Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8

Sheikh-ul-Islam, Hadret Allama ibn

Hajar al-haitimis
Fatawa on ibn Taymiyya

Al-Haitimi wrote in his Fatawa Hadithiyya:

Ibn Taymiyya is a servant, which Allah forsook, misguided, blinded,


deafened, and debased. That is the declaration of the imams who have
exposed the corruption of his positions and the mendacity of his sayings.
Whoever wishes to pursue this must read the words of the Mujtahid Imaam
Abu al-Hasan (Taqi al-Din) al-Subki, of his son Taj al-Din Subki, of the Imaam
al-`Izz ibn Jama`a and others of the Shafi`i, Maliki, and Hanafi shuyukh... It
must be considered that he is a misguided and misguiding innovator
(mubtadi` dall mudill) and an ignorant that brought evil (jahilun ghalun) that
Allah treated with His justice. May He protect us from the likes of his path,
doctrine, and actions! Know that he has differed from people on questions
about which Taj al-Din Ibn al-Subki and others warned us. Among the things
Ibn Taymiyya said which violate the scholarly consensus as-Sunnah wal al
Ijma) are:

1. that whoso violates the consensus commits neither disbelief (kufr) nor
grave transgression (fisq);
2. that our Lord is subject to created events (mahallun li al-hawadith) -
glorified, exalted, and sanctified is He far above what the depraved ascribe
to Him!
3. that He is complex or made of parts (murakkab), His Entity standing
in need similarly to the way the whole stands in need of the parts, elevated
is He and sanctified above that!
4. that the Qur'an is created in Allah's Entity (muhdath fi dhatillah),
elevated is He above that!
5. that the world is of a pre-eternal nature and exists with Allah since
pre-eternity as an "ever-abiding created object" (makhluqan da'iman), thus
making it necessarily existent in His Entity (mujaban bi al-dhat) and not
acting deliberately [GH1] (la fa`ilan bi al-ikhtyar), elevated is He above
that! [1]
6. his suggestions of Allah's corporeality, direction, displacement, (al-
jismiyya wa al-jiha wa al-intiqal), and that He fits the size of the Throne,
being neither bigger nor smaller, exalted is He from such a hideous invention
and wide-open disbelief, and may He forsake all his followers, and may all his
beliefs be scattered and lost!
7. his saying that the fire shall go out (al-nar tafni), [2]
8. and that Prophets are not sinless (al-anbiya' ghayr ma`sumin),
9. and that the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- has no special
status before Allah (la jaha lahu) and must not be used as a means (la
yutawassalu bihi), [3]
10. and that the undertaking of travel (al-safar) to the Prophet -- Allah
bless and greet him -- in order to perform his visitation is a sin, for which it is
unlawful to shorten the prayers, [4] and that it is forbidden to ask for his
intercession in view of the Day of Need,
11. and that the words (alfaz) of the Torah and the Gospel were not
substituted, but their meanings (ma`ani) were.

Some said: "Whoever looks at his books does not attribute to him most of
these positions, except that whereby he holds the view that Allah has a
direction, and that he authored a book to establish this, and forces the proof
upon the people who follow this school of thought that they are believers in
Allah's corporeality (jismiyya), dimensionality (muhadhat), and settledness
(istiqrar)." That is, it may be that at times he used to assert these proofs and
that they were consequently attributed to him in particular. But whoever
attributed this to him from among the imams of Islam upon whose greatness,
leadership, religion, trustworthiness, fairness, acceptance, insight, and
meticulousness there is agreement - then they do not say anything except
what has been duly established with added precautions and repeated
inquiry. This is especially true when a Muslim is attributed a view which
necessitates his disbelief, apostasy, misguidedness, and execution.
Therefore if it is true of him that he is a disbeliever and an innovator, then
Allah will deal with him with His justice, and other than that He will forgive
him and us.

Notes

[1] This is mentioned about Ibn Taymiyya also by Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Bari (1959
ed. 13:411). This doctrine was refuted by Muhammad ibn Isma`il al-San`ani in
his Risala Sharifa fi ma Yata`allaqu bi Kam al-Baqi Min `Umr al-Dunya? (Precious
Treatise Concerning the Remaining Age of the World") ed. al-Wasabi al-Mathani.
(San`a': Maktaba Dar al-Quds, 1992).
[2] This doctrine was refuted by Muhammad ibn Isma`il al-San`ani in his Raf` al-
Astar li-Ibtal Adilla al-Qa'ilin bi-Fana al-Nar ("Exposing the Nullity of the Proofs of
Those Who Claim That the Fire Shall Pass Away"), ed. Albani (Beirut: al-Maktab
al-Islami, 1984).
[3] This is explicitly contradicted by the vast majority of scholars, including Ibn
Taymiyya's own students Ibn al-Qayyim (cf. al-Nuniyya, section on tawassul) and
al-Dhahabi, as well as al-Shawkani and countless others. See the volume
on tawassul in Sheikh Hisham Kabbani'sEncyclopedia of Islamic Doctrine.
[4] Ibn Hajar says in Fath al-Bari about Ibn Taymiyya's prohibition to travel in
order to visit the Prophet: "This is one of the ugliest matters ever reported from
Ibn Taymiyya." In his notes on Fath al-Bari (1989 ed. 3:66) the late "Salafi"
scholar Bin Baz comments: "This was not an ugly thing but a correct thing for
Ibn Taymiyya to say."
Ad-durratul mud-iyyah fir raddi 'ala ibni Taymiyya
Hafiz Allamah Taqi ad-Din as-Subki on Ibn Taymiyya

Said the last among the mujtahids, Imam Abul Hasan `Ali ibn `Abd al-Kaafi
ash-Shafi as-Subki radiyallahu `Anhu in his book eAd-durratul mud-iyyah
fir raddi `ala ibni Taymiyyah :

So it has been established by majority of the scholars that he who opposes


the ijma (consensus) is a disbeliever; It is among the conditions for a mufti (a
religious scholar who is authorized to issue verdicts) that he shouldn't issue a
fatawa (religious edict) that contradicts the preceding scholars and if he does
so his verdict is reject and it is disallowed to quote him (such a scholar who
opposes the ijma') and the Holy Quran and the Sunnah (the tradition of the
prophet Sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam) bear evidence that it is not permitted
to oppose the ijma, the consensus. Allah has said, e…and he who has defied
the Messenger after the truth has been manifest and followed a path, other
than that of Muslims We shall cast him into hell and what a bad place it is to
be in! …And when the dissent from the path of Muslims and treading a path
other than theirs has invited such wrath, due to dissent from the way of
Muslims, can his word be reliable anymore?

wa qad aTlaqa katheerun minal `ulamaayil qawli bi anna


mukhaalifal ijmaa`yil ummati kaafirun wa sharTal muftee an laa
yaftaa biqawlin yukhaalifu aqwaalal `ulamaayil mutaqaddimeen. wa
idhaa aftaa bi dhaalika raddat fatwaahu wa mana`a min akhadhin bi
qawlihi wa dallal kitaabu was sunnatu `alaa annahu laa yajuuzu
mukhaalifatal ijmaa`yi : qaalallahu ta`aalaa {wa man yushaaqqiqqir
rasuula min ba`adi maa tabayyana lahul hudaaa wa yattabi`u
ghayra sabeelil mu-mineena nuwallihee maa tawalla wa nuSleehi
jahannama wa saa-at maseera} fa qad taw`ada `ala mukhaalifati
sabeelil mu-mineena wa atbaa`yi ghayra sabeelihim bi haadhal
wa`eed al-`adheem wa mukhaalifal ijmaa`yil ummati muttabi`yi
ghayra sabeelil mu-mineena fa kayfa yu`utabara qawluhu?

Further on he says:

And it is said, that the populace can be broadly classified into two kinds: the
Mujtahid scholar who is able to derive rules and solve questions by the book
(the Holy Quran) and the Sunnah (Hadeeth); and the Muqallid, the follower of
the knowledgeable. The job of the Mujtahid is that when he encounters a
problem he should derive the answer from the `adillah of Sharia`ah (the
documents of the canon law) and the job of the common man to resort to
what the scholars say. It is not proper for a non-mujtahid to abandon acting
upon the words of scholars when he encounters an ayat or a Hadeeth
(seeming to contradict). For though he finds them as contradicting them
(ayat or Hadeeth), it is only that they do so with a document which compels
them to say so. And Allah `Azza wa Jall has said, eask ye of the people who
know if you don't know" and hath said "…and if they went to turn towards
the messenger and the men of authority amongst them verily they wouldst
have known the right thing derived by them" and there is no need for further
explanation of this ayat and the purpose is to demonstrate that for a non-
mujtahid scholar it isn't permissible to derive rules from the Nass. And the
commoner is obviously not permitted either; if he encounters an ayat and in
it there seems to be a general rule or an absolute one he should never
consider it by himself unless verified by the scholars. Neither does he act
upon its being generic or absolute unless he has sufficient knowledge of the
abrogator and the abrogated (verses); and that which are generic and
particular; and that which are absolute and dependent on other issues.

Wa dhaalika annan naasa `ala qismayn : `aalimun mujtahidun


mutamakkinun min istikhraajil ahkaami minal kitaabi was sunnati
aw `aammiyyun muqallidun li ahlil `ilm; wa waDHeefatul mujtahidu
idhaa waqa`at waaqi`atun an yastakhrijul hukma feehaa min
adillatish shar`yiyati wa waDHeefatul `aammi an yarji`yu ilaa qawlil
`ulama; wa laysa li ghayril mujtahidu idhaa sami`a aayatan aw
hadeethan an yatruku bihee aqwaalil `ulamaayi fa innahu idhaa ra-
aahum qad khaalafuu dhaalika ma`a `ilmihim bihi `alima annahum
innamaa khaalafuuhu li daleelin dallahum `alaa dhaalika wa qad
qaalallahu ta`aalaa {fas-aaluu ahladh dhikri in kuntum laa
ta`alamuun} wa qaal {wa law radduuhu ilar rasuuli wa ilaa uulil
amri minhum la ya`alamalladheena yastanbituunahuu minhum} wa
lil mufassireena fil aayati kalaamun laysa haadhaa mawDa`yin
dhikruhu wal qasdu anna ghayral `aalim al-mujtahidu wa laa
seemaa al-`awaamu idhaa sami`yuu aayatun feehaa `amuumin aw
iTlaaqin lam yakun lahum an ya-khudhu bi dhaalikal `amuumi awil
iTlaaqi illaa bi qawlil `ulamaa; wa laa ya`amalu bil `amuumaati wal
iTlaaqaati illaa man `arafan naasikha wal mansuukh; wal `aamm wal
khaaSS; wal muTlaq wal muqayyad ; wal mujmil wal mubayyin; wal
haqeeqah wal majaaz.

For if a commoner heard the verse of the Holy Quran "and all those women
who art your maids" and generalized it and said it is permissible to cohabit
with two sisters who are his bondmaids, he is mistaken, for if he had heard
along with it the verse "(it is Haraam) that you marry two sisters (at the
same time)" he would see that the generalization is here not to cohabit with
two sisters at the same time either as bondmaids or as wives. Now if one is
confused as to which verse he should consider as superseding the other, he
should have heard Hadrat `Uthmaan ghani radiyallahu `anhu say: "if a verse
says Halaal about something and another Haraam, that which says Haraam
is given preference". If he had heard this he would have known that he
should act on that which forbids and there are other reasons too why he
should act on one and not the other, which the scholars know but it should
be known that a commoner is not capable of deriving rules from the sources
absolutely...

a few paragraphs later he writes:

And if the commoner came to know of the Hadeeth "he who drinks wine
should be lashed" to "he who drinks wine in the four forbidding months
should be killed" and acted upon it and killed a person who drank wine in the
four forbidding months, he has committed a mistake because the ummah is
agreed upon (ijma - attained a consensus) that the afore mentioned rule is
abandoned.

fa idhaa sami`a qawlahu ta`aalaa [aw maa malakat aymaanukum]


wa akhadha bi `amuumihi fil jam`a baynal ukhtayn al-mamluukatayn
kaana mukhti-an. fa idhaa sami`a ma`ahuu qawluhu ta`aalaa [wa an
tajma`uu baynal ukhtayn] qaala haadha ya`ummul ukhtayn al-
mamluukatayn wal mankuuHatayn fa yataHayyaru bi ayyil
`amuumayni ya`amalu fa idhaa sami`a qawla Uthmaan raDiyallahu
`anhu "aHallathaa ayatun; wa Harramathaa aayatun wat taHreemu
awlaa, `alima annal `amalu `alaa daleelit taHreem; wa lahuu
tarjeeHaatun aakhara ghayra haadhaa ya`arifahal `ulamaa fa
ya`alamul `aammi annahu laa yumkinahul istiqlaala bi akhadhil
Hukmi minal kitaabi ....
wa idhaa sami`al `aammi al-hadeeth: "man sharibal khamra
fajliduuhu" ilaa an qaala fir raabi`ah "fa in sharibahaa faqtuluuh" fa
`amila bihi wa qatalash shaaribu fir raabi`ati kaana mukhti-an; li
annal ummatu ajma`at `alaa tarakil `amalu bi haadhaal hadeethi."

And so also is the case of the Hadeeth of Hadrat ibn `Abbas rariyallahu
`anhu in Sahih al-Muslim that Rasulallah sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam did a
jamma of two Salaats (that is two different Salaats (prayers) at the same
time) in Madina-tul-Manawara without any reason such as fear of stormy rain
and this Hadeeth is reported by Imam Muslim in many ways (different chains
of narrators) and if a commoner goes by this hadeeth and did not know that
the ummah is agreed upon (a consensus being reached) on abandoning the
rule except by Ibn Seereen who said it was permissible to do jamma of two
salaats in the state of being at home (Hadar) and it has been reported by
Abul Aaliyyah that Hadrat `Umar bin Khattab radiyallahu `anhu wrote to Abu
Musa al-Ash`ari radiyallahu `anhu : "know ye, that to add up the salaats (do
two salaats at the same time) is among the great sins (Kabaayir) except with
an excuse." And these two Hadeeths are found in Tirmidhi and said he in the
end of his book "there are no Hadeeths in this book which are abandoned by
the ijmaa' except two" and mentioned these two.

Also is the Hadeeth of Ibn `Abbas that Taalaq (divorce) in the time of
Rasulallah sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam, Hadrat Abu Bakr as-Sadiq and when
Hadrat Umar bin Lhatab followed them and permitted that saying Talaq
thrice at the same time was considered as only one. But acting upon this
Hadeeth taking its external meaning has been forsaken by consensus and
the scholars have attribute the right meaning to this Hadeeth and its
reporting is also correct (that is this is a Sahih Hadeeth but acting on its
external meaning is not permissible, the correct meaning of this Hadeeth is
explained by the Mujtahid scholars). It is also reported by Hadrat ibn `Abbas
radiyallahu `anhu contradicting the above position by various chains; if a
commoner comes to know of one and adopted it and did not know that there
exists something which contradicts its explicit meaning which is forsaken by
the ummah unanimously he has committed a wrong.

wa ka dhaalika idhaa sami`a hadeetha ibn `Abbas raDiyallahu `anhu


alladhee fee SaHeeH al-Muslim annan Nabiyy Sallallahu `alayhi wa
sallam jama`a baynaS Salaatayni fil madeenati min ghayri khawfin
wa laa maTrin wa qad rawaahu Muslim min Turuqin `Iddatin fa
yaquulul `aammiyyu bi haadhal hadeethi wa laa ya`alama annal
ummata ajma`at `alaa tarkil `amali bihii illaa maa yarwaa `an ibn
Seereen annahu yujawwizul jam`u fil HaDari lil Haajati wa qad
rawaa abul `aaliyyah anna `Umara raDiyallahu `anhu kataba ilaa
abee Muusaa al-ash`ari raDiyallahu `anhu : "Wa`alam. annaa jam`a
maa baynaS Salaatayni minal kabaayiri illa min udhrin" wa qad
akhraja haadhaynil Hadeethaynit Tirmidhiyyi wa qaala fee aakhiri
kitaabihi : laysa fee kitaabi haadhaa Hadeethun tarakul `amalu
bihee bil ijmaa`yi siwaa Hadeethayn, fa dhakara haadhaynil
Hadeethayn wa kadhaalika Hadeethi ibn `Abbas kaanaT Talaaqu
`ala `ahdi Rasulallahi Sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam wa Abee Bakrin
wa Sadara min khilaafati `umarin, ath-thalaathatu waaHidatun
falamma ra-aahum `Umara qad tataaba`uu feehi qaala
ajeezuuhunna `alayhim wa haadhal Hadeethu matruukiDh Dhaahiru
bil Ijmaa`yi wa maHmuulun `Indal `ulamaayi `alaa ma`aanin
SaHeeHatin; wa qad SaHHatir riwaayatu.
`an ibni `Abbasin bi khilaafihi min wujuuhin `iddatin fa idhaa
sami`ahul `aammi waHdahuu waqafa `indahuu wa lam ya`alam
annahu ma`aariDun bimaa yadfa`ahu wa marduuduDH DHaahiri bi
ijmaa`yil ummah.

And the Hadeeths of Mut`ah (temporary marriages) are also correct and
acting upon it was right in the time of Nabi sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam and it
is also correct that it was later forbidden; so it was permitted twice and
forbaden twice.
If a commoner came to know of the Sahih Hadeeth that permits mut`ah and
considers that it is permitted he is wrong since he doesn't know that it was
abrogated later. It so happened during the time of Mamoun when he was the
Caliph that he proclaimed that mut`ah was permitted. Qadi Yahya ibn
Akhtum intervened and said thou hath proclaimed that fornication is
permitted and he told him of the Sahih Hadeeth that abrogates it, which he
(the Caliph) hadn't heard, so the Caliph proclaimed me that mut`ah was
Haraam (forbidden).

And the Hadeeth of Qudama ibn Madhuun raiyallahu `anhu (Sahih hadeeth),
when he drank wine the news of this reached Hadret Umar bin Khatab
radiyallahu `anhu who asked him whether it was true. He replied by saying
yes and said that he did taweel (extrapolation) of the ayat: "There is no harm
for those who believe and do good deeds in anything that they partake".
Hadret `Umar Bin khattab radiyallahu `anhu replied, your reasoning is wrong
did not Allah say, 'when thou fear and believe...(the ayat which explicitly
forbids wine)'." and he did not consider the taweel to excuse him from
punishment and administered the Hadd (punishment described by the canon
law) for though he deduced rightly he erred in generalizing that 'anything
edible is permitted' and overlooked the clause forbidding a special case of
wine the verse being 'when thou fear and believe and do good deeds...'
This elucidates that to act on a generic rule without considering its clauses
for special cases constraining the generalization, is a mistake.

Wa aHaadeeth al-mut`ah SaHeeHatun wa qad SaHHa fi`yluhaa fee


zamanin Nabiyyi Sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam wa SaHHan nahee
`anhaa fa ubeeHat marratayni wa nasakhat marratayn. Fa idhaa
sami`al `aammi al-HadeethuS SaHeeHatu bi ibaaHatihaa DHanna
annahaa mubaaHatun wa lam ya`alam anna dhaalika nasakhun wa
qad waq`a haadhaa lil ma-muun wa huwa khaleefatun fa naadaa bi
taHleelil mut`ati fa dakhala `alayhil qaaDi yaHyaa ibn Akthum wa
qaala lahuu aHallalltaz zinaa wa `arrafahul Hadeethis SaHeeHi fin
naskhi wa lam yakun sami`ahu fa naadaa min waqtihee bi taHreemil
mut`ah.
Wa Hadeethu Qudaamah bin MaDH-`uun raDiyallahu `anhu
SaHeeHun wa kaana qad sharibal khamra fa rafa`al amru ilaa
`umarin raDiyallhu `anhu fa`atarafa wa dhakara annahu innamaa
sharabahaa muta-awwalan qawlihi ta`aalaa "laysa `alalladheena
aamanuu wa `amiluS SaaliHaati JunaaHun feemaa Ta`amuu" faradda
`alayhi `umar wa qaala akhta-tatta-weel a lam yaqulillahu
subHaanahuu "idhaa mattaqquu wa aamanuu" wa lam yaj`al ta-
weeluhu mawjiban li isqaatil Haddi bal Haddahuu li annahu
yastanbiTul Hukma istinbaaTan SaHeeHan walaakinnahu akhadha bi
`amuumin nafiyal junaaHa fee kulli maT`uumin wa ghafala `anil
qaydil makhSuuSi wa huwa qawlihi "idhaa mattaquu wa aamanuu
wa `amiluS SaaliHaat" ilaa aakhiri aayati; wa haadhaa yuuDaHu
annal `amalu bil `amuumi bi mujarridihi min ghayri naDHarin fee
adillatit takhSeeSi wat taqayyadu khaTa-un minal `aamilu bihee.