IBN TAYMIYYA

by: Ibrahim Muazzam Ibrahim

Ahmad ibn `Abd al-Halim ibn `Abd Allah ibn Abi al-Qasim ibn Taymiyya, Taqi al-Di
n Abu al-`Abbas ibn Shihab al-Din ibn Majd al-Din al-Harrani al-Dimashqi al-Hanb
ali (661-728). The most influential scholar of the late Hanbali school, praised
by the hadith master Salah al-Din al-`Ala'i as "Our shaykh, master, and imam bet
ween us and Allah Almighty, the master of verification, the wayfarer of the best
path, the owner of the multifarious merits and overpowering proofs which all ho
sts agree are impossible to enumerate, the Shaykh, the Imam and faithful servant
of his Lord, the doctor in the Religion, the Ocean, the light-giving Pole of sp
irituality, the leader of imams, the blessing of the Community, the sign-post of
the people of knowledge, the inheritor of Prophets, the last of those capable o
f independent legal reasoning, the most unique of the scholars of the Religion,
Shaykh al-Islam..."
A student of Ibn `Abd al-Da'im, al-Qasim al-Irbili, Ibn `Allan, Ibn Abi `Amr al-
Fakhr, Ibn Taymiyya mostly read by himself until he achieved great learning. He
taught, authored books, gave formal legal opinions, and generally distinguished
himself for his quick wit and photographic memory. Among his most brilliant stud
ents were Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, al-Dhahabi, Ibn Kathir, and Yusuf ibn `Abd al-
Hadi. His opinions and manner created intense controversy both in his life and a
fter his death, to the point that scholars were divided into those who loved him
and those who did not. An illustration of this is the fact that the Shafi`i had
ith master al-Mizzi did not call anyone else Shaykh al-Islam in his time besides
Ibn Taymiyya; yet the Hanafi scholar `Ala' al-Din al-Bukhari issued a fatwa whe
reby anyone who called Ibn Taymiyya Shaykh al-Islam commited disbelief.1 In Baya
n Zaghl al-`Ilm al-Dhahabi states: "Ibn Taymiyya was considered by his enemies t
o be a wicked Anti-Christ and disbeliever, while great numbers of the wise and t
he elite considered him an eminent, brilliant, and scholarly innovator (mubtadi`
fadil muhaqqiq bari`)."2
First Incident of Tashbih
His first clash with the scholars occurred in 698 in Damascus when he was tempor
arily barred from teaching after he issued his Fatwa Hamawiyya. In this epistle
he unambiguously attributes literal upward direction to Allah Almighty. He was r
efuted by his contemporary, the imam and mufti of Aleppo then Damascus Ibn Jahba
l al-Kilabi (d. 733), in a lengthy reply which Taj al-Din al-Subki reproduced in
full in his Tabaqat al-Shafi`iyya al-Kubra. Ibn Taymiyya then returned to his a
ctivities until he was summoned by the authorities again in 705 to answer for hi
s `Aqida Wasitiyya. He spent the few following years in and out of jail or defen
ding himself from various "abhorrent charges" according to Ibn Hajar. Because he
officially repented, his life was spared, although at one point it was official
ly announced in Damascus that "Whoever follows the beliefs of Ibn Taymiyya, his
life and property are licit for seizure." These events instigated great dissensi
on among the scholars in Damascus and Cairo as detailed in Imam Taqi al-Din al-H
usni's Daf` Shubah Man Shabbaha wa Tamarrad wa Nasaba Dhalika ila al-Sayyid al-J
alil al-Imam Ahmad ("Repelling the Sophistries of the Rebel who Likens Allah to
Creation, Then Attributes This Doctrine to Imam Ahmad").3
Ibn Taymiyya at various times declared himself a follower of the Shafi`i school
- as did many Hanbalis in Damascus - and an Ash`ari.
Ibn Hajar wrote in al-Durar al-Kamina:
An investigation [of his views] was conducted with several scholars [in Cairo] a
nd a written statement was drawn in which he said: "I am Ash`ari." His handwriti
ng is found with what he wrote verbatim, namely: "I believe that the Qur'an is a
meaning which exists in Allah's Entity, and that it is an Attribute from the pr
e-eternal Attributes of His Entity, and that it is uncreated, and that it does n
ot consist in the letter nor the voice, and that His saying: "The Merciful estab
lished Himself over the Throne" (20:4) is not taken according to its literal mea
ning (laysa `ala zahirihi), and I don't know in what consists its meaning, nay o
nly Allah knows it, and one speaks of His 'descent' in the same way as one speak
s of His 'establishment.'"
It was written by Ahmad ibn Taymiyya and they witnessed over him that he had rep
ented of his own free will from all that contravened the above. This took place
on the 25th of Rabi` al-Awwal 707 and it was witnessed by a huge array of schola
rs and others.4
The Hanbali scholar Najm al-Din Sulayman ibn `Abd al-Qawi al-Tufi said:5
He used to bring up in one hour from the Book, the Sunna, the Arabic language, a
nd philosophical speculation, material which no-one could bring up even in many
sessions, as if these sciences were before his very eyes and he was picking and
choosing from them at will. A time came when his companions took to over-praisin
g him and this drove him to be satisfied with himself until he became conceited
before his fellow human beings. He became convinced that he was a scholar capabl
e of independent reasoning (mujtahid). Henceforth he began to answer each and ev
ery scholar great and small, past and recent, until he went all the way back to
`Umar (r) and faulted him in some matter. This reached the ears of the Shaykh Ib
rahim al-Raqi who reprimanded him. Ibn Taymiyya went to see him, apologized, and
asked for forgiveness. He also spoke against `Ali (r) and said: "He made mistak
es in seventeen different matters."... Because of his fanatic support of the Han
bali school he would attack Ash'aris until he started to insult al-Ghazzali, at
which point some people opposed him and would almost kill him.... They ascertain
ed that he had blurted out certain words, concerning doctrine, which came out of
his mouth in the context of his sermons and legal pronouncements, and they ment
ioned that he had cited the tradition of Allah's descent (to the nearest heaven)
, then climbed down two steps from the minbar and said: "Just like this descent
of mine" and so was categorized as an anthropomorphist. They also cited his refu
tation of whoever uses the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- as a means or
seeks help from him (aw istaghatha).... People were divided into parties becaus
e of him. Some considered him an anthropomorphist because of what he mentioned i
n al-`Aqida al-Hamawiyya and al-`Aqida al-Wasitiyya and other books of his, to t
he effect that the hand, foot, shin, and face are litteral attributes of Allah a
nd that He is established upon the Throne with His Essence. It was said to him t
hat were this the case He would necessarily be subject to spatial confinement (a
l-tahayyuz) and divisibility (al-inqisam). He replied: "I do not concede that sp
atial confinement and divisibility are (necessarily) properties of bodies," wher
eupon it was adduced against him (ulzima) that he held Allah's Essence to be sub
ject to spatial confinement. Others considered him a heretic (zindiq) due to his
saying that the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- is not to be sought for
help and the fact that this amounted to diminishing and impeding the establishi
ng of the greatness of the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- .... Others c
onsidered him a dissimulator (munafiq) because of what he said about `Ali:... na
mely, that he had been forsaken everywhere he went, had repeatedly tried to acqu
ire the caliphate and never attained it, fought out of lust for power rather tha
n religion, and said that "he loved authority while `Uthman loved money." He wou
ld say that Abu Bakr had declared Islam in his old age, fully aware of what he s
aid, while `Ali had declared Islam as a boy, and the boy's Islam is not consider
ed sound upon his mere word.... In sum he said ugly things such as these, and it
was said against him that he was a hypocrite, in view of the Prophet's -- Allah
bless and greet him -- saying (to `Ali): "None but a hypocrite has hatred for y
ou."6
Another reason why Ibn Taymiyya was opposed was his criticism of Sufis, particul
arly Shaykh Muhyi al-Din Ibn `Arabi, although he described himself, in his lette
r to Abu al-Fath Nasr al-Munayji, as a former admirer of the Shaykh al-Akbar:
I was one of those who, previously, used to hold the best opinion of Ibn `Arabi
and extol his praise, because of the benefits I saw in his books, such as what h
e said in many of his books, for example: al-Futuhat, al-Kanh, al-Muhkam al-Marb
ut, al-Durra al-Fakhira, Matali` al-Nujum, and other such works.7
According to Ibn `Abd al-Hadi, Ibn Taymiyya also declared himself a follower of
several Sufi orders, among them the Qadiri path of Shaykh `Abd al-Qadir al-Gilan
i.8 In al-Mas'ala al-Tabriziyya Ibn Taymiyya declares: "Labistu al-khirqa al-mub
araka li al-Shaykh `Abd al-Qadir wa bayni wa baynahu ithnan - I wore the blessed
Sufi cloak of `Abd al-Qadir, there being between him and me two shaykhs."9
Further Heresy
Further charges of heresy were brought against Ibn Taymiyya for his assertion th
at a divorce pronounced in innovative fashion does not take effect, against the
consensus of the scholars which stipulated that it does, though innovative. Afte
r spending the years 719-721 in jail, he was jailed again in 726 until his death
two years leater for declaring that one who travels to visit the Prophet commit
s innovation. His burial was attended by about 50,000 people.
His student al-Dhahabi praised him lavishly as "the brilliant shaykh, imam, erud
ite scholar, censor, jurist, mujtahid, and commentator of the Qur'an," but ackno
wledged that Ibn Taymiyya's disparaging manners alienated even his admirers. For
example, the grammarian Abu Hayyan praised Ibn Taymiyya until he found out that
he believed himself a greater expert in the Arabic language than Sibawayh, wher
eupon he disassociated himself from his previous praise. Other former admirers t
urned critics were the qadi al-Zamalkani and al-Dhahabi himself, in whose al-Nas
iha al-Dhahabiyya he addresses Ibn Taymiyya with the words: "When will you stop
criticizing the scholars and finding fault with the people?"
Dr. al-Buti pointed out that although Ibn Taymiyya blamed al-Ghazzali and other
Ash`ari scholars for involving themselves in philosophical or dialectical disput
ations, yet he went much further than most into kalam and philosophy. This is sh
own by his books in kalam and philosophy, most notably by his positions in al-Ra
dd `ala al-Mantiqiyyin ("Against the Logicians") on the "generic beginninglessne
ss" of created matters and Aristotelian causality (al-`illa al-aristiyya).10 Al-
Dhahabi alluded to this in his epistle to Ibn Taymiyya: "When will you stop inve
stigating the poisoned minutiae of philosophical disbelief, so that we have to r
efute them with our minds? You have swallowed the poisons of the philosophers an
d their treatises, not once, but several times!"11
Ibn Hajar al-Haytami on Ibn Taymiyya
Al-Haytami 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 o
f his positions and the mendacity of his sayings. Whoever wishes to pursue this
must read the words of the mujtahid imam Abu al-Hasan (Taqi al-Din) al-Subki, of
his son Taj al-Din Subki, of the Imam al-`Izz ibn Jama`a and others of the Shaf
i`i, Maliki, and Hanafi shaykhs... It must be considered that he is a misguided
and misguiding innovator (mubtadi` dall mudill) and an ignorant who brought evil
(jahilun ghalun) whom Allah treated with His justice. May He protect us from th
e likes of his path, doctrine, and actions!... Know that he has differed from pe
ople on questions about which Taj al-Din Ibn al-Subki and others warned us. Amon
g the things Ibn Taymiyya said which violate the scholarly consensus are:
1. that whoso violates the consensus commits neither disbelief (kufr) nor g
rave transgression (fisq);
2. that our Lord is subject to created events (mahallun li al-hawadith) - g
lorified, exalted, and sanctified is He far above what the depraved ascribe to H
im!
3. that He is complex or made of parts (murakkab), His Entity standing in n
eed similarly to the way the whole stands in need of the parts, elevated is He a
nd sanctified above that!
4. that the Qur'an is created in Allah's Entity (muhdath fi dhatillah), ele
vated is He above that!
5. that the world is of a pre-eternal nature and exists with Allah since pr
e-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 delibe
rately[GH1] (la fa`ilan bi al-ikhtyar), elevated is He above that!12
6. his suggestions of Allah's corporeality, direction, displacement, (al-ji
smiyya 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 wid
e-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),13
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 stat
us before Allah (la jaha lahu) and must not be used as a means (la yutawassalu b
ihi),14
10. and that the undertaking of travel (al-safar) to the Prophet -- Allah bl
ess and greet him -- in order to perform his visitation is a sin, for which it i
s unlawful to shorten the prayers,15 and that it is forbidden to ask for his int
ercession in view of the Day of Need,
11. and that the words (alfaz) of the Torah and the Gospel were not substitu
ted, but their meanings (ma`ani) were.
Some said: "Whoever looks at his books does not attribute to him most of these p
ositions, 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 corporealit
y (jismiyya), dimensionality (muhadhat), and settledness (istiqrar)." That is, i
t may be that at times he used to assert these proofs and that they were consequ
ently attributed to him in particular. But whoever attributed this to him from a
mong the imams of Islam upon whose greatness, leadership, religion, trustworthin
ess, fairness, acceptance, insight, and meticulousness there is agreement - then
they do not say anything except what has been duly established with added preca
utions and repeated inquiry. This is especially true when a Muslim is attributed
a view which necessitates his disbelief, apostasy, misguidance, and execution.
Therefore if it is true of him that he is a disbeliever and an innovator, then A
llah will deal with him with His justice, and other than that He will forgive us
and him.
Imam al-Kawthari on Ibn Taymiyya
Imam Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari stated in strong terms that Ibn Taymiyya's posit
ion on Allah's attributes is tantamount to disbelief and apostasy because it red
uces Allah to a corporeal body. He states in his Maqalat:
In al-Ta'sis fi Radd Asas al-Taqdis ("The Laying of the Foundation: A Refutation
of al-Razi's "The Foundation of Allah's Sanctification") Ibn Taymiyya says: "Al
-`arsh (the throne) in language means al-sarir (elevated seat or couch), so name
d with respect to what is on top of it, just as the roof is so named with respec
t to what is under it. Therefore, if the Qur'an attributes a throne to Allah, it
is then known that this throne is, with respect to Allah, like the elevated sea
t is with respect to other than Allah. This makes it necessarily true that He is
on top of the throne." So then the throne is, for Ibn Taymiyya, Allah's seat (m
aq`ad)- Exalted is He from such a notion!
He also says: "It is well-known that the Book, the Sunna, and the Consensus nowh
ere say that all bodies (ajsam) are created, and nowhere say that Allah Himself
is not a body. None of the imams of the Muslims ever said such a thing. Therefor
e if I also choose not to say it, it does not expel me from religion nor from Sh
ari`a." These words are complete impudence. What did he do with all the verses d
eclaring Allah to be far removed from anything like unto Him? Does he expect tha
t the idiocy that every single idiot can come up with be addressed with a specif
ic text? Is it not enough that Allah the Exalted said: "There is nothing whatsoe
ver like Him" (42:11)? Or does he consider it permissible for someone to say: Al
lah eats this, chews that, and tastes the other thing, just because no text ment
ions the opposite? This is disbelief laid bare and pure anthropomorphism.
In another passage of the same book he says: "You [Ash`aris] say that He is neit
her a body, nor an atom (jawhar), nor spatially bounded (mutahayyiz), and that H
e has no direction, and that He cannot be pointed to as an object of sensory per
ception, and that nothing of Him can be considered distinct from Him. You have a
sserted this on the grounds that Allah is neither divisible nor made of parts an
d that He has neither limit (hadd) nor end (ghaya), with your view thereby to fo
rbid one to say that He has any limit or measure (qadr), or that He even has a d
imension that is unlimited. But how do you allow yourselves to do this without e
vidence from the Book and the Sunna?"16 The reader's intelligence suffices to co
mment on these heretical statements. Can you imagine for an apostate to be more
brazen than this, right in the midst of a Muslim society?
In another place of the same book he says: "It is obligatorily known that Allah
did not mean by the name of "the One" (al-Wahid) the negation of the Attributes.
" He is here alluding to all that entails His "coming" to a place and the like.
He continues: "Nor did He mean by it the negation that He can be perceived with
the senses, nor the denial of limit and dimension and all such interpretations w
hich were innovated by the Jahmiyya and their followers. Negation or denial of t
he above is not found in the Book nor the Sunna." And this is on an equal footin
g with what came before with regard to pure anthropomorphism and plain apostasy.
In another book of his, Muwafaqa al-Ma`qul, which is in the margin of his Minhaj
, Ibn Taymiyya asserts that things occur newly in relation to Allah and that He
has a direction according to two kinds of conjecture.17 And you know, O reader,
what the Imams say concerning him who deliberately and intently establishes that
Allah has a direction, unless his saying such a thing is a slip of the tongue o
r a slip of the pen. Then there is his establishing that the concept of movement
applies to Allah, along with all the others who establish such a thing; his den
ial that there is an eternal sojourn in hellfire has filled creation; and his do
ctrine of "generic beginninglessness" (al-qidam al-naw`i).18
Ibn Taymiyya's Two Tawhids
Also among Ibn Taymiyya's controversies in kalam was his division of tawhid into
two types: tawhid al-rububiyya and tawhid al-uluhiyya, respectively, Oneness of
Lordship and Oneness of Godhead.19 The first, he said, consisted in the acknowl
edgment of Allah as the Creator of all, a belief shared by believers and non-bel
ievers alike. The second was the affirmation of Allah as the one true deity and
only object of worship, a belief exclusive to believers. His natural conclusion
was that "whoever does not know tawhid al-uluhiyya, his knowledge of tawhid al-r
ububiyya is not taken into account because the idolaters also had such knowledge
." He then compared the scholars of kalam to the Arab idol-worshippers who accep
ted tawhid al-rububiyya but ignored tawhid al-uluhiyya. This dialectic was adopt
ed by Ibn Abi al-`Izz in his commentary on al-Tahawi's `Aqida.20
Abu Hamid Ibn Marzuq wrote:
Tawhid al-rububiyya and tawhid al-uluhiyya were invented by Ibn Taymiyya who cla
imed that all Muslims among the mutakallimun worshipped other than Allah due to
their ignorance of tawhid al-uluhiyya; he claimed that the only tawhid they knew
was tawhid al-rububiyya. The latter consists in affirming that Allah is the Cre
ator of all things, as, he says, the polytheists conceded. He then declared all
Muslims to be unbelievers. Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab imitated him in this, and
others imitated Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab. The late erudite scholar al-Sayyid Ah
mad ibn Zayni Dahlan (d. 1304) looked into this matter in a small section of his
treatise al-Durar al-Saniyya fi al-Radd `ala al-Wahhabiyya ("The Resplendent Pe
arls in Refuting the Wahhabis"). So did the savant al-Shaykh Ibrahim al-Samnudi
al-Mansuri (d. 1314) who spoke excellently in his book Sa`ada al-Darayn fi al-Ra
dd `ala al-Firqatayn al-Wahhabiyya wa al-Zahiriyya ("The Bliss of the Two Abodes
in the Refutation of the Two Sects: Wahhabis and Zahiris"). The late erudite sc
holar al-Shaykh Salama al-`Azzami (d. 1376) also wrote valuable words about it i
n his book al-Barahin al-Sati`a fi Radd Ba`d al-Bida` al-Sha'i`a ("The Radiant P
roofs in Refuting Some Widespread Innovations")...
Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal... never said that tawhid consisted in two parts, one bein
g tawhid al-rububiyya and the other tawhid al-uluhiyya. Nor did he ever say that
"whoever does not know tawhid al-uluhiyya, his knowledge of tawhid al-rububiyya
is not taken into account because the idolaters also had such knowledge."... No
ne of the followers of the Followers ... None of the Successors ... None of the
Companions of the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- ever said that tawhid
consisted in two parts, one being tawhid al-rububiyya and the other tawhid al-ul
uhiyya, nor did any of them ever say that "whoever does not know tawhid al-uluhi
yya, his knowledge of tawhid al-rububiyya is not taken into account because the
idolaters also had such knowledge."... Nowhere in the extensive Sunna of the Pro
phet -- Allah bless and greet him -- ... is it related that the Prophet -- Allah
bless and greet him -- ever said or ever taught his Companions that tawhid cons
ists in two parts, one being tawhid al-rububiyya and the other tawhid al-uluhiyy
a, nor that "whoever does not know tawhid al-uluhiyya, his knowledge of tawhid a
l-rububiyya is not taken into account because the idolaters also had such knowle
dge." If mankind and jinn joined together to establish that the Prophet -- Allah
bless and greet him -- ever said such a thing, even with an inauthentic chain o
f transmission, they would not succeed.
The books of the Sunna of the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- overflow w
ith the fact that the call of the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- to the
people unto Allah was in order that they witness that there is no God except Al
lah alone and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and in order that they re
pudiate idol-worship. One of the most famous illustrations of this is the narrat
ion of Mu`adh ibn Jabal when the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- sent hi
m to Yemen and said to him: "Invite them to the testimony that there is no God b
ut Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah...." And it is narrated in five
of the six books of authentic traditions, and Ibn Hibban declared it sound, that
a beduin Arab reported the sighting of the new moon to the Prophet -- Allah ble
ss and greet him -- and the latter ordered the people to fast without asking thi
s man other than to confirm his testimony of faith. According to this drivel of
Ibn Taymiyya, it would have been necessary for the Prophet -- Allah bless and gr
eet him -- to call all people to the tawhid al-uluhiyya of which they were ignor
ant - since tawhid al-rububiyya they knew already - and he should have said to M
u`adh: "Invite them to tawhid al-uluhiyya"; and he should have asked the beduin
who had sighted the new moon of Ramadan: "Do you know tawhid al-uluhiyya?"
Finally, in His precious Book which falsehood cannot approach whether from the f
ront or from the back, Allah never ordered tawhid al-uluhiyya to His servants, n
or did He ever say that "whoever does not know this tawhid, his knowledge of taw
hid al-rububiyya is not taken into account."21<
Ibn Taymiyya's method in debate was to provide a barrage of quotes and citations
in support of his positions. In the process he often mentioned reports or state
d positions which, upon closer examination, are dubious either from the viewpoin
t of transmission or from that of doctrine. For example:
1. His report of Ibn Batta's narration whereby Hammad ibn Zayd was asked by
a man: "Our Lord descends to the heaven of the earth - does that mean that he r
emoves Himself from one place to another place? (yatahawwalu min makan ila makan
?)" Hammad replied: "He Himself is in His place, and He comes near His creation
in the way that He likes (huwa fi makanihi yaqrabu min khalqihi kayfa sha')."22
2. His report from Ishaq ibn Rahawayh's words to the Emir `Abd Allah ibn Ta
hir: "He is able to descend without the Throne being vacant of Him" (yaqdiru an
yanzila min ghayri an yakhlua al-`arshu minhu).23
3. His report from Abu `Umar al-Talmanki's book al-Wusul ila Ma`rifa al-Usu
l: "Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama`a are in agreement (muttafiqun) that Allah establish
ed Himself in person (bi dhatihi) on the Throne."24 Note that Ibn Taymiyya quote
s inaccurately, as al-Dhahabi quotes from the same book the following passage: "
The Muslims of Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama`a have reached consensus (ajma`[u]) that
Allah is above the heavens in person (bi dhatihi) and is established over His Th
rone in the mode that He pleases (kayfa sha')."25 Both assertions are of course
false as no such consensus exists, and the position of Ahl al-Sunna is that whoe
ver attributes direction to Allah commits apostasy.
4. His statements: "Allah's elevation over the throne is literal, and the s
ervant's elevation over the ship is literal" (lillahi ta`ala istiwa'un `ala `ars
hihi haqiqatan wa li al-`abdi istiwa'un `ala al-fulki haqiqatan).26 "Allah is wi
th us literally, and He is above His throne literally (Allahu ma`ana haqiqatan w
a huwa fawqa al-`arshi haqiqatan). . . . Allah is with His creation literally an
d He is above His Throne literally (Allahu ma`a khalqihi haqiqatan wa huwa fawqa
al-`arshi haqiqatan)."27
The above statements corroborate Ibn Hajar's reports whereby he once climbed dow
n the minbar in purported illustration of Allah's descent to the nearest heaven.
The writings and notoriety of Ibn Taymiyya were by and large forgotten until the
"Salafi" movement revived them through the publishing efforts of the Wahabi Gul
f states from the 1930s to our day.
SOURCES:
al-Dhahabi, Tadhkira al-Huffaz 4:1496 #1177.
Ibn Kathir, al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya 14:5, 14:42-48.
Ibn Hajar, al-Durar al-Kamina 1:144-160 #409.
al-Haytami, Fatawa Hadithiyya.
al-Kawthari, Maqalat.
NOTES
1Cf. Hajji Khalifa, Kashf al-Zunun (1:838).
2Cited in al-Sakhawi, al-I`lan (p. 78).
3Published in Cairo at Dar Ihya' al-Kutub al-`Arabiyya, 1931.
4The names of the scholars who counter-signed Ibn Taymiyya's deposition are list
ed by al-Kawthari in his notes to Ibn al-Subki's al-Sayf al-Saqil (p. 95-96).
5In Ibn Hajar's al-Durar al-Kamina (1:153-155).
6Narrated from `Ali by Muslim, al-Tirmidhi, al-Nasa'i, and Ahmad.
7Ibn Taymiyya, Tawhid al-Rububiyya in Majmu`a al-Fatawa (2:464-465).
8See George Makdisi, "L'isnad initiatique soufi de Muwaffaq ad-Din ibn Qudama,"
in Cahiers de l'Herne: Louis Massignon (Paris: Editions de l'Herne, 1970) p. 88-
96; "Ibn Taimiya: A Sufi of the Qadiriya Order," in American Journal of Arabic S
tudies I (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1974) p. 118-129; "The Hanbali School and Sufism,"
in Boletin de la Asociacion Espanola de Orientalistas 15 (Madrid, 1979) p. 115-
126. Based on Ibn `Abd al-Hadi, Bad' al-`Ilqa bi Labs al-Khirqa, ms. al-Hadi, Pr
inceton Library Arabic Collection, fos 154a, 169b, 171b-172a; and Damascus Unive
rsity, copy of original Arabic manuscript, 985H.; also mentioned in al-Talyani,
manuscript Chester Beatty 3296 (8) in Dublin, fo 67a.
9Ms. Damascus, Zahiriyya #1186 H.
10Cf. al-Buti, al-Salafiyya (p. 164-175). See our translation of Ibn Khafif's `A
qida §41 ("Things do not act of their own nature...") and note.
11Al-Dhahabi, al-Nasiha al-Dhahabiyya, in the margin of his Bayan Zaghl al-`Ilm
wa al-Talab, ed. al-Kawthari (Damascus: Qudsi, 1928-1929); also in Shaykh al-Isl
am Ibn Taymiyya, Siratuhu wa Akhbaruhu `inda al-Mu'arrikhin, ed. Salah al-Din al
-Munajjid (Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-`Arabi, 1976) p. 11-14. See n. 1715.
12This is mentioned about Ibn Taymiyya also by Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Bari (1959 e
d. 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 Tre
atise Concerning the Remaining Age of the World") ed. al-Wasabi al-Mathani. (San
`a': Maktaba Dar al-Quds, 1992).
13This doctrine was refuted by Muhammad ibn Isma`il al-San`ani in his Raf` al-As
tar li-Ibtal Adilla al-Qa'ilin bi-Fana al-Nar ("Exposing the Nullity of the Proo
fs of Those Who Claim That the Fire Shall Pass Away"), ed. Albani (Beirut: al-Ma
ktab al-Islami, 1984).
14This is explicitly contradicted by the vast majority of scholars, including Ib
n Taymiyya's own students Ibn al-Qayyim (cf. al-Nuniyya, section on tawassul) an
d al-Dhahabi, as well as al-Shawkani and countless others. See the volume on taw
assul in Shaykh Hisham Kabbani's Encyclopedia of Islamic Doctrine.
15Ibn Hajar says in Fath al-Bari about Ibn Taymiyya's prohibition to travel in o
rder to visit the Prophet: "This is one of the ugliest matters ever reported fro
m 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 Ib
n Taymiyya to say."
16Ibn Taymiyya, al-Ta'sis (1:101). Compare to Imam Malik's statement: "He is nei
ther ascribed a limit nor likened with anything" (lâ yuhaddad wa lâ yushabbah). Ibn al
-`Arabi said after citing it in Ahkam al-Qur'an (4:1740): "This is a pinnacle of
tawhîd in which no Muslim preceded Malik."
17Ibn Taymiyya, Muwafaqa al-Ma`qul on the margins of Minhaj al-Sunna (2:75, 1:26
4, 2:13, 2:26). The Muwafaqa was republished under the title Dar' Ta`arud al-`Aq
li wa al-Naql.
18Al-Kawthari, Maqalat (p. 350-353).
19In his Fatawa (1:219, 2:275); Minhaj al-Sunna (2: 62); Risala Ahl al-Suffa (p.
34).
20But by no other commentator of the same text. See the commentaries on the Taha
wiyya by Hasan al-Busnawi (d. 1024), al-Maydani, al-Bajuri, al-Saqqaf, and other
s. Al-Busnawi does follow Ibn Abi al-`Izz in other matters.
21Ibn Marzuq, Bara'a al-Ash`ariyyin Min `Aqa'id al-Mukhalifin (1:89, 1:94f.) Cha
pter reprinted in Ibn Marzuq, al-Tawassul bi al-Nabi (s) wa al-Salihin (Istanbul
: Hakikat Kitabevi, 1993) p. 25-101. Cf. Shaykh Hasan `Ali al-Saqqaf's al-Tandid
bi man `Addada al-Tawhid ("Punishment of Him Who Counts Several Tawhîds").
22Ibn Taymiyya, Majmu`a al-Fatawa (5:376). Narrated with its chain by al-Dhahabi
in the Siyar (8:213, chapter of Bishr ibn al-Siriy).
23Ibn Taymiyya, Majmu`a al-Fatawa (5:376-377). Also narrated by al-Dhahabi with
a sound chain according to al-Albani in Mukhtasar al-`Uluw (p. 192 #235). Howeve
r, al-Bayhaqi in al-Asma' wa al-Sifat (al-Asma' wa al-Sifat, ed. Kawthari p. 451
-452; al-Asma' wa al-Sifat, Hashidi ed. 2:375-377 #950-953) narrates the reports
of Ishaq's encounter with the Emir `Abd Allah ibn Tahir with five chains (three
of them sound according to al-Hashidi), none of which mentioning the words "wit
hout the Throne being vacant of Him." This apparent interpolation is nevertheles
s the foundation of Ibn Taymiyya's position in Sharh Hadith al-Nuzul (p. 42-59)
that Allah descends in person yet remains above the Throne in person. That posit
ion has been characterized by Imam Abu Zahra as a dual assertion of Allah's abov
eness and belowness on the part of Ibn Taymiyya (see n. 456 and 711), although s
trenuously denied by Ibn Taymiyya himself in Minhaj al-Sunna (2:248) and by al-A
lbani who defends the latter against Abu Zahra's conclusion in his introduction
to Mukhtasar al-`Uluw (p. 40-41, 192-193).
24Ibid. (5:189).
25Al-Dhahabi, Mukhtasar al-`Uluw (p. 264 #321). Al-Dhahabi criticizes these asse
rtions: see our May 1999 post entitled "Allah is now as He ever was," toward the
end.
26Ibn Taymiyya, Majmu`a al-Fatawa (5:199)
27Ibid. (5:103).
Allah's Blessings and Peace on the Prophet, his Family, and all his Companions.