Few people outside of the Islamic world have heard of the Medieval Muslim scholar Ibn Taymiyyah, but in the Muslim world, he is often hailed as “The Sheikh of Islam”, while Western critics usually condemn him as the father of modern Islamic terrorism.
Among modern Islamic fundamentalists, whether it is the Muslim Brotherhood, or the Salafis, you will continuously find among them reliance on the fatwas of Ibn Taymiyyah.
However, Ibn Taymiyyah’s current reputation is largely a modern fabrication, as his ideas were first revived by British agent, Mohammed Abdul Wahhab, the founder of Wahhabism, the fundamentalist cult now promoted by Saudi Arabia.
The reasons for the revival of his reputation will become evident, as we consider how his fanaticism fit in well with the goals of modern terrorist groups and their sponsors.
Few Muslims today, due to the effective propaganda of the Saudi state, are aware of Ibn Taymiyyah’s true pronouncements and the controversy of his career.
In fact, Ibn Taymiyyah spent much of his career in jail, placed there by the religious authorities of his time, usually for the accusation of anthropomorphism, or ascribing human attributes to God. Islamic theology is very clear about safeguarding the notion of God’s uniqueness and transcendence.
This is interesting because, despite all their numerous tangents into various other details, the Wahhabi and Salafi scholars are devoted to ideas derived from Ibn Taymiyyah’s anthropormorphism. It’s there. It’s never very overt, but it is always there.
Ibn Battuta, the renowned Muslim traveller, recorded that Ibn Taymiyyah “had a screw loose”, because during a sermon, he descended from the pulpit, and as he walked down its steps, he said that, when God descends from the highest heaven, “he descends like this”. (Little, Donald P. “Did Ibn Taymiyya have a screw loose?”, Studia Islamica, 1975, Number 41, pp. 95)
It is this anthropomorphism that suggests he may have had an occult connection. Ibn Taymiyyah was born in Harran, which in the occult tradition, is one of the most important cities in its history, besides Babylon, Athens and Alexandria.
Harran was the seat of the Sabians. This was a Gnostic group, that cleverly identified themselves with the Sabeans of the Koran to escape persecution. But they were nothing of the sort. Instead they were satanists who practiced human sacrifice, worshipped Tammuz, and practiced Neoplatonism and Hermeticism.
In fact, when the Muslims began their great program of collecting and studying the works of the philosophers, by which the West eventually acquired this knowledge, it was the Sabians they turned to as translators.
What happens then is that it is Sabian influence that results Sufism, and a very important occult work known as the “Epistles of the Brethren of Sincerity”, or in Arabic, Rasa’il ikhwan as-safa’ wa khillan al-wafa. It was largely composed by Ismailis under Sabian influence.
And so it is that the basis of Scottish Rite Freemasonry is that the Templars supposedly learned their secret doctrines from the Sabians.
Scholars avoid that subject, but they do study the possible connection between Sabianism and the sudden advent of the Kabbalah in the 12th century AD, following the return of the Templars to Europe. For instance, Gershom Scholem, who is known as the great authority on the subject, devoted his “Origins of the Kabbalah” to a study of the subject.
What is puzzling is that the ideas of the Medieval Kabbalah were ones that had all but disappeared from Judaism for about 1200 years. So, considering the similarities, Scholem suggest that one possible avenue would have been the Sabians (also known as Mandeans).
And recently, probably the most advanced study of the Kabbalah is Nathaniel Deutsch’s The Gnostic Imagination: Gnosticism, Mandaeism and Merkabah Mysticism. First he connects Gnostcism with early Kabbalah, but then examines the extensive similarities between Mandaism and Medieval Kabbalah, to conclude that one must necessarily have influenced the other. According to Deutsch:
“at present, we must be satisfied with acknowledging the phenomenological parallels between the Mandaean and Kabbalistic traditions, although we must also seriously consider the possibility that both Mandaean and Kabbalistic sources drew on a common pool of earlier (Jewish?) theosophic traditions.”
In fact, the one point which lends the most credence to this hypothesis, is the existence of an elaborate anthropomorphic doctrine among the Sabians. In the Kabbalah, it is known as the descriptions, or the Shiur Khomah, of the image of God called the Adam Kadmon. It mirrors similar speculations among the Sabians about a Cosmic Adam.
Coincidence?
In order to understand the connection, we need consider that the founder of the Salafi movement was a Jamal ud Din al Afghani, the Grand Master of the Egyptian Freemasons, who referred to each other as the Rasa’il ikhwan as-safa’ wa khillan al-wafa (Rafaat, Freemasonry in Egypt)
One possible explanation about the mysterious teachings of Ibn Taymiyyah can be explained from information exposed recently by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, that Ibn Taymiyyah had an esoteric doctrine, that he taught only to his closest initiates.
This is from Keller’s article:
“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… 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).
As Keller notes, “This is of interest not only because it documents (at the pen of one of Islam’s greatest scholars) that Ibn Taymiya had a “double ‘aqida [theology],” one for the public, and a separate anthropomorphic one for an inner circle of initiates”
Ibn Taymiyyah just happened to live in Harran at a time to witness the end of the Sabian community, as a result of the conquest of the city by the Mongols. This may explain his continuing vociferous opposition to these new Mongol rulers.
Because, Ibn Taymiyyah was unique in his pronouncements of the legality and necessity of fighting the Mongols. The Mongols had converted to Islam, but Ibn Taymiyyah argued that it was permitted to fight against them, because they had not been fully orthodox in their application of Shariah.
The same arguments have been employed in the 20th, in deliberate reference to Ibn Taymiyyah, by the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood, to argue for terrorist activities against the various regimes of the Arab world. In most cases, such as the assassination of the Anwar Sadat, or the “Jihad” in Afghanistan, the fatwas of Ibn Taymiyyah have been cleverly used to manipulate these terrorists to serve a Western agenda.
Comments
Wahhabism = Twisted Beliefs
Anthropomorphism (Tajseem)! This is the concept of God (so-called tawheed!!!) according to Wahhabism! This is a heresy to the concept of God in Islam! This is an example of how the Wahhabi-Saudi alliance are pumping their oil money to produce this kind of lunatic fanatics around the globe!
http://youtu.be/yRbSc6S5D-Y
http://youtu.be/FOZONzE5SZU
Islamic creed of Ahlusunnah Waljama^ah' has nothing to do with the creed of Wahhabism! These are some excerpts in Arabic with English translation from various Sunni Islamic books on the true concept of God in Islam according to the Sunni school, which Wahhabi claim to follow but in reality they never do!
http://darulfatwa.org.au/lessons/Glimmering%20Gems/The%20Glimmerings%20G...
http://youtu.be/8wrpxUYJ5f0
The Anthropomorphism Myth
I see you're really trying to connect the dots, even if you have to draw the dots too huh? The statement that you quoted from ibn Batutah is a fabrication upon ibn Taymiyyah. Ibn Taymiyyah did not believe, nor do the salafis, that Allah has a body like a human being or similar. We only affirm what Allah affirms for Himself through the Qur'an and authentic Sunnah. We do not change the meaning and we do not interpret the meaning because we know Allah states for Himself that nothing is comparable to Him, he is Unique. If ibn Taymiyyah made an physical gesture and said that "this is how Allah is" then we would reject this from him, but he did not and it was lied upon him that he said this. I ask you as I have before, bring the proof from the books (of ibn Taymiyyah, Abdul-Wahhab, etc.). But rather you say there is no point to this. What? If you were in court and used this method you would certainly loose your case. The Judge: "Where is your proof that this mad committed a crime?" You: "He was born from a Jewish family" Judge: "Do you have any evidence that he committed a crime" You: "no need to look at the documents" Judge: "case dismissed!"
I see that a lot of Asharite Sufis come to this site, but it is them like the Naqshabandis who do have secretive orders (which is an innovation in the religion). And you will find them seeking aid from the dead in the grave, asking dead "pious" people to intercede to Allah on their behalf. These are actions which are clearly SHIRK (polytheism).
In ibn Taymiyyah's famous book Kitabul Wasitiyyah, he refutes Mushabbihah (those who liken the creation with God: anthropomorphism) and those who deny, negate, and resort to allegorical/metaphorical interpretations of the Divine Names and Attributes. His position was that the salaf affirmed all the Names and Attributes of Allah without tashbih (establishing likeness), takyeef (speculating as to "how" they are manifested in the divine), ta'teel (negating/denying their apparent meaning, and without ta'weel (giving it secondary/symbolic meaning which is different from the apparent meaning).
Included in the Asharite creed (of which their own leader repented from) is that they believe Allah is everywhere and in everything (whadat-ul-wujood) which some sufis made the claim such as ibn Arabi "when you see me you see Allah, we are one dwelling in the same body." However, Ahlus-Sunnah reject this and uphold what Allah says about Himself, that He is above His throne in away that befits His majesty.
Ibn Taymiyyah held the views of those who preceded him and their is no contradiction. There were some scholars who did have opposing views about some of the attributes of Allah, but as Muslims we do not hold anybody infallible except for the Prophets (upon all of them be peace). We turn to the Book of Allah, the authentic Sunnah and the understanding of the noble companions as a source of reference.
From the proofs of the early scholars is the following:
Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq (radhi allahu anhu):
Abdullah Ibn Umar –May Allah be pleased with him- reported: “When the Messenger of Allah -Sallallahu Alaihi wa-Sallam- passed away, Abu Bakr - May Allah be pleased with him- ascended the minbar, praised Allah and said: «O people ! if Muhammad was your god whom you worship then your god has died, and if your God is the one above the heaven (fis-sama') then your God did not die. Then he recited: {Muhammad is not but a messenger. (Other) messengers have passed on before him. So if he was to die or be killed, would you turn back on your heels (to unbelief)?…} [3:144]’ until he completed the ayah.» (1) Its isnad (chain) is hasan. Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah (20/560-562); Ar-Rad `Ala Al-Jahmiyyah by Ad-Darimi (p.44-45); Musnad Al-Bazzar (1/182-183)
Abdullah Ibn Masud –May Allah be pleased with him- said: «Between the lowest heaven and the one after it is the distance of five hundred years, and between every two heavens is the distance of five hundred years, and between the seventh heaven and the Kursi is the distance of five hundred years, and between the Kursi and the water is the distance of five hundred years, and the Throne (Arsh) is above the water, Allah the Almighty is above the Throne (fawqa Al-Arsh). And nothing is hidden from Allah of your deeds.» And in another narration «He knows what you are upon». Its grading is: hasan.Al`Adhamah by Abu Ash-Shaykh AlAsbahani (2/688-689); Al-Mujalasah wa Jawahir Al-`Ilm by Ahmad ad-Daynuri (6/406); An-Naqd by Ad-Darimi (1/422); Sharh I`tiqad Ahl AsSunnah wal Jama`ah by Al-Lalikai (3/395-396); Ithbat Sifat Al-Uluw by Ibn Qudamah (p.151-152) and others.
Abu Hanifah An-Nu`man (d. 150 H.) : At-Tahawi said in “Al-Aqeedah At-Tahawiyah”, in which he wrote the beliefs of Imam Abu Hanifah and his two companions: Abu Yusuf and Muhammad bin Al-Hasan : “And the Throne and Kursi are true, and He is independent from the Throne and what is beneath it, He encompasses everything and is above it.” His saying: “And Is Above it” meaning: “He is above everything” is affirmation of the elevation of Allah Azza wa Jal above all of creation, including the Throne. And his saying in another section of the book: “Nor is He contained by the six directions as all created things are.” Is a negation of the creations’ encompassing of Allah Azza wa Jal, for the “He is not contained by the six directions” that is creation, He is above the six directions and all creation. This is a reply to the Hulooliyah and Jahmiyyah who said that Allah is in His creation, and that He is everywhere - Exalted is Allah above that-. It was also narrated in al Fiqh Al-Akbar that Imam Abu Hanifah said: “Whoever says: ‘I do not know if Allah is above the heaven or on earth’, then he has disbelieved, Allah Ta`ala said: {The Most Gracious over the Throne Istawa (Rose)}; If he then says: ‘I do say this ayah but I don’t know if the Throne is above the heaven or on earth’ then he has disbelieved too.” And that is because in both statements he is doubting Allah’s elevation, him not knowing if Allah is above His creation or not. And in it is also the belief in the possibility of Allah being inside His creation –Exalted is Allah above that- . So by that he is denying the Islamic texts, and believing in the permissibility of Allah residing in His creation, and both are kufr (disbelief).
Malik Bin Anas (d. 179 H.): A man came to him and said: “O Abu Abdullah [Allah said:] {Ar-Rahman upon the Throne Istawa}, how was His Istiwa?
Imam Malik lowered his head and began to sweat profusely, then he said: "Istiwa is not unknown, the Kayf (how) is uncomprehendable, believing in it is obligatory, and asking about it is innovation, and I do not think that you are anything but an innovator." , then he ordered that the man be let out. Al-Asma wa Sifat by Al-Bayhaqi (2/305-306)
Abu Al-Hasan Al-Ash`ari (d. 324 H.) said in “Maqalat Al-Islamiyeen”, Chapter: “Their disagreement regarding the Creator, is He in a place and not in another? Or not in a place? Or in every place?”, in which he mentions several opinions by different sects, then he says: “Ahl As-Sunnah and Ashab Al-Hadeeth said: … and that He is on the Throne as Allah Azza wa Jal- said: {Ar-Rahman Istawa (Rose) over the Throne} [20:5], and we do not speak ahead of Allah, but we say that He Istawa without (asking) how"
I know you don't believe in going to the source and would rather rely upon linage or birth place but the textual facts are compelling. Until you can refute the context of the books, your argument only appears spiteful in origin.
More proof of Wahhabi Anthropomorphism
is found in Abu Ameena Bilal Philips' "Fundamentals of Tawheed". Bilal Philips was trained at the University of Medinah, the great propaganda center of Wahhabism, so it is possible that he is not aware, as many aren't, how Saudi Islam deviates from true Islamic tradition.
Essentially, his book shows how dangerous it is to follow the Wahhabi methods of scholarship, as opposed to the true tradition of classical Islam found in the Matthabs.
His book is a typical example of the ruse of the Wahhabis, who focus on "Tawheed" (monotheism), and pride themselves in what they regard as greater attention to it, only to there place their deception, to ultimately undermine the true monotheism of Islam.
Philips begins his exposition by presenting what he considers the alternate view, found among the Mutazillah, where God is considered to be everywhere or at one with creation.
But rather than countering, in the manner of the great Imams of the past, that God does not have a place, he instead negates the Mutazillah argument by claiming that God cannot be "in" creation, and therefore, that He must be somewhere else!
In support, he makes reference to verses of Qur'an and Hadith where God is mentioned as being "above" creation, but takes the meaning of the word literally.
Referring to the Prophet's Night Journey, he writes:
"Therefore, the incident of the miraculous ascension of the Prophet (SAW) up through the heavens contains within it a subtle implication that Alllah is above his Creation and not part of it."
This starts to sounds very familiar to the claim that during a Khutbah, Ibn Taymiyyah descended the mimbar, and then compared his motion to that of God "descending" to the lowest heaven.
A fuller critique as been posted here.
Salafis and Anthropomorphism
The beauty of Islam, which distinguishes it from all other religions on this earth, is that it makes Allah entirely transcendent. This is the only belief system on earth that most truly accords with our "Fitrah", that is, our human nature, and purest intuitive understand about God. As you mention, the scholars of the past accepted the quotes without argumentation, and accepted them as metaphors without speculation.
The Salafis, however, do not leave these verses and traditions alone, but manipulate their ambiguity, in a way that erroneously affirms their anthropomorphic aspects.
Yes, the Salafi like to argue that Ibn Battuta's account was spurious, but in light of the usual clailms against him, it is plausible. Whatever the case may be, Ibn Taymiyyah was accused of it by the courts of his time.
And as a result, modern Salafis do rely on him as precedent for their own claims. The Salafis are the wiliest in their attempts to deny their own belief system. This comment is a perfect example. But Salafis commonly refer to a weak hadith where the Prophet supposedly asked a slave girl where is Allah, and she pointed to the heaven. As is typical, relying more heavily on hadith alone as opposed to Qu'ran or even scholarly authority.
If you read Bilal Phillips' Tawheed, who recieved a Salafi education in Saudi Arabia, he clearly emphasizes the same, as well as the supposedly physical attributes of God.
Here is a video where you will see a teacher explicating the typical Salafi doctrine:
Again no proof, only rhetoric
From the Qur'an:
"There is none like Him; He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer." [42:11]
"Say He is Allah The One, Allah The Eternal. He never begot, nor was begotten. There is none comparable to Him." [112:1-3]
"Nothing is like Him; and He is The Hearer, The Seer." [42:11]
"Only the Face of your Lord of Might and Glory will remain." [55:27]
"Everything will perish save His Face." [28:88]
"What kept you (Iblis) from falling prostrate before that which I have created with My Hands."[38:75]
"The Jews said: Allah's Hand is tied.' May their hands be tied and may they be accursed for the [blasphemy] they utter. Rather, both His Hands are widely outstretched; He gives and spends as He pleases." [5:64]
"Wait patiently for the Command of your Lord, [O Muhammad], for verily you are in Our Eyes." [52:48]
"We carried him [Nuh] on an [ark] made of planks and nails; It floats under Our Eyes, as a reward for him who was rejected." [54:13-14]
"Verily! Your Lord is Allah Who created the heavens and the earth in six days; Then He Mounted the Throne." [7:54]
"Verily! Your Lord is Allah Who created the heavens and the earth in six days; Then He Established Himself on the Throne." [10:3]
"Allah is He Who raised the heavens without any pillars that you can see; Then He Mounted the Throne." [13:2]
"The Beneficent One, Who is established on the Throne." [20:5]
"Then He Mounted the Throne, The Beneficent One." [25:59]
"Allah created the heavens, the earth and all that is between them in six days; Then He Mounted the Throne." [32:4]
"He it is Who created the heavens and earth in six days; Then He Mounted the Throne." [57:4]
"Behold! Allah has said; 'Oh Jesus! I am taking you and raising you up to Me." [3:55]
"Rather, Allah raised him up to Him." [4:158]
"To Him good words ascend, and He elevates the pious deed." [35:10]
"Do you feel secure that He Who is in Heaven will not cause you to be swallowed up by the earth when it shakes? Or do you feel secure that He Who is in Heaven will not send against you a wind casting down pebbles from the sky? That is that you may know the manner of My Warning." [67:16-17]
So it seems as if someone quotes any of those said verses, they have committed anthropomorphism?
These are all verses from the Qur'an, and there are many ahadeeth that use the same wording about Allah. This is Allah speaking about Himself, not me or anyone else. So this is affirmation of what Allah has said about Himself. It only becomes anthropomorphism if you deny that Allah is unique and describe those attributes physically. Ibn Taymiyyah only confirmed this and did not give likeness to them. He wrote many books, so bring evidence from his books that he did so. And your evidence by mentioning that he was jailed is weak at best. The great imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal was also imprisoned by the Amir al-Muslimeen for defending Allah's book when the Muslims (including the ruler) claimed the Qur'an was created, so is this a proof against him? Again, you fail to bring solid proof, so like anyone who cannot deal with evidence you choose a path of defaming the character of an individual. BRING YOUR PROOF FROM TEXTUAL EVIDENCES that ibn Taymiyyah believed in anthropomorphism! I don't believe Allah's attributes are physically like that of a human, nor does any salafi that I know so how can you accuse someone of something not only do they not believe but actually refute? A poet once said: "If claims are not supported by proof, they are used only by the fools as evidence."
Even Al-Baqillani, an early Ash'ari (died 1013, nearly 300 years before ibn Taymiyyah), affirms the attributes of Hand and Face and Refutes the ta'weel of the Later and Contemporary (Today's) Jahmee Ash'aris:
" Chapter: Concerning Allah Having a Face and Two Hands
So if someone said: What is the proof concerning Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, having a Face and two Hands?
It is said to him: His, the Most High's saying, for Allah: And the Face of your Lord shall remain (the Face) full of Majesty and Honor. (ar-Rahmaan 55:27). And His saying: What prevented you from prostrating to (one) whom I created with my own Two Hands? (Saad 38:75)
Hence, He affirmed for Himself a Face and Two Hands.
If they say: So what has led you to reject that the meaning in His saying, "...created with my own Two Hands..." is that He created him with His power (qudrah) or through His favour (ni'mah)? Because hand (al-yad) in the language can be with the meaning favor (an-ni'mah) and power (al-qudrah), as is said, "I have a white hand over so and so", meaning by it, a favor. And as is said, "This thing is in the hand of so and so, or under the hand of so and so", intending by it that it is under his power and ownership. And it is said, "rajulu aydin (a man of hands)" when he is capable (qaadir), as Allah, the Most High, said: "We created for them from what Our Hands have created, cattle ..." (Yaaseen 36:71), meaning We have created with our power.
And the poet said: Whenever a flag is raised for glory, Uraabah takes it with the right hand [meaning with strength, quwwah].
It is said (in reply) to them: This is false (baatil) because His saying, "... with my own Two Hands..." necessitates the affirmation of Two Hands which are both an attribute for Him. If the intent by them had been power (al-qudrah), it would be imperative that He has two powers, and you (referring to the Mu'tazilah, Jahmiyyah), you do not assert that the Creator, the Sublime, has even a single power (i.e. does not have the attribute of qudrah), so how is it permissible for you to affirm two powers for him?
And the Muslims, from the affirmers of the attributes and their deniers, are united upon it not being permitted that Allah should have two powers, thus, what you have said is falsified.
Likewise, it is not permissible that Allah, the Most High, created Aadam with two favors, because the favors of Allah, the Most High, upon Aadam and others cannot be counted. And also because it is not permitted for a person to say, "I raised the thing with my two hands", or "I placed it with my two hands", or "I took possession of it with my two hands", meaning [by that] his favor. And likewise it is not permissible for it to be said, "I have two hands over so and so", meaning two favors, rather it is said, "I have two white hands over so and so" (with the meaning I have two favors over him), because the saying "al-yad (hand)" (on its own) is not used except for the hand that is an attribute of the essence.
What also indicates the corruption of their ta'weel is that if the affair had been as they have said, Iblees would not have been unmindful of that, and [unmindful] that he should say (when asked to prostrate), "What excellence does Aadam have over me that requires me to prostrate to him, when You created me with your Hand as well, which is your qudrah (power) and with your ni'mah (bounty, favor) you created me?" With the knowledge that Allah, the Most High, favored Aadam over him (Iblees) by creating him with His Two Hands is evidence of the corruption of what they have said.
And if someone said: What has led you to deny that His Face and Hand is a limb when you do not understand hand as an attribute, and face as an attribute except [in the form of a] limb? It is said to him: That is not necessitated, just like it is not necessitated when we do not understand a living, knowing, able (being) except to be a body (jism) that we, us and you, should judge Allah with the same.
And just like it is not necessitated when He is established by His own Essence (qaa'iman bi dhaatihi) that He is substance and body just because we, and you, do not find anything established by itself (qaa'imun bi-nafsihi) in what we (outwardly) observe except that it is like that (i.e. Substance and body).
And the answer to them is likewise if they say: It becomes necessary that His knowledge, life and speech and all of His attributes belonging to His Essence (dhaat) are non-essential incidental attributes (a'raad), genuses, or occurrences (hawaadith), or changes, or coalesce (merge) in Him, or are in requirement of a heart, and they adduced the existence (wujood) [that they observe] as argument [in this regard] ." Taken from At-Tamheed al-Awaa'il wa Talkhees ud-Dalaa'il
A few points of benefit from what he said:
ONE: al-Baqillani speaks with the affirmation of the attributes of Face and Hand for Allah's Essence (dhaat) which contemporary Jahmi Ash'aris consider to be Tajseem and tashbeeh.
TWO: al-Baqillani refutes the false ta'weels of those claiming that al-yad (hand) is power (qudrah), or ni'mah (bounty, favour) - in those verses. And he is refuting the Mu'tazilah and Jahmiyyah - whose ta'weelaat, the Later Ash'aris adopted - and declares all of that to be baatil (false).
THREE: Hypocrisy of the contemporary Jahmi Ash'aris who accuse the likes of Ibn Taymiyyah and others on the basis of that which is found in the works of their most prominent historical figureheads. So they do not accuse their earlier Scholars of Tajseem and tashbeeh.
FOUR: His rejection of the argument that affirmation of the attributes of Face and Two Hands for Allah necessitates their being limbs and his explanation that just because we - in the creation - do not see a living, knowing, able thing except that it has a body - this does not necessitate that we can judge Allah with the same. And this is what the Salaf are upon with respect to all the attributes such as Hands, Eyes, Face and so on.
Lastly, the individual you posted in the video is not known to me and there are many individuals who hold positions of the salaf on certain issues and go against them on others, such as the takfeeris and jihadis. Usually you will see these individuals defending Sayed Qutb, whereas Salafis don't. If you want to cite real authorities of Salafiyyah (in our time) then quote the likes of Imaam as-Sadee, Abdullah ibn Baaz, Muhammad ibn Salih al-Uthaymeen, Muhammad Nasir ud-Deen al-Albanee, Muqbil ibn Hadee al-Wadiee, Salih al-Fawzaan and others that are from the major scholars because these are who the Salafis take their knowledge from.
Proof against yourself
With all due respect, the reason I didn't respond directly to your comment is that you are just adding proof against yourself.
Any sincere mind who reads God referring to himself as having "hands" will just take it as is, and not seek to make further sense of it. God clearly stated that there is nothing like Him, so we leave it at that. Refence to attributes like "hands" and "face" are used to communicate some other meaning, so there is no need to seek to further the significance of the use of the words themselves.
I'm not accusing you of insincerity however. Rather, I believe you are likely sincere, but you've chosen to affiliatiate yourself to the cause of Wahhabism, and it is forcing you to rationalize ideas which are otherwise clearly deviated.
The difference with the stance of the Imams is that they avoided any such interpretation. Whereas, the use of words referring to human features as attributes of God is taken by Salafis as affirmation of these attributes as such, but with the excuse that they belong to God in a manner that is fitting to Him. Salafis hope this sideways argument saves them from anthropomorphism, when it doesn't. It opens the road to it.
In other words, as related by Imam al-Baihaqi, in Manaqib Ahmad, Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal through a sahih chain of narration: “a person commits an act of disbelief (kufr) if he says Allah is a body, even if he says: Allah is a body but not like other bodies.”
Proof?
Please do not just copy paste some so called english translation of the Quran, you and I cannot understand the real meaning behind the words and sentences used in the Quran.
Only people with certain level of Ilm could understand the deeper meaning of the Quran. And the wordings in English should not be understood on the literal/surface level.
The Brotherhood
I support your investigation against the infiltration of Islam, but I dont support your slander of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sadat was killed by Khaled Islamboylie because he made treaty with Israel (menachin begin) who slaughtered innocent Palestinan women and children of the village of Deir Yassin and paraded the captives in a Jewish Settlement before killing them. If you go to the Muslim Brotherhood website you will see that they renounce terrorism and the actions of Al Qaida but support the ligitimate struggle of the Palestinans agains the illegal and unjust occupation of Palestine.
http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=23462
Stope being Deceptive
I am not sure what some of you are trying to achieve; however, just in case you are interested in truth I recommend that you read the Biography of Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab by shaikh Jalal Abualrub.
As for the lies against Ibn Taymiyah; one of your evdidence can be refuted easily. One of your eye witness (ibn Batuta) lied on ibn Taimiya. Ibn Taimiya was in jail when ibn Batuta reached Damascus.
So stop fabricating stories. Both Muhammad Abdulwahhab and ibn Taimiya are the followers of the pure religion of Islam as it was revealed by God. So, if you are not Muslim, throw away your idols and cross, accept true religion of monothiesm before it's too late.
Salib It is upon the cross,
Salib
It is upon the cross, through al adha of Isa al Masih, that
we throw away our idols.
You embrace the many idols as did the Arabs of the 1st century and the family of Muhammad
who cared for the idols.
But your idols are your innovations and mind. Submit to God. Read His book. As al Qur'an commands you, read the books that He has sent down to you, the Tawrat, Zabur, and Injil.
Upon the cross was a right guidance indeed. Ibn Taymiyyah strove to know the truth, submit to the truth, and understand God's will. Taqi al Din may not have had an injil to read. Submit to God and read the books he sent. Do
not continue in your idols and ignore His command to read the books he sent down.
Read about Wahhab
Rather, I think, with all due respect, that it's you who needs to read a biography of Ibn Abdul Wahhab. I think that's what the problem is. Too few who follow him know about him sufficiently. He's been completely whitewashed by the Saudi propaganda machine.
But there are a couple of eggregious errors committed by Wahhab. Most importantly, he declared all who didn't follow him to be Kaffirs (apostates) because they supposedly "worshipped" graves. That is, the entire Muslim Ummah of his time, going back until the generations of the Salaf,
This would be considered a completely absurd pronouncement at any time in Muslim hsitory, but as I've said, the history has been suppressed.
But that was why the Sultan in Istanbul, as leader of the world's Muslim community, moved to put a stop to it, and sent an army to eliminate Wahhab's followers.
Before that, despite his various reforms, Wahhab introduced a reprehensible innovation in Islam, by allowing Ibn Saud to declare himself "king"! Every Muslim knows that the Prophet predicted that the Muslim leadership would deteriorate in stages, and that the appearance of kings would be the final deterioration. Of course you'll hear all kinds of excuses put forward by today's "Salafis", despite their willingness and even insistence on pointing the finger at other Muslims for theirs supposed lack piety.
The False Wahabism
I hope you all realize that the Saudi Royal Family are of Jewish descendent ,their Grand father was a Jewish merchant from Basrah in Iraq ,his name Murdakhai Bin Abraham Bin Moshe ,this man was the devil ,eventually after many killing and destruction in Saudi he took over and his Sons brought this Mohammed Bin Abdulwahab to Justify their occupation of the various villages and confiscate peoples properties and every thing they have ,the excuse was they are not following the Wahabism created by their Agent and British agent too Mohammed Bin Abdul Wahab, read the full text in the following link : http://islamic-intelligence.blogspot.com/search/label/Saudi%20Arabia%20O...
Sufism is not a result of Sabian influence
Sufism is a legitimate Islamic Sunni practice, which has been extensively testified to by many Muslim scholars over the centuries. In fact, true Sufism extends back in its basic principles to Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him.
On the other hand, yes, there are Sufi-claimers such as the proponents of pantheism, and yes those would be anthropomorphic in doctrine and hence possibly influenced by the Sabians. But these Sufi-claimers are not legitimate Sufis, rather they are Satanists that claim the cover of Sufism in order to deceive into their ways.
Regarding Salafis
It has been rightly said that Ibn Taymiyya has been instrumental in misleading a huge number of muslims to doom.Any person in his right senses can see through this fabrication when they claim that god has limbs body etc. Sits on a throne with one place vacant for Holy prophet etc. It is like any Hindu or a christian god. Islam is clear in defnition of God and till Ibn Taymiyya no one had atributed feauters to him.
Next regards to Abdul Wahab being a british agent is wrong but the British with their plan for breaking the Ottoman empire had a 100 year plan clearly laid out through which they tried to create divisions among muslims all over the world and unfortunately one of their spy Hempher trapped him in his freindship & inculcated wrong ideals in him which later became huge with it being formed Wahabism.
I would want a clarification from the Salafis. DO you really beleive god is as described by Ibn Taymiyya.
DO you think Holy prophet is like any normal human.
Did he not have ilm-e-ghaib (THen how was it that Islam came through PBH Rassolallah rather than being directly brought on earth) God is powerful is it not?
How did he see the angels with his naked eyes.
How did he see god & negotiate with regards to the prayers being limited to 5 than the earlier order.
All 4 Madhabs have links right from prophet till now but Salafis claim that Islam was polluted after 3rd generation for 600 years then based on what have the Salafis purified Islam? Based on Ibn Taymiyya.
Well I believe in Quran & Hadith.But Salafis are selective in Hadith & selective in the translation of Quran which suits their idelogy.If you are speaking of correct chain i would like to know that Hadith collection started only 230 years after the death of Prophet. Means to Say six generations had passed and lot of corruption crept in.Can any of you remember what your grandfather has said leave great great grandfather 6 generation behind. It is only Faith Right?
Out of collection of 6 lacs Hadith only few hundred are right eliminating repitition then the percentage wise 99.96% is wrong.
So dear brothers in Islam please stop this bull of practicing puritan Islam and follow the mainstream like Ahl-e-sunnah.
The Sources of Ibn taymiyya's Ideas
Taken from encyclopedia of Islamic Doctrine vol 1 (Beliefs). (As-sunna Foundation of America)
The Sources of Ibn taymiyya's Ideas
The resemblance of Kawthari's censure of ibn taymiyya to ibn al-jawzi's censure of the anthropomorphizing hanbalis of his time is striking. it comes as no surprise, therefore, that ibn taymiyyah in fact took his own materials from a related group. As kawthari says, "Ibn taymiyya replicates part and parcel what is found in Uthman ibn Said al-Darimi's al-Radd ala al-jahmiyya, and the kitab al sunna attributed to Abd Allah ibn ahmad ibn hanbal, and ibn khuzayma's al-tawhid wa sifat al-rabb." Here is a look at these three of ibn taymiyyas sources
Uthman Ibn Said al-Darimi al-sajzi
He wrote his books against Bishr al-marisi and the jahmiyya at large. In his fervor to refute their excessively figurative interpretations, he fell into the opposite extreme of anthropomorphism. One also wonders why ibn taymiyya would take up arguments originally meant for jahmis, who were heretics, and redirect them to the asharis, who are the sunni. Here some examples of what his book al-naqd ala al-jahmiyya (The critiqueof the jahmis) contains:
The living, the self-subsistent, does what He wills, moves if He so wills, descends and ascends if He wills, collects and spreads and rises and sits if He wills, for the distinguishing mark between the leaving and the dead is movement: every living thing moves without fail, and every dead thing is immobile with out fail. (p.20 of kitab al-naqd ala al-ahmiyyah -Cairo, 1361/1942)
In this phrase the author has compared Allah to every living thing, although nothing is like Him whatsoever.
Those who object claim that Allah has no limit, no boundary, and no end, and this is the principle upon which Jahm has built all of his heresy and from which he has carved his falsehoods; these are statements that we have never heard anyone say before him.... Allah certainly has a limit... and so has His place, for He is on His throne above the heavens, and these are two limits. Any person who declares that Allah has a limit and that His place has limit, is more knowledgable than the jahmis. (p.23)
In these statements it is seen that al-darimi considers Imam al-shafii a jahmi, since al-shafii explicitly stated,
Know that limit and finiteness do not apply to Allah. (al-shafii, al-fiqh al-akbar fi al-tawhid li al-imam abi abd allah muhammad ibn idris al-shafii, 1st ed. (Al-azbakiyya, cairo: al-matba al-adabiyya, 1324/1906 or 1907) p.8 The original manuscript of this work is kept at the zahiriyya library in Damascus, MS. #Q-2(3)) Those who revived the views of al-darimi in later times, like ibn taymiyyah and in modern times, like those who call themselves "Salafis," could not be farther from the doctrine of the true salaf.
Although today's "Salafis" do not show the same openness as al-darimi in ascribing limits to the Creator, this belief is coushed in their repeated denial that Allah is everywhere. Wahhabis and "Salafis" believe that the only alternative to the claim that "Allah is in every placce" is their claim that "He is in one place only; Above His throne."
Each claim is as worthless as the other since both ascribe spatial location to Allah, Exalted Is He above anything they may claim. Both are equally false in devising for Him dispersion in an infinity of places, and limitation in a single place.
There is no connection to satanism or the occult as suggested by David Livingstone who wants to discredit anyone that does not fit into his scheme of ideas.
There is no perfect scholar who has everything right, even the great scholars of Islam; Hanafi, Hanbali, Shafi and Maliki asked their students and followers to not follow them where they can be proven wrong.
Thank you!
Thanks for the excellent comment. This is very valuable information. And you may be right, I may be wrong. I fully accept that. It's unfortunate that you think I am committed to "discredit anyone that does not fit into [my] scheme of ideas." I simply think the fact that Ibn Taymiyyah hailed from Harran, the great capital of the anthropomorphic doctrine, which, as scholars have noted, is the only significant place outside of the Jewish Kabbalah where this ideas has found such specific elaboration, is intriguing, to say the least.
Especially since those who in modern times have attempted to revive his reputation belonged to organizations that claimed to derive originally from these same Harranians (the Sabians).
My article is entirely speculative. I'm merely trying to relay the coincidences. Whichever way it may be, the fact is that Ibn Taymiyyah was wayward in his anthropomorphism, and the modern day "Salafi" are now following him in the same error, despite all their proud claims of orthodoxy.
Thanks again,
David Livingstone
Ofcourse he wasn't an agent of british.
Actually he was an agent of Shaitaan.
Shaytan came in the form of the Najdi Shaykh
Hafidhh Ibn Kathir writes: when the Kuffar of Makkah had a meeting concerning the Prophet Sallal laho alihi wasalam, an old man came claiming
“I am a Najdi, what ever you want to know, I will be helpful”. This Najdi Shaykh then gave his view against the Prophet (Sallallahu’ aliahi wa sallam), through out the meeting.
[Tareekh Ibn Kathir. Volume 4]
The Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] stated: I fear from the Najdi’s.
[Bukhari Chapter on Jihad]
The Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] stated: That the Fitnah will emerge from the east. [Bukhari, Kitab-ul-Fitnah]
Abdullah Ibn Umar narrates:
The Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] made Du’a for Syria and Yemen, some people asked him: “Ya Rasoolallah (Sallallahu’ aliahi wa sallam) pray for Najd.” The Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] again repeated Dua for Syria and Yemen. They again requested for Najd. Upon the third time the Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] said: “There will be earthquakes there, tribulations will emerge there and a horn of Shaytan will emerge from there”. [Bukhari, Kitabul Fitan]
The brother of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab al Najdi, Shaykh Sulaiman bin Abdul Wahab, said about his brother, “The horn of Shaytan which the Prophet (Sallallahu’ aliahi wa sallam) referred to is you.”
[Sawaa’iqul Ilahiya]
Please for more info about
Please for more info about mohammed abdul wahhab's malicious designs on the muslims read a book called 'fitnat al wahhabiyya' co-authored by abdul wahhab's own brother and father,Suleiman Abdul Wahhab and co.
Salaam Brother abdirahim i
Salaam
Brother abdirahim i suggest you type in hemphers diary in google this will enlighten you on the influence of the british on Abdul Bin Wahab, but allah knows best. It is the diary of a british spy uncovered by the germans and gives a detailed account of this spies missions to infiltrate the muslims and create a rift within, with Abdulk bin Wahab being the object of influence All.
you need to know what u
you need to know what u talking about before you start talking, go and read sheikh mohamed abdul wahab biography before you start talking about something you have no knowledge of what so ever, Mohamed abdul wahab a british agent? dont make me lough. do you know when mohamed abdul wahab died? long before the british even woke up from their sleap.
Wahhabis,devils of Jewsss
we know that Ottoman impire was destroyed due to two goup,
the one of them is so called Young Turkish in Turkey,top leader is Ataturk a albanian-mason and Wahhabis sect in arabi,top leader Abdul Wahhabi-a devil of jew...masons using those two tools realized to destroy Ottoman impire from inside of it,Ottoman was destroyed from inside and not outside...
Ataturk was not Albanian and
Ataturk was not Albanian and was not Mason also was not member of young turks.he saved us from disintegration and blessed all turks with great independency]]]]]please know our history properly.the resources you are using about turkey all based on armenians...
Attaturk
Attaturk was JEW not just agent ,most Turkish are blinded with the false on going probaganda
about him being the father of Turkey,he was not even Turkish to start,...go to Jewwatch.com and read about his Jewish origin ,good luck
Interesting.
Interesting.
Muhammd bin Wahhab wasn’t a
Muhammd bin Wahhab wasn’t a british agent, he wanted to bring Islam back to its original state, unfortunately moden militant islamist groups have transgessed limits with there war against the infidel. For this reason Wahhabism has a bad name.
Christianity is a cult which is used to control people
Muhammad Abdul Wahhab
Paul,
What you have claimed is incorrect. Islam was never in an 'original state' likened to what Abdul Wahab implemented, which was nothing but legal barbarism, raiding and condemnation of others.
Regarding his status as an agent of the british, it seems very likely he was from the Hempher diary among other works.
I recommend a book to you by David Commins: Wahabism and Saudi Arabia
Cheers
Agreed
This is a very good recommendation. I would have to concur about the value of Commins' book. It would be great if a Muslim had written that kind of book, but Muslims have not been able to accomplish remotely that level of scholarship. But it is precisely the type of book that is needed.
Understanding Wahhabism/Salafism is all in the context. Saudi Arabia manages a remarkable state. In the negative sense. It's one of the most tyrannical states in the world, but has managed to maintain it's autocracy by means of not a typical political philosophy, like the Communism of North Korea, but a disguise of religion.
But it's entirely a political apparatus. And the so-called Ulama are complicit in this arrangement. And this goes right back to Wahhab, who was the first to agree to this formalized arrangement, that alloted political rule to the Saudis, and preserved "religious" authority to the descendants of Wahhab.
The purpose of the Saudi state is to protect America's oil interests, and to deflect criticism of Israel. The Ulama make a trade-off in order to retain power, and in exchange are granted continuing protection from the state.
We can argue about the legitimacy of Wahhab and Wahhabism's ideological approach to Islam. But it's unnecessary. You merely have to read the history of the movement. And you'll be shocked.
Post new comment