Ibn Taymiyyah says Allaah needs, is divisible, and settles in a place

To know the pitiful state of the one the Wahabi sect calls “Sħaykħ of Islaam,” read the following from his book Bayaan Talbiis Al-Jahmiyyah1., in which he criticizes Fakħruddiin Ar-Raaziyy’s arguments against anthropomorphism:

[Fakħruddiin Ar-Raaziyy says,] “if He (Aļļaah) was divisible, then He would be composed (i.e. and therefore 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 (i.e. that Aļļaah should be divisible according to him), then this would mean nothing could exist….

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 that Aļļaah is indeed divisible.

[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.

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.” He was not entirely right about this, because some people might call him that, not knowing about his blasphemous beliefs, but in light of the above we can understand the circumstances of why he made this fatwa.


Bayaan Talbiis Al-Jahmiyyah, Aĥmad ibn Taymmiyyah, Maţbaˆah Al-Hukuumah, Mekka, 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

1قولك 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).


15 Responses to Ibn Taymiyyah says Allaah needs, is divisible, and settles in a place

  1. islamthought says:

    asalamu alaikum

    is the above arabic paragraph the actual citation of his words or is there more. Could the admin cquote the whole “argument” or can they tell me on which page it is

  2. It is a verbatim quote. It is the conclusion that is important in this case, not the argument. It is disbelief in Aļļaah’s absolute oneness, His non-resemblance to creation, and His Self-existence (not needing anything else, such as a place.) His belief is a strange mix between deviant beliefs of anthropomorphist Hanbalis and greeko pagan philosophy he picked up from Ibn Rushd. Soon I will present his mythological mosquito riding philosophy also, along with his minbar climbing demonstration of – according to him – Aļļaah’s nuzuul. Quite reminiscent of the chariot riding of the so called gods in Greek mythology. Just so people can know the filth this man believed. One of the great dangers of his belief that Aļļaah is physical, is that when you say a physical being can exist without a creator, then how would you you go about proving that other physical beings do need a creator?

  3. Ahmad-Qadri says:

    Salam Alaikum Sheikh,

    Various Subcontinental and Turkish Hanafi ulema call Ibn Taymiya as a misguided deviant and as a man “whose knowledge exceeded his intelligence” in the words of Imam Subki rahimahullah, as far as I know. They do not call him an outright kafir because of the various reports of his repentance.

    However they do refute the concepts attributed to him and DO call those concepts of tajsim and tashbih as kufr. I’m assuming the Arab Sunni ‘ulema would be of similar manhaj, other than those who call him kafir even in our times (as I know, the Ahbash).

    However, can you advice on the status of ibn Abdul Wahab as stated by the Sunni scholars of his time and our times. Was he considered a murtad by scholars of his era or just a deviant. I’ve heard of scholars calling him murtad. Also as I know, his son WAS executed as a murtad by the Ottomans.

    What about “Sunni” scholars calling wahabis as a part of Ahlus Sunnah because “they’re too huge in numbers and can’t be ignored”? A lot of people who say they are Ash’ari/Maturidi and follow a madhab, these days, believe in the appeasement of wahabis and indeed believe in joining hands with them. What about such people who believe in compromise with the wahabis?

  4. wa^alaykumussalaam,

    When I speak of Ibn Taymiyyah, I am speaking of the author of the books. That is why I use the word kaafir. For the author of those words committed kufr. I chose this approach as not to confuse people with historical details. Other than that, He died in jail for claiming it is ĥaraam to travel to visit the Prophet, and this is enough for takfiir by itself. It also shows that he continued his quest in destroying the islamic belief system, knowingly or unknowingly. It indicates that he continued to be a deviant innovator.

    I do not have a problem with those who think he repented, but I have a huge problem with those who praise him, knowing what is in his books. This misleads people to think that Ibn Taymiyyah’s words, as stated in his books, are valuable.

    As for compromise with the Wahabis, this is haram, to say the least, because our prophet commanded us to prevent what is forbidden, not the least deviance from the right path. It is forbidden to mix with them and be kind with them unless it is for a sound purpose. See also the blog heading for Al-Għazaaliyy’s words.

  5. islamthought says:

    Question to Shaykh Abu Adam

    1. Do you believe Allah has a “self” dhaat.

    2. Do you beleive that Allah Himself has no “limit”

  6. Mutakallim says:

    There is no credible evidence that Ahmad Ibn Taymiyah repented. All of the evidence points to him being a zindiq. That’s why the scholars decided to just keep him in jail because he continued to commit kufr over and over again.

  7. The question “Do you believe Allah has a “self” dhaat?” is silly. It is the same as asking “do you believe that Aļļaah exists?” I think it is pretty clear that I do.

    As for your question, “Do you believe that Allah Himself has no “limit”?” The answer is yes, He does not have a limit, because He is not created, and therefore not quantifiable. Whatever is quantifiable needs a creator to specify its quantity. I believe that He is the Creator of time and space and He is not in time and not in space. That is, He is not confined to a place and not in all places. He is not like His creation, and does not need a place or anything else to exist. Aţ-Ţaĥaawiyy said, “whomsoever attributes a meaning of the meanings that apply to humans to Aļļaah has committed blasphemy.” All creation as we know it is either something that occupies place, i.e. a body, or an attribute of a body, and it all has a beginning, so Aļļaah is not a body, does not have attributes like that of bodies, and He does not have a beginning and does not change, because these are meanings that apply to all humans. Aļļaah does not resemble anything, and He created everything.

  8. Ahmad-Qadri says:


    Factual accuracy or inaccuracy regarding his repentance or lack of it aside, the jail argument is really not very credible “logically” ‘coz once you present that to a wahabi, he seems to snap back at you with “Imams Abu Hanifa and Ahmad ibn Hanbal rahimahumullah also went to jail”.

  9. Mutakallim says:

    Ahmad Qadri,

    It is logical because Ibn Taymiyah was jailed by the fatwa of the scholars not but an unjust ruler. This is a huge difference. Abu Hanifah, Malikm Ahmad or any other scholar of Ahlus-Sunnah, they were not jailed, tortured or killed because they were misguiding people. Their situations were completely different.

  10. Ahmad-Qadri says:


    Brother, thats what YOU and I believe. However *to a wahabi*, he was jailed by the unjust and misguided for speaking the truth – which brings the argument on the same level platform – that of scholars (the great mujtahids in this case) being jailed for speaking the truth. Remember to his disciples, he is a scholar. Also remember here you are dealing not with people of sound reasoning, but rather with people who look for the flimsiest of excuses to justify their bid’ah.

    Not to mention, they’ve got ibn taymiya’s quotes from prison to supplement such an argument, which has quotes like:

    “What can my enemies possibly do to me? My paradise is in my heart; wherever I go it goes with me, insepa­rable from me. For me, prison is a place of (religious) retreat; ex­ecution is my opportunity for martyrdom; and exile from my town is but a chance to travel.” [20]

    “The one who is (truly) imprisoned is the one whose heart is imprisoned from Allah, and the captivated one is the one whose desires have enslaved him.” [23]

    Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Taymiyyah

    Ive seen lot of wahabis use the first quote to say he went to prison for noble and righteous causes, as can be expected from them.

    Strangely, when I just observed the first quote right now, it is using majaz and metaphor and simply can’t be taken literally (paradise in my heart). It didn’t hit me all the previous times I read it. LOL so much for their obsession with literalism and no tawil!

    Anyways, my only point was that mentioning the jail issue only gives them another escape route and you bet they will take it. You can nab them, but its that much more hard work eventually. Lately they’ve moved the najd to Iraq and outright deny the documented history of the Hijaz which has narrations of the terror they unleashed and the bloodbath of the innocent Muslims of Hijaz and so on. You actually think they will not manipulate this situation of subtle but significant differences in details like reason for imprisonment? They will just cash in on “imprisonment” and change the rest. Thats how they work.

    With the mention of history, I would humbly request Sheikh Abu Adam to also present some historical cases and perspectives on the filth of their ways as it has a direct bearing on the ideology they preach as well. They always make it a point to seperate “politics” from “religion” when you mention to them their take over of Hijaz and their treason to the Ottomans and so on, and for good reason. They know it will nab them if they don’t. – that is – IF history is mentioned at all. Mostly they try to quietly sneak past history without waking it up and letting the masses hear it scream!

    Barak Allahu feekum.

    Salam Alaikum wa Rahmatullah.

  11. alboriqee says:

    thats okay, we have reliable historical precedents froom both kuffar and source reference of history relayed by reliable muslim historians on the events of najd and the deception the enemies of Allah among the munafiqeen played in trying to circumvent the dawah of Allah by making scrupulous claims like the sentiments you have posted.

  12. The problem is that what you call the Daˆwa of Aļļaah was actually the daˆwa of a mixture between Ibn Taymiiyah’s anthropomorphist philosophy, and khawaarijism. I do not find the historical issues as important as the actual beliefs of wahabis. It is because of their beliefs that their history is also bad, and this would be so even if they were gentle in their approach.

  13. There have been some wahabi’s out there affirming that they believe that Allaah has a limit and defending this view in various ways. We will answer the main contentions shortly. What they have not answered is the divisibility and need part. I guess that would be hard to swallow even for most of their audience.

  14. abdullah says:

    subhnallah whoever this is needs to fear allah and stop backbittign and lieing on our ualama that are known for there clinge to the sunnah and to the way of the meseenger salallahu alayho wa salam.because ur gonna be asked infront of allah.how dare u try to twist the aqeedah of the one who was given the name shaykhul islam? fool…the man rahimahullah was a muwaahid,a man of tawheed well known amonsgt the people,and even the kuffar study his works in the universities and collegies here in america,and allah preserved his works such as his tapes,daroos and books.so fear allah and know that u have the wrong ibn taymiyyah.

    • Where did I lie? Where did I twist? As for your claim of Ibn Taymiyah’s proposed clinging, it was not to the Sunnah but to his space-monster worship. Do you know that his books were burned and forbidden in his time and after? Do you know that his books were not permitted in Al-Azhar until the previous century? What proof is there for him being correct in that the kuffar study his books? They were the ones that promoted the spread of his teachings in the first place to make problems for the Ottoman empire, and to draw Muslims towards their own ideas; Ibn Taymiyyah’s philosophy is extremely materialistic and his beliefs about the creator virtually identical to judaism.

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: