Imam Tayimiah R.A: Pro views

From: mas@Cadence.COM
(Masud Khan)
Subject: Ahl al-Sunnah and Ibn
Taymiya
Ibn Taymiya and his writings
and those of his students have
recently
been used by “Wahabbis” and
“Reformists” to provide evidence
against
madhaib and the Aqueedah of
Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jamaat (The
Four Schools).
As can be seen from the
following brief biography, taken
from “The
Reliance of the Traveller” which
is an AUTHENTIC book of fiqh, Ibn
Taymiya (Rahim-ullah) was
considered an innovaitor and a
heretic and
some scholars went so far as to
declare his writings as Kufr.
—-
Ibn Taymiya is Ahmad Ibn Abd al-
Salaam ibn Abdullah, Abu al-
Abbas Taqi
al-Din ibn Taymiya al-Harrani,
born in Harran, east of
Damascus, in
661/1263. A famous Hanbali
scholar in Qur’anic exegesis
(tafsir),
hadith and jurisprudence, Ibn
Taymiya was a voracious reader
and
author of great personal
courage who was endowed
with a compelling
writing style and a keen
memory. Dhahabi wrote of him,
“I never saw
anyone faster at recalling the
Qur’anic verses dealing with
subjects
he was discussing, or anyone
who could remember hadith
texts more
vividly.” Dhahabi estimates that
his legal opinions on various
subjects amount to three-
hundred or more volumes.
He was imprisoned during much
of his life in Cairo, Alexandria,
and
Damascus for his writings,
scholars of his time accusing
him of
believing Allah to be a corporeal
entity because of what he
mentioned
in his al-aqida al-Hamawiyya and
al-Wasitiyya and other works,
such as
that Allah’s ‘hand’, ‘foot’, ‘shin’
and ‘face’ are literal (haqiqi)
attributes, and that He is upon
the Throne in person. The error
in
this is suggesting such
attributes are literal is an
innovation and
unjustifiable inferance from the
Qur’anic and hadith texts that
mention them, for the way of
early Muslims was mere
acceptance of such
expressions on faith without
saying how they are meant, and
without
additions, subtractions, or
substituting meanings imagined
to be
synonyms, while acknowledging
Allah’s absolute transcedence
beyond the
characteristics of created things,
in conformity with the Qur’anic
verse “There is nothing
whatsoever like unto
him” [Qur’an 42:11]. As
for figurative interpretations
that preserve the divine
transcendence,
scholars of tenents of faith have
only had recourse to them in
times
when men of reprehensible
innovation (bid’a), quoting
hadiths and
Qur’anic verses, have caused
confusion in the minds of
common Muslims
as to whether Allah has
attributes like those of His
creation or
whether He is transcendently
beyond any image conceivable
to the minds
of men. Scholars’ firmness in
condemning those who have
raised such
confusions has traditionally
been very uncompromising, and
this is no
doubt the reason that a number
of the Imams of the Shafi’i
school,
among them Taqi al-Din Subki,
Ibn Hajar Haytami and al-Izz ibn
Jama’a,
gave formal legal opinions
(fatawa) that Ibn Taymiya was
misguided and
misguiding in tenents of faith,
and warned people from
accepting his
theories. The Hanafi scholar
Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari
has written
“Whoever thinks that all the
scholars of his time joined in a
single
conspiracy against him from
personal envy should rather
impugn their
own intelligence and
understanding, after studying
the repugnance of
his deviations in beliefs and
works, for which he was asked
to repent
time after time and moved from
prison to prison until he passed
on to
what he’d sent ahead.”
While few deny that Ibn Taymiya
was a copious and eloquent
writer and
hadith scholar, his career, like
that of others, demonstrates
that a
man may be outstanding in one
field and yet suffer from radical
deficiencies in another, the most
reliable index of which is how a
field’s Imams regard his work in
it. By this measure, indeed, by the
standards of all previous Ahl al-
Sunnah scholars, it is clear that
despite voluminous and
influential written legacy, Ibn
Taymiya cannot
be considered an authority on
tenents of faith (aqueeda), a
field in
which he made mistakes
profoundly incompatible with
the beliefs of
Islam, as also with a number of
his legal views that violated the
scholarly consensus (ijma) of
Sunni Muslims. It should be
remembered
that such matters are not the
province of personal reasoning
(ijtihad),
whether Ibn Taymiya considered
them to be so out of sincere
conviction,
or whether simply because, as
Imam Subki said, “his learning
exceeded
his intelligence.” He died in
Damascus in 728/1328.
Taken From:
English/Arabic Traditional
Sunni Manual of Shari`ah
_____________________________

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s