Shaykh Qadi Yusuf al-Nabhani
on the Jala al-Aynayn of Nu’man al-Alusi
Shaykh Qadi Yusuf al-Nabhani
(1350 AH/ d. 1932 CE)
Shaykh Yusuf al-Nabhani said :
“This book is one of the most dangerous of books for the Muslims in general and the immature student in particular. They should not be allowed to study this book, lest it should poison their minds. As regards the learned scholars, they have not to worry at all, for they know the erroneous thinking of Ibn Taymiyya and of the thinkers of theWahhabite movement; and they also know the truthful stand of al-Subki, Ibn Hajar and all the leaders of the Muslim Community. They are also fully conversant with what is haqq (truth) and what is batil(falsehood), what is good and what is evil, and how these are intermixed and confused by (Ibn Taymiyya) and his disciples.
The Ulama are not to be beguiled by the rhetorical flourishes of these people and by their tempting views. These are the slips of Ibn Taymiyya,which have been described by the three great leaders – Ibn Hajar, al-Subki and his son Taj al-Din al-Subki, especially on the problems relating to istigatha (to invoke someone other than Allah for help),ziyara (to undertake a journey to visit the shrines of saints), notion about the jiha (direction) etc. These are such sensitive problems that only the great Ulama can know their intricacies. However this book is extremely dangerous for the general public and for the immature students.”
Shaykh al-Nabhani said:
“I wonder at him. Sometimes he, when confronted, shows himself as a Hanafite by Madhhab, but he belongs to a family of learned people of Baghdad. All were the Ahl al-Sunna wa’l Jama’a (The People of the Approved Path and the Community). But he defends the errors and slips of Ibn Taymiyya, who is a Wahhabite and not a Hanafite, and who does not belong to the creed of the ancestors, the great leaders of theShafi’ite school of law. He may also sometimes show the tendency of serving the Wahhabite prince Siddiq Hasan Khan of Bhopal (India). But this Siddiq Hasan is not an original thinker or writer. His book entitled the Ghaliyat al-Mawa’iz is nothing but a copy of the Zawajir and the Sawa’iq, etc of Ibn Hajar, but he did not quote anything from Ibn Taymiyya. Allah knows why he did so.
However, he reviles Ibn Hajar and Taqi al-Din al-Subki. He is disrespectful to them and wilfully neglects to use the word ‘al-Imam’ or the ‘Shaykh al-Islam’ for him. He uses other epithets like ‘al-Qadi al-Subki’, or simply ‘al-Subki’, while he had been the Grand Qadi of Syria and was one of the chief scholars of his time, and was given the ex officio title of Shaykh al-Islam and that of Qadi al-Qudat.
In respect of these merits, Ibn Taymiyya, who lacks them, does not deserve to be called ‘Shaykh al-Islam’. He was nowhere a Qadi, never had he been a teacher, much less that he be called the leader of the scholars. He was a man condemned for his false notion ofjiha (direction in connection with the Essence of Allah), in addition to his innovatory views about ziyara, and istigatha.
Al-Subki was according to the general consensus of the scholars, one of the illustrious leaders of the Ahl al-Sunna wa’l Jama’a Jama’a (People of the Approved Path and the Community). His son Taj al-Dinwas also a leader, the son of a leader. I wonder what urged the writer of the Jala al-Aynayn to take up the matter of comparing Ibn Taymiyya to him! This is a proof of the fact that he is one of the innovators and is not from among the people of the Sunna. For, the like souls fly together (as birds of a feather flock together). His soul has a great affinity with that of Ibn Taymiyya. Other souls cannot associate with the souls of these illustrious leaders of Islam. But excellence and virtue cannot dispense with knowledge and learning.”
Shaykh al-Nabhani said:
The author of the Jala al-Aynayn does not favour only ibn Taymiyya; he favours and has a bias for all the Wahhabites. He decides and speaks not only against Ibn Hajar but also against Ibn al-Subki and hisson and against all the People of the Approved path and the Community, from among the Shafi’ites, the Hanafites, theMalikites and the main body of the Hanbalites also. Whoever should care to study this book with a clear and unprejudiced mind, will certainly come to the conclusion that he had done a great wrong to himself, to his father, and to all the Muslims in general, and above all to the Chief of the Messengers in particular, and that he had soiled his soul with the impurities of the Wahhabite innovations, which cannot be washed away even with the waters of the whole world upto the day of Resurrection. He has seriously injured himself and has also injured the feelings of all those who might study his book – may they be belonging to any of the four schools of law – even the justice minded Hanbalites also – by reviling them, as long as this world should exist or as long as this book should remain on the surface of the earth.”
Shaykh al-Nabhani said:
“I wish I could know how the (author) had chosen for himself and for his father – as he quotes from his Tafsir entitled Ruh al-Ma’ani – to revile the great leaders of the Muhammadan Community, especially in respect of what these leaders and scholars of the Umma (Community) of all these long ages have agreed upon, e.g. concerning the problem ofziyara and istigatha, while it is one of the essential duties (of the Muslims) to pay homage to the Prophet – peace and blessings of Allah be upon him – and to do him all honour and respect; and what Ibn Taymiyya and his party of the Wahhabites hold is not to be taken into consideration. They think and imagine about the ziyara and istigatha with the mind of a biggest fool,and in addition they imagine that it involves ‘divinity’ when they visit (the shrine) or they invoke him for help, while, in fact, the innovation lies in their being guilty of disrespectfulness to the Prophet – peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- which is evidently felt by a man with the faintest ray of Iman (faith) in his heart. By my life, this is something which a wise man cannot choose for his brother, much less for himself and his father. By my life he has done harm to his father. He seems to be proud of having discussed these problems in his Tafsir and he has supported the Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan and his colleagues, and says that he also followed this Madhhab (school of thought).
I have heard some of the scholars of the Blessed Makka, giving an odious remark on him and on his father, for; in his book he has been too bold in attacking him and reviling the people of the Approved Path and their school of thought, and especially the Imam al-Subki and his son, and also Ibn Hajar.
He has been guilty of exaggerating in admiring the virtues ofIbn Taymiyya and in extolling his views, and also those who resemble him. I made the difference between Ibn Taymiyyaand Ibn Hajar known to them. All of them began to revile Ibn Taymiyya.”
Shaykh Qadi Yusuf al-Nabhani in Shawahid al-Haq, page 191:
فقد ثبت وتحقق وظهر ظهور الشمس في رابعة النهار أن علماء المذاهب الاربعة قد اتفقوا على رد بدعة ابن تيمية ومنهم من طعنوا بصحة نقله كما طعنوا بكمال عقله
“Its proven (as clear) as the midday sun in the sky that the Ulema of the four (Sunni) schools agreed on rejecting the heresies of Ibn Taimiyah, and some of them criticized his honesty in narrating. They also criticized the stability of his brain
Shaykh Qadi Yusuf al-Nabahani also refuted the Hamawiyya in his magnificent epistle:
Raf` al-Ishtibâh fî Istihâlat al-Jiha `alâ Allâh (“The Removal of Uncertainty Concerning the Impossibility of Direction for Allah (swt)”) cited in full in his Shawâhid al-Haqq (p. 210-240).
Alusi Misquoting Imam al-Munawi on Ibn Taymiyya
In the year 1881 CE, an Iraqi writer by the name of Nu’man Khayrud-Din al-Alusi published a work entitled, Jala al-Aynayn fi muhakamat al-Ahmadayn (Clearance of the two eyes in clearing the two Ahmads). This work was ostensibly an apology for the controversial 8th century Hanbali, Ahmed ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH), from the stern lambasting of the later Shafi’i jurisprudent known as Ahmad ibn Hajar al-Haytami  (d. 974 AH) upon the status ofIbn Taymiyya.
The Jala al-Aynayn was patronised by the Indian Nawab of Bhopal, Siddiq Hasan Khan (d. 1889 CE) and it was published from Cairo. As for Nu’man al-Alusi and his personal creed, then there is little doubt that he was a follower of Ibn Taymiyya and his interpretation of what is the real Salafi creed. It is thus bizarre that an unknown anti-Ash’arite writer of this time could dare to claim that al-Alusi was a Hanafi-Maturidi! This is exemplified as follows by the unknown writer by stating:
“Abu al-Barakaat Nu’maan bin Mahmud al-Alusi (d. 1317H) was from those just and honest Hanafi Maturidis (who demonstrated this in his book Jalaa’ al-Aynayn Bi Muhaakamah al-Ahmadayn).” 
Read more: Here
” Salafi ” Tampering of Tafsir Ruh al-Ma`ani
A sharp reader and unparalleled expert in rare books and manuscripts,Imam al-Kawthari long ago revealed that the printed version ofImam Mahmud ibn `Abd Allah al-Husayni al-Alusi al-Baghdadi’s (1217-1270) tafsir entitled Ruh al-Ma`ani published by his “Salafi” son Nu`man al-Alusi in Bulaq (Egypt) in 1301 (then again twice by the Damascene “Salafi” Munir `Abduh Agha at his Muniriyya Press in Egypt) contained alterations and accretions from foreign hands, responsibility for which al-Kawthari laid squarely at the feet of Nu`man: “He cannot be trusted over the publication of his father’s commentary, and if someone were to compare it [the latter edition] with the [autograph] manuscript kept today at the Raghib Basha library in Istanbul, which is the manuscript gifted by the author to the Sultan `Abd al-Majid Khan, one would certainly find in it what will make him certain of that.”(1)
Read more : Here