News Flash: Ibn Taymiyya Kidnapped at Sesame Street

By Abdalla S. Alothman

At his blog space on the Daily Telegraph, Christopher Howse reaches an

interesting conclusion that one of the well known Muslim scholars – ibn
Taymiyya – endorsed the opinion that "God could have settled on a
mosquito’s back and the creature would have found him light" in order to
reach his final conclusion that, " But if God could settle on a mosquito’s
back, why could he not take flesh and dwell amongst us?"

In this document I shall discuss what Howse brought forth, and that could
be summarized in the following topics:

1. "God Settling" on a mosquito's back.

2. Ibn Taymiyya: The Hero of the "Wahhabis."

3. The Criticism on ibn Taymiyya Hardly Discredits his Accomplishments.

4. Can the Creator Become Flesh and Dwell Amongst his Creation?

1. "God" Settling on a mosquito's back

In its basic essence, the accusation of Allah (TT) settling on a mosquito's

back is a straw-man which was weaved against ibn Taymiyya to make him
appear as an anthropomorphist – that is the notion that the Creator (TT)
possessing certain characteristics and attributes that are similar to human
beings. Both, the Shee'ah and the Sufis heavily invested on the
mosquito's back in hope to achieve that goal. However, both factions
discovered – in an intriguing way – that the popular Muslim scholar
'Uthman bin Sa'eed al-Darmi also mentioned the mosquito's back, and
hence, he also had to receive his share from that criticism even though he
was not the primary target – but ibn Taymiyya was; And the goal was to
discredit him in a way that would directly affect his 'aqeeda (belief/creed).

Here's how the story went:

• When the Sufis and the Shee'ah discovered that ibn Taymiyya
mentioned the mosquito's back, they swiftly started the discrediting
process without taking heed.

• They later found the same passage mentioned by the Muslim

scholar, 'Uthman bin Sa'eed al-Darmi; And that was a problem,
because al-Darmi had to be accused as well. Al-Darmi's opinions on
 the Islamic belief system however is quite known, solid, and hard to
shake. He also stood neutral at many occasion, therefore attacking
him wasn't a wise move by the Sufis and the Shee'ah.

• Surprisingly, a confusion arose amongst the attackers: They just

didn't know how both scholars (ibn Taymiyya and al-Darmi)
mentioned the Mosquito's Back.

Of course, if the reader searches for the following Arabic line in Google,
the results would be amazing:

1‫ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﺗﻠﺒﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﻤﻴﺔ ﺥ‬

This line comes for a larger quotation that can be found posted by Sufis
on the Internet. However, what interests me is 1‫ ﺥ‬at the end of the line
because it shows that one Sufi copied that error from the other.

It is typical that Sufis have sloppy Arabic – their weakness in written and
read Arabic cannot be mistaken, and the same applies to their
transliteration techniques when translating Arabic material. When they
write 1‫ ﺥ‬they intended to write 1‫ﺝ‬, which is the letter "Jeem" – an
abbreviation for Juz (‫ )ﺟﺰء‬which is V, Volume (V1). Apparently they
replaced the letter KHA (‫ )ﺥ‬with the letter JEEM. And then they say that
ibn Taymiyya said Allah (tt) could have settled on a mosquito's back, and
here's an example of where they say:

That being said, Ibn Taymiyyah stated in his book “Bayaan Talbiis Al-Jahmiyyah”:

568 ‫ﺹ‬/1‫ ﺥ‬, ‫)ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﺗﻠﺒﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﻤﻴﺔ‬ ‫⁠)ﻭﻟﻮ ﻗﺪ ﺷﺎء ﻻﺳﺘﻘﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻅﻬﺮ ﺑﻌﻮﺿﺔ ﻓﺎﺳﺘﻘﻠﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺑﻘﺪﺭﺗﻪ ﻭﻟﻄﻒ ﺭﺑﻮﺑﻴﺘﻪ‬.

“If Aļļaah had willed He could have settled on a mosquito, and it [the mosquito]
would have found Him [Aļļaah] light [or it would have carried Him on its back], by
Aļļaah’s Power and His Gentle Lordship (Bayaan Talbiis Al-Jahmiyyah, 1/568)⁠.”

This is a plain statement attributing the possibility of sitting on a mosquito to Aļļaah,

which is something that can be for what is a body in a place only. It is also plain in
stating that Aļļaah has a weight, as it says that the Mosquito would carry Him. We
know from this that the author believes that Aļļaah is a body with a weight. This is
blasphemy and shows an incredibly silly mind.

And that's how scholarship is cooked in the Sufi and the Ash'ari, and even
the Shee'i land of wonders!
‫‪The Refutation:‬‬

‫‪The refutation takes two facets:‬‬

‫‪1. Ibn Tayymiya clearly said in Bayaan Talbees Al-Jahmiyya that he is‬‬
‫‪constructing his refutation to the Jahmiyya based on what 'uthman bin‬‬
‫‪sa'eed al-Darmi said, and that was a source of confusion for the Sufis and‬‬
‫‪the Shee'ah. Usually, what happens is that one guy pops out of nowhere,‬‬
‫‪and posts his findings, the rest receive the misquoted passage and clap.‬‬
‫‪Then, they find another instance of the passage mentioned by someone‬‬
‫‪else, and they get confused.‬‬

‫‪This is what ibn Tayymiya said page 324 (the online copy of Talbees Al-‬‬
‫‪Jahmiyya can be found here):‬‬

‫ﻗﺎﻝ ﻋﺜﻤﺎﻥ ﺑﻦ ﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﻣﻲ ﻓﻲ ﻧﻘﻀﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﻳﺴﻲ ﻭﺻﺎﺣﺒﻪ ﻭﺃﻋﺠﺐ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﻛﻠﻪ ﻗﻴﺎﺳﻚ ﷲ ﺑﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺵ ﻭﻣﻘﺪﺍﺭﻩ ﻭﻭﺯﻧﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺻﻐﻴﺮ ﺃﻭ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ ﻭﺯﻋﻤﺖ ﻛﺎﻟﺼﺒﻴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻴﺎﻥ ﺇﻥ ﷲ ﺃﻛﺒﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺵ ﺃﻭ ﺃﺻﻐﺮ ﻣﻨﻪ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺜﻠﻪ ﻓﺈﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﷲ ﺃﺻﻐﺮ ﻓﻘﺪ ﺻﻴﺮﺗﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺵ ﺃﻋﻈﻢ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﻛﺒﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺵ ﻓﻘﺪ ﺍﺩﻋﻴﺘﻢ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻓﻀﻼ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺵ ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻣﺜﻠﻪ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺿﻢ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺵ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻮﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺃﻛﺒﺮ ﻣﻊ ﺧﺮﺍﻓﺎﺕ ﺗﻜﻠﻢ ﺑﻬﺎ ﻭﺗﺮﻫﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻳﻠﻌﺐ ﺑﻬﺎ ﻭﺿﻼﻻﺕ ﻳﻀﻞ ﺑﻬﺎ ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﻳﻌﻤﻞ ﻟ ﻟﻘﻄﻊ ﻗﺸﺮﺓ ﻟﺴﺎﻧﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﺨﻴﺒﺔ ﻟﻘﻮﻡ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﻓﻘﻴﻬﻬﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻮﺭ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﻴﻴﺰ ﻛﻠﻪ ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﻭﻛﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺎﻻﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻀﻼﻻﺕ ‪ #‬ﻓﻴﻘﺎﻝ‬
‫ﻟﻬﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺒﻘﺒﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺎﺝ ﺇﻥ ﷲ ﺃﻋﻈﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻞ ﺷﻲء ﻭﺃﻛﺒﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻞ ﺧﻠﻖ ﻭﻟﻢ ﻳﺤﻤﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺵ‬
‫ﻋﻈﻤﺎ ﻭﻻ ﻗﻮﺓ ﻭﻻ ﺣﻤﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺵ ﺣﻤﻠﻮﻩ ﺑﻘﻮﺗﻬﻢ ﻭﻻ ﺍﺳﺘﻘﻠﻮﺍ ﺑﻌﺮﺷﻪ ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻬﻢ ﺣﻤﻠﻮﻩ‬
‫ﺑﻘﺪﺭﺗﻪ‬

‫ﻭﻗﺪ ﺑﻠﻐﻨﺎ ﺃﻧﻬﻢ ﺣﻴﻦ ﺣﻤﻠﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺵ ﻭﻓﻮﻗﻪ ﺍﻟﺠﺒﺎﺭ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺰﺗﻪ ﻭﺑﻬﺎﺋﻪ ﺿﻌﻔﻮﺍ ﻋﻦ ﺣﻤﻠﻪ‬
‫ﻭﺍﺳﺘﻜﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﻭﺟﺜﻮﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺭﻛﺒﻬﻢ ﺣﺘﻰ ﻟﻘﻨﻮﺍ ﻻ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻭﻻ ﻗﻮﺓ ﺇﻻ ہﻠﻟ ﻓﺎﺳﺘﻘﻠﻮﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺑﻘﺪﺭﺓ ﷲ‬
‫ﻭﺇﺭﺍﺩﺗﻪ ﻭﻟﻮﻻ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻣﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻘﻞ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺵ ﻭﻻ ﺍﻟﺤﻤﻠﺔ ﻭﻻ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻮﺍﺕ ﻭﻻ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﻭﻻ ﻣﻦ ﻓﻴﻬﻦ‬
‫ﻭﻟﻮ ﻗﺪ ﺷﺎء ﻻﺳﺘﻘﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻅﻬﺮ ﺑﻌﻮﺿﺔ ﻓﺎﺳﺘﻘﻠﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺑﻘﺪﺭﺗﻪ ﻭﻟﻄﻒ ﺭﺑﻮﺑﻴﺘﻪ ﻓﻜﻴﻒ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﻋﺮﺵ ﻋﻈﻴﻢ ﺃﻛﺒﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻮﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﻭﻛﻴﻒ ﺗﻨﻜﺮ ﺃﻳﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺎﺝ ﺃﻥ ﻋﺮﺷﻪ ﻳﻘﻠﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺮﺵ‬
‫ﺃﻛﺒﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﻊ ﻭﺍﻷﺭﺿﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﻊ ﻭﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺵ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻮﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻻﺭﺿﻴﻦ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻭﺳﻌﺘﻪ ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻓﻮﻕ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎء ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻌﺔ"‬

‫‪The second occurrence of the passage appears on page 445:‬‬

‫"ﻭﻗﺪﻣﻨﺎ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺿﻤﻦ ﺭﺩﻩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﻤﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻜﺮ ﻷﺳﺘﻮﺍء ﷲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺵ ﻗﺎﻝ‬
‫ﻭﺃﻋﺠﺐ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻛﻠﻪ ﻗﻴﺎﺳﻚ ﷲ ﺑﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺵ ﻭﻣﻘﺪﺍﺭﻩ ﻭﻭﺯﻧﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺻﻐﻴﺮ ﺃﻭ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ ﻭﺯﻋﻤﺖ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻟﺼﺒﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻴﺎﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﷲ ﺃﻛﺒﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺵ ﺃﻭ ﺃﺻﻐﺮ ﻣﻨﻪ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺜﻠﻪ ﻓﺈﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﷲ ﺃﺻﻐﺮ ﻓﻘﺪ‬
‫ﺻﻴﺮﺗﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺵ ﺃﻋﻈﻢ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﻛﺒﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺵ ﻓﻘﺪ ﺍﺩﻋﻴﺘﻢ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻓﻀﻼ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺵ ﻭﺇﻥ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﺜﻠﻪ ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺿﻢ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺵ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻮﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺃﻛﺒﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺧﺮﺍﻓﺎﺕ ﺗﻜﻠﻢ ﺑﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻭﺗﺮﻫﺎﺕ ﻳﻠﻌﺐ ﺑﻬﺎ ﻭﺿﻼﻻﺕ ﻳﻀﻞ ﺑﻬﺎ ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﻳﻌﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻟ ﻟﻘﻄﻊ ﺛﻤﺮﺓ ﻟﺴﺎﻧﻪ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺨﻴﺒﺔ ﻟﻘﻮﻡ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﻘﻴﻬﻬﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻮﺭ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﻣﻊ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﻴﻴﺰ ﻛﻠﻪ ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﻭﻛﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺎﻻﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻀﻼﻻﺕ ‪ #‬ﻓﻴﻘﺎﻝ ﻟﻬﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺒﻘﺒﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺎﺥ ﺇﻥ ﷲ ﺃﻋﻈﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻞ ﺷﻲء ﻭﺃﻛﺒﺮ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻛﻞ ﺧﻠﻖ ﻭﻟﻢ ﻳﺤﺘﻤﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺵ ﻋﻈﻤﺎ ﻭﻻ ﻗﻮﺓ ﻭﻻ ﺣﻤﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺵ ﺍﺣﺘﻤﻠﻮﻩ ﺑﻘﻮﺗﻬﻢ ﻭﻻ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﻘﻠﻮﺍ ﺑﻌﺮﺷﻪ ﺑﺸﺪﺓ ﺃﺳﺮﻫﻢ ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻬﻢ ﺣﻤﻠﻮﻩ ﺑﻘﺪﺭﺗﻪ ﻭﻣﺸﻴﺌﺘﻪ ﻭﺇﺭﺍﺩﺗﻪ ﻭﺗﺄﻳﻴﺪﻩ ﻟﻮﻻ ﺫﻟﻚ‬
‫ﻣﺎ ﺃﻁﺎﻗﻮﺍ ﺣﻤﻠﻪ ﻭﻗﺪ ﺑﻠﻐﻨﺎ ﺃﻧﻬﻢ ﺣﻴﻦ ﺣﻤﻠﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺵ ﻭﻓﻮﻗﻪ ﺍﻟﺠﺒﺎﺭ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺰﺗﻪ‬

‫ﻭﺑﻬﺎﺋﻪ ﺿﻌﻔﻮﺍ ﻋﻦ ﺣﻤﻠﻪ ﻭﺍﺳﺘﻜﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﻭﺟﺜﻮﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺭﻛﺒﻬﻢ ﺣﺘﻰ ﻟﻘﻨﻮﺍ ﻻ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻭﻻ ﻗﻮﺓ ﺍﻻ ہﻠﻟ‬
‫ﻓﺎﺳﺘﻘﻠﻮﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺑﻘﺪﺭﺓ ﷲ ﻭﺍﺭﺍﺩﺗﻪ ﻭﻟﻮﻻ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻣﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻘﻞ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺵ ﻭﻻ ﺍﻟﺤﻤﻠﺔ ﻭﻻ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻮﺍﺕ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻻﺭﺽ ﻭﻣﻦ ﻓﻴﻬﻦ ﻭﻟﻮ ﻗﺪ ﺷﺎء ﻻ ﺳﺘﻘﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻅﻬﺮ ﺑﻌﻮﺿﺔ ﻓﺎﺳﺘﻘﻠﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺑﻘﺪﺭﺗﻪ ﻭﻟﻄﻒ‬
‫ﺭﺑﻮﺑﻴﺘﻪ ﻓﻜﻴﻒ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺮﺵ ﻋﻈﻴﻢ ﺍﻛﺒﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﻊ ﻭﺍﻻﺭﺿﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﻊ ﻭﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ‬
"# ‫ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺵ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻮﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻻﺭﺿﻴﻦ ﻣﺎ ﻭﺳﻌﺘﻪ ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻓﻮﻕ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎء ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻌﺔ‬

Essentially, the statement proposed by al-Darmi is a negated conditional:

A presupposition that the author uses in order to negate an argument and
the supposition itself – a lot of it exists in the Quran and common speech
styles as we shall discuss in the second facet.

As it clearly appears in Talbees Al-Jahmiyya, ibn Taymiyya is citing

'Uthman bin Sa'eed al-Darmi. In the first instance, he mentions him by
name (highlighted in yellow and colored in purple), in the second instance
he refers to him by mentioning his book and his opponent.

2. Some of the ignorant Sufis did try to spend some energy in proving
that ibn Taymiyya favored the opinion presented by al-Darmi, by that,
they went to another work made by another Sufi in order to prove that
point. Why? Because they can't read Arabic, they strive to attack, but they
can't read. And yes, ibn Taymiyya did favor the al-Darmi's opinion in his
reply to al-mareesi the Jahmi.

However, there is nothing wrong with what al-Darmi proposed; It's 100%
in accordance with the Islamic creed. He was simply arguing with the
Jahmi over ideas that Almareesi suggested, that:

(a): Allah (tt)is not bound by weight or size in comparison to the Throne.

(b): The Angels and the Throne are actually powerless to withhold Allah
(tt), however, they carry the task simple because Allah (tt) empowered
them.

(c): If Allah (tt) wills, he can substitute the Angels and the Throne, and
empowers the substitute, and he gave the mosquito as a substitute: as an
example contrary to the size of the Throne and the might of the Angels.
But as proposed by al-Darmi, Allah (tt) does not settle on a mosquito's
back, simply because He is on His Throne [which contains His chair which
is] larger than the heavens and the earth.

That's it. There's no anthropomorphism involved. There are no parallel

lines drawn to compare the Creator to the created. In fact, the Jahmi tried
to argue about the size of Allah (tt) in comparison to the Throne, and he
was answered in that matter.

2. Ibn Taymiyya, the Hero of the Wahhabis!

Back to Howse's message:

"This opinion is adduced to prove that Ibn Taymiyya was a heretic.

This is something that matters, because Ibn Taymiyya is a hero of
the Wahhabis, the sect that rules Saudi Arabia in alliance, for now,
with the royal family."

"Wahhabi," "Wahhabis," "Wahhabism" is a stereotype tailored by Sufis

and the Shee'ah. The goal of the label serves two purposes: An inner
purpose and an outer purpose. The outer purpose is to refer to followers
of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab, a formidable scholar who appeared in
the 1700s in today's Saudi Arabia.

The inner purpose developed by the Sufis and the Shee'ah is to cast
anyone who disagrees with those two factions with a ridiculing label. So
basically, when the average Muslim disagrees with a Sufi (or an Ash'ari)
or a Shee'i, the first reply the Muslim will receive is being labeled as
"Wahhabi." The Sufis (and the Ash'aris) and the Shee'ah would have no
problem calling each other "Wahhabi" when they disagree – It's the
natural dismissible response one can expect from the weak.

Moreover, the followers of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab did not form a
sect. They started as a religious movement, which later became a political
movement. Eventually, the movement successfully established its goals
and disappeared.

Today, there are no Wahhabis. The term however became a label used by
the Sufis and the Shee'ah to tag anyone who disagrees with them –
including one another. It is also worth highlighting that Muhammad bin
Abdul Wahhab's movement did not directly target the Shee'ah or the
Sufis, there were however certain practices adopted by existing heretics;
These ill practices and rituals were also common amongst the Sufis and
the Shee'ah, and that's the reason behind the grudge.

An example of such practices include grave worship, obtaining blessings

from the dead, supplicating to the dead, and so on. There were also other
ill practices such as obtaining blessings from trees for marriage and
fertility and such beliefs that were inherited from paganism. Such beliefs
were successfully wiped out by ibn Abdul Wahhab's movement.
The claim that modern day Saudis are Wahhabis is a total misconception.
In modern Saudi Arabia they do not abide by one school of fiqh (law,
thought, etc.), instead, they use all the four schools favoring the most
solid opinions all or most schools agreed upon. For example, in a certain
issue, if the Hanbali, the Maliki, and the Shafi'y school agreed on one
opinion, but the Hanafi school agreed on another opinion, they would
select the first opinion because it was supported by the majority. Ibn
Abdul Wahhab did not follow this system, he was a strict Hanbali, even
though he was very well educated in other schools as well. So how can we
consider the modern day Saudi Arabians Wahhabis when both the Saudis
and ibn Abdul Wahhab followed different systems?

That is just like presuming that Billy the Methodist is a Baptist.

In addition, ibn Abdul Wahhab's system did not tolerate the practices of
the Sufis and the Shee'ah, while the modern Saudi Arabians exert
tolerance to a certain extent towards ill Sufi and Shee'ah practices. Just
open the TV and see how the Sufis and the Shee'ah hang on the Ka'ba in
Makkah.

There's always Islam, as it is, and Islam as how an outsider wants it to

be. The non-Muslim (such as critics from the western world) are an
outsider to Islam. Similarly, Sufism is also an outsider to Islam – for many
reasons, one: Sufism is a global religion with roots in Buddhism,
Hinduism, and Kabbalah Judaism, and archaic Christianity. Shee'ism is
also an outsider to Islam, because most of the focus in that religion is
concentrated on certain characters and historic events rather than the
Quran and the Teachings of the Messenger of Islam.

If Islam was like that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeJ2H-s_O6k

or like that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BvSLgJSBBY

or perhaps like that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMEQnp1gSNo

If that was Islam, the western world would have applauded Islam. But
unfortunately, the Islam that the west strives to see, is and has been
always rejected by Muslims, whether they are ibn Taymiyya, ibn Abdul
Wahhab, or the Kings of Saudi Arabia.
3. The Criticism on ibn Taymiyya Hardly Discredits his Accomplishments.

It is also unfortunate that a person who is supposed to be well educated

uses a flawed evaluation on someone else. This is how Howse tries to
transmit the idea that ibn Taymiyya should be discarded:

"The traveller Ibn Battuta heard Ibn Taymiyya preach and

suggested that he was slightly bonkers – that he had “some kink in
his brain” as H.A.R. Gibb translated it in 1929."

And this how Howse wants the architects to learn architecture – by getting
the knowledge from the carpenter. Simply put, Ibn Battuta is an explorer,
he isn't a scholar of Islamic sciences. There is also no evidence in our
hands that shows that ibn Battuta had any background in clinical
psychology or neurology.

However, ibn Taymiyya did indeed receive heavy criticism from

opponents, and that only shows that he was indeed a controversial
character with ideas that guaranteed to terminate wishful thoughts and
ideas that had no solid grounds. As Chuang Tzu said, "When animals face
death, they do not care what noises they make." And this is the case with
Ibn Taymiyya's critics, as I see it.

Even though ibn Taymiyya criticized many who endorsed Sufi ideas,
unbiased scholars never ceased to praise him as he deserves. The
following is from Jalaludeen Al-Siyooti, a scholar whom the Sufis hold
dear:

‫"ﺍﺑﻦ ﺗﻴﻤﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﺦ ﺍﻹﻣﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻓﻆ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻗﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﺴﺮ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺭﻉ ﺷﻴﺦ‬
‫( ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺑﺤﻮﺭ‬...) ‫ﺍﻹﺳﻼﻡ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﺰﻫﺎﺩ ﻧﺎﺩﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﺮ ﺗﻘﻲ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺃﺑﻮ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺱ ﺃﺣﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ‬
.ً‫ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺫﻛﻴﺎء ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺪﻭﺩﻳﻦ ﻭﺍﻟﺰﻫﺎﺩ ﻭﺍﻷﻓﺮﺍﺩ ﺃﻟﻒ ﺛﻼﺛﻤﺎﺋﺔ ﻣﺠﻠﺪﺓ ﻭﺍﻣﺘﺤﻦ ﻭﺃﻭﺫﻱ ﻣﺮﺍﺭﺍ‬
‫ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﺴﺨﺔ‬244 -243 ‫]ﻧﻘﻼ ً ﻋﻦ ﻁﺒﻘﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺤﻔّﺎﻅ ﻹﻣﺎﻡ ﺟﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻮﻁﻲ – ﺻﻔﺤﺔ‬
[ ‫ﺍﻹﻟﻜﺘﺮﻭﻧﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﻣﻜﺘﺒﺔ ﻣﺸﻜﺎﺓ ﺍﻹﺳﻼﻣﻴﺔ‬

"Ibn Taymiyya, the Shaikh, the Imam, the Knowledgeable, the

Memorizer, the Jurist, the Diligent, the Talented Exegetist; The
Shaikh of Islam, the Source of Knowledge for the asceticists, the
unique character in time (…) He was a sea from the seas of
knowledge, a rare bright intellect, an ascetic who authored 300
books, and he was tried in turbulence after another." [From
Tabaqaat Al-Huffaath, by Imam Jalaludeen al-Siyooti, page 243-
244 from the online copy]
In my humble opinion, I think an opinion from a scholar on another
scholar is more useful than the opinion of an explorer.

4. Can the Creator Become Flesh and Dwell Amongst his Creation?

Rather, "Can the Creator become the created?" This is the question that
Howse implies at the conclusion of his message:

"But if God could settle on a mosquito’s back, why could he not

take flesh and dwell amongst us?"

The Answer: Guess what? The question is logically flawed, and in no way
does it serve the Christian cause. That is, it doesn't really matter whether
the Creator can become the created (and dwell amongst his creation or
whatever…). The question is: Did the Creator become the created?

What the Christians need is a proof not a possibility. So what if the

Creator can become the created? It doesn't mean the possibility took
place. Similarly, I can smoke, but I don't. I can also drink alcohol, but I
don't.

And as for the argument of the mosquito's back, which was originally used
by 'Uthman bin Sa'eed al-Darmi, and cited by ibn Taymiyya – well, that
was a negated conditional as it appeared: A presupposition inserted by
the author to anull another argument and the supposition itself. That is,
al-Darmi was arguing about Allah's settlement on HIS THRONE (not the
back of a mosquito), and since his opponent – Almareesi, the Jahmi – was
arguing about the size of the Allah (tt) and His Throne, the example of the
back of the mosquito was introduced to be annulled and to annul the
opponents arguments altogether.

According to the given: If the argument proposed by Howse is a based on

a availability of a negated clue (a clue that is false), then the argument is
false. In other words, If "God" became flesh and dwelt amongst His
creation, because He could have settled on a mosquito's back, then He did
not become flesh and dwell amongst his creation, because He never
settled on a mosquito's back.

HE (tt) has a Throne; And likewise, He does not need to become the
created because he also erects prophets and messengers…

Wal Hamdulillaahi Rabbil 'Alameen

Abdalla S. Alothman
April 9, 2010