1.If it is said to you the following arguements.
1.Ibn taymiyyah was never viewed or held the title of "Shaykhul-Islam"
2. He was a contraversial figure
3. he is not among the relied upon scholars
then the reply to show the baselessness of these claims is what follows bi ithnillah
Hafidh Ibn Abd al-Hadi al-Maqdisi al-Hanbali, the Imam and Shaykh of the Hanabilah, d.744/1345, the following about Taqi
al-Din Ibn Taymiyyah:
"Huwa al-Shaykh, al-Imam al-Rabbani, Imam al-A'immah, wa-Mufti al-Ummah,
wa-Bahr al-'Ulum, Sayyid al-Huffadh, wa-Faris al-Ma'ani wal-Alfaz, Farid al-'Asr, Wahid al-Dahr, Shaykh al-Islam, Barakat
al-Anam, 'Allamat al-Zaman, wa-Tarjuman al-Qur'an, 'Ilm al-Zuhhad, wa-Awhad al-'Ibad, Qami' al-Mubtadi'in, wa-Akhir al-Mujtahidin,
Taqi al-Din.." "..sahib al-tasanif allati lam yasbaq ila mithliha wa-la yalhaq fi shakliha Tawhidan aw Tafsiran wa-Ikhlasan
wa-Fiqhan wa-Hadithan wa-Lughatan wa-Nahwan, wa-bi Jami' al-'Ulum kutubuhu tafiha bi-dhalik.."
Taj al-Din Ibn
Bardas al-Ba'albaki al-Hanbali says about his Shaykh al-Islam:
".. al-Shaykh al-Imam, al-'Allama,
Shaykh al-Islam, Mufti al-Anam, Baqiyat al-Salaf al-Kiram, al-'Alim al-Rabbani, wa-Hibr al-Nurani, Matharu al-Athar al-Mursalin,
wa-Kashif al-Haqa'iq al-Din, Taqi al-Din.. Qaddasa Allahu ruhahu"
Ibn al-Muhibb al-Samit, the Hafidh and 'Abid
who died in 788 H, said in his Tarjama of the Shaykh al-Islam on Hadith-transmitters:
"Shaykhuna al-Imam,
al-Rabbani, Shaykh al-Islam, Imam al-A'immat al-A'lam, Bahr al-'Ulum wal-Ma'arif.."
Imam Taqi al-Din Ibn Rafi'
ash-Shafi'ee, d.774, a student of Ibn al-Qayyim and al-Mizzi, said about Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyyah:
"al-Shaykh,
al-Imam, al-'Alim, al-Awhad, al-Hibr al-Kabir, Shaykh al-'Ulama, Barakat al-Anam, Kanz al-Mustafidin, al-Qudwat, al-'Umdat,
al-Hafidh Taqi al-Din.."
Imam and Shaykh al-Biqa'i, Shihab al-Din al-Shafi'i, who said:
"..Shaykh
al-Islam, Mufti al-Anam, ahad al-A'immah al-A'lam, Farid al-Dahr, wa-Mujtahid al-'Asr, Baqiyat al-Salaf, wa-Qudwat al-Khalaf.."
al-Imam
Ibn al-Muhandis, the Muhaddith and Faqih of the Hanafiyyah, d.733/1332:
"..Shaykhuna al-Imam, al-'Allama,
al-Hujjah, al-Hafidh, al-Qudwat al-Zahid al-Wara', Shaykh al-Islam, Qudwat al-Anam, Mufti al-Sham, Awhad al-'Asr, Farid al-Dahr,
Taqi al-Din.."
Also the wellknown Qadi of the Hanafiyyah, and their Imam in their time, and questioner of Taqi
al-Din Ibn Taymiyyah in his trial on his I'tiqad, but who afterwards made clearly known that he was with the Shaykh al-Islam,
and not against him, the Shaykh al-Imam Safi al-Din Abu Abdallah Ibn al-Hariri, d.728/1328, who said:
"in
lam yakun Ibn Taymiyyah Shaykh al-Islam fa-man?" and another time he was asked, "a-tahabb al-Shaykh Taqi al-Din?" on which
he anwsered: "Yes! wa-Allahi la-qad ahbabtu"
Imam Ibn al-Sayrafi, Nasir al-Din Abu'l-Ma'ali, d.737, the following
unique words in praising and making Ta'dil and Tafdil of the Shaykh al-Islam:
"..Sayyidna, al-Shaykh,
al-Imam, al-'Allama, al-Sadr al-Kabir al-Kamil, al-Qudwat, al-Hafidh, al-Zahid, al-'Abid al-Wara', Shaykh al-Islam, Mufti
al-Farq, Hujjat al-Madhab, Muqtada al-Tawa'if, Lisan al-Shari'ah, Mujtahid al-'Asr, Wahid al-Dahr, Imam al-A'immah, Taqi al-Din..
a'ada Allah 'alayna min Barakatahu"
The same and similar praises can be found from al-Haafidh Ibn Hajr, Haafidh Ibn Rajb, al-Haafidh
al-Mizzi, al-Haafidh al-Iraaqi, al-Haafidh Ibnul-Mulaqin, al-Haafidh Ibn Katheer, Shamsu-deen adh-Dhahabee, Shaykhul-Islam
Ibnul-Qayyim, Haafidh Ibnu-Wazeer, al-Imaam Shaykhul-Islam as-Suyootee, Haafidh as-Sakhawee, al-Imaam al-Muhadith Mulla Ali
al-Qari and over 100 other mashaikh of Islam during and after his time shortly after his death, and the rest of the hundreds
of Imaams who said similar about him.
al-haafidh al-Imaam Ibn Abdul-Barr as-Subkee says "By Allah no one hates ibn Taymiyyah
except for an ignoramous or the possessor of desires which have diverted him from the truth after he has come to know it."
as
for the reality of Taqi-u-Deen, A real relied upon Alim al-haafidh Ibn Hajr al-ASQALAANI says
"The
acclaim of Taqi-u-Deen is more renown than that of the Sun and titling him Shaykhul-slam of his era remains until our time
upon the virtuous tongues. It (his being Shaykhul-Islam) will continue tomorrow just as it was yesterday. No one refutes
this but a person who is ignorant of his prestige or one who turns away from justice"
Haafidh al-Mizzee says
"I have not seen the likes of him and his own eye has not seen the likes of himself. I have not seen one who was
more knowledgeable than he of the book of ALlah and theSunnah of His messenger, nor one who followed them more closely"
al-Imaam
Alamaat al-Haafidh Ibn Rajab says
He is al-Imaam, al-Faqeeh, alMujtaid, al-Muhadith, al-Haafidh, al-Muffasser,
az-Zaahid, Taqi-u-Deen Abu Abbass, Shaykhul-Islam, the most knowledgeable of the knowledgeable. It is not possible to exxagerate
his renown when he is mentioned and his fame does not require us to write a lengthy tract on him. He was unique in his time
with respect to understadning he Quraan and knowledge of the realities of faith"
al-Haafidh as-Suyootee says
Shaykhul-Islam, al-Haafidh, al-Faqeeh, al-Mujtahid, the distinguished Mufasser, the rarity of his time, the
Alim of the Ascetics
This is the reality of him and these are the ulema who did not allow themselevs to get
poisoned by the want of fame for he acheived that while not asking, and there are numerous matters concerning the ulema who
fall into this rejection of their brothers due to the level of knowledge tey achieve that they themselves have not nor can
they reach and a level of taqwa and zuhd that they do not reach by the qadr of Allah.
That is why al-Haafidh al-Baazzar
said
"You would not see a scholar opposing him, dissuading him, filled with hatred for him, except that
he was the most greedy of them in gathering worldy goods, the most cunning of them in aquiring them, the most ostentatious
of them, the most desirous of reputation, and the most prolific of them in having lies on his tongue"
2. If the following is what is brought to your attention
"..Hanafi scholar `Ala' al-Din al-Bukhari issued a fatwa whereby anyone who called Ibn Taymiyya
Shaykh al-Islam commited disbelief."
Then the reply to this and the most befitting ruling concerning Ibn Taymiyyah against the creation just as Haafidh al-Bazzar
described is what came from the Imaam of al-Ahnaaf
al-Imaamul-Hanafiyyah Badru-Deen al-Aiynee
"Whosoever says Ibn Taymiyyah is a kaafir, then he himself
in reality is a kaafir, and the one who accuses him of of heresy is himself a heretic. How is this possible when his works
are widely available and there is no hint of deviation of dissension contained therin"
Raddul-Waafir (245)
3. If it is said to you or brought to your attention that he (Ibn Taymiyyah) has been found to be heretical
and has repented with witnesses and they bring you what Ibn Hajar says in his al-Durar al-Kamina then the reply
is this
It is Ibn Wakil who testified to this lie as any historian after the Mihan-events of Ibn Taymiyyah knows, and as is AUTHENTICALLY
REPORTED:
-The CONTEMPORARY Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Abd al-Hadi (d.744/1343), reported this in his Uqud al-Durriyyah
p.204 (see ed. Beirut 1938, by Muhammad Hamid al-Fiqi);
-And refer also to Majmu Fatawa ed. Beirut 1977, in which
is stated by a reliable chain through Sharaf al-Din Ibn Taymiyyah, the brother of Shaykh al-Islam, said that Sadr al-Din Ibn
al-Wakil (d.716) spread the lie that Ibn Taymiyyah recanted and claimed that the Shaykh al-Islam became 'a Shafi'i in theology',
i.e. an Ash'ari! Propagating this in the lifetime of Ibn Taymiyyah, the latter knowing this, said:
"I know that people
have recently invented lies against me, as they have spread lies about me before on more than one occasion",
refer
to Ibn Abd al-Hadi's Uqud and Ibn Taymiyyah's own memoirs!
Ibn Wakil claimed this by way of using Ibn Taymiyyah's
ambiguous (!?!) saying,
"No doubt, people dispute among themselves, this one saying, 'I am a Hanbali,'that one, 'I
am an Ash'ari,'and then there runs among them division, strife and dissension over matters the truth of which they do not
understand"!!!!
Using this statement and other words as evidence for claiming that he said "I'm an Ash'ari"?!
al-Haafidh,
Shams al-Din al-Dhahabi said about 'Aqeedatu-Wasitiyyah, written by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah:
"They came in agreement
that this (i.e. al-Wasitiyyah) is the belief of the Salaf and is right"
[See Majmu' Rasa'il al-Kubra p.407-413, the
Munazarah al-Wasitiyyah in the Riwayah of al-Hafidh al-Birzali]
And the same has been reported from al-hafidh al-Dhahabi
by the erudite Shaykh of the Hanbalis, al-Karmi, in his Kawakib al-Duriyyah p. 173 about al-'Aqidah al-Hamawiyyah. See also
what he says about Shaykh al-Islam's 'Aqidah in p. 230 [in al-Nasiha].
So what so ever is found in these two Creeds,
then the Hafidh al-Dhahabi did not reject it - rather he endorsed this by the saying of the people who assembled at the Munazarah
about 'Aqidat al-Wasitiyyah, such as the Shaykhs, Qadis and others of the different Madhahib.
and all of this that Ibn Hajr reported is only due to the miscontruence of In Taymiyya's statement when he said this "I will make clear that what I have stated is the position of the Salaf and the leading scholars among the followers
of al-Shafi'i. I will cite the doctrine of al-Ash'ari and the leaing scholars among his disciples, which will refute the position
of these opponents. Every Shafi'i will gain a victory; and so will everyone who advocates that position of al-Ash'ari which
is in agreement with the doctrine of the Salaf,"
(authentically reported by two asanid, by way of Sharaf al-Din and
Ibn Abd al-Hadi (see their biographies in Ibn Rajab, Dhayl).
4. If you come across or are bombarded with the accusations that Ibn taymiyyah was convicted of heresy, then
oh my brothers from ahlu-sunnah, reply with this
Yes, the ulema who had fell into the deviated tendencies of asharism and even the mutassawifa had qurelled with Ibn Taymiyyah
and tried to convict him with heresey, yet to much a surprise for them the reality was to their disadvantage. When these asharis
revolved and gathered around In Taymiyyah's Fatwa al-Hamawiyyah and the creed laid in this risalah, they took it to the shariah
courts. Yet, by historical precedent none of the ulema in the shariah courts ever commented that it (his risala) had any hint
or points of heresy (of tasbeeh and tajseem as these were the charges made against him made by asharis) and that these ulema
agreed that what was said in his Hamawiyyah was the actual creed of the salaf. So much to the dismay of the asharis, this
was a victory for Allah's religion against His distorters and the asharis were left being forsook by ALlah in their vein attempt
to accuse him of heresy.
Yet again they did the same when Ibn Taymiyyah wrote a creed that a man from Wasit wanted him to compile for him
which came to be commonly known as "Aqeedatu-Waasitiyyah" by which the asharis again made charges against him for this and
brought it to the shariah courts. And yet again the Ulema of the courts and officials did not see any point of deviation nor
could they convict him with what the asharis charged him and agreed that what was contained therein was the creed of the salaf
of this nation. So the asharis left in dismay once again
5. If it is brought to you by such people the words statements of both Shaykhul-Islam Taqi-u-Deen as-Subki
and his son Tajj-u-Deen as-Subki then the reply is this
The mubtadiah have always greatly accepted both Subkis, may Allah preserve them and forgive them
As for Taqi-u-Deen
as-Subki, Shaykhul-Islam, al-Haafidh adh-Dhahabee wrote to him censoring him for what he has written and his false claims.
Taqi-u-Deen as-Subki replied to him saying
"As for what you say with regard to the Shaykh, Taqi-u-Deen
(Ibn Taymiyyah), then I am convinced of the great scope , the ocean like vastness of his knowledge of the transmitted and
intellectual sciences, his extreme intellegience, his ijtihaad and his achievments in that which surpasses description. I
have always held this opinion. Personally,his status in my eye is greater and more esteemed for his asceticism, piety, religiosity,
his aiding of the truth and remaining firm upon it for the sake fo Allah, alone, his adherence to the path of the salaf amd
his great dependence upon and use of it, and his strangeness of his time , in fact anytime" reported in ad-Durar al-Kaaminah
of Ibn Hajr under the biography of Ibn Taymiyyah and also in Dhail Tabaqaat al-Hanaabilah of Ibn Rajb.
As for Taaju-Deen
as-Subki, rahmatullahi alai, then he was an extremists and highly sectarian and this is not from me
Al-Haafidh as-Sakhawee
says commenting on Tajj-u-Deens statement
"Did any of the Hanbalis raise their heads (meaning become
well known)". He (Sakhawee) said "This is from the strangest of affairs and the most sectarian of attitudes and this
is why the Qaadee of our time, and Shaykh of the Madhaab, al-Izz al-Kanaanee wrote under this statement, "And Likewise, Allah
did not raise the heads of the mu'attilah, and then he said about Taaju-Deen as-Subki "He is a man having few manners, lack
of scholarly integrity and ignorant of ahlu-sunnah and their ranks" (as-Sakhawee's "Al-I'laan Bi Tawbeekh Limaan Dhamma
at-Tareekh)
6. If it is stated to you that "Oh but Ibn Taymiyyah was such a contraversial figure, probably the most" then
the reply is
So was Bukharee, who near the end of his life, was convicted by a majority of the ulema that he wasa jahmee and some
even made takfeer, all of which was lead by the Imam of Jarh wa T'adeel of his time Muhamamd Bi Yahya adh-Dhuhlee. And the
mihna that happened with Bukharee was greater and much more severe and was far more spread throughout he Islamic world than
that of Ibn taymiyyah for his fitnah was in the mere city of Damascus
And if it is said to you after this that "Bukharees matter was not proved in court and Ibn taymiyyah's was" then the
reply back is that Ahmad ibn Hanbal's mihna was even greater and was also in court and the caliph of Islam himself was against
him. The muslim world was divided between his camp and that of the jahmiyyah, the fathers of modern day ashaa'irah.
7. If it is said to you that "Ibn Taymiyyah was a qadiri sufi" then the reply is
Yes, he does have an ijaaza extending from Shaykh Abdul-Qadir al-Jilaanee and then to Ibnul-Qudamaah al-Maqdisee and
then through someone elseand then IBn Taymiyyah himself. This ijazah has no relation at all nor does it hint to a connection
of tassawuf that is in the minds of the mutassawifa (sufis). He is not a qubooree (grave worshipper) lik most, if not, all
qadiris and most other tariqas are upon.
8. If it is brought to your attention that Imaam adh-Dhahabee afterwards in his life warned against or showed oppositionto
Ibn Taymiyyah then the following is relevent to know
On the book ‘Naseehah adh-Dhahabiyyah’:
A book ascribed to adh-Dhahabee in which he launches a severe
attack on ibn Taymiyyah, but in reality was not written by him, but falsely ascribed to him, this due to many reasons:
-
No one who is familiar with the works of adh-Dhahabee mentioned this as one of his works.
- Adh-Dhahabee remained
the student of ibn Taymiyyah until the latters death.
- All of the sayings of adh-Dhahabee in the books that are affirmed
to be from him, to do with ibn Taymiyyah, revolve around praise and respect of him. (A glimpse of these has preceded).
-
This letter is written in the handwriting of ibn Qaadee ash-Shuhba, an enemy of ibn Taymiyyah.
We have not seen one
who ascribes this book to adh-Dhahabee after Qaadee ash-Shuhba except for his contemporary, al-Haafidh as-Sakhaawee, may Allaah
have mercy on him, who merely followed him. [From the book, ‘at-Tawdeeh al-Jallee fee ar-Radd alaa Naseeha adh-Dhahabiyyah
al-Manhula alaa al-Imaam adh-Dhahabee’ (pp85-86) by Shaykh Muhammad bin Ibraaheem ash-Shaybaanee, with summary]
9. If it is brought to your attention that Haafidh Ibn Hajr al-Asqalaanee had taken a view opposing In Taymiyyah
then the reply is
This is incorrect. why?
It is pertinent to know that Ibn Hajr compiled both praises and criticisms of Ibn Taymiyya and he first began with the
criticisms and then began to mention the praises of Ibn Taymiyyah. Here is a short investigation into this matter
Ibn Hajr al-Asqalaanee also said, "I read in the handwriting of al-Haafidh Silaah ad-Deen al-Balaa`ee
in endorsement of the shaykh of our shaykhs al-Haafidh Bahaa ad-Deen Abdullaah bin Muhammad bin Khaleel: ‘Our shaykh
and master and Imaam in matters that are between Allaah and us, the Shaykh of research (tahqeeq), traversing, with those that
followed him, the best way. Possessor of many excellent qualities and radiant proofs that all the nations have acknowledged
are beyond enumeration. May Allaah make us benefit from his outstanding knowledge, and make us benefit from him in this life
and the hereafter. He is the Shaykh, the Imaam, the Aalim who understands the affairs, the deeply devoted, the ocean (of knowledge),
the pole of light, the Imaam of Imaams, the blessing to the Muslim nation, the sign of the scholars, the inheritor of the
Prophets, the last of the Mujtahids, unique amongst the scholars of the Religion - Shaykh al-Islaam, proof of the scholars,
the example for the creatures, proof for the learned ones, effacer of the innovators, sword of the disputers, ocean of knowledge,
beneficial treasure, the interpreter of the Qur`aan, the amazement of the times, unique in this age and others. Indeed Taqi
ad-Deen (ibn Taymiyyah) is the Imaam of the Muslims, the proof of Allaah against the creation, the joiner of the righteous,
the one who is like those who have preceded, the mufti of the sect, helper of the truth, the sign of guidance, the pillar
of the Huffaadh, Knight of the meanings of words, cornerstone of the Sharee`ah, originator of new sciences Abu al-Abbaas ibn
Taymiyyah."
[note: From this book taken on it’s own it is very difficult to discern ibn Hajr’s own
opinion on ibn Taymiyyah was. For all he did was to gather all the material he could find on the Shaykh and then start off
the account with all those scholars who wrote against him, and end with all those scholars who supported him. It would seem
likely that ibn Hajr’s own stance would be in line with those whom he finished off his biography with, due to their
being his Shaykhs. This reasoning is supported with the next quote from ibn Hajr. wallahualim
Ibn Hajr said, "…those of his stances that were rejected from him were not said by him due to mere whims and desires and neither
did he obstinately and deliberately persist in them after the evidence was established against him. Here are his works overflowing
with refutations of those who held to tajseem yet despite this he is a man who makes mistakes and is also correct. So that
which he is correct in – and that is the majority – is to benefited from and Allaah’s Mercy should
be sought for him due to it, and that which he is incorrect in should not be blindly followed. Indeed he is excused for his
mistakes because he is one of the Imaams of his time and it has been witnessed that he fulfilled the conditions of ijtihaad…
From the astonishing qualities of this man was that he was the strongest amongst men against the People of Innovation, the
Rawaafidah, and the Hululiyyah, and the Ittihaadiyyah, and his works on this are many and famous, and his fataawaa on them
cannot be counted, so how the eyes of these innovators must have found joy when they heard those who declared him to be a
kaafir! And how delighted they must have been when they saw those who did not declare him to be a kaafir in turn being labelled
kaafir! It is obligatory upon the one who has donned the robe of knowledge and possesses intelligence that he consider the
words of a man based upon his well-known books or from the tongues of those who are trusted to accurately convey his words
– then to isolate from all of this what is rejected and warn from them with the intention of giving sincere advice and
to praise him for his excellent qualities and for what he was correct in as is the way of the scholars.
If there were
no virtues of Shaykh Taqi ad-Deen except for his famous student Shaykh Shams ad-Deen ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, writer of
many works, from which both his opponents and supporters benefited from then this would be a sufficient indication of his
(ibn Taymiyyah’s) great position. And how could it be otherwise when the Shaafi`ee Imaams and others, not to speak of
the Hanbalees, of his time testified to his prominence in the (Islamic) sciences…" [From Ibn Hajr’s endorsement
of ‘Radd al-Waafir’ contained at the end of the book.]
These statements, particualrly the last, show both praise and a small portion of reality (criticism) of Ibn Taymiyyah
and is the best of speech concerning him and is the position of ahlu-sunnah.
and Allah is al-Ghufoor ar-Raheem
