ˆAliyy Al-Qaariy said:
in the book Sħarĥu-sħ-Sħamaa’il of Ibn Ĥajar, he states: “Ibn Al-Qayyim said that his sħaykħ Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned something superb, which is that when he saw his Lord putting his hand between his shoulders, then that place was honored with a “ˆadħbah”. Al-ˆIraaqiyy (the sħaykħ of Al-ˆAsqalaaniyy) said, “I did not find a basis for this statement,” i.e. any ĥadiitħ.” Then Ibn Ĥajar said, “Rather, this statement is from their opinion and their deviance, because it is based on what they concluded and went to great lengths to prove, and attacked Ahlu-s-Sunnah for denying, namely the belief that Aļļaah has a direction and body. They have ugly statements and bad beliefs in this regard that make ears go deaf and are judged as lies and calumnies. May Aļļaah make them both ugly, and anyone that accepts their saying.” (Mirqaatu-l-Mafaatiiĥ 8/216)
–ˆAliy Al-Qaariy. Mirqaatu-l-Mafaatiiĥ. 11 vols. Beirut, Lebanon: Dar Al-Kotob Al-ilmiyah, 2001.
مرقاة المفاتيح ج8/ص216
وفي شرح الشمائل لابن حجر قال ابن القيم عن شيخه ابن تيمية أنه ذكر شيئاً بديعاً وهو أنه لما رأى ربه واضعاً يده بين كتفيه أكرم ذلك الموضع بالعذبة قال العراقي لم نجد لذلك أصلاً يعني من السنة وقال ابن حجر بل هذا من قبل رأيهما وضلالهما إذ هو مبني على ما ذهبا إليه وأطالا في الاستدلال له والحط على أهل السنة في نفيهم له وهو إثبات الجهة والجسمية لله تعالى ولهما في هذا المقام من القبائح وسوء الاعتقاد ما تصم عنه الآذان ويقضي عليه بالزور والبهتان قبحهما الله وقبح من قال بقولهما
excellent quote sayyidi!
is the book sharh al-sha’il in print?
I have no idea, sorry.
Why don’t you also quote Ali Qari’s immense praise of Ibn Taymiyyah and his rebuttal of ibn Hajr, which he mentions straight after this statement?
It might also be beneficial to clarify that by ibn Hajr here, is meant al-Haytami, not al-Asqalani.
There is no need, because the purpose is to mention what one scholar said. If someone quotes a scholar, does he have to quote all others also? Aliyy Al-Qaariyy statement is based on his assertion that they were not anthropomorphists. I believe they were, and that his assertion is wrong, for their books are full of it, and they were both accused of it in their lifetimes. It is very unlikely that all of it are perversions or that they repented. Even Ibn Batutah in his travels mentions that Ibn Taymiyyah “had a flaw in his mind” and that he once climbed down the minbar and said, “Aļļaah descended like this descent of mine.” More importantly, their followers believe they were, and think that Aļļaah is basically a human being but really powerful, and that’s what makes it important to highlight that this is unacceptable.
At the end of the day, whether they were or not, their books are full of anthropomorphism and attacks on those who believe that Aļļaah does not resemble his creation, and people do not know any other Ibn Taymiyyah or Ibn Al-Qayyim than that, and this is the Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Al-Qayyim I am dealing with. If someone feels the horrendous statements attributed to them in their books are all perversion, or that they honestly repented in the end and became sunnis, is a historical debate and is not very interesting with regards to the Islamic belief. It is not in their favor that the rulers finally decided to keep them in jail, because every time they were punished for one bad saying they would keep saying it after pretending to repent, or make up something else. The promotion of these two as trustworthy scholars today only aims to promote the bad beliefs that are fought for in their books. Why would one promote these two, when many scholars said they are not even muslims?
Yes, it is Al-Haytamiyy most likely.
By you quoting Ali Qari as the source of al-Haytami’s statements, you give the reader the impression that he agrees with this.
This causes people like Faqir to post threads of this sort:
which then backfire when a Wahhabi shows that the wrong impression was created and Ali Qari mentioned the statement to refute it!
It would have been much more beneficial to simply find out if Sharh Shamail of al-Haytami is published – which it is- then quote it directly after finding the quote in it.
And if I did that they can go to Al-Qaariy and show his disagreement. The main purpose of the quote is to serve as a footnote for the previous post, not to start a historical debate. In any case, the Wahabis believe that they were anthropomorphists, which affirms the quote of Ibn Ĥajar. What Al-Qaariyy does, however, is to say that they were not. I.e. he is only saying that he thinks they were not believers in Aļļaah having a direction or bodily attributes. I think the Wahabis then, would disagree with both scholars.
This should settle any remaining concerns:
Really it’s amazing that people still feel comfortable living in the past, these accusations are simply false, no doubt Imam Ibn Taymiyya (raheemahullah) was a human being, prone to make errors, but this has gone far enough!
Dr Sa’eed Ramadaan al-Bootee said:
…and we are amazed when we see the extremists declaring Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy upon him, of being an unbeliever. And also at them saying that he was one who held Allah to be a body (mujassid), and i have studied long and hard as to where i could find a statement or a word from ibn Taymiyyah that
he wrote or said which would indicate his holding Allah to be a body as was quoted from him by as-Subki and others, and i have not found anything from him like this. All i found was him saying in his legal rulings, ‘Indeed Allah has a Hand as He said, and has risen over the Throne as He said, and He has an Eye as He Said’…
I referred to the last work written by Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’aree, “al-Ibaanah”, and i found him saying exactly what ibn Taymiyya said (on the issue of the Names and Attributes of Allah)…
Al-Bootee, Nadwa Ittjaahaat al-Fiqr al-Islaamee, pp? 264-265
Adh-Dhahabee wrote to (Taqiyuddeen) Subkee cencuring him for his words on Ibn Taymiyyah, and wanting from him the rights of Ibn Taymiyya,
so he (Subkee) replied to him and from the reply…
“As for what you say with regards to the Shaykh, Taqiyyudeen (Ibn Taymiyyah), then i am convinced of the great scope, the ocean like vastness of his knowledge of transmitted and intellectual sciences, his extreme intelligence, his ijtihaad and his
and his achievements in that which surpasses description. I have always held this opinion and personally, his status in my eyes is greater and more esteemed for his asceticim (Zuhuudah), piety (wara’a), religiousity (deeyaanah), his aiding of the truth and remaining firm upon it for the sake of Allah alone, his adherence to the path of the Salaf and his great dependence upon it and use of it, his strangess in these times, in fact in any time…
[ad-Durur al-Kamina pp. 159-160 (Hyderabad print)]
This is an exxoneration of the The Shaykh, Ibn Taymiyya, not to those who have idolized him!
Indeed, i disagree with some people of the Salafi movement for their sectariansm, not their methodology!
Aren’t we being insulted if certain misguided Muslims resort to Terrorism, and the Kuffaar then not holding them responsible, but rather blaming Prophet Muhammad (sallahu ‘aleyhi wasallam)???
Now, even if scholars make mistakes, whether big or small, does this mean we overlook their contributions, and focus on their mistakes??
If a scholars performs Ijtihaad, he will be rewarded twice, but if he errs, he will still get a reward for his intention, and this is how our attitude towards the ‘Ulemaa should be!!
In the Islamic religion it is an obligation to prevent sins and promote good. Part of this involves warning against deviants who spread bad beliefs. Ibn Taymiyyah, or his books, are one of the major sources of deviance in these days. His books are full of attacks on the Islamic Belief system, promoting the belief that the world has no beginning, and the belief that Allaah is something physical, sitting on the ˆArsh.
As for Al-Bootee, I don’t know what to say except that he must have looked in the wrong books. Finding plain statements of tajsiim in Ibn Taymiyyah’s books is not very difficult. As for As-Subkiyy’s comment, this comment is very different from other narrations from him regarding Ibn Taymiyyah, and if true, would be based on the belief that Ibn Taymiyyah did not actually believe what can be found in his books. Some scholars believe he repented from them, while others did not believe that he had said them in the first place. That is why the comments about Ibn Taymiyyah are so conflicting. Even a scholar like Al-Bulqiiniyy reportedly stated that he did not find anthopomorphism in Ibn Taymiyyah’s books. Yet Al-Bulqiiniyy, and the head of judges in Egypt had one of Ibn Taymiyyah’s followers beheaded for teaching the things that Ibn Taymiyyah is known for today. So he was not soft on anthropomorhists. Apparently then, he only found books that did not have it. Unlike today, where books ascribed to Ibn Taymiyyah and have plain anthropomorpist statements in them are many.
Your statement: If a scholars performs Ijtihaad, he will be rewarded twice, but if he errs, he will still get a reward for his intention, and this is how our attitude towards the ‘Ulemaa should be!!
Comment: This is only for Sunni scholars, and not in basics of the religion.
وثالثها أن لا تأويل ولا توقف بل المذكورات كلها صفات زائدة على الذات لا يعلم معناها من جميع الجهات وهو مختار إمامنا الأعظم وأحمد بن حنبل وأتباعه كابن تيمية وهو قول ابن خزيمة وغيرهم من أكابر الأمة من المحدثين ونسب إلى عامة السلف وقد وافقهم إمام أهل السنة أبو الحسن الأشعري في بعض الصفات
You can see from the quote of ‘Ali Al-Qari taken from Al-Radd al Qaiyleen be Wahdat Al Wajood page 105 that he mistook Ibn Taymiyya’s stance to be Tafwid of the meaning in regards to the ‘attribute verses’ when this was clearly not the case. This may explain his positive attitude towards him.