Response to Imam Zaid Shakir concerning his comments on Shaykhul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah
Praise be to Allah, the Lord of All the Worlds. May Allah’s peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad, the Seal of the Prophets, and upon his family and Companions.
Recently I came across some comments by Imam Zaid Shakir [www.zaidshakir.com] regarding the great Imam Ibn Taymiyyah and the many ‘apparent’ deviations he had from the Sunni Scholars of the past. The accusations and claims that the respectable Imam presented are not new. However, they are all inaccurate and imprecise. Below are some comments I compiled and forwarded to the Imam. These were mainly compilations and translations from various books and articles. The comments by Imam Zaid Shakir are given in italic font, and his other comments on various other issues can be found Here
Imam Zaid’s Comments:
Q: What do you say about Ibn Taymiyya?
A: Ibn Taymiyya, may Allah have mercy on him, was a pious man, a great scholar, and a prolific writer. Most of his career was spent in Damascus. He was a staunch defender of the Hanbali approach in creed (‘Aqida), an approach based on a reliance on the transmitted evidence of the Qur’an and Sunnah to establish and defend theological positions. Although he was himself a Hanbali, he differed from the mainstream of the school on many issues related to creed and jurisprudence. For example, despite the Hanbalis’ staunch condemnation of speculative theology (‘Ilm al-Kalam) Ibn Taymiyya was a fervent Mutakallim, or speculative theologian, as is evidence in his Fatawa and many of his treatises such as Minhaj as-Sunnah.
His defenders claim that he only studied and employed the language of the speculative theologians, the logicians and others to refute his opponents. However, this is the exact argument of those he condemns for employing the language and analytical framework of the philosophers, such as the Mu’tazila and the Ash’aris. They argued that they were only employing the language of their opponents to effectively refute them. His deep involvement in speculative theology drew strong condemnation from many of his fellow Hanbalis.
Ibn Taymiyya’s theology contained many deviations from the agreed upon positions of the Sunni Muslims. For example in his critique of Ibn Hazm’s work, Naqd Maratib al-‘Ijma (Critique of the Levels of Consensus), he mentions that the Throne, and implies that other created things, have a preexisting eternal nature, something all Muslims have held to be an attribute of Allah alone.
He also insisted on “constituting” the Divine as a physical body, by emphasizing the reality (Haqiqiyya) of his various attributes, along with an insistence on physical boundaries to contain and define his essence, to such an exaggerated extent that one would be led to envision Him (Allah) as resembling His creation, in violation of the fundamental rule governing our understanding of those attributes, Laysa Kamithlihi Shay’un (There is nothing like unto Him) (Qur’an 42:11). For these and other innovations in ‘Aqida, Ibn Taymiyya was strongly condemned by many of the scholars his time and imprisoned several times to force his repentance.
He also differed from the consensus of the Sunni scholars on legal issues. An example would be his ruling that three simultaneously-issued divorce pronouncements constituted a single revocable divorce. On these and similar matters he contravened the established consensus of the Sunni Jurists. Such legal verdicts only add to the controversial nature of Ibn Taymiyya.
The problem with taking Ibn Taymiyya as the standard for judging the correctness of the creed of the Muslims is that he is an extremely controversial figure, who himself was condemned and tried by the scholars of his age for what they viewed as defective ‘Aqida. As ‘Aqida is based on clearly understood, communally transmitted (Mutawatir) texts and positions, the controversial nature of many of his positions and decrees indicates his deviation from that which has been communally transmitted. As a result, by accepting many of his positions, we are implicitly forced to condemn multitudes Muslims to Hell. This would include those who lived in the generations who preceded him, including many of the Salaf. This is a dangerous and untenable position.
We are enjoined to have a good opinion of all Muslims; owing to the power of La ilaha Illa Allah Muhammad Rasulullah therefore I pray that Ibn Taymiyya repented from anything that would jeopardize his salvation. May Allah reward Ibn Taymiyya for his good, forgive and overlook his wrong, and accept his repentance.] -End of His comments-
AH’s Comments:
Assalamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullah,
Dear Imam Zaid Shakir, May Allah (jalla thana ‘uh) bless you and reward you abundantly with his limitless grace and bounty.
Those accusations you have pointed out against Imam Ibn Taymiyyah are not precisely correct nor accurate. Yes, there were some in the past who not only disagreed with him in some of his views, and also went to extremes and falsely excommunicated him however, as Imam Al-Hafidh al-Bazzar said, depicting the opponents of ibn Taymiyyah: “you would not see a scholar opposing him (ibn Taymiyyah), dissuading from him, filled with hatred for him, except that he was the most greedy of them in gathering the worldly goods, the most cunning of them in acquiring them, the most ostentatious of them, the most desirous for reputation and the most prolific of them in having lies on his tongue.” [Al-A`laam al-Uliyyah' (pg. 82) of al-Bazzar].
The accusation that ibn Taymiyyah held Allah to be a body, of composite parts having organs, the accusation that he held Allah to be subject to direction (jiha), the accusation that he held Allah to be subject to limitation (hadd), or the accusation that he held the view that this universe has a preexisting precedence are all erroneous and are all defamations fired against this great individual.
A sincere researcher of the works of the Imam does not, and will not find anything that suggests that he advocated these false and erroneous concepts, let alone believed them to be part of the Sunnah. He wrote on these topics and said that these terminologies are new, they are not in the Qur’an or the Sunnah, nor were they employed by the companions. ‘’We have mentioned many a time before that the Salaf and the Imams have not spoken about such things – neither by way of negation, nor by way of affirmation. Rather they declared those who spoke about such matter to be innovators, and went to great lengths to censure them.’’
This is what has repeatedly been affirmed by Shaykh al-Islam – may Allah have mercy on him – in many of his books, such as: ‘Sharh Hadith an-Nuzul’ (pp. 69-76), ‘Majmu’ al-Fatawa’ (3/306-310, 13/304-305), ‘Minhaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah’ (2/134-135, 192, 198-200, 527). Indeed in ‘Sharh Hadith an-Nuzul’ Shaykh al-Islam has labeled ascribing Allah with the term jism, by saying, ‘an innovation in the Shari’ah, a corruption of the language, and a contradiction to the [sound] intellect. Rather it is repudiated by the Shari’ah, the language and the [sound] intellect.’
The bases of these claims are either because of some people’s hatred or animosity towards Ibn Taymiyyah or that they did not understand the purport of the statements of the Imam on some of these issues. Many luminaries of the past have testified to the correctness and authenticity of the creed of Imam Ibn Taymiyyah, such as Imam Adh Dhahabi, Imam Al-Mizzi, Imam Badr ad-Din Al-Hanafi, Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani, Al-Hafidh al-Bazzar, Imam Ibn ul Qayyim al-Jawziyyah to name but a few. These were people of knowledge and sound intellect, their commendation and approval should be sufficient for us to determine the uprightness of the Imam in terms of his Aqidah.
Al-Hafidh al-Mizzi said, “I have not seen the likes of him, and his own eye had not seen the likes of himself. And I have not seen one who was more knowledgeable than him of the Book and the Sunnah of His Messenger, or one who followed them more closely.” ['Hayaat Shaykh al-Islaam ibn Taymiyyah' (pg. 21) of Shaykh Bahjatul Baitaar.]
Al-Hafidh ibn Daqiq al-Eid said, “When I met ibn Taymiyyah I saw a man with all the sciences in front of his eyes, he took from them what he wished and he left what he wished.” [‘Min Mashaheer al-Mujaddidayn' (pg.26) of Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan] This after he had said, “By Allah I did not think that there remained the likes of you.” [ 'al-Bidayah wan Nihayah' (14/27) of ibn Kathir and 'Dhail `alaa Tabaqaat al-Hanabila' (2/392) of ibn Rajab.]
The Qadi of Qadis ibn al-Huriri said, “If ibn Taymiyyah was not Shaykh al-Islaam than who is?” ['Hayaat Shaykh al-Islaam' (pg.26)]
Al-Hafidh al-Bazzar said, “I have not seen him mention any of the pleasures and attractions of this world, he did not delve into worldly conversations and he never asked for any of its livelihood. Instead he directed his attentions and conversations to seeking the Hereafter and what could get him closer to Allah.” ['al-A`lam al-Uliyyah' (pg.52) of al-Bazzar.]
Al-Hafidh Abdurrahman ibn Rajab al-Hanbali said, “He is the Imaam, the legal Jurist, the Mujtahid, the Scholar of Hadith, the Haafidh, the Explainer of the Qur’an, the Ascetic, Taqi ad-Din Abu al-Abbas Shaykh al-Islam, the most knowledgeable of the knowledgeable, it is not possible to exaggerate his renown when he is mentioned. He, May Allah have mercy upon him, was unique in his time with respect to understanding the Qur’an and knowledge of the realities of faith.” ['adh-Dhail `alaa Tabaqaat al-Hanabila' (2/387-392) of ibn Rajab]
The Imam of the Hanafis, Badr ad-Din (Mahmud bin Ahmad) al-`Ainee said, “Whosoever says ibn Taymiyyah is a kafir the he is in reality himself a kafir, and the one who accuses him of heresy is himself a heretic. How is this possible when his works are widely available and there is no hint of deviation or dissension contained therein.” ['Rad al-Waafir' (pg. 245)]
I do not wish to go into the intellectual discussions and the arguments concerning these accusations, for that will take some time and this is not the platform for that. For a detail analysis of these accusations and clarifications people should resort to the writings of the Imam. The books he authored on creed and related matters are many and with the grace of Allah many of them have been published in the Arabic Language. I will suffice here in just mentioning what Imam Ibn Taymiyyah said himself on these issues, and with the help of Allah that should be enough to clarify these false claims. Those people who do not have access to the Arabic books or do not know the Arabic language, I advise them to read a book entitled ‘Mountains of Knowledge’, it clarifies in English the position of the Imam in these matters.
His statements on the universe having a preexisting precedence:
He said in this regard: ‘“ that which the Qur’an and the Tawrat came with, which the Salaf of this nation, its Imams and with the Imams of the Ahlul Kitab say is that this universe was created by Allah and was generated from a substance that was created before it, as he informs us in the Qur’an, that (he rose over the sky while it was smoke) in another words steam or vapor:( then he said to it and to the world come willingly or unwillingly). Before that there were other created things such as the ‘Arsh and the water, he says (and it is he who created the Heavens and the Earth in six days, and his ‘Arsh was on the water).
This is the madhab of the majority of the scholars…..However, it was narrated from some of them that this substance is old-eternal, and this is also baatil.” (Dar’ taa’arud: 91/123)
He also said:
“that which the people understand is that everything except Allah is created, new and existent, before there was nothing. Allah is al-qadeem the eternal. There is nothing old with him that preceded him. But everything except him was created after there was nothing. So he is unique with al-qidam, as he is distinct in his creating, origination, divinity and Lordship. Everything except him is new, created dependent and slaves to him. This is the meaning which is known from the Prophets, followers of the Prophets, among the Muslims, the Jews and the Christians…” [Dar’ taa’arud: 1/125]
He, May Allah have mercy on him said: “ whoever presumes that Allah’s being above the sky, with the meaning that the sky encompasses and holds him, then he is a liar if he narrates this from someone else, and he is astray if he believes this regarding his Lord, and we have not heard anyone understand this from the wording, nor have we seen a single person narrate this from anyone, and if it was asked to all the Muslims: do you understand from the saying of Allah and his Messenger “Allah is above the sky” that the sky holds him, everyone would reply: this is something that has not occurred in our minds. However, the belief among the Muslims concerning Allah being above the sky (fis sama), is how the Qur’an and the Sunna state it, he is over the Throne, Wahid (one), so by the sky it is intended al-’uluw (highness). Therefore the meaning is that Allah is high and not low (sufl).” [Al- Fatwa humawiya: 523-524]
He also said: “ Indeed, the word Tashbih among the speech of the people is a general word; if it is wished by it the negation of tashbih of what the Qur’an has negated then this is true (haq), and if it is wished by tashbih that which does not affirm for Allah anything from the attributes then this necessitates that he cannot be called: Hay’ (the living) ‘Aleem (the knowing), Qadeer (the powerful), because the ‘abd (believer) is also called by these names. This is also true in his speech, his hearing, his seeing, his vision and so on. Therefore, it is not be said that this tashbih must be negated.” [Minhaj As- Sunnah: 2/80]
He also mentions:
“from faith (iman) is acceptance (iman) of what Allaah has ascribed Himself in the scripture as well as what the messenger ascribed to Him. [This creed] prevents any attempts at altering the sacred texts (tahreef), and rules out stripping Allaah of his tributes (ta’teel) or asking questions), concerning their modality (takyeef…ie…ascribing a “howness”, or attempting to understand them analogically (tamtheel). Indeed [the ahlus-sunnah] hold that:
There is nothing like unto Him (Allaah); [that] He is the All-Hearing and All-Seeing One [Qur’an 42:11]. [Aqidah Wasitiyyah]
He further clarifies his position by stating:
“It is a must to affirm that which Allaah affirms for himself, whilst negating any likeness to Him to His creation….. whoever says His Knowledge is like my knowledge, His Power like my power, or Love like my love, or Pleasure like my pleasure, or Hand like my hand, or istawa (ascending) like my ascending– then he has resembled and likened Allaah to His creation. Rather, it is must to affirm (Allah’s Attributes) without any resemblance, and to negate (what Allaah negates for Himself), without ta’teel (divesting Allaah of any of His affirmed Attributes).” [At-Tadmuriyyah [p20]:
He considered those who liken the attributes of Allah (jalla thana ‘uh) to their attributes to be deviant innovators:
“Whosoever considers the Attributes of Allaah to be like the attributes of creation- such that the Istawa (Ascending) of Allaah is like the ascending of the creation, or His nuzul (descending) is like the descending of the creation, or other than that– then he is a deviant innovator.” [Majmu’-al Fatawa:5/262]
I conclude this section by quoting what Shaykh Dr Ramadan Al-Buti said regarding the belief of Imam Ibn Taymiyyah on the names and attributes of Allah:
“And we are amazed when we see the extremists declaring ibn Taymiyyah, may Allaah have mercy upon him, of being an unbeliever. And also at them saying that he was one who held Allaah 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 Allaah 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 Allaah has a Hand as He said, and has risen over the Throne as He said, and He has an Eye as He said’”
And he adds to this, “I referred to the last work written by Abu al-Hasan al-Ash`ari, ‘al-Ibanah’, and I found him saying exactly what ibn Taymiyyah said [on the issue of the Names and Attributes of Allah].” ['Nadwa Ittijahat al-Fiqr al-Islami (pp 264-265) of al-Buti].
Statements such as these are plenty and very clear on these issues.
As for the issue of Talaq, I quote to you what Imam Sayyid Sabiq said in Fiqh us Sunnah:
“Muslim scholars maintain that the one who divorces his wife three times in one occasion has committed a sin. It is reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) became very angry when he was informed that a man had divorced his wife by pronouncing it three times on one occasion.
However, jurists differ as to whether the divorce pronounced three times in succession is to be counted as one divorce pronouncement or three separate divorces. The majority of scholars state that if the husband pronounces the divorce of his wife three times on one occasion, it will be counted as three divorces. This is the opinion of many of the Prophet’s Companions, the majority of the successors, and the imams of the four schools of fiqh.
Other scholars including Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim are of the opinion that it should be counted as only one pronouncement of divorce. This is also reported by Ibn al-Munzir from `Ata’, Tawus, Ibn Dinar. Ibn Mughith also reported this opinion of `Ali ibn Abi Talib, Ibn Mas`ud, `Abdur-Rahman ibn `Awf, Az-Zubayr from among the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).They quote the following hadith in support of their view: “Ibn `Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) reports that the (pronouncement) of three divorces during the lifetime of Allah’s Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and that of Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) and two years of the caliphate of `Umar ibn Al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) was treated as once. But `Umar ibn Al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) said: “Verily the people have begun to hasten in the matter in which they are required to observe respite. So if we had imposed this upon them (i.e. regard the divorce pronounced three times in succession as irrevocable divorce, it would have deterred them from doing so)!” So he regarded it as such. This latter view is believed to be the most correct.”
Imam Ibn Taymiyyah was not the sole Scholar who held this view as you can read. Even for the sake of argument if we acknowledge that he was in error in this matter, he will be rewarded for his ijtihad. He was by no means infallible, he was a human being, made mistakes like any other human being however, as Imam Ibn Kathir mentioned that his mistakes are like drops in the vast ocean compared to the many correct judgments he issued.
Its not unusual for a great individual to be attacked like this, many in his time tried to weaken him and many a time plotted to kill him but he came out victorious at the end because he, May Allah have mercy upon him, was not defending and promoting his own ego, he was defending the Qur’an and Sunnah. No person or Scholar who were afforded the opportunity to intellectually challenge him were able to stand against his rationality and the immaculate knowledge he posessed on the Qur’an and Sunnah. Scholars and proponents of all the schools (those who were his enemies, such as Ibn Makhluf Al-Maliki) of thought made many attempts to subdue and suppress him and his teaching of the people, they spread lies and rumors about his teachings and verdicts, but their futile efforts did not deter this great Imam from speaking the truth. His legacy will continue to live on as long as there are people of truth and justice in this world.
I hope and pray I have not mentioned anything which was not within the adab of a student to a teacher. My love and passion for the truth and its people gave me the impetus to compile these few sentences. I pray to Allah that he forgives us and increases us in knowledge and amal.
Al Faqiru Ila Allah AH
Salam,
Jazakallah brother for posting this response. How dare they accuse this Imam of such lies, May Allah forgive them for doing injustice to him
Salaam ‘Alaikum. I read the mentioned article and like you have responded. However, my response seems to have been deleted or not added for some reason.
Alhamdulillah, I have added it here.
Dear Brother Zaid,
I pray that you are in the best of health and Imaan. May Allah reward you for your efforts to aid and preserve the Religion of Allah, those that were done sincerely for His sake alone and with due knowledge, and may Allah also forgive you your mistakes, from those that were done intentionally and unintentionally…Ameen
Bismillah,
It saddens me to read the article you have presented here on the issue of Ibn Taymiyyah and alleging that he has ‘defective ‘Aqida’. It was utter disbelief on my part to learn that a brother of your stature, who has studied and propagated the Religion of Allah to parrot (seemingly) without due care the allegations of a few individuals against Shaykh Al Islam in a time and age in which such matters were thoroughly investigated and clarified. One only needs to read such works as ‘Aqidah al Wasitiyyah’, ‘Aqidah al Hamawiyyah’, and ‘At-Tadmuriyyah’ to know that Ibn Taymiyyah was scholar of Ahl-Sunnah and whose ‘Aqidah was in conformity with the Qur’an and authentically transmitted text and with the accepted understanding of the pious predecessors.
Allegations were indeed made against Shaykh al Islam; some due to misinterpretations and misunderstandings while others simply out of envy and hatred for the noble position he had gained amongst his community. However, as the episode with the Shafi’I scholar, ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdur Rahman in which Shaykh al Islam was called in to answer for certain statements in Al Hmawiyyah and subsequently released with satisfaction, proves that his ‘Aqidah was accepted to be in conformity with Ahl-Sunnah. Even the Ash’ari scholar, Safi al Hindi proclaimed that his beliefs were in par with the Qur’an and Sunnah.
The rebuttals offered in the comments by brother Hasan should alone suffice for you and the readers to know the reality of the situation. Yet your reply to the comments astonishes me. While I commend you for ‘partly’ amending the article in light of what the brother has said, you have failed to remove what seems to highlight your own position in regards to the Imam (Shaykh al Islam). It is for this reason I offer the following comments:
Firstly, you state in your article that, “Ibn Taymiyya was a fervent Mutakallim” and that consequently he applied his ‘speculative theology’ in his fatawa and in such treatise as Majmoo’ al Fatawa.
In response, I would like to direct you and the readers to his, ‘Radd ‘ala al-Mantiqiyyeen’. It is indeed true that the Shaykh had spent a lot of his time and efforts in studying kalaam and the works of oriental philosophers, but it was done as you have kindly mentioned in your article, ‘to refute his opponents’. It is a known principle in Islam which dictates that the allegations of the enemies of Islam are rebuffed and checked and that if necessary, provisions be made to learn new material which will aid and benefit such recourses, as is evident in the Seerah. Ibn Taymiyyah’s learning and studying of the allegations of Ahl al Kalam does not conclude that he himself was a mutakallim in the same respect. His work, ‘Radd ‘ala al-Mantiqiyyeen’ is a clear example of his staunch and vehement position towards the people of kalam.
You also say:
“Ibn Taymiyya’s theology contained some deviations from the agreed upon positions of the Sunni Muslims. For example in his critique of Ibn Hazm’s work, Naqd Maratib al-‘Ijma (Critique of the Levels of Consensus), he implies that the Throne and other created things have a preexisting eternal nature, something all Muslims have held to be an attribute of Allah alone.”
As brother Hasan as pointed out, this is an error of ‘inference’ on your part. The Shakyh said:
“So that which the people understand is that everything except Allah is created, new and existent, and there was nothing and that Allah is al-qadeem the eternal. There is nothing old with him that preceded him. But everything except him was created after there was nothing. So he is unique with al-qidam, as he is distinct in his creating, origination, divinity and Lordship. Everything except him is new, created dependant and slaves to him. This is the meaning which is known from the Prophets, followers of the Prophets, among the Muslims, the Jews and the Christians…”
(Dar’ taa’arud: 1/125)
Nowhere does the Shaykh, in any of his writings or speeches say that there are things which have a ‘prexisting eternal nature’. It is a grave misconstruetion of what the Shaykh was attempting to impart. We affirm that Allah is the Ever Living and Eternal, and yet with this belief comes the implication that in CONTEXT things have always existed. This does not mean, as is seemingly misunderstood by his allegers, that ‘a’ thing as been in existence eternally. Rather, that since Allah has always existed in an absolute ETERNAL sense, then so must His power to create and cause things to come into existence. Therefore the ‘opportunity’ if it may be termed thus has ALWAYS been there for Allah to create and as such, in this context, i.e. things being created in serial procession, things have always been in existence.
You say:
“He also insisted on “constituting” the Divine as a physical body, by emphasizing the reality (Haqiqiyya) of his various attributes, along with an implicit insistence on physical boundaries to contain and define his essence, to such an exaggerated extent that one would be led to envision Him (Allah) as resembling His creation, in violation of the fundamental rule governing our understanding of those attributes, Laysa Kamithlihi Shay’un (There is nothing like unto Him) (Qur’an 42:11).”
In your response to brother Hasan, you proclaim that you do not ‘mean’ to say that Ibn Taymiyyah has said that Allah has a body or is confined to a specific direction. How then should we understand what you have written above? You write, ‘He also INSISTED’ and then say that you do not mean to say such and such. The inclusion of the word ‘constitutes’ seems to be mere wordplay and does not atone from what is obviously being stated in your sentence: that he did indeed proclaim that Allah has a body.
The attributes of Allah are known and have been discussed in innumerable works and treatise of Ibn Taymiyyah. He has clarified over and over again the insistence of Ahl-Sunnah believing in the attributes of Allah ‘bi la kayf!’ I would like to point to a few:
“from faith (eemaan) is acceptance (eemaan) of what Allaah has ascribed Himself in the scripture as well as what the messenger ascribed to Him. [This creed] prevents any attempts at altering the sacred texts (tahreef), and rules out stripping Allaah of his tributes (ta’teel) or asking questions), concerning their modality ( takyeef..ie ..ascribing a “howness”, or attempting to understand them analogicaly (tamtheel). Indeed [the ahlus-sunnah] hold that:
There is nothing like unto Him (Allaah); [that] He is the All-Hearing and All-Seeing One (Qur.aan 42:11).
They do not negate what Allaah has attributed Himself, nor do they alter the meaning of His words on these matters, nor subscribe to heretical notions regarding the divine names (asmaa’) and manifestations (aayaat). They do NOT (!!!) seek to explain His attributes (sifaat) or COMPARE THEM with those of HIS CREATURES, for He (Allaah) has no namesake (samiy), no equal, no peer (nidd) and, therefore, He, the One free of all imperfections and Most High, does NOT befit of being compared to His creatures.”
[‘Aqidah al Wasitiyyah]
“It is a must to affirm that which Allaah affirms for himself , whilst NEGATING ANY likeness to Him to His craetion….. whoever says His Knowledge is like my knowledge, His Power like my power, or Love like my love, or Pleasure like my pleasure, or Hand like my hand, or istawaa (ascending) like my ascending– then he has resembled and likened Allaah to His creation. Rather, it is must to affirm (Allaah’s Attributes) without any resemblance, and to negate (what Allaah negates for Himself), without ta’teel (divesting Allaah of any of His affirmed Attributes).”
[At Tadrumiyyah]
“Whosoever considers the Attributes of Allaah to be like the attributes of creation- such that the Istawa (Ascending) of Allaah is like the ascending of the creation, or His nuzool (descending) is like the descending of the creation, or other than that– then he is a DEVIATED INNOVATOR.”
[Majmoo’ al Fatawa]
Lastly, you mention that he departed with the major schools of thought on legal issues. In this regard I would like to point out that Ibn Taymiyyah was a man just like me and those who may be reading this response. As such we are prone to errors as the prophet (pbuh) stated: ‘Every son Adam errs…’ The issue here is a matter of ijtihad and should not be used as evidence to suggest that he had deviated from the Right Path which in the context of the allegations presented against him earlier seems to indicate.
I would like to end this response by praising Allah and proclaim that if any good has come from this offering, then it is from Him, and if there be any errors then they are mine alone, for which I sincerely ask His forgiveness.
as-Salâm ‘alaikum wa rahmatullah,
Jazâkallah khairan for your replies to ZS’s statements about Shaikh of Islam Ibn Taimiyyah.
asalam
Interestingly, Zaid Shakir is still in conformity to this “Subki” way of thinking here
“However, I think that Ibn Taymiyya is controversial for reasons that have dangerous implications, which I sought to outline. Unfortunately, I did not word things as clearly as I should have.”
refer to here for a detailed comments in question and answer form regarding the major issues with Ibn Taymiyyah
http://al-mustaqeem.tripod.com//id18.html
asalamu alaikum
Ibn Taymiyyah was no more contraversial than Imaam al-Bukharee when he spoke of al-lafdh. He hismelf is clear to the Sunni world at large, the only people who have doubts about him and view him as such is none other than people given to contraversy i.e. kalaam
There is nothing “dengerous” explicitly, nor implicitly of any of his writings and the fact that even the mubtadi’a of his own peers in Dimashq HAD to submit to the reality of Ibn Taymiyya’s sunnism is explicit testimony of his “clear” aqeedah and testimony to the fact that it is his opposers, who had the deviation of aqeedah and who are themselves in contraversy. After Ibnul-Qudamah, Ibn Taymiyyah became the champion of the athari creed for the rest of time.
secodnly, I wish to comment on Zayd’s second response which i quote an excerpt from it here
“As far as Ibn Taymiyya is concerned, I did not intend to attack him, I intended to mention the arguments of his opponents which were the loci of the controversies that surrounded him. ”
but for what reason, what speck of beneficial guidance in this entire universe would be of any use to cite clear cut innovators, his oponents as proof to his “contraversy”
That right there is the problem that parades with some people, that the mere involvement in kalaam is itself the label of being a mutakalim. The difference between Ibn Taymiyyah and his ash’ari counterparts is he did not mutazilfy his aqeedah as the mutakalimeen did because, as is known, that is how the ash’aris, at least the mutaakhireen based their usool in aqeedah, upon the basis of jawharat at-tawheed and the likes of those muatili books.
as for Ibn taymiyyah hismelf, brother sallam provided sufficient proofs jazakallahu khair
also
I should have worded the begining more correctly, I dont mean to belittle Zayd Shakir by the “subki way of think” but merelyt meant that his analysis is nothing more than how subki and most of the individuals among the ashaa’irah had view Ibn Taymiyyah. I meant no disrespect on this
masalama
“…Ibn Taymiyya is controversial for reasons that have dangerous implications…”
I believe Shaykhul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah is ‘dangerous’ simply because he is a thorn in the side of the innovators and heretics. It is an indication of someone’s agenda when they attack Shaykhul Islam intentionally and deliberately.
Shaykhul Islam is far above what they accuse him of and he never paid attention to the blame of the blamers when defending the truth. He sought help only from Allah SWT and never from the creation.