا يعقل (بيان تلبيس الجهمية, ج3/ص146). In affirming composition, Ibn Taymiyyah says: ” We have already clarified what possibilities (in terms of what they mean) are associated with the words composition, settling in place, being other (having different sides or parts), and need, and that the meaning meant by this is something all existing things must be attributed with, whether necessary in existence (he means Allah) or possible in existence (creation). Verily, to say that this is impossible (for Aļļaah to be attributed with), is pure sophistry” (Bayaan Talbiis Al-Jahmiyyah, 1/33) قال ابن تيمية: قولك إن كان منقسما كان مركبا وتقدم إبطاله تقدم الجواب عن هذا الذي سميته مركبا وتبين أنه لا حجة أصلا على امتناع ذلك بل بين أن إحالة ذلك تقتضي إبطال كل موجود ولولا أنه أحال على ما تقدم لما أحلنا عليه وتقدم بيان ما في لفظ التركيب والتحيز والغير والافتقار من الاحتمال وإن المعنى الذي يقصد منه بذلك يجب أن يتصف به كل موجود سواء كان واجبا أو ممكنا وإن القول بامتناع ذلك يستلزم السفسطة المحضة (بيان تلبيس الجهمية ج 1 ص 33). The proof that Ibn Taymiyyah affirms that his deity’s shape is possible and not necessary, is in his Bucket Theology, where He says: “and it is known that Allah is able to surround….” i.e. able to take on a shape to do so, which means that it is not a necessary shape, but a possible one, and therefore in need of specification. (Majmuuˆu-l-Fataawaa, 6/574) قال ابن تيمية: وَالْإِحَاطَةُ قَدْ عُلِمَ أَنَّ اللَّهَ قَادِرٌ عَلَيْهَا وَعُلِمَ أَنَّهَا تَكُونُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ بِالْكِتَابِ وَالسُّنَّة وَلَيْسَ فِي إثْبَاتِهَا فِي الْجُمْلَةِ مَا يُخَالِفُ الْعَقْلَ وَلَا الشَّرْعَ ؛ لَكِنْ لَا نَتَكَلَّمُ إلَّا بِمَا نَعْلَمُ وَمَا لَا نَعْلَمُهُ أَمْسَكْنَا عَنْهُ وَمَا كَانَ مُقَدِّمَةُ دَلِيلِهِ مَشْكُوكًا فِيهَا عِنْدَ بَعْضِ النَّاسِ كَانَ حَقُّهُ أَنْ يَشُكَّ فِيهِ حَتَّى يَتَبَيَّنَ لَهُ الْحَقُّ وَإِلَّا فَلْيَسْكُتْ عَمَّا لَمْ يَعْلَمْ . (مجموع الفتاوى – 6 /574 IMAM AHMED BIN HANBAL ( RA) WAS NOT ANTHROPOMORPHIST It is a white lie that Imam Ahmed Bin hanbal (RA) was an anthropomorphist. Scholars have crushed this charge beautifully. For example, Nuh ha Mim Keller has written : “Regarding the second question that I received in my letter, of whether Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal was an anthropomorphist, this is something that has been asked since early times, particularly since someone forged an anthropormorphic tract called Kitab al-sunna [The book of the sunna] and put the name of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s son Abdullah on it. It was published in two volumes in Dammam, Saudi Arabia, by Ibn al-Qayyim Publishing House, in 1986. I looked this book over with our teacher in hadith, Sheikh Shu‘ayb al-Arna’ut, who had examined it one day, and said that at least 50 percent of the hadiths in it are weak or outright forgeries. He was dismayed how Muhammad al-Qahtani, the editor and commentator, could have been given a Ph.d. in Islamic faith (‘aqida) from Umm al-Qura University in Mecca for readying for publication a work as sadly wanting in authenticity as this. Ostensibly a “hadith” work, it contains some of the most hard-core anthropomorphism found anywhere, such as the hadith on page 301 of the first volume that “when He Most Blessed and Exalted sits on the Kursi, a squeak is heard like the squeak of a new leather saddle”; or on page 294 of the same volume: “Allah wrote the Torah for Moses with His hand while leaning back on a rock, on tablets of pearl, and the screech of the quill could be heard. There was no veil between Him and him,” or the hadith on page 510 of the second volume: “The angels were created from the light of His two elbows and chest,” and so on. The work also puts lies in the mouths of major Hanbali scholars and others, such as Kharija [ibn Mus‘ab al-Sarakhsi], who died 168 after the Hijra, and who on page 106 of volume one is quoted about istiwa’(sometimes translated as being ‘established’ on the Throne), “Does istiwa’ mean anything except sitting?”—with a chain of transmission containing a liar (kadhdhab), an unidentifiable (majhul), plus the text, with its contradiction (mukhalafa) of Islamic faith (‘aqida). Or consider the no less than forty-nine pages of vilifications of Abu Hanifa and his school that it mendaciously ascribes to major Imams, such as relating on page 180 of the first volume that Ishaq ibn Mansur al-Kusaj, who died 251 years after the Hijra said, “I asked Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, ‘Is a man rewarded by Allah for loathing Abu Hanifa and his colleagues?’ and he said, ‘Yes, by Allah.’” To ascribe things so fatuous to a man of godfearingness (taqwa) like Ahmad, whose respect for other scholars is well attested to by chains of transmission that are rigorously authenticated (sahih), is one of the things by which this counterfeit work overreaches itself, and ends in cancelling any credibility that the name on it may have been intended to give it. The ascription of this book to Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s son ‘Abdullah fails from a hadith point of view, since there are two unidentifiable (majhul) transmitters in the chain of ascription whose names are given as Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Simsar and Muhammad ibn Ibrahim al-Harawi, of whom no other trace exists anywhere, a fact that the editor and commentator, Muhammad al-Qahtani, on page 105 of the first volume tries to sweep under the rug by saying that the work was quoted by Ibn Taymiya and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya. But the fact that such a work even exists may give one an idea of the kinds of things that have been circulated about Ahmad after his death, and the total lack of scrupulousness among a handful of anthropomorphists who tried literally everything to spread their innovations. Another work with its share of anthropomorphisms and forgeries is Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya’s Ijtima‘ al-juyush al-Islamiyya [The meeting of the Islamic armies], published by ‘Awwad al-Mu‘tiq in Riyad, Saudi Arabia, in 1988, which on page 330 mentions as a hadith of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), the words “Honor the cow, for it has not lifted its head to the sky since the [golden] calf was worshipped, out of shame (haya’) before Allah Mighty and Majestic,” a mawdu‘ hadith forgery apparently intended to encourage Muslims to believe that Allah is physically above the cow in the sky. On page 97 of the same work, Ibn al-Qayyim also mentions the hadith of Bukhari, warning of the Antichrist (al-Masih al-Dajjal), who in the Last Days will come forth and claim to be God; of which the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “Allah has sent no prophet except that he warned his people of the One Eyed Liar, and that he is one-eyed—and that your Lord is not one-eyed—and that he shall have unbeliever (kafir) written between his two eyes” (Sahih al-Bukhari, 8.172). Ibn al-Qayyim comments, “The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) negated the attribute of one-eyedness [of Allah], which is proof that Allah Most High literally has two eyes.” Now, any primer on logical fallacies could have told Ibn al-Qayyim that the negation of a quality does not entail the affirmation of its contrary, an example of the “Black and White Fallacy” (for example, “If it is not white, it is therefore black,” “If you are not my friend, you must be my enemy,” and so on), though what he attempts to prove here does show the kind of anthropomorphism he is trying to promote. Forged chains of hadith transmission in Ibn al-Qayyim’s Ijtima‘ al-juyush al-Islamiyya are the subject of a forthcoming work by a Jordanian scholar, In Sha’ Allah, which those interested may read. For all of these reasons, the utmost care must be used in ascribing tenets of faith to Ahmad ibn Hanbal or other Imams, especially when made by anthropomorphists whose concern is to create credibility for the ideas we are talking about. Many would-be revivers of these ideas today have been misled by their uncritical acceptance of the statements and chains of ascription found in the books of Ibn Taymiya and Ibn al-Qayyim, which they cite in print and rely on, and from whence they get the idea that these were the positions of the early Muslims and prophetic Companions or Sahaba. Umbrage has unfortunately been taken at the biographies I appended to my translation Reliance of the Traveller about Ibn Taymiya and Ibn al-Qayyim, which detail the gulf between Ibn Taymiya’s innovations and the ‘aqida of the early Muslims, though anyone interested can read about it in any number of other books, one of the best of which has been published in Cairo in 1970 by Dar al-Nahda al-‘Arabiyya, and is called Ibn Taymiya laysa salafiyyan [Ibn Taymiya is not an early Muslim], by the Azhar professor of Islamic faith (‘aqida) Mansur Muhammad ‘Uways, which focuses primarily on tenets of belief. Another was written by a scholar who lived shortly after Ibn al-Qayyim in the same city, Taqi al-Din Abu Bakr al-Hisni, author of the famous Shafi‘i fiqh manual Kifaya al-akhyar [The sufficiency of the pious], whose book on Ibn Taymiya is called Daf‘ shubah man shabbaha wa tamarrada wa nasaba dhalika ila al-sayyid al-jalil al-Imam Ahmad [Rebuttal of the insinuations of him who makes anthropomorphisms and rebels, and ascribes that to the noble master Imam Ahmad], published in Cairo in 1931 by Dar Ihya’ al-Kutub al-‘Arabiyya. Whoever reads these and similar works with an open mind cannot fail to notice the hoax that has been perpetrated by moneyed quarters in our times, of equating the tenets of a small band of anthropomorphists to the Islamic belief (‘aqida) of Imam Ahmad and other scholars of the early Muslims (al-salaf). The real (‘aqida) of Imam Ahmad was very simple, and consisted, mainly of tafwid, that is, to consign to Allah the meaning of the mutashabihat or ‘unapparent meanings’ of the Koran and hadith, accepting their words as they have come without saying or claiming to know how they are meant. His position is close to that of a number of other early scholars, who would not even countenance changing the Koranic order of the words or substituting words imagined to be synonyms. For them, the verse in Sura Taha, “The All-merciful is ‘established’ (istawa) upon the Throne” (Koran 20:5) does not enable one to say that “Allah is ‘established’ upon Throne,” or that “The All-merciful is upon the Throne” or anything else besides “The All-merciful is ‘established’ (istawa) upon the Throne.” Full stop. Their position is exemplified by Sufyan ibn ‘Uyayna, who died 98 years after the Hijra, and who said, “The interpretation (tafsir) of everything with which Allah has described Himself in His book is to recite it and remain silent about it.” It also resembles the position of Imam Shafi‘i, who simply said: “I bel
    • May 18, 2011 at 23:24

      The Issue is easy rather than quoting what other people said about Ibn taymeeyah just give us this supposed statement from his works volume and page number and we will read it ourselves as we can read Arabic Alhamdulillah.copy and pasting somebody else`s work is pretty poor research.

  5. May 18, 2011 at 16:35

    CONTINUATION OF PREVIOUS POST

    Imam Shafi‘i, who simply said:I believe in what has come from Allah as it was intended by Allah, and I believe in what has come from the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) as it was intended by the Messenger of Allah.”

    It should be appreciated how far this school of tafwid or ‘consigning the knowledge of what is meant to Allah’ is from understanding the mutashabihat or ‘unapparent in meaning,’ scriptural expressions about Allah as though they were meant literally (‘ala al-dhahir). The Hanbali Imam Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Khallal, who died in Hijra year 311, and who took his fiqh from Imam Ahmad’s students, relates in his book al-Sunna through his chain of narrators from Hanbal ibn Ishaq al-Shaybani, the son of the brother of Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s father, that

    Imam Ahmad was asked about the hadiths mentioning “Allah’s descending,” “seeing Allah,” and “placing His foot on hell”; and the like, and Ahmad replied: “We believe in them and consider them true, without ‘how’ and without ‘meaning’ (bi la kayfa wa la ma‘na).”

    And he said, when they asked him about Allah’s istiwa’ [translated above as established]: “He is ‘established’ upon the Throne (istawa ‘ala al-‘Arsh) however He wills and as He wills, without any limit or any description that be made by any describer (Daf‘ shubah al-tashbih, 28).

    This demonstrates how far Imam Ahmad was from anthropomorphism, though a third example is even more explicit. The Imam and hadith master (hafiz) al-Bayhaqi relates in his Manaqib al-Imam Ahmad [The memorable actions of Imam Ahmad], through his chain of narrators that:

    Ahmad condemned those who said Allah was a “body,” saying, “The names of things are taken from the Shari‘a and the Arabic language. The language’s possessors have used this word [body] for something that has height, breadth, thickness, construction, form, and composition, while Allah Most High is beyond all of that, and may not be termed a “body” because of being beyond any meaning of embodiedness. This has not been conveyed by the Shari‘a, and so is rebutted” (al-Barahin al-sati‘a, 164).

    These examples provide an accurate idea of Ahmad’s ‘Aqida, as conveyed to us by the hadith masters (huffaz) of the Umma, who have distinguished the true reports from the spurious attributions of the anthropomorphists’ opinions to their Imam, both early and late. But it is perhaps even more instructive, in view of the recrudescence of these ideas today, to look at an earlier work against Hanbali anthropomorphists about this bid‘a, for the light this literature sheds upon the science of textual interpretation, and I will conclude my talk tonight to it.

    As you may know, the true architect of the Hanbali madhhab was not actually Imam Ahmad, who did not like to see any of his positions written down, but rather these were conveyed orally by various students at different times, one reason there are often a number of different narratives from him on legal questions. It is probably no exaggeration to say that the real founder of the Hanbali madhhab was the Imam and hadith master (hafiz) ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Jawzi, who died 597 years after the Hijra, and who recorded all the narratives from Imam Ahmad, distinguished the well-authenticated from the poorly-authenticated, and organized them into a coherent body of fiqh jurisprudence.

    Ibn al-Jawzi—who is not to be confused with Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya—took the question of people associating anthropomorphism with Hanbalism so seriously that he wrote a book, Daf‘ shubah al-tashbih bi akaff al-tanzih [Rebuttal of the insinuations of anthropomorphism at the hands of transcendence], refuting this heresy and exonerating his Imam of any association with it.

    One of the most significant points he makes in this work is the principle that al-Idafatu la tufidu al-sifa, meaning that an ascriptive construction, called in Arabic an idafa, ‘the x of the y’ or in other words, ‘y’s x’ does not establish that ‘x is an attribute of y.’ This is important because the anthropomorphists of his day, as well as Ibn Taymiyya in the seventh century after the Hijra, used many ascriptive constructions (idafa) that appear in hadiths and Koranic verses as proof that Allah had “attributes” that bolstered their conceptions of Him.

    To clarify with examples, you are doubtless familiar with the Koranic verse in Surat al-Fath of the Sahaba swearing a fealty pact (bay‘a) to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), that says,

    “Allah’s hand is above their hands” (Koran 48:10).

    Here, with the words yad Allahi ‘the hand of Allah,’ Ibn al-Jawzi’s principle means that we are not entitled to affirm, on the basis of the Arabic wording alone, that “Allah has a hand” as an attribute (sifa) of His entity. It could be that this Arabic expression is simply meant to emphasize the tremendousness of the offense of breaking this pact, as some scholars state, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) placed his hand on top of the Sahaba’s, and the wording could be a figure of speech emphasizing Allah’s backing of this action; and classical Arabic abounds in such figures of speech. The Prophet himself (Allah bless him and give him peace) used hand as a figure of speech in the rigorously authenticated (sahih) hadith, Al-Muslimu man salima l-Muslimuna min lisanihi wa yadih “The Muslim is he who the Muslims are safe from his tongue and his hand,” where hand means anything within his power to do to them, whether with his hand, his foot, or by any other means. As Imam al-Ghazali says of the word hand:

    One should realize that hand may mean two different things. The first is the primary lexical sense; namely, the bodily member composed of flesh, bone, and nervous tissue. Now, flesh, bone, and nervous tissue make up a specific body with specific attributes; meaning, by body, something of an amount (with height, width, depth) that prevents anything else from occupying wherever it is, until it is moved from that place.

    Or [secondly] the word may be used figuratively, in another sense with no relation to that of a body at all: as when one says, “The city is in the leader’s hands,” the meaning of which is well understood, even if the leader’s hands are missing, for example (al-Ghazali, Iljam al-‘awam ‘an ‘ilm al-kalam [Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-‘Arabi, 1406/1985], 55).

    We have already mentioned the school of thought of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Shafi‘i, and other early Muslims of understanding the mutashabihat or ‘unapparent in meaning,’ scriptural expressions about Allah by tafwid or ‘consigning the knowledge of what is meant to Allah.’ But secondly, we have seen from the example of the hand, that because of the figurative richness the Arabic language, and also to protect against the danger of anthropomorphism, many Muslim scholars were able to explain certain of the mutashabihat or ‘unapparent in meaning’ expressions in Koranic verses and hadiths by ta’wil, or ‘figuratively.’

    This naturally drew the criticism of neo-Hanbalis, at their forefront Ibn Taymiya and Ibn al-Qayyim, as it still does of today’s “reformers” of Islam, who echo these two’s arguments that figurative interpretation (ta’wil) was a reprehensible departure (bid‘a) by Ash‘aris and others from the way of the early Muslims (salaf); and who call for a “return to the sunna,” that is, to anthropomorphic literalism. Now, the obvious question in the face of such “reforms” is whether literalism is really identical with pristine Islamic faith (‘aqida). Or rather did figurative interpretation (ta’wil) exist among the salaf? We will answer this question with actual examples of mutashabihat or ‘unapparent in meaning’ Koranic verses and hadiths, and examine how the earliest scholars interpreted them:

    1. Forgetting. We have mentioned above the Koranic verse,

    “Today We forget you as you have forgotten this day of yours” (Koran 45:34),

    which the early Muslims used to interpret figuratively, as reported by a scholar who was himself an early Muslim (salafi) and indeed, the sheikh of the early Muslims in Koranic exegesis, the hadith master (hafiz) Ibn Jarir al-Tabari who died 310 years after the Hijra, and who explains the above verse as meaning: “‘This day, Resurrection Day, We shall forget them,’ so as to say, ‘We shall abandon them to their punishment.’” Now, this is precisely ta’wil, or interpretation in other than the verse’s ostensive sense. Al-Tabari ascribes this interpretation, through his chains of transmission, to the Companion (Sahabi) Ibn ‘Abbas (Allah be well pleased with him) as well as to Mujahid, Ibn ‘Abbas’s main student in Koranic exegesis (Jami‘ al-bayan, 8.202).

    2. Hands. In the verse,

    “And the sky We built with hands; verily We outspread [it]” (Koran 51:47),

    al-Tabari ascribes the figurative explanation (ta’wil) of with hands as meaning “with power (bi quwwa)” through five chains of transmission to Ibn ‘Abbas, who died 68 years after the Hijra, Mujahid who died 104 years after the Hijra, Qatada [ibn Da‘ama] who died 118 years after the Hijra, Mansur [ibn Zadhan al-Thaqafi] who died 131 years after the Hijra, and Sufyan al-Thawri who died 161 years after the Hijra (Jami‘ al-bayan, 27.7–8). I mention these dates to show just how early they were.

    3. Shin. Of the Koranic verse,

    “On a day when shin shall be exposed, they shall be ordered to prostrate, but be unable” (Koran 68:42),

    al-Tabari says, “A number of the exegetes of the Companions (Sahaba) and their students (tabi‘in) held that it [a day when shin shall be exposed] means that a dire matter (amrun shadid) shall be disclosed” (Jami‘ al-bayan, 29.38)—the shin’s association with direness being that it was customary for Arab warriors fighting in the desert to ready themselves to move fast and hard through the sand in the thick of the fight by lifting the hems of their garments above the shin. This was apparently lost upon later anthropomorphists, who said the verse proved ‘Allah has a shin,’ or, according to others, ‘two shins, since one would be unbecoming.’ Al-Tabari also relates from Muhammad ibn ‘Ubayd al-Muharibi, who relates from Ibn al-Mubarak, from Usama ibn Zayd, from ‘Ikrima, from Ibn ‘Abbas that shin in the above verse means “a day of war and direness (harbin wa shidda)” (ibid., 29.38). All of these narrators are those of the sahih or rigorously authenticated collections except Usama ibn Zayd, whose hadiths are hasan or ‘well authenticated.’

    4. Laughter. Of the hadith related in Sahih al-Bukhari from Abu Hurayra that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said,

    Allah Most High laughs about two men, one of whom kills the other, but both of whom enter paradise: the one fights in the path of Allah and is killed, and afterwards Allah forgives the killer, and then he fights in the path of Allah and is martyred,

    the hadith master al-Bayhaqi records that the scribe of Bukhari [Muhammad ibn Yusuf] al-Farabri related that Imam al-Bukhari said, “The meaning of laughter in it is mercy” (Kitab al-asma’ wa al-sifat, 298).

    5. Coming. The hadith master (hafiz) Ibn Kathir reports that Imam al-Bayhaqi related from al-Hakim from Abu ‘Amr ibn al-Sammak, from Hanbal, the son of the brother of Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s father, that

    Ahmad ibn Hanbal figuratively interpreted the word of Allah Most High,

    “And your Lord shall come . . .” (Koran 89:22),

    as meaning “His recompense (thawab) shall come.”

    Al-Bayhaqi said, “This chain of narrators has absolutely nothing wrong in it” (al-Bidaya wa al-nihaya,10.342). In other words, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, like the Companions (Sahaba) and other early Muslims mentioned above, sometimes also gave figurative interpretations (ta’wil) to scriptural expressions that might otherwise have been misinterpreted anthropomorphically. This was also the way of Abul Hasan al-Ash‘ari, founder of the Ash‘ari school of Islamic belief, who had two views about the mutashabihat, the first being tafwid, or ‘consigning the knowledge of what is meant to Allah,’ and the second being ta’wil or ‘figurative interpretation’ when needed to avoid the suggestion of the anthropomorphism that is explicitly rejected by the Koran.

    In light of the examples quoted above about such words about Allah as ‘forgetting,’ ‘hands,’ ‘shin,’ ‘laughter,’ ‘coming,’ and so forth, it is plain that Muslims scholars of ‘Aqida, whether of the Ash‘ari school or any other, did not originate ta’wil or figurative interpretation, but rather it had been with Muslims from the beginning, because that was the nature of the Arabic language. And if the above figures are not the salaf or ‘early Muslims,’ who are? Ibn Taymiya and Ibn al-Qayyim, who died more than seven centuries after the Hijra?

    In view of the foregoing examples of figurative interpretation by early Muslims, we have to ask, Whose ‘early Islam’ would today’s reformers of ‘Aqida have us return to? Imam Abu Hanifa first noted, “Two depraved opinions have reached us from East, those of Jahm [ibn Safwan], the nullifier of the divine attributes, and those of Muqatil [ibn Sulayman al-Balkhi, the likener of Allah to His creation” (Siyar a‘lam al-nubala,’ 7.202).

    These are not an either-or for Muslims. Jahm’s brand of Mu‘tazilism has been dead for over a thousand years, while anthropomorphic literalism is a heresy that in previous centuries was confined to a handful of sects like the Hanbalis addressed by Imam Ibn al-Jawzi in his Daf‘ shubah al-tashbih, or like the forgers of Kitab al-sunna who ascribed it to Imam Ahmad’s son ‘Abdullah, or like the Karramiyya, an early sect who believed Allah to be a corporeal entity “sitting in person on His Throne.”

    As for Islamic orthodoxy, the Imam of Ahl al-Sunna in tenets of faith, ‘Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi says in his ‘aqida manual Usul al-din [The fundamentals of the religion]:

    Anyone who considers his Lord to resemble the form of a person [. . . ] is only worshipping a person like himself. As for the permissibility of eating the meat he slaughters or of marriage with him, his ruling is that of an idol-worshipper.

    . . . Regarding the anthropomorphists of Khurasan, of the Karramiyya, it is obligatory to consider them unbelievers because they affirm that Allah has a physical limit and boundary from underneath, from whence He is contact with His Throne (al-Baghdadi, Usul al-din [Istanbul: Matba‘a al-Dawla, 1346/1929], 337).

    In previous Islamic centuries, someone who worshipped a god who ‘sits,’ moves about, and so forth, was considered to be in serious trouble in his faith (‘aqida). Our question should be: If anthropomorphic literalism were an acceptable Islamic school of thought, why was it counted among heresies and rejected for the first seven centuries of Islam that preceded Ibn Taymiya and his student Ibn al-Qayyim, and condemned by the scholars of Ahl al-Sunna thereafter?

    To summarize everything I have said tonight, we have seen three ways of understanding the mutashabihat, or ‘unapparent in meaning’ verses and hadiths: tafwid, ‘consigning the knowledge of what is meant to Allah,’ ta’wil, ‘figurative interpretation within the parameters of classical Arabic usage,’ and lastly tashbih, or ‘anthropomorphic literalism.’

    We saw that the way of tafwid or ‘consigning the knowledge of what is meant to Allah,’ was the way of Shafi‘i, Ahmad, and many of the early Muslims. A second interpretive possibility, the way of ta’wil, or ‘figurative interpretation,’ was also done by the Companions (Sahaba) and many other early Muslims as reported above. In classical scholarship, both have been considered Islamic, and both seem needed, though tafwid is superior where it does not lead to confusion about Allah’s transcendence beyond the attributes of created things, in accordance with the Koranic verse,

    “There is nothing whatsoever like unto Him” (Koran 42:11).

    As for anthropomorphism, it is clear from this verse and from the entire history of the Umma, that it is not an Islamic school of thought, and never has been. In all times and places, Islam has invited non-Muslims to faith in the Incomparable Reality called Allah; not making man a god, and not making God a man. Wa jazakum Allah khayran, wa l-hamdu li Llahi Rabbil ‘Alamin.

    KHARIZIS ARE CONFUSED BY LITERAL MEANINGS OF AL-QURAN

    The basic principle in understanding the verses of Quran and Ahadiths is that these should be understood in their most absolute, literal and apparent meanings; unless there is a proof why they should not be understood in their textual meanings. Such proofs include; other Quranic verses, Ahadith and Consensus (Ijmaa). Mere preference of taking certain verses on their textual meanings is not acceptable.

    This is known as Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence (Usul al-Fiqh). The rational purpose of this rule of requiring a proof is to avoid people interpreting Quran and Hadith any way they like.

    One of the major principles of Fiqh is the recognition that, not everything in Quran can be understood literally or in its textual meaning, because that will result in one verse contradicting the other in its extracted meanings. This is the reason, Allah (SWT) sent messengers to explain the actual meanings of His scriptures. In the absence of messengers, the scriptures would have been subjected to merciless interpretations by different sects/groups to achieve political power.

    When there are more than one Quranic verse or Hadith on the same subject and these seem to give different ‘apparent/literal meanings’, then we should not try to understand the meanings of these verses in a way that ‘we accept some at the expense of others’. This will be a great sin. If you reject a Quranic verse, or try to misinterpret some verses to prove your wrong beliefs, you will be out of Islam.

    There is one more important issue. If you believe and give emphasis on the textual meaning of a Quranic verse, because Ibn Taymiyyah or Abdul Wahhab translated it that way, and try to interpret other Quranic verses to defend their beliefs, then you will be treated as ‘ blind follower of Ibn Taymiyyah and Abdul Wahhab at the expense of 4 established Imams of Islamic Jurisprudence viz., Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Shafi’i, Imam Maalik and Iman Ahmad Ibn Hanbal.

    We are providing below translations of 23 Quranic verses and Ahadith which give information about Allah’s (SWT) Unity (Zaat) and His attributes.

    ■(i) ‘There is nothing like unto Him, He is the All-hearing, the All-seeing. (Ash-Shura – 11).

    ■(ii) ‘People’s eyes cannot perceive (see) Him, He perceives their eyes (Al-An-aam – 104).
    ■(iii)‘Wherever you are, He is with you’. (Al-Hadid – 4).

    ■(iv)‘Allah is the light (existence) of the Heavens and Earth’. (An-Noor -35).

    ■(v) ‘We (Allah-SWT) are closer to you than your jugular vein’. (Qaf – 16).
    ■(vi)‘He is in your own self, will you not then see’. (Az-Zariyat – 21).

    ■(vii) Whichever side you turn, you will find Allah (SWT); Verily ( in truth ) Allah – (SWT) is Omnipresent (existing everywhere every moment) and Omniscient (infinitely wise). ( Al-Baqra – 115 ).

    ■(viii) Transcendent (magnificent) is your Lord, the Lord of All-Greatness, far above what they ascribe to Him’. (As-Saaffaat – 180).

    ■(ix) When My servants ask you (O’Prophet – SAWS) concerning Me, ( tell them ) I am ever present ( with them ) and I listen to the call of him that calls Me. (Al-Baqara – 186).
    ■(x) Nothing, even the weight of a mote lying either in the heavens or in the earth escapes His notice’. (As-Saba – 3).

    ■(xi) Say O’Prophet Allah (SWT) is one. Allah (SWT) is independent. He does not have children. Nobody has given birth to him. Nobody can match Him or equal Him”. (Al-Ikhlas – 1- 4).

    ■(xii) He is the First, and the Last, He is the Manifest (apparent) and the Immanent (actually present through out the material world) and is the knower of all things’. (Al-Hadeed – 3).

    ■(xiii) (Allah – SWT) the Compassionate, is sitting on the Empyrean (Arsh) (Taha -5).

    ■(xiv) His Chair (throne) spreads over the Heavens and the Earth, the preservation of them does not burden Him; He is High, the Great. (Al-Baqra – 255).
    ■(xv) (O’Prophet –SAWS) ‘You did not throw, when you threw, but Allah (SWT) has thrown. (Infe’al – 17).
    ■(xvi) ‘Certainly, those who are doing ‘the promise of allegiance’ ( b’ayah ) to you, O’ Prophet (SAWS), they are actually doing the promise of allegiance to Allah (SWT). Allah’s (SWT) hand is upon their hand. (Al-Fath – 10).
    ■(xvii) ‘And who is more truthful in His word than Allah (SWT) (An-Nisa – 87).

    ■(xviii) ‘All that there is in Cosmos shall vanish. The countenance of your Lord alone shall endure, the Lord of Resplendent Majesty and Glory). (Ar-Rahman – 26-27).

    ■(xix) ‘But construct an Ark under Our eyes, as we reveal and address Me no (further) on behalf of those who are in sin; for they are about to be overwhelmed (in the flood). (Houd – 37).

    ■(xx) ‘Verily in the creation of the Skies and the Earth, and the differences of night and day there are signs for those who have perceptive minds. (Aal `Imraan, 190).

    ■(xxi) It is in Hadith of Ihsan, Prophet Mohammad (SAWS) said, ‘You worship Allah (SWT) seeing Him, and in case you fail to see Him do your prayers knowing fully well that He is seeing you’ (Bukhari and Muslim).

    ■(xxii) It is in Bukhari and Muslim …. that Allah (SWT) descends to the first sky before the last third of every night and says ‘Who prays to Me and I will answer his prayers? Who asks Me and I will give him? And Who asks My forgiveness I will forgive him.

    ■(xxiii) It is in Hadith (Muslim and Baihaqi) The Prophet (SAWS) said, ‘O Allah, You are the First (Awwal), so there is nothing before You, and You are the Last (Aakher) so there is nothing after You. You are the apparent (Al-Thaahir) so there is nothing above You. And You are the hidden (Al-Baatin), so there is nothing below you.’

    We have mentioned 20 Quranic verses and three authentic Ahadith above that are generally the subject of discussion among different sects.

    Let us read the above Quranic verses and Ahadith one more time. We will realize that, if we take literal (textual) meanings of all these verses, we will get confused. Like, one of the above Quranic verse declares that ‘no eyes can see Allah (SWT)’. But we have another Quranic verse and Prophet’s (SAWS) Hadith (Bukhari) commanding us to see Allah (SWT).

    Similarly, Quran says ‘Nothing is like Him (Allah -SWT)’. This verse negates all types of forms, shapes, body and face for Allah (SWT); whether divine or creature like. If He had a divine body, He would have described for Himself ‘ No creatures body or form is like His”. Thus, we conclude that Allah (SWT) is free from the limitations of face, form, body, place or dwelling of all kinds. We cannot allow further discussion in this issue because this is the basic faith of Islam.

    It is in Quran – ‘And who is more truthful in His word than Allah (SWT) (An-Nisa – 87).

    Let us see this verse of Quran.“Fa ainama tuwallu fathamma Wajhullahi (Al-Baqra 115).

    Salafis insist that in the above verse, they will take the literal/textual meaning of Arabic word ‘Wajha’ as face.

    Salafis chose to understand Quranic verses and Ahadith as per the whims and imagination. They insist upon the literal (textual) meanings of the whole Quran and Ahadith. But for some verses they ignore this practice.

    Look at the following Quranic verse.

    It is in Quran – “Qala innama ana rasulu rabbiki li ahaba laki ghulaman zakiyya” (Maryam – 19).

    The textual meaning of this verse is ‘ Hazrat Jibreel (AS) said to Hazrata Maryam (AS) ‘ I am the Apostle /messenger of Allah (SWT) and ‘ the reason I have come to you is to give you a son’.

    As per their standard practice, by extracting its textual meanings, Salafis should declare that Hazrat Jibreel (AS) is a messenger of Allah (SWT) like many other messengers. And He gave Hazarata Maryam the celebrated son.

    But they do not make that mistake here. Since, Hazrat Jibreel (AS) brings the message of Allah (SWT) to His Prophets/Apostles, Salafis understand this verse like any other Muslim does. Meaning, Hazrat Jibreel (AS) informed Hazrata Maryam (AS) that ‘He has come from Allah (SWT) to give her the good tidings of a son’. Giving a son is the work of Allah (SWT) and conveying this good news is the work of Hazrat Jibreel (AS).

    If they had kept the same spirit in understanding Quranic verses related to Allah’s (SWT) attributes, they would have found the right path of Islam. But they do not want to follow the established principles in this context. As a matter of fact, they rebelled against all established rules of Islam. This attitude on their part has resulted in their acceptance of Hands, eyes, face, chair, dwelling for Allah (SWT).

    Since they accept that ‘there is no one like Him’, therefore they claim that Allah (SWT) has hands, eyes, face, place, direction, dwelling, etc. but His body and limbs are not like that of human beings. Then how are these? They say that Allah (SWT) knows about it.

    What a mess and what a misunderstanding! This confusion has led them to concede a body form for Allah (SWT) which has eyes, hands, face. They also claim that He uses a big chair to sit. They have even fixed a dwelling on Arsh for Him and claim that he descends from His place of residence to the first sky before dawn every night to listen to people’s prayers. Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar.

    Ibn Batuta, the famous historian has mentioned that he visited Ibn Taymiyya when he was in Damascus prison. He has written that he once attended Taymiyyah’s lecture in a mosque, and when a person questioned Ibn Taymiyyah how Allah (SWT) descends to the first sky every night to listen to the prayers of the people; Ibn Taymiyyah walked down one step from the pulpit of the mosque to display to the people that “this is the way Allah (SWT) descends every night to the first sky”.

    This depiction of Ibn Taymiyyah clearly shows that he had made a shape / body of Allah (SWT) in his mind though he never said so publicly.

    All Quranic verses whose textual meanings indicate creature like attributes for Allah (SWT) have to be understood in proper perspective so that our basic Islamic faith remains intact. Since Allah (SWT) is like no one, and He is free from creature like attributes, then the meanings of these verses will be ‘ the expression of His omnipotence, magnanimity, and His presence throughout the skies and the material world’. With this understanding if you read all the above verses, you will get the right path of Islam.

    Allah’s (SWT) Unity envelops everything in this cosmos from within and outside. If you read the following Quranic verses with this understanding, you will get their correct meanings.

    It is in Quran – ‘He is the First, and the Last, He is the Manifest (apparent) and the Immanent (actually present through out the material world) and is the knower of all things’. (Al-Hadeed – 3). At another place in Quran ‘Allah is the light (existence) of the Heavens and Earth’. (An-Noor -35). And at another place in Quran ‘‘He is in your own self, will you not then see’. (Az-Zariyat – 21).

    To accept a body and limbs for Allah (SWT), whatever may be the kind – divine or creature like – is plain Shirk Fis Sifaat, (polytheism in Allah’s –SWT attributes) which is an unpardonable sin. This belief has taken Salafis and their like minded groups far, far away from Islam.

    Hindus also got confused in understanding Allah’s (SWT) attributes. Hindus accept every attribute of Allah (SWT) as a different God with a divine body and face.

    The Christian accept 3 different Gods with divine bodies and faces, whose roles are different from each other.

    The Salafis and like minded groups accept one God, with divine body, face and Limbs.

    All the above believes are outside the sphere of Islamic teachings. All these theories are philosophical, concocted/fabricated by human mind and are totally against the basic faith of Islam.

    Islam says, Allah (SWT) is one and, nothing is like Him. He is free from the considerations of ‘ form, shape, face and body of all kinds, exclusive or creature like.

    Why Salafis got confused and made a divine idol of Allah (SWT) in their minds?

    The answer is simple. Ibn Taymiyyah did not study Quran and Hadith under the able guidance of a prominent Shaikh of Ihsan / Wali Allah who would have explained him the true meanings of Quranic verses. He studied Quran and Hadith and other Islamic subjects on his own, understood the meanings as per his limited understanding and at the age of 19, declared himself bigger than all Imams of Islamic Jurisprudence.

    Not only that, he also accused all Sufi Shaikhs of Ihsan, all Ulema of 600 years before him as polytheists / innovators / infidels and what not.

    Shaykhul Islam al Hafiz Taqiyud-Din Ali Ibn Abdil-Kafi as-Subki – writes in the Preface of his book Ad-Durratu ‘l-Mudiyyah, as follows:

    QUOTE – “By his claims Ibn Taymiyyah innovated foul things in the usul of belief, and infringed the foundations of Islam, and in the same time covered himself under the pretext of following the Book and Sunnah, outwardly showing that he was a caller to Truth and a guide to heaven, while on the contrary he deviated from following the Book and Sunnah to innovation, and deviated from the consensus of the Muslims by infringing the ijma`.

    He said what leads to the attribution of a body and of composition to the Divine Essence, and that it is not impossible that Allah is composed by parts. He said that the Essence of Allah Ta`ala contains contingent elements (hawadith) that the Qur’an is also contingent, and that Allah spoke it after it was not, that He speaks and keeps silent, and that phenomena take place in Him in the same way they take place in created beings.

    He crossed the limit to the point of claiming that the world is eternal, and was coherent with this assumption to the point of claiming that there is no beginning for the contingencies, Hence, he confirmed that – according to his opinion – the eternal attributes [of Allah ] are contingent and the contingent created entities are eternal. None has ever joined those two opinions together in any religion. He was not among the seventy-three groups into which the Ummah is divided [i.e. he is neither a Sunni, nor a member of one of the seventy two heretic sects, but rather the founder of a new sect of his own]. In spite of all of this being horrible kufr, it is little compared to what he innovated in the furu (other issues of Islam)’.” UNQUOTE

    Five centuries later, Ibn Abdul Wahhab followed Ibn Taymiyyah’s foot steps and created a large group of people who started believing in Allah’s (SWT) exclusive/ special hands, eyes, face, direction, etc.

    It is in Quran – “Truly, the Devil is an enemy to you, so take him as an enemy: he only calls his party to become of the inhabitants of the blaze” (Al-Fatir – 6).

    In explaining the above verse, the great scholar Ahmad Sawi writes in his Hashiya commentary in Tafseer-e-Jalaaleen, as follows.

    QUOTE “ It is said this verse was revealed about the Kharijites [foretelling their appearance], who altered the interpretation of the Qur’an and Sunna, on the strength of which they declared it lawful to kill and take the property of Muslims — as may now be seen in their modern counterparts; namely, a sect in the Hijaz called “Wahhabis,” who “think they are on something, truly they are the liars. Satan has gained mastery over them and made them forget Allah’s remembrance. Those are Satan’s party, truly Satan’s party, they are the losers” (Qur’an 58 : 18–19). We ask Allah Most Generous to extirpate them completely” UNQUOTE

    Unless Salafis and their like minded groups change their basic faith about Allah (SWT) and Prophet Mohammad (SAWS), their chances of salvation on the Day of Judgment may be remote.

    In Allah’s (SWT) court that day, either you are a Muslim or Non-Muslim. If your basic faith is not correct, then you may be declared as Non-Muslim or hypocrite (Munafiq).

    Salafis argue that they are accepting Allah (SWT) is not like His creatures. Also accepting that creature attributes cannot be associated with him. But, in the same breath they claim hands, limbs, eyes, face, and limits (Hadd) for Him and say that all these are divine, not creature like. This is polytheism in Allah’s (SWT) Attributes (Shirk fis- Siffat-e-Elahi).

    Hindus and Christians also say the same thing. What is the meaning of divine face and body? This means that you have created a shape and body for Allah (SWT) in your mind. You have deliberately misinterpreted Quranic verses in this context. But you do not want to accept it openly. This is hypocrisy; a greater sin than polytheism.

    Allah (SWT) knows what is in our heart. Let us not debate and argue as politicians do. Allah (SWT) will judge us as per our beliefs. Let us not be under any illusions about it.

    All Quranic verses are truthful. When we read a verse that needs to be understood by interpreting its meanings, we should first say, “I believe in whatever Allah (SWT) means” then we should strive to find out their purported meanings.

    It is in Quran – “The people who strive in our way, We show and put them on the right path’ (Al-An-Kaboot – 69). Let us try to understand the meanings of the following Quranic verses.

    (Allah – SWT) the Compassionate, is sitting on the Empyrean (Taha -5).

    Sitting, standing, walking, etc., are the attributes of human beings and creatures. We cannot associate these attributes with Allah (SWT). He is pure from all such considerations. If we take literal meaning of the word ‘sitting’ in this verse, then, we will have to deny many Quranic verses where Allah (SWT) has said ‘His Existence in unconfined, unlimited’. Therefore, the meaning of the this verse will be ‘ Allah (SWT) – the Compassionate, occupies the seat of power. As a matter of fact Allah (SWT) occupies everything in this Cosmos. Therefore, the real (purported) meanings of this verse will be ‘Allah –SWT is wielding supreme authority’.

    It is in Quran – His Chair spreads over the Heavens and the Earth. (Al-Baqra – 255).

    Chairs, tables etc., are used by human beings. We cannot associate these attributes with Allah (SWT). He is pure from all such considerations. If we take literal meaning of the word ‘Chair’ in this verse, then, we will have to deny many Quranic verses that emphatically negate ascribing human attributes to Allah (SWT). Therefore, the meaning of this verse will be ‘His authority spreads over the heavens and Earth’.

    (O’Prophet –SAWS) ‘You did not throw, when you threw, but Allah (SWT) has thrown. (Infe’al – 17).

    Throwing, catching, etc., are human attributes. We cannot impose these attributes on Allah (SWT). The purport of the verse is to emphasize that ‘ (O’Prophet) when you threw handful of sand towards enemy’s armed forces, you did it on My (Allah’s -SWT) behest’. The purport of this verse is to emphasize that ‘this is exactly what Allah (SWT) wanted you to do.

    Certainly, those who are doing ‘the promise of allegiance’ ( ba’ya ) to you, O’ Prophet (SAWS), they are actually doing the promise of allegiance to Allah (SWT). Allah’s (SWT) hand is upon their hand. (Al-Fath – 10).

    Hands, eyes, ears, etc., are the attributes of human beings and creatures. We cannot associate these attributes with Allah (SWT). He is pure from all such considerations. If we take literal meaning of the word ‘hand’ in this verse, then, we will have to deny many Quranic verses. The purport of the verse is to emphasize that when you (O’Prophet –SAWS) were taking ‘ ba’ya ’ from people, you did that ‘on My (Allah’s -SWT) behest. ‘This is exactly what Allah (SWT) wanted you to do on that occasion’.

    It is in Quran – “But construct an Ark under Our eyes, as we reveal and address Me no (further) on behalf of those who are in sin; for they are about to be overwhelmed (in the flood). (Houd – 37).

    Hands, eyes, ears, etc., are the attributes of human beings and creatures. We cannot associate these attributes with Allah (SWT). He is pure from all such considerations. If we take literal meaning of the word ‘hand’ in this verse, then, we will have to deny many other Quranic verses which negate any form, face and limb for Allah (SWT). The purport of the verse is to emphasize to Prophet Noah (AS) to continue constructing the Ark and Allah (SWT) is watching you doing that. Allah (SWT) is commanding Prophet Noah (AS) to concentrate in his work rather than praying for those who do not deserve to be saved.

    Let us see this verse of Quran. “Fa ainama tuwallu fathamma Wajhullahi (Al-Baqra 115).

    The literal meaning of this verse is ‘wherever you turn, you will find the face of Allah (SWT). We know Allah (SWT) is free from the limitations of face, form, body, place and direction. Therefore, we understand the meaning of this verse as ‘Wherever you turn, you will find Allah (SWT).

    It is in Quran – ‘When you read Quran, seek protection of Allah (SWT) from the evil Satan’ (An-Nahl – 98).

    How do we seek this protection? We say “Auzubillahi Minish Shaitanir Rajeem” ( I take refuge of Allah –SWT from the reprobated and reproached Satan). Then we start reading Quran by saying “ Bismillahir Rahmanir Rahim” ( In the name of Allah –SWT who is most compassionate and most merciful). Why do we do that? We do it to keep ourselves protected from the evil considerations of Satan which mislead us in our understanding of Quran and Hadith.

    May Almighty Allah guide us along the path of SIRATWAL MUSTAQEEM and not on the path of Kharizis. (I sincerely thank LET US CORRECT OUR ISLAMIC FAITH WEBSITE ; I collected most of the informations from this beautiful website.)

  6. Muslim
    May 29, 2011 at 17:04

    these “salafies” really need to read the work of the Hanbali scholar Ibn Al Jawzi. Daf’u Shuba Al Tashbeeh. A serious slap in their faces!! it has also been transalated into English. These guys are just an EXTREME group within the salafiyah. they give the impression through thier propaganda that Deobandis are Kaafirs! ALLAHU AKBAR! look at how their own scholars have praised the Deobandis and not only that they have even visited the main institute in India. scholars like Shaykh Sudais, Shaykh Aaidh Al Qarni e.t.c The student of Shaykh Salih Uthaymeen comes regulary for the Maqras which takes place with the scholars of the Deobandi tradition. Shaykh Salih Uthaymeen also praised the work of Tableegh something which they fail to mention. The work is flourishing across the world even in Saudi, many Jamaats have come from there to England and also to Leicester from Makkah. They never mention the Hanafis residing in Saudi the likes of Shaykh Muhammad Awwamah and also the scholars in Al Ahsaa.
    They never tell their followers of the works in Arabic by the scholars of the Deobandi tradition. Works like Awjazul Masalik (commentry of the Muatta By Shaykh Zakariyya Kandehlawi) Badl Majhood (commentry of Sunan Abu Daud by Shaykh Kaleel Ahmad) Fathul Mulhim (commentry of Sahih Muslim by Shaykh Shabeer Ahmad Uthmani and Shaykh Muhammad Taqi) and numerous other works especially by the great Shaykh Muhammad Anwar Shah Al Kashmeeri. check this thread out for more info on the great works by the scholars of the Deobandi tradition

    http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?38681-Praise-of-the-scholarship-of-Deoband-from-scholars-around-the-world

    They criticize the Deobandis for their opinions on Hayatun Nabi when the great Imam Suyuti has accepted it and given proofs in his Fatawa. They will be ready criticize a scholar at the level of Imam Suyuti, Allahu Akbar! Look at his works in all the diffrent sciences like Mustalah, Hadeeth, Tafsir e.t.c outstanding works!

    • Abu Uthmaan
      February 12, 2012 at 11:42

      SubhanAllah ! This Abul Kalam Azad has copied an entire book on to here. Why didn’t he just send the link?
      First go and check your own deobandi deviant Aqeedah and then comment on Ibn Taymiyyahs. Check out the tons of scholars who have praised Inn Taymiyyah, are they all Kafirs according to your statement ? Wake up now????

    • shen
      May 23, 2012 at 00:02

      while i don’t agree with everything you said, like Ibn al-Jawzi being a referance point for aqeedah in the hanbali madhab – becuase he clearly should not be taken as such.

      You are correct in stating these salafees you have in Leicester are upon false methodology. The shaikhs in Saudi Arabia while not in complete agreement with Deoband, are not as harsh in general against the general muslims. These salafees in Leicester are a fringe extremist movement following in the footsteps of a few selected extremist shaykhs that must be referred to according to them – these shaykhs are the ones who like to refute genral people and this is why their followers in leicester are like this – the strange thing is these shaykhs they follow like al-madkhali and hajoori and jabiree are all refuting each other back in arabia. And in places like birmingham these salafees fight more with each other than with their “shirki” enemies.

  7. shen
    May 22, 2012 at 23:56

    I have to say that posting against Ibn Taymiyyah – may Allah have mercy upon him – is disgusting and full of lies, and I only read the first few paragraphs. The issue of Ibn Batuta and his so called testiomony or witnessing of Ibn taymiyya descending the pulpit after giving a sermon and saying the decending is how Allah descends is false on so many levels.

    For a start Ibn Batuta book was not even penned by him, he narrated everything back about his travels which over decades from memory

    The year he was supposed to have seen him give the sermon Ibn Taymiyyah was in Prison

    Ibn Taymiyyah has a specific fatwa which has been published in book form where he goes into detail answering the question of Nuzool. This book clearly shows Ibn Taymiyyah stance on this issue and it completely falsifes what his enemies have claimed

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: