Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Hajar al-haitimis
Fatawa on ibn Taymiyya
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, (al-
jismiyya 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` al-
Astar 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 :
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 non-
mujtahid 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.
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...
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.
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.
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.