Blasphemy of Ibnu Taymmiyah in his Fatwa

Ibnu Taymmiya & his understanding of Hadith!

 

It is in Hadith – Prophet Mohammad (صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم) said, “If one of you lowered a bucket by a rope (into a well), then it would fall on Allah.” narrated by At-Tirmidhi.

Muslim scholars did not take literal meaning of this Hadith because Allah(سبحانہ وتعالیٰ) is not a body for something to bump into. They said it means that it would fall by Allah’s knowledge. This meaning was the consensus after hypothesizing the authenticity of this Hadith (as this Hadith has a weak narration).

 

Ibn Taymiyyah’s understanding of the Hadith is as follow.

He says in his book ‘Majmuuˆu-l-Fataawaa’ ” Verily his (the Prophet’s (صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم) statement: “If one of you lowered a bucket by a rope, then it would fall on Allah.” is a hypothetical consideration, that is, if the lowering happened, then it would fall on Allah (شانہ وتعالیٰ).

It is not possible for anyone to lower anything on Allah, however, because, Allah’s self is high, and if anything was lowered in the direction of the Earth, then it would stop at the center and would not go up in the opposite direction (from there).

However, if there was a hypothesized lowering, then what he (the Prophet -علیہ السلام) said would happen”. (6/571)

 

فَإِنَّ قَوْلَهُ : { لَوْ أُدْلِيَ أَحَدُكُمْ بِحَبْلِ لَهَبَطَ عَلَى اللَّهِ } إنَّمَا هُوَ تَقْدِيرٌ مَفْرُوضٌ ؛ أَيْ لَوْ وَقَعَ الْإِدْلَاءُ لَوَقَعَ عَلَيْهِ لَكِنَّهُ لَا يُمْكِنُ أَنْ يُدْلِيَ أَحَدٌ عَلَى اللَّهِ شَيْئًا ؛ لِأَنَّهُ عَالٍ بِالذَّاتِ وَإِذَا أُهْبِطَ شَيْءٌ إلَى جِهَةِ الْأَرْضِ وَقَفَ فِي الْمَرْكَزِ وَلَمْ يَصْعَدْ إلَى الْجِهَةِ الْأُخْرَى لَكِنْ بِتَقْدِيرِ فَرْضِ الْإِدْلَاءِ يَكُونُ مَا ذَكَرَ مِنْ الْجَزَاءِ .(مجموع الفتاوى – (6 / 571

 

Ibn Taymiyyah explains further by saying:

“Likewise, what descends from a high point on Earth to its lowest point, which is it’s center, does not rise from there in that direction, except by someone lifting it, resisting its downwards pull down towards the center (i.e. the gravity pull.)

If it was hypothesized that the lifter was stronger (than the gravity pull), then it would be rising towards the celestial sphere from there, and would rise to Allah.

It was only called lowering from the viewpoint of what is in the minds of the listeners in that what faces their feet is called falling….

Even if it was actually lowering only to the point of the (Earth’s) center, and from there one would only be giving rope to the bucket, and there would be no actual lowering…..

However, the beneficial point is to clarify the surrounding and highness from all directions (of the Earth)….

The purpose (of the Hadith) is to clarify the meaning of the Creator’s surrounding (سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَى) just as He said that He grabs the Skies and folds the Earth and the like, which all explains His surrounding of created things. (6/572-573)”

فَكَذَلِكَ مَا يَهْبِطُ مِنْ أَعْلَى الْأَرْضِ إلَى أَسْفَلِهَا – وَهُوَ الْمَرْكَزُ – لَا يَصْعَدُ مِنْ هُنَاكَ إلَى ذَلِكَ الْوَجْهِ إلَّا بِرَافِعِ يَرْفَعُهُ يُدَافِعُ بِهِ مَا فِي قُوَّتِهِ مِنْ الْهُبُوطِ إلَى الْمَرْكَزِ فَإِنْ قُدِّرَ أَنَّ الدَّافِعَ أَقْوَى كَانَ صَاعِدًا بِهِ إلَى الْفَلَكِ مِنْ تِلْكَ النَّاحِيَةِ وَصَعِدَ بِهِ إلَى اللَّهِ وَإِنَّمَا يُسَمَّى هُبُوطًا بِاعْتِبَارِ مَا فِي أَذْهَانِ الْمُخَاطَبِينَ أَنَّ مَا يُحَاذِي أَرْجُلَهُمْ يَكُونُ هَابِطًا وَيُسَمَّى هُبُوطًا…. وَهُوَ إنَّمَا يَكُونُ إدْلَاءً حَقِيقِيًّا إلَى الْمَرْكَزِ وَمِنْ هُنَاكَ إنَّمَا يَكُونُ مَدًّا لِلْحَبْلِ وَالدَّلْوِ لَا إدْلَاءَ لَهُ…. وَلَكِنَّ فَائِدَتَهُ بَيَانُ الْإِحَاطَةِ وَالْعُلُوِّ …. وَالْمَقْصُودُ بِهِ بَيَانُ إحَاطَةِ الْخَالِقِ سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَى كَمَا بَيَّنَ أَنَّهُ يَقْبِضُ السَّمَوَاتِ وَيَطْوِي الْأَرْضَ وَنَحْوَ ذَلِكَ مِمَّا فِيهِ بَيَانُ إحَاطَتِهِ بِالْمَخْلُوقَاتِ. (مجموع الفتاوى – 6 / 572-573)

The above statement shows that the ” surrounding of Allah (SWT) is the physical surrounding of something with physical boundaries, size and shape.

Ibn Taymiyyah’s view on the Hadiith from a viewpoint of his belief

In the final analysis of this Hadiith Ibn Taymiyyah says:

“Likewise, interpreting this Haditħ in term of knowledge (i.e falling by Allah’s knowledge, it is clearly false, and of the Jahmiyy kind of interpretation.

Rather, based on the assumption that the Haditħ is authentic, then it explains (Allah’s) surrounding, and it is known that Allah is able to surround and that it is going to be on the Day of Judgment as stated in the Qur’an and the Sunnah. There is nothing, in general, in affirming this Hadiith that is in conflict with reason or Islamic Law.” (6/574)

وَكَذَلِكَ تَأْوِيلُهُ بِالْعِلْمِ تَأْوِيلٌ ظَاهِرُ الْفَسَادِ مَنْ جِنْسِ تَأْوِيلَاتِ الْجَهْمِيَّة ؛ بَلْ بِتَقْدِيرِ ثُبُوتِهِ يَكُونُ دَالًّا عَلَى الْإِحَاطَةِ . وَالْإِحَاطَةُ قَدْ عُلِمَ أَنَّ اللَّهَ قَادِرٌ عَلَيْهَا وَعُلِمَ أَنَّهَا تَكُونُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ بِالْكِتَابِ وَالسُّنَّة وَلَيْسَ فِي إثْبَاتِهَا فِي الْجُمْلَةِ مَا يُخَالِفُ الْعَقْلَ وَلَا الشَّرْعَ .

 

The above shows that Ibn Taymiyyah was an extreme anthropomorphist (one who attributes human form and character to Allah -Shanuhu Wa talah).

He believed that Allah is a body with a shape that surrounds things. He saw no problem in claiming that the world could be inside Allah (Subhanohu Wa talah) and one could hypothetically bump into Allah’s (Subhanohu Wa talah) alleged borders.

 

Salafis and their like minded groups, in their desperation, are trying to make people think that As-Sanusi [Sidi Muhammad ibn Ali al-Sanusi al-Mujahiri al-Hasani al-Idrisi, born 1787 in Northern Africa and died 1859, Cyrenaica.] agrees with Ibn Taymiyyah regarding Ar-Raazi’s argument of the need for composition for something with size.

The need for composition Ar-Raazi speaks of, and denies, could be true of Allah, is an argument As-Sanusi accepts, and validates. That is, his quoted refutation of the argument for implied composition is not absolute, but for its use in a different context than this, and without admitting that there is any implied need for composition.

As-Sanusi denies that affirming that Allah has attributes such as knowledge, implies composition.

The context in which As-Sanusi criticizes Ar-Raazi, is for the latter’s weakness in facing up to the argument of the philosophers for denying that Allah has attributes. They argued that since the attributes are many, they would need to be composed.

As-Sanusi refutes this absolutely and says that the argument for need is false, because there is no composition implied.

Why is that? Because the attributes are necessary, perfect, eternal and unchanging. This is the essence of what As-Sanusi says.

As-Sanusi affirms that things with size do need composition, and validates this argument.

Ar-Raazi is not talking about Allah having attributes in the argument against anthropomorphists which Ibn Taymiyyah responds to.

In essence Ar-Raazi says that declaring Allah to be something that can be pointed at, means that He would then have a border, and therefore be in need of composition, like all things with size. This is true, because all shapes are possible and in need of specification.

This is not an argument that As-Sanusi is against. His books are full of this type of arguments. The need for bodies to be specified in shape and composition is a theme throughout, on which he bases the proof for the createdness of all things with a size.

Accordingly, As-Sanusi’s refutation of the argument of the need for composition of parts does not apply for the issue of physical aboveness, and is not intended by him. This is because shapes are possible, and not intrinsically necessary in themselves, so they do need to be specified and composed.

Why Ibn Taymiyyah affirms implied composition and need?

Since Allah has a size in Ibn Taymiyyah’s view, and its shape is possible, there is an implied need for composition. He says in affirmation of size: “That something existing should not be increasing, or decreasing, or neither increasing nor decreasing, and yet exist and not have a size – this is impossible”. (Bayaan Talbiis Al-Jahmiyyah, 3/146).

قال ابن تيمية: فأما كون الشيء غير موصوف بالزيادة والنقصان ولا بعدم ذلك وهو موجود وليس بذي قدر فهذا لا يعقل (بيان تلبيس الجهمية, ج3/ص146).

In affirming composition, Ibn Taymiyyah says: ” We have already clarified what possibilities (in terms of what they mean) are associated with the words composition, settling in place, being other (having different sides or parts), and need, and that the meaning meant by this is something all existing things must be attributed with, whether necessary in existence (he means Allah) or possible in existence (creation). Verily, to say that this is impossible (for Aļļaah to be attributed with), is pure sophistry” (Bayaan Talbiis Al-Jahmiyyah, 1/33)

قال ابن تيمية: قولك إن كان منقسما كان مركبا وتقدم إبطاله تقدم الجواب عن هذا الذي سميته مركبا وتبين أنه لا حجة أصلا على امتناع ذلك بل بين أن إحالة ذلك تقتضي إبطال كل موجود ولولا أنه أحال على ما تقدم لما أحلنا عليه وتقدم بيان ما في لفظ التركيب والتحيز والغير والافتقار من الاحتمال وإن المعنى الذي يقصد منه بذلك يجب أن يتصف به كل موجود سواء كان واجبا أو ممكنا وإن القول بامتناع ذلك يستلزم السفسطة المحضة (بيان تلبيس الجهمية ج 1 ص 33).

 

The proof that Ibn Taymiyyah affirms that his deity’s shape is possible and not necessary, is in his Bucket Theology, where He says: “and it is known that Allah is able to surround….” i.e. able to take on a shape to do so, which means that it is not a necessary shape, but a possible one, and therefore in need of specification. (Majmuuˆu-l-Fataawaa, 6/574)

قال ابن تيمية: وَالْإِحَاطَةُ قَدْ عُلِمَ أَنَّ اللَّهَ قَادِرٌ عَلَيْهَا وَعُلِمَ أَنَّهَا تَكُونُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ بِالْكِتَابِ وَالسُّنَّة وَلَيْسَ فِي إثْبَاتِهَا فِي الْجُمْلَةِ مَا يُخَالِفُ الْعَقْلَ وَلَا الشَّرْعَ ؛ لَكِنْ لَا نَتَكَلَّمُ إلَّا بِمَا نَعْلَمُ وَمَا لَا نَعْلَمُهُ أَمْسَكْنَا عَنْهُ وَمَا كَانَ مُقَدِّمَةُ دَلِيلِهِ مَشْكُوكًا فِيهَا عِنْدَ بَعْضِ النَّاسِ كَانَ حَقُّهُ أَنْ يَشُكَّ فِيهِ حَتَّى يَتَبَيَّنَ لَهُ الْحَقُّ وَإِلَّا فَلْيَسْكُتْ عَمَّا لَمْ يَعْلَمْ . (مجموع الفتاوى – 6 /574