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

Before reading the below, note that Fakħruddiin Ar-Raaziyy said :

The evidence shows that the one who says that Aļļaah is a body has denied Aļļaah’s existence. The reason is that the God of the World exists, and is not a body or positioned in a body. Therefore, if the one who says that Aļļaah is a body denies this existence (without a body) then he has denied Aļļaah’s existence. It is correct to say then, that the one who says that Aļļaah is a body does not believe in Allah1. (Mafaatiiĥ Al-Għayb, 16/24)

Similarly, Al-Qurţubiyy in his commentary in the Qur’aan narrates from his Sħaykħ Ibn Al-ˆArabiyy regarding the those who say Aļļaah has a body:

The sound verdict is that they are blasphemers, because there is no difference between them and those that worship idols and pictures2. (Tafsiir Al-Qurţubiyy, 4/14)

In light of this, to know the reality of the one the Wahabi sect calls "Sħaykħ of Islaam," read the following.

Ibn Taymiyyah says Aļļaah is divisible

In Ibn Taymiyyah’s book Bayaan Talbiis Al-Jahmiyyah3:

[Fakħruddiin Ar-Raaziyy says,] if He (Aļļaah) was divisible, then He would be composed (i.e. and therefore attributed with multitude of parts) which contradicts oneness and we have already showed that this is an invalid claim….

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

Take note of what he is saying. He is saying that if something is not divisible in some sense, then it cannot exist, even Aļļaah. He is affirming his belief that Aļļaah is indeed divisible.

Ibn Taymiyyah says Aļļaah has composition, settles in a place, has different sides/parts, and needs

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

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

Based on this incredibly ugly statement, it is no wonder then, that a number of scholars, as mentioned by TaqiyyudDiin Al-Ĥuşniyy, said that Ibn Taymiyyah was "an absolute kaafir." It is no wonder also that ˆAlaa’udDiin Al-Bukħaariyy in fury uttered, "whomsoever calls him Sħaykħ of Islam is himself a kaafir." That is, those who know about his blasphemous beliefs, as being uttered by him, or believe that he died on such beliefs without repenting.

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

Ibn Taymiyyah said:

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

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

Ibn Taymiyyah said Aļļaah has a size

Ibn Taymiyyah said:

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

In other words, he is of the opinion that everything that exists, including the Creator, must have a size. According to Ibn Taymiyyah then, Aļļaah has a size limited by 6 limits.

Ibn Taymiyyah said that Aļļaah’s acts of creating come into existence in Him

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

An-Nasafiyy said:

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

He also said about them:

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

Ibn Taymiyyah, in contrast to this, said:

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

In other words, according to Ibn Taymiyyah, acts of creating come into existence in Aļļaah Himself, after non-existence. This is a blasphemous belief, as mentioned above.

Ibn Taymiyyah said that creation is eternal, and that Aļļaah has no choice, but to create something

Based on his idea that Aļļaah’s actions have a beginning, Ibn Taymiyyah argues that Aļļaah has always been doing one act after another (i.e. creating) without a beginning. He says:

It is a necessity of Aļļaah’s self to act, but not an act in particular, and not having something done in particular, so there is no eternal object in the world, and He is not eternally a complete influencer for anything (to exist) in the world, but He has in beginningless eternity always been a complete influencer for something (to exist), one after another… (Aş-Şafadiyyah, 2/97)7

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

Aş-Şafadiyyah. Aĥmad Ibn Taymiyyah (728 AH) Al-Ĥarraaniyy. Egypt: Maktabah Ibn Taymiyyah, 1406.

Bayaan Talbiis Al-Jahmiyyah. —. Makkah: Maţbaˆah Al-Ĥukuumah, 1392.

Fatĥu-l-Baarii Sħarĥu Şaĥiiĥi-l-Bukħaariyy. Ibn Ĥajar Al-ˆAsqalaaniyy. Beirut, Lebanon: Dar Al-Marefah, 1379.

Jaamiˆu Aĥkaami-l-Qur’aan. Al-Qurţubiyy (671 AH), Sħasuddiin. Ed. Hisħaam Samiir Al-Bukħaariyy. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Daar ˆaalam Al-Kutub, 1423.

Mafaatiiĥ Al-Għayb. FakħrudDiin Al-Raaziy. Beirut, Lebanon: Dar Al-Kotob Al-ilmiyah, 1421.

Naqd Maraatibi-l-‘Ijmaaˆ. Aĥmad Ibn Taymiyyah (728 AH) Al-Ĥarraaniyy. Beirut, Lebanon: Daar Ibn Ĥazm, 1419.

Tabşiratu-l-Adillah. Abu-l-Muˆiin An-Nasafiyy. Ed. Dr. Hüseyin Atay. Turkey: Riʼāsat al-Shuʻūn al-Dīnīyah lil-Jumhūrīyah al-Turkīyah, 1993.

الصفدية. أحمد عبد الحليم بن تيمية الحراني (728). مصر: مكتية ابن تيمية, 1406.

بيان تلبيس الجهمية في تأسيس بدعهم الكلامية. —. Ed. محمد بن عبد الرحمن بن قاسم. مكة المكرمة: مطبعة الحكومة, 1392.

فتح الباري شرح صحيح البخاري. أحمد بن علي بن حجر أبو الفضل العسقلاني الشافعي 852 هـ. بيروت, لبنان: دار المعرفة, 1379.

نقد مراتب الإجماع. أحمد عبد الحليم بن تيمية الحراني (728). بيروت, لبنان: دار ابن حزم, 1998.

1 يقول الرازي: الدليل دل على أن من قال إن الإله جسم فهو منكر للإله تعالى وذلك لأن إله العالم موجود ليس بجسم ولا حال في الجسم فإذا أنكر المجسم هذا الموجود فقد أنكر ذات الإله تعالى فالخلاف بين المجسم والموحد ليس في الصفة بل في الذات فصح في المجسم أنه لا يؤمن بالله (مفاتيح الغيب ـ ترقيم الشاملة موافق للمطبوع – 16 / 24)

2يقول القرطبي: الصحيح القول بتكفيرهم ، إذ لا فرق بينهم وبين عباد الأصنام والصور (تفسير القرطبي – 4 / 14)

3قال 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).

4قال 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).

5قال 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).

6قال 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)”

7قال 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.

8قال 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)”

9قَالَ شَيْخنَا فِي شَرْح التِّرْمِذِيّ : الصَّحِيح فِي تَكْفِير مُنْكِر الْإِجْمَاع تَقْيِيدُهُ بِإِنْكَارِ مَا يُعْلَم وُجُوبُهُ مِنْ الدِّين بِالضَّرُورَةِ كَالصَّلَوَاتِ الْخَمْس ، وَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ عَبَّرَ بِإِنْكَارِ مَا عُلِمَ وُجُوبه بِالتَّوَاتُرِ وَمِنْهُ الْقَوْل بِحُدُوثِ الْعَالَمِ ، وَقَدْ حَكَى عِيَاض وَغَيْره الْإِجْمَاع عَلَى تَكْفِير مَنْ يَقُول بِقِدَمِ الْعَالَم ، وَقَالَ اِبْن دَقِيق الْعِيد : وَقَعَ هُنَا مَنْ يَدَّعِي الْحِذْق فِي الْمَعْقُولَات وَيَمِيل إِلَى الْفَلْسَفَة فَظَنَّ أَنَّ الْمُخَالِف فِي حُدُوث الْعَالَم لَا يُكَفَّر لِأَنَّهُ مِنْ قَبِيل مُخَالَفَة الْإِجْمَاع ، وَتَمَسَّكَ بِقَوْلِنَا إِنَّ مُنْكِر الْإِجْمَاع لَا يُكَفَّر عَلَى الْإِطْلَاق حَتَّى يَثْبُتَ النَّقْلُ بِذَلِكَ مُتَوَاتِرًا عَنْ صَاحِب الشَّرْع ، قَالَ وَهُوَ تَمَسُّكٌ سَاقِط إِمَّا عَنْ عَمًى فِي الْبَصِيرَة أَوْ تَعَامٍ لِأَنَّ حُدُوث الْعَالَم مِنْ قَبِيل مَا اِجْتَمَعَ فِيهِ الْإِجْمَاع وَالتَّوَاتُر بِالنَّقْلِ (فتح الباري - العسقلاني, 12/202).

About these ads

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

  1. daud says:

    assalaamu alaikum

    In what sense did ibn taymiyya afiirm divisibility ? It seems ibn taymiyya negated separataion.

  2. Ahmad-Qadri says:

    Salam Alaikum Sheikh,

    Imam Taqi ud Din Subki rahimahullah said about ibn taymiya that “his knowledge exceeded his intelligence”.

    In other words, ibn taymiya was a mental handicap and a retard, according to this quote. He might have had a lot of knowledge, but as the words of the Quran say, “kamathalil himaari yahmilu asfaara”

    We all know that Islam is a religion that agrees with the sound mind. kufr simply can’t agree with the sound mind.

    My question is this: Where does one draw the line between calling someone “not of sound mind, but not kafir” and calling him kafir?

    At a core essence of it, all kafirs are of unsound mind, but are *all* non-Sunnis of unsound minds kafirs?

    Of these wahabis

    1) some of them actually affirm location and bodily attributes to Allah and do so emphatically and blatantly

    2) some of them say “I believe in everything literally and negate similitude to creation”… which is a classic case of being mentally challenged… no sane person will believe 2 opposites to be true at the same time…

    3) some of the less hard core ones of them actually perform tafwid in matters of mutashabihat without knowing it, but since they are systematically taught arrogance by their elders, they won’t realise/say it

    4) some of them sometimes might side with the truth for a bit when cornered in an argument with a Sunni but then realise that their arrogance does not permit them to accept the truth, and then go back to any one of the above 3 positions

    So do we make a uniform, blanket statement, that they’re all figure-worshipers?

    Jazak Allah khayr

    • The figure worshipers among them are the ones that believe Allaah is something that can be pointed at. Those are kuffar by consensus, because they have likened Allaah to creation. Aţ-Ţaĥaawiyy stated {in brackets}: {This is a detailed remembrance of the belief of the People of the Sunnah and following {the Jamaaˆah}. Later he stated, as part of this remembrance,{Aļļaah 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}. He also agreed that believing that anything else is an insult to Islam, for he said in the same remembrance: {Whoever attributed to Aļļaah an attribute that has a meaning among the meanings that apply to humans has committed blasphemy.} Note that he said this after having already pointed out that the six directions apply to all created things, which includes humans. In other words, the Sunni belief is that attributing a limit to Aļļaah makes one a non-Muslim.

      Those that do not believe that, but use the word “jism without a how (modality)” or “jihah without a how (modality)” have transgressed against Allaah in terms of word use, but not meaning. This is because they claim to mean by these phrases that Allaah exists, not that He is something with size or shape, or that He is something that can actually be pointed at. These are also called mujassimah or jihawiyyah, but there is a difference of opinion on whether they have committed kufr by such word use for a correct meaning (such as existence.) Sometimes certain word use can be kufr, no matter what meaning one intends. For example, it is blasphemy to say that Aļļaah has a son, even as a figure of speech. Aļļaah said:
      “وَقَالَتِ الْيَهُودُ عُزَيْرٌ ابْنُ اللَّهِ وَقَالَتِ النَّصَارَى الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ اللَّهِ ذَلِكَ قَوْلُهُمْ بِأَفْوَاهِهِمْ يُضَاهِئُونَ قَوْلَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِنْ قَبْلُ قَاتَلَهُمُ اللَّهُ أَنَّى يُؤْفَكُونَ”
      Meaning: “The Jews said: “ˆUzayr is the son of God,” and the Christians said: “the Messiah is the son of God.” This is what they say by their tongues. Their saying is like that of those who blasphemed anciently. Aļļaah has cursed them, how extreme they are in their lies!” (At-Tawbah, 30)

      It is clear from this Quranic statement that the judgment of blasphemy is absolute for the person who merely says that Aļļaah has a son, regardless of his intention or actual belief. So if someone said, “Allaah has a son, but not like creation has offspring, and we only mean that this person we call His son has a very high rank,” he is definitely a kaafir for using the word “son”, even though the meaning he claims to mean is sound.

      It is stated it is stated in Al-Fatāwā Al-Hindīyah, which is a reliable book for fatwā in the Hanafīy school: “If someone said: “Allāh fīy Al-Samā,” (literally “in the Sky”) then: if he intended simply to imitate what is mentioned in apparent scriptures, then he has not blasphemed; if he meant by it the (sky as a) place then he has blasphemed; and if (he said to the judge in court that) he did not intend any particular meaning, then he has blasphemed according to most, and this is the soundest opinion, and it is the chosen fatwā.” (2/259).

  3. Abu Abdillah says:

    Assalaamu ‘Alaikoem wa Rahmatullah dear Shaykh,

    I also wonder what Ibn Taymiyyah meant with these words because the Salafi’s are trying to portray it different.

    For example Abu Rumaysah who pasted this in his article;

    And from them: Shaykh al-Islaam mentions the intended meaning of ascribing Allaah with the term jism, by saying: ‘whosoever alleges that the Lord is a jism – with the meaning that he accepts division, separation and partition (for Allaah) – then he is the most disbelieving of people and the most ignorant. Indeed, his statement is more evil than the one who says that Allaah has a son – with them meaning that a part of Him split and thus became His son.’” [ ‘al-Asaalah’ magazine (no.4 pp.54-55), see also his ‘Rudood wat Ta’qubaat’ (pp 21-23) ]

    This quote is quite widespread but I couldn’t find this text in the sources which are been stated maybe you know more about this Shaykh, if it’s true or not ?

    JazakAllah Khayra

  4. Mutakallim says:

    One of the heads of the wahhabis in American named Dawud Adeeb is known for pointing upward while claiming “that he does so because God is up there”.

  5. Note that some of the wahabi’s are making a big deal out of where to put the quotation marks in this quote:

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

    If you take a look and think about it, it makes no difference at all as to what Ibn Taymiyyah’s opinion is.

  6. Abu Abdillah says:

    Assalaamu ‘Alaikoem wa Rahmatullah Shaykh,

    I read the article masha Allah very nice didn’t saw it earlier. As far as I understand is that Ibn Taymiyyah says Allah has parts, is divisible BUT!… 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.

    So what he simply says is that Allah has parts which are united not divided ? Allah is Exalted and Above of such beliefs.

  7. daud says:

    assalaamu alaikum

    while affirming size for Allah, was taymiyya also affirming that Allah’s size increases & decreases. ?

  8. daud says:

    what about the statement already quoted regarding size ?

    Doesn’t the quote also consider – not increasing nor decreasing but still existing – impossible ?

  9. Mutakallim says:

    I stumbled upon the wahhabi site which has been set up to attack you and Ahlus-Sunnah. One of the issues he presents is a Al-Qurtubiyys tafsir of the 54 ayah of Surat Al-A^raaf. While it Al-Qurtubiyy’s position regarding tanzih is very clear to anyone to reads his entire Tafsir, what is the proper understanding of his commentary of this specific ayah?

  10. Ahmad-Qadri says:

    Mutakallim, mate, that place is a verbal junkyard! Seriously, the more you see it, the more you believe that these people are indeed mentally challenged. I bet you, THEIR OWN people will not be able to understand or explain what is said on that website. It takes a very unique combination of arrogance, stupidity and jahalah to be a true wahabi.

  11. FAHEEM says:

    WHAT IS YOUR OPINION ABOUT MAULANA RASHID AHMAD GANGOHI,ASHRAF ALI THANVI ETC THANKS

  12. tru_quran says:

    As salamu ‘alaykum Shaykh,

    I was looking for the ‘mosquito’ thread but couldn’t find it.

    My question

    Is it possible that Ibn Taymiyyah and al-Darimi could have made the statement about the mosquito based from this ayah from the Qur’an..

    “If Allah had willed to take a son, He would have chosen whatever He pleased from what He has created. Glory be to Him ! He is God, the One, the Irresistible.” [ 39:4 ] ?

    jazak’Allaahu khairan

    • No, because the context tells us those two meant such sitting is possible, and not absurd, and they were arguing for it. The Aayah, however, has a context which tells us that the “if” here is not meant to imply that it is possible that Allaah could have a child. Rather, it is meant in the sense of “if you were right, then your claim would still be wrong, because so and so.”

  13. Abraham says:

    “it is not a necessity for Aļļaah to act, i.e create, anything at all. This is because Aļļaah is perfect, and therefore does not need to do anything.”

    1- “not a necessity for Aļļaah”
    2- ” does not need to do anything”

    who said this ????
    does this even exist in Quran or Hadiths ???

    these are the author’s own text !!!!

    • Aļļaah said:

      فَإِنَّ ٱلله غَنِيٌّ عَنِ ٱلْعَٰلَمِينَ
      Meaning: Verily Aļļaah has absolutely no need for the worlds. (Aal Imraan, 97)

      This means that Allaah is not compelled to create anything and has no needs.

      • Abraham says:

        THIS IS A CONCLUSION THAT YOU HAVE DRAWN YOURSELF FROM THE TEXT!!!!

        the word “compelling” even exist in Quran:

        1- وَلَوْلَا كَلِمَةٌ سَبَقَتْ مِن رَّبِّكَ لَكَانَ لِزَامًا وَأَجَلٌ مُّسَمًّى
        2- قُلْ مَا يَعْبَأُ بِكُمْ رَبِّي لَوْلَا دُعَاؤُكُمْ ۖ فَقَدْ كَذَّبْتُمْ فَسَوْفَ يَكُونُ لِزَامًا

        so the punishment HAS TO BE created.

        Don’t explain the text the way it suits you !!!! you should have stopped after writing “Meaning: Verily Aļļaah has absolutely no need for the worlds.”

      • And it seems you yourself has drawn other conclusions. You were now faced with one aayah which clearly states that Allaah does not need the worlds. Then you saw other aayahs which tell us that punishment must happen. So you decided that the first aayah is not absolute in meaning, but has the exception that, according to you, Allaah needs the world in order to punish. This is your way of dealing with the situation. Muslims on the other hand will hold on to the absolute meaning of Allaah not needing the world, and that the aayah’s you mention do not modify this absolute meaning. They will hold on to this without delving, because they understand that it cannot be said that Allaah has needs or obligations. By nature they will reject it, even if they cannot give a full and detailed explanation for why there is no contradiction between saying that the Creator has no needs, and that there will be punishment for some in the Hereafter. This is the simple and sound way of dealing with it. However, anthropomorphists like you will think they have found a goldmine for their kufr and insist that there is a contradiction to promote their ideas. When their sick hearts permit them to say such ugly things, then there is no argument that will help most of the time. However, I am going to tell you why there is no contradiction in the hope that some people who are confused may benefit.

        First of all, Jezreel is changing the topic from what Ibn Taymiyyah is talking about because he does not understand these issues. Ibn Taymiyyah is saying that Allaah must create the world in order to be perfect. He is saying that the world is eternally with Allaah and that Allaah MUST create it and does not have a choice at all. This is a complete contradiction of the statement that Allaah does not need the worlds, because it implies without question that Allaah cannot be perfect without creating it. This is one of the plain kufr beliefs of Ibn Taymiyyah.

        The argument presented by the Muˆtazilah, who’s position jezreel has taken (probably without knowing that) is a different issue. It is the deviant claim that Allaah is obligated to fulfill His threats and promises. The truth about this matter is that what Allaah has told us will happen MUST happen, but without this being an obligation for Him. This issue has been dealt with extensively on this site and articles related to this issue can be found under the heading “On the deviant belief that it is possible that Aļļaah could lie” in the table of contents. The key to this issue is to understand that Allaah is not like His creation, so He is not in time and does not change from state to state. Time is part of creation, because it is a measure of sequential changes, i.e. beginnings after beginnings, and Allaah has no beginning in any sense, because He is not created. In other words, He does not pass from a stage of saying something, and then doing something, or any other change. So there is not stage of promising followed by a stage of fulfilling. His Speech is without any beginning or end, i.e. without starting or stopping or change, as is true of all of His attributes. Accordingly, there is no stage of obligation. This issue also has a lot of previous articles that can be found under the heading “Related to the deviant belief that Allah changes, and is attributed with events (any thing that has a beginning) and being in time” in the table of contents.

  14. Abraham says:

    all sinks into fabricated allegations and lies against Ibn-Taymiyah and me.

    ALL your arguments are based up the notion of “according to” and what comes after this expression is simply a formulation of YOUR OWN words!!!

    The texts above show how many times you use this notion and what exactly it is projecting .. it is a REFLECTION of your own theology into your own written paragraphs.

    • This is an empty claim and quite puzzling. I have quoted Ibn Taymiyyah in English and posted the Arabic wording. It is actually quite clear, even if some of them need a little after thought. The quotes are hand picked for being quite unequivocal. You fail to even point out a single mistake in translation or interpretation. Take, for example, Ibn Taymiyyah’s statement:

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

      This statement unequivocally states that Allaah must be attributed with composition, settling in place, etc. This has nothing to do with what I believe. It is Ibn Tayimiyyah who says this. Where is the fabrication?

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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 110 other followers

%d bloggers like this: