Sheikh-ul-Islam, Hadret Allama ibn Hajar al-haitimis Fatawa on ibn Taymiyya

Al-Haitimi wrote in his Fatawa Hadithiyya: Ibn Taymiyya is a servant, which Allah forsook, misguided, blinded, deafened, and debased. That is the declaration of the imams who have exposed the corruption of his positions and the mendacity of his sayings. Whoever wishes to pursue this must read the words of the Mujtahid Imaam Abu al-Hasan (Taqi al-Din) al-Subki, of his son Taj al-Din Subki, of the Imaam al-`Izz ibn Jama`a and others of the Shafi`i, Maliki, and Hanafi shuyukh... It must be considered that he is a misguided and misguiding innovator (mubtadi` dall mudill) and an ignorant that brought evil (jahilun ghalun) that Allah treated with His justice. May He protect us from the likes of his path, doctrine, and actions! Know that he has differed from people on questions about which Taj al-Din Ibn al-Subki and others warned us. Among the things Ibn Taymiyya said which violate the scholarly consensus as-Sunnah wal al Ijma) are: 1. that whoso violates the consensus commits neither disbelief (kufr) nor grave transgression (fisq); 2. that our Lord is subject to created events (mahallun li al-hawadith) glorified, exalted, and sanctified is He far above what the depraved ascribe to Him! 3. that He is complex or made of parts (murakkab), His Entity standing in need similarly to the way the whole stands in need of the parts, elevated is He and sanctified above that! 4. that the Qur'an is created in Allah's Entity (muhdath fi dhatillah), elevated is He above that! 5. that the world is of a pre-eternal nature and exists with Allah since pre-eternity as an "ever-abiding created object" (makhluqan da'iman), thus making it necessarily existent in His Entity (mujaban bi al-dhat) and not acting deliberately [GH1] (la fa`ilan bi al-ikhtyar), elevated is He above that! [1] 6. his suggestions of Allah's corporeality, direction, displacement, (aljismiyya wa al-jiha wa al-intiqal), and that He fits the size of the Throne, being neither bigger nor smaller, exalted is He from such a hideous invention and wide-open disbelief, and may He forsake all his followers, and may all his beliefs be scattered and lost! 7. his saying that the fire shall go out (al-nar tafni), [2]

8. and that Prophets are not sinless (al-anbiya' ghayr ma`sumin), 9. and that the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- has no special status before Allah (la jaha lahu) and must not be used as a means (la yutawassalu bihi), [3] 10. and that the undertaking of travel (al-safar) to the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- in order to perform his visitation is a sin, for which it is unlawful to shorten the prayers, [4] and that it is forbidden to ask for his intercession in view of the Day of Need, 11. and that the words (alfaz) of the Torah and the Gospel were not substituted, but their meanings (ma`ani) were. Some said: "Whoever looks at his books does not attribute to him most of these positions, except that whereby he holds the view that Allah has a direction, and that he authored a book to establish this, and forces the proof upon the people who follow this school of thought that they are believers in Allah's corporeality (jismiyya), dimensionality (muhadhat), and settledness (istiqrar)." That is, it may be that at times he used to assert these proofs and that they were consequently attributed to him in particular. But whoever attributed this to him from among the imams of Islam upon whose greatness, leadership, religion, trustworthiness, fairness, acceptance, insight, and meticulousness there is agreement - then they do not say anything except what has been duly established with added precautions and repeated inquiry. This is especially true when a Muslim is attributed a view which necessitates his disbelief, apostasy, misguidedness, and execution. Therefore if it is true of him that he is a disbeliever and an innovator, then Allah will deal with him with His justice, and other than that He will forgive him and us.

Notes [1] This is mentioned about Ibn Taymiyya also by Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Bari (1959 ed. 13:411). This doctrine was refuted by Muhammad ibn Isma`il al-San`ani in his Risala Sharifa fi ma Yata`allaqu bi Kam al-Baqi Min `Umr al-Dunya? (Precious Treatise Concerning the Remaining Age of the World") ed. al-Wasabi al-Mathani. (San`a': Maktaba Dar al-Quds, 1992). [2] This doctrine was refuted by Muhammad ibn Isma`il al-San`ani in his Raf` alAstar li-Ibtal Adilla al-Qa'ilin bi-Fana al-Nar ("Exposing the Nullity of the Proofs of Those Who Claim That the Fire Shall Pass Away"), ed. Albani (Beirut: al-Maktab al-Islami, 1984). [3] This is explicitly contradicted by the vast majority of scholars, including Ibn Taymiyya's own students Ibn al-Qayyim (cf. al-Nuniyya, section on tawassul) and al-Dhahabi, as well as al-Shawkani and countless others. See the volume on tawassul in Sheikh Hisham Kabbani'sEncyclopedia of Islamic Doctrine. [4] Ibn Hajar says in Fath al-Bari about Ibn Taymiyya's prohibition to travel in order to visit the Prophet: "This is one of the ugliest matters ever reported from

Ibn Taymiyya." In his notes on Fath al-Bari (1989 ed. 3:66) the late "Salafi" scholar Bin Baz comments: "This was not an ugly thing but a correct thing for Ibn Taymiyya to say."

Ad-durratul mud-iyyah fir raddi 'ala ibni Taymiyya
Hafiz Allamah Taqi ad-Din as-Subki on Ibn Taymiyya Said the last among the mujtahids, Imam Abul Hasan `Ali ibn `Abd al-Kaafi ash-Shafi as-Subki radiyallahu `Anhu in his book eAd-durratul mud-iyyah fir raddi `ala ibni Taymiyyah : So it has been established by majority of the scholars that he who opposes the ijma (consensus) is a disbeliever; It is among the conditions for a mufti (a religious scholar who is authorized to issue verdicts) that he shouldn't issue a fatawa (religious edict) that contradicts the preceding scholars and if he does so his verdict is reject and it is disallowed to quote him (such a scholar who opposes the ijma') and the Holy Quran and the Sunnah (the tradition of the prophet Sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam) bear evidence that it is not permitted to oppose the ijma, the consensus. Allah has said, e…and he who has defied the Messenger after the truth has been manifest and followed a path, other than that of Muslims We shall cast him into hell and what a bad place it is to be in! …And when the dissent from the path of Muslims and treading a path other than theirs has invited such wrath, due to dissent from the way of Muslims, can his word be reliable anymore? wa qad aTlaqa katheerun minal `ulamaayil qawli bi anna mukhaalifal ijmaa`yil ummati kaafirun wa sharTal muftee an laa yaftaa biqawlin yukhaalifu aqwaalal `ulamaayil mutaqaddimeen. wa idhaa aftaa bi dhaalika raddat fatwaahu wa mana`a min akhadhin bi qawlihi wa dallal kitaabu was sunnatu `alaa annahu laa yajuuzu mukhaalifatal ijmaa`yi : qaalallahu ta`aalaa {wa man yushaaqqiqqir rasuula min ba`adi maa tabayyana lahul hudaaa wa yattabi`u ghayra sabeelil mu-mineena nuwallihee maa tawalla wa nuSleehi jahannama wa saa-at maseera} fa qad taw`ada `ala mukhaalifati sabeelil mu-mineena wa atbaa`yi ghayra sabeelihim bi haadhal wa`eed al-`adheem wa mukhaalifal ijmaa`yil ummati muttabi`yi ghayra sabeelil mu-mineena fa kayfa yu`utabara qawluhu? Further on he says: And it is said, that the populace can be broadly classified into two kinds: the Mujtahid scholar who is able to derive rules and solve questions by the book (the Holy Quran) and the Sunnah (Hadeeth); and the Muqallid, the follower of the knowledgeable. The job of the Mujtahid is that when he encounters a problem he should derive the answer from the `adillah of Sharia`ah (the

documents of the canon law) and the job of the common man to resort to what the scholars say. It is not proper for a non-mujtahid to abandon acting upon the words of scholars when he encounters an ayat or a Hadeeth (seeming to contradict). For though he finds them as contradicting them (ayat or Hadeeth), it is only that they do so with a document which compels them to say so. And Allah `Azza wa Jall has said, eask ye of the people who know if you don't know" and hath said "…and if they went to turn towards the messenger and the men of authority amongst them verily they wouldst have known the right thing derived by them" and there is no need for further explanation of this ayat and the purpose is to demonstrate that for a nonmujtahid scholar it isn't permissible to derive rules from the Nass. And the commoner is obviously not permitted either; if he encounters an ayat and in it there seems to be a general rule or an absolute one he should never consider it by himself unless verified by the scholars. Neither does he act upon its being generic or absolute unless he has sufficient knowledge of the abrogator and the abrogated (verses); and that which are generic and particular; and that which are absolute and dependent on other issues. Wa dhaalika annan naasa `ala qismayn : `aalimun mujtahidun mutamakkinun min istikhraajil ahkaami minal kitaabi was sunnati aw `aammiyyun muqallidun li ahlil `ilm; wa waDHeefatul mujtahidu idhaa waqa`at waaqi`atun an yastakhrijul hukma feehaa min adillatish shar`yiyati wa waDHeefatul `aammi an yarji`yu ilaa qawlil `ulama; wa laysa li ghayril mujtahidu idhaa sami`a aayatan aw hadeethan an yatruku bihee aqwaalil `ulamaayi fa innahu idhaa raaahum qad khaalafuu dhaalika ma`a `ilmihim bihi `alima annahum innamaa khaalafuuhu li daleelin dallahum `alaa dhaalika wa qad qaalallahu ta`aalaa {fas-aaluu ahladh dhikri in kuntum laa ta`alamuun} wa qaal {wa law radduuhu ilar rasuuli wa ilaa uulil amri minhum la ya`alamalladheena yastanbituunahuu minhum} wa lil mufassireena fil aayati kalaamun laysa haadhaa mawDa`yin dhikruhu wal qasdu anna ghayral `aalim al-mujtahidu wa laa seemaa al-`awaamu idhaa sami`yuu aayatun feehaa `amuumin aw iTlaaqin lam yakun lahum an ya-khudhu bi dhaalikal `amuumi awil iTlaaqi illaa bi qawlil `ulamaa; wa laa ya`amalu bil `amuumaati wal iTlaaqaati illaa man `arafan naasikha wal mansuukh; wal `aamm wal khaaSS; wal muTlaq wal muqayyad ; wal mujmil wal mubayyin; wal haqeeqah wal majaaz. For if a commoner heard the verse of the Holy Quran "and all those women who art your maids" and generalized it and said it is permissible to cohabit with two sisters who are his bondmaids, he is mistaken, for if he had heard along with it the verse "(it is Haraam) that you marry two sisters (at the same time)" he would see that the generalization is here not to cohabit with two sisters at the same time either as bondmaids or as wives. Now if one is confused as to which verse he should consider as superseding the other, he

should have heard Hadrat `Uthmaan ghani radiyallahu `anhu say: "if a verse says Halaal about something and another Haraam, that which says Haraam is given preference". If he had heard this he would have known that he should act on that which forbids and there are other reasons too why he should act on one and not the other, which the scholars know but it should be known that a commoner is not capable of deriving rules from the sources absolutely... a few paragraphs later he writes: And if the commoner came to know of the Hadeeth "he who drinks wine should be lashed" to "he who drinks wine in the four forbidding months should be killed" and acted upon it and killed a person who drank wine in the four forbidding months, he has committed a mistake because the ummah is agreed upon (ijma - attained a consensus) that the afore mentioned rule is abandoned. fa idhaa sami`a qawlahu ta`aalaa [aw maa malakat aymaanukum] wa akhadha bi `amuumihi fil jam`a baynal ukhtayn al-mamluukatayn kaana mukhti-an. fa idhaa sami`a ma`ahuu qawluhu ta`aalaa [wa an tajma`uu baynal ukhtayn] qaala haadha ya`ummul ukhtayn almamluukatayn wal mankuuHatayn fa yataHayyaru bi ayyil `amuumayni ya`amalu fa idhaa sami`a qawla Uthmaan raDiyallahu `anhu "aHallathaa ayatun; wa Harramathaa aayatun wat taHreemu awlaa, `alima annal `amalu `alaa daleelit taHreem; wa lahuu tarjeeHaatun aakhara ghayra haadhaa ya`arifahal `ulamaa fa ya`alamul `aammi annahu laa yumkinahul istiqlaala bi akhadhil Hukmi minal kitaabi .... wa idhaa sami`al `aammi al-hadeeth: "man sharibal khamra fajliduuhu" ilaa an qaala fir raabi`ah "fa in sharibahaa faqtuluuh" fa `amila bihi wa qatalash shaaribu fir raabi`ati kaana mukhti-an; li annal ummatu ajma`at `alaa tarakil `amalu bi haadhaal hadeethi." And so also is the case of the Hadeeth of Hadrat ibn `Abbas rariyallahu `anhu in Sahih al-Muslim that Rasulallah sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam did a jamma of two Salaats (that is two different Salaats (prayers) at the same time) in Madina-tul-Manawara without any reason such as fear of stormy rain and this Hadeeth is reported by Imam Muslim in many ways (different chains of narrators) and if a commoner goes by this hadeeth and did not know that the ummah is agreed upon (a consensus being reached) on abandoning the rule except by Ibn Seereen who said it was permissible to do jamma of two salaats in the state of being at home (Hadar) and it has been reported by Abul Aaliyyah that Hadrat `Umar bin Khattab radiyallahu `anhu wrote to Abu Musa al-Ash`ari radiyallahu `anhu : "know ye, that to add up the salaats (do two salaats at the same time) is among the great sins (Kabaayir) except with an excuse." And these two Hadeeths are found in Tirmidhi and said he in the

end of his book "there are no Hadeeths in this book which are abandoned by the ijmaa' except two" and mentioned these two. Also is the Hadeeth of Ibn `Abbas that Taalaq (divorce) in the time of Rasulallah sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam, Hadrat Abu Bakr as-Sadiq and when Hadrat Umar bin Lhatab followed them and permitted that saying Talaq thrice at the same time was considered as only one. But acting upon this Hadeeth taking its external meaning has been forsaken by consensus and the scholars have attribute the right meaning to this Hadeeth and its reporting is also correct (that is this is a Sahih Hadeeth but acting on its external meaning is not permissible, the correct meaning of this Hadeeth is explained by the Mujtahid scholars). It is also reported by Hadrat ibn `Abbas radiyallahu `anhu contradicting the above position by various chains; if a commoner comes to know of one and adopted it and did not know that there exists something which contradicts its explicit meaning which is forsaken by the ummah unanimously he has committed a wrong. wa ka dhaalika idhaa sami`a hadeetha ibn `Abbas raDiyallahu `anhu alladhee fee SaHeeH al-Muslim annan Nabiyy Sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam jama`a baynaS Salaatayni fil madeenati min ghayri khawfin wa laa maTrin wa qad rawaahu Muslim min Turuqin `Iddatin fa yaquulul `aammiyyu bi haadhal hadeethi wa laa ya`alama annal ummata ajma`at `alaa tarkil `amali bihii illaa maa yarwaa `an ibn Seereen annahu yujawwizul jam`u fil HaDari lil Haajati wa qad rawaa abul `aaliyyah anna `Umara raDiyallahu `anhu kataba ilaa abee Muusaa al-ash`ari raDiyallahu `anhu : "Wa`alam. annaa jam`a maa baynaS Salaatayni minal kabaayiri illa min udhrin" wa qad akhraja haadhaynil Hadeethaynit Tirmidhiyyi wa qaala fee aakhiri kitaabihi : laysa fee kitaabi haadhaa Hadeethun tarakul `amalu bihee bil ijmaa`yi siwaa Hadeethayn, fa dhakara haadhaynil Hadeethayn wa kadhaalika Hadeethi ibn `Abbas kaanaT Talaaqu `ala `ahdi Rasulallahi Sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam wa Abee Bakrin wa Sadara min khilaafati `umarin, ath-thalaathatu waaHidatun falamma ra-aahum `Umara qad tataaba`uu feehi qaala ajeezuuhunna `alayhim wa haadhal Hadeethu matruukiDh Dhaahiru bil Ijmaa`yi wa maHmuulun `Indal `ulamaayi `alaa ma`aanin SaHeeHatin; wa qad SaHHatir riwaayatu. `an ibni `Abbasin bi khilaafihi min wujuuhin `iddatin fa idhaa sami`ahul `aammi waHdahuu waqafa `indahuu wa lam ya`alam annahu ma`aariDun bimaa yadfa`ahu wa marduuduDH DHaahiri bi ijmaa`yil ummah. And the Hadeeths of Mut`ah (temporary marriages) are also correct and acting upon it was right in the time of Nabi sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam and it is also correct that it was later forbidden; so it was permitted twice and forbaden twice.

If a commoner came to know of the Sahih Hadeeth that permits mut`ah and considers that it is permitted he is wrong since he doesn't know that it was abrogated later. It so happened during the time of Mamoun when he was the Caliph that he proclaimed that mut`ah was permitted. Qadi Yahya ibn Akhtum intervened and said thou hath proclaimed that fornication is permitted and he told him of the Sahih Hadeeth that abrogates it, which he (the Caliph) hadn't heard, so the Caliph proclaimed me that mut`ah was Haraam (forbidden). And the Hadeeth of Qudama ibn Madhuun raiyallahu `anhu (Sahih hadeeth), when he drank wine the news of this reached Hadret Umar bin Khatab radiyallahu `anhu who asked him whether it was true. He replied by saying yes and said that he did taweel (extrapolation) of the ayat: "There is no harm for those who believe and do good deeds in anything that they partake". Hadret `Umar Bin khattab radiyallahu `anhu replied, your reasoning is wrong did not Allah say, 'when thou fear and believe...(the ayat which explicitly forbids wine)'." and he did not consider the taweel to excuse him from punishment and administered the Hadd (punishment described by the canon law) for though he deduced rightly he erred in generalizing that 'anything edible is permitted' and overlooked the clause forbidding a special case of wine the verse being 'when thou fear and believe and do good deeds...' This elucidates that to act on a generic rule without considering its clauses for special cases constraining the generalization, is a mistake. Wa aHaadeeth al-mut`ah SaHeeHatun wa qad SaHHa fi`yluhaa fee zamanin Nabiyyi Sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam wa SaHHan nahee `anhaa fa ubeeHat marratayni wa nasakhat marratayn. Fa idhaa sami`al `aammi al-HadeethuS SaHeeHatu bi ibaaHatihaa DHanna annahaa mubaaHatun wa lam ya`alam anna dhaalika nasakhun wa qad waq`a haadhaa lil ma-muun wa huwa khaleefatun fa naadaa bi taHleelil mut`ati fa dakhala `alayhil qaaDi yaHyaa ibn Akthum wa qaala lahuu aHallalltaz zinaa wa `arrafahul Hadeethis SaHeeHi fin naskhi wa lam yakun sami`ahu fa naadaa min waqtihee bi taHreemil mut`ah. Wa Hadeethu Qudaamah bin MaDH-`uun raDiyallahu `anhu SaHeeHun wa kaana qad sharibal khamra fa rafa`al amru ilaa `umarin raDiyallhu `anhu fa`atarafa wa dhakara annahu innamaa sharabahaa muta-awwalan qawlihi ta`aalaa "laysa `alalladheena aamanuu wa `amiluS SaaliHaati JunaaHun feemaa Ta`amuu" faradda `alayhi `umar wa qaala akhta-tatta-weel a lam yaqulillahu subHaanahuu "idhaa mattaqquu wa aamanuu" wa lam yaj`al taweeluhu mawjiban li isqaatil Haddi bal Haddahuu li annahu yastanbiTul Hukma istinbaaTan SaHeeHan walaakinnahu akhadha bi `amuumin nafiyal junaaHa fee kulli maT`uumin wa ghafala `anil qaydil makhSuuSi wa huwa qawlihi "idhaa mattaquu wa aamanuu

wa `amiluS SaaliHaat" ilaa aakhiri aayati; wa haadhaa yuuDaHu annal `amalu bil `amuumi bi mujarridihi min ghayri naDHarin fee adillatit takhSeeSi wat taqayyadu khaTa-un minal `aamilu bihee.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful