Modern 'Ash'arDZ Tampering with the 'Aqeedah Works of the MǙlikDZ Scholars

_________________________________________________________________________

Studies in Contemporary 'Ash'arŝ Polemics Vol.4

Shaykh Mashhźr Hasan ńl SalmŅn (hafidhahullŅh)

ON MODERN 'ASH'ARŜ TAMPERING WITH THE 'AQEEDAH WORKS OF THE MńLIKŜ SCHOLARS1
WITH A MENTION OF AL-KAWTHARŜ'S DEFAMATION OF IBN TAYMIYYAH AND IBN UL-QAYYIM (rahimahumullŅh)

__________________________________
If only the matter was limited to delving into 'Ilm ul-KalĆm and the argumentation of those who have been censured! Yet it has even led to many of the later verifiers to play about with the books of the 'Ulama of the past in order to support the bĆtil that they had authored. It is well known that: "whoever believes in a madhhab then that leads him to become a defence lawyer for the madhhab and to expunge verses and ahĆdeeth from the meanings which AllĆh and His Messenger intended." expunging the statements from the intent of the author and can even lead to omission and tampering! Speech
Abridged distortion is Muhammad 'AbdullŅh position MasŅ'il ul-'Aqeedah allatŝ to discuss on suchfrom Abź 'AbdullŅhplentiful and theal-HammŅdŝ, that we are meantQarrarahŅ al- here does not
1

2

Rather, this can also lead to dishonesty in transmission and

Aimmat ul-MŅlikiyyah [Creedal issues that the MŅlikŝ ImŅms Affirmed]. Intro. Shaykh Abź 'Ubaydah Mashhźr

permit

bin Hasan ńl SalmŅn, (AmmŅn, Jordan: DŅr ul-Athariyyah, 1429 AH/2008 CE), p.5-23.Translatedby'AbdulHaq

to expound fully, I ibnKofiibnKwesial-Ashantŝ.
2

mean (that we are studying) what is related to the support of the past

Al-'AllŅmah Abŝ Muhammad Badŝ'uddeen ar-RŅshidŝ as-Sindŝ, at-TawŅm al-Mar'ashah fŝ BayŅn TahreefŅt Ahl MĆlikĩ ur-Ra'y al-Mudhishah,p.126.

ImĆms for the 'aqeedah and manhaj of the Salaf us-SĆliheen. However, I will give some ______________________________________________________________________________ examples so 1 asSalafiManhajthe noble reader to decide. © to leave 2009

Modern 'Ash'arDZ Tampering with the 'Aqeedah Works of the MǙlikDZ Scholars

_________________________________________________________________________

FIRST EXAMPLE: OMISSION IS TREACHERY
The respected Shaykh, Dr 'Abdul-Muhsin bin Muhammad ar-Rayyis, may AllĆh preserve and safeguard him, conducted a doctorate at ImĆm Muhammad bin Saud Islamic University in Riyadh entitled Usşl ul-Fiqh 'inda al-QĆdĩ 'AbdulWahhĆb: Jam'an wa Tawtheeqan wa DirĆsatan [Legal Theory According to QĆdĩ 'AbdulWahhĆb: A Compilation, Verification and Study]. It was published by DĆr ul-Buhşth li'd-DirĆsĆt al-IslĆmiyyah wa IhyĆ at-TurĆth in Dubai in 1424 AH/2003 CE in one large volume of 763 pages as part of the Silsilat ud-DirĆsĆt il-Usşliyyah, no.14. Dr ar-Rayyis (hafidhahullĆh) dedicated the third section of the study to 'The Academic Life of al-QĆdĩ 'AbdulWahhĆb (rahimahullĆh)' and within it included a case study of his 'aqeedah on page 11 of his actual doctoral thesis, yet it was omitted from the published version on page 26 and mentioned within the biography of al-QĆdĩ 'AbdulWahhĆb, on pages 62-64 of the published version, al-QĆdĩ 'AbdulWahhĆb's 'aqeedah with good words. Within this section he stated: Al-QĆdĩ 'AbdulWahhĆb was Salafĩ in 'aqeedah and was of the seniors of Ahl usSunnah. The senior ImĆms of Ahl us-Sunnah wa'l-Jamah testified to this about him such as Shaykh ul-IslĆm Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn ul-Qayyim and al-Qurtubĩ may AllĆh have mercy on them all. Ibn ul-Qayyim stated:
Al-QĆdĩ 'AbdulWahhĆb, the ImĆm of the MĆlikĩs in al-'IrĆq and one of the seniors of Ahl us-Sunnah, may AllĆh have mercy on them, clearly stated that AllĆh made istiwĆ over His Throne with His Essence. Shaykh ul-IslĆm Ibn Taymiyyah transmitted this from him in more than one instance within his books and al-Qurtubĩ transmitted this (from alQĆdĩ 'AbdulWahhĆb) in Sharh AsmĆ ul-HusnĆ
3.

Just as al-QĆdĩ (rahimahullĆh) clearly expressed this Salafi 'aqeedah that he believed in when he mentioned creedal issues in his books or as was transmitted from him by his contemporaries or those who came after him. Of these expressions of his Salafĩ 'aqeedah
3

Ibnul-Qayyim, IjtimŅ ul-Juyźsh ul-IslŅmiyyah,p.124 are when he stated: Al-Bahr ul-Muheet,vol.4,p.1578,Drad-Duwaysh(ed.)

For this reason the saying of AllĆh, ______________________________________________________________________________ 2 "Indeed, Our word to a thing when We intend it is but that We say to it, "Be," and it is." © SalafiManhaj 2009 {an-Nahl (16): 40}
4

Is real and not as how the Mu'tazilah say.4

Al-QĆdĩ 'AbdulWahhĆb also said:

For its emphasis with a verbal noun (takleeman) benefits reality and that he (MoosĆ) heard AllĆh's Speech and that He spoke to MşsĆ...5
Modern 'Ash'arDZ Tampering with the 'Aqeedah Works of the resisted them Then he (rahimahullĆh) also faced the RĆfidah, MǙlikDZ Scholars and shamed them

and

_________________________________________________________________________ Thus, it is the futility of their beliefs,a linguistic route that AllĆh said, fiqh works. This was due affirmed also relayed in the Shar' via this is documented within his

to his residence"And AllĆh spoke to Moses with [direct] speech." in al-'IrĆq wherein he was in close proximity to them, alQĆdĩ 'AbdulWahhĆb stated:
With this we annul the permissibility of it being possible that a remnant of the Qur'Ćn did not reach us or the possibility that some individual Companions affirmed (as part of the Qur'Ćn) that which is not affirmed in the Mus-haf. We also sever the false claims of the RĆfidah, who defame the concurred upon Mus-haf, that the complete Qur'Ćn is actually in the possession of the (hidden) ImĆm who according to them is the "ImĆm uz-ZamĆn".6 {an-NisĆ (4): 164}

All of these statements testify to al-QĆdĩ's (rahimahullĆh) purity in 'aqeedah, and, after enquiry and investigation, I did not find that any of the seniors of Ahl us-Sunnah wa'lJama'ah ascribed to al-QĆdĩ 'AbdulWahhĆb matters which indicated deviation in his ideas or misguidance in his beliefs which opposed the manhaj of Ahl us-Sunnah wa'l-Jama'ah. This lengthy quote is omitted from the DĆr ul-Buhşth print and this omission was without the permission of the author of the thesis. From the evidences of this intentional omission from the thesis is in the introduction wherein it was stated (in the original thesis): The first case study contains six sub-categories, yet in the published version in book form it states: 'there are five sub-categories' and omits the first one which is in regards to the 'aqeedah of al-QĆdĩ 'AbdulWahhĆb al-BaghdĆdĩ. The researcher ar-Rayyis had a chapter toward the end of the thesis entitled 'The Most Important Results Gained from the Research', pp.554-556 (page numbers which have been clearly typed) and then mentioned eight points the first of them being:
5

As-Suyźtŝ, al-Muzhar,vol.1,p.363;alsosee al-Bahr ul-Muheet,vol.4,p.1578 QŅdŝ 'AbdulWahhŅb, al-IshrŅf,vol.1,pp.76,130

Indeed al-QĆdĩ 'AbdulWahhĆb (rahimahullĆh) was Salafĩ in 'aqeedah and from

6 7

the

Translator's note: For more on al-QŅdŝ 'AbdulWahhŅb al-BaghdŅdŝ refer to this paper here, from pp.23-34:

http://www.salafimanhaj.com/pdf/SalafiManhaj_Qabd seniors of Ahl us-Sunnah in

al-'IrĆq.7

______________________________________________________________________________ the 3 Yet in the DĆr ul-Buhşth print (pp.622-624) there are seven points and © SalafiManhaj 2009

aforementioned initial one is omitted! All of this certifies that the omission was intentional and that the hand of

Modern 'Ash'arDZ Tampering with the 'Aqeedah Works of the MǙlikDZ Scholars

_________________________________________________________________________

distortion lay in the hands of the publishers of the thesis. You may also be surprised at the fact,

SECOND EXAMPLE: OMITTING IMPORTANT STATEMENTS O nobleTHE BOOK the printed copy of AL-BńQILńNŜ AL-MńLIKŜ to the author FROM reader, that AT-TAMHEED BY the book form which was sent AND THEN before final ACCUSING SHAYKH UL-ISLńM IBN TAYMIYYAH AND IBN UL-QAYYIM OF FABRICATION!
print did not contain this omission! This therefore is a conspiracy against the Salafi

'aqeedah and The brother researcher (i.e. Abş 'AbdullĆh Muhammad 'AbdullĆh al-HammĆdĩ) in this book of these (i.e. textual distortions motivated by hatred. al-Aimmat ul-MĆlikiyyah) transmits important ours are MasĆ'il ul-'Aqeedah allatĩ QarrarahĆ I fear for those who intentionally distort and quotes change texts in ImĆms whereinwith their desires and not to agree with understanding the some from the MĆlikĩ order to agree AllĆh's 'Uluww over His creation is affirmed, even though truth of them made ta'weel of some of the SifĆt al-Khabariyyah. He transmits directly from their books that there will be printed and written him and going throughbased on the action.in doing so! As which have been a punishment unto without the reward is any intermediaries much as he was able. Of these MĆlikĩ ImĆms that the author (Abş 'AbdullĆh Muhammad 'AbdullĆh al-HammĆdĩ) transmits from is al-BĆqilĆnĩ, his Shaykh Ibn Abĩ Zayd al-QayrawĆnĩ QĆdĩ 'AbdulWahhĆb bin Nasr al-BaghdĆdĩ
10, 9,

his student al-

the latter of them benefitting from the previous ones as

Ibn ul-Qayyim expressed in as-SawĆ'iq ul-Mursalah, vol.3, pp.904-905 (of the abridged version). Al-QĆdĩ al-BĆqilĆnĩ and his affirmation of AllĆh's 'Uluww is an important matter as "there is
8

absolutely no 'Ash'arĩ Mutakallim more virtuous than him" as adh-Dhahabĩ stated in al'Uluww li-'Alĩ il-'Adheem, vol.4, pp.1298-1301 and he transmitted al-BĆqilĆnĩ's lengthy statements from his two books al-IbĆnah and at-Tamheed. And in reality these (quotes from al-BĆqilĆnĩ) were taken from the works of Shaykh ul-IslĆm Ibn Taymiyyah in al-FatĆwĆ al-Hamawiyyah, pp.445447; Majmş' al-FatĆwĆ, vol.5, p.99; Naqd ut-Ta'sees, vol.2, p.531; and from Ibn ul-Qayyim in IjtimĆ' ulJuyşsh al-IslĆmiyyĆh, p.302 and as-SawĆ'iq ul-Mursalah, vol.3, p.906 of the abridged version. AdhDhahabĩ transmitted these statements of al-BĆqilĆnĩ in as-Siyar, vol.17, pp.558-559 in the biography (of al-BĆqilĆnĩ) and those who came later quoted from adh-Dhahabĩ!
8 9

Seehisbiographybytheauthorofthisbook. Seethefollowingthirdexamplewhichwillbegiven. He has some important words wherein he affirmed AllŅh's 'Uluww in his book Sharh 'Aqeedat Ibn Abŝ Zayd al-

10

QayrawŅnŝ fŝ KitŅbihi ar-RisŅlah, p.174-178; also see Dara' Ta'Ņrud al-'Aql wa'n-Naql, vol.6, pp.203-204; and IjtimŅ' ul-Juyźsh al-IslŅmiyyah,p.164.

______________________________________________________________________________ © SalafiManhaj 2009

4

Modern 'Ash'arDZ Tampering with the 'Aqeedah Works of the MǙlikDZ Scholars

_________________________________________________________________________

The book at-Tamheed was first published and printed with the 'tahqeeq' (!!) of Mahmşd alKhudayrĩ and Muhammad Abş Rĩdah in 1954 CE. 11 Within this edition the text which contains affirmation of 'Uluww is removed! I do not know if the two editors (al-Khudayrĩ and Abş Rĩdah) did this intentionally or the omission was from the manuscript copy that they depended upon.12 In any case, what is important is that they clearly expressed within their edit 265) affirms AllĆh's 'Uluww) and al-Kawtharĩ totally negated there being such a passage of this sort from alBĆqilĆnĩ saying: "I do not know whether Ibn ul-Qayyim falsely ascribed this to alBĆqilĆnĩ in order to trick the Muslims..."! 'ImĆduddeen Haydar followed them in this distortion and omission in his edition of at-Tamheed which was subsequently published! RamadĆn
14 13

that (on page

they both asked their Shaykh, al-Kawtharĩ, about the transmission (wherein al-BĆqilĆnĩ

Muhammad
15.

'AbdullĆh also boldly followed them all in his thesis al-BĆqilĆnĩ and his KalĆm Views 11 Translator's note: I was not sure if the date given here was a typo error and supposed to be '1354 AH' Within this
because later Shaykh Mashhźr will mention that: "Yźsuf al-MakŅrthŝ al-Yasź'ŝ edited at-Tamheed three years after the first one in 1358 AH (1939 CE) and it was published and printed." So if Yźsuf al-

he stated about following the words which were transmitted from Shaykh ulIslĆm Ibn
MakŅrthŝ al-Yasź'ŝ's edition was three years later than the first one by al-Khudayrŝ and Abź Rŝdah's then their

Taymiyyah have been originally printed in 1954 CE but rather around 'Uluww is affirmed: course version could not and Ibn ul-Qayyim wherein AllĆh's 1355 AH (1936 CE), unless of
it was a later print. Furthermore, I found on the King Saud Universitywhich Catalogue that al-Khudayrŝ andfrom both Ibn Taymiyyah Whoever contemplates on these texts Libraries have been relayed Abź Rŝdah's edition was also printed in 1947 CE (1366 AH) by DŅr ul-Fikr al-'Arabŝ in Cairo. See: http://212.138.39.186/digital/336894.html

and Ibn ul-Qayyim (rahimahumullĆh) will have no doubt that al-BĆqilĆnĩ shared

their

The Library Catalogue also mentions details of a print in 1957 CE by Maktabah ash-Sharqiyyah (Librairie Orientale)inBeirut,yettheLibraryCataloguedoesnotgivethedetailsoftheeditorsofthebook: http://catalog.library.ksu.edu.sa/uhtbin/cgisirsi/zDIJ8xf3HI/CENTRAL/133100014/9 I had therefore thought that this indicates that the date of '1954 CE' given may be a typo error or a later print, being the print mentioned above dated 1957. However, I then discovered that Yźsuf al-MakŅrthŝ al-Yasź'ŝ's print was in 1957 CE, being the 1957 Print found in the King Saud Library Catalogue. So in fact the typo error was wherein Shaykh Mashhźr mentions: "Yźsuf al-MakŅrthŝ al-Yasź'ŝ edited at-Tamheed three years after the first one in 1358 AH (1939 CE) and it was published and printed." It should actually be 1958 CE! Yźsuf al-MakŅrthŝ al-Yasź'ŝ is in fact: Reverend Richard Joseph McCarthy, hence the nisba he used in his Arabic edits'al-Yasź'ŝ'(theJesuit),Iwillmentionmoreonhimonthenextpage,seeftn.18.
12

This is more accurate and later we will come across the words of al-'AllŅmah Muhammad bin 'AbdurRazzŅq

Hamza (rahimahullŅh) onthis.
13

Intheirspecialappendixwhichtheyplacedattheendofthebook. Translator's note: ThiswaspublishedinBeirut: Mu'assassatul-Kutubath-ThaqŅfiyyah,1407AH/1987CE Baghdad,Iraq:Matba'atal-Ummah,1986CEandcomprises639pages.

14
15

______________________________________________________________________________ © SalafiManhaj 2009

5

Modern 'Ash'arDZ Tampering with the 'Aqeedah Works of the MǙlikDZ Scholars

_________________________________________________________________________ madhhab in regards to the SifĆt al-Khabariyyah and accepting the Shari' texts as they have been transmitted upon the apparent meaning without ta'weel.16

Then he said:
However, I want to stop slightly at this juncture in regards to the words that they (Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn ul-Qayyim) transmitted from al-BĆqilĆnĩ. I say: I am not able to trace the book al-IbĆnah in order to ascertain the veracity and authenticity of what Ibn Taymiyyah transmitted from al-BĆqilĆnĩ due to it not being extant in the libraries even though I have tried hard to search for it. As for the book at-Tamheed which was edited by the two noble professors Muhammad 'AbdulHĆdĩ Abş Rĩdah and Mahmşd Muhammad al-Khudayrĩ then it does not contain these words that Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn ul-Qayyim relayed from him (i.e. al-BĆqilĆnĩ). For this reason, I am not really convinced of the authenticity of this transmission and I do not view that Abş Bakr al-BĆqilĆnĩ used to affirm the SifĆt al-Khabariyyah as was claimed by Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn ul-Qayyim.17

Abş 'Ubaydah 18 says: the editor thus negated the existence of the transmission from the book
16

which he could not find and then affirmed other than it yet 'what is affirmed takes 17 Ibid.,pp.139-140
Translator's note: precedence i.e.ourShaykh,ShaykhMashhźr. 18 Translator's note: over what isSee ftn. 11, this appears to be a typois no Yźsuf al-MakŅrathŝ al-Yasź'ŝ's edition was in negated' so there error, as need for his previous loud-mouthing! As for
19

Al-BŅqilŅnŝ wa ńrŅuhu al-KalŅmiyyah [al-BŅqilŅnŝ andhisKalŅmViews],p.139

1957/1958 CE not in 1358 AH (1939 CE). Yźsuf al-MakŅrathŝ al-Yasź'ŝ is in fact: Reverend, Dr Richard Joseph

the book atMcCarthy(1913-1981CE). BorninChicopee(USA)heattendedtheCathedralHighSchoolinSpringfieldandthen
went on to the then College in Worcester, MA. In 1933 he of the clearly mentioned at TamheedHoly Cross the two initial editors joined it Jesuit Order and read Philosophytwo

reasons which

Shadowbrook and Weston College from 1936-39, after which he went to Baghdad where he studied Arabic for

indicate the

three years and then returned to Weston College where he read Theology from 1941-45. He completed another

deficiency of1947-47manuscript (that they depended upon). where he Yşsuffor the at Gregorian University and then went to Campion Hall, Oxford Then studied al-MakĆrthĩ al-Yasş'ĩ year of Arabic from
his D.Phil. edited in the faculty of Oriental Studies, 1947-51, where his Postgraduate studies were to be in the field of IslamicTheology.

at-Tamheed three years after the first one in 1358 AH (1939 CE) He attended and published the lectures of HAR Gibb and studied Turkish with Geoffrey Lewis. Joseph Schact was his
supervisor during his Postgraduate studies. He returned to Baghdad in 1951 and stayed there for seventeen years. Arabic became part of his daily life and he even conducted his Christian sermons in Arabic and focused on IrŅqŝ dialect in particular, immersing himself in the language. He also co-authored Spoken Arabic of Baghdad with Faraj Raffouli in 1964-65. He taught at Baghdad College which was a Jesuit College open to Christians and Muslims and then later taught at Baghdad State University. Refer to J.D. Latham, "Obituary of Rev., Dr. RJ McCarthy (1913-1981)" in British Society for Middle Eastern Studies, vol.8, no.1, 1981, pp.76-79. translatedanumberofworksofthe'AshŅ'irahsuchas:

19

and it was

McCarthy

______________________________________________________________________________ © SalafiManhaj 2009

6

Modern 'Ash'arDZ Tampering with the 'Aqeedah Works of the MǙlikDZ Scholars

_________________________________________________________________________

printed. He relied upon a manuscript copy that the previous two editors of the book did not utilise. And on pages 261-262 of it are the texts that Shaykh ul-IslĆm and his students transmitted from al-BĆqilĆnĩ and said was in the book! Yet with this, the author of al-BĆqilĆnĩ and his Kalam Views (pp.143-144) was arrogant and said: "I can only be convinced of the authenticity of the manuscript copy of at-Tamheed" intending by this the manuscript copy which was edited by the two professors Mahmşd Muhammad al-Khudayrĩ and Muhammad 'AbdulHĆdĩ Abş Rĩdah! At the same time he totally doubts the manuscript copy that was edited, printed and published by Yşsuf al-MakĆrthĩ al-Yasş'ĩ in which we find much of the chapters that indicate that alBĆqilĆnĩ believed that AllĆh made istiwĆ' over the Throne, the Face, two hands, Fawqiyyah, Nuzşl and affirmation of other SifĆt ul-Khabariyyah of AllĆh, Mighty and Majestic. He (Muhammad RamadĆn 'AbdullĆh) believes that these chapters in the manuscript copy of atTamheed published by al-MakĆrthĩ was tampered with by the Hashwiyyah in order to make it appear as though a senior 'Ash'arĩ ImĆm was in agreement with their views. The two editors of at-Tamheed (i.e. Mahmşd Muhammad al-Khudayrĩ and Muhammad 'AbdulHĆdĩ Abş Rĩdah) say:
20

If we were to believe Ibn21 Taymiyyah and his student Ibn ul-Qayyim in what they both transmitted fromThe Theology of al-Ash'ari (Beirut:ImprimaturCatholique1953). at-Tamheed it would necessitate that we affirm that what is present between our hands in the 1.
2. formFreedom and Fulfillment: An Annotated Translation of al-Ghazali's al-Munqidh min al-dalal to do anything except doubt of the copy of at-Tamheed is incomplete. However, we are unable and

Other Relevant Works the veracity of theirof al-Ghazali (Boston:Twayne,1980). ul-Qayyim's) assertion due to the clear conflict that (Ibn Taymiyyah's and Ibn

is observed between the madhhab of al-BĆqilĆnĩ and the meaning that has been ascribed to him by
4. Kitab ul-Bayan: Miracle and Magic: A Treatise on the Nature of the Apologetic Miracle and its

3.

Al-Ghazali's Deliverance from Error (Cairo,TheAmericanUniversityPress)

the two authors who are well-known for Magic and Spells Tahayyuz (spatial limits). Our master, albelieving in (Beirut: Maktabah ashDifferentiation from Charisms, Trickery, Divination, 'AllĆmah al-Hujjah, Shaykh Muhammad ZĆhid al-Kawtharĩ the Shaykh ul-IslĆm of the Ottoman Sharqiyyah(LibrairieOrientale),1958). Caliphate wrote to us regarding this saying: "there is nothing at all extant of what Ibn ul-Qayyim
Refer to the appendix of at-Tamheed by al-BŅqilŅnŝ which was edited by Mahmźddo not know whether Ibn ul-Qayyim ascribed to him (al-BĆqilĆnĩ) in his book at-Tamheed. I Muhammad al-Khudayrŝ andMuhammad'AbdulHŅdŝ Abź Rŝdah,p.265.
20

ascribed that to him out of fabrication in order to deceive the Muslims, or whether he thought it ______________________________________________________________________________ 7 was another book with the title at-Tamheed by al-BĆqilĆnĩ." In any case, our trust in the (manuscript) © SalafiManhaj 2009 copy of at-Tamheed that we have in our hands is stronger than our trust in what Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn ul-Qayyim transmitted.

Modern 'Ash'arDZ Tampering with the 'Aqeedah Works of the MǙlikDZ Scholars

_________________________________________________________________________

Abş 'Ubaydah says: the camels are not watered like this! copies of

22

For the book has transcribed

it and the two editors (i.e. Mahmşd Muhammad al-Khudayrĩ and Muhammad 'AbdulHĆdĩ Abş Rĩdah) relied upon a copy which was incomplete, while Ibn Taymiyyah transmitted from the actual (complete) book. So judging Ibn Taymiyyah to have erred in this, let alone accusing him of fabrication and fraudulence, at least needs to be supported with an authentic and complete copy! Al-BŅqilŅnŝ
21

wa ńrŅuhu al-KalŅmiyyah [al-BŅqilŅnŝ and his KalŅm Views], p.143-144. This was also

transmittedinanabridgedform, then he is well-informed about manuscripts, As for al-Kawtharĩ andinaffirmationofwhatwasstated,byDrAhmadMuhammadNźrSayfinhis

and there is a complete

introductiontothe tahqeeq, Sharh 'Aqeedat Ibn Abŝ Zayd al-QayrawŅnŝ li'l-QŅdŝ 'AbdulWahhŅb,pp.103-104.

Turkish

Abź 'Ubaydah says: the hateful al-Kawtharŝ launched a campaign against the 'Ulama of IslŅm and the famous well-known the especially the likes of Shaykh ul-IslŅm Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullŅh). For al-Kawtharŝ said copy of ImŅmsbook at-Tamheed (by al-BĆqilĆnĩ) in the 'ątif Afendi Library, 23

could abouthiminthebook al-IshfŅq 'alŅ AhkŅm it-TalŅq (p.86):

the likes of this

If we were to say that Islam was not tested during its latter stages by anyone more harmful than Ibn Taymiyyah in disuniting the word of the Muslims, we would not be exaggerating in that. He was accommodating to the yahźd and the NasŅra. Al-Kawtharŝ said on page 69 of the same book: "If Ibn Taymiyyah is still regarded as a Shaykh ul-IslŅm then IslŅm needs salŅm!" Whoever has words like this should not be listened to whatsoever and it was upon the two editors to enter the house from its adequate door and to have traversed a moderate academic method in tahqeeq by compiling all of the manuscript copies, examining them and documenting what is within them. Yet vain desires had a major influence in what the two editors outlines and went towards, as a result they both fell intofabricationanddenial!
22 23

Translator's note: ThisisanArabicexpressionused inastonishmentwhenadvising. Translator's note: The library was originally founded by Ahmet Pasha, the son of Mehmet Pasha, in 1678 as

the firstlibrary having an independent building after Koprulu Library in Ottoman State, being the second in this category, Atif Mustafa Efendi Library was established Vefa Quarter of Istanbul by Atif Efendi in1741 who was a poet and worked as Chief Registrar during Sultan Mahmźd the First's period. Having its resources of revenues and administration determined in the foundational decree, three book memorizers, a reader, a binder and a cleaner were all employed. Book memorisers were required to stay in three lodgings. Besides being on duty five days a week (except for Tuesdays and Fridays), they were also required to lead the congregational prayers. According to the charter, librarians were to be chosen from the aptitude and religious people, perform their own duties and not to pass them on to their assistants or deputies. Having 2857 book in its establishment, Atif Efendi Library has expanded its collection over time. Therearemanymanuscriptslikeseveralauthorscalligraphyworks, several old book copies, nice binders, ornaments and miniature works and signet albums. The collection of MehmetZekiPakalinisamongthecollectionofthelibrary.Having3,228manuscriptsand6,358printedbooksin old alphabet; the library's collection is currently comprised of 25,905 books.

Currently, one Head Librarian, another librarian - a graduate of Library Department under the Literature Faculty of Istanbul University, two security guards and technical personnel, total of five, are on duty. Working in affiliation with Suleymaniye Library, digitalization of the manuscript works in Atif Efendi Library has not been started. For more on the manuscripts available at the Sulaymaniyyah Complex in Turkey see:

http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/file_download.php/947fbdde3895fae06e48344779629befturkey_suleymaniye.pd f

______________________________________________________________________________ © SalafiManhaj 2009

8

Modern 'Ash'arDZ Tampering with the 'Aqeedah Works of the MǙlikDZ Scholars

_________________________________________________________________________

not have been hidden from him, except to the one who rides his desires and arrives at what he is not pleased with in order to curse the ImĆms of guidance. La hawla wa la quwwata ila billĆh! I found an important article by Professor, al-'AllĆmah al-Muhaddith Shaykh Muhammad 'AbdurRazzĆq Hamza entitled al-ImĆm al-BĆqilĆnĩ wa KitĆb ut-Tamheed which was published at the end of al-Kawtharĩ wa Ta'leeqĆtuhu by al-'AllĆmah Muhammad Bahjat ul-BaytĆr, pp.117-129. It is mentioned herein that which supports this authenticity of Shaykh ul-IslĆm Ibn Taymiyyah's transmission from the book at-Tamheed, and that what Ibn Taymiyyah transmitted is absolutely verified and confirmed being present in the complete manuscript copy. I will open up the opportunity to clarify by making it apparent to the noble reader that it is a lie by the disputers to accuse Ibn Taymiyyah of deception in transmission! Shaykh Muhammad 'AbdurRazzĆq Hamza (rahimahullĆh) stated:
ImĆm Abş Bakr bin at-Tayyib al-BĆqilĆnĩ has a well-known status with the 'Ulama of kalĆm, and especially among his Jama'ah of 'Ash'arĩs who gained fame due to their refutations of the Mu'tazilah and others who they viewed opposed the Sunnah. His book at-Tamheed has values to whoever knows the estimation of al-BĆqilĆnĩ and his efforts are praiseworthy in supporting the Sunnah and defending it. After some time, AllĆh preserved a number of manuscript copies of this book even after the narrations of the Salaf were made extinct with the catastrophic incidents of the time especially the transgression of the Tartars and Mongols which was of the most important challenges to IslĆm and its principles. The manuscripts differ in the preservation of the contents and their sources, they are the following: 1. A copy in the Ayasofya Library,
24

MS no.2201, it was mentioned by Professor Helmut Ritter

25

and

he mentioned the history of its transcription, stating that it was written in 478 AH. 2. A copy in MustafĆ 'ątif Library, MS no.2233 and the Cultural Department of the Arabic University of Cairo took a Microfilm copy of this manuscript and then sent a Microfilm copy to me so that I could compare it with the following third manuscript. The number of folios is 247 and the date of
24

Translator's note: Based in Istanbul, built by Sultan Mahmut the First, it was built in Ayasofya Mosque in

when it was written is 555 AH.

3.
25

1739-40.ItwasjoinedtotheSüleymaniyeLibraryin1967.

Translator's note: a German Orientalist and Arabist who edited and translated a vast array of Arabic

The Paris copy, and the most accurate date for when it was written goes back to 472 AH based on

manuscriptsandpublishedthem.

some words that are found towards the end of the manuscript after the words 'completion of the

book'. However, after these words there is that which indicates that the copy was completed after ______________________________________________________________________________ 9 © SalafiManhaj 2009 900 AH, so AllĆh knows best. The number of pages is around 90. What is amazing is that those who published and distributed this copy: did not mention the words which indicate the accurate date of when it was written.

Modern 'Ash'arDZ Tampering with the 'Aqeedah Works of the MǙlikDZ Scholars

_________________________________________________________________________ In comparison to the copy in the MustafĆ 'ątif Library, the Paris Library copy we found to be deficient by about 72 folios which equal 30 folios of the Parisian manuscript copy. The place of deficiency is: between folio 60 and 61, and this place in the printed version is after the 14
th

line of

page 160 before the chapter 61 which is entitled 'Chapter: The Statement on the Meaning of al-Jabr'. The 'ątifiyyah manuscript has therefore revealed that the Parisian manuscript has been damaged after folio 60 of it. Just as it can be witnessed that 25 chapters are missing which are affirmed in its index. I will mention these chapters from the 'ątifyyah manuscript copy with their folio numbers and maybe I will mention something from the first part of the chapters in order to show that it is not deficient and to verify that damage has been done to the Parisian manuscript copy which refutes the claim (of its accuracy) made by the two who published the complete book from the Paris copy (i.e. Mahmşd Muhammad al-Khudayrĩ and Muhammad 'AbdulHĆdĩ Abş Rĩdah). The first damage within the Parisian manuscript is found just after the end of folio 60 the point in which the 'ątifiyyah manuscript proceeds with 'daleel wa laysa al-kalĆm fi'l-ItlĆqĆt wa'lIbarĆt, wa innma'l-kalĆm fi'l-Ma'Ćnĩ' which goes on for ten lines on the "b" side of folio 114 which completes the chapter. Then the author (i.e. al-BĆqilĆnĩ) says: 'Chapter: Speech Regarding the Meaning of as-Siffah (the Attribute) and is it a Description or of the Same Meaning?' then speech concerning this continues in four folios from the 'ątifyyah manuscript. Then he (alBĆqilĆnĩ) says: 'Daleel ąkhar (Another Proof)' which is found on the "a" side of folio 119 along with another proof on the "a" side of folio 120, and then a chapter discussing al-Ism and its derivatives and if it is to be named or not which is on the "b" side of folio 120. Then after a folio and three lines down into folio 121 al-BĆqilĆnĩ says: 'Faslun' and then after three lines of the "b" side of folio 123 he says: 'Mas'alah (issue)' and after five lines of the "a" side of folio 124 he mentions another issue and then at the start of the "a" side of folio 125 al-BĆqilĆnĩ says 'Fasl ąkhar min al-KalĆm fĩ Hadha'l-BĆb (Another Chapter from Speech in this Topic)' . In the first part of the "a" side of folio 126 there is another chapter on the AsmĆ' and within the "b" side of folio 126 there is to be found: 'Chapter Discussing Negation of the Belief that the Qur'Ćn is Created' and he includes other sections and issues within this chapter up to the folio 136. Then al-BĆqilĆnĩ says: 'Chapter: If someone says "what is the proof that AllĆh has a Face?"'. Within the "a" side of folio 137 is 'Chapter: If someone says: "do they say that He is everywhere?"' It should be said: we seek AllĆh's refuge! Rather He is above the Throne as He informed in His Book when He said,

Ƃ ȃăȂăƬąLJơ ÊljąǂăǠƒdzơ ȄƊǴăǟ ĄǺºăǸąƷċǂdzơƃ
And AllĆh says, "The Most Merciful [who is] above the Throne established." ______________________________________________________________________________ 10 {TĆ HĆ (20): 5} © SalafiManhaj 2009

Modern 'Ash'arDZ Tampering with the 'Aqeedah Works of the MǙlikDZ Scholars

_________________________________________________________________________

ÊǾąȈƊdzÊƛƃ

ƂĄƤďȈōǘdzơ ĄǶÊǴƊǰƒdzơ ĄƾăǠąǐ ăȇ
"To Him ascends good speech..." {FĆtir (35): 10}26

And AllĆh says,

Ƃ ÊƔƖăǸċLjdzơ ȄÊǧ ǺďǷ ąǶĄƬǼÊǷƊƗƃ
"Do you feel secure that He who [holds authority] in the heaven..." {al-Mulk (67): 16}

If AllĆh was everywhere then He would be inside the stomach of a person and inside his mouth, exalted is AllĆh from that! It would also obligate that He would increase with the increase of places if He created places which He had not created prior, and He would decrease when these places would decrease if such places were subsequently nullified. It would also mean that AllĆh is on the earth, behind our backs, to our right hand sides and to our left hand sides and Muslims have concurred contrary to this and the error of the one who says it. It they say: AllĆh, Mighty and Majestic, says,

ƂćǾºƊdz Êƛ ÊǑąǁŋȏơ ȄÊǧăȁ ǾºƊdz Êƛ ƔƖǸċLjdzơ ȄÊǧ ȃÊǀōdzơ ăȂĄǿăȁƃ ć Ê
"And it is AllĆh who is [the only] deity in the heaven, and on the earth [the only] deity." So He informed that He is in both the heavens and the earth, and He said, {az-Zukhruf (43): 84}

Ƃ ƊǹȂĄǼÊLjąƸČǷă ă ăǺȇÊǀōdzơċȁ ơȂƊǬċƫơ ǶĄǿ ă ƒ ǺȇÊǀōdzơ ǞăǷ ǾōǴdzơ ōǹÊƛƃ
"Indeed, AllĆh is with those who fear Him and those who are doers of good." {an-Nahl (16): 128}
26

Translator's note: Ibn Katheer mentioned in his tafseer: means, words of remembrance, recitation of

Qur'Ņn, and supplications. This was the view of more than one of the Salaf.IbnJareerrecordedthatAl-MukhŅriq bin Sulaym said that "'AbdullŅh bin Mas'źd, may AllŅh be pleased with him, said to them, "If we tell you a hadeeth, we will bring you proof of it from the Book of AllŅh. When the Muslim servants says, 'Glory and praise be to AllŅh, there is no god worthy of worship except AllŅh, AllŅh is Most Great and blessed be AllŅh,' an angel takes these words and puts them underhiswing,thenheascendswiththemtotheheaven.Hedoesnottakethem past any group of angels but they seek forgiveness for the one who said them, until he brings them before AllŅh, may He be glorified." Refer to Online version of tafseer:

http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1912&Itemid=91

______________________________________________________________________________ 11 © SalafiManhaj 2009

Modern 'Ash'arDZ Tampering with the 'Aqeedah Works of the MǙlikDZ Scholars

_________________________________________________________________________

And AllĆh says,

ƂȃăǁƊƗăȁ ĄǞăǸąLJ ƊƗ ƖăǸƌǰăǠăǷ ȄÊǼċǻ Êƛ ƖƊǧƢăƼ ăƫ Ɗȏ ƊDZƢƊǫƃ
"[AllĆh] said, "Fear not. Indeed, I am with you both; I hear and I see." {TĆHĆ (20): 46} And AllĆh says,

ƂąǶĄȀĄǠÊƥơăǁ ăȂĄǿ ōȏ Êƛ ÇƨƊưºƊǴ ƊƯ ȃăȂąƴ ċǻ ǺÊǷ ƌǹȂƌǰ ăȇ ƢăǷƃ
"There is in no private conversation three but that He is the fourth of them..." {al-MujĆdilah (58): 7} It should be said to them:

ƂćǾºƊdz Êƛ ÊǑąǁŋȏơ ȄÊǧăȁ ǾºƊdz Êƛ ƔƖǸċLjdzơ ȄÊǧ ȃÊǀōdzơ ăȂĄǿăȁƃ ć Ê
"And it is AllĆh who is [the only] deity in the heaven, and on the earth [the only] deity." {az-Zukhruf (43): 84} Means: that: He is the god of the people of the earth and the god of the people of the heavens as the Arabs say: "a noble person was obeyed in al-'IrĆq and obeyed in HijĆz" meaning that the person was obeyed in both places by the people of both lands. It does not mean that essence of the mentioned person is present in both HijĆz and al-'IrĆq. When AllĆh says,

ƒ

ă

ă ă

Ƃ ƊǹȂĄǼÊLjąƸČǷ ǶĄǿ ăǺȇÊǀōdzơċȁ ơȂƊǬċƫơ ǺȇÊǀōdzơ ǞăǷ ǾōǴdzơ ōǹÊƛƃ
Is that He is with them by preserving, supporting and aiding them, it does not mean that His "Indeed, AllĆh is with AllĆh who fear Him and those who Essence is with them, Exalted isthose from that. As for AllĆh's saying, are doers of good." {an-Nahl (16): 128}

Ƃ ƖăǸƌǰăǠăǷ ȄÊǼċǻ Êƛ ƃ
"Indeed, I am with you both..." {TĆHĆ (20): 46} Has to be interpreted and AllĆh's saying,

ƂąǶĄȀĄǠÊƥơăǁ ăȂĄǿ ōȏ Êƛ ÇƨƊưºƊǴ ƊƯ ȃăȂąƴ ċǻ ǺÊǷ ƌǹȂƌǰ ăȇ ƢăǷƃ
______________________________________________________________________________ 12 © SalafiManhaj 2009

Modern 'Ash'arDZ Tampering with the 'Aqeedah Works of the MǙlikDZ Scholars

_________________________________________________________________________ "There is in no private conversation three but that He is the fourth of them..." {al-MujĆdilah (58): 7} Means that AllĆh has knowledge about them and what hidden things that they hide and their private conversations, this is only to be used as has been transmitted in the Qur'Ćn and for this reason this is not permissible to say, in making an analogy, that: AllĆh is in a city or with the bull or with the donkey or with the sinful or with crazed. These meanings are not to be used as an analogy for,

Ƃ ƊǹȂĄǼÊLjąƸČǷă ă ăǺȇÊǀōdzơċȁ ơȂƊǬċƫơ ǶĄǿ ă ƒ ǺȇÊǀōdzơ ǞăǷ ǾōǴdzơ ōǹÊƛƃ
"Indeed, AllĆh is with those who fear Him and those who are doers of good." {an-Nahl (16): 128} So the interpretation has to be according to what we described: that it is not permissible to say that the meaning of His istiwĆ' over His Throne is that he made isteelĆ over it, as the poet said:

"istawĆ Bishrun 'ala'l-'IrĆq, min ghayri Safy aw Dam MihrĆq"27
27

Translator's note: Thefalseinterpretationof"isteela"(i.e."He conquered theThrone")wasinitiallyasserted

by QŅdŝ 'Abdul-JabbŅr the founder of Mu'tazilŝ thought and then taken on board by the 'Ash'arŝs. Yet this interpretationisinvalidfromanumberofaspects: The Arabic language does not allow that the meaning of "IstawŅ" is "isteelŅ", and this meaning is not quoted from any of the trusted ImŅms of Arabic linguistics, rather it has been authentically transmitted from them that they totally rejected this meaning. Take for example, Abź 'AbdullŅh Muhammad bin ZiyŅd Ibn al-A'rŅbŝ (d. 231 AH/845 CE), who was the son of a Sindi slave and the foster-child of the famous Kufan philologist, al-Mufaddal bin Muhammad ad-Dabbŝ. His prodigious memory was a storehouse of Arabic philology, folklore and poetry. He was an ImŅm in Arabic linguistics and philology who questioned al-Asma'ŝ and Abź 'Ubaydah Ma'mar bin alMuthanna. Some fragments of his works are present in the collection of manuscripts collected by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences in Amsterdam, refer to its inventory here:

http://www.islamicmanuscripts.info/inventories/amsterdam/inventory-academy-collection.pdf He is not to be confused with Abź Sa'eed Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn ZiyŅd ibn Bishr ibn al-A'rŅbŝ (d. 341 AH/952 CE) from Basra and then Makkah, who was the student of Abź DŅwźd as-SijistŅnŝ and author of KitŅb ul-Mu'jam,whoIbnAbŝ Zaydnarratedfrom. Ibn al-A'rŅbŝ said (as reported in Khateeb al-BaghdŅdŝ, TŅreekh BaghdŅd, vol.5, p.283 and al-LŅlikŅ'ŝ, Sharh Usul I'tiqŅd, vol.3, p.399 with a saheeh sanad): "Ibn Abŝ DŅwood wished that I seek out some of the phrases of the Arabs and their meanings. (So he said): ""the Most Merciful IstawŅ upon the Throne" {TŅ HŅ (20): 5} "IstawŅ" meaning "IstawlŅ"?" I said to him, "by AllŅh this does not mean this and I have never seen this." Al-Khaleel ibn Ahmad was asked: "Have you seen in the language "IstawŅ" taken to mean "IstawlŅ"?" Towhichhereplied, "This is neither known to the Arab nor possible in the language." This is why Ibn al-Jawzŝ says in ZŅd al-Maseer, vol.3, p.213: "This meaning is rejected according to the linguists." Ibn Abdul Barr said in at-Tamheed, vol.7, p.131: "Their saying in explanation of IstiwŅ that it means IsteelŅ is not correct in the language."

______________________________________________________________________________ 13 © SalafiManhaj 2009

Modern 'Ash'arDZ Tampering with the 'Aqeedah Works of the MǙlikDZ Scholars

_________________________________________________________________________ IsteelĆ' is: dominance and power and AllĆh has always been Dominant, Powerful, All-Mighty and Able, AllĆh's saying,

ƂÊljąǂăǠƒdzơ ȄƊǴăǟ ȃăȂăƬąLJơ ċǶƌƯƃ
"...and then established Himself above the Throne." {al-A'rĆf (7): 54}28
This false meaning was mentioned by the later grammarians and linguists who inherited this understanding from the Mu'tazilah and the Jahmiyyah. They did not rely upon narrations for this view, rather they relied on the alleged saying of the poet, "istawŅ Bishrun 'ala'l-'IrŅq". This was utilised by GF HaddŅd in Islamic Belief and Doctrine According to Ahl al-Sunna, Vol.1: A Repudiation of "Salafi" Innovations (Mountain View, CA: ASFA, 1996), p.106 - the book has Hisham KabbŅni's name on the cover yet was more than likely penned by GF HaddŅd whose name appears inside as 'editor'! Thefollowinghavetobetakenintoaccount: 9 This line of poetry is not classed as being an authentic Arabic poem because it has not been transmitted via a credible route. It is neither referred to nor found in any collections of Arabic poetry, and cannot be traced. 9 There is no known origin in history for this line, and neither is there any indication in this line that would show that the poet meant istawŅ with the meaning of istawlŅ such that it could be depended upon. 9 (It is possible that) this poem is distorted and its correct phraseology is, "Bishrun qad istawlŅ 'ala'l'IrŅq". 9 Even if this poem is authentic and it is not distorted then it still is not a proof for them, rather it is against them because Bishr was the brother of the Khaleefah al-Umawŝ (the Umayyad Caliph) 'AbdulMalik bin MarwŅn, and he (Bishr) was the Ameer of 'IrŅq and he made IstawŅ upon it as was the habit of the leaders that they sit above the throne of the kingdom, and this conforms to the meaning of this word as mentioned in His, the Exalted, saying, "...that you may mount upon their backs (li tastawź alŅ dhuhoorihŝ)" {Zukhruf (43):14}
9

Ibn al-A'rŅbŝ said: "He is on His Throne as He has told us. He said, O Abu 'AbdullŅh, does it not mean istawlŅ (possess, take control)? Ibn al-A'rŅbŝ said: How can you know that? The Arabs do not say istawlŅ unless there are two people competing for a throne, then whichever of them prevails, they describe as istawlŅ."Referto LisŅn al-'Arab,vol.2,p.249.

Refer to Online paper by Aboo Rumaysahentitled A Comparison of the Ta'weels of the Mu'tazilah to the Ta'weels of the Later Ash'arees.
28

Translator's note: the tafseer ofIbnKatheerstates: As for AllŅh's statement,

ƂÊljąǂăǠƒdzơ ȄƊǴăǟ ȃăȂăƬąLJơ ċǶƌƯƃ
"...and then established Himself above the Throne."

...the people had several conflicting opinions over its meaning. However, we follow the way that our righteous predecessors took in this regard, such as MŅlik, al-AwzŅ'ŝ, ath-Thawrŝ, al-Layth bin Sa'd, ash-Shafi'ŝ, Ahmad, IshŅq bin RŅhawayh and the rest of the scholars of Islam, in past and present times. Surely, we accept the apparent meaning of, al-IstiwŅ', without discussing its true essence, equating it (with the attributes of the creation), or

______________________________________________________________________________ 14 © SalafiManhaj 2009

Modern 'Ash'arDZ Tampering with the 'Aqeedah Works of the MǙlikDZ Scholars

_________________________________________________________________________ Means the opening of this description, from whence it did not occur and this refutes what they say (when they say it means "AllĆh conquered the Throne").' This is the chapter that ImĆm Ibn ul-Qayyim transmitted in his book IjtimĆ' ul-Juyşsh al-IslĆmiyyah, pp.119 and 120 of the al-Muneeriyyah print. In the transmission (from Ibn ul-Qayyim) is word for word. This is what was denied by alKawtharĩ the one in denial. This exonerates ImĆm Ibn ul-Qayyim from the accusation of fabricating (the quote from al-BĆqilĆnĩ) which was claimed by al-Muftarĩ al-AffĆk alKawtharĩ as mentioned by the two editors of at-Tamheed (i.e. al-Khudayrĩ and Abş Rĩdah) on page 265 of their commentary of it. Al-Kawtharĩ said at the time that: "there is nothing at all extant of what Ibn ul-Qayyim ascribed to him (al-BĆqilĆnĩ) in his book at-Tamheed. I do not know whether Ibn ul-Qayyim ascribed that to him out of fabrication in order to deceive the Muslims, or whether he thought it was another book with the title at-Tamheed by al-BĆqilĆnĩ." O Kawtharĩ! I say: you overlooked the manuscript in the 'ątifiyyah Library in Istanbul where you lived! And I will even say that he saw the manuscript and that he proved the truthfulness and trustworthiness of ImĆm Ibn ul-Qayyim and his detail in transmission, as all testify to be they those who agree with him or not from his time up to now. The 'ątifiyyah manuscript indicates your buhtĆn (O Kawtharĩ!) and your lies and vilification against this ImĆm (Ibn ul-Qayyim) and it also shows your hate and falsehood in your heart against the Muslim ImĆms and their trustworthiness. You (O Kawtharĩ) are indeed treacherous and a distorter! Let's return to the 'ątifiyyah manuscript: the author (al-BĆqilĆnĩ) mentioned some chapters at the beginning of the "a" side of folio 129 entitled: 'Speech Concerning Seeing AllĆh with the Eyes' and then he mentioned a chapter and eight issues which go on to the "b" side of folio 145, and
altering or denying it (in any way or form). We also believe that the meaning that comes to those who equate AllŅh with the creation is to be rejected, for nothing is similar to AllŅh,

comparing

the

two

we

find

that

ƂĄŚÊǐăƦƒdzơ ĄǞȈÊǸċLjdzơ ăȂĄǿăȁ ÆƔąȄăNj ÊǾÊǴƒưÊǸƊǯ ădžąȈƊdzƃ
"There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing." {ash-ShźrŅ (42): 11} Indeed, we assert and affirm what the Imams said, such as Nu'aym bin HammŅd AlKhuzŅ'ŝ, the teacher of ImŅm al-BukhŅrŝ, who said, "Whoever likens AllŅh with His creation, will have committed Kufr. Whoever denies what AllŅh has described Himself with, will have committed Kufr. Certainly, there is no resemblance (of AllŅh with the creation) in what AllŅh and His Messenger have described Him with. Whoever attests to AllŅh's attributes that the plain ńyŅt and authentic Hadeeths have mentioned, in the manner that suits AllŅh's majesty, all the while rejecting all shortcomings from Him, will have taken the path of guidance." Refer to Online version of tafseer:

http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1242&Itemid=62

______________________________________________________________________________ 15 © SalafiManhaj 2009

Modern 'Ash'arDZ Tampering with the 'Aqeedah Works of the MǙlikDZ Scholars

_________________________________________________________________________ then on the "a" side of folio 148 entitled 'Chapter: Speech Concerning Ability' and he mentioned two chapters and eight issues which continue to the "a" side of folio 152 which is 'Chapter: Speech Concerning the Nullification of Birth'. Within the "a" side of folio 155: 'Chapter: Speech Concerning Creation of the Servants Actions' wherein al-BĆqilĆnĩ mentions their doubts and answers them, along with mentioning the verses that they utilise and answering the doubts with a separate chapter. Then he mentioned ten issues in a chapter up to the second line of the "b" side of folio 160: 'Chapter: The Obligation of Calling them Qadariyyah'. Then on the fourth line of the "b" side of folio 164 there is a chapter. I have transmitted these chapters what you see in order for the publishers (of at-Tamheed) to see that the author (al-BĆqilĆnĩ) was not heedless to these issues in the chapters, as the two editors make out. In fact, the manuscript that the initial two editors of at-Tamheed (i.e. Mahmşd Muhammad al-Khudayrĩ and Muhammad 'AbdulHĆdĩ Abş Rĩdah) utilised is damaged and incomplete and this is what led them to such polemic and arrogance and to accuse the author of heedlessness and a lack of honesty. Going back to the 'ątifiyyah manuscript: within the "a" side of folio 171: 'Chapter: Speech on the Meaning of Deen' and on the "b" side of the folio is speech regarding ĩmĆn and IslĆm, AsmĆ' and AhkĆm. On the "a" side of folio 172: 'Chapter: Speech Regarding the Meaning of IslĆm' and on the "b" side: 'Chapter: Naming a FĆsiq a Believer'. On the "b" side of folio 173: 'Chapter: Speech Concerning al-Wa'd and al-Wa'eed' and at the top of the "b" side of folio 175: 'Chapter: Speech on al-Khusşs and al-'Umşm'. On the "b" side of folio 179: 'Chapter: Speech Concerning al-ImĆmah' and at the top of folio 186 the issue of al-Khabr which is the first issue found on folio 61 of the Paris manuscript copy. What we indicated are the chapters and sections of folio 114 to the top of folio 186 of the 'ątifiyyah manuscript copy. So there is discrepancy between folio 60 and folio 61 of the Paris copy and we hypothesise that around 30 folios of it are missing which is about a quarter of the Paris copy. So it is affirmed without disputation that the Paris manuscript copy, which the publishers of atTamheed (i.e. al-Khudayrĩ and Abş Rĩdah) relied upon, is damaged and incomplete. So do they still persist in holding to the claim that it is not incomplete? And do they still continue with their arrogance against al-BĆqilĆnĩ? And their claim that their damaged and incomplete manuscript is more trustworthy according to them than what was transmitted by two noble ImĆms whose truthfulness and trustworthiness has been agreed on from their time up to now? These being ImĆms of 'aql and naql: Shaykh ul-IslĆm Ibn Taymiyyah and his student al-'AllĆmah al-Muhaqqiq Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah may AllĆh have mercy on them and be pleased with them. I saw what they transmitted and quoted from in the 'ątifiyyah manuscript by chapter and number. This was published and printed in Beirut in 1957 CE by the Publications of al-Hikma University in BaghdĆd. So does the fraudulent liar al-Kawtharĩ have any proof after it has emerged that he lied against ImĆm Ibn ul-Qayyim and accused him of fabrication and treachery. ______________________________________________________________________________ 16 © SalafiManhaj 2009

Modern 'Ash'arDZ Tampering with the 'Aqeedah Works of the MǙlikDZ Scholars

_________________________________________________________________________ As for defaming Shaykh ul-IslĆm Ibn Taymiyyah with vile terms of expressions then this is bad manners and ignorance not to mention distant from the reality and true situation. Like their (i.e. alKhudayrĩ and Abş Rĩdah's) words about Ibn Taymiyyah's praise of al-BĆqilĆnĩ as being "unusual for him" and their statement about Ibn Taymiyyah being "well-known for Tahayyuz (spatial confinement)" and other such jesting and foolery which shows their ignorance. Respectable and just 'Ulama, Arabs and non-Arabs, have admitted the virtue of these two Shaykhs (Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn ul-Qayyim) and none deviate from them except for the ignoramuses or one affected by Shu'oobiyyah (i.e.
29

or those who have hatred and venom, such as al-Kawtharĩ. As for what they

Mahmşd Muhammad al-Khudayrĩ and Muhammad 'AbdulHĆdĩ Abş Rĩdah) drone on about that affirming AllĆh's 'Uluww over His Throne is an "affirmation of tajseem" or the likes of such things that they regurgitate and try to negate from al-BĆqilĆnĩ's book at-Tamheed then we say to them in all frankness: retract from that! For it is not your arena, leave that to the believers who know AllĆh by His Names and Attributes from His Book and from the speech of His Messenger. Rather your job is to merely publish and distribute, for what you have done is not what a truthful publisher does. Then I ask them, after the affirmation of this from the book at-Tamheed, what do you to have to say now about the book at-Tamheed and its author al-BĆqilĆnĩ? And then I ask them about the statement of their "master" and hujjah al-Kawtharĩ when he said: "there is nothing at all extant of what Ibn ul-Qayyim ascribed to him (al-BĆqilĆnĩ) in his book at-Tamheed. I do not know whether Ibn ul-Qayyim ascribed that to him out of fabrication in order to deceive the Muslims, or whether he thought it was another book with the title at-Tamheed by alTranslator's note: a form of anti-Arab partisanship and nationalism which focused on denigrating the Arabs

29

and promoting anti-Arab feeling. It was developed mainly by some Persian scholars as a response to rapid Arabisation of their land in the 9 th and 10 centuries CE. It was also popular in al-Andalźs among some of the Berber converts to Islam as well as some white European converts to Islaam. Some of its famous poets include IbnGharsiyah(thesonofGarcia),BashhaaribnBurdandothers. There are many contemporary forms of this kind of thinking among Muslims as can be observed in: the stubborn adherence to localised languages and mockery of Arabic; hatred of Arabs, which in reality can in most cases be traced to hasad over oil and wealth; emphasis on the Arabs no longer possessing fus-ha; condemnation of Muslims who wear thobes; promoting the view that certain races, other than the Arabs, have the true and correct understanding of Islam; exaggerate the notion that one can be a Muslim without being an Arab, in order todenigrateArabiclanguageandArabinvolvementinIslametc. Those who can be said to have fallen into this contemporary Shu'źbiyyah ideology are: the movement of WD Muhammad; Abdur-RahmŅn Muhammad (of the 'Singular Voice' blog); the Pakistani nationalists; the Hanafis and Sufis of the Indian sub-continent, some of whom make ridiculous statements such as "Urdu is the closest language to Arabic"; the Turkish nationalists who feel that they own the Haramayn; the Iranian Shi'ites and Ayatollahs who extol the virtues of their Persian heritage even when it conforms with pure shirk and many other partisan nationalists who fall exactly into Shu'źbiyyah. ImŅm Abź Muhammad Ibn Qutaybah ad-Dŝnawarŝ critiqued them in his book ar-Radd 'ala'ish-Shu'źbiyyah. George H. Gardner and Sami A. Hanna conducted a study entitled Al-Shu'ubiyyah Up-Dated: A Study of the 20th Century Revival of an Eighth Century Concept in The Middle East Institute Journal,vol.20,no.3,Summer1996.

______________________________________________________________________________ 17 © SalafiManhaj 2009

Modern 'Ash'arDZ Tampering with the 'Aqeedah Works of the MǙlikDZ Scholars

_________________________________________________________________________ BĆqilĆnĩ"? Who in the East and West encompasses the knowledge to negate what is found in the manuscript copy of at-Tamheed from the fourth century up until the fourteenth century? Who encompasses the knowledge to make this general and absolute negation except for the one who knows the unseen? Does al-Kawtharĩ in the 14
th

Century AH encompass knowledge of all of the

manuscript copies of the book at-Tamheed in the East and West spanning over ten centuries?!

Abş 'Ubaydah says: you will never be pleased with the ImĆms of Salafiyyah O you hateful people! The truth is clear and the bĆtil is obscure and speech has to be with truth and justice and with wara' and taqwĆ avoiding partisanship, desires and prejudice. This is in regards to instances of doubt and confusion, then how can those, while they are like this, reach guidance and accuracy which will remove doubt from their hearts from the ImĆms and senior 'Ulama. It may be that the later ones, especially during the era of openness and enlightenment paid attention to the likes of these narrow methods which inform of the manifest inattention and they worked on setting the record straight acting on what Shaykh ul-IslĆm Ibn Taymiyyah acknowledged in Majmş' al-FatĆwĆ, vol.15, p.308:
If the matter revolves between one who errs by punishing the innocent and one who errs by forgiving the sinful, then this (latter one) is the better of the two errors.

Abş 'Ubaydah says: we accept this from some of the reckless ones takfeer though he is

30

who make tadleel and

of Shaykh ul-IslĆm, and I intend by this: that they deem him to be in error even

entirely innocent from the claims, yet as for those who make tadleel, tafseeq and tabdĩ' of him out of oppression and enmity, then by AllĆh this is from fasĆd and ifsĆd. However it may be that they became more aware when they realised what Shaykh ul-IslĆm also acknowledged in Majmş' al30

I mentioned a group of them in my FatĆwĆ, vol.3, pp.348-349 introduction to stated: when he the tahqeeq

of the book by al-'AlŅ'ŝ al-Arba'źn al-

Mughniyyah bi 'Uyyźn FunźnihŅ 'an al-Ma'een ('AmmŅn,Jordan:DŅrul-Athariyyah).

It is a must for a person to possess within him both ignorance and oppression and then ______________________________________________________________________________ 18 AllĆh accepts the tawbah of whomsoever He wills. The believing servant will always © SalafiManhaj 2009 have the truth made clear to him of what he was ignorant of prior and retract from doing what

Modern 'Ash'arDZ Tampering with the 'Aqeedah Works of the MǙlikDZ Scholars

_________________________________________________________________________

Salaf) authentic speech along with sound intellectual principles and thus inclined towards Salafiyyah in a way which you have seen. So woe to you if you doubt the authenticity of his speech, for those who negate what al-BĆqilĆnĩ stated do not know the firm and verified statement in regards to the matter. Thus when they found this (affirmation of 'Uluww) in a book from some books which they circulate, they did not circulate the meaning of the

THIRD EXAMPLE: TAHREEF OF THE MUQADDIMAH OF IBN ABŜ
Book and

ZAYD AL-QAYRAWńNŜ'S RISńLAH

Sunnah with its authentic Salafĩ Usşl and they resorted to denial or distortion! As The RisĆlah of Ibn Abĩ Zayd al-QayrawĆnĩ has been printed on a number of occasions in: Fes, happened in the Cairo, Tunisia, London, Paris and other places. The MĆlikĩs East and West depend on this and following cases: have studied it, teach it, instruct it, preserved it, explained it and made poetry about it. It is
3 organised into different topics related to the Sharee'ah: tawheed, fiqh, ĆdĆb and 1

discusses about four thousand topics. al'AbdulFattĆh Abş Ghuddah
32

edited and printed a version entitled

'Aqeedah al-IslĆmiyyah allatĩ yunashsha' 'alayhĆ as-SighĆr. In this work he distorted, appended and omitted parts of ar-RisĆlah and this was clarified by al-'AllĆmah Shaykh Bakr Abş Zayd

FOURTH EXAMPLE: THE COMMENTARIES OF 'ABDUL'AZEEZ AL-GHUMńRŜ TO THE SEVENTH PART OF 'AT-TAMHEED KitĆb 'ar33'

(rahimahullĆh) in his book 'Aqeedat us-Salaf: Muqaddimat Ibn Abĩ Zayd al-QayrawĆnĩ li-

BY

IBN 'ABDULBARRwas represented in the book THE BELIEFS OF min MĆkhudh Ahl ulRisĆlah' and this AND HIS REFUTATION OF Tahreef un-Nusşs THE SALAF AhwĆ' fi'lIstidlĆl.
31

From the introduction of al-'AllŅmah, Shaykh Bakr Abź Zayd (rahimahullŅh) to the Nudhm of Ahmad bin

Musharrafal-IhsŅ'ŝ (d.1398AH)tothe Muqaddimat Ibn Abŝ Zayd al-QayrawŅnŝ,p.8
32

Our Shaykh, al-AlbŅnŝ, refuted him in his introduction to Sharh al-'Aqeedat ut-Tahawiyyah and in a separate

published and printed treatise entitled Kashf un-NiqŅb 'amŅ fŝ Kalimaat Abŝ Ghuddah min al-AbŅteel wa'lIftirŅ'Ņt. Shaykh 'Abdul'Azeez ar-Rubay'Ņn refuted Abź Ghuddah in as-Sayf al-'Aqbarŝ 'ala'l-AbŅteel Tilmeedh al-Kawtharŝ. Shaykh 'AbdullŅh bin SŅlih al-Madanŝ refuted him in his introduction to the book al-MuqŅbalah Bayna'l-HudŅ wa'd-Dalaal by 'AbdurRazzŅq Hamza. ProfessorMuhammadFihrin at-Tasawwuf: Bayna'l-Haqq wa'l-Khalq, p.220 refuted Abź Ghuddah and Shaykh Shams al-Haqq al-AfghŅnŝ also has a refutation of Abź Ghuddahwhichhasnotbeenpublishedanddistributedasofyet.
33

PrintedandpublishedbytheWizŅratul-AwqŅfinMorocco.

______________________________________________________________________________ 19 © SalafiManhaj 2009

Modern 'Ash'arDZ Tampering with the 'Aqeedah Works of the MǙlikDZ Scholars

_________________________________________________________________________

Of the very important transmissions which have had a good influence on the later 'Ulama, especially the MĆlikĩs, are the acknowledgements of Ibn 'AbdulBarr in affirming AllĆh's Attributes, 'Azza wa Jall, especially in regards to AllĆh's 'Uluww respected
34.

The researcher, the

brother (Abş 'AbdullĆh Muhammad 'AbdullĆh al-HammĆdĩ) transmitted what Ibn 'AbdulBarr stated and brought attention to important issues related to such quotes. Also from the important issues that bypassed his attention were the opposing commentaries and interpretations which seek to destroy the lofty Sunnĩ acknowledgments of Ibn 'AbdulBarr. This is from the games of the editor and publisher (al-GhumĆrĩ) and the recklessness of the commentator, for his like and pen blot out the acknowledgements of this scholar, Mutafannin (polymath), Muhaqqiq (editor), Mudaqqiq (adept scholar), Muhaddith and ImĆm which all Sunnĩs are delighted with in different times and places. Our wrote a brother, the researcher Abş UsĆmah YĆseen NazĆl (hafidhahullĆh)

comprehensive and beneficial study refuting the interpretations of al-GhumĆrĩ entitled IjtimĆ' Juyşsh at-Tawheed fĩ IkhrĆj ad-DalĆl min HawĆmish (al-Juz' as-SĆbi') min KitĆb atTamheed, which we are working to print and publish inshĆ'AllĆh for DĆr ul-Athariyyah. Last but not least, this work is a beneficial effort wherein the author (Abş 'AbdullĆh Muhammad 'AbdullĆh al-HammĆdĩ) supported the authentic creed and sound manhaj with clear expressions and valuable transmissions from ImĆms whose virtue has been agreed upon and whose knowledge has been admitted. Within this it is clear to all who possess two eyes that: this saved group established its roots in all praise and that AllĆh, the is extended and its chain And out last du'a is that history is due to its rope Lord of the Worlds of transmission is connected, and it is not possible for all of the powerful of the earth to gather to Written by, dispute with it Mashhşr bin Hasanwith the fitrah and was followed by the people of Abş 'Ubaydah because it agrees ąl virtue and SalmĆn knowledge. May AllĆh reward the author (Abş 'AbdullĆh Muhammad 'AbdullĆh al'AmmĆn, Jordan
You will find this HammĆdĩ) in at-Tadhkirah by ImŅm al-Qurtubŝ when he argued with some of the judges and defended
34

the belief in 'Uluww by referral to the speech of Ibn 'AbdulBarr in at-Tamheed. Refer to the book al-ImŅm alQurtubŝ: Shaykh A'immat Tafseer,p.161.

with good for his effort that he made and place it in his good actions, and may AllĆh make it ______________________________________________________________________________ 20
© SalafiManhaj 2009 beneficial for IslĆm and the Muslims.

Modern 'Ash'arDZ Tampering with the 'Aqeedah Works of the MǙlikDZ Scholars

_________________________________________________________________________

27 Rajab 1429 AH (July 30 2008 CE)

______________________________________________________________________________ 21 © SalafiManhaj 2009

Modern 'Ash'arDZ Tampering with the 'Aqeedah Works of the MǙlikDZ Scholars

_________________________________________________________________________

AL-KAWTHARŜ'S DEFAMATION OF IBN TAYMIYYAH AND IBN UL-QAYYIM
Al-Kawtharĩ is famed for his absurd condemnations of the following scholars and even making takfeer of some of them: 1. Due to the narrations on the SifĆt from ImĆm HammĆd bin Salamah (d. 167

AH), alKawtharĩ accused him of being a Mushabbihah. 2. 3. ImĆm 'UthmĆn bin Sa'eed ad-DĆrimĩ (d. 280 AH). ImĆm 'AbdullĆh ibn ul-ImĆm AhmĆd (d. 290 AH), al-Kawtharĩ claims (with no evidence as per usual) that he authored books "under pressure of the Hashwiyyah", Kawtharĩ also claims that "the views of the idol worshippers are recorded within his book".35 4. a Saheeh and KitĆb ut-Tawheed. Kawtharĩ says that his book KitĆb ut-Tawheed is in reality a "book of shirk due to it containing the ideas of the idol worshippers"!?36 5. ImĆm al-HĆfidh Shaykh u-IslĆm Ibn Abĩ HĆtim (d. 327 AH), al-Kawtharĩ accused him of being a "miskeen with a corrupted belief" 6. alKawtharĩ accused him of having corrupted beliefs and of being a "miskeen, who was blind" 7. senior
35 36

ImĆm Abş Bakr Muhammad bin IshĆq bin Khuzaymah (d. 311 AH), the author of

37.

ImĆm Abu'l-Hasan 'Umar bin Ahmad ad-DarĆqutnĩ (d. 385 AH) author of a Sunan,

38.

The ImĆm, Muhaddith, the trustworthy one, the Shaykh of the Sunnah and the

ImĆm Abş Nasr 'UbaydullĆh bin Sa'eed See MaqalŅt al-Kawtharŝ,pp.301,307,315-23, 324-32,325,326,329,338. and Salafi in 'aqeedah (d. 444 AH).

al-WĆ'ilĩ as-Sijzĩ, who was Hanafi in his madhdhab Al-Kawtharĩ called him: "a munĆfiq",

Al-'AllŅmah 'AbdurRahmŅn bin YahyŅ al-YamŅnŝ al-Mu'allimŝ, Shaykh al-AlbŅnŝ (ed.), at-Tankeel bimŅ fŝ 39

"jĆhil", Ta'neeb ul-Kawtharŝ min al-AbŅteel (Riyadh: DŅr ul-IftŅ' as-Saudiyyah, 1403 AH, 2 nd Edn.), pp.29, 133; Tabdeed
MaqŅlŅt ul-Kawtharŝ,pp.315,330.

udh-DhulŅm, p.108; Kawtharŝ's"foolish"AsmŅ' wa's-SifŅtsuch vile statements. "accursed", ta'leeqŅt on and other (Beirut: DŅr ul-Kutub al-'Alamiyyah), p.267;

8.

Shaykh ul-IslĆm Ibn Taymiyyah.

Ta'neeb ul-Kawtharŝ,pp.167,168. 37
38 39

Ta'neeb ul-Kawtharŝ,pp.239,244,261-62. For his elevated status, the magnitude of his leadership and his glorious position among the ImŅms of IslŅm

see: al-AnsŅb, vol.12, pp.217-18; al-LubŅb, vol.3, p.353; Siyar A'lŅm un-NubalŅ', vol.17, p.654-57; al-'Ibr, vol.2, pp.285-86; Tadhdhkirat ul-HuffŅdh, vol.3, pp.1118-1120; TabaqŅt ul-HuffŅdh, p.429; ShadharŅt udh-Dhahab, vol.3, p.pp.271-72. Also see the books of the Hanafis such as al-JawŅhir ul-Madiyyah, vol.2, p.495 and TŅj utTarŅjim,p.39.

______________________________________________________________________________ 22 © SalafiManhaj 2009

Modern 'Ash'arDZ Tampering with the 'Aqeedah Works of the MǙlikDZ Scholars

_________________________________________________________________________

9.

ImĆm Ibn ul-Qayyim.

10. ImĆm Shah WaliullĆh ad-Dehlawĩ. 11. ImĆm Muhammad bin 'AbdulWahhĆb. 12. ImĆm Muhammad bin 'Ali ash-ShawkĆnĩ.

With regards to Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullĆh), al-Kawtharĩ makes takfeer of Ibn Taymiyyah as well as making tabdĩ' and tadleel of him. Kawtharĩ says: "his kufr is agreed upon" and "there is agreement on his misguidance, deviance, innovation and heresy" not from the 73 sects" those from those who are extreme in tashbeeh" Taymiyyah as ImĆms of misguidance", "misguided many of the servants (of AllĆh)", "deviant in creed and actions", extremist" "this (?!), filthy one is from the greatest of deviants", "an
43 42 41 40

and "he is

!!? Kawtharĩ also stated: "he is a Mujassim who has clear tajseem, from

who went to extremes in tajseem, much worse than the KarrĆmiyyah, he is

!! Al-Kawtharĩ refers to Shaykh ul-IslĆm Ibn

being: "deceived", " a misguided deviator", "a sign of misguidance", "from the

"ignorant", "miskeen", "from the excessive fools", "affected in his mind and deen", "an innovator", "from Ahl ul-Bida'", "worse than the philosophers who deny the Day of Gathering", "worse than the Mu'tazilah".
44

Kawtharĩ also said about Ibn Taymiyyah that:

...if we were to say that Islam was not tested during its latter stages by anyone more harmful than
40

Ibn intro of al-Kawtharŝ to ar-RasŅ'il the word of the Muslims, we would not be exaggerating in that. He See the Taymiyyah in disunitingas-Subkiyyah (Beirut: 'ńlam ul-Kutub), pp.24, 27, 35,48and79;also was accommodating to the yahşd and the NasĆra.45 What has been mentioned is an example and clear proof that al-Jarkasĩ (i.e. al-Kawtharĩ 'the

see Tabdeed udh-DhulŅm,p.157

Seetheintroofal-Kawtharŝ to ar-RasŅ'il as-Subkiyyah,pp.27,28;alsosee Tabdeed udh-DhulŅm,p.81 41

Shaykh Shams as-Salafĩ al-AfghĆnĩ states:
42 43

Tabdeed udh-DhulŅm,p.167

Tabdeed udh-DhulŅm, pp.8, 17 and 63; also see MaqŅlŅt u-Kawtharŝ, p.285; also see the intro of al-Kawtharee

Circassian') was an to ar-RasŅ'il us-Subkiyyah,p.79 enemy to authentic IslĆm and one who hated its ImĆms. It also indicates that he
44

See the intro of al-Kawtharŝ toentrenched in lying and deception and deficient Tabdeed religious position and was a liar who was ar-RasŅ'il as-Subkiyyah, pp.19, 27, 29, 30, 32, 54, 55 and 79; also see in his

udh-DhulŅm, pp. 7, 9, 16-18, 30, 63, 67, 80, 84, 105; also see Kawtharŝ's ta'leeqŅt to Dhayźl Tadhdhkirat ulHuffŅdh ofadh-Dhahabŝ,p.188
45

trustworthiness, for he was sinful and a dajjĆl. Because the biography of Shaykh ul-IslĆm is documented in the book of the people of IslĆm:

Al-IshfŅq,p.86

______________________________________________________________________________ 23 © SalafiManhaj 2009

Modern 'Ash'arDZ Tampering with the 'Aqeedah Works of the MǙlikDZ Scholars

_________________________________________________________________________ Who was the one who protected the blood of the Muslims and protected the honour of their women, including the MĆturĩdiyyah and 'AshĆ'irah, and repelled the plots of the Mongols from ShĆm if not Shaykh ul-IslĆm Ibn Taymiyyah? Who authored the great book MinhĆj us-Sunnah which refuted the RĆfidah and the yahşd? Who authored the great book as-SĆrim al-Maslool 'alĆ ShatĆ'im ar-Rasool, against the NasĆra who cursed the Messenger of AllĆh (sallallĆhu 'alayhi wassallam)? Who authored al-JawĆb us-Saheeh liman Baddal Deen al-Maseeh? So after this how can it be said that Shaykh ul-IslĆm Ibn Taymiyyah was an polytheist who was accommodating to the yahşd and the NasĆra
46?

With regards to Ibn ul-Qayyim (rahimahullĆh), al-Kawtharĩ dedicated a book to attacking Ibn ul4 Qayyim entitled Tabdeed udh-DhulĆm al-Mukhayyim min Nooniyyati Ibn il-Qayyim, 7

which is a commentary to the book as-Sayf as-Saqeel disgraceful and fi'r-Radd 'alĆ Ibn Zafeel
48.

Some of the

abusive language that al-Kawtharĩ refers to Ibn ul-Qayyim with, including takfeer, tabdĩ', and tadleel, is as follows: "kĆfir or himĆr ("he is either a disbeliever or a donkey"!!!?)", "mulhid (deviant)", "khabeeth (filth)", "mal'şn (accursed)", "wiskh (dirt)", "najas (unclean and
46

impure)", "fadm (dim-witted)", "baleed (an idiot)", "naffĆj (a show-off)",
Asma wa's-SifŅt [The Enmity of the MŅturŝdŝs to the Salafŝ 'Aqŝdah and their Position on Tawhŝd al-Asma wa's-

Shams as-Salafŝ al-AfghŅnŝ, 'ńda al-MŅturŝdiyyah li'l-'Aqŝdah as-Salafŝyyah wa Mawqifahum min Tawhŝd al-

"mutakhalif SifŅt]vol.1(TŅ'if,KSA:Maktabahas-Siddŝq,1993CE/1413AH),pp.356-57.
47

ShaykhShamsas-Salafial-Afghanistatesinibid.p.358: This book is ascribed to Taqiuddeen as-Subkŝ ('Ali bin 'AbdulKŅfŝ, d.756 AH), the father of TŅjuddeen as-Subkŝ ('AbdulWahhŅb bin 'Ali, d.771 AH). Common sense and transmission distances this book from actually being a book authored by Taqiuddeen as-Subkŝ. As for common sense, then such disgraceful vile abusive language does not befit one who fears AllŅh, rather it such language suits the abusive language of the poets. As for via transmission, then this book was not mentioned before az-Zabŝdŝ did who was one of the biographers of Taqiuddeen as-Subkŝ. Yet even his son, TŅjuddeen made no mention of the book within his biography of his father within at-TabaqŅt and he spent his younger and older life with his father. If this book was really authored by Taqiuddeen as-Subkŝ it would have been relied upon by the enemies of Shaykh ul-IslŅm Ibn Taymiyyah and what az-

Zabŝdŝ mentioned does not mean that the actual book is extant.
48

ShaykhShamsas-Salafŝ al-AfghŅnŝ statesinibid.p.358: It is not known about Ibn ul-Qayyim that he was ever referred to as "Ibn Zafeel", the name "Zafeel" is not known to have been the name of any of his grandparents from either his father's side or his mother's. Dr Bakr bin 'AbdillŅh mentions a long story regarding alKawtharŝ and "Zafeel", refer to at-Taqreeb il-Fiqh Ibn il-Qayyim, vol.1, p.31. This story indicates that al-Kawtharŝ is a slanderous liar.

______________________________________________________________________________ 24 © SalafiManhaj 2009

Modern 'Ash'arDZ Tampering with the 'Aqeedah Works of the MǙlikDZ Scholars

_________________________________________________________________________

(backward)", "waqih (shameless)", "ignorant", "miskeen", "an innovator", "jilf (rude)", "muta'Ćlim (a pseudo-scholar)", "radiyĆ (ruined)" and also "a heretic"
49

!!?

Kawtharĩ also stated about ImĆm Ibn ul-Qayyim: "mujassim", "mushabbih", "hashwĩ",50 "afflicted in mind and deen", "from the misguided and the transgressors", "from the mujassimah and their brothers the Jews and Christians", "he caused much deception upon the Ummah, not within the dunya but by poisoning IslĆm"
51

!!

Kawtharĩ also stated: "...his kufr reached an amount wherein it is not permissible to keep quiet", "have the heretics, deviants and detractors of the Sharee'ah even reached more than this? Not even ten of them have!", "the heretics, deviants and detractors of the Sharee'ah have not done more in going against IslĆm and the Muslims than him..."52 Kawtharĩ also says about Ibn ul-Qayyim: "may AllĆh curse him", "upon him is the curse of AllĆh", "may AllĆh make him ugly", "damn him!", "may AllĆh humiliate him", "away with him", "may AllĆh break his back", "he deserves curses due to his going against the creed of the Muslims", "damn Ibn Taymiyyah and his companion", "damned is the follower and the one being followed", "may AllĆh fight him", "may AllĆh fight them", "may AllĆh save from what the
See Tabdeed caused".53 fitna theyudh-DhulŅm, pp.20-1, 23-4, 25-6, 28-9, 31, 35, 37, 39, 47, 51, 55, 59, 61, 68, 73-4, 76-7, 79, 85, 87,
49

91,93,139,147-48,155,164-66,184.
50 51 52 53

Shaykh Shams as-Salafĩ al-AfghĆnĩ highlights 54:
Ibid.,pp.22,24,39,93. Ibid.,pp.10,22,39,63,77,149. Ibid.,pp.57-8,182.

Many great Hanafĩ ImĆms defended Shaykh ul-IslĆm Ibn Taymiyyah and ImĆm Ibn ul-Qayyim, I will mention some of their testimonies as "a witness from its people bears testimony" and in order

to indicate that Kawtharĩ is a rapacious plotter Ibid.,pp.26,34,37,47,55,91,99,121,140,143,149,150,155,165,182-83. and an immoral failure. Of these scholars are:

Translator's Note: all praise is due to AllŅh, for the oppressive empty calls of Kawtharŝ 835not answered by ImĆm Zaynuddeen 'AbdurRahmĆn bin 'Ali at-Tafahanĩ (d. were AH), the head of judges, who was AllŅh and in fact AllŅh has made the legacy of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn ul-Qayyim praiseworthy among the
55 56, Ummah with their books, works and writings used, referred to and well known to this day, while the books and

also the head of the Hanafis

even on the admission of Kawtharĩ

he has some good words in

defence of Shaykh ul-IslĆm and rendered insignificant in comparison to these two great names of his opposers have been forgottenIbn Taymiyyah.57
mountainsofknowledge,andallpraiseisduetoAllŅh.
54 55

ShaykhShamsas-Salafial-Afghani, op.cit.,pp.360-61. His biography can be referred to as-SakhŅwŝ in ad-Daw ul-LŅmŝ' li Ahl il-Qarn at-TŅsŝ' (Beirut: Maktabah al-

Hayyah),vol.4,p.98-100andalsoin al-FawŅ'id ul-Bahiyyah,pp.88-9.

______________________________________________________________________________ 25 © SalafiManhaj 2009

Modern 'Ash'arDZ Tampering with the 'Aqeedah Works of the MǙlikDZ Scholars

_________________________________________________________________________ ImĆm Badruddeen Mahmşd bin Ahmad al-'Aynĩ, the author of 'Umdat ul-QĆrĩ (d. 855 AH), who Kawtharĩ goes to excess with and values over Ibn Hajar, just as he values his 'Umdah over al-Fath ImĆm al-'Aynĩ has some very important words in defence of Shaykh ul-IslĆm Ibn Taymiyyah which affects the hearts of those with justice.59 Al-'AllĆmah al-MulĆ 'Ali al-QĆrĩ (d. 1014 AH) who Kawtharĩ himself calls "NĆsir us-Sunnah".
60 58.

He

also has some statements in defence of Shaykh ul-IslĆm Ibn Taymiyyah and ImĆm Ibn ul-Qayyim which shows justice and fairness, far from injustice.61 ImĆm WalĩullĆh ad-Dehlawĩ (d. 1176 AH) and al-'Allamah Sayyid Mahmşd al-Alşsĩ, the Mufti of the Hanafis, as well as his son and grandson.62

So this shows who really have to review their claims to wanting an end to "ad hominem attacks" on scholars and the like.
56

Seeal-Kawtharŝ's ta'leeqŅt to Dhayool Tadhdkirat ul-HuffŅdh byal-HŅfidhadh-Dhahabŝ,p.300. Refer to his taqreedh in Ibn NŅsirudden ad-Dimishqŝ, Zuhayr ash-ShŅweesh (ed.), ar-Radd ul-WŅfir 'alŅ man

57

za'ama in man atlaq 'alŅ Ibn Taymiyyah "Shaykh ul-IslŅm", fahuwa KŅfir (Beirut: Maktabah al-Islamiyyah, 1393 AH, 1
st

Edn.), pp.151-55; also refer to Abu'l-Ma'Ņlŝ Mahmźd Shukrŝ al-Alźsŝ, Shaykh Muhammad bin

'AbdillŅh as-Subayyal and Muhammad al-Gheehab (intros.) GhŅyat ul-AmŅnŝ fi'-Radd 'ala'n-NabahŅnŝ (Alexandria:DŅrIhyŅ us-Sunnah),vol.2,pp.136-38.
58 59

Seeal-Kawtharŝ, at-TŅj ul-Lajŝnŝ,pp.4-9 Shaykh Shams as-Salafŝ al-AfghŅnŝ states (op.cit., p.361): His taqreedh to the book ar-Radd ul-WŅfir, pp.158-

65 and refer to GhŅyat ul-AmŅnŝ, vol.2, pp.128-32. From the samples of ImŅm MulŅ 'Ali al-QŅrŝ's defence of Shaykhul-IslŅmIbnTaymiyyahandcensuringthosewhoslanderhimarethefollowing: What are they except for Salqa'a Balqa'a and the ones who make takfeer out of them are Salama'a bin Qalma'a and HayyŅn bin BayyŅn and Hayy bin Bayy and Dull bin Dudill and DalŅl bin at-TalŅl. Healsosaid: Whoever says he (i.e. Ibn Taymiyyah) is a kŅfir, the person who says this is the real kŅfir. And whoever ascribes to him (i.e. Ibn Taymiyyah) heresy, then the person who ascribes this is the real heretic. This is an example for Kawtharŝ and his followers to take into consideration. As for "Salqa'a Balqa'a" it means: empty, and "Salama'a bin Qalma'a" means: unknown. Refer to al-QŅmźs, p.953. "HayyŅn bin BayyŅn" and "Hayy binBayy"mean:heisunknownandsoishisfather,see LisŅn ul-'Arab,vol.13,p.441andvol.14,p.375. "Dull bin Dudill": with a kasra and a dhammah means one who is entrenched in misguidance, or one whose father is unknown, or one who has no good at all in him. See al-QŅmźs, p.24. "DalŅl bin at-TalŅl": means 'DŅl TŅl',amisguidedperson,referto as-SahhŅh,vol.4,p.1644andalsoreferto LisŅn ul-'Arab,vol.11,p.395.Itmeans that such people are devoid of taqwŅ and trustworthiness, have no good in them and are entrenched in misguidance.
60 61 62

Tabdeed udh-DhulŅm,p.100 MirqŅt ul-MafŅteeh Sharhu MishkŅt il-MasŅbeeh,vol.8,pp.251-52. Refer to Khayruddeen al-Alźsŝ, JalŅ ul-'Ayn'ayn fŝ MahŅkimat ul-Ahmadayn (Beirut: DŅr ul-Kutub al-

'Alamiyyah),pp.43-46and GhŅyat ul-'AmŅnŝ,vol.2,pp.127-88.

______________________________________________________________________________ 26 © SalafiManhaj 2009

Modern 'Ash'arDZ Tampering with the 'Aqeedah Works of the MǙlikDZ Scholars

_________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 27 © SalafiManhaj 2009

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful