LET US CORRECT OUR ISLAMIC FAITH

دعونا نصحّح العقيدة الاسلامية

 

 

ابن تيمية معتقدات تجديف على الله سبحانه تعالى
 
 

  

We suggest our readers to read articles about facts of Allah (SWT) on our site (Click Here) before reading the information on this page for their easy understanding of the issues discussed below.

 


 

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).
 
 

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

 


Q - Why the scholars of Syria, Jordan etc., do not say Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahumullah) but the scholars of (i) Deoband, (ii)  Tabhlighee Jama'at, (iii) Jama'at-e-Islami, (iv) Ahle Hadith, (v) Jama'atut Da'wa, (vi) Jamiat-e-Ulama-e-Hind, (vii) Millat-e-Islamia, (viii) Tanzeem-e-Islami, (ix) Jama'atul Muslimeen, etc., and their famous scholars and preachers do say it?

Isn’t saying 'rahmatullah alai'  just a dua that may Allah have mercy on him?

 

Ans - 

  • If the people who say Ibn Taymiyyah rahimahumullah  also believe in what Ibn Taymiyyah believed about Allah (SWT), their fate may be decided by Allah (SWT) along with Ibn Taymiyyah on the Day of Judgment. 
  • Maybe the followers and scholars of the above groups do not know about Ibn Taymiyyah's anthropomorphism.  But this looks a remote possibility.
  • May be the followers and scholars of the above groups think that Ibn Taymiyyah repented for his beliefs before his death.  This is also a remote possibility because we do not find any evidence in Salafi and other groups' literature that Ibn Taymiyyah repented for his beliefs before death. As a matter of fact they vigorously propagate his blasphemous beliefs.
  • It is a good idea not to say rahimhumullah with his name in order to keep away oneself from the blasphemous beliefs of Ibn Taymiyyah. Allah (SWT) has told us in  Qur’an that a kaafir will not have any mercy in Hereafter, so asking Allah for mercy for a dead kaafir will amount to disbelieve in Qur’an, and in that case, the person who says Ibn Taymiyyah rahimahullah, will also become Kaafir. 
  • A number of the Imams of the Shafi'i school, among them Taqi al-Din Subki, Ibn Hajar Haytami and al-Izz ibn Jama'a, gave formal legal opinions (fatawa) that Ibn Taymiya was misguided and misguiding in tenets of faith, and warned people from accepting his theories. 
  • The Hanafi scholar Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari has written "Whoever thinks that all the scholars of his time joined in a single conspiracy against him from personal envy should rather impugn their own intelligence and understanding, after studying the repugnance of his deviations in beliefs and works, for which he was asked to repent time after time and moved from prison to prison until he passed on to what he had sent ahead."
  • In view of Ibn Taymiyyah's blasphemous beliefs, TaqiyyudDin Al-Ĥuşni, have given a fatwa that "Ibn  Taymiyyah was an absolute apostate (kaafir)."

  • The famous Islamic Scholar, Alaa’udDin Al-Bukħari said, whosoever calls Ibn Taymiyyah as Sħaykħul Islam,  is himself a Kaafir.  Similarly, one who says Ibn Taymiyyah rahimahumullah may also be treated as Kaafir on the Day of Judgment.
  • The Imām and the great scholar, the MuhaddithAbū Muhammad, Mahmūd Ibn Muhammad Ibn Ahmad Ibn Khattāb, Al-Subkī, Al-Azharī (died 1352 AH) the founder of the Association of Islamic Law in Egypt, the author of Al-Manhal Al-’Athb Al-Mawrūd Sharh Sunan Abī Dāwūd  has given a Fatwa in his book, “Ithaf Al-Kā’ināt bi-Bayān Mathhab Al-Salaf wa Al-Khalaf Fi Al-Mutashābihāt“  page 2, as follows.

 "Anyone who believes that Allāh settled in a place, or was in contact with it or anything else that has a beginning, such as the ‘Arsh  or the Kursīy, or the sky, or the earth, or anything else – he is an absolute blasphemer  without adoubt.   All his religious works are invalid, such as prayer, fasting and Hajj, and his wife is separated, and he must repent (by returning to Islam) immediately. If he dies with this belief, then he is not washed, not prayed for, and he is not buried in the graveyard of the Muslims. In addition, all those who believed that this belief is the truth, take this same judgment (are also Kaafir). May Allāh protect us from the evils of our selves and the liability of our bad deeds".

  • Some people believe that Ibn Taymiyyah repented before he died, which is not true.  We did not find any tangible evidence anywhere to support this claim.  

 

After reading the above facts one can conclude that the  scholars and followers of various Muslim sects whose beliefs are not in line with truthful Islamic believes run the risk of getting rejected by Allah(SWT) on the Day of Judgment.

 

 Further Reading - 41 more Articles

 

 The Founders of Salafism

Outrageous beliefs of Muslim Sects

 How Allah May view Salafis on the Day of Judgment

Different Muslim Sects

Prophet's warning to people

Ibn Taymiyya - A brief History

Ibn Taymiyya and Tajseem

Al-Kawthari on Ibn Taymiyya

Asqalani on Ibn Taymiyya

Muhammad Al-Ghazali (b.1917) on Ibn Taymiyya - 1

Muhammad Al-Ghazali (b.1917) on Ibn Taymiyya - 2.1

Muhammad Al-Ghazali (b.1917) on Ibn Taymiyya - (2.2)

Muhammad Al-Ghazali on Ibn Taymiyya - 3

Abu Haamed Ibn Marzooq on Ibn Taymiyya - 1

Abu Haamed Ibn Marzooq on Ibn Taymiyya - 2

Ibn Taymiyya's Confusions - 1

Ibn Taymiyya's Confusions - 2

Ibn Taymiyya's Confusions - 3

The Sources of Ibn Taymiyya's Ideas (Part -1)

The Sources of Ibn Taymiyya's Ideas (Part -2)

The Sources of Ibn Taymiyya's Ideas (Part - 3)

Ibn Taymiyya's Literal Representation of Allah's "Descent"

Ibn Taymiyya Compares Allah to the Moon

Inb Taymiyyah - Biography

Ibn Taymiyyah and Sufism

Ibn Jahbal on Ibn Taymiyyah

Missed Prayers and Ibn Taymiyyah

Ibn Taymiyyah with Hanbali Madhab

Imâm Ahmad's `Aqîda and Pseudo-H. anbal `Aqîda

Debate with Ibn Taymiyya: ON TASAWWUF Ibn Ata Allah al-Iskandari

Wahhabi's are the present-day Khawarij

Did the Wahhabis exist at the time of the Khulafa Rashideen

The Origins of Wahhabism.

The Fitnah of the Wahhabiyyah

The first Wahhabite mission.

The slaughter of Muslims in Ta'if.

Wahhabi persecutions in Makkah.

Who or what is a "Salafi?"

Confessions of a British Spy Who helped Wahhabis to take control of Arabian Peninsula

Fatwa on the Heresy of Wahhabism.

 

 

 

 

 Certain information in the article courtesy  Sunnianswers

 

السلام عليكم و رحمة الله و بركاته

Translate Website