The Creator is clear from Anthropomorphism (500AH-900AH Part2)

Part 2

Read Full Article Here

Last Updated: 17/Feb/2015


Shaykh al-Islam Imam Al-Ghazali (d.505 AH) says in “Iljaam Al-Awaam” that denying bodily characteristics for Aļļaah is a primary duty of all Muslims, scholars and commoners alike.
He makes it clear that believing that Allaah is a body (i.e. something that has size) is kufr and idolatry: I mean by “body” something with length, width and depth that prevents something else to exist where it exists…. 
So if it came to someone’s mind that Aļļaah is a body composed of limbs, then this person is an idol worshipper. 
The reason is that all bodies are created, and to worship something created is kufr.

After all, idol worship is kufr because the idol is created, and the idol is created because it is a body.
Hence, the one who worships a body is a kaafir by the consensus of the Muslim Nation, both the salaf and those later.

Imam al-Ghazali also makes the same point about Ru’yah in a detailed section of his al-Iqtsad fil I’tiqad (his masterpiece on ‘Aqidah).

Please read his clear discussion (starting from فلنبحث عن الحقيقة ما هي؟) translated below:
“We should therefore discuss the reality (of Ru’yah) what is it? It has no reality but that it is a type of perception, which is a more complete and a greater disclosure in relation to imagination. For example, we see a friend and then shut our eyes, so the image of the friend is present in our brain in the sense of imagination and conceptualisation. But if we opened the eye, we would perceive a difference. That difference is not due to perceiving an image different to what was in the imagination. Rather, the image that was seen is in conformity to the one imagined without difference. So there is no distinction between them, except that this second state is like a completion for the state of imagination and is like an opening-up of it. So when opening the eye, an image of the friend is created in a way that is more clear, complete and perfect…Hence, imagination is a type of perception at a level, and beyond it is another level which is more complete than it in clarity and disclosure, and is like a completion of it. So we call this completion with respect to the imagination: Ru’yah and Ibsar.
“Similarly there are some things which we know but we cannot imagine, which is the essence of Allah and His attributes, and everything that doesn’t have a form, meaning no colour and no size, like power, knowledge, love, sight and imagination. These are things we know but do not imagine. Knowledge of them is a kind of perception. So we should contemplate: Does the intellect (‘aql) find it impossible that this perception can be more complete – its relation to it (meaning the more complete perception’s relation to knowledge) is like the relation of seeing to imagination? If that is possible, we refer to that disclosure and completion in relation to knowledge: Ru’yah, like we referred to it in relation to imagination: Ru’yah. It is known that the possibility of this completion in opening-up and disclosure is not impossible in known things that exist which are not imagined, like knowledge, power etc. and likewise, in the essence and attributes of Allah (Most High)…So we say that is not impossible, as there is nothing making it impossible, but ‘aql is proof of its possibility…However, this completion in disclosure is not expended in this world, while the soul is in the occupation of the body and the impurity of its attributes, so because of it, it (complete disclosure) is hidden to him. Just as it is not farfetched that the eyelid or a screen or a stain in the eye is a cause – according to the normal course of nature – of the impossibility of viewing imagined things, so it is not farfetched that the impurity of the self and the overloading of the veils of occupations – according to the normal course of nature – prevents viewing (ibsar) of known things. So when what is in the graves are scattered…and the hearts are purified by pure drink…it is not impossible that because of it, it becomes ready for greater completion and perception of the essence of Allah (Most High). Since in all known things, the elevation of its level from the recognised type of knowledge is like the elevation of the level of sight from imagination, this is expressed as meeting Allah (Most High), witnessing Him, seeing Him, and observing Him, or whatever expression you please, as there is no tenacity in that after the meanings are made clear.

“When that is possible, when this reality is created in the eye, the term Ru’yah in terms of the applicability of language to it is even more true. Creating it in the eye is not impossible, just as creating it in the heart is not impossible. Once it is understood what the people of truth intend by Ru’yah, it is known that the intellect does not find it impossible, but necessary as the Shari’ah attests to it, so there is no room for disagreement except by obstinacy or tenacity in using the term Ru’yah or deficiency in understanding these subtle meanings we described. We should limit ourself to this quantity in this summary.”

Alhamdulillah, his discussion beautifully explains what I had in my mind and what I tried to convey above. Towards the end of his discussion on Ru’yah,

Imam al-Ghazali says (from: ولينظر المنصف كيف افترقت الفرق)
“Let the fair person consider how the splinter groups divided, and parted into the extremist and the negligent:
As for the Hashawiyyah, they were not able to understand something that exists which is not in a direction, so they affirmed direction, so by necessity, corporealism, measurement, and having the qualities of temporality became necessary for them. As for the Mu’tazilah, they negated direction, and they were not able to affirm Ru’yah without it, and because of it they opposed the absolute decrees of Shari’ah, and they believed that in affirming it (Ru’yah) there is affirmation of direction

“These (Mu’tazilah) became immersed in tanzih trying to avoid tashbih, so they were negligent. And the Hashawiyyah affirmed direction, trying to avoid ta’til so they made (Allah) similar [to creation].

So Allah guided the Ahlus Sunnah to establish the truth. So they acquired the middle path, and they knew that direction is negated, because it is a complement and completion of corporealism, and that Ru’yah is established, because it is a passenger of knowledge and its close relative, and it (Ru’yah) is a completion of it (knowledge). Hence, negation of corporealism necessitated the negation of direction which is from its necessites. And the establishment of knowledge necessitated the establishment of Ru’yah which is from its follow-ups and completors and shares with it in its quality which is that it does not necessitate any change in the essence of the object that is seen, but pertains to it as it is, like knowledge. It is not hidden to the intelligent person that this is moderation in belief [Iqtisad fil I’tiqad].”

Imam al-Ghazali on seeking intercession through the Prophet,sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam:
ثم يقول ” اللهم إنك قد قلت وقولك الحق { ولو أنهم إذ ظلموا أنفسهم جاءوك فاستغفروا الله واستغفر لهم الرسول لوجدوا الله تواباً رحيماً } اللهم إنا قد سمعنا قولك وأطعنا أمرك وقصدنا نبيك متشفعين به إليك في ذنوبنا وما أثقل ظهورنا من أوزارنا تائبين من زللنا معترفين بخطايانا وتقصيرنا فتب اللهم علينا وشفع نبيك هذا فينا وارفعنا بمنزلته عندك وحقه عليك
Then he (i.e. the person who is visiting the grave of theProphet, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) should say:
O Allah, You spoke and your saying is the truth: { If they had only, when they were unjust to themselves, come unto thee and asked Allah’s forgiveness, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah indeed Oft-returning, Most Merciful } [4:64].
O Allah, we’ve indeed heard your statement and followed your command and came to your Prophet seeking intercession through him unto You for our sins and burdens that weigh [heavily] on our backs, repenting from our faults and confessing our errors and shortcomings.
So grant us forgiveness, o Allah, and let this your Prophet intercede for us, and elevate us by virtue of his rank and right with You.”
Source: “Ihya` ‘Ulum al-Din

Shaykh Abul-Wafa’ ‘Ali Ibn ‘Aqil al-Baghdadiyy (d. 513 AH), the head of the Hanbali School at the time, was quoted in a book called ‘Al-Baz al-Ashhab’: “Allah is clear of having the attribute of occupying places, for this is exactly the blasphemous belief of tajsim (attributing Allah with bodily concepts)”.

Ibn `Aqil al-Hanbali  One of the great early authorities of the Hanbali school  said:  “Exalted is Allah above having an attribute which occupies space — this is anthropomorphism itself! Nor is Allah divisible and in need of parts with which to do something. Does not His order and His fashioning act upon the fire? How then would He need the help of any part of Himself, or apply Himself to the fire with one of His attributes, while He is the one Who says to it: “Be coolness and peace” (21:69)? What idiotic belief is this, and how far remote it is from the Fashioner of the dominions and the firmaments! Allah gave them the lie in His book when He said: “If these had been gods, they would never have gone down to it” (21:99): how then can they think that the Creator goes down to it? Exalted is Allah above the ignorant pretenses of the mujassima!”” [Ibn al-Jawzi, Daf` shubah al-tashbih p. 172-174. ]



Imam Abu Nasr ibn al-Qushayri (d.514 AH) described the method that the anthropomorphists use to lead people to adopt wrong beliefs. He mentioned this in his book at-Tadhkirat ash-Sharqiyyat. Imam Murtada az-Zabidi quotes an excerpt of this book in volume 2 of his own book Ithaf Sadat al-Muttaqin pages 176-177 (last paragraph of page 176, first paragraph  of page 177), where Ibn al-Qushayri says :

A group of people has appeared, and if it were not for the fact that they approach laymen by what is close to their way of thinking and what is imagined in their illusions, I would have honoured this book by avoiding to [even] mention them.

They say: ‘We follow the apparent meaning, and the verses which suggest resemblance [between Allaah and His creations], for example the narrations which suggest a limit and a member [to Allaah], we give them the apparent meaning, and it is not permissible to interpret in another meaning, for any of those issues.‘  They pretend to be following the saying of Allaah ta’aala وما يعلم تأويله إلا الله (wa ma ya’lamu ta’weelahu ‘illallaah) which means “And only Allaah knows its ta’weel”, and these people, by Allaah, are more harmful to Islam than the Jews, the Christians, the fire-worshippers and the idol-worshippers. Indeed, the deviations of the non-Muslims are obvious, and the Muslims steer clear away from them, whereas these people have launched an attack on the religion and on the laymen in a way which can fool the weakest among them.

They have suggested these bad innovations to their followers, and they have introduced in their hearts the fact of attributing to the one who is worshipped subhaanah:members, senses, ascending, descending, lying down, sitting, as well as moving into the different directions.

Therefore, the one who goes by the apparent meaning, he will start to imagine, with his illusions, things which are perceptible by our senses, and he will then have as a belief unacceptable things, and the tide will take him away without him even realising.

He also says, page 179:

The truth of the matter is that the very people who prohibitothers to make interpretations [actually] believe in assimilation, tashbih [i.e. making Allah resemble His creations] but they try to hide it by saying “Allah is attributed with a Yad which is not like other yads, and Allah is attributed with a Qadam but not like other qadams, and Allah is attributed with al-Istiwa’ by Himself, but not like the istiwa’ we can perceive.”

Let the person who is among the people of the truth and who has been granted [proper] understanding say to them: ‘These statements need further clarification. For you to say ‘We take the text according to its apparent meaning, but we cannot understand its meaning’, is contradictory.

If you take the literal meaning of the ayah يوم يكشف عن ساق    ‘Yawma yukshafu ‘an saaq,’ which means: ‘A day when a saq is uncovered” then the literal meaning of  ‘saq’ is the organ which is composed of skin, flesh, nerves, bone and marrow. And if you take this literalmeaning, and make it binding upon yourself to accept these otherorgans, it is therefore blasphemy. And if  it is not possible for you to take this literal meaning, then where is your rule  of taking the apparent meaning (i.e.  how is it that you claim to adhere to the literal meanings?).  Wouldn’t you [actually] leave out the apparent meaning and acknowledge that the Lord ta’aala is free from what is suggested by the apparent meaning? And if the enemy says “These literal interpretations (adh-dhawaahir) do not have a meaning in the first place” then it is as if he is saying that these ayahs are invalid and that there is no benefit in these verses, and this is impossible.

Imam Abu Nasr ibn al-Qushayri is the son of the renownedImam Abu lQasim al-Qushayri (d.465 AH) Imam Murtada az-Zabidi, who quotes this statement, is also a great scholar who died in (d.1205 AH) and who wrote Taj al-Arus min Jawahir al-Qamus which is an Arabic dictionary  in twenty volumes and the absolute reference in its genre. The book from which this statement by al-Qushayri is taken is from another one of his famous books entitled Ithaf Sadat al-Muttaqin  and it is a commentary of the book Ihya’u ‘Ulum ad-Dinby Imam al-Ghazali (d.505 AH).

Look at how contemporary his sentences sound! He says: ‘these people, by Allaah, are more harmful to Islam than the Jews, the Christians, the fire-worshippers and the idol-worshippers. Indeed, the deviations of the non-Muslims are obvious, and the Muslims steer clear away from them, whereas these people have launched an attack on the religion and on the laymen in a way which can fool the weakest among them.’

Also pay attention to  ‘Therefore, the one who goes by the apparent meaning, he will start to imagine, with his illusions, things which are perceptible by our senses, and he will then have as a belief unacceptable things, and the tide will take him away without him even realising.’

And finally:  ‘The truth of the matter is that the very people who prohibit others to make interpretations [actually] believe in assimilation, tashbih [i.e. makingAllah resemble His creations] but they try to hide it by saying “Allah is attributed with a Yad which is not like other yads, and Allah is attributed with a Qadam but not like other qadams, and Allah is attributed with al-Istiwa’  by Himself, but not like the istiwa’ we can perceive.’

It is obvious that the arguments he was refuting at the time are those still in use nowadays by some people. Instead of only saying “We recite the revelation in Arabic and do not add anything to it (which would have been correct), they say: “We take the verses according to their apparent meaning, but we do not know how“, which Imam Ibn al-Qushayri rigorously exposed  as a nonsensical statement. [More info/Scans:Here]

Malik Ibn Anas’ al-Qadi (The Judge) Abu Bakr Ibn al-‘Arabi(d. 543 AH), a great Maliki scholar from Andalusia (presently known as Spain) In his book ‘al-Qabas fi sharh Muwatta’ said:“Allah, Who is ‘Al-Bari’ (The Creator) is clear from the limitation of the six directions or the envelopment of places”.

Imam Muhammad al-Shahrastani (d. 548 AH)

For post-classical Sunni theologians, tafwid and ta’wil were the two ways of warding off the literalist interpretations that they attributed to heretical corporealist (mujassima) groups such as the Karramiyya and Hashwiyya.
Ibn Taymiyya rejected both options, and it is thus not surprising that a scholar such as Ibn Hajar al-Haytami should have castigated him for having the same heretical views.

Already the theologian and heresiographer al-Shahrastani  hadexpressed the view that the origin of all shades of heretical anthropomorphism (tashbih) lay in the insistence on going beyond the tafwid of the salaf:

A group of later people added to what the salaf have said. They said: It is imperative to keep to the literal sense and to understand it as it appears, without presuming to reinterpret or suspend judgement as regards the literal meaning (la budda min ijra’iha ‘ala dhahiriha wa-al-qawl bi-tafsiriha kama waradat min ghayr ta’arrud li-al-ta’wil wa la tawaqquf fi al-zahir). Hence they fell into pure anthropomorphism (tashbih). This is contrary to what the salaf believed.

[Muhammad al-Shahrastani, Kitab al-milal wa-al-nihal, ed. by W. Cureton (Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1923 [reprint of 1846 edition], 64.]

Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdil-Karim ash-Shahrastaniyy, a great Shafi’i scholar (d.548 AH) In his book: ‘Nihayat al-‘Iqdam’,  said: “The creed of the People of Truth is that Allah, the Exalted, does not resemble any of the creations, and none of them resembles Him in any sort of similarity or equivalence. Verse 11 of Surat ash-Shura means: [There is absolutely nothing that resembles Allah, and He is attributed with Hearing and Sight]. Hence Allah is not a constituent part of an object, a mass, a bodily characteristic, nor is He located in any place or subject to time”.

Imam Shahrastani relates that Imam Ash`ari said:
The vision of Allah does not entail direction, place, or form, or face to face encounter either by impingement of rays or by impression, all of which are impossible
[Shahrastani, al-Milal wa al-nihal as translated by A.K. Kazi and J.G. Flynn, Muslim Sects and Divisions (London: Kegan Paul International, 1984) p. 85.]



Muhiyudeen Shaikh Abd Al Qadir Al Jilani al Hanabali (d.561AH) in his Kitab sirr al Asrar wa Mazhar al Anwar said:

” Our Master the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wassallam) said, ‘ The hearts of the children of Adam are between the two fingers of the All-Merciful. He turns them whichever way He wills.’

The two fingers of Allah are His attributes of the irresistible power of punishment and the loving and delicate beauty of the beneficence. “

(chapter 14, interpreted/translated by Shaykh Tosun Bayrak al-Jerrahi al-Halveti)


Imam Ibn Asakir (d.571AH) in his book: Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari fima nusiba ila l-imam al-Ash’ari

Page,150: Also, the ‘Najjariyyah’ say that the Creator, may He be exalted, is in all places without being diffused and without a direction, whereas the ‘Hashawiyyah’ and the ‘Mujassimah’ say that He is present on the Throne, that the Throne is His place, and that He is sitting on it. As for him [i.e. al-Ash’ari], he chose a middle way between the two, and he said that Allah existed and there was no place, then He created the Throne and the Kursi’, He does not need a place, and He is, after having created the places, as He has always been before He created them.

He explains here that the belief of Imam al-Ash’ari is that Allah does not need places.

Abul-Qasim ‘Ali Ibn al-Husayn Ibn Hibatillah known as Ibn ‘Asakir ad-Dimashqiyy (d.571 AH) In his book ‘Tabyin kadhib al-Muftari’ on the subject of the Attributes of Allah, the Exalted, said: “He (Allah) is eternally existent and eternally place did not exist, He created the ^Arsh and Kursiyy without the need for place. He still exists, after place was brought into existence, as He was before creating the place (i.e. without a place)”.

Imam Ibn ‘Asakir (d. 571 AH) has mentioned in his “Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari” that Imam Ibn Abi Zayd wrote a letter against someone from the Mu’tazilah and he also quoted some passages from that letter:
وقد قرأت بخط علي بن بقاء الوارق المحدث المصري ، رسالة كتب بها أَبُو مُحَمَّدٍ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ أَبِي زيدالقيرواني الفقيه المالكي ، وكان مقدم أصحاب مالك رحمه اللَّه بالمغرب في زمانه إلى علي بن أَحْمَدَبْنِ إِسْمَاعِيلَ البغدادي المعتزلي جوابا ، عن رسالة كتب بها إلى المالكيين من أهل القيروان يظهرنصيحتهم بما يدخلهم به في أقاويل أهل الاعتزال ، فذكر الرسالة بطولها في جزء وهي معروفة فمنجملة جواب ابْن أَبِي زيد له ، أن قَالَ ونسبت ابْن كلاب إلى البدعة ، ثم لم تحك عنه قولا ، يعرف أنهبدعة ، فيوسم بهذا الاسم ، وما علمنَا مَنْ نسبَ إلى ابْن كلاب البدعة ، والذي بلغنَا : أنه يتقلد السنة، ويتولى الرد على الجهمية ، وغيرهم من أهل البدع يعني عَبْد اللَّهِ بن سعيد بن كلاب وذكرتَالأشعري ، فنسبته إلى الكفر ، وقلتَ إنه كان مشهورا بالكفر ، وهذا ما علمنَا أن أحدا رماه بالكفرغيرك ، ولم تذكر الذي كفر به وكيف يكون مشهورا بالكفر من لم ينسب هذا إليه أحد علمنَاه فيعصره ، ولا بعد عصره ؟ وقلتَ إنه قدم بغداد ولم يقرب أحدا من المالكيين ، ولا من آل حماد بن زيدلعلمه أنهم يعتقدون أنه كافر ، ولم تذكر ما الذي كفروه به ؟ ثم ذكر ابْن أَبِي زيد تشنيع علي بن أَحْمَدَالبغدادي على الأشعري في مسألة اللفظ ، ثم قَالَ ابْن أَبِي زيد في الرد على البغدادي : والقارئ إِذَا تلاكتاب اللَّه لو جاز أن يقال إن كلام هذا القارئ ، كلام اللَّه على الحقيقة لفسد هذا ، لأن كلام القارئمحدث ، ويفني كلامه ويزول ، وكلام اللَّه ليس بمحدث ولا يفني ، وهو صفة من صفاته ، وصفته لاتكون صفة لغيره ، وهذا قول مُحَمَّد بن إِسْمَاعِيلَ البخاري ، وداود الأصبهاني ، وغيرهم ممن تكلم فيهذا ، وكلام مُحَمَّد بن سحنون إمام المغرب ، وكلام سعيد بن مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الحداد ، وكان من المتكلمينمن أهل السنة ، وممن يرد على الجهمية
الكتب – تبيين كذب المفتري فيما نسب إلى الأشعري – باب ما ذكر في ذم الأشعريوأصحابه
As you see
he defends and praises Imam Ibn Kullab (d. 240 AH) and also Imam al-Ash’ari (d. 324 AH) and even defends his position regarding the Kalam of Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala.

Shaykh Ahmad Ar-Rifa’i ash-Shafi’i (d. 578 AH) In his book ‘Al-Burhan al-Mu’ayyad’ (The Substantiated Proof), the prominent Shaykh and Imam of true sufis, said: “Clear your beliefs from interpreting the Arabic term ‘Istiwa’’, when in reference to Allah, as physical establishment in a way similar to the ‘istiwa’’ ofbodies upon other bodies which dictates the act of occupation because Allah is clear of that. And do not sanction attributing to Allah a directional above or below, a location, a physical hand or an eye or interpreting the word ‘Nuzul’ as physically descendingor moving”.

Imam Abu Faraj ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Jawzi, (d.597 AH


Ibn al-Jawzi’s book against the so-called Hanbali anthropomorphists has received many editions and is widely available. The title is: ‘Daf` shubah al-tashbih bi akuffi al-tanzih‘, “The Repelling With the Hands of Purification of the Sophistries of Anthroporphism”, also known as ‘al-Baz al-ashabb al-munqadd `ala mukhalifi al-madhhab al- hanbali’, “The Flaming Falcon Swooping Down on the Dissenters of the Hanbali Madhhab”! Editions: Damascus, 1926; Cairo, 1977?; Beirut, 1987; Amman, 1991; and recently, a new edition by Imam Abu Zahra]

Ibn al-Jawzi: “You have made this madhhab such a shameful disgrace that when it is said, “Humbali,” it is understood that he is someone who likens GOD to His creation.

You have then made your way to be that of bigotry and intolerance, showing fanatical support for Yazid ibn Muawiyyah, when you well know that the founder of the madhab permitted cursing him”.

(Ibn al Jawzi rejected and repudiated Yazid for his behavior)

And, Abu Muhammed Tamimi used to say about one of your imams that:

“[he] has disgraced the madhhab in a terrible way and it will not be cleansed until the day of resurrection.” [Daf` Shubah al-Tashbih bi Akuff al-Tanzih]More Info:Here

Ibn al-Jawzi:

After they imagined a huge image on the Thronethey took to interpreting away all that contradicts its being located on the Throne.

So I ask you where is Allah?They also said that the statement of Allah should come unto them in the shadows of the clouds (2:210) must be understood literally to mean the coming of His very Essence. So they declare it permissible one year and they declare it forbidden another.
They said: ‘We affirm this according to its external sense!’

Then they placated the commonality by adding: ‘But we do not affirm limbs.’

It is as if they said: ‘So-and-so is standing but he is not standing.’

Those are less intelligent than Juha…


[Ibn al-Jawzi, Sayd al-Khatir (p. 91-95).]More Info: Here

Imam Fakhrud-Din ar-Raziyy (d.606 AH), In his book authored on interpreting the Qur’an known as ‘at-Tafsir al-Kabir’ (The Great Interpretation) said: “Regarding the Ayah { وهوالعلي العظيم } it is impossible for the meaning of the word ‘Aliyy’, when attributed to Allah, to refer to aboveness in terms of an upward direction or place, as evidence confirms the fallacy therein. Hence, this mandates that the meaning of the word ‘Aliyy’ is that Allah is clear of resembling all intellectual possibilities and of any similarity to the creation”.

Shaykh Al-Islam Imam Fakhr al-Din al-Razi(d.606AH/1209CE)

As for the saying of the Most High, ‘What prevented you from prostrating to the one that I created with My Two Hands [yaday]?

we replyImam al-Razi’s Interpretation of ‘Two Hands

الدليل دل على أن من قال إن الإله جسم فهو منكر للإله تعالى، وذلك لأن إله العالم موجود ليس بجسم ولا حالفي الجسم، فإذا أنكر المجسم هذا الموجود فقد أنكر ذات الإله تعالى، فالخلاف بين المجسم والموحد ليس فيالصفة، بل في الذات، فصح في المجسم أنه لا يؤمن بالله أما المسائل التي حكيتموها فهي اختلافات في الصفة،فظهر الفرق. وأما إلزام مذهب الحلولية والحروفية، فنحن نكفرهم قطعاً، فإنه تعالى كفر النصارى بسبب أنهماعتقدوا حلول كلمة { ٱللَّهِ } في عيسى وهؤلاء اعتقدوا حلول كلمة { ٱللَّهِ } في ألسنة جميع من قرأ القرآن، وفيجميع الأجسام التي كتب فيها القرآن، فإذا كان القول بالحلول في حق الذات الواحدة يوجب التكفير، فلأن يكونالقول بالحلول في حق جميع الأشخاص والأجسام موجباً للقول بالتكفير كان أولى.
Imam al-Razi:
Proofs tell us that the who says that God is a body is a disbeliever in God (who is greatly above and clear of flaws). The reason is that the God of the World exists, and He is not a body, or stationed in a body. So if the one who believes that God is a body denies this non-bodily existence, then he has disbelieved in God Himself. This means that the disagreement between the one that believes that God is a body, and the monotheist (i.e. in the Islamic sense, namely that God does not have a partner, part or a like in His self of attributes), is not based on a disagreement regarding attributes, but regarding the self (i.e. the identity of the one attributed with godhood.) It is sound to say then, that the one who believes that God is a body does not believe in Allah….
As for the Hululiyyah (those who believe that Allah settles in created things, such as the sky or a human body) and Hurufiyyah(those who believe that Allah’s attribute of Kalam/Speech consists of letters and sounds) sects, we say that they are unequivocally disbelievers. This is because Allah declared the Christians blasphemers for believing that Allah’s speech entered into Jesus, whereas the Hurufiyyah believe that it settles in the tongue of all those who recite Quran, and in all physical things that the Quran was written on. Accordingly, if the belief in its settlement in one single body (Jesus) is blasphemy, then it is even more blasphemous to believe that it settles in all shapes and bodies

[Fakhruddin Al Razi. Mafatiĥ Al-Għayb.] (More Info: Al Tafsir Al Kabeer in Arabic: Here



Imam Ibn ‘Abd al-Salam (d.660 AH) said, in his statement of doctrine:

He was before He brought place and time into existence, and He is now as He ever was. [ Ibn ‘Abd al-Salam, al-Mulha fi I`tiqad Ahl al-Haqq in his Rasa’il al-Tawhid (p. 11).]

The position of Imam Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’ari is similarly summed up by Abu al-Qasim ibn ‘Asakir: The Najjariyya said: ‘The Creator is in every place without indwelling (hulû) nor direction (jiha).’ The Hashwiyya and mushabbiha said: ‘The Creator took His place (hâ llun) on the Throne, the Throne is His location (makâ n), and He is sitting on top of it.’ Imam Al-Ash’ari took a middle ground and said: ‘Allah existed when there was no place; then He created the Throne and the Footstool (al-‘arsh wa al-kursî ) without ever being in need of place, and He is, after creating place, exactly as He was before creating it.‘ (In Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari (Saqqa ed. p. 150). This is the position of al-Ash’ari also as given byIbn Jahbal al-Kilabi (d. 733AH): “The words of the Shaykh[Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’ari] concerning direction are: ‘Allah was when there was no place, then He created the Throne and the Footstool, without ever needing place, and He is, after creating place, exactly as He was before creating it.'”  (In Tabaqat al-Shafi`iyya al-Kubra (9:79).

Imam al-Izz ibn Abd al-Salam  was asked in his Fatawa: “What do you say about Abu Zayd al-Qayrawani al-Maliki’s(d. 386) saying: “Allah is above His exalted Throne in person (bi dhatihi), and He is in every place with His knowledge“: Does such an affirmation attribute a direction to Allah or not? And is the one who holds such belief declared a disbeliever (kafir) or not?”

He replied: “The apparent meaning of what Ibn Abi Zayd said attributes direction for Allah, because he has made a difference between Allah’s being on the Throne and His being with His creation. As for the second question: the more correct position is that the one who holds belief in Allah’s direction is not declared a disbeliever, because the scholars of Islam did not bring such as these out of Islam, rather, they adjudicated inheritance from Muslims for them, burial in Muslim grounds, sanctity of their blood and property, and the obligation to pray over their remains. The same is true of all the upholders of innovations: People never ceased to apply to them the rulings that apply to Muslims. Pay no attention to what the common people claim about their disbelief.”

Imam Ibn ‘Abd al-Salam said: Allah is not a body and thus Has no form, He is not an entity and thus Has no measured limits. He does not resemble anything and nothing resembles Him. The six directions do not surround Him, nor do the earths and skies enclose Him. He is eternally existent before creating the creations. He created time, and He still exists as He eternally was (i.e. without a place)”.‘Mulhat al-I’tiqad’

More Info: Here

Note: Ibn Tayimyyah was born (661 AH)

Imam Al-Qurţubi (d.671 AH)
Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Ahmad al-‘Ansariyy al-Qurtubi a well-known Maliki scholar and explainer of the Holy Qur’an

Imam Al-Qurtubi states:

I say accordingly that Aļļaah’s aboveness and His highness refers to His highness of glory and attributes and greatness. That is, nothing is above Him when it comes to the meanings of greatness that are necessarily ascribed to Him, and there is nothing that shares His aboveness with Him. Rather He is the most High in the absolute sense, subĥaanah. (Tafsiir Al-Qurţubi, 7 / 220)

Note that because aboveness in location is relative, unlike the absolute aboveneness that

Al-Qurţubiyy affirms, those who believe in it are bound to attribute flaw to Aļļaah.

In Al-Asnaa Al-Qurţubiy says this explicitly:

It is said to them [the anthropomorphists who believe Aļļaah is in a place or direction, etc.]: “If Allaah was specified by a specification, formed by a form, limited by a limit and end, existing in a specific direction, [or] changing by emergent [previously non existing] attributes in Himself, then He would have been emergent and specified by whatever He was specified with in terms of quantity and form, and [thus] requiring a specifier [for the quantity and form], and if He required a specifier, then He would have been in need and emergent. And if this is invalid, then it is true that He is without a limit or an end, and that He is Self-existent in the sense that He does not need a place to confine Him or a body to be in, or something to hold Him, or another that He gets help from. His attributes of His self do not change by His actions or leaving them. (Al-Asnaa, 2/21)

In short, Al-Qurţubiyy says that believing Allaah’s aboveness is one of direction/ location necessitates believing He has a flaw.This is because it necessitates likening Him to things that need a creator to specify it.

It also necessitates another flaw. This additional flaw is that they will either have to say that Aļļaah can create a body above Himself, and thereby become below, or that He cannot, and have thereby attributed to Him lack of power to create bodies anywhere He chooses.

They have also made Him, according to their belief, dependent on creating something below Himself, in order to achieve aboveness.No wonder then, that Ibn Taymiyyah said Aļļaah must create something or another. According to him, the Creator would lose His aboveness if He did not! Such is the dilemma of the relative aboveness doctrine ofwahabism.

Al-Qurtubi said in his book al-Asnaa, page,193:

It is a duty for every accountable person to know that Allaah is attributed with absolute greatness [of status], and there is nothing greater than Him [in status]. Further, He is clear of any attribute that is bodily or related to having size, as He cleared Himself of that by His saying: الكبير المتعال

[which may be interpreted to mean : Allaah is the One attributed with absolute greatness and being above non-befitting attributes such as having a shape or size. –Ed.]
By this He informed us that He is Al-Kabiir, and the definitive particle “Al” indicates absoluteness. Then Allaah said “Al-Mutaˆaal” and by that He declared Himself clear of what makes bodies and bulky things great. [For] who believes that [Allaah has bodily greatness, i.e. in terms of shape or size] is likening Allaah to a body, and is an idolater.

Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Ahmad al-‘Ansariyy al-Qurtubi (d. 671 AH),  In his book ‘Al-Jami’ li‘Ahkam al-Qur’an’ said: “The name of Allah ‘Al-^Aliyy’ refers to His greatness in status, and does not refer to an elevated place because Allah is clear of occupying space”.

Imam al-Qurtubi did not say: “ the salaf believed Allah was in a direction”

Read Here



Shaykh ul-Islam Imam An-Nawawi (d.676 AH)  


Imam An-Nawawi said in his commentary on Muslim’s ĥaditħ collection:
المنهاج شرح صحيح مسلم بن الحجاج , النووي , دار إحياء التراث العربي , 1392 – (3 / 19): اِعْلَمْ أَنَّلِأَهْلِ الْعِلْم فِي أَحَادِيث الصِّفَات وَآيَات الصِّفَات قَوْلَيْنِ : أَحَدهمَا : وَهُوَ مَذْهَب مُعْظَم السَّلَف أَوْ كُلّهمْ أَنَّهُ لا يُتَكَلَّم فِيمَعْنَاهَا ، بَلْ يَقُولُونَ : يَجِب عَلَيْنَا أَنْ نُؤْمِن بِهَا وَنَعْتَقِد لَهَا مَعْنًى يَلِيق بِجَلَالِ اللَّه تَعَالَى وَعَظَمَته مَعَ اِعْتِقَادنَا الْجَازِمأَنَّ اللَّه تَعَالَى لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْء وَأَنَّهُ مُنَزَّه عَنْ التَّجَسُّم وَالِانْتِقَال وَالتَّحَيُّز فِي جِهَة وَعَنْ سَائِر صِفَات الْمَخْلُوق ، وَهَذَاالْقَوْل هُوَ مَذْهَب جَمَاعَة مِنْ الْمُتَكَلِّمِينَ ، وَاخْتَارَهُ جَمَاعَة مِنْ مُحَقِّقِيهِمْ وَهُوَ أَسْلَم . وَالْقَوْل الثَّانِي : وَهُوَ مَذْهَبمُعْظَم الْمُتَكَلِّمِينَ أَنَّهَا تُتَأَوَّل عَلَى مَا يَلِيق بِهَا عَلَى حَسَب مَوَاقِعهَا ، وَإِنَّمَا يَسُوغ تَأْوِيلهَا لِمَنْ كَانَ مِنْ أَهْله بِأَنْ يَكُونَعَارِفًا بِلِسَانِ الْعَرَب وَقَوَاعِد الْأُصُول وَالْفُرُوع ، ذَا رِيَاضَة فِي الْعِلْم

Know that the scholars, with regard to the ĥadiths and ayahs that mention attributes, have two sayings:

One of them, and it is the saying of most of the Salaf, or all of them, is that one does not speak about their meaning. Instead they say, “we must believe in them and be sure that they have a meaning that befits the greatness and glory of Aļļaah, with the firm belief that Aļļaah does not resemble anything, and that He is clear of having a size, movement, a location in a direction, and all other attributes of creation. This saying is the saying of a number of the Kalaam scholars, and it is the chosen saying of a number of scholarly authenticators and verifiers, and it is the safest path.

The second saying, and it is the choice of most kalaam scholars, is that they are interpreted according what befits the context. This interpretation, however, is only acceptable from someone that is qualified by being an expert in the Arabic language (i.e. as used and understood by the companions) as well as the rules and principles of the religion, both in fundamentals and details, and this (work of interpretation) is a kind of exercise of (one’s) knowledge (i.e. for those qualified).

[Al-Nawawiy, Sharĥ Saĥiiĥ Muslim Li-l-Nawawiy (Beirut, Lebanon: Dar Ihyaa’ Al-Turath Al-Arabi, 1392), 3/19.]

المنهاج شرح صحيح مسلم بن الحجاج , النووي , دار إحياء التراث العربي , 1392 – (6 / 36-37):قَوْله صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : ( يَنْزِل رَبّنَا كُلّ لَيْلَة إِلَى السَّمَاء الدُّنْيَا فَيَقُول : مَنْ يَدْعُونِي فَأَسْتَجِيب لَهُ ) هَذَا الْحَدِيثمِنْ أَحَادِيث الصِّفَات ، وَفِيهِ مَذْهَبَانِ مَشْهُورَانِ لِلْعُلَمَاءِ سَبَقَ إِيضَاحهمَا فِي كِتَاب الْإِيمَان وَمُخْتَصَرهمَا أَنَّ أَحَدهمَاوَهُوَ مَذْهَب جُمْهُور السَّلَف وَبَعْض الْمُتَكَلِّمِينَ : أَنَّهُ يُؤْمِن بِأَنَّهَا حَقّ عَلَى مَا يَلِيق بِاَللَّهِ تَعَالَى ، وَأَنَّ ظَاهِرهَاالْمُتَعَارَف فِي حَقّنَا غَيْر مُرَاد ، وَلَا يَتَكَلَّم فِي تَأْوِيلهَا مَعَ اِعْتِقَاد تَنْزِيه اللَّه تَعَالَى عَنْ صِفَات الْمَخْلُوق ، وَعَنْالِانْتِقَال وَالْحَرَكَات وَسَائِر سِمَات الْخَلْق . وَالثَّانِي : مَذْهَب أَكْثَر الْمُتَكَلِّمِينَ وَجَمَاعَات مِنْ السَّلَف وَهُوَ مَحْكِيّ هُنَاعَنْ مَالِك وَالْأَوْزَاعِيِّ : أَنَّهَا تُتَأَوَّل عَلَى مَا يَلِيق بِهَا بِحَسْب مَوَاطِنهَا . فَعَلَى هَذَا تَأَوَّلُوا هَذَا الْحَدِيث تَأْوِيلَيْنِ أَحَدهمَا: تَأْوِيل مَالِك بْن أَنَس وَغَيْره مَعْنَاهُ : تَنْزِل رَحْمَته وَأَمْره وَمَلَائِكَته كَمَا يُقَال : فَعَلَ السُّلْطَان كَذَا إِذَا فَعَلَهُ أَتْبَاعهبِأَمْرِهِ . وَالثَّانِي : أَنَّهُ عَلَى الِاسْتِعَارَة ، وَمَعْنَاهُ : الْإِقْبَال عَلَى الدَّاعِينَ بِالْإِجَابَةِ وَاللُّطْف . وَاللَّهُ أَعْلَم .

The saying of the Prophet (صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ) (literal unmeant translation):”Our Lord descends every night to the sky of the world, then says ‘who calls me, so that I will answer him?” This ĥaditħ are one of the ĥaditħs mentioning attributes. There are two famous ways of the scholars regarding them, that have been explained previously in the chapter on belief. Their brief description is that one is the approach of most of the Salaf, and some Kalaam scholars, which is to believe it is true in a sense that befits Aļļaah, and that its apparent, usual meaning for us, is not meant, and one does not speak about its meaning. This is accompanied with the belief that Aļļaah is clear of having attributes of created things, and of movement, movements, and all descriptions that are for created things. The other approach is that of most Kalaam scholars, and groups among the Salaf, and they are narrated here from Malik and Al-‘Awzaaˆiy, is to interpret these according to what befits the context. Accordingly, they interpreted this ĥadiitħ in two ways. One of them is that of Malik and others, which is to say that it means: Aļļaah’s mercy, orders and angels descend, just as it is said, “the king did so and so”, when it was actually his followers that did it. The other interpretation is metaphorical, and its meaning is: “accepting those who call by answering them and showing them mercy.” [Ibid., 6/36-37.]

His commentary in his Sharh of Sahih Muslim regarding the narration of “descent/an-Nuzul”:

هذا الحديث من أحاديث الصفات، وفيه مذهبان مشهوران للعلماء: أحدهما وهو مذهب السلف وبعضالمتكلمين أنه يؤمن بأنها حق على ما يليق بالله تعالى وأن ظاهرها المتعارف في حقنا غير مراد، ولايتكلم في تأويلها مع اعتقاد تنزيه الله تعالى عن صفات المخلوق وعن الانتقال والحركات وسائر سماتالخلق، والثاني مذهب أكثر المتكلمين وجماعات من السلف وهو محكي هنا عن مالك والأوزاعي علىأنها تتأول على ما يليق بها بحسب مواطنها، فعلى هذا تأولوا هذا الحديث تأويلين أحدهما: تأويل مالكبن أنس وغيره، معناه تنزل رحمته وأمره وملائكته، كما يقال فعل السلطان كذا إذا فعله أتباعه بأمره،والثاني: أنه على الاستعارة ومعناه الإقبال على الداعين بالإجابة واللطف.

This hadith is from the hadith of the Sifat (of Allah), and regarding it there are two well known madhdhabs: the first, and it is the madhhab of the salaf and some of the Mutakallimin (scholars of kalam) that it is believe in their [i.e. the attributs] reality according to what befits Allāh ta’ala, and that the literal meaning that we commonly apply to ourselves is not what is meant, and that one does not speak regarding its interpretation while holding the belief that Allah ta’alā is free from the attributes of the created, and from translocation, and movement, and the rest of the attributes of created beings. The second is the madhdhab of the majority of the Mutakallimīn, and a group from amongst the Salaf, and it is what is reported from Mālik and al-Awzā’ī that they are interpreted figuratively but only according to their appropriate contextual meanings. On this basis there are two interpretations (ta’wils). The first is the ta’wil of Imam Malik ibn Anas and other than he, that its meaning is the descent of His mercy and decree and His angels. [as is said regarding the Sultan …] and the Second interpretation is that it is an Isti’arah (metaphor) to signifiy turning to (iqbal) to those who supplicate to Him with fulfillment by answering [the du’aa] and showing lutf (kindness, generosity) [to those beseeching Him].[Sharh Sahih Muslim; Kitab Salat al-Musafirin]

Imam an-Nawawi denies the literal meaning, the creed of Ibn Tayimyyah, for Allah’s descent, and says the way of the salaf and the Mutakallimin is both tafwid and ta’wil.

Imam An-Nawawi also quoted Imam Malik elsewhere in hisSharh of Sahih Muslim regarding this issue of the “descent” of Allah,

فقد سئل الإمام مالك رحمه الله عن نزول الرب عزّ وجلّ، فقال “ينزل أمره تعالى كل سَحَر، فأما هوعزّوجلّ فإنه دائم لا يزول ولا ينتقل سبحانه لا إله إلى هو

Imam Malik was asked about the “descent” of Allah and he said, “His, the majestic’s, command descends every night, and as for Allah ‘azza wa jall, then he is eternal, he does not move or displace, glorified be He, and there is no god but He!”[6/37]

He says regarding the hadith of the “slave girl”:

هذا الحديث من أحاديث الصِّفات، وفيها مذهبان تقدَّم ذكرهما مرَّات في كتاب الإيمان: أحدهما:الإيمانبه من غير خوض في معناه، مع اعتقاد أنَّ الله ليس كمثله شيء،وتنزيهه عن سماتالمخلوقات.والثَّاني:تأويله بما يليق به. فمن قال بهذا – أي التأويل – قال: كان المراد امتحانها هل هيموحِّدة تقرُّ بأنَّ الخالق المدبِّر الفعَّال هو الله وحده، وهو الَّذي إذا دعاه الدَّاعي استقبل السَّماء،كماإذاصلَّى المصلِّي استقبل الكعبة،وليس ذلك لأنَّه منحصر في السَّماء، كما أنَّه ليس منحصراً في جهةالكعبة، بل ذلك لأنَّ السَّماء قبلة الدَّاعين، كما أنَّ الكعبة قبلة المصلِّين.أو هي من عبدة الأوثان العابدينللأوثان الَّتي بين أيديهم، فلمَّا قالت: في السَّماء علم أنَّها موحِّدة وليست عابدة للأوثان.

“This hadith is from the narrations of the attributes of Allah, and there are two madhdhabs regarding this, and I have mentioned them both in the chapter of Iman. The first is to believe in it without delving into its meaning, while believing that Allah has no similitude to Him at all, and negating for him the attributes of created beings. And the second school is that it is interpreted in a manner that befits Him.” […then he gives the interpretations…]

When Muslims lift their hands and face towards the sky when performing du^aa (supplicating to Allàh for something beneficial), it does not mean that Allàh exists in the skies.

Imam Al-Nawawi  said:
في شَرْحِ صَحِيح مُسْلِم يَقولُ الإِمَامُ النَّوَوِيُّ : السَّمَاءُ قِبْلَةُ الدُّعَاء.
Means: The skies are the direction for the du^aa (i.e. supplication). Muslims lift their hands and face towards the skies, because it is the direction for the du^aa, just as the Ka^ba (Mecca) is the direction for all Muslims around the world to face towards when praying to Allàh. It is from the skies that the mercies and blessings from Allah descend. The Mushabbihah say that the skies are the direction to perform du^aa to use it as their so-called proof that Allàh occupies the skies. The Prophet made du^aa when his forehead was facing the ground while in prayer.

The Messenger of Allàh, Muhammad (peace and blessing be upon him) said:
مَا في السَّمَاءِ مَوْضِعُ أَرْ بَعِ أَصَابِعَ إلا وَفِيهِ مَلَكٌ قَائِمٌ أَوْ رَاكِعٌ أَوْسَاجِدٌ يَذْكُرُ اللَّهَ تَعَالى. رَوَاهُ الترمذي عنأبي ذر الغفاري.
Means: There is no space in the sky equal to the width of four fingers, except one would find an Angel worshipping and glorifying Allàh, either in standing, bowing or prostrating position. The Angels stay as such until the Day of Judgement, worshipping Allàh their Creator. This saying of the Messenger of Allàh is another proof that Allàh does not exist in the skies. This is because those whoever claim that Allàh exists in the upper skies, are claiming that Allàh is in between the Angels and His size is the width of four fingers? This is impossible, because the Creator is not a body, object, size, form or shape.

Imam an-Nawawi makes no mention of the madhdhab of the literalists who delve into the literal meaning and affirm it for Allah!

He also says in his Sharh of Sahih Muslim:

إن الله تعالى ليس كمثله شيء وإنه منزّه عن التجسيم والانتقال والتحيز في الجهة وعن سائر صفاتالمخلوق

“Verily there is nothing like Allah ta’ala, and he is free from tajsim (corporeality), and displacement, and being within direction, and from the rest of the attributes of the created beings.” [3/19]

This is in direct contradiction to the creed of Ibn Taymiyyah who said that he does not deny “jism” – body/corporeality – for Allah.

He said,

“It is well known that the Book , the Sunnah, and the Consensus nowhere say that all bodies (ajsaam) are created, and nowhere say that Allah Himself is not a body! Nor did any of the Imams of the Muslims ever say such a thing. Therefore if I also choose not to say it, it does not expel me from fitra nor from Shari’ah!” [At-Ta’sis 1:118 ]

Such stupidity only shows the ignorance of Ibn Taymiyyahin issues of creed! “The Book” does say He is not a body when He says “There is nothing like unto Him, and He is As-Sami’ al-Basir!” This is a verse of denial of everything in similitude with creation! For jism (corporeality/body) is an attribute of the created, and is thus tamthil.

Allah never ascribes himself with a body (jism), yet Ibn Taymiyyah is more than happy to do so for Him, exalted is He above what this deviant ascribed to Him!

Imam An-Nawawi disagreed with Ibn Taymiyyah, and this is a clear refutation of the claim of “Ijma’” by Ibn Taymiyyah

As Allah says in the Qur’an,

فَمَنْ أَظْلَمُ مِمَّنِ افْتَرَىٰ عَلَى اللَّهِ كَذِبًا أَوْ كَذَّبَ بِآيَاتِهِ

“And who is more unjust than one who invents about Allah a lie or denies His verses?” [7:37]

So the Qur’an does say He is not a body. But a question to ask theproponents of Tajsim (and this is what it is): Where does Allah ascribe to Himself a “body”? What proof do you have? Or is it that you do take the literal meaning of hand, shin, waist, foot, eyes, and with your sensual perception imagine Allah as the pagan Christians do as a body (jism), unlike other bodies – in other words with a bigger hand than humans. These folk have invented a lie upon Allah by saying about Him what He has denied about Himself!

Imam An-Nawawi is the complete opposite in creed ofIbn Taymiyyah. In fact, Imam An-Nawawi does not even recognize the school of Ibn Taymiyyah as being from Ahlus Sunnah, as you can see from his commentary in Sahih Muslim, rejecting the “literal” meanings as what is intended.

Imam An-Nawawi also said in his Sharh of Sahih Muslim:

من العلماء من يمسك عن تأويلها ويقول نؤمن بأنها حق وأن ظاهرها غير مراد ولها معنى يليق بهاوهذا مذهب جمهور السلف وهو أحوط وأسلم والثاني أنها تتأول على حسب ما يليق بتنزيه الله تعالىوإنه ليس كمثله شيء

“And from the scholars are those who refrain from interpretating [the narratives of attributes]. They say we believe that they are real and that the literal meanings of the texts are not what are intended, and the meaning is what befits His majesty and this is the madhhab of the majority of the Salaf, and it is most upright, and safest. The second school is one of interpretation of the texts in a manner which befits His Majesty, while denying any imperfections from Allah ta’ala, as there is nothing like unto Him!” [16/166]

Also Imam An-Nawawi quotes Imam Al-Mazari, the Maliki Asha’riin refutation of Ibn Qutaybah regarding his belief thatAllah has an “image unlike other images” regarding the hadith “Allah created Adam in His image…”.

Imam al-Nawawi  has also stated in his Sharh of Saheeh Muslim;
وهذا أشهر المذهبين للمتكلمين: وقال آخرون لا تتأول بل يمسك عن الكلام في معناها ويوكل علمها إلى اللهتعالى ويعتقد مع ذلك تنزيه الله تعالى وانتفاء صفات الحادث عنه: فيقال مثلا نؤمن بأن الرحمن على العرشاستوى ولا نعلم حقيقة معنى ذلك والمراد به مع أنا نعتقد أن الله تعالى (ليس كمثله ش&#1574 وانهمنزه عن الحلول وسمات الحدوث وهذه طريقة السلف أو جماهيرهم وهي أسلم إذ لا يطالب الانسان بالخوضفي ذلك فإذا اعتقد التنزيه فلا حاجة إلى الخوض في ذلك والمخاطرة فيما لا ضرورة بل لا حاجة إليه فاندعت الحاجة إلى التأويل لرد مبتدع ونحوه تأولوا حينئذ: وعلى هذا يحمل ما جاء عن العلماء في هذا واللهأعلم

“If there is a need for interpretation (ta’wil) in order to refute innovators and their like, then they (the Salaf) went ahead and applied interpretation. This is the correct understanding of what has reached us from the scholars concerning this subject, and Allah knows best.”

An-Nawawiyy and Al-Qađi ˆIiaađ said they are not Muslims:

قوله صلى الله عليه و سلم ( فليكن أول ما تدعوهم إليه عبادة الله فإذا عرفوا الله فأخبرهم إلى آخره ) قال القاضيعياض رحمه الله هذا يدل على أنهم ليسوا بعارفين الله تعالى وهو مذهب حذاق المتكلمين في اليهود والنصارىأنهم غير عارفين الله تعالى وان كانوا يعبدونه ويظهرون معرفته لدلالة السمع عندهم على هذا وان كان العقل لايمنع أن يعرف الله تعالى من كذب رسولا قال القاضي عياض رحمه الله ما عرف الله تعالى من شبهه وجسمه مناليهود أو اجاز عليه البداء أو أضاف إليه الولد منهم أو أضاف إليه الصاحبة والولد وأجاز الحلول عليه والانتقالوالامتزاج من النصارى أو وصفه مما لا يليق به أو أضاف إليه الشريك والمعاند في خلقه من المجوس والثنويةفمعبودهم الذى عبدوه ليس هو الله وان سموه به اذ ليس موصوفا بصفات الاله الواجبة له فاذن ما عرفوا اللهسبحانه فتحقق هذه النكتة واعتمد عليها وقد رأيت معناها لمتقدمى أشياخنا وبها قطع الكلام ابوعمران الفارسى بينعامة اهل القيروان عند تنازعهم في هذه المسألة هذا آخر كلام القاضي رحمه الله تعالى. (المنهاج شرح صحيحمسلم بن الحجاج , النووي , دار إحياء التراث العربي , 1392, 1 / 199-200)

The saying of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) “let the first you call them to be the worship of Aļļaah, then when they know Aļļaah tell them…” etc.

Al-Qađi ˆIiaađ (رحمه الله) said: “This (i.e. the foregoing statement of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم)) indicates that they (the Christians)do not know Aļļaah, and this is the saying of the brilliant kalaam scholars regarding the jews and the Christians; that they do not know Aļļaah (تعالى) even if they worship Him (i.e. call what they worship by His name) and making it appear as if they know Him, based on what they narrate amongst themselves, even though it is not impossible in the mind’s eye that someone who disbelieves in a messenger does know Aļļaah.”

Al-Qađi ˆIiaađ (رحمه الله) said: The one that likened Aļļaah to His creation, or believed Him to be bodily among the jews and Christians, or believed that He gains knowledge over time, or claimed He has a child, or a female companion and a child, or saidhe could exist in created things, or move from one place to another, or be mixed with creation, among the Christians orattributed to Him what is not befitting, or associated with Him a partner or opponent in creating among the Magians an dualists;what they worship is not Aļļaah, even if they called it that. This is because it is not attributed with the attributes that are necessarily His. Accordingly, they do not know Aļļaah (سبحانه), so realize this point well, and depend on it, and I have seen this point made by our predecessor shaykhs.”

Shaykh Ahmad Ibn Idris al-Qarafiyy (d.684 AH), an Egyptian Malikiyy scholar, In his book ‘Al-Ajwibah al-Fakhirah’  said: “And He (Allah) is not in any direction, and when we are admitted to Paradise Allah will grant us the honour of seeing Him without Him being in any direction”.


Note: Ibn Taymiyyah’s first clash with the scholars occurred in (698 AH) in Damascus when he was barred from teaching after he issued his Fatwâ Hamawiyya in which he unambiguously attributes literal upward direction to Allâh.





Ibn ‘Ata’ Allah al-Sakandari (d. 709AH) cites it as one of his Hikam (#34):

The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم)  said:

Allah was when there was nothing else than Him, and His Throne was upon the water, and He wrote in the Reminder (al-dhikr) all things, and He created the heavens and the earth.”

[ Narrated from ‘Imran ibn Husayn by al-Bukhari, Sahih, book of the Beginning of Creation.]

Ibn `Ata’ Allah al-Iskandari – Debate with Ibn TaymiyyaRead: Here

More Info: Here


Imam An-Nasafi (d.710 AH) states in his Tafsir:

إنه تعالى كان ولا مكان فهو على ما كان قبل خلق المكان، لم يتغير عما كان.

“Verily He, the exalted, was without place, and He is as He was before creating (the entity of) ‘place’, not changing as He was [Tafsīr An-Nisfi ,Surah Taha, Volume: 2]

Imam al-Nasafi states;  “ He (Allah) is not a body (jism), nor an atom (jawhar), nor is He something formed (musawwar), nor a thing limited (mahdud), nor a thing numbered (ma’dud), nor a thing portioned or divided, nor a thing compounded (mutarakkab), nor does He come to end in Himself. He is not described by quiddity (al-ma’hiya), or by quality (al-kayfiyya), nor is He placed in space (al-makan), and time (al-zaman) does not affect Him. Nothing resembles Him, that is to say, nothing is like Him.” (See: Sa’d al-Din al-Taftazani & Najm al-Din al-Nasafi, Sharh al-Aqa’id al- Nasafiyya, 92-97).

Imam Abu l-Barakat Abdullah ibn Ahmad an-Nasafi, wrote on page 164, volume: 2 of his Tafsir of the  Qur’an :

[About the following verse :

وَلِلّهِ الأَسْمَاء الْحُسْنَى فَادْعُوهُ بِهَا وَذَرُواْ الَّذِينَ يُلْحِدُونَ فِي أَسْمَائه

Walillaahi l-asmaa’u l-husna fa-d’uhu bihaa wa dharu l-ladheena yulhiduna fi asmaa-ihi

which means : “And ALLAAH has the perfect names, therefore invoke Him by these names, and stay away from those who are guilty of ilhaad [atheism] towards these names”. Surate al-A’raf verse 180].

It is atheism (ilhaad) to call ALLAAH a ‘body’ (jism)  or an ‘elementary particle’  (jawhar)

or  a ‘mind/reason’ (‘aql)  or a ’cause’  (‘illah)’

Imam Abu l-Barakat Abdullah ibn Ahmad an-Nasafi was a  great exegete, i.e. a scholar specialised in the interpretation of the Qur’an. His Tafsir is famous. He is not to be confused with other great Hanafi scholars also named an-Nasafi, such as Najm ad-Din Abu Hafs an-Nasafi (d..537 AH)  who wrote the book al-Aqaid, which has been commented by at-Taftazaani, and which a reference in terms of books of belief, or Maymun ibn Muhammad an-Nasafi, the theologian who wrote the book Tabsirat al-Adillah (d.508AH).

To explain what ‘ilhaad’ means in this verse, Imam an-Nasafi says that it is a type of atheism to call ALLAAH ‘jism’ or ‘illah’, i.e. ‘body’ or ’cause’ . Indeed, these two names are not among the names of Allaah narrated in the religious texts, and on top of that their meaning does not comply with Islamic teachings. ALLAAH is not a body, He is not composed of parts. And He is not a ’cause’ because this would equal saying that He does not have a will, and that is the reason why imam an-Nasafi has considered this naming as an act of blasphemy.

Imam Shams al-Din al-Jazari (d. 711 AH) refuting Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) on seeking aid with the Prophet,sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam

Imam Najm al-Din al-Tufi al-Hanbali
(d. 716 AH) mentioned what Imam al-Jazari said and added some comments to it:

فاستغاثه الذي من شيعته على الذي من عدوه) [القصص :15] احتج بها الشيخ شمس الدين الجزري شارح المنهاج في أصول الفقه على الشيخ تقي الدين ابن تيمية فيما قيل عنه أنه قال : لا يستغاث برسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لأن الاستغاثة بالله عز وجل من خصائصه وحقوقه الخاصة به فلا تكون لغيره كالعبادة.
وتقرير الحجة المذكورة : أنه قال : يجب أن ينظر في حقيقة الاستغاثة ماهي وهي الاستنصار والاستصراخ ثم قد وجدنا هذا الإسرائيلي استغاث بموسى واستنصره واستصرخه بنص هذه الآيات وهي استغاثة مخلوق بمخلوق وقد أقر موسى عليها الإسرائيلي وقد أقر الله عز وجل موسى على ذلك ولم ينكر محمدا صلى الله عليه وسلم ذلك لمانزلت هذه الآيات أي فكان هذا إقرارا من الله عز وجل ورسوله على استغاثة المخلوق بالمخلوق وإذا جاز أن يستغاث بموسى فبمحمد صلى الله عليه وسلم أولى لأنه أفضل بإجماع.
ومما يحتج به على ذلك : حديث هاجر أم إسماعيل حيث التمست الماء لابنها فلم تجد فسمعت حسا في بطن الوادي فقالت : قد أسمعت إن كان عندك غواث وهذا في معنى الاستغاثة منها بجبريل وقد أقرها على ذلك ولم ينكره النبي -صلى الله عليه وسلم- عليها لما حكاه عنها.
ولأن اعتقاد التوحيد من لوازم الإسلام فإذا رأينا مسلما يستغيث بمخلوق علمنا قطعا أنه غير مشرك لذلك المخلوق مع الله عز وجل وإنما ذلك منه طلب مساعدة أو توجه إلى الله ببركة ذلك المخلوق وإذا استصرخ الناس في موقف القيامة بالأنبياء ليشفعوا لهم في التخفيف عنهم جاز استصراخهم بهم في غير ذلك المقام وقد صنف الشيخ أبو عبدالله النعمان كتبا سماه : (مصباح الظلام في المستغيثين بخير الأنام) واشتهر هذا الكتاب وأجمع أهل عصره على تلقيه منه بالقبول وإجماع أهل كل عصر حجة فالمنكر لذلك مخالف لهذا الإجماع فإن قيل : الآية المذكورة في قصة موسى والإسرائيلي ليست في محل النزاع من وجهين :
أحدهما : أن موسى حينئذ كان حيا ونحن إنما نمنع الاستغاثة بميت.
الثاني: أن استغاثة صاحب موسى به كان في أمر يمكن موسى فعله وهو إعانته على خصمه وهو أمر معتاد ونحن إنما نمنع من الاستغاثة بالمخلوق فيما يختص فعله بالله عز وجل كالرحمة والمغفرة والرزق والحياة ونحو ذلك فلا يقال : يامحمد اغفر لي أو ارحمني أو ارزقني أو أجبني [وفي نسخة أخرى :أحييني بدل أجبني] أو أعطني مالا وولدا لأن ذلك شرك بإجماع.

وأجيب عن الأول : بأن الاستغاثة إذا جازت بالحي فبالميت المساوي فضلا عن الأفضل أولى لأنه أقرب إلى الله عز وجل من الحي لوجوه :
أحدها: أنه في دار الكرامة والجزاء والحي في دار التكليف.
الثاني: أن الميت تجرد عن عالم الطبيعة القاطعة عن الوصول إلى عالم الآخرة والحي متلبس بها.
الثالث: أن الشهداء في حياتهم محجوبون وبعد موتهم أحياء عند ربهم يرزقون.

وعن الثاني: أن ماذكرتموه أمر مجمع مجمع عليه معلوم عند صغير المسلمين فضلا عن كبيرهم أن المخلوق على الإطلاق لايطلب منه ولا ينسب إليه فعل ما اختصت القدرة الإلهية به وقد رأينا أغمار الناس وعامتهم وأبعدهم عن العلم والمعرفة يلوذون بحجرة النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ولا يزيدون على أن يسألو الشفاعة والوسلية يارسول الله [وفي نسخة أخرى : برسول الله] اشفع لنا يالله ببركة نبيك اغفر لنا فصار الكلام في المسألة المفروضة فضلا لا حاجة بأحد من المسلمين إليه.
وإذا لم يكن بد من التعريف بهذا الحكم خشية أن يقع فيه أحد فليكن بعبارة لا توهم نقصا في النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ولا غضا من منصبه مثل أن يقال: ما استأثر الله عز وجل بالقدرة عليه فلا يطلب من مخلوق على الإطلاق أو نحو هذا ولا يتعرض للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بسلب الاستغاثة عنه مطلقا ولا مقيدا ولا يذكر إلا بالصلاة والسلام عليه والرواية عنه ونحو ذلك.
هذا حاصل ماوقع في هذه المسألة سؤالا وجوابا ذكرته بمعناه وزيادات من عندي

“‘So the one of his own caste seeked assistance against the one who was of his enemies’ [quoting the verse from chapter al-Qasas, aya 15of the Qur’an];

The Shaykh Shams ud-Deen al Jazari, the commentator of theMinhaj in Usul al Fiqh (the science of foundation of Legal Jurisprudence) used it [i.e. this verse] as evidence against Shaykh Taqi udDeen Ibn Taymiyyah and his reported statement:

“The assistance of the Messenger of Allah, May Allah send his peace and blessings upon him, is not sought as seeking assistance of Allah, the Exalted and Mighty, is from His specific characteristics and rights so it is not for other than Him just like (acts of) worship.’ “

The aforementioned refutation is as follows:

He said, “It is necessary that one considers the true nature of seeking assistance.
What is it and what is meant by seeking help and calling for help?

We find this man from the tribe of Israel sought the assistance of Musa [may the peace and blessings be upon him and the Seal of Prophets], and sought and called for his help as is explicitly stated in the text of this verse. This is the seeking assistance of a created being from another created being and Musa affirmed the man from the tribe of Israel in it and Allah, the exalted and Mighty affirmed Musa doing so. Furthermore Muhammad, May Allah send His peace and blessing upon him, did not find fault in it when these verses were revealed. In other words, this was affirmation from Allah, the Exalted and Mighty, and His Messenger for the seeking assistance of one created being from another created being and as seeking the assistance of Musa is permissible then it even more so of Muhammad as he is by consensus superior.

He also uses as evidence the narration of Hajar, the mother of Ismail, when she sought water for her son and did not find it. She heard a sound at the bottom of the valley and said, “[Oh whoever you may be,] you have made me hear your voice, [help us] if you can offer any help.” This statement conveys the meaning of her seeking the assistance of (the angel) Jibreel and the Prophet, May God send his peace and blessings upon him, affirmed her in this and did not disapprove of her.

Certainty in the oneness of God is one of the conditions of Islam. So when we find a Muslim seeking the assistance of a created being we know, without doubt, that he is not associating that created being with God, the Exalted and Mighty. Such an action is only his seeking help or turning to Allah by the blessing of that created being. People at the station of reckoning (on the Day of Judgement) will call for the help of the prophets seeking their intercession in bringing ease for themselves, hence it is permissable to call upon the prophets in other situations. Shaykh Abu Abdillah anNu’maan has written a book that he titled, “The lamp in darkness of those seeking assistance by the best of mankind.” This book has become famous and the people of his time have agreed upon this book in consensus. The consensus of the people of every age is considered a proof such that the one who disapproves is considered to be acting against the consensus.

If it is said that the aforementioned verse is regarding the story of Musa and the man from the tribe of Israel and it is not relevant to the point in contention for two main objections.

The first being that Musa was alive at that time and we only decline to accept the seeking assistance of a dead being.

The second is that the companion of Musa sought his assistance in a matter that Musa was able to undertake and that was his help with an opponent and that is a natural matter.

Yet we only contend with the seeking assistance of a created being in matters that are specific to God, the Exalted and Majestic, such as divine mercy, forgiveness, sustenance, giving life and so on.

So one must not say, “Oh Muhammad forgive me or have mercy upon me or sustain me or answer me (and in another manuscript of the same text ‘give me life’ was mentioned) or give me money and a child” as all of that is associating a partner to God by consensus.

A response to the first objection is that if seeking of assistance of the living is allowed then so should it be allowed for the dead, if not even more so, as he they are closer than the living to God, the Exalted and Mighty for many reasons.

The first of which is that he is in the abode of Generosity and Recompense and the living is in the abode of legal responsibility.

The second is that the dead person, unlike the living, has broken free from the natural world that cuts of from reaching the other world.

The third reason is that the martyrs in their lives are veiled and after their death are alive with their Lord being sustained (alluding to Surah 2 V 154).

In response to the second objection it can be said that what you have mentioned is an agreed upon matter known to the youngest of Muslim let alone the eldest, i.e. that with regards to Divine Omnipotence another created being is not to be sought under any circumstance and that neither should be attributed to it. We have seen rabbles of people and their common-folk and the furthest of them from knowledge and divine certainty (gnosis) seeking refuge at the room of the Prophet (i.e. his resting place), may God send his peace and blessings upon him, and they do not go beyond asking for intercession and his being a medium, “Oh Prophet, intercede on behalf of us. Oh God, by the blessing of your Prophet, forgive us.” Hence such discussion about the matter becomes presumptuous and no one from amongst the Muslims is in need of it. If it is inevitable that by announcing this ruling it is feared that someone may fall into it then putting it another way do not delude yourself in finding fault in the Prophet, May God’s peace and blessings be upon him, or defect in his rank such as saying that which God has taken upon himself by Divine ability should not be sought from a created being at all and do not oppose the Prophet by stripping seeking assistance from Him unrestrictedly or restrictedly and do not mention him except by sending peace and blessings upon him and narrating from from and so forth.

This is that which concerns this matter and I have relayed it in a question and answer format with additional points from myself.”

Source:al-Isharat al-Ilahiyyah ila al-Mabahith al-Usuliyyah” 3/89-93 and translation taken from Here


Ibn Tayimyyah  was refuted by his contemporary:

Imâm Ibn Jahbal al-Kilâbî (d.733 AH), in a lengthy reply which Tâj al-Dîn al-Subkî reproduced in full in his Tabaqât al-Shâfi`iyya al-Kubrâ.

Ibn Jahbal wrote: “How can you say that Allâh is literally (haqîqatan) in (fî) the heaven, and literally above (fawq) the heaven, and literally in (fî) the Throne, and literally on (`alâ) the Throne?!”

Ibn Jahbal also says in his Refutation of Ibn Taymiyya: 22. We say: Our doctrine is that Allah is pre-eternal and pre-existent (qadî azalî ). He does not resemble anything nor does anything resemble Him. He has no direction nor place. He is not subject to time nor duration. Neither “where” (ayn) nor “at” (hayth) applies to Him. He shall be seen, but not as part of an encounter, nor in the sense of an encounter (yurâ lâ’an muqâ bala wa lâ ‘alâ muqâ ‘ala). He was when there was no place, He created place and time, and He is now as He ever was. This is the madhhab of Ahl al-Sunna and the doctrine of the shaykhs of the [Sufi] Path – may Allah be well-pleased with them. (Tabaqat al-Shafi`iyya al-Kubra(9:41).

Ibn Jahbal refuted such kufristic insinuations in hisrefutation of Ibn Taymiyyah that has been translated and published 

The Refutation of Him (Ibn Taymiyyah) Who Attributes Direction to Allah by Ibn Jahbal

We say to him: What do you say concerning the mention of “several eyes” (a‘yun), the mention of the “flank” (janb), the mention of the single “shin” (saq), and the mention of the “several hands” (aydi)?

If we take these literally then we must affirm a being that has one face with many eyes, a single side, many hands, and a single shin!

What being on earth is possibly uglier?

And if you take the liberty of interpreting this and that to be dual or singular, then why does Allah not mention it, nor the Prophet(s), nor the Salaf of the Community?

(Chapter 7: The Absurdity of His Literalism, pp. 221-223) More Info: Here


Ibn Taymiyyah then returned to his activities until he was summoned by the authorities again in (705AH) to answer for his`Aqîda Wâsitiyya.

He spent the few following years in and out of jail or defending himself from various “abhorrent charges” according to Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalânî.

They witnessed over him that he had repented of his own free will from all that contravened the above. This took place on the 25th of Rabî` al-Awwal 707AH and it was witnessed by a huge array of scholars and others.”

Fatwa (726AHby The Four Orthodox Sunni Judges:

Qadi [Judge] Muhammad Ibn Ibrahim Ibn Jama’ah, ash-Shafi’i,

Qadi [Judge] Muhammad Ibn al-Hariri, al-`Ansari, al-Hanafi,

Qadi [Judge] Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr, al-Maliki, and

Qadi [Judge] Ahmad Ibn `Umar, al-Maqdisi, al-Hanbali.

Ibn Taymiyah was imprisoned by a fatwa (religious edict) signed by four orthodox Sunni judges in the year (726 AH) for his deviant and unorthodox positions.

Note that each of the four judges represents the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence that Sunni Muslims belong to today. This illustrates that Ibn Taymiyah did not adhere to the authentic teachings of orthodox Sunni Islam as represented by the four schools of Sunni jurisprudence. There is no evidence to indicate that there was a “conspiracy” against Ibn Taymiyyah to condemn him, as Wahhabis and other Salafis purport in his defense.


Note: Ibn Tayimyyah died in (728AH)
Also amid with charges of kufr for declaring that one who travels to visit the Prophet(s) commits a prohibition (Harâm), a sin (ma`siya), and an innovation (bid`a).

In the final five months of his last two-year period in jailIbn Taymiyya was prevented from writing, at which time he turned to prayer and the intensive recitation of the Qur’ân and repented from having spent time writing doctrinal refutations instead of focussing on the commentary of the Qur’ân.

At that time he confided to his faithful student Ibn al-Qayyim: “My Paradise and my Garden are in my breast – meaning his faith and knowledge – and wherever I go they never depart from me. My prison is seclusion, my execution is martyrdom, and my exile is an excursion.”  [In Ibn al-Qayyim, al-Wâbil al-Sayyib min al-Kalim al-Tayyib (p. 66).]

Al-Safadî said: “He wasted his time refuting the Christians and the Râfida, or whoever objected to the Religion or contradicted it, but if he had devoted himself to explaining al-Bukhârî or the Noble Qur’ân, he would have placed the guarland of his well-ordered speech on the necks of the people of knowledge.” [Al-Safadî, al-Wâfî bi al-Wafayât (7:19-22), cf. Ibn Taymiyya as related from al-Dhahabî by Ibn Rajab in Dhayl Tabaqât al-Hanâbila (2:401-402).]

Al-Nabahânî said in Shawâhid al-Haqq: “He refuted the Christians, the Shî`îs, the logicians, then the Ash`arîs and Ahl al-Sunna, in short, sparing no one whether Muslim or non-Muslim, Sunni or otherwise.”

Al-Tawfiq al-Rabani written by a group of Sunni scholars, page 32: علمه أكثر من عقله فأداه اجتهاده إلى خرق الاجماع في مسائل كثيرة قيل انها تبلغ ستين مسألة فأخذته الألسنة بسبب ذلك وتطرق إليه اللوم وامتحن بهذا السبب وأسرع علماء عصره في الرد عليه وتخطئته وتبديعه ومات مسجونا بسبب ذلك.
Sheikh Iraqi regarding ibn Tayimyyah,  said “… his knowledge exceeded the capabilities of his brain, and he therefore contradicted the ‘Ijma’ of Muslims on many issues. They said on around 60 matters. They therefore criticized and blamed him, and he has been examined due to that. The scholars of his time refuted him, presented his mistakes, and deemed him a heretic. He was also imprisoned due to that.”


Imam Abu Zayd ibn al-Imam Tilimsani (d.742 AH)Successfully Disputed with ibn Taymiyya in Egypt

Changing Views of ibn Taymiyya by Khaled el-Rouayheb:

Ibn Taymiyya had also gained notoriety for his literal interpretation of the hadith al-nuzul to which Sanusi alluded, i.e. the tradition stating that Allah descends to the lowest heaven during the last third of the night (or according to a variant, on the night of mid-sha’ban). The later North African scholar Baba al-Tunbukti (d. 1624; 1036AH), author of a popular biographical dictionary of Maliki scholars, referred precisely to Ibn Taymiyya’s literal interpretation of this Hadith. Al-Tunbukti noted that the scholar Abu Zayd ibn al-Imam Tilimsani (d. 742AH) had gone toEgypt and while there had disputed successfully with Taqi al-Din ibn Taymiyya. He added that:

The mentioned Taqi al-Din had some repugnant claims, such as taking literally the Hadith al-nuzul, saying: “like I descend now”…. May Allah protect us from this claim! And someone said that the attribution of this to him is not certain, and Allah knows best.

[Ahmad Baba al-Tunbukti, Nayl al-ibtihaj bi-tatriz al-Dibaj. Printed on the margins of Ibn Farhun, al-Dibaj al-mudhahhab fi ma’rifat a’yan al-madhhab (Cairo: Matba’at al-Sa’ada, 1329AH), 166.]


Abu Hayyan al-Andalusi (d.745 AH) stated that he had seen this work Kitab al-‘arsh, of  Ibn Taymiyya who had written there that God is literally seated on the throne, and had left a place on it for the Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) to sit next to him.[ Ibid., 2:1438]

Muhammad Ibn Yusuf known as Abu Hayan al-Andalusiyy (d.745 AH) In his book ‘al-Bahr al-Muhit’ explaining verse 19 of Suratal-Anbiya’ the great linguist and interpreter and reciter of the Holy Qur’an, said: “The word ‘inda’ in this Ayah does not have the function of an adverb of place because Allah is clear of occupying places. Rather, it is used in the context of honourable status and high standing.”

Abu Hayyan al-Andalouci denounces kufr of Ibn Taymiyya.

Indeed, Abu Hayyan al-Andalouci questioned Ibn Taymiyya whereas before he was just doing his praise, and he could not conceive that we can not love Ibn Taymiyya. But after I visited Al-Andalouci walked away disappointed having seen the arrogance of Ibn Taymiyya. But mostly he began to curse him after seeing the book Kitabou l-‘Arsh of Ibn Taymiyya his word that Allah would sit on the Koursiyy and He would have left room to seat His Prophet.

Abu Hayyan al-Andalouci said: “I saw it in his book, his own book and I know his handwriting. ”

He mentioned this in his Tafsir, exegesis of his Qour-year Nahrou called An-l-Madd mina l-Bahr.



Imam al-Dhahabi (d.748 AH) mentions that ibn Taymiyya’s followers weakened, and that he was forbidden from issuing fatawa due to his views on talaq, yet he remained stubborn on his views:

“His followers weakened and he involved himself in weighty questions that neither the intellects of his contemporaries nor their learning could bear, such as: the question of the expiation of the oath of repudiation (talaq), the opinion that repudiation (talaq) uttered three times is valid only once, and the opinion that repudiation (talaq) during menstruation is not valid. He composed writings about these topics in the order of some forty quires. Because of this, he was forbidden to issue legal opinions (fatawa). He controlled himself in a strange way and held firm to his own opinion.”

[al-Dhahabi, Nubdha in Bori, “A New Source“, 336, (Arabic Text) – 342 (English Translation)]

Imam al- Dhahabi said about his teacher Ibn Taymiyyah:

مع أني مخالف له في مسائل أصلية وفرعية

However I disagree with him in creedal and legal issues.”

on page,329: of Dhayl Tareekh Al Islam: Here

 al- Dhahabi’s biography of Ibn Taymiyyah included in the compilation called, “From the Legacy of Shaikhul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah”, found : Here on page, 244:

وله حدة قوية تعتريه في البحث حتى كأنه ليث حرب. أهـــ

“He had an acute harshness that would overcome him during debate, making him like a lion of war.”

وفيه قلة مداراة وعدم تؤدة غالبًا , والله يغفر له. أهـــ

“He often lacked congeniality and prudence. May Allah forgive him.”

وَقَدْ يُعَظِّمُ جليسه مرة ويهينه في المحاورة مرات. أهـــ

“He may honor his company once, yet disrespect them during debate repeatedly.”

al- Dhahabi said: Regarding ibn Taymiyya’s conduct with his opponents during debate, on page 326 and 327 of his book Dhaylu Tareekhil Islam: Here

مع اننى لا اعتقد فيه العصمة كلا فانه مع سعة علمه و فرط شجاعته و سيلان ذهنه و تعظيمه لحرماتالدين بشر من البشر تعتريه حدة فى البحث و غضب وشظف للخصم يزرع له عداوة فى النفوس ونفورا عنه وإلا والله لو لاطف الخصوم و رفق بهم ولزم المجاملة و حسن المكالمة لكان كلمة اجماع

“…although I do not believe him to be infallible (ma’soom). Most definitely not! Because despite his vast knowledge, extreme courage, overflowing intellect, and reverence for the sanctities of the religion, he was but a man. During debates he would be overcome with harshness, hot temper, and toughness with his opponents which would plant in the souls the seeds of enmity, aversion, and dislike for him. Otherwise, had he been polite and kind with his opponents and observed etiquette and a graceful mode of speech, he would have been a word of consensus.”

 al- Dhahabi describes the position of Ibn Taymiyyah’s closest companions and “fans” from the unique opinions that he has:

ولا ريب انه لا اعتبار بمدح خواصه والغلاة فيه فان الحب يحملهم على تغطية هناته بل قد يعدونهامحاسن. أهـــ

“And without doubt, no consideration should be given to the praise of his closest companions or those who are extreme in their admiration for him. Their love for him will make them cover his mistakes, nay they may even count them to be from his good deeds.”Dhayl Tareekhil Islam pg. 328 – 329 : Here

al-Dhahabi said on page 327 and 328 of his book Dhailu Tareekhil Islam: Here

وإن أنت عذرت كبار الائمة فى معضلاتهم ولم تعذر ابن تيمية فى مفرداته فقد أقررت على نفسك بالهوىو عدم الانصاف. أهـــ

“If you were to excuse the eminent Scholars for their problematic verdicts yet not excuse Ibn Taymiyyah for his unique fatawas, you would be acknowledging that you yourself have leanings and unfairness.”

al-Dhahabi said in Dhuyool Al ‘Ibar fee Khabari man Ghabar, page 84: Here

وله مسائل غريبة نيل من عرضه لأجلها

“And he has strange (rulings on) issues, due to which his repute was under fire”

 al-Dhahabi said in Al Mu’jam Al Mukhtass bil Muhadditheen, on page 25 (pg 45 in the PDF reader), bio #22: Here

وانفرد بمسائل فنيل من عرضه لأجلها, وهو بشر له ذنوب وخطأ ومع هذا فوالله ما مقلت عينِي مثله ولارأى هو مثله نفسه. أهــ

And he went alone on issues that, because of them his repute was under fire. And he is a man. He has sins and mistakes. Yet despite this, by Allah, my eyes have never seen the likes of him, nor has he seen the likes of himself.”

 al- Dhahabi in his book, Tadhkiratul Huffaadh on page 1497, mentions about his teacher Ibn Taymiyyah: Here

وقد انفرد بفتاوى نيل من عرضه لأجلها وهي مغمورة في بحر علمه, فالله تعالى يسامحه ويرضى عنهفما رأيت مثله. وكل واحد من الأمة فيؤخذ من قوله ويترك فكان ماذا؟ أهـــ

“And he went alone to make unique fatawas, due to which his repute came under fire. Yet they are submerged in the ocean of his knowledge. So may Allah forgive him and be pleased with him, for I have never seen anyone like him. And since the case with everyone in the Muslim Ummah is that some of their statements may be accepted and others may be rejected, what is the problem?”

al- Dhahabi said about his teacher Ibn Taymiyyah:

ولقد نصر السنة المحضة، والطريقة السلفية، واحتج لها ببراهين ومقدمات، وأمور لم يسبق إليها،وأطلق عبارات أحجم عنها الأولون والآخرون وهابوا، وجسر هو عليها، حتى قام عليه خلق من علماءمصر والشام قياماً لا مزيد عليه. أهـــ

“And he supported the pure Sunnah, and the Salafi methodology. And he argued using proofs, premises and matters that he was not preceded to. And he made statements that the earlier and later people refrained from saying and were afraid to utter. Yet he boldly said those things, until a huge group of Scholars from Egypt and Syria confronted him most sternly.”

See pg. 243: Here

al- Dhahabi on page 38 of the book, Zaghlul ‘Ilm , said about his teacher Ibn Taymiyyah:

وقد تعبت في وزنه وفتشته حتى مللت في سنين متطاولة ، فما وجدت قد أخره بين أهل مصر والشامومقتته نفوسهم وازدروا به وكذبوه وكفروه إلا الكبر والعجب ، وفرط الغرام في رياسة المشيخةوالازدراء بالكبار ، فانظر كيف وبال الدعاوي ومحبة الظهور ، نسأل الله تعالى المسامحة ، فقد قام عليهأناس ليسوا بأورع منه ولا أعلم منه ولا أزهد منه ، بل يتجاوزون عن ذنوب أصحابهم وآثام أصدقائهم ،وما سلطهم الله عليه بتقواهم وجلالتهم بل بذنوبه ، وما دفعه الله عنه وعن أتباعه أكثر ، وما جرى عليهمإلا بعض ما يستحقون ، فلا تكن فى ريب من ذلك. أهـــ

“And I have tired myself from weighing him and examining him, until over the long years I became exausted. At last, what I found to be holding him back among the scholars of Egypt and Syria (Shaam), caused their souls to loathe him, and them to disdain him, and call him a liar and accuse him of disbelief was nothing else but arrogance (kibr), self admiration (‘ujb), the ardent desire to be the “head shaikh”, and belittling the eminent (figures in Islam)! So look at the outcome of false claims and love of fame! We ask Allah, the Exalted, for pardon. For indeed, the people who confronted him were not more pious than he, or more knowledgeble or more ascetic. On the other hand, they would overlook the sins of their companions and the misdeeds of their friends. Allah did not afflict him with them due to their piety (taqwa) and their nobility, but because of his sins. And what Allah deflected from him and his followers was even greater. And nothing befell them except for some of what they deserved, so do not be in doubt concerning this.” See page, 38: Here

al- Dhahabi  said in his book called Zaghlul ‘Ilm:

فما أظنك فى ذلك تبلغ رتبة ابن تيمية ولا والله تقربها وقد رأيت ما اَل أمره إليه من الحط عليه والهجروالتضليل والتكفير والتكذيب بحق و بباطل فقد كان قبل أن يدخل فى هذة الصناعة منوراً مضيئاً علىمحياه سيما السلف ثم صار مظلماً مكسوفاً عليه قتمة عند خلائق من الناس ودجالاً أفاكاً كافرا عند أعدائهومبتدعاً فاضلاً محققا بارعا عند طوائف من عقلاء الفضلاء وحامل راية الإسلام وحامى حوزة الدينومحي السنة عند عوام أصحابه هو ما أقول لك. أهـــ

“…I still don’t believe you would reach the level of Ibn Taymiyyah nor, by Allah, would you even come close to it. And I have witnessed what his affair led to, with people putting him down, abandoning him, declaring him to be a deviant, declaring him to be a disbeliever, and accusing him oflying, rightfully and wrongfullyBut before he got into this field he was radiant, shining, and bearing the appearance of the Salaf on his face…” page 42 and 43: Here


al-Nasiha al-Dhahabiyya to Ibn Taymiyya

Link provided: Here

al-Nasihah al-Dhahabia li ibn Taymiyya
(Sincere Advice to Ibn Taymiyya, Maktab al-Misria 18863)


Note: Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (b.691 AH – d.751 AH) Ibn Tayimyyah’s Disciple!

Ibn al- Qayyim followed the same path as his teacher in his infamous poem entitled:

al-Qasida al-Nuniyya. More Info: Here also not to forget: Here


al-Imam al-Mufassir Abu Hayyan al-Andalusi (d.754AH)on ibn Taymiyya’s Belief that: “Allah Most High is sitting (yajlisu) on the Kursi but has left a place of it unoccupied, in which to seat the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace)”

Excerpt from the article – ‘Reforming Classical Texts’ by Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller:

…the two-volume Qur’anic exegesis of Abu Hayyan al-Nahwi (d. 754/1353), Tafsir al-nahr al-madd [The exegesis of the far-stretching river] condensed mainly from his own previous eight-volume exegesis al-Bahr al-muhit [The encompassing sea], arguably the finest tafsir ever written based primarily on Arabic grammar. Abu Hayyan, of Andalusion origin, settled in Damascus, knew Ibn Taymiya personally, and held him in great esteem, until the day that Barinbari (d. 717/1317) brought him a work by Ibn Taymiya called Kitab al-‘arsh [The book of the Throne]. There they found, in Ibn Taymiya’s own handwriting (which was familiar to Abu Hayyan),anthropomorphic suggestions about the Deity that made Abu Hayyan curse Ibn Taymiya until the day he died. This was mentioned by the hadith master (hafiz) Taqi al-Din Subki in his al-Sayf al-saqil (85). Abu Hayyan, in his own Qur’anic exegesis of Ayat al-Kursi (Qur’an 2:258) in surat al-Baqara, recorded something of what so completely changed his mind:

I have read in the book of Ahmad ibn Taymiya, this individual whom we are the contemporary of, and the book is in his own handwriting, and he has named it Kitab al-‘arsh [The book of the Throne], that “Allah Most High is sitting (yajlisu) on the Kursi but has left a place of it unoccupied, in which to seat the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace)” [italics mine]. Al-Taj Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn ‘Abd al-Haqq Barinbari fooled him [Ibn Taymiya] by pretending to be a supporter of his so that he could get it from him, and this is what we read in it (al-Nahwi, Tafsir al-nahr al-madd, 1.254).


Shaykh al-Islam Taqi al-Din al-Subki (d.756 AH)

Al-Dura al-Mudhia, page 5:
أحدث ابن تيمية ما أحدث في أصول العقائد ونقض من دعائم الإسلام الأركان والمعاقد بعد أن كانمستترا بتبعية الكتاب والسنة مظهرا أنه داع إلى الحق هاد إلى الجنة فخرج عن الاتباع إلى الابتداعوشذ عن جماعة المسلمين بمخالفة الاجماع
“When Ibn Taimiyah caused what he caused in ideology and abolished the pillars of Islam after which he pretended to be an adherent of the Book and Sunnah, and pretended that he was an advocate for truth and guiding others to heaven, he went astray and (went) towards originating a heresy, and became odd by contradicting the Ijma of Muslims.”

Shaykh al-Islam Taqi al-Din al-Subki on ibn Taymiyya and his followers being from the deviant Hashwiyya sect, and that they were a minority fringe group who would teach their beliefs in secret

“As for the Hashwiyya, they are a despicable and ignorant lot who claim to belong to the school of (Imam) Ahmad (ibn Hanbal)… They have corrupted the creed of a few isolated Shafi’is, especially some of the Hadith scholars among them who are lacking in reason… They were held in utmost contempt, and then towards the end of the seventh century (AH) a man appeared who was diligent, intelligent and well-read and did not find a Shaykh to guide him, and he is of their creed and is brazen and dedicated to teaching his ideas… He said that non-eternal attributes can subsist in Allah, and that Allah is ever-acting, and that an infinite chain of events is not impossible either in the past or the future. He split the ranks and cast doubts on the creed of the Muslims and incited dissension amongst them. He did not confine himself to creedal matters of theology, but transgressed the bounds and said that travelling to visit the tomb of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) is a sin… The scholars agreed to imprison him for a long time, and the Sultan imprisoned him… and he died in prison. Then some of his followers started to promulgate his ideas and teach them to people in secret while keeping quiet in public, and great harm came from this.”

[al-Zabidi, Ithaf al-Sada al-Muttaqin, 2:11. al-Zabidi is quoting from al-Subki’s al-Sayf al-Saqil fi al-Radd ‘ala ibn Zafil, see al-Rasa-il al-Subkiyya, 84-85]

Shaykh al-Islam Taqi al-Din al-Subki on ibn Taymiyya’s view on Tawassul as cited by Imam ‘Abd al-Ra’uf al-Munawi (d. 1031AH):

“It is proper to entreat and ask for the help and intercession of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) with Allah. No one from amongst the salaf and the khalaf denied this, until ibn Taymiyya came along and disapproved of this, and deviated from the straight path, and invented a position that no scholar has said before, and he became a deterrent example for Muslims” [al-Munawi, Faydh al-Qadir, 2:170]

This was also mentioned by Imam Muhammad Amin ibn ‘Abidin al-Shami al-Hanafi (d. 1252AH) via Imam al-Munawi as follows:

نَعَمْ ذَكَرَ الْعَلَّامَةُ الْمُنَاوِيُّ فِي حَدِيثِ «اللَّهُمَّ إنِّي أَسْأَلُك وَأَتَوَجَّهُ إلَيْك بِنَبِيِّك نَبِيِّ الرَّحْمَةِ» عَنْ الْعِزِّ بْنِ عَبْدِ السَّلَامِأَنَّهُ يَنْبَغِي كَوْنُهُ مَقْصُورًا عَلَى النَّبِيِّ – صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ – وَأَنْ لَا يُقْسِمَ عَلَى اللَّهِ بِغَيْرِهِ وَأَنْ يَكُونَ مِنْخَصَائِصِهِ قَالَ وَقَالَ السُّبْكِيُّ: يَحْسُنُ التَّوَسُّلُ بِالنَّبِيِّ إلَى رَبِّهِ وَلَمْ يُنْكِرْهُ أَحَدٌ مِنْ السَّلَفِ وَلَا الْخَلَفِ إلَّا ابْنَ تَيْمِيَّةَفَابْتَدَعَ مَا لَمْ يَقُلْهُ عَالِمٌ قَبْلَهُ اهـ

[Radd al-Muhtar ‘ala al-Durr al-Mukhtar Hashiya ibn ‘Abidin, vol. 6, pg. 397, Dar al-Fikr, Beirut ed.]

Imam Mustafa ibn Ahmad al-Shatti al-Hanbali (d. 1348AH) also mentioned this from Shaykh al-Islam Taqi al-Din al-Subki as follows:

“It is good to make intercession with the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) to his Lord. No one from the first generations (salaf), or those who followed (khalaf), repudiated this until Ibn Taymiyyah arrived. He repudiated intercession, went out from the straight path and innovated what no scholar before him had said, and became known for that among the people of Islam.”

[al-Shatti, al-Nuqul al-Shar’iyya fi al-Radd ‘ala al-Wahhabiyya, translated into English by al-Hajj Abu Ja’far al-Hanbali as The Divine Texts, pg. 57]

Shaykh al-Islam Taqi al-Din al-Subki on ibn Taymiyya’s book on hell being non-eternal:

[(al-Hut, Kamal Yusuf, ed.) al-Rasa’il al-Subkiyya fi radd ‘ala ibn Taymiya wa tilmidhihi ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, 196-208 (documents, letters, and passages by Taqi al-Din al-Subki and others edited and commentated upon by al-Hut). Beirut: ‘Alam al-Kutub]

Imam al-Dhahabi praised  Shaykh al-Islam Taqi al-Din al-Subki denouncing Ibn Taymiyya.

Ibn Taymiyya was challenged by someone who had more knowledge and piety that we, ie Hafidh Taqiyyou d-Din As-Subki, and Adh-Dhahabi greatly praised in two verses of Arabic poetry:

Minbar of the Umayyad be proud when the wise ocean science, taqiyy the climbs.

Whoever remembers the most of all the Shaykh of his era,

The most eloquent of them, who control most of the laws of science ‘Ali.

This is ‘Ali, Ibn’ Abdi Kafi l-As-Subki, aptly known as the Al-Hafidh Taqiyyou d-Din As-Subki.

Shaykh al-Islam al-Subki was a contemporary of Ibn Taymiyya and he repeatedly denounced, for example, in his book Ad-l-Dourratou Moudiyyah, as the Hafidh Abu Sa’id Al-‘Ala-iwhich also denounced Ibn Taymiyyah in his time.

Shaykh al-Islâm al-Subkî’s Rejection of  Ibn Tayimyyahs Fatwa

This most notorious of all fatwas was refuted by his contemporary the hadîth Master and Shaykh al-Islâm Taqî al-Dîn al-Subkî in his landmark book Shifâ’ al-Siqâm fî Ziyârati Khayri al-Anam (“The Healing of Sickness Concerning the Visitation to the Best of Creatures”) , also titled Shann al-Ghâra `alâ man Ankara al-Safar li al-Ziyâra (“The Raid Against Him Who Denied the Lawfulness of Travel for the Purpose of Visitation”).

Shaykh al-Islâm adduced the hadîth “Whoever visits my grave, my intercession will be guaranteed for him” as proof against Ibn Taymiyya’s claim that “all the hadîths that concern the merit of visitation are weak or rather forged” and denounced Ibn Taymiyya’s unprecedented fatwâ as a flagrant innovation.

As-Subkiyy calls them idol worshipers:

As-Subkiyy in his Tabaqaatu-sħ-Sħaafiˆiyyatu-l-Kubraa says regarding scripture texts that appear to be referring to bodily attributes:

طبقات الشافعية الكبرى : إنما المصيبة الكبرى والداهية الدهياء الإمرار على الظاهر والاعتقاد أنهالمراد وأنه لا يستحيل على الباري فذلك قول المجسمة عباد الوثن الذين في قلوبهم زيغ يحملهم الزيغعلى اتباع المتشابه ابتغاء الفتنة عليهم لعائن الله تترى واحدة بعد أخرى ما أجرأهم على الكذب وأقلفهمهم للحقائق طبقات الشافعية الكبرى ج 5 ص 192

“the saying of the mujassimah (anthropomorphists), worshipers of the idol, makes them always focus onambiguous aayahs.”



Al Imam As Safadi (d.764 AH(Direct student of ibn Tayimyyah)

As Safadi said in his explanation of the poem called “Laamiyyatul ‘Ajam”

:شرح لامية العجم
يقال إن الخليل بن أحمد اجتمع يوما هو وعبد الله بن المقفع فتحادثا إلى الغداة. فلما تفرقا قيل للخليل كيفرأيته قال رأيت رجلا علمه أكثر من عقله. وقيل لابن المقفع كيف رأيت الخليل قال رأيت رجلا عقلهأكثر من علمه. وكذا كان فإن ابن المقفع قتله قلة عقله وكثرة كلامه شر قتلة وشر ميتة. قلت: وكذا كانالشيخ الإمام العلامة تقي الدين أحمد بن تيمية علمه متسع جدا إلى الغاية وعقله ناقص يورطه فيالمهالك ويوقعه في المضايق. أهـــ

“It’s been said that one day Al Khaleel bin Ahmad met Abdullah bin Al Muqaffa’, and they talked until the morning. When they dispersed, Al Khaleel was asked, what do you think about him? He answered, he’s a man whose knowledge exceeds his intellect. And Ibn Al Muqaffa’ was asked about Al Khaleel. He answered, “His intellect exceeds his knowledge.” And thus it was. For the lacking intellect and excessive speech of Ibn Al Muqaffa’ led him to a most terrible slaughter and horrible death.
I’ll say (As Safadi) thus was the Shaikh, the Imam, the ‘Allaamah Taqiyyud Deen Ahmad bin Taymiyyah. His knowledge was extremely vast, yet his intellect was lacking. It would lead him to destruction and make him fall into tight spaces.”

Imam Salahud Deen As Safadi : the student of ibn Taymiyya, said in his biography of Ibn Taymiyyah in his book, “Al Waafi bil Wafayaat”:

:وقال الصفدي أثناء ترجمة ابن تيمية في الوافي بالوفيات
وحكى لي عنه الشيخ شمس الدين ابن قيم الجوزية قال: كان صغيرا عند بني المنجا فبحث معهم فادعواشيئا أنكره فأحضروا النقل فلما وقف عليه ألقى المجلد من يده غيظا، فقالوا له: ما أنت إلا جريء ترميالمجلد من يدك وهو كتاب علم، فقال سريعا: أيما خير أنا أو موسى? فقالوا موسى، فقال: أيما خير هذاالكتاب أو ألواح الجوهر التي كان فيها العشر كلمات? قالوا: الألواح، فقال: إن موسى لما غضب ألقىالألواح من يده، أو كما قال. أهـــ

“Ash Shaikh Shamsud Deen Ibnu Qayyim Al Jawziyyah told me about him saying: When he was young he was in the company of (the Hanbali family of Scholars) Banu Al Munajja, so he debated with them. So they claimed something he denied. Then they brought the quote. When he saw it, he threw the book down in anger. They said to him, “You sure are bold to throw down the book when it is a book of Religious Knowledge!” Whereupon he immediately said, “Who is better, me or Musa?” So they said, “Musa”. Then he said, “Which is better, this book or the Tablets containing the Ten Commandments?” They said, “The Tablets.” So Ibn Taymiyyah said, “Well, when Musa became angry he threw the Tablets down!” – or something to this effect

This quote can also be found translated into English on page 110 and 111 of “Al Albani Unveiled”, a book definitely worth owning.



Imam Ibn Kathir (b.701AH – d. 774 AH) is a scholar of Ahl al-Sunna who was of the Shafi‘i school (according to the first volume of his main work, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim, 1.2)

Whatever length of time Ibn Kathir studied with Ibn Taymiya, he was in his twenties when the latter died, and his long and fruitful career extended over the next 46 forty-six years.

Ibn Taymiyyah born: 661AH

First clash with Ahle Sunnh wal Jamaah scholars: 698AH- at age 37 year old


(al- Dhahabi- 25 years old )

(ibn al Qayyim –7 years old)

(ibn Kathir was not even born– he was born 701AH)

Summoned again in 705AH- age 44 years old

Ibn Taymiyyah Repented in 707AH – age 46 years old


(al-Dhahabi -34 years old)

(ibn al Qayyim- 16 years old)

(ibn Kathir –6 years old)

Final imprisonment (726AH) : age 65 years old – Fatwa by  Four Sunni Orthodox Judges

Ibn Taymiyyah died: 728AH at the age of 67 year old


(Ibn kathir –27 years old)

Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani  is reporting in ad-durar al-kamina chapter 1,page 65 a short discussion between Ibn Kathir and the son of Ibn Al-Qayyim Al-Jawziyya.

Ibn Kathir said to him: “You do not like me because I am an Ash’ ari”.

The son of Ibn Al-Qayyim replied: “Even if you had hair from head to feet, people would not believe that you are Ash’ ari as your sheikh is Ibn Taymiyyah!!”

Imam al-Subki  mentions in “Tabaqat ash-shafi’ iyya” volume: 10 page, 398 that:
“A condition to teach at the house of hadith “Al-Ashrafiyya” was to be Ash’ari in ‘Aqida and that apparently Imam Ibn Kathir occupied the post of professor at this house of Hadith in the month of Muharam in the year (772 AH).


He (ibn Tayimyyah) says, “Every word in the Book of Allah and His messenger is conditioned by that which clarifies its meaning, in none of which is there any figurative expression (majaz); rather, all of it is literal (haqiqa)” (ibid., 78).

Compare this with what Ibn Kathir says about the verse “Then He ‘was established’ (istawa) upon the Throne” (Qur’an 7:54), (istawa here rendered as “was established” not by way of definitive interpretation, but rather out of need to answer the question):

People have many positions on this matter, and this is not the place to present them at length. On this point, we follow the position of the early Muslims (salaf)—Malik, Awza‘i, Thawri, Layth ibn Sa‘d, Shafi‘i, Ahmad, Ishaq ibn Rahawayh, as well as others among the Imams of the Muslims, ancient and modern—namely, to let the verse pass as it has come, without saying how it is meant (bi la takyif), without any resemblance to created things (wa la tashbih), and without nullifying it (wa la ta‘til): the literal outward meaning (dhahir) that comes to the minds ofanthropomorphists (al-mushabbihinis negated of Allah [italics mine], for nothing created has any resemblance to Him: “There is nothing whatsoever like unto Him, and He is the All-hearing, the All-seeing

(Qur’an 42:11) (Ibn Kathir: Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim, 2.220).More Info:Here

Arabic passage of what Imam al Hafidh Ibn Kathir said:

قال الإمام ابن كثير في التفسير القران العظيم

: تفسير:{ثُمَّ ٱسْتَوَىٰ عَلَى ٱلْعَرْشِۚ} فللناس في هذا المقام مقالات كثيرة جداً ليس هذاموضع بسطها وإنما نسلك في هذا المقام مذهب السلف الصالح مالك والأوزاعيوالثوري والليث بن سعد والشافعي وأحمد بن حنبل وإسحاق بن راهويه وغيرهم منأئمة المسلمين قديماً وحديثاً وهو إمرارها كما جاءت من غير تكييف ولا تشبيه ولاتعطيل والظاهر المتبادر إلى أذهان المشبهين منفي عن الله لا يشبهه شيء من خلقهو{لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِۦ شَىْءٌۖ وَهُوَ ٱلسَّمِيعُ ٱلْبَصِيرُ

Original Translation:

{Then He did Istawa (As it befits His Majesty) upon the Throne”} People have “TOO MANY POSITIONS ON THIS MATTER AND THIS IS NOT THE PLACE TO PRESENT THEM AT LENGTH” [فللناس في هذا المقام مقالات كثيرة جداً ليس هذا موضع بسطها] On this point, we follow the position of the righteous early Muslims (Salaf) i.e. Imam Malik, Imam al-Awza‘i, Imam Sufyan ath-Thawri, Imam Layth ibn Sa‘d, Imam ash-Shaf’i, Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, Imam Ishaq ibn Rahawayh, as well as others among the Imams of the Muslims, past and present—(namely) ” TO LET IT PASS AS IT HAS COME WITHOUT SAYING HOW IT IS MEANT “[، وهوإمرارها كما جاءت من غير تكييف], without any resemblance (to created things), and without nullifying it (wa la ta‘til): “THE OUTWARD (LITERAL)” meaning that comes to the minds of anthropomorphists is negated of Allah[والظاهر المتبادر إلى أذهانالمشبهين منفي عن الله] for nothing created has any resemblance to Him: {“There is nothing whatsoever like unto Him, and He is the All-hearing, the All-seeing” (Qur’an 42:11)} [Tafsir Ibn Kathir Under 7:54]


Now:  Wahhabi/Salafi Fabrication:

Please note at the blue highlighted parts above and the red highlighted parts below in Wahhabi/Salafi translation:

Fabrication: (and then He rose over (Istawa) the Throne) the people had several conflicting opinions over its meaning. However, we follow the way that our righteous predecessors took in this regard, such as Malik, Al-Awza`i, Ath-Thawri, Al-Layth bin Sa`d, Ash-Shafi`i, Ahmad, Ishaq bin Rahwayh and the rest of the scholars of Islam, in past and present times. Surely, we accept the apparent meaning of, Al-Istawa, without discussing its true essence, equating it (with the attributes of the creation), or altering or denying it (in any way or form). We also believe thatthe meaning that comes to those who equate Allah with the creation is to be rejected, for nothing is similar to Allah. [Taken from which has been down now so you can check in hard copy of Tafsir Ibn Kathir published by Dar us Salaam, Najd (Riyadh), Saudi Arabia] Here -Also read: Tafsir of Ayat-ul-Kursi  More Info: Here


Ibn Rajab Al Hanbali (d. 795 AH), the student of Ibn Taymiyyah’s student Ibn Qayyim Al Jawziyyah, acknowledges that Ibn Taymiyyah had unique rulings when he said in his update of Al Qaadi Abu Ya’la’s son’s book on biographies of the Hanbalis called Dhaylu Tabaqaatil Hanaabilah vol. 4 pg. 505 (507 on the PDF reader) Here

ولكن كان هو وجماعة من خواص أصحابه ربما أنكروا من الشيخ كلامه في بعض الأئمة الأكابرالأعيان، أو في أهل التخلي والانقطاع ونحو ذلك.
وكان الشيخ رحمه اللّه لا يقصد بذلك إلا الخير، والانتصار للحق إن شاء الله تعالى.
وطوائف من أئمة أهل الحديث وحفاظهم وفقهائهم: كانوا يحبون الشيخ ويعظمونه، ولم يكونوا يحبون لهالتوغل مع أهل الكلام ولا الفلاسفة، كما هو طريق أئمة أهل الحديث المتقدمين، كالشافعي وأحمدوإسحاق وأبي عبيد ونحوهم، وكذلك كثير هن العلماء من الفقهاء والمحدثين والصالحين كرهوا لهالتفرد ببعض شذوذ المسائل التي أنكرها السلف على من شذ بها، حتى إن بعض قضاة العدل منأصحابنا منعه من الإفتاء ببعض ذلك. أهـــ

“However he (‘Imaad Ad Deen Al Waasiti) and a group of Ibn Taymiyyah’s closest companions disapproved of the Shaikh’s statements about some of the eminent and high-standing Imams, or the likes of those people who would disconnect themselves from the world to be alone with their Lord (the Sufis). And the Shaikh may Allah have mercy on him did not intend anything by that but good, and defense of the truth Inshaa Allahu ta’aala. And various circles of the people of Hadeeth; including Imams, Huffaadh (memorizers of more than 100,000 hadeeths) and Fuqahaa (Jurists) used to love the Shaikh (i.e. Ibn Taymiyyah) and hold him in high regard. But they did not like for him to go into in-depth issues with the theologians and philosophers – as was the methodology of the Imams of Ahlul Hadeeth like Ash Shaafi’ee, Ahmad, Ishaaq, Abu ‘Ubaid and others like them. Additionally, many ‘Ulamaa, Fuqahaa, Muhadditheen, and Saaliheen (Righteous people) disliked that he go on his own with some of his unique rulings that the Salaf disapproved of whoever went alone with. Until one of the just judges from our colleages prevented him from making those fatawas.”

Imam al-Hafidh ibn Rajab al-Hanbali  The student of ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (who in turn was the student of ibn Taymiyya)

عبد الرحمن بن أحمد بن رجب البغدادي ثم الدمشقي الحنبلي، الحافظ زين الدين بن رجب. وُلد ببغداد سنة ستٍ وثلاثين وسبعمائة، وسمع بمصر من الميدومي وبالقاهرة من ابن الملوك وبدمشق من ابن الخباز وجمع جمٍّ، ورافق شيخنا زين الدين العراقي في السماع كثيرًا، ومهر في فنون الحديث أَسماءً ورجالًا وعِللًا وطرقا واطلاعًا على معانيه.
صنَّف “شرح الترمذي” فأَجاد فيه في نحو عشرين مجلدة، وشرح قطعة كبيرة من “البخاري” وشرح “الأَربعين للنووي” في مجلدة، وعمل “وظائف الأَيام” سمَّاه “اللطائف” وعمل “طبقات الحنابلة” ذيلًا على “طبقات أبي يعلى”.
وكان صاحبَ عبادَةٍ وتهجد، ونُقِم عليه إِفتاؤه بمقالات ابن تيمية ثم أَظهر الرجوع عن ذلك فنافره التيميون فلم يكن مع هؤلاءِ ولا مع هؤلاءِ، وكان قد ترك الإِفتاءَ بآخره.
قال ابن حجي: “أَتْقَنَ الفنَّ وصار أَعرف أَهل عصره بالعلل وتتبُّع الطرق، وكان لا يخالط أَحدًا ولا يتردد إِلى أَحد”. مات في رمضان رحمه اللّٰه، [و]تخرج به غالب أَصحابنا الحنابلة بدمشق.

– ابن حجر العسقلاني في كتابه “إنباء الغمر بأنباء العمر”، المجلس الأعلى للشئون الإسلامية ١٩٩٨:١٩٦٩، الجزء الاول، ص. ٤٦٠-٤٦١

Imam al-Hafidh ibn Rajab al-Hanbali stopped issuing fatawa in accordance to the views of ibn Taymiyya and was loathed by the Taymiyyun because of it:

al-Hafidh Zayn al-Din ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Ahmad ibn Rajab al-Hanbali al-Baghdadi – then al-Dimashqi. The son of Rajab, born inBaghdad in the year 736 (AH).

In Egypt he heard from al-Maydumi, in Cairo from ibn al-Muluk, inDamascus from ibn al-Khubbaz, as well as the addition of numerous others. He kept the company of our Shaykh, Zayn al-Din al-‘Iraqi in hearing (from him) a great deal. He was proficient in the disciplines of hadith – the names (asma’), the narrators (rijal), hidden defects (‘ilal), the different routes/chains (turuq), and insight in explaining (itla’) their meanings.

He authored “Sharh al-Tirmidhi” in around twenty volumes, regarding which he achieved excellent results, (he also authored) a commentary of a major portion of (Sahih) “al-Bukhari”, as well as a commentary of “al-Arba’in li al-Nawawi” (Imam al-Nawawi’s collection of fourty ahadith) in one volume. He worked on “Wadha’if al-Ayyam” (the recommended actions of each specific day) which he named “al-Lata’if”, and also worked on “Tabaqat al-Hanabila” (the ranks of the Hanbali scholars) as a follow up of “Tabaqat Abi Ya’la”.

He was a man devoted to worship and tahajjud. He was resented because of his deliverance of religious legal edicts (ifta’) based on the sayings of ibn Taymiyya. He then proclaimed retraction from that and the Taymiyyun loathed him, so he was neither (aligned) with this group, not that group. In the end, he abandoned issuing religious legal edicts (ifta’).

Ibn Hajji said: “He mastered the science (of hadith and it’s branches) and became the most recognised of the people of his time in the field of hidden defects (‘ilal) and the pursuit of the different chains of transmission (tatabbu’ al-turuq). He would not intermingle with anyone and would also rarely visit anyone.”

He passed away during the month of Ramadhan, may Allah have mercy upon him. Most of our Hanbali companions were trained/educated by him in Damascus.

[ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Inba al-Ghumr bi Anba al-‘Umr, ed. al-Majlis al-A’la li al-Shu’un al-Islamiyya 1969:1998, pt. 1, pg. 460-461]


Imam al-Iraqi (d.826 AH)
Muhaddith Waliyyud-Din Abu Zur’ah Ahmad Ibn ‘Abdir-Rahimal-‘Iraqiyy
In his book ‘Tarh at-Tathrib fi Sharh at-Taqrib’ when explaining the saying of the Prophet sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam:> in reference to the Book positioned above the Throne which has the following words: ‘Inna Rahmati sabaqat Ghadabi’, which means that the matters Allah approves of, far exceed in number those He does not, said: “Allah is clear from the acts of sitting, occupying space and directionality. Therefore, the word “inda” in the aforementioned context does not infer place, rather, it infers honourable status. Consequently, the true meaning of the Prophet’s saying is that this book is positioned in a place Allah awarded high status and honour”.

The Hafidh Wali al-Din Abu Zur’ah al-‘Iraqi (d. 826) said:
وَلِلشَّيْخِ تَقِيِّ الدِّينِ ابْنِ تَيْمِيَّةَ هُنَا كَلامٌ بَشِعٌ عَجِيبٌ ، يَتَضَمَّنُ مَنْعَ شَدِّ الرَّحْلِ لِلزِّيَارَةِ ، وَأَنَّهُ لَيْسَ مِنَالْقُرْبِ بَلْ بِضِدِّ ذَلِكَ , وَرَدَّ عَلَيْهِ الشَّيْخُ تَقِيُّ الدِّينِ السُّبْكِيُّ فِي شِفَاءِ السَّقَامِ فَشَفَى صُدُورَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ
“The Shaykh Taqi al-Din ibn Taymiyya has an abominable statement regarding this issue to the effect that travelling to visit [the grave of the Prophet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam -] is prohibited and that it is not a pious deed but rather the contrary. Shaykh Taqi al-Din al-Subki replied to him in [his book] “Shifa` al-Saqam” and healed the breasts of the believers [by it].”
Source: “Tarh al-Tathrib


Imam Taqi al-Din al-Hisni al-Shafi’i (d.829AH) mentions some points regarding Imam ibn Rajab al-Hanbali (d.795AH) and some of his negative views concerning ibn Taymiyya:

al-Shaykh Zayn al-Din ibn Rajab al-Hanbali was from among those who firmly believed in ibn Taymiyya’s kufr (disbelief), and had (authored) refutations against him. He would say at the top of his voice during some gatherings:

“al-Subki is excused – meaning in regards to his takfir“.

[al-Hisni, Daf’ Shubah man Shabbaha wa Tamarrad, ed. Dar al-Mustafa, pg. 535]

وكان الشيخ زين الدين بن رجب الحنبلي ممن يعتقد كفر ابن تيمية وله عليه الرد. وكان يقول بأعلىصوته في بعض المجالس: معذور (173/أ) السبكي – يعني في تكفيره ([1]).

([1]) في ب: معذور السبكي في تكفيره
دفع شبه من شبه وتمرد، دار المصطفى، ص. ٥٣٥

Imam Taqi al-Din al-Hisni  on ibn Taymiyya’s anti-Ash’ari followers being a fringe minority group who had to keep their beliefs hidden due to fear of facing severe punishment:

“Discretionary punishment and floggings and imprisonment and beheadings have not ceased to be their lot, despite their concealing what they believe and their utmost secrecy in not expressing their foul beliefs except in hidden places after taking care, and locking the doors, and speaking softly, saying that the walls have ears.”

[Taqi al-Din al-Hisni, Daf’ Shubah man Shabbaha wa Tamarrada, 236-7]

Daf Shubah min Shabah, page 123:
وكان الشيخ زين الدين ابن رجب الحنبلي ممن يعتقد كفر ابن تيمية
“Sheikh Zainuddin ibn Rajab al-Hanbali was amongst those that believed that Ibn Taimiyah is a kafir”
On page 90 we read:
وكان الإمام العلامة شيخ الإسلام في زمانه أبو الحسن علي بن إسماعيل القونوي يصرح بأنه منالجهلة بحيث لا يعقل ما يقول. ويخبر أنه أخذ مسألة التفرقة عن شيخه الذي تلقاها عن أفراخ السامرةواليهود الذين أظهروا التشرف بالإسلام.
“The Imam, the Allamah Sheikh al-Islam of his time Abu al-Hassan Ali bin Ismail al-Qunuwi declared that he was ignorant and didn’t realize what he said. He (Sheikh Qunuwi) stated that he (Ibn Taimiyah) took the belief of ‘Tafriqa’ from his Sheikh who took it from Samirites and Jews, those who pretend to be Muslims.”
On page 125 we read:
قاله بعض الأئمة عنه من أنه زنديق مطلق
“Some scholars deemed him to be an absolute atheist (Zindeeq)”
On page 189 we read:
فنسأل الله تعالى العافية مما يرتكبه هذا الزائغ الفاجر الكذاب.
“We ask Allah to preserve us of what this abhorrent, immoral, liar performs.”
We also read:
ولقد أسفرت هذه القضية عن زندقته بتجرئه على الإفك على العلماء وعلى أنه لا يعتقد حرمة الكذب
“The result of the case was the atheism of him (Ibn Taimiyah) because he dares to attribute lies to the scholars and did not ascribe to any prohibition on telling lies.”


Shaykh al-Islam ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani (d.852AH) 


Imam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, while explaining one of the versions of the hadith of the Prophet Muhammad sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, sometimes referred to as hadith an-Nuzul (and which would give the impression that God descends on Earth every night, in his book Fath al-Bari, volume 3, page 23 (you would find pages 22 and 24 scanned (Here) only so that you can read the full context if needed, but the passage translated below is contained in page 23):

“As for his saying ‘Yanzilu Rabbuna ‘ila s-Samaa’i d-Dunya“, those who confirm a direction to Allah, have relied on this text and saidthat it is the direction of ‘above’ (al-uluww), and this has been refuted by the scholars (al-jumhur), because talking like that equals limiting Allaah, who is exempted from that.  Thereafter people have diverged about the meaning of an-nuzul: some took it according to its literal meaning and verily, these are the anthropomorphists (al-mushabbihah) , and Allaah is absolutely free (exempted) from what they say. Others have resorted to deny the truthfulness of all the hadiths which have been narrated in that regard: those are the Khawaarij and theMu’tazilah, and these are really astonishing because on the one hand they interpret what has reached [us] in the Qur’an which is similar to this, and on the other hand they deny what has come from hadith, either due to ignorance, or to stubbornness. Others have read those texts as they were revealed, believing in them in general, while freeing Allaah from the manner[kayfiyyah] of the anthropomorphists, and these are the majority of the Salaf.   [On top of that], al-Bayhaqi and others have narrated from the four imams, from the two Sufyan, the two Hammad, al-Awza’i, from al-Layth and others, that they DID interpret this text according to what befits Allaah, and what is in use in the language of the Arabs. Some other ones went so far in their interpretation that it ended up being a  type of distortion. Others [still] made a difference between what is a ‘close’ interpretation’, i.e. in use in the language of the Arabs, and what would be a ‘far-fetched’ one, and as a result they have interpreted in some cases and  made tafweed [i.e. leaving the meaning to Allaah]  in some cases, and this has been narrated from imam Malik. It has been confirmed by Ibn Daqiq al-Id that al-Bayhaqi said that the safest [of all these methods] is to believe in those texts without a how (bila kayf) and to not speak about what is intended.”

Imam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani , in volume 13, page 414, of his book Fath l-Bari, (see scan: Here)

while explaining a hadith relating the Mi’raj (ascension to the skies) of the Prophet sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, said:

Al-Khattabi said that in this version there is another term narrated by Sharik which makes it different from the other [versions] and which has not been narrated by anyone else. It is [where it is said] : “fi’lan bihi, i.e. from Jibril to Allaah (al-Jabbaar) and  [Sharik] said : “wa huwa makaanuhu” [i.e. literally it would mean ‘and it is his place’], and [later on] the Prophet said  “O My Lord alleviate for us [the number of prayers]. He [i.e. al-Khattabi] said : a place cannot be attributed to Allaah, therefore here it is the place of the Prophet which is meant, i.e. that he returned where he was standing before leaving.’

In his book Fath al-Bari, Amir al-Mu’minin fi l-hadith (literally the Commander of the believers as far as hadith is concerned), al-Hafidh Ibn Hajar said, in volume 13 page 358 (page 328:scan), while explaining a version of the hadith which means that there is a book above the Throne with an inscription:

“As for his saying ” ‘indahu“, Ibn Battal said that the term “ ‘inda” in the language applies to places, when Allah is free from being incarnated in a place, because being incarnated implies having an end and having been created, and having been created is not suitable for Allah. Therefore, it has been said that the meaning [of this hadith] is that His knowledge has preceded the confirmation of who will [in the end] act in obedience to Allah, and of who will be punished for having committed sins, and this [interpretation] is reinforced  by the hadith which comes next, and which says “ana ‘inda dhann ‘indi“, and it is not at all related to a place.

In this extract he explains the hadith in which there is a statement which could potentially be misunderstood.  It is mentioned in that hadith that a book is “‘indahu” which, if taken literally, would mean that this book is “next to God”, wa l-iyaadhu billaah. Ibn Hajar quotes other Muslim scholars to establish the different meanings of ‘‘inda‘  to explain that here ”indahu’ does not refer to the place at all, and he takes the opportunity to repeat the Muslims’ belief that Allah  exists without a place.  (More Info: Here)

Imam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani on ibn Taymiyya’s prohibiting of travelling to visit the Prophet’s grave (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam):

Al-Kirmani (d. 786AH) has said: On this issue there has been much discussion in our Syrian lands, and many treatises have been written by both parties. I say: He is referring to Shaykh Taqi al-Din al-Subki and others’ responses to Shaykh Taqi al-Din ibn Taymiyya… and the crux of the matter is that they have pointed out that his position implies that it is prohibited to travel to visit the tomb of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam)… This is one of the ugliest positions that has been reported of ibn Taymiyya. One of the things he has adduced to deny the claim that there is a consensus on the matter is the report that (Imam) Malik disliked people saying: I have visited the tomb of the Prophet. The discerning scholars of the (Maliki) school have replied that he disliked the phrase out of politeness, and not the visiting itself, for it is one of the best actions and the noblest of pious deeds with which one draws near to Allah the Majestic, and it’s legitimacy is a matter of consensus without any doubt, and Allah is the One who leads to truth.” [ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Fath al-Bari Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari (Cairo: Mustafa al-Babi al-Halabi, 1959), 3:308]

Shaykh al-Islam ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani has recorded in Lisan al-Mizan (6/319, Hyderabad edn.):

وكم من مبالغة لتوهين كلام الرافضي ادته أحيانا إلى تنقيص علي رضى الله عنه

“How much did he (Ibn Taymiyya) exaggerate in order to weaken the words of the Rafidi (al-Hilli), which at times led him to diminish Ali (radiallahu ‘anh).”[ Read more Here Here]

Shaykh al-Islam ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Al-Durar al-Kamina,Volume 1 page 46:
وعاد القاضي الشافعي إلى ولايته ونودي بدمشق من اعتقد عقيدة ابن تيمية حل دمه
“The Shafiyye judge returned back to his position and declared in Damascus that whoever ascribed to Ibn Taimiyah’s beliefs should have his blood shed”

Al-Durar al-Kamina, Volume 1 page 49:
Ibn Tayimiyyah was released in Shaam. The people had different views of him. Some of them deemed him as one that considered the likeness of Allah to His creature, due to what he said in ‘Aqeeda al-Hamawiya’ and ‘Wasitiya’ and other (books), such as the hand, foot, leg and face are real attributes of Allah, and He is sitting on the throne by Himself. Then it was said to him (Ibn Taimiyah) that the necessities of these beliefs constitute ascribing to the limitation and partition (of Allah), he (Ibn Taimiyah) replied: ‘I don’t believe that limitation and partition is an attribute of a body.’
Others deemed him as one that concealed unbelief due to his saying that the Prophet is not to be sought for help (laa yustaghaathu bihi) and the fact that this amounted to diminishing and impeding the establishing of the greatness of the Prophet.Amongst the most rigid people against him was al-Noor al-Bakri, and he established a council due to that. Some of the members said: ‘We shall pardon him (Ibn Taimiya)’. He (al-Bakri) replied: ‘There is no meaning in that statement. If he was diminishing he must be killed. If he wasn’t diminishing he will not be pardoned’.
Others considered him a hypocrite because of what he said aboutAli:… that he had been forsaken (makhdhoolan) everywhere he went, had repeatedly tried to acquire the Caliphate and never attained it, fought out of lust for power rather than religion, and said that “he loved authority while Uthman loved money.” He would say that Abu Bakr had declared Islam in his old age, fully aware of what he said, while Ali had declared Islam as a boy, and that a boy’s Islam is not considered sound upon his mere words.
And due to his statement about the story of his proposing to thedaughter of Abu Jahl and what he attributed the praises to…Also the story of Abi al-Aas bin al-Rabee and what can be concluded from its concept.

In totality, he said derogatory things such as these, and it was said against him that he was a hypocrite, in view of theProphet’s saying (to Ali): “Only a hypocrite would show you hatred.”
Others deemed him a power seeker due to his praising ibn Tumart and constant mention of him.

Hafidh Abu Sa‘id Al-‘Ala’i, who is the scholarof the scholars of Al-Hafidh Ibn Hajar Al-‘Asqalani, said that Ibn Taymiyah said of Allah, “He has the same volume as the Arsh, neither smaller nor larger.”

(Dhakha’ir Al-Qasr, pp. 32-33)

Shaykh al-Islam ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani has reported an incident in al-Durar al-Kamīna (vol. 1, pp. 164): where again Ibn Taymiyyah descended the steps of the Minbar in order to illustrate his understanding of how Allah descends (nuzūl) as early as the year 705H/1305CE (some 21 years before Ibn Battuta’saccount).

Hāfidh Ibn Ĥajar’s source for this incident was one of Ibn Taymiyyah’s own disciples by the name: Sulaymân Najm al-Dīn al-Tufi al-Ĥanbalī (d. 716/1316).

Note: Also Taqī al-Dīn mentioned it! who lived before the Ĥāfidh Ibn Ĥajar al-Asqalânī.

Ibn Taymiyya’s conception of Allah’s bodily descent is also stated in his own writings, as shown from the following excerpt from his al-Ta’sis fi al-radd `ala asas al-taqdis, written as a refutation of Imam al-Razi who was a fierce enemy of theKarramiyya and other Anthropomorphists:

The Creator, Glorified and Exalted is He, is above the world and His being above is literal, not in the sense of dignity or rank. It may be said of the precedence of a certain object over another that it is with respect to dignity or rank, or that it is with respect to location. For example, respectively: the precedence of the learned over the ignorant and the precedence of the imam over the one praying behind him. Allah’s precedence over the world is not like that, rather, it is a literal precedence (i.e. in time). Similarly the elevation above the world could be said to be with respect to dignity or rank, as for example when it said that the learned is above the ignorant. But Allah’s elevation over the world is not like that, rather He is elevated over it literally (i.e. in space). And this is the known elevation and the known precedence [al-Ta’sis al-radd `ala asas al-Taqdis, vol. 1, pp. 111]

Shaykh al-Islam ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani In his book ‘Fath al-Bari’ said: “Not because it is impossible for the upward and downward directions to apply to Allah does it entail that He cannot be attributed with “Al-‘Uluww” (Aboveness in a metaphorical sense). This is so because attributing Him with “Al-‘Uluww” (Aboveness) is from the point of status,which is impossibly applicable in a physical sense when in reference to Allah. Hence, it has been related that among the names of Allah are Al-‘Ali, Al-‘Aliyy, and Al-Muta’ali”.

Shaykh al-Islam ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani
Rejects the innovated saying that Allah is above the throne‘bi dhatihi’

Regarding the hadith that says:  “God is between you and your qibla”  (إِنَّ رَبَّهُ بَيْنَهُ وَبَيْنَ الْقِبْلَةِ)

Ibn Hajar says that in this is a refutation on those who claim that God is upon the throne bi dhatihi (with His Essence) (فِيهِ الرَّدّ عَلَى مَنْ زَعَمَ أَنَّهُ عَلَى الْعَرْش بِذَاتِهِ). source: Here

Al-Asqalaani said they are not Muslims:

قال حذاق المتكلمين ما عرف الله من شبهه بخلقه أو أضاف إليه اليد أو أضاف إليه الولد فمعبودهم الذيعبدوه ليس هو الله وإن سموه به (فتح الباري, ابن حجر العسقلاني, دار المعرفة – بيروت ، 1379, 3 / 359)

The brilliant kalaam scholars said: “The one that likened Aļļaah to His creation, or ascribed a hand to Him (i.e. in the sense of a part or limb) or a child; what he worships is not Aļļaah, even if he called it Aļļaah.


Imam Ibn Nasir al-Din Al-Dimashqi (d.846AH) TheWahhabi/Salafis love to quote Al-Dimashqi and his book al-Radd al-Wafir in defence of their Imam, ibn Taymiyya.

However, the following is a clear cut example of how many of those who defended him weren’t truly aware of all the deviant positions held by him on various issues. Imam ibn Nasir al-Din al-Dimashqi falls into this category as is evident from the following, where he declares anyone who rejects the Hadiths in relation to the reward and virtue of visiting the grave of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) a deviant. It is well known that ibn Taymiyya is the foremost proponent of the view that travelling out to visit the blessed grave of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) is a reprehensible innovation – a view which he based on the rejection of the aforementioned narrations. Imam ibn Nasir al-Din al-Dimashqi mentions:

“Visiting the grave of Rasulullah (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) is a Sunnah of the Muslims, it is unanimously accepted as an act of reward and it is an act of virtue that is encouraged. The Hadiths on this topic have been accepted and practised upon, even though a few of these Hadiths have weakness. Only a deviant will reject them totally.”(Jami’ al-Athar, vol.8 pg.141)

In addition, it is worth noting that Imam ibn Nasir al-Din al-Dimashqi has written extensively on this and has approved several Hadiths on this issue in the book of his which has been quoted from above (Jami’ a-Athar) – see [vol.8 pgs. 129-141.]




Imam al-Sakhawi (d. 902AH) on ibn Taymiyya:

وكذا ممن حصل من بعض الناس منهم نفره وتحامى عن الانتفاع بعلمهم مع جلالتهم علماً وورعاً وزهداًلإطلاق لسانهم وعدم مداراتهم بحيث يتكلمون ويجرحون بما فيه مبالغة كابن حزم وابن تيمية

“There are also those scholars of great learning, austerity, and asceticism whom people avoided and whose knowledge they were careful not to utilise, because of their loose tongue and lack of tact, which caused them to talk and criticise excessively. Such men were ibn Hazm and ibn Taymiyya.” [al-Sakhawi, I’lan bi al-Tawbikh (pg. 163), (English translation in ‘A history of Muslim Historiography‘, pg. 284, by F. Rosenthal)]

Imam Jamal al-Din Yusuf ibn ‘Abd al-Hadi ibn al-Mibrad al-Hanbali (d.909AH) mentions Imam Zayn al-Din ibn Rajab al-Hanbali’s (d.795AH) book in refutation of three talaqs (in a single sitting) being equal to one – which was a view ibn Taymiyya held and was stubborn upon:

“…ibn Rajab said in the book Mushkil al-Ahadith al-Warida fi ann al-Talaq al-Thalath Wahida (The problematic nature of the narrations in regards to three talaqs being equivalent to one)…”

[ibn al-Mibrad al-Hanbali, al-Sayr al-Hath ila ‘Ilm al-Talaq al-Thalath, ed. Dar al-Basha’ir al-Islamiyya 1997, pg. 27]

Note: Imam ibn al-Mibrad al-Hanbali then goes on to quote multiple passages from the above-mentioned book of Imam ibn Rajab al-Hanbali. This shows that although this book of Imam ibn Rajab al-Hanbali may not have survived to this day, it was known and available to those Imams who came just after his time.

قال ابن رجب في كتاب “مشكل الأحاديث الواردة في أن الطلاق الثلاث واحدة”

– السير الحاث الى علم الطلاق الثلاث للإمام جمال الدين يوسف ابن عبد الهادي ابن المبرد الحنبلي
– دار البشائر الإسلامية، ١٩٩٧
– ص. ٢٧



Shaykh al-Islam Imam Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (d.911 AH)on ibn Taymiyya:


ibn Taymiyya was arrogant. He was self-conceited. It was his habit to represent himself as superior to everybody, to slight the person whom he talked to, and to make fun of great Muslims” [al-Suyuti, Kam’ al-Mu’arid]

Shaykh al-Islam Imam Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti In his book‘Al-‘Iklil fis-tinbat at-Tanzil’ , said: “The Ayah: {ليس كمثله شيء}holds within it a refutation to the creed of the Mushabbihah (those who liken Allah to the creation) and a confirmation that He (Allah) is not a mass, a body, a colour, a taste, and that He does not occupy a space or conform to time”.

Imam Jalal al-Din al-Dawani (d. 918AH) on ibn Taymiyya the Corporealist

Changing Views of ibn Taymiyya by Khaled el-Rouayheb:

In the Sharh al-‘Aqa’id al-‘Adudiyya of Jalal al-Din al-Dawani it is stated that the corporealists are of two kinds. The first are blatantly corporealist and should be regarded as unbelievers. The latter, who are wayward but not unbelievers, “hide behind the caveat bi-la kayfa“, saying that Allah had a body “unlike any other body (la ka-al-ajsam), and position unlike any position, and a relation to this spatial position that was unlike any other relation to a spatial position.” He apparently classified Ibn Taymiyya as belonging to the latter group:

Most of the corporealists are the literalists who follow the literal meaning of the Book and Sunna, and most of them are people of Hadith. Ibn Taymiyya Abu al-Abbas Ahmad and his followers strongly incline to affirm that He is in a direction, and go to extremes in attacking those who deny this. I have seen in one of his books that according to reason there is no difference to saying “He does not exist” and saying “I looked for Him everywhere and I could not find Him”, and he accused those who disagreed on this point of denying the divine attributes (ta’til). And this despite his proficiency in the rational and traditional sciences, as can be seen by anyone who reads his works.

[Jalal al-Din al-Dawani, Sharh al-‘Aqa’id al-‘Adudiyya (Islanbul: ‘Arif Effendi, 1316AH), 43.]


Imam Ahmad al-Qastallani (d. 923 AH) expressing his outrage on ibn Taymiyya’s


prohibition of travelling to visit the Prophet’s grave (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam):

“The Shaykh Taqi al-Din ibn Taymiyya has abominable and odd statements on this issue to the effect that travelling to visit the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) is prohibited and is not a pious deed but the contraryShaykh Taqi al-Din al-Subki has replied to him in Shifa al-Saqam and has gratified the hearts of the believers.” [Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Baqi al-Zurqani, Sharh al-Mawahib al-Laduniyya (Cairo1291AH), 8:343]

Shaykh Abul-‘Abbas Shihabud-Din Ahmad Ibn Muhammad al-Qastalaniyy al-Misri (d. 923 AH) In his book ‘Irshad as-Sari Sharh Sahih al-Bukhariyy’,  said: “The Self of Allah is clear from the notions of place and direction”.

Imam al-Qastallani on Tawassul, Tashaffu’ and Istighathah:
While speaking about the Mu’jizat (miracles) of our Prophet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – he mentions that also many of these miracles happen after his death and he also mentions Istighathahin this context and says that this will be discussed in the chapter regarding visiting the noble grave of the Prophet, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam:
وأما القسم الثانى ما وقع بعد وفاته- ص:
وهو ما وقع بعد وفاته- صلى الله عليه وسلم- فكثير جدّا، إذ فى كل حين يقع لخواص أمته من خوارق العاداتبسببه مما يدل على تعظيم قدره الكريم ما لا يحصى كالاستغاثة به وغير ذلك مما يأتى فى المقصد الأخير، فىأثناء الكلام على زيارة قبره الشريف المنير
Source: “al-Mawahib al-Ladunniyyah” and the next page
And this is the relevant passage which he refered to above:
وينبغى للزائر أن يكثر من الدعاد والتضرع والاستغاثة والتشفع والتوسل به- صلى الله عليه وسلم-، فجدير بمناستشفع به أن يشفعه الله تعالى فيه.
واعلم أن الاستغاثة هى طلب الغوث، فالمستغيث يطلب من المستغاث به أن يحصل له الغوث منه، فلا فرق بينأن يعبر بلفظ: الاستغاثة أو التوسل أو التشفع أو التجوّه أو التوجه، لأنهما من الجاه والوجاهة ومعناه: علو القدروالمنزلة.
وقد يتوسل بصاحب الجاه إلى من هو أعلى منه، ثم إن كلا من الاستغاثة والتوسل والتشفع والتوجه بالنبى-صلى الله عليه وسلم- كما ذكره فى «تحقيق النصرة» و «مصباح الظلام» – واقع فى كل حال، قبل خلقه وبعدخلقه، فى مدة حياته فى الدنيا وبعد موته فى مدة البرزخ، وبعد البعث فى عرصات القيامة
“The visitor (Za`ir) should supplicate and beseech [Allah] much and [he should] perform Istighathah (seeking aid), Tashaffu’ (seeking intercession) and Tawassul through him (the Prophet) – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam -, so that he becomes worthy of Allah ta’ala letting the one whose intercession he sought to intercede for him.
Know that Istighathah is seeking aid, and the person who is seeking aid is asking from one by whom aid is sought in order to obtain aid from [other than] him (i.e. the person seeking aid with theProphet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – is doing this in order to obtain aid from Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala). And that is why there is no difference whether one expresses this by using the wording ofIstighathah, Tawassul, Tashaffu’, Tajawwuh or Tawajjuh,because all of this goes back to [asking by the] Jah and Wajahah and its meaning is [to ask by the] high worth and status. Tawassul can be sought from a possessor of rank (Jah) unto one who possesses a higher rank than him.
Add to this: Istighathah, Tawassul, Tashaffu’ and Tawajjuhwith the Prophet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – is something that takes place [in reality] – as it’s mentioned in “Tahqiq al-Nusrah [bi Talkhis Ma’alim Dar al-Hijrah]” [by Abu Bakr bin al-Husayn bin ‘Umar al-Maraghi (d. 816 AH)] and “Misbah al-Dhalam [fil Mustaghithin bi Khayr al-Anam]”* [by Abu ‘Abdullah Muhammad bin Musa bin al-Nu’man al-Marakashi (d. 683 AH)] – in every situation, before his creation and after it, in the time of his life in this world, as well as after his death in the period of the Barzakh, and after the resurrection on the day of reckoning.”
Source: “Al-Muwahib al-Ladunniyyah” and the next page
After the above qoute he mentions proofs for the permissibility of performing Tawassul with the Prophet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – in the different situations.
Imam Abu ‘Abdullah Muhammad bin Musa bin al-Nu’man al-Marakashi (d. 683 AH) wrote in his book: “Misbah al-Dhalam fil Mustaghithin bi Khayr al-Anam”  and it’s filled with Ahadith and Athar containing Tawassul, Tashaffu’ and Istighathah in every situation (i.e. also after the death of the Prophet, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam)

The author was born in Tilimsan in the year (b.606/607 AH) and lived prior to Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) and Imam Taqi al-Din al-Subki (d. 756 AH) and many leading scholars of theAhl al-Sunnah after him have referred to his book and reported from it without any objection.
The Shaykh Salah al-Din al-Safadi (d. 764) mentioned that he was a Maliki Faqih, a Zahid, a ‘Abid and a ‘Arif and he also mentioned his book “Misbah al-Dhalam”:
مُحَمَّد بن مُوسَى بن النُّعْمَان الشَّيْخ أَبُو عبد الله المزالي التلمساني … وَكَانَ فَقِيها مالكياً زاهداً عابداً عَارِفًا … وَله تصانيف مِنْهَا كتاب مِصْبَاح الظلام فِي المستغيثين بِخَير الْأَنَام فِي الْيَقَظَة والمنام  Source: “al-Wafi bil Wafiyyat


Shaykh al-Islam ibn Hajar al-Haytami (d. 974 AH) on ibn Taymiyya’s view of


impermissibility on travelling to visit the grave of theprophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam):

“If you say: How can you relate that there is a consensus on the permissible and commendable status of visiting and travelling to it (the Prophet’s grave [sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam]) when ibn Taymiyya among the later Hanbalis deems all of this inappropriate?

I say: Who is ibn Taymiyya so that one takes his words into consideration or relies on them in any religious matter? Is he anything but – in the words of the leading scholars who have followed his rotten statements and unsalable arguments… – a servant whom Allah has forsaken and led astray and clothed in the garments of ignominy… The Shaykh al-Islam, the scholar of the world, concerning whose status, ijtihad, rectitude and prominence there is a consensus, Taqi al-Din al-Subki – may Allah sanctify his soul and cast light on his grave – has dedicated himself to answering him in a separate work (shifa al-saqam fi ziyarat khayr al-anam) in which he has done a great service and shown with dazzling arguments the correct path.”

[ibn Hajar al-Haytami, al-Jawhar al-Munazzam fi Ziyarat al-Qabr al-Sharif al-Nabawi al-Mukarram, M. Zaynhum ed. (Cairo: Maktabat Madbuli, 2000), 29-30.]

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Hajar al-Haytami has recorded in a formal legal opinion in his al-Fatawa al-Hadithiyya (1/183-84) the following:

ابْن تَيْمِية عبد خذله الله وأضلَّه وأعماه وأصمه وأذلَّه، وَبِذَلِك صرح الْأَئِمَّة الَّذين بينوا فَسَاد أَحْوَالهوَكذب أَقْوَاله، وَمن أَرَادَ ذَلِك فَعَلَيهِ بمطالعة كَلَام الإِمَام الْمُجْتَهد الْمُتَّفق على إِمَامَته وجلالته وبلوغهمرتبَة الِاجْتِهَاد أبي الْحسن السُّبْكِيّ وَولده التَّاج وَالشَّيْخ الإِمَام الْعِزّ بن جمَاعَة وَأهل عصرهم، وَغَيرهممن الشَّافِعِيَّة والمالكية وَالْحَنَفِيَّة، وَلم يقصر اعتراضه على متأخري الصُّوفِيَّة بل اعْترض على مثلعمر بن الْخطاب وَعلي بن أبي طَالب رَضِي الله عَنْهُمَا كَمَا يَأْتِي. وَالْحَاصِل أنْ لَا يُقَام لكَلَامه وزن بليَرْمِي فِي كلّ وَعْر وحَزَن، ويعتقد فِيهِ أَنه مُبْتَدع ضالّ ومُضِّلّ جَاهِل غال عَامله الله بعدله، وأجازنا منمثل طَرِيقَته وعقيدته وَفعله آمين

“Ibn Taymiyya was a servant whom Allah abandoned, misguided, blinded, deafened, and humiliated. This has been frankly expressed by the Imams who explained the corruptness of how he was, and the mendacity of what he said. Whoever wants to check this should read the words of the Mujtahid Imam, whose Imamate, greatness, and having reached the rank of Ijtihad are universally acknowledged, Abul Hasan (Taqi al-Din) al-Subki; together with his son Taj (al-Din as-Subki), the Shaykh and Imam al-‘Izz Ibn Jama’a, the scholars of their time, and other Shafi’i, Maliki and Hanafi scholars. Nor did he confine his criticism to later Sufi’s; but censured the likes of Umar ibn al-Khattab and Ali (may Allah be pleased with them), the outcome of which is that his words are devoid of any worth or consideration, to be scattered across the wilds and wastelands, while the man himself is considered an initiator of bid’ah (reprehensible innovations), misled, misleading, ignorant and spiteful. May Allah give him what he deserves, may Allah preserve us from the likes of his way and his beliefs and works, Ameen.”

Shaykh al-Islam ibn Hajar al-Haytami , Al-Fatawa al-Hadithya, page 114:
ابن تيمية عبد خذله الله وأضله وأعماه وأصمه وأذله ، وبذلك صرح الأئمة الذين بينوا فساد أحوالهوكذب أقواله.
“Ibn Taimiyah, Allah (swt) let him down, misguided him, made him blind, deaf and disgraced him, and by that the Imams both declared and exposed his false beliefs and lies.”

Due to being one of ibn Taymiyya’s major critics, some modern-day followers of ibn Taymiyya do not hold much lovefor Shaykh al-Islam ibn Hajar al-Haytami. They would like to believe that the Imam was not of great standing or knowledge, and that his beliefs were ‘deviant’. However, as a harsh reality check, Imam ‘Uthman ibn Sanad al-Basri (d. 1242AH) had the following to say in praise of Shaykh al-Islam ibn Hajar al-Haytami:

“He who looks at his works will be dazzled and say: Praise Allah who has allowed the minds of man to reach it’s subtle depths! He is the Shafi’i who mediated between the finer points of law and the subtleties of the discipline of tradition. He did not treat discipline without reaching depths that his contemporaries never hoped to reach. No one disputed with him without finding him an abounding sea of knowledge. He was firm in matters of religion while being high minded, composed and intelligent… Those who came after him have depended on what he has chosen, and thus his works are the standard reference for fatawa, and no Shafi’i will give a fatwa that is not in accordance with what he has considered. The prominent scholars esteem his works, and give it the foremost rating.”[Basri, Matali’ al-Su’ud, 113]

Shaykh al-Islam ibn Hajar al-Haytami  on ibn Taymiyya in his own time and the reality of his followers:

“The scholars of his age rose against him (ibn Taymiyya) and impelled the Sultan to either kill or imprison him, so he imprisoned him until he died and his innovations died out and his darkness disappeared. Then he was supported by followers whose heads Allah has not raised, nor has He granted them power or strength; rather they were afflicted with humiliation and remained under Allah’s wrath, due to their disobedience and their beliefs.”

[ibn Hajar al-Haytami, al-Jawhar al-Munazzam, 31]

Shaykh al-Islam ibn Hajar al-Haytami  on ibn Taymiyya’s Suggestion that the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) Let Down Part of his Turban to Mark the Spot Between his Shoulders that Allah Touched with His ‘Hand’

Shaykh al-Islam ibn Hajar al-Haytami  on ibn Taymiyya’s suggestion (via ibn Qayyim) that the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) had let down part of his turban to mark the spot between his shoulders that Allah had touched with His ‘hand’:

“This is among their repulsive opinions and their waywardness, since it is based on their claim, which they argued for at length and castigated Sunnis for rejecting, that Allah is in a direction and is a body, may He be exalted above what the unjust and stubborn say! They have in this regard abominations and heresies to which the ear cannot listen, and one cannot but adjudge them a falsity, a slander and a lie. May Allah shame them and those who say that. The Imam Ahmad (ibn Hanbal) and the distinguished among his school are innocent of this ugly stain. How could it be otherwise, and it is unbelief according to many?”

[ibn Hajar al-Haytami, Ashraf al-Wasa-il ila Fahm al-Shama-il, Ahmad al-Mazidi ed. (Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyya, Beirut, 1998), 172-173]

Shaykh al-Islam ibn Hajar al-Haytami  on ibn Taymiyya and his student ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya and those who follow them: “Make sure you do not listen to what is in the books of ibn Taymiyya and his student ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya and other such people who have taken their own whim as their God, and who have been led astray by Allah, and whose hearts and ears have been sealed, and whose eyes have been covered by Him. And who will help them if not Allah? How these heretics (mulhidun) have crossed the lines and broken the fences of the Shari’a and the Haqiqa, thinking that they are on the right path, and they are not! Rather they are in the worst of errors, the foulest of qualities, the most odious loss, and the utmost falsity. May Allah forsake the one who follows them, and purify the earth of their likes.” [ibn Hajar al-Haytami, al-fatawa al-Hadithiyya, 110-113]

And how true were the words of Imam Ibn Hajar al-Haytami(d. 974 AH) when he said:
فإن قلت : كيف تحكي الإجماع السابق على مشروعية الزيارة والسفر إليها وطلبها وابن تيمية منمتأخري الحنابلة منكر لمشروعية ذلك كله … قلت : من هو ابن تيمية حتى ينظر إليه أو يعول في شئمن أمور الدين عليه ؟ ! وهل هو إلا كما قال جماعة من الأئمة الذين تعقبوا كلماته الفاسدة ، وحججهالكاسدة … عبد أضله الله تعالى وأغواه ، وألبسه رداء الخزي … ولقد تصدى شيخ الإسلام ، وعالمالأنام ، المجمع على جلالته ، واجتهاده وصلاحه وإمامته ، التقي السبكي ، قدس الله روحه ، ونورضريحه ، للرد عليه في تصنيف مستقل أفاد فيه وأجاد وأصاب وأوضح بباهر حججه طريق الصواب
“If you say: How can you relate that there is a consensus on the permissible and commendable status of visiting and travelling to it (the Prophet’s grave [sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam]) when ibn Taymiyya among the later Hanbalis deems all of this inappropriate?
I say: Who is ibn Taymiyya so that one takes his words into consideration or relies on them in any religious matter? Is he anything but – in the words of the leading scholars who have followed his rotten statements and unsalable arguments… – a servant whom Allah has forsaken and led astray and clothed in the garments of ignominy

The Shaykh al-Islam, the scholar of the world, concerning whose status, ijtihad, rectitude and prominence there is a consensus,Taqi al-Din al-Subki – may Allah sanctify his soul and cast light on his grave – has dedicated himself to answering him in a separate work (shifa al-saqam fi ziyarat khayr al-anam) in which he has done a great service and shown with dazzling arguments the correct path.”
Source: “Al-Jawhar al-Munadhdham“; translation taken from Here

will continue to add more… In Sha Allah!


Part 3:

The Creator is clear from Anthropomorphism(1000AH – 1400AH Part3)


Comments are closed.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: