Thursday, 15 December 2016

The Creator is Clear from Anthropomorphism - Part3 (800AH to 900AH)



    

Part 3


=========
800AH
=========

Imam al-Iraqi (d.826 AH)
Muhaddith Waliyyud-Din Abu Zur’ah Ahmad Ibn ‘Abdir-Rahimal-‘Iraqiyy
In his book ‘Tarh at-Tathrib fi Sharh at-Taqrib’ when explaining the saying of the Prophet sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam:> in reference to the Book positioned above the Throne which has the following words: ‘Inna Rahmati sabaqat Ghadabi’, which means that the matters Allah approves of, far exceed in number those He does not, said: “Allah is clear from the acts of sitting, occupying space and directionality. Therefore, the word “inda” in the aforementioned context does not infer place, rather, it infers honourable status. Consequently, the true meaning of the Prophet’s saying is that this book is positioned in a place Allah awarded high status and honour”.

The Hafidh Wali al-Din Abu Zur’ah al-‘Iraqi (d. 826) said:
وَلِلشَّيْخِ تَقِيِّ الدِّينِ ابْنِ تَيْمِيَّةَ هُنَا كَلامٌ بَشِعٌ عَجِيبٌ ، يَتَضَمَّنُ مَنْعَ شَدِّ الرَّحْلِ لِلزِّيَارَةِ ، وَأَنَّهُ لَيْسَ مِنَالْقُرْبِ بَلْ بِضِدِّ ذَلِكَ , وَرَدَّ عَلَيْهِ الشَّيْخُ تَقِيُّ الدِّينِ السُّبْكِيُّ فِي شِفَاءِ السَّقَامِ فَشَفَى صُدُورَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ
“The Shaykh Taqi al-Din ibn Taymiyya has an abominable statement regarding this issue to the effect that travelling to visit [the grave of the Prophet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam -] is prohibited and that it is not a pious deed but rather the contrary. Shaykh Taqi al-Din al-Subki replied to him in [his book] “Shifa` al-Saqam” and healed the breasts of the believers [by it].”
Source: “
Tarh al-Tathrib
————————————————-

Imam Taqi al-Din al-Hisni al-Shafi’i (d.829AH) mentions some points regarding Imam ibn Rajab al-Hanbali (d.795AH) and some of his negative views concerning ibn Taymiyya:
al-Shaykh Zayn al-Din ibn Rajab al-Hanbali was from among those who firmly believed in ibn Taymiyya’s kufr (disbelief), and had (authored) refutations against him. He would say at the top of his voice during some gatherings:
“al-Subki is excused – meaning in regards to his takfir“.
[al-Hisni, Daf’ Shubah man Shabbaha wa Tamarrad, ed. Dar al-Mustafa, pg. 535]
وكان الشيخ زين الدين بن رجب الحنبلي ممن يعتقد كفر ابن تيمية وله عليه الرد. وكان يقول بأعلىصوته في بعض المجالس: معذور (173/أ) السبكي – يعني في تكفيره ([1]).

([1]) 
في ب: معذور السبكي في تكفيره
دفع شبه من شبه وتمرد، دار المصطفى، ص. ٥٣٥
Imam Taqi al-Din al-Hisni  on ibn Taymiyya’s anti-Ash’ari followers being a fringe minority group who had to keep their beliefs hidden due to fear of facing severe punishment:
“Discretionary punishment and floggings and imprisonment and beheadings have not ceased to be their lot, despite their concealing what they believe and their utmost secrecy in not expressing their foul beliefs except in hidden places after taking care, and locking the doors, and speaking softly, saying that the walls have ears.”
[Taqi al-Din al-Hisni, Daf’ Shubah man Shabbaha wa Tamarrada, 236-7]
Daf Shubah min Shabah, page 123:
وكان الشيخ زين الدين ابن رجب الحنبلي ممن يعتقد كفر ابن تيمية
“Sheikh Zainuddin ibn Rajab al-Hanbali was amongst those that believed that Ibn Taimiyah is a kafir”
On page 90 we read:
وكان الإمام العلامة شيخ الإسلام في زمانه أبو الحسن علي بن إسماعيل القونوي يصرح بأنه منالجهلة بحيث لا يعقل ما يقول. ويخبر أنه أخذ مسألة التفرقة عن شيخه الذي تلقاها عن أفراخ السامرةواليهود الذين أظهروا التشرف بالإسلام.
“The Imam, the Allamah Sheikh al-Islam of his time Abu al-Hassan Ali bin Ismail al-Qunuwi declared that he was ignorant and didn’t realize what he said. He (Sheikh Qunuwi) stated that he (Ibn Taimiyah) took the belief of ‘Tafriqa’ from his Sheikh who took it from Samirites and Jews, those who pretend to be Muslims.”
On page 125 we read:
قاله بعض الأئمة عنه من أنه زنديق مطلق
“Some scholars deemed him to be an absolute atheist (Zindeeq)”
On page 189 we read:
فنسأل الله تعالى العافية مما يرتكبه هذا الزائغ الفاجر الكذاب.
“We ask Allah to preserve us of what this abhorrent, immoral, liar performs.”
We also read:
ولقد أسفرت هذه القضية عن زندقته بتجرئه على الإفك على العلماء وعلى أنه لا يعتقد حرمة الكذب
“The result of the case was the atheism of him (Ibn Taimiyah) because he dares to attribute lies to the scholars and did not ascribe to any prohibition on telling lies.”


—————————————————–
Shaykh al-Islam ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani (d.852AH) 
——————————————————
Imam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, while explaining one of the versions of the hadith of the Prophet Muhammad sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, sometimes referred to as hadith an-Nuzul (and which would give the impression that God descends on Earth every night, in his book Fath al-Bari, volume 3, page 23 (you would find pages 22 and 24 scanned (Here) only so that you can read the full context if needed, but the passage translated below is contained in page 23):

“As for his saying ‘Yanzilu Rabbuna ‘ila s-Samaa’i d-Dunya“, those who confirm a direction to Allah, have relied on this text and saidthat it is the direction of ‘above’ (al-uluww), and this has been refuted by the scholars (al-jumhur), because talking like that equals limiting Allaah, who is exempted from that.  Thereafter people have diverged about the meaning of an-nuzul: some took it according to its literal meaning and verily, these are the anthropomorphists (al-mushabbihah) , and Allaah is absolutely free (exempted) from what they say. Others have resorted to deny the truthfulness of all the hadiths which have been narrated in that regard: those are the Khawaarij and theMu’tazilah, and these are really astonishing because on the one hand they interpret what has reached [us] in the Qur’an which is similar to this, and on the other hand they deny what has come from hadith, either due to ignorance, or to stubbornness. Others have read those texts as they were revealed, believing in them in general, while freeing Allaah from the manner[kayfiyyah] of the anthropomorphists, and these are the majority of the Salaf.   [On top of that], al-Bayhaqi and others have narrated from the four imams, from the two Sufyan, the two Hammad, al-Awza’i, from al-Layth and others, that they DID interpret this text according to what befits Allaah, and what is in use in the language of the Arabs. Some other ones went so far in their interpretation that it ended up being a  type of distortion. Others [still] made a difference between what is a ‘close’ interpretation’, i.e. in use in the language of the Arabs, and what would be a ‘far-fetched’ one, and as a result they have interpreted in some cases and  made tafweed [i.e. leaving the meaning to Allaah]  in some cases, and this has been narrated from imam Malik. It has been confirmed by Ibn Daqiq al-Id that al-Bayhaqi said that the safest [of all these methods] is to believe in those texts without a how (bila kayf) and to not speak about what is intended.”
Imam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani , in volume 13, page 414, of his book Fath l-Bari(see scan: Here)
while explaining a hadith relating the Mi’raj (ascension to the skies) of the Prophet sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, said:
Al-Khattabi said that in this version there is another term narrated by Sharik which makes it different from the other [versions] and which has not been narrated by anyone else. It is [where it is said] : “fi’lan bihi, i.e. from Jibril to Allaah (al-Jabbaar) and  [Sharik] said : “wa huwa makaanuhu” [i.e. literally it would mean ‘and it is his place’], and [later on] the Prophet said  “O My Lord alleviate for us [the number of prayers]. He [i.e. al-Khattabi] said : a place cannot be attributed to Allaah, therefore here it is the place of the Prophet which is meant, i.e. that he returned where he was standing before leaving.’
In his book Fath al-Bari, Amir al-Mu’minin fi l-hadith (literally the Commander of the believers as far as hadith is concerned), al-Hafidh Ibn Hajar said, in volume 13 page 358 (page 328scan), while explaining a version of the hadith which means that there is a book above the Throne with an inscription:
“As for his saying ” ‘indahu“, Ibn Battal said that the term “ ‘inda” in the language applies to places, when Allah is free from being incarnated in a place, because being incarnated implies having an end and having been created, and having been created is not suitable for Allah. Therefore, it has been said that the meaning [of this hadith] is that His knowledge has preceded the confirmation of who will [in the end] act in obedience to Allah, and of who will be punished for having committed sins, and this [interpretation] is reinforced  by the hadith which comes next, and which says “ana ‘inda dhann ‘indi“, and it is not at all related to a place.
In this extract he explains the hadith in which there is a statement which could potentially be misunderstood.  It is mentioned in that hadith that a book is “‘indahu” which, if taken literally, would mean that this book is “next to God”, wa l-iyaadhu billaah. Ibn Hajar quotes other Muslim scholars to establish the different meanings of ‘‘inda‘  to explain that here ”indahu’ does not refer to the place at all, and he takes the opportunity to repeat the Muslims’ belief that Allah  exists without a place.  (More Info: Here)

Imam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani on ibn Taymiyya’s prohibiting of travelling to visit the Prophet’s grave (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam):
Al-Kirmani (d. 786AH) has said: On this issue there has been much discussion in our Syrian lands, and many treatises have been written by both parties. I say: He is referring to Shaykh Taqi al-Din al-Subki and others’ responses to Shaykh Taqi al-Din ibn Taymiyya… and the crux of the matter is that they have pointed out that his position implies that it is prohibited to travel to visit the tomb of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam)… This is one of the ugliest positions that has been reported of ibn Taymiyya. One of the things he has adduced to deny the claim that there is a consensus on the matter is the report that (Imam) Malik disliked people saying: I have visited the tomb of the Prophet. The discerning scholars of the (Maliki) school have replied that he disliked the phrase out of politeness, and not the visiting itself, for it is one of the best actions and the noblest of pious deeds with which one draws near to Allah the Majestic, and it’s legitimacy is a matter of consensus without any doubt, and Allah is the One who leads to truth.” [ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Fath al-Bari Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari (Cairo: Mustafa al-Babi al-Halabi, 1959), 3:308]

Shaykh al-Islam ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani has recorded in Lisan al-Mizan (6/319, Hyderabad edn.):
وكم من مبالغة لتوهين كلام الرافضي ادته أحيانا إلى تنقيص علي رضى الله عنه
“How much did he (Ibn Taymiyya) exaggerate in order to weaken the words of the Rafidi (al-Hilli), which at times led him to diminish Ali (radiallahu ‘anh).”[ Read more Here Here]
Shaykh al-Islam ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Al-Durar al-Kamina,Volume 1 page 46:وعاد القاضي الشافعي إلى ولايته ونودي بدمشق من اعتقد عقيدة ابن تيمية حل دمه
“The Shafiyye judge returned back to his position and declared in Damascus that whoever ascribed to Ibn Taimiyah’s beliefs should have his blood shed”


Al-Durar al-Kamina, Volume 1 page 49:
Ibn Tayimiyyah was released in Shaam. The people had different views of him. Some of them deemed him as one that considered the likeness of Allah to His creature, due to what he said in ‘Aqeeda al-Hamawiya’ and ‘Wasitiya’ and other (books), such as the hand, foot, leg and face are real attributes of Allah, and He is sitting on the throne by Himself. Then it was said to him (Ibn Taimiyah) that the necessities of these beliefs constitute ascribing to the limitation and partition (of Allah), he (Ibn Taimiyah) replied: ‘I don’t believe that limitation and partition is an attribute of a body.’
Others deemed him as one that concealed unbelief due to his saying that the Prophet is not to be sought for help (laa yustaghaathu bihi) and the fact that this amounted to diminishing and impeding the establishing of the greatness of the Prophet.Amongst the most rigid people against him was al-Noor al-Bakri, and he established a council due to that. Some of the members said: ‘We shall pardon him (Ibn Taimiya)’. He (al-Bakri) replied: ‘There is no meaning in that statement. If he was diminishing he must be killed. If he wasn’t diminishing he will not be pardoned’.
Others considered him a hypocrite because of what he said about Ali:… that he had been forsaken (makhdhoolan) everywhere he went, had repeatedly tried to acquire the Caliphate and never attained it, fought out of lust for power rather than religion, and said that “he loved authority while Uthman loved money.” He would say that Abu Bakr had declared Islam in his old age, fully aware of what he said, while Ali had declared Islam as a boy, and that a boy’s Islam is not considered sound upon his mere words.
And due to his statement about the story of his proposing to the daughter of Abu Jahl and what he attributed the praises to…Also the story of Abi al-Aas bin al-Rabee and what can be concluded from its concept.
In totality, he said derogatory things such as these, and it was said against him that he was a hypocrite, in view of the Prophet’s saying (to Ali): “Only a hypocrite would show you hatred.”
Others deemed him a power seeker due to his praising ibn Tumart and constant mention of him.
Hafidh Abu Sa‘id Al-‘Ala’i, who is the scholarof the scholars of Al-Hafidh Ibn Hajar Al-‘Asqalani, said that Ibn Taymiyah said of Allah“He has the same volume as the Arsh, neither smaller nor larger.”
(Dhakha’ir Al-Qasr, pp. 32-33)
Shaykh al-Islam ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani has reported an incident in al-Durar al-Kamīna (vol. 1, pp. 164): where again Ibn Taymiyyah descended the steps of the Minbar in order to illustrate his understanding of how Allah descends (nuzūl) as early as the year 705H/1305CE (some 21 years before Ibn Battuta’s account).
Hāfidh Ibn Ĥajar’s source for this incident was one of Ibn Taymiyyah’s own disciples by the name: Sulaymân Najm al-Dīn al-Tufi al-Ĥanbalī (d. 716/1316).
Note: Also Taqī al-Dīn mentioned it! who lived before the Ĥāfidh Ibn Ĥajar al-Asqalânī.
Ibn Taymiyya’s conception of Allah’s bodily descent is also stated in his own writings, as shown from the following excerpt from his al-Ta’sis fi al-radd `ala asas al-taqdis, written as a refutation of Imam al-Razi who was a fierce enemy of the Karramiyya and other Anthropomorphists:
The Creator, Glorified and Exalted is He, is above the world and His being above is literal, not in the sense of dignity or rank. It may be said of the precedence of a certain object over another that it is with respect to dignity or rank, or that it is with respect to location. For example, respectively: the precedence of the learned over the ignorant and the precedence of the imam over the one praying behind him. Allah’s precedence over the world is not like that, rather, it is a literal precedence (i.e. in time). Similarly the elevation above the world could be said to be with respect to dignity or rank, as for example when it said that the learned is above the ignorant. But Allah’s elevation over the world is not like that, rather He is elevated over it literally (i.e. in space). And this is the known elevation and the known precedence [al-Ta’sis al-radd `ala asas al-Taqdis, vol. 1, pp. 111]

Shaykh al-Islam ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani In his book ‘Fath al-Bari’ said: “Not because it is impossible for the upward and downward directions to apply to Allah does it entail that He cannot be attributed with “Al-‘Uluww” (Aboveness in a metaphorical sense). This is so because attributing Him with “Al-‘Uluww” (Aboveness) is from the point of status,which is impossibly applicable in a physical sense when in reference to Allah. Hence, it has been related that among the names of Allah are Al-‘Ali, Al-‘Aliyy, and Al-Muta’ali”.

Shaykh al-Islam ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani
Rejects the innovated saying that Allah is above the throne‘bi dhatihi’
Regarding the hadith that says:  “God is between you and your qibla”  (إِنَّ رَبَّهُ بَيْنَهُ وَبَيْنَ الْقِبْلَةِ)
Ibn Hajar says that in this is a refutation on those who claim that God is upon the throne bi dhatihi (with His Essence) (فِيهِ الرَّدّ عَلَى مَنْ زَعَمَ أَنَّهُ عَلَى الْعَرْش بِذَاتِهِ). Source: Here
Al-Asqalaani said they are not Muslims:
قال حذاق المتكلمين ما عرف الله من شبهه بخلقه أو أضاف إليه اليد أو أضاف إليه الولد فمعبودهم الذيعبدوه ليس هو الله وإن سموه به (فتح الباري, ابن حجر العسقلاني, دار المعرفة – بيروت ، 1379, 3 / 359)
The brilliant kalaam scholars said: “The one that likened Aļļaah to His creation, or ascribed a hand to Him (i.e. in the sense of a part or limb) or a child; what he worships is not Aļļaah, even if he called it Aļļaah.
————————————————

Imam Ibn Nasir al-Din Al-Dimashqi (d.846AH) The Wahhabi/Salafis love to quote Al-Dimashqi and his book al-Radd al-Wafir in defence of their Imam, ibn Taymiyya.
However, the following is a clear cut example of how many of those who defended him weren’t truly aware of all the deviant positions held by him on various issues. Imam ibn Nasir al-Din al-Dimashqi falls into this category as is evident from the following, where he declares anyone who rejects the Hadiths in relation to the reward and virtue of visiting the grave of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) a deviant. It is well known that ibn Taymiyya is the foremost proponent of the view that travelling out to visit the blessed grave of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) is a reprehensible innovation – a view which he based on the rejection of the aforementioned narrations. Imam ibn Nasir al-Din al-Dimashqi mentions:
“Visiting the grave of Rasulullah (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) is a Sunnah of the Muslims, it is unanimously accepted as an act of reward and it is an act of virtue that is encouraged. The Hadiths on this topic have been accepted and practised upon, even though a few of these Hadiths have weakness. Only a deviant will reject them totally.”(Jami’ al-Athar, vol.8 pg.141)
In addition, it is worth noting that Imam ibn Nasir al-Din al-Dimashqi has written extensively on this and has approved several Hadiths on this issue in the book of his which has been quoted from above (Jami’ a-Athar) – see [vol.8 pgs. 129-141.]

========
900AH
========

Imam al-Sakhawi (d. 902AH) on ibn Taymiyya:
وكذا ممن حصل من بعض الناس منهم نفره وتحامى عن الانتفاع بعلمهم مع جلالتهم علماً وورعاً وزهداًلإطلاق لسانهم وعدم مداراتهم بحيث يتكلمون ويجرحون بما فيه مبالغة كابن حزم وابن تيمية
“There are also those scholars of great learning, austerity, and asceticism whom people avoided and whose knowledge they were careful not to utilise, because of their loose tongue and lack of tact, which caused them to talk and criticise excessively. Such men were ibn Hazm and ibn Taymiyya.” [al-Sakhawi, I’lan bi al-Tawbikh (pg. 163), (English translation in ‘A history of Muslim Historiography‘, pg. 284, by F. Rosenthal)]
Imam Jamal al-Din Yusuf ibn ‘Abd al-Hadi ibn al-Mibrad al-Hanbali (d.909AH) mentions Imam Zayn al-Din ibn Rajab al-Hanbali’s (d.795AH) book in refutation of three talaqs (in a single sitting) being equal to one – which was a view ibn Taymiyya held and was stubborn upon:
“…ibn Rajab said in the book Mushkil al-Ahadith al-Warida fi ann al-Talaq al-Thalath Wahida (The problematic nature of the narrations in regards to three talaqs being equivalent to one)…”
[ibn al-Mibrad al-Hanbali, al-Sayr al-Hath ila ‘Ilm al-Talaq al-Thalath, ed. Dar al-Basha’ir al-Islamiyya 1997, pg. 27]
Note: Imam ibn al-Mibrad al-Hanbali then goes on to quote multiple passages from the above-mentioned book of Imam ibn Rajab al-Hanbali. This shows that although this book of Imam ibn Rajab al-Hanbali may not have survived to this day, it was known and available to those Imams who came just after his time.
قال ابن رجب في كتاب “مشكل الأحاديث الواردة في أن الطلاق الثلاث واحدة
– السير الحاث الى علم الطلاق الثلاث للإمام جمال الدين يوسف ابن عبد الهادي ابن المبرد الحنبلي
– 
دار البشائر الإسلامية، ١٩٩٧
– 
ص. ٢٧
———————-
———————————————————–
Shaykh al-Islam Imam Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (d.911 AH) on ibn Taymiyya:
————————————————————-
ibn Taymiyya was arrogant. He was self-conceited. It was his habit to represent himself as superior to everybody, to slight the person whom he talked to, and to make fun of great Muslims” [al-Suyuti, Kam’ al-Mu’arid]
Shaykh al-Islam Imam Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti In his book‘Al-‘Iklil fis-tinbat at-Tanzil’ , said: “The Ayah: {ليس كمثله شيء}holds within it a refutation to the creed of the Mushabbihah (those who liken Allah to the creation) and a confirmation that He (Allah) is not a mass, a body, a colour, a taste, and that He does not occupy a space or conform to time”.
Imam Jalal al-Din al-Dawani (d. 918AH) on ibn Taymiyya the Corporealist
Changing Views of ibn Taymiyya by Khaled el-Rouayheb:
In the Sharh al-‘Aqa’id al-‘Adudiyya of Jalal al-Din al-Dawani it is stated that the corporealists are of two kinds. The first are blatantly corporealist and should be regarded as unbelievers. The latter, who are wayward but not unbelievers, “hide behind the caveat bi-la kayfa“, saying that Allah had a body “unlike any other body (la ka-al-ajsam), and position unlike any position, and a relation to this spatial position that was unlike any other relation to a spatial position.” He apparently classified Ibn Taymiyya as belonging to the latter group:
Most of the corporealists are the literalists who follow the literal meaning of the Book and Sunna, and most of them are people of Hadith. Ibn Taymiyya Abu al-Abbas Ahmad and his followers strongly incline to affirm that He is in a direction, and go to extremes in attacking those who deny this. I have seen in one of his books that according to reason there is no difference to saying “He does not exist” and saying “I looked for Him everywhere and I could not find Him”, and he accused those who disagreed on this point of denying the divine attributes (ta’til). And this despite his proficiency in the rational and traditional sciences, as can be seen by anyone who reads his works.
[Jalal al-Din al-Dawani, Sharh al-‘Aqa’id al-‘Adudiyya (Islanbul: ‘Arif Effendi, 1316AH), 43.]
————————————-
Imam Ahmad al-Qastallani (d. 923 AH) 
————————————–
Expressing his outrage on ibn Taymiyya’s prohibition of travelling to visit the Prophet’s grave (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam):

“The Shaykh Taqi al-Din ibn Taymiyya has abominable and odd statements on this issue to the effect that travelling to visit the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) is prohibited and is not a pious deed but the contraryShaykh Taqi al-Din al-Subki has replied to him in Shifa al-Saqam and has gratified the hearts of the believers.” [Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Baqi al-Zurqani, Sharh al-Mawahib al-Laduniyya (Cairo1291AH), 8:343]

Shaykh Abul-‘Abbas Shihabud-Din Ahmad Ibn Muhammad al-Qastalaniyy al-Misri (d. 923 AH) In his book ‘Irshad as-Sari Sharh Sahih al-Bukhariyy’,  said: “The Self of Allah is clear from the notions of place and direction”.
Imam al-Qastallani on Tawassul, Tashaffu’ and Istighathah:
While speaking about the Mu’jizat (miracles) of our Prophet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – he mentions that also many of these miracles happen after his death and he also mentions Istighathahin this context and says that this will be discussed in the chapter regarding visiting the noble grave of the Prophet, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam:
وأما القسم الثانى ما وقع بعد وفاته- ص:وهو ما وقع بعد وفاته- صلى الله عليه وسلم- فكثير جدّا، إذ فى كل حين يقع لخواص أمته من خوارق العاداتبسببه مما يدل على تعظيم قدره الكريم ما لا يحصى كالاستغاثة به وغير ذلك مما يأتى فى المقصد الأخير، فىأثناء الكلام على زيارة قبره الشريف المنير
Source: “
al-Mawahib al-Ladunniyyah” and the next page
And this is the relevant passage which he refered to above:
وينبغى للزائر أن يكثر من الدعاد والتضرع والاستغاثة والتشفع والتوسل به- صلى الله عليه وسلم-، فجدير بمناستشفع به أن يشفعه الله تعالى فيه.واعلم أن الاستغاثة هى طلب الغوث، فالمستغيث يطلب من المستغاث به أن يحصل له الغوث منه، فلا فرق بينأن يعبر بلفظ: الاستغاثة أو التوسل أو التشفع أو التجوّه أو التوجه، لأنهما من الجاه والوجاهة ومعناه: علو القدروالمنزلة.وقد يتوسل بصاحب الجاه إلى من هو أعلى منه، ثم إن كلا من الاستغاثة والتوسل والتشفع والتوجه بالنبى-صلى الله عليه وسلم- كما ذكره فى «تحقيق النصرة» و «مصباح الظلام» – واقع فى كل حال، قبل خلقه وبعدخلقه، فى مدة حياته فى الدنيا وبعد موته فى مدة البرزخ، وبعد البعث فى عرصات القيامة
“The visitor (Za`ir) should supplicate and beseech [Allah] much and [he should] perform Istighathah (seeking aid), Tashaffu’ (seeking intercession) and Tawassul through him (the Prophet) – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam -, so that he becomes worthy of Allah ta’ala letting the one whose intercession he sought to intercede for him.
Know that Istighathah is seeking aid, and the person who is seeking aid is asking from one by whom aid is sought in order to obtain aid from [other than] him (i.e. the person seeking aid with the Prophet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – is doing this in order to obtain aid from Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala). And that is why there is no difference whether one expresses this by using the wording of Istighathah, Tawassul, Tashaffu’, Tajawwuh or Tawajjuh,because all of this goes back to [asking by the] Jah and Wajahah and its meaning is [to ask by the] high worth and status. Tawassul can be sought from a possessor of rank (Jah) unto one who possesses a higher rank than him.
Add to this: Istighathah, Tawassul, Tashaffu’ and Tawajjuh with the Prophet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – is something that takes place [in reality] – as it’s mentioned in “Tahqiq al-Nusrah [bi Talkhis Ma’alim Dar al-Hijrah]” [by Abu Bakr bin al-Husayn bin ‘Umar al-Maraghi (d. 816 AH)] and “Misbah al-Dhalam [fil Mustaghithin bi Khayr al-Anam]”* [by Abu ‘Abdullah Muhammad bin Musa bin al-Nu’man al-Marakashi (d. 683 AH)] – in every situation, before his creation and after it, in the time of his life in this world, as well as after his death in the period of the Barzakh, and after the resurrection on the day of reckoning.”
Source: “
Al-Muwahib al-Ladunniyyah” and the next page
After the above qoute he mentions proofs for the permissibility of performing Tawassul with the Prophet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – in the different situations.
Imam Abu ‘Abdullah Muhammad bin Musa bin al-Nu’man al-Marakashi (d. 683 AH) wrote in his book: 
Misbah al-Dhalam fil Mustaghithin bi Khayr al-Anam”  and it’s filled with Ahadith and Athar containing Tawassul, Tashaffu’ and Istighathah in every situation (i.e. also after the death of the Prophet, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam)
The author was born in Tilimsan in the year (b.606/607 AH) and lived prior to Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) and Imam Taqi al-Din al-Subki (d. 756 AH) and many leading scholars of the Ahl al-Sunnah after him have referred to his book and reported from it without any objection.
The Shaykh Salah al-Din al-Safadi (d. 764) mentioned that he was a Maliki Faqih,a Zahid, a ‘Abid and a ‘Arif and he also mentioned his book “Misbah al-Dhalam”:
مُحَمَّد بن مُوسَى بن النُّعْمَان الشَّيْخ أَبُو عبد الله المزالي التلمساني … وَكَانَ فَقِيها مالكياً زاهداً عابداً عَارِفًا … وَله تصانيف مِنْهَا كتاب مِصْبَاح الظلام فِي المستغيثين بِخَير الْأَنَام فِي الْيَقَظَة والمنام  Source: “al-Wafi bil Wafiyyat

—————————————————–
Shaykh al-Islam ibn Hajar al-Haytami (d. 974 AH) 
————————————————
on ibn Taymiyya’s view of impermissibility on travelling to visit the grave of the prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam):
“If you say: How can you relate that there is a consensus on the permissible and commendable status of visiting and travelling to it (the Prophet’s grave [sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam]) when ibn Taymiyya among the later Hanbalis deems all of this inappropriate?
I say: Who is ibn Taymiyya so that one takes his words into consideration or relies on them in any religious matter? Is he anything but – in the words of the leading scholars who have followed his rotten statements and unsalable arguments… – a servant whom Allah has forsaken and led astray and clothed in the garments of ignominy… The Shaykh al-Islam, the scholar of the world, concerning whose status, ijtihad, rectitude and prominence there is a consensus, Taqi al-Din al-Subki – may Allah sanctify his soul and cast light on his grave – has dedicated himself to answering him in a separate work (shifa al-saqam fi ziyarat khayr al-anam) in which he has done a great service and shown with dazzling arguments the correct path.”
[ibn Hajar al-Haytami, al-Jawhar al-Munazzam fi Ziyarat al-Qabr al-Sharif al-Nabawi al-Mukarram, M. Zaynhum ed. (Cairo: Maktabat Madbuli, 2000), 29-30.]
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Hajar al-Haytami has recorded in a formal legal opinion in his al-Fatawa al-Hadithiyya (1/183-84) the following:
ابْن تَيْمِية عبد خذله الله وأضلَّه وأعماه وأصمه وأذلَّه، وَبِذَلِك صرح الْأَئِمَّة الَّذين بينوا فَسَاد أَحْوَالهوَكذب أَقْوَاله، وَمن أَرَادَ ذَلِك فَعَلَيهِ بمطالعة كَلَام الإِمَام الْمُجْتَهد الْمُتَّفق على إِمَامَته وجلالته وبلوغهمرتبَة الِاجْتِهَاد أبي الْحسن السُّبْكِيّ وَولده التَّاج وَالشَّيْخ الإِمَام الْعِزّ بن جمَاعَة وَأهل عصرهم، وَغَيرهممن الشَّافِعِيَّة والمالكية وَالْحَنَفِيَّة، وَلم يقصر اعتراضه على متأخري الصُّوفِيَّة بل اعْترض على مثلعمر بن الْخطاب وَعلي بن أبي طَالب رَضِي الله عَنْهُمَا كَمَا يَأْتِي. وَالْحَاصِل أنْ لَا يُقَام لكَلَامه وزن بليَرْمِي فِي كلّ وَعْر وحَزَن، ويعتقد فِيهِ أَنه مُبْتَدع ضالّ ومُضِّلّ جَاهِل غال عَامله الله بعدله، وأجازنا منمثل طَرِيقَته وعقيدته وَفعله آمين
“Ibn Taymiyya was a servant whom Allah abandoned, misguided, blinded, deafened, and humiliated. This has been frankly expressed by the Imams who explained the corruptness of how he was, and the mendacity of what he said. Whoever wants to check this should read the words of the Mujtahid Imam, whose Imamate, greatness, and having reached the rank of Ijtihad are universally acknowledged, Abul Hasan (Taqi al-Din) al-Subki; together with his son Taj (al-Din as-Subki), the Shaykh and Imam al-‘Izz Ibn Jama’a, the scholars of their time, and other Shafi’i, Maliki and Hanafi scholars. Nor did he confine his criticism to later Sufi’s; but censured the likes of Umar ibn al-Khattab and Ali (may Allah be pleased with them), the outcome of which is that his words are devoid of any worth or consideration, to be scattered across the wilds and wastelands, while the man himself is considered an initiator of bid’ah (reprehensible innovations), misled, misleading, ignorant and spiteful. May Allah give him what he deserves, may Allah preserve us from the likes of his way and his beliefs and works, Ameen.”
Shaykh al-Islam ibn Hajar al-Haytami , Al-Fatawa al-Hadithya, page 114:ابن تيمية عبد خذله الله وأضله وأعماه وأصمه وأذله ، وبذلك صرح الأئمة الذين بينوا فساد أحوالهوكذب أقواله.
“Ibn Taimiyah, Allah (swt) let him down, misguided him, made him blind, deaf and disgraced him, and by that the Imams both declared and exposed his false beliefs and lies.”
Due to being one of ibn Taymiyya’s major critics, some modern-day followers of ibn Taymiyya do not hold much lovefor Shaykh al-Islam ibn Hajar al-Haytami. They would like to believe that the Imam was not of great standing or knowledge, and that his beliefs were ‘deviant’. However, as a harsh reality check, Imam ‘Uthman ibn Sanad al-Basri (d. 1242AH) had the following to say in praise of Shaykh al-Islam ibn Hajar al-Haytami:
“He who looks at his works will be dazzled and say: Praise Allah who has allowed the minds of man to reach it’s subtle depths! He is the Shafi’i who mediated between the finer points of law and the subtleties of the discipline of tradition. He did not treat discipline without reaching depths that his contemporaries never hoped to reach. No one disputed with him without finding him an abounding sea of knowledge. He was firm in matters of religion while being high minded, composed and intelligent… Those who came after him have depended on what he has chosen, and thus his works are the standard reference for fatawa, and no Shafi’i will give a fatwa that is not in accordance with what he has considered. The prominent scholars esteem his works, and give it the foremost rating.”[Basri, Matali’ al-Su’ud, 113]
Shaykh al-Islam ibn Hajar al-Haytami  on ibn Taymiyya in his own time and the reality of his followers:
“The scholars of his age rose against him (ibn Taymiyya) and impelled the Sultan to either kill or imprison him, so he imprisoned him until he died and his innovations died out and his darkness disappeared. Then he was supported by followers whose heads Allah has not raised, nor has He granted them power or strength; rather they were afflicted with humiliation and remained under Allah’s wrath, due to their disobedience and their beliefs.”
[ibn Hajar al-Haytami, al-Jawhar al-Munazzam, 31]
Shaykh al-Islam ibn Hajar al-Haytami  on ibn Taymiyya’s Suggestion that the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) Let Down Part of his Turban to Mark the Spot Between his Shoulders that Allah Touched with His ‘Hand’
Shaykh al-Islam ibn Hajar al-Haytami  on ibn Taymiyya’s suggestion (via ibn Qayyim) that the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) had let down part of his turban to mark the spot between his shoulders that Allah had touched with His ‘hand’:
“This is among their repulsive opinions and their waywardness, since it is based on their claim, which they argued for at length and castigated Sunnis for rejecting, that Allah is in a direction and is a body, may He be exalted above what the unjust and stubborn say! They have in this regard abominations and heresies to which the ear cannot listen, and one cannot but adjudge them a falsity, a slander and a lie. May Allah shame them and those who say that. The Imam Ahmad (ibn Hanbal) and the distinguished among his school are innocent of this ugly stain. How could it be otherwise, and it is unbelief according to many?”
[ibn Hajar al-Haytami, Ashraf al-Wasa-il ila Fahm al-Shama-il, Ahmad al-Mazidi ed. (Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyya, Beirut, 1998), 172-173]
Shaykh al-Islam ibn Hajar al-Haytami  on ibn Taymiyya and his student ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya and those who follow them: “Make sure you do not listen to what is in the books of ibn Taymiyya and his student ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya and other such people who have taken their own whim as their God, and who have been led astray by Allah, and whose hearts and ears have been sealed, and whose eyes have been covered by Him. And who will help them if not Allah? How these heretics (mulhidun) have crossed the lines and broken the fences of the Shari’a and the Haqiqa, thinking that they are on the right path, and they are not! Rather they are in the worst of errors, the foulest of qualities, the most odious loss, and the utmost falsity. May Allah forsake the one who follows them, and purify the earth of their likes.” [ibn Hajar al-Haytami, al-fatawa al-Hadithiyya, 110-113]
And how true were the words of Imam Ibn Hajar al-Haytami (d. 974 AH) when he said:فإن قلت : كيف تحكي الإجماع السابق على مشروعية الزيارة والسفر إليها وطلبها وابن تيمية منمتأخري الحنابلة منكر لمشروعية ذلك كله … قلت : من هو ابن تيمية حتى ينظر إليه أو يعول في شئمن أمور الدين عليه ؟ ! وهل هو إلا كما قال جماعة من الأئمة الذين تعقبوا كلماته الفاسدة ، وحججهالكاسدة … عبد أضله الله تعالى وأغواه ، وألبسه رداء الخزي … ولقد تصدى شيخ الإسلام ، وعالمالأنام ، المجمع على جلالته ، واجتهاده وصلاحه وإمامته ، التقي السبكي ، قدس الله روحه ، ونورضريحه ، للرد عليه في تصنيف مستقل أفاد فيه وأجاد وأصاب وأوضح بباهر حججه طريق الصواب
“If you say: How can you relate that there is a consensus on the permissible and commendable status of visiting and travelling to it (the Prophet’s grave [sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam]) when ibn Taymiyya among the later Hanbalis deems all of this inappropriate?
I say: Who is ibn Taymiyya so that one takes his words into consideration or relies on them in any religious matter? Is he anything but – in the words of the leading scholars who have followed his rotten statements and unsalable arguments… – a servant whom Allah has forsaken and led astray and clothed in the garments of ignominy
The Shaykh al-Islam, the scholar of the world, concerning whose status, ijtihad, rectitude and prominence there is a consensus,Taqi al-Din al-Subki – may Allah sanctify his soul and cast light on his grave – has dedicated himself to answering him in a separate work (shifa al-saqam fi ziyarat khayr al-anam) in which he has done a great service and shown with dazzling arguments the correct path.”
Source: “Al-Jawhar al-Munadhdham; translation taken from Here

—--

--

... continue to (Part4: 1000AH - 1400AH )---

---

Comments
You do not have permission to add comments.

---

ADHM