Ibn Taymiyyah condones of the claim that Aļļaah sits saying:
It has been narrated through the acceptable scholars and Muslim saints (‘awliyaa’) that Muĥammad, the Messenger of Aļļaah (صلى الله عليه وسلم) will be seated by His Lord on His throne with Him. 1
قال ابن تيمية في مجموع الفتاوى – (4 / 374) فَقَدْ حَدَثَ الْعُلَمَاءُ الْمَرْضِيُّونَ وَأَوْلِيَاؤُهُ الْمَقْبُولُونَ : أَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يُجْلِسُهُ رَبُّهُ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ مَعَهُ .
This is further to the quotes we have shown earlier regarding Ibn Taymiyyah’s extremely blasphemous anthropomorphism, which includes affirming 6 physical boundaries, divisibility in the mind’s eye due to size, ability to shrink, possibility of being hit by a bucket, having the world physically inside of Him, and more. See the table of contents for details.
All of this, of course, he claims is affirmed by the Qur’aan and the Sunnah and the Salaf and Muslim saints! Such statements of his are buried in ridiculously long books saying very much about very little, and that is why some scholars did not discover him, and praised him based on other things. Those who did discover him, however, such as Taqiyyu-d-Diin Al-Ĥuşniyy, the famous Shaafiˆiyy jurist and author of the widely studied fiqh manual “Kifaayatu-l-‘Akħyaar” called him “an absolute kaafir (zindiiq – which originally means fire worshiper, but later used to mean a particularly mean kaafir),” and alluded to how he considered having his remains extracted from his grave and burned in public as an admonition to the public.
1Aĥmad Ibn Taymiyyah (728 AH) Al-Ĥarraaniyy, Majmuuˆu-l-Fataawaa, 4 / 374.
Sunni Answers 
Salaam,
Have you realised that Ibn Taymiyyah never mentions the names of the scholars or the Muslim Saints (Awliyaa) when he states his Jewish and Christian beliefs about Allah in the name of Islam. This is just another tool Ibn Taymiyyah uses to currupt those who Allah did not save from his kufur harm.
Allah save the Nation of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon the greatest man ever created).
Al-Bukhariyy, Al-Bayhaqiyy and Ibnul-Jarud related that the Messenger of Allàh, Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) said:
قال رسول اللَّه صلى اللَّه عليه وسلم : كَانَ اللَّهُ وَلَمْ يَكُنْ شَىْ ءٌ غَيْرُهُ. رَوَاهُ البُخارِيُّ في الصَّحِيحِ وَالبَيْهَقِيُّ في الأَسْماءِ وَالصِّفاتِ وَابْنِ الجارُود في المُنْتَقَى
Means: “Allàh existed eternally and nothing else was.” In his book Al-I^tiqad (The creed) Imam al-Bayhaqiyy said when explaining the meaning of this Hadith:
قال رسول اللَّه صلى اللَّه عليه وسلم : كَانَ اللَّهُ وَلَمْ يَكُنْ شَىْ ءٌ غَيْرُهُ. قال لحافظ أحمد بن الحسين البيهقي في كتابه (الادعتقاد) في بيان معنى هذا الحديث ما نصه : يدل على أنه لم يكن شىءٌ غيره لا الماء ولا العر ش ولا غير هما، وكل ذلك أغيارٌ.
Means: “This indicates that eternally nothing existed other than Allàh; no water, no ^Arsh and no other creation, they are all classified as other than Allàh.” Imam abu Mansur Al-baghdadiyy in his book Al-Farqu Baynal-Firaq (The differences between the sects), related that Imam ^Aliyy ibn abi Talib said:
قالَ الإِمامُ أَبو مَنْصُورٍ البَغْدادِيُّ في كِتابِهِ “الفَرْقُ بَيْنَ الفِرَقِ” أَنَّ الإِمامَ عَلِيَّ بْن أَبِى طالِبٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ قالَ : كانَ اللَّهُ وَلا مَكان وَهُوَ الآنَ عَلَى ما كانَ.
Means: “Allàh exists eternally and place is not, and He still is now as He eternally was [i.e. without a place].”
He does sometimes, but without a sound chain of narration. Sometimes he will claim that this was the belief of Aĥmad, or Ibn Mubaarak, or Mujaahid, or Al-Jiilaaniyy, etc. In any case, however, beliefs cannot be proven by statements of someone that is not proven to be protected by Allaah from making mistakes, i.e. a non-prophet. See: https://sunnianswers.wordpress.com/2009/02/09/the-simple-wahabi-belief-ii-contradiction-versus-narration/
3ajib, very very amazing, how can you jahmis make takfir of ibn taymiya, on the account of him saying that some respected scholars have the beliefe that Allah will sit prophet muhammad upon the throne next to him, when that was the belief of abdul qaadir jeelaniyy himself? would you declare jeelaney KAAFIR?
in his GUNYAH [snip]
* upon-sunnah January 23, 2010 at 2:42 pm Says: 3ajib, very very amazing, how can you jahmis make takfir of ibn taymiya, on the account of him saying that some respected scholars have the beliefe that Allah will sit prophet muhammad upon the throne next to him, when that was the belief of abdul qaadir jeelaniyy himself? would you declare jeelaney KAAFIR? in his GUNYAH [snip]
Comment: What is stated in Al-Ghunyah is a perversion made by spacemonster worshipers, a disease ever present in the Hanbaliyy school. It is not a secret that they forged books attributed to Aĥmad ibn Ĥanbal. The belief of Al-Jiilaaniyy, quite opposite of what is found in that book, has been narrated in other books of his, and in the books of his students about him. If the creed mentioned in Al-Ghunyah had been his, there would have been a scandal, just as there were scandals every time a spacemonster worshiper was exposed back then, especially because Al-Jiilaaniyy was very famous, and his lessons were attended by everyone in Baghdaad at the time. As stated by Ibn Jibriin, space monster worship was only taught in hiding back then. Among the attendants was Ibn Al-Jawziyy, who’s enmity towards spacemonster worshipers is well known, and he never criticized Al-Jiilaaniyy for having anthropomorphic ideas, although he criticized him for some other issues that he could not understand. Moreover, famous anti-anthropomorphists, such as Mullaa ˆAliyy Al-Qaariyy were followers of the Qaadiriyy ţariiqah, and they would not have accepted this ţariiqah if Al-Jiilaniyy had been an anthropomorphist.
Salam Alaikum Mohtaram Sheikh
Can you please expound on the tafseer and meanings of the “maqamam mahmooda” attributed to the Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him peace, from pure Sunni sources.
It seems on this point a lot of misguided jahil “sufis” who turn mutazila’ite and batini’ite due to their jahalah, talk like this guy, even if they might not like him.
Our blessed Sunni scholars have emphasized greatly the need for sound knowledge of ‘aqidah and fiqh in order to walk the path of tasawwuf. They have explicitly said that tasawwuf not based on the foundations of *proper* Sunni knowledge is the devil’s plaything and not a means to strengthen, uplift, illuminate, and guide the nafs BUT rather only a lame excuse to make it weak and downtrodden and ugly and soak it in dhalalah.
……………………..
This (ibn taymiya’s mentioning/praising “saints” and other greats of the ummah like Imam Ahmad and others rahimahumullaah) is also one reason that some innocent Sunnis appreciate this heretic.
He has praised “awliyaa” and “tasawwuf” and “ahlut tasawwuf” and “Sufi tariqa’s” in some places in his Majmoo’ul Fatawa, as I know. I’ve heard from people he also used to address Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani radi Allahu ‘anhu as “sheikhuna”.
Some of the sweet sounding diplomatic wahabis (like yasir qadhi) of today carry on this tradition of their ugly master when they try to poison Sunnis.
It is nothing different than smiling pretty and handing out poisoned candy to a child.
It is for this reason some ignorant Sunnis even call him a “rightly guided Sufi” or just parrot the “let’s respect differences of opinions” line because they can’t see through such “smart” wahabis.
The Maqaam al-Maĥmuud is the intercession of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) on the Day of Judgment. See the Sanuusiyyah commentary.
BTW Ibn Tayimiyyah took the Qaadiriyy ţariiqah. Of course, his taking of it is invalid considering his beliefs, but this is why he says, shaykuna, or “Our Sħaykħ.”
Then do you say that he was a murtad Sidi Abu Adam? If so, why then did not Hafith Ibn Hajr Al-‘Asqalani, or Imam As-Suyuti or Taqiyud-Din Al-Subki not explicitly make takfeer upon him?
Also, if you are not to busy, could you share with us the exact words of our beloved Shafi’i Imam, Imam Taqi Husayni Al-Hisni?
Jazakum Allahu Khayran
Abu Layth
Sure, like I said, those who did not make takfiir for him did not have full knowledge of his sayings, and some of them thought that he repented when he made a repentance from anthropomorphism in front of the scholars in Kairo during his stay there.
One thing that Al-Ĥuşniyy mentions is the following:
وكان الشيخ زين الدين بن رجب الحنبلي ممن يعتقد كفر ابن تيمية وله عليه الرد.
“Shaykh Zaynu-d-diin ibn Rajab was one of those that believed Ibn TAymiyyah was a kaafir, and he has a refutation for him.”
What I mentioned above is stated by Al-Ĥuşniyy as follows:
قال بعض العلماء من الحنابلة في الجامع الأموي في ملأ من الناس: لو اطلع الحصني على ما اطلعنا عليه من كلامه لأخرجه من قبره وأحرقه.
“Some of the Ĥanbaliyy scholars in the Umawiyy Masjid (the one in Damascus today) among a group of people, “If Al-Ĥuşniyy read what we have read of his (Ibn Taymiyyah’s) statements, he would have taken him out of his grave and burned him.
وأن ابن تيمية كما قاله بعض الأئمة الأعلام – الذي كان يوصف بأنه بحر في العلم – يقول عنه أنه زنديق مطلق. وسبب قوله ذلك أنه تتبع كلامه فلم يقف له على اعتقاد، حتى أنه في مواضع عديدة يكفر فرقة ويضللها، وفي موضع آخر يعتقد ما قالته أو بعضه. مع أن كتبه مشحونة بالتشبيه والتجسيم والإشارة إلى الازدراء بالنبي والشيخين وتكفير عبد الله بن عباس وأنه من الملحدين وجعل عبد الله بن عمر رضي الله عنهما من المجرمين وأنه ضال ومبتدع ذكر ذلك في كتاب له سماه (الصراط المستقيم والرد على أهل الجحيم) وقد وقفت في كلامه على المواضع التي كفر فيها الأئمة الأربعة. وكان بعض أتباعه يقول أنه أخرج زيف الأئمة الأربعة يريد بذلك إضلال هذه الأمة لأنها تابعة لهذه الأئمة في جميع الأقطار والأمصار وليس وراء هذا زندقة.
“and that Ibn Taymiyyah, as some of the great scholars said, the one that has been described as “an ocean of knowledge”, says that he is an “absolute kaafir,” and his reason for saying that was scrutinizing his statements and found him many times making takfiir and accusing of deviance some group, and then in other places he affirms his belief in what they say, or some of it. This is in addition to the fact that his books are full of attributing bodily attributes to Aļļaah, and likening Him to creation as well as scorn of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) as well as Umar, Abu Bakr, takfiir of Ibn ˆAbbaas, and that he was an atheist, and he said Ibn Umar was a deviant a criminal and and innovator. He mentioned this in his book “The Straight Path and the Refutation of the People of Hell.” I have also found statements of his where he makes takfiir for the four imams (of fiqh). Some of his followers used to say that “he removed the first of the four imams,” intending by that to claim all of this nation as deviant because it follows these imams in all corners of of the world. There is no kufr beyond this.”
Jazakum Allahu Khayran Sidi,
However if you could provide the references for these quotes, it would certainly be helpful to the students. Also, where is his takfeer of Ibn ‘Abbas, his reviling of Ibn Umar etc?
was-Salam,
Abu Layth
The reference is Al-Huşniyy. He is the one mentioning this.
as-salamu `alaikum sayyidi,
“In any case, however, beliefs cannot be proven by statements of someone that is not proven to be protected by Allaah from making mistakes, i.e. a non-prophet.”
I guess then the same can be said about Ibn Taymiyya? So many contradictory statements and views and repentances have been attributed to him. And sure, some scholars may have considered him a non-muslim but we see the major sunni `ulema some of whose names have been mentioned above did not. Some scholars of old even gave him the title ‘shaykh al-islam’! At the end of the day though I don’t see the point of people focussing on the personality. I’m sure you’d agree it more useful discussing his actual arguments against ahl al-sunna which are being selectively propagated by a certain modern day group?
I guess then the same can be said about Ibn Taymiyya?
No, that is something entirely different. The reason why one cannot prove beliefs based on non-prophet sayings is because they are not prophets, so they are not protected from mistakes. The subject here is what Ibn Taymiyyah believed. Apples and oranges.
His personality is important, because he is their source for everything. He is their brand name. They sell their kufr through his name. Or put it this way, I am imitating Al-Ĥuşniyy. I have the Shaariˆah on my side: Al-Għazaaliy said: “The Salaf generation of the nation of Prophet Muĥammad’s followers agreed to blame those with deviant ideas, and to abandon them, and to cut relations with them, and to be hard in rebuking them, but to not be hard on different views in details of jurisprudence (Al-Mustaşfaa Fii ˆIlmi-l-‘Uşuul, P. 350)” The same was stated by ˆAlaa’u-d-Diin Al-Bukħaariy (Kasħfu-l-Asraar. V.4/P.25). This is why his books were burned and his teachings forbidden, and his books were not allowed in Al-Azhar up until the previous century.
As for his repentance; the repentance of a Zindiiq is not accepted, like in the case of the Qaraamiţah. Ibn Tayimiyyah was exactly like them. In any case, his last jail session was for saying that it is forbidden to travel to visit the Prophet’s grave, and that is enough for takfiir according to many, and a clear sign of his continued deviance.
Salam Alaikum Mohtaram Sheikh:
“As for his repentance; the repentance of a Zindiiq is not accepted, like in the case of the Qaraamiţah.”
Can you please explain this point. Allah accepts imaan & sincere repentance from any kufr/shirk as stated in the Quran – this is our aqidah. Or does that comment apply to not accepting it in dunyawi terms, ie, for legal purposes for us humans and to curb fitnah in society?
Jazak Allahu khayr.
Waˆalaykumussalaam,
Yes, exactly, it is for dunyaa.
AAA
Salaam,
Let’s not go in circles. Ahmad Ibn Taymiyah is a kafir. What’s written in his books prove that. The Wahhabies are paying billions over the years to make this kafir who also claims its Haram to visit the Prophet’s grave to appear to be the Shaykh of Islam. What a joke. Alot of people asleep. Imam Ali Ibn Abu Talib said: “People are asleep, when they die they realise.” That’s when its too late.
How dare the Wahhabies claim to follow the Salaf, when they misinterpreted the fundamental teachings of the Salaf and all their followers? Ahmad Ibn Taymiyah and Muhammad ibn ^Abdil-Wahhab were not alive during the Salaf era. Hence, take a look at the time era of the master minds that set out the framework that the Wahhabies followed in belief:
Ahmad Ibn Taymiyah (b.664 d.729AH, 1263/1328) came 429 years later after the Salaf period ended.
Muhammad ibn ^Abdil-Wahhab (b.1117 d.1206AH, 1703/1792) came 906 years later after the Salaf period ended.
Therefore, both (innovators of evil) were not alive in the first three century era after the immigration (Hijrah) of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), from Mecca to al-Madinah.
The wahabis say we follow the ancient greeks and they and their master ibn taymiya follow the salaf.
Here’s 2 pictures showing what the ancient greeks believed in:
Let them have a good look at these pictures and then figure out for themselves who is closer to the beliefs of the greeks, them or Sunnis!!!
An illustrated version of the Wahhabi creed at:
http://salafiaqeedah.blogspot.com/2009/11/salafi-god.html
Claiming that the major scholars didn’t judge Ibn Taymiyyah as a kafir is a very dangerous and misleading statement. Especially is one thinks that those scholars who said he was a muslim knew about his kufr and believed that he didn’t repent of his kufr. It is not a condition for someone to be judged as a kafir, to be called by the term kafir. In al-Qur’an the kuffar are sometimes called “adh-Dhaalimun” (the unjust). Regardless of the reason some scholars had, it doesn’t matter because either the person has the belief of the Prophet or not. The one who has the belief of the Prophet is called a mu’min and the one who doesn’t is called a kafir.
NB: Takleef (accountability in the Hereafter) is an entirely different issue.
Salaam,
Ahmad-Qadri you put the nail on the head as they say. Those pics are the beliefs of the Wahhabies.
O Allah save us from Tashbih.
Imam abu Mansur Al-baghdadiyy in his book Al-Farqu Baynal-Firaq (The differences between the sects), related that Imam ^Aliyy ibn abi Talib said:
قَالَ الإِمامُ سَيِّدُنا عَلِيُّ بْن طالِبٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ : إِنَّ اللَّهَ خَلَقَ الْعَرْشَ إِظْهارًا لِقُدْرَتِهِ وَ لَمْ يَتَّخِذْهُ مَكاناً لِذاتِهِ. رَوَاهُ الإِ مامُ أَبُو مَنْصُورٍ البَغْدَادِيُّ
Means: “It is Allàh Who created the ^Arsh as an indication of His Power and did not take it as a place for Himself.”
Abu Nu^aym reported in his book, Al-Hilyah that Imam ^Aliyy ibn abi Talib said:
الإِمامُ سَيِّدُنا عَلِيُّ بْن طالِبٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ قَالَ : … من زعم أنَّ إلهنا محدود فقد جهل الخالق المعبود.
Means: “… He who claims that our Lord is limited, then he is ignorant about the Creator Who is worshipped.”
Anthropormorphists think that they can become like the divine in contrast to the sunni creed. Surely no one can become like the divine because the divine has no beginning.
As-Salamu ‘alaykum,
Masha’Allah this is a very informative and eye-opening website. May I ask a question? Where does doing takfir upon a well-known figure fit into the articles of faith articulated by Imam at-Tahawi (article 64)? Could you please provide statements by Tahawi, Maturidi, the Imams of the four schools, or any of the famous early Muslims such as Sufyan ath-Thawri, Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak, etc. that justify calling one of the people of Qiblah a kafir? As opposed to saying whoever believes in such and such is a kafir (ie. criticise the action not the actor).
This is just to clarify and justify doing Takfir upon Muslims. Perhaps you have already answered this elsewhere or perhaps you could write an article on the subject. I have to confide that my heart trembles at hearing Takfir upon Muslims, whoever it may be, as only Allah knows the true condition of people. It doesn’t rest easy in my heart dear shaykh. Perhaps this is from my own ignorance and infancy in Islam, being a new Muslim. Jazak Allahu khayran.
Maybe I should have said justify takfir upon people who claim to be Muslims.
To have belief as defined in Islamic terminology, one must label as true in one’s heart, and accept in submission, what is necessarily known to be of the Prophet Muĥammad’s religion. When someone denies any of it, he is not a Muslim. Now, when someone utters the creedal statement to show his Islam, we have apparent belief from him, but the reality of the person’s heart is unseen to us. Accordingly, when someone later makes an expression which shows that he denies some of the religion, it is apparent to us that he is not a Muslim.
The blasphemy of a person is established by utterances that reflect blasphemous positions if the apparent language provides for only a blasphemous meaning. For example, Aļļaah gave us the judgment in the Qur’aan that those that say that God is three, or Jesus is the son of God, or Jesus is God are blasphemers. This is without regard to what they intend to mean; they commit blasphemy merely by saying that. Aļļaah said (9,30):
“وَقَالَتِ الْيَهُودُ عُزَيْرٌ ابْنُ اللَّهِ وَقَالَتِ النَّصَارَى الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ اللَّهِ ذَلِكَ قَوْلُهُمْ بِأَفْوَاهِهِمْ يُضَاهِئُونَ قَوْلَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِنْ قَبْلُ قَاتَلَهُمُ اللَّهُ أَنَّى يُؤْفَكُونَ”
Which might be translated to mean: “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!”
This judgment of blasphemy is absolute for the person who says that Aļļaah has a son, regardless of his intention or actual belief. We know from this aayah that plainly blasphemous statements makes a person a non-Muslim, even if he intended by it a metaphorical meaning that is not kufr. This is clear, because the phrase, “son of so and so” is used widely to mean “close to,” or “beloved.” This is especially true in Arabic. For example, the phrase “son of the road” in Arabic means “traveler.”
This aayah gives an example of an apparent and clear blasphemous statement, and the reason why such statements are not interpreted with a figurative meaning, in order to avoid saying that the one who said it is a blasphemer, is twofold:
First, in this life religious judgment is given based on what is apparent. This means that one must judge the one who utters plainly blasphemous statements with apparent blasphemy.
Second, inwardly, even if this person really had intended a non apparent meaning that is not blasphemy, he is still a blasphemer inwardly and in Aļļaah’s judgment, because by being willing to use such an expression he has shown disrespect for the religion. In other words, he was willing to state something reflecting a blasphemous position, without ascribing it to someone else. An example is:
وَلَئِنْ سَأَلْتَهُمْ لَيَقُولُنَّ إِنَّمَا كُنَّا نَخُوضُ وَنَلْعَبُ قُلْ أَبِاللَّهِ وَآيَاتِهِ وَرَسُولِهِ كُنْتُمْ تَسْتَهْزِئُونَ (65) لا تَعْتَذِرُوا قَدْ كَفَرْتُمْ بَعْدَ إِيمَانِكُمْ [التوبة : 65 ، 66]
Meaning: And if you ask them, they will say ‘We were only talking idly and joking around. Say ‘Were you mocking Aļļaah, His signs and His Messenger? Do not make excuses for yourselves, you have committed blasphemy after believing.” (At-Tawbah, 65-66)
The great Ĥadiitħ Master and Maalikiy scholar Ibn Al-ˆArabiy commented on the above statement in the Qur’aan saying: “What those people said was either in seriousness or without being serious (not meaning it), and it is in any case blasphemy, because to say something that you understand has only a blasphemous meaning from is kufr, even if you do not mean it.”
The great Sħaafiˆiy scholar Al-Ramliy, also called “the Small Al-Sħaafiˆiy”, said in his book Nihaayah Al-Muĥtaaj: “The Imam (Al-Juwayniy, the teacher of Al-Għazaaliy) narrated from the scholars of belief and foundations of jurisprudence that intending a non-apparent meaning when saying something that does not have this possibility has committed blasphemy. (This is) both apparently and inwardly (in the heart, and in Aļļaah’s judgment), because he has shown disrespect. This is thus different from accepting it (such an intention as an excuse) in matters like divorce, where he would be divorced apparently (in court) only (but would still be married in Aļļaah’s judgment).”
Al-Bazdawiyy, the great scholar of belief and foundations of jurisprudence said in Uşuul Al-Bazdawiyy: “Not being serious in (uttering statements that have) blasphemy is blasphemy. Not by believing the words he said while not serious, but by the act of not being serious… because it is disrespectful of the religion.”
In the Encyclopedia of Jurisprudence published by the Ministry of Islamic Affairs in Kuwait, it states regarding judging someone as having committed kufr (takfiir):
ب – التكفير بالقول : 9 – اتفق العلماء على تكفير من صدر منه قول مكفِّر , سواء أقاله استهزاء , أم عنادا , أم اعتقادا لقوله تعالى : { قل أبالله وآياته ورسوله كنتم تستهزئون لا تعتذروا قد كفرتم بعد إيمانكم } . وهذه الألفاظ المكفرة قد تكون صريحة كقوله : أشرك أو أكفر بالله , أو غير صريحة كقوله : الله جسم متحيز أو عيسى ابن الله , أو جحد حكما علم من الدين بالضرورة , كوجوب الصلاة وحرمة الزنى .
<>
Moreover, the scholars affirm that one may commit blasphemy out of ignorance:
Aļļaah said in the Qur’aan (24,15):
“وَتَقُولُونَ بِأَفْوَاهِكُمْ مَا لَيْسَ لَكُمْ بِهِ عِلْمٌ وَتَحْسَبُونَهُ هَيِّنًا وَهُوَ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ عَظِيمٌ “,
Which might be translated to mean: “And you say by your mouths what you have no certain knowledge of, and you think it is a simple matter, while it is in Aļļaah’s judgment gruesome.”
Ibn Katħiir commented on the meaning of “you think it is a simple matter, while it is in Aļļaah’s judgment gruesome.”:
“In Muslim and Al-Bukħaariyy’s authentic ĥadiitħ collections something similar is stated: “Verily a man may say a word that brings Aļļaah’s punishment to an extent he does not know, and he falls due to it into the Hellfire further than the distance between the sky and the earth.” In another narration it is stated “a word he thinks nothing of.”
As for the scholarly saying “we do not make takfiir for the people of the Qiblah,” this is a slogan meant to oppose the Khawaarijites who claimed that a person who commits a sin falls out of Islam, even if he believes it is a sin. As for Aţ-Ţaĥaawiyy, he is pretty clear about this, he says (in brackets):{And we call the people of our Qiblah} i.e. the Kaˆbah as a prayer direction {“Muslims”and “Believers” as long as they admit to be true whatever Muĥammad brought} of knowledge {and believe in, and do not deny, any of what he said.} In other words, what is less sinful than that, such as drinking wine does not make one a non-Muslim. This is provided that one believes it to be wrong, and one does not deny or have scorn towards its prohibition.
We know this from his statement “as long as.”
This clarifies what Al-Asħˆariy and other scholars mean when they say, “I do not say that any of the People of the Qiblah is a non-Muslim.” The purpose of this expression of theirs is to deny that a sinful Muslim falls out of Islaam as long as he believes and admits that what he is doing is sinful. It is a statement meant to refute the saying of the Kħawaarij sect, which says that committing sins, such as drinking wine, makes one a non-Muslim, even if one believes it is a sin. It does not mean that anyone who prays towards the Qiblah is a Muslim, regardless of anything he believes, says or does. After all, some of those people say that ˆAliyy was a prophet, or similarly clearly blasphemous sayings.
I have already mentioned some of the scholars’ statements of takfiir, including the consensus stated in the Encyclopedia of Fiqh. Also, Aţ-Ţaĥaawiyy says: {Whoever attributed to Aļļaah an attribute that has a meaning among the meanings that apply to humans has committed blasphemy.} Which is another statement of takfiir.
Other examples are:
Asħ-Sħaafiˆiyy, as narrated by Imam Al-Laalakaa’iyy in Sħarĥu ‘Uşuul Iˆtiqaad Ahli-s-Sunnah wa-l-Jamaaˆah, said that Ĥafş Al-Fard, the Muˆtazilite, is a kaafir. As for those who think Asħ-Sħaafiˆiyy meant that he was unthankful, this is wrong, because Ĥafş said, “Asħ-Sħaafiˆiyy wanted to kill me (2/253).”
Al-Suyuuţiyy said: “Al-Shāfi’īy said: I do not say that the people that have somewhat deviant ideas (ahlu-l-ahwā’) are non-Muslims,” but he exempted those who say that Allāh has a body and those who say that Allāh does not know all details of things (Al-Asħbaah wa-n-Naţħaa’ir, 488).” In other words, those who have deviance to the extent of blasphemy.
The takfiir of Abuu Ĥaanifah, Maalik and Aĥmad for the Muˆtazilites is famous. When the great Imaam Maalik was asked about marrying one of them he responded by reciting:
وَلَعَبْدٌ مُؤْمِنٌ خَيْرٌ مِنْ مُشْرِكٍ وَلَوْ أَعْجَبَكُمْ [البقرة/221]
Meaning: “Verily a Muslim slave is better than an idolater, even if he impresses you with his wealth, beauty or social status.” (Al-Baqarah, 221)
Hope that helps.
Alhamdulillah. This website is the best source on internet for learning the Aqida( beleif) of muslims as told in Quran,explained by the prophet and understood by the scholars of the ummah.
In the recent time a certain group of people have become more active in propogating the view that even a kafir should not be called a kafir!
Mulla Ali Al Qari[Rh] writes in his sharah of Al fiqh al Akbar that by the term :people of qibla ( Ahl al Qibla) it means those who do not deny the essentials of the deen ( islam).Clearly , any one who ascribes a location to Allah has denied one of the essential of Islam.
اھل القبلۃ معناہ الذین اتفقوا علی ماھومن ضروریات الاسلام واختلفوافی اصول سواھا والا فلا نزاع فی کفراھل القبلۃ المواظب طول العمر علی الطاعات بصدور شیئ من موجبات الکفر عنہ۴؎اھ مختصراً
People of Qibla does not just mean,people who worship by facing towards Qibla. If that is the criteria then the qadyanis who consider some Mirza to be a prophet ,also pray while facing Qibla. It is known that they are Kafir.
ان المراد بقول علمائنا لاتجوز تکفیر اھل القبلۃ بذنب لیس مجرد التوجہ الی القبلۃ فان الغلاۃ من الروافض وان صلواالی القبلۃ لیسوابمؤمنین
Almost every book of fiqh deals with the chapter of Kufr and Murtad. It means their are certian beleif and actions which makes a person Kafir. Then why do people love to be soft towards these heretics who have been called deviant by so many sunni scholars?
To say Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani[ Rh] knew about the heretical beleifs of Ibn Taymiyah and still considered him to be on the right path can not be accepted. Because what Imam Taqi Husayni Al-Hisni knew about Ibn Taymiyah and is been presented here is a kufr without any doubt.
We should also bear in mind that wahabis have praised Ibn Taymiyah so much that the sunni scholars are takeing much interest in finding out more and more about Ibn Taymiyah. So in future if some new manuscript/ research about Ibn Taymiuah is presented we should be ready to accept it based on the evidence.
If we say that Ibn Taymiyah repeneted, then it means he repented from one of the deviant fatwa which he issued [Travelling to prophet’s masjid] and if some one says that he repented from all of his kufr beleif then,concrete evidence has to be presented.
It also means that all his writing and greek ideas which he propogated through out his life were against islam [that is why he repented] and in that case no writing or quote of Ibn Taymiyaha should be presneted among muslims.
As-salamu ´alaykum wa rahmatuLlah,
BarakaLlahu fikum!
My wife and I received a book as a gift, ibn ´Uthaymîn’s “Fatâwa Arkân al-Islâm”. Naturally, as a traditional Sunni, I am not interested in using it as a source for this Din. Someone close to me, who has no anthropomorphic tendencies whatsoever, as far I can tell (bearing in mind my limited knowledge), but who has this thing for “defending” various mubtadi´în “´ulamâ’”—I want to show this person the seriousness of the statements of these mubtadi´în, right there in their books (or book in this case).
Thus, I want to share some quotes and ask you, shaykh Abu Adam, if these indeed ARE pure anthropomorphic statements. I have just begun studying Arabic at the university over here, so my Arabic is weak. However, I browsed through the section “Fatâwa al-´Aqîdah”. On page 76 it says:
مذهب السلف – رضوان الله عليهم – ان الله تعالى بذاته فوق عباده
On page 77 he continues:
بذاته على خلقه
Then he seems to quote Ibn al-Qayyim on page 84:
و هل يكون الاستواء الا الجلوس
Can such statements, like “in His Person/Essence over His creation” and likening istawâ to “sitting”—if I am not mistranslating these quotes, and I apologize if that is the case—be anything BUT anthropomorphic statements? It is a genuine question, because it seems like these people like to add things like “but in a way that befits Him” and such, but do such add-ons actually mean anything when you say “bidhâtihi”?
Waˆalaykumussalaam,
Don’t translate bi-dhaatihi as “in person/ essence” but “in His Self.” Person has the sense of form, and essence the sense of substance, none of which can be said of Allaah.
“Sitting” is pure anthropomorphism, because sitting can only be for something with size and shape, i.e. a body.
The other two statements are not as explicit, but I think most people will understand a bodily meaning.
“In the recent time a certain group of people have become more active in propogating the view that even a kafir should not be called a kafir!”
Insha Allah it would be great if Sheikh Abu Adam can also counter the rubbish propagated by batini and mutazilite pseudo-sufis along with the wahabis. A lot of them are also soft on wahabis or have joint alliances with them
OR
it’s almost like some of them actually work so that wahabis and nonMuslims will make a mockery of the Ahlus Sunnah. They practice deviances in the name of sufism, like celebrate christmas with christian priests, let women kiss their hands and try and justify it too, and many more such things.
To be honest, they are a bigger danger than wahabis in some cases, because a lot of Sunnis know what the wahabis are at some level or the other. However, these people pretend to be Sunnis. The people who say it is “hypothetically possible” for Allah to lie, are one such example.
Is that which is “necessarily known” something that changes or is constant – i.e what might be necessarily known of god in one age might be different in another. (i.e once every one knew that god didnt sit on seats or exist in a physical location, but now most people dont) — so the act of one in one age might be clear kufr taking them outside of islam whereas it might not be so in a different age?
Could one make the argument that even though what ibn taymiyya is saying is takdhib of the prophet s.a.w – in THIS day and age, it might not be clear kufr (because the muslims collectively have lost so much knowledge) therefore one couldnt openly make takfir of him whereas in his own time when people had a much greater understanding and knowledge of aqaid, they (ulema) could make takfir of him?
No, because one is not Muslim without believing in Allaah. A person who worships a huge thing in outer space is a space monster worshiper and is not worshiping Allaah, even if he calls the monster “Allaah.” Like those among the christians who say Jesus is Allaah. They call Jesus “Allaah”, but he is not, so they are not worshiping Allaah, even if they call what they worship “Allaah.”
sunnistudent and Ahmad Qadri took the words right out of my mouth.
Those people (we all know who they are) are seeking the cloud the distinction between a muslim and a non-muslim have become more dangerous in America (at least) than the wahhabis. There are a few people on the internet working to warn people against them but they alone are not enough. We really need the elites to step up and address them because simply attacking them will not work – they are too popular and people are not doing to listen.
Salaam,
Imam ash-Shafi’i (one of the top scholars of the four (4) schools of thoughts) who was among the Salaf (b.150 d.204AH, 749/803) said:
رَوَى البَيْهَقِيُّ عَنِ الإِمامِ الشَّافِعِيِّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ أَنَّهُ قالَ : المجسِّم كافرٌ. رواهُ عنهُ الحافظُ السّيوطيّ في كتابِ الأشباهِ والنظائر.
Means: “The one who attributes to Allàh bodily characteristics is a blasphemer.” This statement was relayed by the Hadith narrator, Imam Ass-Suyoutiy in his book Al Ashbah Wan-Natha’ir.
Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (one of the top scholars of the four (4) schools of thoughts) who was among the Salaf (b.163 d.241AH, 762/840) said:
الإمامُ أحمدُ أَبن حنبل رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ قالَ : مَنْ قالَ اللَّهُ جِسمٌ لا كالأجسامِ كَفَر. رواهُ عنه الإمامُ الحافظ المحدّثُ بدرُ الدينِ الزَّركَشِي في كتابِ تشنيفِ المسامع.
Means: “The one who says Allàh is body not like other bodies blasphemes.” This statement was relayed by the Hadith narrator, Imam Badr Ad-Dine Az-Zarkashiy in his book Tashnif al Masami^.
The Fatwà of Imam Abu Hanifah in regards to the blasphemy of those who maintain that Allah is in the sky. In his book Al-Fiqh Al-Absat, Imam Abu Hanifah said:
الإِمامَ أَبا حَنِيفَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ قالَ : مَنْ قالَ لا أَعْرِفُ اللَّهَ أَفي السَّماءِ هُوَ أَمْ في الأَرْضِ فَقَدْ كَفَر. لأن هذا القول يوهم أن للَّه مكانا، ومن توهم أن للَّه مكانا فهو مشبه.
Means: “Whoever says: ‘I don’t know if Allàh is in the sky or on the earth’, commits blasphemy.” This is because they imagined Allàh in a place and whoever imagines Allàh in a place, is a person who likens Allàh to the creations.
In the book Ar-Risalah (The Message) by Abul-Qasim al-Qushayriyy, Imam Ja^far as-Sadiq (d.148AH) who is among the Great Salaf said:
قالَ الإِمامُ جَعْفَرُ الصَّادِقُ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ : مَنْ زَعَمَ أَنَّ اللَّهَ في شَيْءٍ أَوْ عَلَى شَيْءٍ أَوْ مِنْ شَيْءٍ فَقَدْ أََشْرَكَ إِذْ لَوْ كانَ في شَيْءٍ لَكانَ مَحْصُورًا أَوْ عَلَى شَيْءٍ لَكانَ مَحْمولاً وَلَوْ كَانَ مِنْ شَيْءٍ لَكانَ مُحْدَثاً أَيْ مَخْلُوقاً.
Means: “He who claims that Allàh is in something or on something or from something, commits shirk . Because, had Allàh been in something, He would be contained, had Allàh been on something, He would be carried, had Allàh been from something, He would be something that has a beginning [creation].”
@ sunnistudent/Ahmad-Qadri – Can you recommend any books that cover basic aqida(like The Creed of Al Tahawi) which are in Urdu?
JazakaLlahu khayran, shaykh!
Jazak Allahu khayran ya shaykh. You have clarified a few things for me. As for me I’d still rather remain silent on other people’s kufr as Allah says he won’t ask us about the people who came before us. This is work for scholars such as yourself and the general masses really do need to stay well away from such issues.
Masha’Allah this is a very resourceful website and may Allah grant you success in maintaining it. Even if you save one person from the horrors of anthropomorphism then insha’Allah it is worth it. I lived in Saudi Arabia for more than two years and the surprising thing is that the vast majority of Saudis aren’t Wahhabi anthropomorphisists as people would imagine. I often asked them apparently innocent questions in order to gauge their views. Almost all of them said accept what Allah says about himself and don’t go any further than that and never try to imagine Allah as you won’t be able to, as Allah is unlike the creation. To me that is plain and clear Sunni aqidah. They do talk about Ibn Taymiyyah a lot in their sermons and lectures but this is normally related to fiqh. I honestly believe that most of them don’t know about Ibn Taymiyyah’s, may Allah forgive him, anthropomorphistic tendencies. May Allah forgive all the Muslims!
Yes, you are not accountable for other people’s actions (the people who came before you). However, sometimes warning about people in the past is part of the obligation of preventing prohibited acts and encouraging good. Ibn Taymiyyah has to many become a replacement for scripture and even common sense. It is therefore important to prevent this sort of glorification, especially in light of how dangerous his books are. The best way to do that is to show how ridiculous he was in basic belief issues, and how he willfully ventured to dupe ordinary muslims and his students by various rhetorical tricks and even lies. To keep silent is to contribute to his scheming against Islam. If all people hear about him is “Shaykh of Islam” and nothing else, most people will accept anything he says, and this is happening in front of our eyes today. This is to the extent that they will change their belief to the opposite of what it was, once the opposite has been attributed to him.
Yes, many do not know how extreme he was in anthropomorphism, and those statements you relate from people are nice. However, I am afraid that despite such statements, many are not at all clear about what “unlike creation” means. Even Ibn Taymiyyah pays lip service to such phrases, although what he means is something like “unimaginably big”. Most of them have been fed a solid feeding of the ideas of physical aboveness and location. One child, for example was told by a teacher at school that Allaah is in the sky. The child said, “this is not true, Allaah is not in a place.” The teacher insisted and got the kids on her side against the child. Later, the mother faced the teacher saying, “don’t you know that Allaah is the creator of places and is not in a place?” She responded, “Yes, I know, but the parents will not accept my to say that.” She committed kufr for a few hundred dollars teacher salary. This, by the way, was not even in Saudi.
Note that you cannot say may Allaah forgive Ibn Taymiyyah IF you also believe that he had anthropomorphic beliefs. Allaah does not forgive a kaafir, and anthropomorphism is kufr as stated by Aţ-Ţaĥaawiyy above. To ask Allaah to forgive a kaafir is disbelief in the Qur’aan:
“إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَعَنَ الْكَافِرِينَ وَأَعَدَّ لَهُمْ سَعِيرًا خَالِدِينَ فِيهَا أَبَدًا”
Meaning: “Verily Aļļaah cursed the blasphemers, and prepared for them a fire that they will be in forever.” (Al-‘Aĥzaab, 64-65)
As-Salamu ‘alaykum and thanks for the nasiha ya shaykh. It would be most beneficial if you could highlight all the problematic issues in Ibn Taymiyyah’s Aqidah al-Wasitiyyah and Aqidah al-Hamawiyyah. I ask this as these are two texts of his that are frequently recommended by Wahhabi scholars to students treading the path of knowledge. In addition they also advise the memorisation of Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab’s (whom they also call Shaykh al-Islam) books: Usul al-Thalatha, al-Qawa’id al-Arba’a, Kitab al-Tawhid, and Kashf al-Shubuhat. It seems that these are the foundational works of the current Wahhabi aqidah, and a sunni critique of these works, if there isn’t one already, by a scholar such as yourself would insha’Allah bring many back into the fold of Sunni Islam whilst helping new Muslims avoid disaster.
I pray that Allah grants you and all Muslims success!
As-Salamu ‘alaykum,
ya Shaykh, how can u say that the Scholars didn’t know about this beliefs?
Look what Ibn Hajar says in his al-Durrar al-Kamina http://www.sunnah.org/fiqh/ibntay03.html
So he did know of his believes! Mollah Ali al-Qari even calls both “the greatest ‘Awliya of this Nation.”, and how can he call them so without knowing them?
After all, even Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari didn’t make absolutely Takfir on him and said, that he could have made Tawba from his beliefs and he also in some places uses Ibn Taymiyyahs writings and sometimes praises him. Perhaps we should avoid extremism.
And it seems like many Habashis are here…
As-salamu ‘alaykum
I am speaking of the teachings of Ibn Tayimiyyah and his books that are full of kufr and promoted night and day by his followers. Whether he really repented or not, or said those things or not, is irrelevant. We cannot sit idly by and let them spread these terrible beliefs based on the idea that he might not have said it or might have repented, or that some scholars claimed he was a waliyy etc. The Ibn Tayimiyyah that is known today is that kaafir who believed that Allaah is a shrinkable spacemonster with a limit sitting on a throne and moving around.
How then should we understand the following (as translated by Dr. Haddad):
Al-Qârî said in his commentary on `Iyâd’s al-Shifâ’:
Ibn Taymiyya – one of the Hanbalîs – committed excess when he declared it prohibited to travel to visit the Prophet [sallallahu ta’ala alayhe wa sallam] just as other than him also committed excess saying that it is obligatory in the Religion to know that the Visitation is an act that draws near to Allâh (qurba) and whoever denies it is judged to be a disbeliever (kâfir). Yet the latter view is probably closer to being correct than the first, because to declare prohibited something the Ulema by Consensus declared desirable (mustahabb), is disbelief. For it is graver than to declare prohibited something agreed to be merely permitted (mubâh).
Source: Sharh al-Shifâ’ (2:514)
This passage can be found in the web. I have not seen the original Arabic text, but this appears like an attribution of kufr. It is a strong criticism, to say the least. We also know that Imam Subki rahimahullah praised Ibn Taymiyya before he learned about his deviations. Later, he declared kufr on him. He, of course, had first-hand knowledge of Ibn Taymiyya’s opinions, unlike later scholars like al-Asqalani. We are aware of a number of other scholars who praised him at some time, but changed their views after learning about his deviated opinions. Imam Kawthari rahimahullah points out that calling somebody “kafir” and saying that “he died as a kafir” are two different things. The latter can be done only for the likes of Abu Lahab. I read some of Imam Kawthari’s articles; he labels a number of statements by al-Darimi (al-Sajzi) and Ibn Taymiyya as “idol-worshipping” and “kufr.” Wassalam.
“And it seems like many Habashis are here…”
so…? so what if there are many Habashis on here?
This is a site dedicated to Islamic ‘aqida, and what is right according to Quran and authentic ahadith, is right, and what is wrong is wrong.
If something the Habashis/wahabis/shias/Sunnis/Chinese/Japanese/Indians/Arabs/any people say is right in light of the Quran and ahadith, then it is right. If it is wrong in the light of the Quran and ahadith, then it is wrong.
I’m not a Habashi by the way. In fact we have been annoyed with our differences with each other. However they are still Sunnis (even if only a fringe group with some bizarre differences to the rest of us) and a million leagues better than wahabi-loving and kafir-loving fake “sufis” that have recently cropped up on the internet.
I can’t speak for the other people who comment on the site (the Sheikh already said he isn’t Habashi) but from what I have seen, it includes a broad spectrum of people who are Sunnis and owe their loyalty first to Allah and His Messenger, rather than batini and mu’tazilite fools who feel the need to defend personalities and their fan club following at any cost, even at the expense of Islamic creed.
Just blabbing “Habashi” doesn’t mean anything. You either prove them wrong or don’t make useless emotional comments like this.
For Aliyy Al-Qaarii’s position on the mujassimah see:
One doesn’t have to go back to the times of Al-Jilaniy and Ahmad ibn Hanbal rahimahumullaah to see that anthropomorphists tamper with books.
One can see plentiful examples of this disservice in our own times. Its VERY common to see classical books published by them in different years, or by different publishing houses containing differences like outright additions and/or deletions of chapters or passages, and making it seem like the work of the original author.
Sometimes, it’s so bad, they tamper with their OWN books (of their own dead scholars) only to further advance their anthropomorphist agendas.
Salaam alaikum,
Sidi, what do we then say about praying behind wahhabis that have knowledge, is it impermissible?
wasalam
Asalaamu alaikum , Abu Adam Im a sunni muslim, I was having a discussion with some people and I told them ibn Taymiyah was of the belief that Allah on the day of Judgement would seat prophet Muhammad upon the throne and make room to seat prophet Muhammad beside him. There is an Article …., and they deny ibn Taymiyah saying this and that the translation of the quote from majmua fatawa vol 3 page 374 is innacurate. Aba Adam I was wondering if its possible to provide a scan from the page in question. Your brother in Islam Omarr
The Arabic is pasted in the article above. You can go to the wahabi’s own sites, where they have uploaded his books and find the very same quote. The same goes for all the quotes of Ibn Tayimiyyah on this site. This is just a diversion tactic from their side. Nothing to worry about.