“Imâm al-Ghazâlî extirpated the Greek thoughts so as to remove their effects from Muslims’ minds. He corrected the mistakes of those who attempted to defend Islam against philosophers and scholasticism according to their own thoughts. He revealed the rational effects of the principles of belief, reopened the spirit of ijtihâd, arranged the programs of education, introduced the moral principles of Islam and invited the government and officials to follow Islam. Yet he was inefficient in the knowledge of the Hadîth, and he dwelt too much on rational knowledge and inclined to tasawwuf more than necessary.”
He attributes defects to this great scholar, who has been one of the greatest Ahl as-Sunna scholars. He calls these imaginary defects “dangerous attitude”. He extravagantly goes on:
“Ibn Taimiyya removed these dangers, revived Islam’s spirit of ideations and morals and accomplished the explorations of renewal. A short while before him, no one had dared to invite the people to Islam for fear of calumniation; the narrow-minded scholars had cooperated with the cruel rulers, and it was his lot to unfurl the banner of renewal against them. He was profound in interpretation of the Qur’ân and a leader in the Hadîth and he took Islam from where al-Ghazâlî had left it. He defended Islamic faith and found more beautiful proofs for Islamic spirit than al-Ghazâlî had. Al-Ghazâlî’s judgement had remained under the harmful influence of rational thoughts. Ibn Taimiyya was more effective and chose the way of reason, which was closer
to the spirit of the Qur’ân and Sunna. Thus, he won a wonderful success. Men of knowledge did not know the interpretation of the Qur’ân. Those who were educated scholastically were not able to establish the connexion between themselves and the Qur’ân and Hadîth. It has been only Ibn Taimiyya’s lot to accomplish the real explanation of Islam. He made ijtihâds by deriving his inspiration directly from the Holy Book, from the Sunna, and from the way of living of the Prophet’s companions. Ibn al-Qayyim, his disciple, studied over the divine causes, whose meanings had not been solved, and established Islamic principles. By clearing out the evil effects that had leaked into the Islamic system, he purified and refreshed it. He attacked the bad customs that had been accepted as parts of Islam and had been support for religious
punishments and tolerated by scholars for centuries. This honest act turned the whole world against him. Those who came later raced with one another to calumniate him.”
Religion reformers can be classified in three groups:
The first group is that of the profound Ahl as-Sunna scholars. They corrected heresies, wrong deeds and superstitions that had been introduced among Muslims by ignorant people and by the enemies of Islam. They revealed the true knowledge transmitted by the Ahl as-Sunna mujtahids as they had heard it from as-Sahâbat al-kirâm. They did not say anything from themselves. They are called “mujaddidîn” (revivers). The Prophet (’alaihi ’s-salâm) praised them and foretold that they would come and render service to Islam: “After me, a scholar will appear every hundred years. He will strengthen my religion.” Mujaddidîn were
praised in this hadîth: “The scholars of my umma are like the prophets among the Children of Isrâ’îl.” The absolute mujtahids such as al-Imâm al-a’zâm (the Gratest Leader) Abű Hanîfa, al-Imâm ash-Shâfi’î and the like, who were madhhab leaders, al-Imâm ar-Rabbânî Ahmad al-Fârűqî as-Sirhindî, the ’ulamâ’ who were attached to the madhhabs in each century and Hadrat al-Mahdî, who will come in the future, are among these mujaddidîn. Some hypocrites, who use the religion as a means for political purposes and worldly advantages, have been representing themselves as religious men and murshids. Every one of them has
been writing that he himself is the very mujaddid predicted in the hadîth. The ignorant believe one of them and call him a mujaddid. However, Rasűlullah (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa salam) described the characteristics of mujaddidîn. He said that they all would be in the path of as-Sahâbât al-kirâm (radiy-Allâhu anhum). And those who are in this path are the Ahl as-Sunna scholars. These mujaddidîn, who were predicted in the Hadîth, are the great scholars of the Ahl as-Sunna, the apples of Muslims’ eyes. They did not say anything from their own minds or opinions, nor did they give âyats and hadîths meanings according to their own ideas and understandings. They tried to spread and emphasize the meanings given by the scholars of tafsîr and hadîth. How could Mawdűdî ever say “ignorant” about these profound scholars whom Rasűlullah
(sal-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam) praised?
In the basic books of Islam, there is no mawdű’ hadîth or heretical belief or deed which the enemies and the ignorant have tried to introduce into Islam. The mujaddid’s duties are not to change the religious books of Islamic scholars, nor to disesteem the value of religious knowledge in these books, nor to add new information to them. His duties are to reveal the religious teachings that were written in their books but were forgotten later, to explain and teach them to others. An exalted Islamic scholar of this capacity is called a “mujaddid” rather than a “reformer”.
Religion reformers in the second group believe in and pay respect to the Qur’ân and Hadîth, but they refuse their meanings and the knowledge given in the books of Islamic scholars. They derive meanings from the Qur’ân and Hadîth according to their short sight. They differ from the knowledge of the Ahl as-Sunna scholars on many points. They are called “ahl al-bid’a” (heretics).
Our Prophet (’alaihi ’s-salâm) predicted also that they would appear. The Hadîth ash-sherîf says, “My umma will part into
seventy-three groups. Seventy-two of them will go to Hell, and one will not go to Hell owing to their îmân.”[1]
In the third group of religion reformers are the insidious disbelievers. These enemies of Islam, by disguising themselves as Muslims and uttering gentle words such as, “We renovate the religion, reproduce its main sources and restore it to its former position,” try to demolish Islamic faith, to change and defile the true meanings of âyats and hadîths. They strive to destroy Islam form the inside. Because they pretend to be Muslims and say, “We renovate the religion and purify it from superstitions,” ignorant people suppose such disbelievers to be real mujaddids. They believe them. So these reformers are very successful. In order to deceive Muslims, they praise a few Ahl as-Sunna scholars and write that they admire them, yet they dislike most of the teachings
written in their books and call them superstitions. Of the hadîths written in these great scholars’ invaluable books, they say “mawdű’, made-up” about the ones which do not suit their purposes and which hinder their advantages. They impose their own heretical, harmful concoctions in the name of truth. Thus, they try to blemish these great scholars. Another group of them constantly speak ill of, and even attribute disbelief to, one or two of the Ahl as-Sunna scholars.
From the term ‘religion reformers’, we Muslims understand the lâ-madhhabî (non-madhhabite, non-Sunnî) people, that is, members of the second and third groups. The group which is declared in the above-quoted hadîth to possess the true faith and will not go to Hell for this reason is called the “Ahl as-Sunnat wa ’l-Jamâ’a”. This hadîth shows that a person is either a Muslim or a disbeliever. And a Muslim is either a Sunnî or a heretic. Then a person who does not belong to the Ahl as-Sunna is either a heretic or a disbeliever.
Today, Muslims should be quite adequately learned lest they should be deceived by these subversive religion reformers who
---------------------------------
[1] This hadîth is reported in many valuable books. For example, it is written on the first page of the translation of Al-milal wa ’n-nihal that it exists in the four books of Sunan and that it is explained more detailedly in at-Tirmidhî’s book. It is also written in the Sahîhain of al-Bukhârî and Muslim. Furthermore, it is written on the 609th page of Sharh al-Mawâqif, which is one of the greatest kalâm books taught in high grades of madrasas, and in the 67th letter of the second volume of Maktűbât by al-Imâm ar-Rabbânî. The ahl al-bid’a and disbelievers deny this hadîth.
have spread all over Muslim countries. Freemasons, the insidious enemies of Islam, in order to cause Muslims to depart from their religion, try on the one hand to make the government administrators freemasons. On the other hand, they educate freemasonic men of religious profession. Freemasonic administrators try to pass laws prohibiting what is fard and commanding what is harâm or even disbelief and, to promote the reformist men of religious profession, who are their associates in the guilt. For example, Âlî Pasha (d. in 1287/1871, buried in the Suleymâniye Mosque yard), who was made Grand Vizier five times during the times of Sultan ’Abd al-Majîd and Sultan ’Abd al-’Azîz, was a freemason. He invited Jamâl ad-dîn al-Afghânî, a religion reformer hostile to
Islam, to Istanbul, and co-operating with him he began to reform the religion. But the Ahl as-Sunna scholars were vigilant enough not to leave the field to them. They proved Jamâl ad-dîn’s ignominy, and Âlî Pasha could no longer support him.
Jamâl ad-dîn al-Afghânî was born in Afghanistan in
---------------------------------
[1] Chief of Religious Matters.
is written in the book Ad-durar by Adib Is’hâq of Egypt that Jamâl ad-dîn was the chief of the freemasonic lodge in Egypt. He imbued Egyptians with revolutionary ideas. In order to increase his fame, he pretended to side with those who prepared the event of “A’râbî Pasha” against the British. He made friends with Muhammad ’Abduh, the muftî of Egypt. He imbued him with his reformatory thoughts. Muhammad ’Abduh wrote: “Before I saw Jamâl ad-dîn my eyes had been blind, my ears deaf and my tongue dumb.” In London and in Paris, Jamâl ad-dîn wrote many harmful articles on reform in the religion. In 1886 he came to
Iran. He did not keep quiet there, either. Fastened with chains he was left inside the Ottoman borders by five hundred cavalrymen. He went to Baghdad and London. He wrote articles against Iran. Thence he came to Istanbul, where, co-operating with the Bahâ’îs[1] he exploited the religion as a means for politics. He tried to stir up an insurrection in Iran. A year later, his chin became cancerous and he died in
Great Muslim scholar Hadrat Sayyid Abdulhakîm Arwâsî (d. in 1362/1943) said, “It was Ibn Taimiyya who invented the heresy of reform in the religion first. Later on, this heresy was led to unbelief by the ignorant and by the enemies of Islam.” Ibn Taimiyya was born in Harrân in 661/1263 and caught a disease that caused his death in prison in a fortress in Damascus in 728/1328. He did not like the Ahl as-Sunna scholars. He denied tasawwuf entirely. He called Islam’s beloved scholars such as Muhyiddîn ibn al-’Arabî and Sadr ad-dîn al-Qonawî “disbelievers”. However, he was not too ignorant to know that he who called a Muslim “disbeliver” would himself become a disbeliever. It is a shame he tried to adapt Islam to his own opinion and narrow mind and, denying the facts which he could not comprehend, he went astray. ’Abd al-Wahhâb ash-Sha’rânî (rahmatullâhi ’alaih), one of the leading ’ulamâ’ of Islam and a specialist in ’ilm at-tasawwuf, exposed Ibn Taimiyya’s this
---------------------------------
[1] A heretical group explained in the thirty-sixth chapter of the second fascicle of Endless Bliss.
deplorable state in his Tabaqât al-kubrâ, in the preface of which he wrote: “Only Walîs can recognise a Walî. If a person who is not a Walî or does not know anything about wilâya does not believe in wilâya, this indicates his obstinacy and ignorance. Anexample of this is Ibn Taimiyya’s denial of tasawwuf and his belittling ’ârifs. One should not read such people’s books, keeping away from them as if running away from wild beasts. Abu ’l-Hasan ash-Shâdhilî, one of the superiors in tasawwuf, reported in detail the state of those who denied Awliyâ’.” Therefore, Ibn Taimiyya’s followers bear hostility against Hadrat
’Abd al-Wahhâb ash-Sha’rânî and have aimed their arrows of slander at this great scholar of Islam.
Ibn Taimiyya said that the early Muslims had adapted themselves to the Qur’ân and Hadîth, ant that the madhhab leaders who had appeared later had inserted their own opinions, and he censured the Ahl as-Sunna. On the contrary, as written in the seventeenth article above, the Ahl as-Sunna scholars, in regard to religious knowledge, never departed from the way of narration (naql). They did not follow their own points of view. It is accepted unanimously by Muslim scholars that especially al-Imâm al-a’zam Abű Hanîfa (rahmatullâhi ’alaih) followed the narration in every respect and held his own point of view inferior to it[1]. While slandering the Ahl as-Sunna scholars in this respect, Ibn Taimiyya himself interpreted the Qur’ân according to his own point of view. Thus, he himself differed from the early Muslims. This shows that he was not sincere in his word. He said that the Ahl as-Sunna scholars had misunderstood the Qur’ân and Hadîth and that even the Sahâbat al-kirâm had gone wrong on many points, that he himself corrected Allâhu ta’âlâ’s religion and that only he understood the true meaning of the Qur’ân. He disliked the great mujtahids of the first and second centuries of the Hegira, who had been praised in the Hadîth, and the Muslim scholars who have spread the mujtahids’ madhhabs all over the world. For this reason, he began to fall into disesteem in the view of men of knowledge. The authorities of religion co-operated and began to observe minutely the way he had taken, and it was concluded that he was heretical and harmful. The chair of professorship that he had inherited from his father was taken back from him. However, he did not keep quiet. He reproduced the words of the heretical group called “Mushabbiha” and said
---------------------------------
[1] For documented explanation, see the 27th chapter of Endless Bliss I.
that Allâhu ta’âlâ was material and an object. He supposed that the Creator was in the shape of man. By giving wrong meanings to symbolic (mutashâbih) âyats and hadîths according to his own comprehension, he went wrong. He was so badly fixed in this heretical belief that one day he said on the pulpit of the mosque in Damascus, “Allâhu ta’âlâ descends on the earth from the sky as I descend now,” and got down from the pulpit. Ibn Battűta reported this. The ’ulamâ’ of the four madhhabs, by writing answers refuting these words of Ibn Taimiyya, prevented the deterioration of Muslims’ i’tiqâd. The book Ar-raddu ’ala ’l-mushabbihi fî qawlihi ta’âlâ ar-Rahmânu ’ala ’l-Arsh-istawâ
by Muhammad ibn Jamâ’a, who was a Shâfi’î scholar of fiqh and hadîth and had been the qâdî Of Egypt, Damascus and Jerusalem and passed away in 733 (1333), is full of these invaluable answers. In the fatwâ book Tâtârhâniyya and in Al-milal wa ’n-nihal and in many other books, it is written that the groups of Mujassima and Mushabbiha, i.e. those who believe Allâhu ta’â’lâ to be a material being who sits, gets down and walks on the ’Arsh, are disbelievers. In
Ibn Taimiyya said that he was in the Hanbalî madhhab. However, one has to adapt one’s belief to that of the Ahl as-Sunna so that one can be in one of the four right madhhabs. Many words of his indicate that he did not belong to the Ahl as-Sunna and, on the contrary, he disliked the Ahl as-Sunna. He represented himself as a mujaddid, as a reformer. Hanbalî scholar Mar’î (d.
expense of a journey,” to distort it into “Only three mosques are visited,” and said that it was a sinful act to visit even Rasulullah’s (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam) grave. Hadrat Ibn Hajar al-Hîtâmî answered this in detail in his book Fatâwâ al-fiqhiyya. In the 222nd article of the book Nuzhat al-hawâtir by ’Allâma ’Abd al-Hayy al-Hasanî (d. 1341/1923), it is written that Muhammad ’Abd al-Hayy al-Luknawî, an Islamic scholar of India (d. 1304/1887), debated upon this subject with Muhammad Bashir, a lâ-madhhabite Indian. Ibn Taimiyya was aggressive against the madhhab of Hadrat Abu ’l-Hasan al-Ash’arî, one of the greatest Ahl as-Sunna scholars, and against this profound scholar’s explanation of qadar and of the Names of Allâhu ta’âlâ and against his explanations of the âyats about the punishment in the next world. He said that the punishment in Hell would not be eternal also for disbelievers and that every kind of tax paid to the State would stand for zakât. He did not admit that the words incompatible
with what the four madhhabs had unanimously declared were disbelief. He strived to rebut the honour and fame of the Ahl as-Sunna scholars. In al-Jabal mosque in Sâlihiyya, he said that Hadrat ’Umar (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) had made many mistakes. In another gathering, he said that Hadrat ’Alî (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) went wrong three hundred times. A hadîth, which is written in the book Kunűz by al-Manâwî, in Imâm Ahmad’s Sahîh and in the book Mir’ât al-kâ’inât, states: “Allâhu ta’âlâ has put the true word on ’Umar’s tongue,” by which Rasűlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm) meant that Hadrat ’Umar (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) would never go wrong. Ibn Taimiyya opposes this hadîth by saying, “ ’Umar made many mistakes,” Indeed, he was learned enough to have known of this hadîth. He was vastly learned on the Hadîth, yet the multitude of his errors counterbalanced the amplitude of his knowledge. It was true that many of the Sahâbat al-kirâm except ’Umar (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) might have made mistakes in those matters that were to be solved through ijtihâd. But their mistakes were the mistakes in ijtihâd. For this reason, even the mistakes of those great people and also of the Ahl as-Sunna scholars in those matters understandable through ijtihâd will be rewarded (thawâb) in the next world, since all of them were mujtahids. As for Ibn Taimiyya’s
mistake in the teachings pertaining to belief, it took him away from the right path and aggravated the punishment he deserved. By presuming himself to be a mujtahid, he became above himself and led himself to disaster. He went further and mercilessly attacked the great men of tasawwuf such as Sadr ad
dîn al-Qonawî, Muhyiddîn ibn al-’Arabî and ’Umar ibn al-Fârid. He said that al-Ghazâlî’s books were full of mawdű’ hadîths, and he did not neglect to criticize our scholars of Kalâm. He could not understand that the madhhabs arose out of the differences of ijtihâd and supposed that they were the results of philosophical thoughts. He considered it as a guilt that the Ahl as-Sunna scholars had said that the old churches in Muslim countries should not be touched, and for this reason, he vituperated the great men of Islam.
Mawdűdî, like Ibn Taimiyya, misrepresents Imâm al-Ghazâlî as defective. Great scholar Ibn Hajar al-Makkî, in commenting on the causes of disbelief, wrote that any person who asserted that there were errors in Imâm al-Ghazâlî’s writings either envied him or was an atheist[1]. Hanafî scholar Ibn ’Âbidîn wrote at the end of his Al-’uqűd ad-durriyya, “A person who says that Imâm al-Ghazâlî was not an ’âlim is the most ignorant among the ignorant and the worst of fâsiqs. He was Hujjat al-Islâm and the most superior of the scholars of his time. He wrote very valuable books on fiqh.”
Some Muslim scholars declared that Ibn Taimiyya had departed from Islam and become a renegade. Profoundly learned scholars such as Ibn Battűta, Ibn Hajar al-Makkî, Taqî ad-dîn as-Subkî and his son, ’Abd al-Wahhâb, ’Izz ad-dîn Ibn Jamâ’a and Abű Hayyân az-Zâhirî al-Andulűsî, whose words have been regarded as documentary evidence, considered him a man of bid’a, a heretic. Even those who said he was a heretic did not deny his knowledge, intelligence and zuhd, but, a hadîth written in Mishkât states, “The worst of the bad is the bad man of religion.” Hadrat al-Imâm ar-Rabbânî Ahmad al-Fârűqî wrote in his fifty-third letter:
“The good scholar is the best of mankind. The evil scholar is the worst of mankind. Men’s happiness and doom depend upon scholars. A great man saw the Satan sitting unoccupied and asked why he was loitering. The Satan said, ‘The heretical scholars of the peresent time do my work. They do not leave any work for me to lead the people astray.’ ”
Imâm as-Subkî, too, used to praise Ibn Taimiyya’s knowledge
---------------------------------
[1] Al-a’lâm bi kawati’ al-Islâm, p. 137, with references to Ibn as-Subkî and other scholars. This book of Ibn Hajar’s was printed on the page margins of Zawâjr, another book written by him. It is in Arabic and available in Istanbul.
and intelligence much. Burhân ad-dîn ibn Muflih wrote in his Tabaqât that Imâm as-Subkî praised Ibn Taimiyya much in the letter he had written to az-Zahabî. However, Imâm as-Subkî, in his work Ar-raddu li Ibn Taimiyya, and his son ’Abd al-Wahhâb, in his Tabaqât, wrote that Ibn Taimiyya departed from the Ahl as-Sunna and went astray. Many persons whom he imbued with his ideas, especially his disciples Ibn al-Qayyim and az-Zahabî, praised him too much. ’Alî al-Qârî ’ and Mahműd Âlűsî, who are considered as religious scholars because of their annotations to famous books and who lived on writing on the Qur’ân and valuable books, and Muhammad ’Abduh, who claimed to be a mujtahid, followed in his footsteps and departed from the Ahl as-Sunna.
Yűsuf an-Nabhânî, one of the profound scholars of the present century, in his book Shawâhid al-haqq, and Shaikh al-Islâm Mustafâ Sabri efendi, one of the great Ottoman scholars, in his book Al-’ilm wa ’l-’aql, and Abu Hâmid ibn Marzűk, a Damascene scholar, in his two-volume work, which was partly published by offset under the title At-tawassulu bi ’n-Nabî wa Jahalat al-Wahhâbiyyîn in Istanbul in
Those who approve Ibn Taimiyya, in order to prove that he was judged and imprisoned unjustly, write: “His writings against the men of tasawwuf offended them. His fatwâs about divorce made the scholars of fiqh feel hostile towards him. And his fatwâs about the Divine Attributes hurt the scholars of Kalâm. Therefore, the scholars of Kalâm, fiqh and tasawwuf co-operated against him, and he was punished.” They think that they can make everybody believe that religious scholars would become hostile towards or torture or denounce a Muslim because of a few words. They misrepresent him as a victim of oppression and the scholars as cruel. On the contrary, Ibn Taimiyya rose in rebellion against the Ahl as-Sunna. He spread the fire of fitna over the Muslim world. For
example, when Abű Hayyân, a scholar of Arabic, came to Cairo in
Ibn Hajar al-Askalânî quotes az-Zahabî in his book Durar al-
kâmina, “When talking on knowledge, Ibn Taimiyya used to become angry, try to defeat the person whom he talked to and offend everybody.” Imâm as-Suyűtî wrote in his book Kam’ al-mu’ârid, “Ibn Taimiyya 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.” Muhammad ’Alî Beg, a Damascene scholar, wrote in his book Hittat ash-Shâm, “Ibn Taimiyya’s and Priest Luther’s aims were identical. Whereas the Christian reformer was successful, the reformer of Islam was unsuccessful.” Mawlânâ Muhammad Ziyâullah, one of the prominent ’ulamâ’ of Pakistan and the imâm and khatîb of the city of Siyalkut, wrote in the 93rd page of his work The Truth of Wahhâbism (Published in Urdu in 1969): “Mawlawî ’Abd al-Hayy Luknawî (d.
Goldziher writes that Ibn Taimiyya deemed the right madhhabs to be bida’ and, saying that they had changed the original purity of Islam, attacked them and also opposed the Ash’arî madhhab and tasawwuf and announced visiting the graves of prophets and Awliyâ’ to be a sinful act.
Mustafâ ’Abd ar-Razzâq Pasha, former Rector of the Jâmi’ al-Azhar and student-follower of Muhammad ’Abduh, wrote: “When issuing a fatwâ, Ibn Taimiyya did not follow any madhhab, but he acted in accordance with the proof he himself had found. He denied the kashfs of tasawwuf leaders.”
Ibn Taimiyya wrote about Sadr ad-dîn al-Qonawî: “Sadr ad-dîn, a friend to Muhyiddîn ibn al-’Arabî, surpassed his master in scientific knowledge and Kalâm, yet he was worse in disbelief, less learned and had less îmân than his master had. Since such people’s faith was disbelief, more skillful ones of them were more excessive in disbelief.” Some Islamic scholars said that Ibn Taimiyya was a disbeliever, and others, the majority, said that he was one of ahl al-bid’a. Shaikh al-Makkî, a scholar contemporary with Yavuz Sultan Selim Khan, answered the attacks against Hadrat Muhyiddîn ibn al-’Arabî and wrote: “Ibn Taimiyya said that disbelievers would get out of Hell after burning there for a number of years and supported this claim with the hadîth,
‘Some day the doors of Hell will open and grass will grow on its ground.’
He also quoted some other hadîths. On the other hand, it is clearly stated in the Qur’ân that disbelievers will remain in Hell eternally. There has been tawâtur and ijmâ’ on this fact. Most scholars said that Ibn Taimiyya had contradicted the tawâtur and ijmâ.”[1]
It is written on the ninety-sixth page of Mukhtasar-i-Qurtubî: “Those who say that all the inhabitants of Hell will go out and that Hell will become empty, in fact, negate the Qur’ân and Hadîth. The Ahl as-Sunna scholars, the just imâms, unanimously said that the punishment in Hell will be eternal for disbelievers. The âyat, ‘We will throw those who part from the Believers’ path into Hell,’ is an answer to them. The first division of Hell, where those believers with many sins will be punished, will become empty. Its other divisions, where disbelievers will be punished, will never be emptied. Believers will be set free from the punishment by attaining shafâ’a and only their place will become empty and grass will grow on the ground of the first division of Hell. Imâm al-Qurtubî writes that the hadîth quoted above is mawqűf, that it was not reported to have been heard from Rasűlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm). Hadrat Muhyiddîn ibn al-’Arabî, too, said that the doors of Hell will never be opened and that disbelievers will remain in Hell eternally. Those scholars who said that they would go out of Hell meant that sinful believers will go out.”[2] Ibn Taimiyya, exploiting the hadîths stating that believers will go out of Hell, denied the âyats, tawâtur and ijmâ’. Calling the Ahl as-Sunna scholars “disbelievers” causes one to become a disbeliever. It is written in the subject on the qâdî of the book Radd al-muhtâr that it is disbelief to deny the hadîths which were not interpreted differently by the Salaf as-Sâlihîn and which are tawâtur. Mâlikî scholar Muhammad ibn ’Abdullah of Tanja, who is famed with the name Ibn Battűta, gave many quotations from Ibn Taimiyya that were incompatible with Islam and wrote: “Ibn Taimiyya had much knowledge. But there was something wrong with his mind... I was in Damascus. During the Friday salât, he, after reciting the khutba, descended the stairs saying, ‘Allâhu ta’âlâ descends on the world’s sky as I descend now.’ Ibn Zahrâ, a Mâlikî scholar, explained the wickedness of his statement in detail to the congregation. The ignorant majority of the congregation had believed Ibn Taimiyya
---------------------------------
[1] Al-jânib al-gharbî, Râshid Effendi section, Suleymâniyye Library, Istanbul.
[2] Mukhtasaru tadhkirat al-Qurtubî, p. 96.
to be on the right path and liked his pompous words much. Upon the Malikî scholar’s objection, they beat him with their hands and shoes. He fell down. His turban fell off and his silk skull-cap appeared. Exploiting this as a proof, [Islam forbids man to wear silk clothes], they took him to the Hanbalî qâdî. The qâdî punished him with ta’zîr and imprisoned him. Mâlikî and Shafi’î scholars said that this ta’zîr was unjust. The affair was taken to Nâsir the Ruler. A council of scholars was appointed and they came to the conclusion that Ibn Taimiyya caused partition (fitna) among Muslims. With the command of the Sultan, he was imprisoned in Damascus.”[1]
May Allâhu ta’âlâ endow comprehension and guidance to the right path upon those who consider our madhhab leaders as inferior to him, although his heresy was proved and he was punished by the scholars of his time and by all Muslims! May He protect Muslim children against believing heretics! Âmîn.
Hadrat Ibn Hajar al-Makkî wrote: “One of Ibn Taimiyya’s superstitious absurdities was his denial of tawassul or istighâtha, putting Rasűlullah (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam) as an intermediary when praying to Allâhu ta’âlâ. No scholar before him had ever said so. Because of this absurd idea of his, he became a topic of discussions among Muslims. The opposite of his fatwâ is the truth. It is always good to put Rasűlullah (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam) as an intermediary. He could be put as an intermediary before and after he was born, in this world as well as in the next world. One of the proofs showing that he could be put as an intermediary before he was born is the fact that prophets and the Awliyâ’ of their ummas had done so. Ibn Taimiyya’s slanderous word was not based on any fact or rule. A hadîth reported by Hâkim an-Nishâpűrî, a hadîth scholar, declares that, ‘When Âdam (’alaihi ’s-salâm) was mistaken, he said, ‘O my Rabb! Forgive me for the right of Muhammad (’alaihi ’s-salâm).’ Allâhu ta’âlâ said, ‘I have not created Muhammad (’alaihi ’s-salâm) yet. How do you know him?’ And he said, ‘O my Rabb! When Thou created me and gave me soul, I raised my head and saw the writing, “Lâ ilâha ill Allah Muhammadun Rasűl Allah,” all around the ’Arsh. I understood that Thou had put the name of
---------------------------------
[1] Tuhfat an-muzzâr, p. 9. The author of this history work, Ibn Battűta, dictated it to his secretary, Ibn Jazî. It has been translated into various languages. The second translation into Turkish by Muhammad Sherîf Beg was printed in Istanbul in
him whom Thou loved most among Thine human creatures next to Thine Name.’ And Allâhu ta’âlâ declared, ‘O Âdam! You have said the truth. Among Mine human creatures, he is the one whom I love most. Since you ask my pardon for his right, I have forgiven you immediately. If it were not for Muhammad (’alaihi ’s-salâm) I would not have created you.’ ‘Muhammad’s (’alaihi ’s-salâm) right’ means ‘Allâhu ta’âlâ’s loving and cherishing him very much’ or ‘his rights upon other human creatures’ or ‘his right which Allâhu ta’âlâ, as a blessing upon him, recognizes upon Himself’. Likewise, it was said in a hadîth, ‘What is human creatures’ right upon Allâhu ta’âlâ?’ In this context, ‘right’ does not denote something that must be done by Allâhu ta’âlâ, for Allâhu ta’âlâ does not have to do anything. He does it if He wills. Asking something from Allâhu ta’âlâ for Rasűlullah’s (’alaihi ’s-salâm) right cannot be said to be polytheism since it is not asking it from him. Allâhu ta’âlâ declares that He loves His Messenger (’alaihi ’s-salâm) very much and that He has bestowed a high rank upon him. Allâhu ta’âlâ is asked to give for the right, for the sake of his love and this high rank. One of the blessings, gifts which Allâhu ta’âlâ has bestowed upon His Messenger is that He accepts those prayers sent through his right, through his high rank. For the person who disbelieves this blessing, the greatest loss is his deprivation of it. Rasűlullah (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam) was put
as an intercessor when he was alive, too. An-Nasâ’î and at-Tirmidhî reported that a blind man came to Rasűlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm). He begged him to pray so that his eyes might open. Rasűlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm) said to him, ‘I will pray if you wish, but you can be patient if you like. Patience will be better for you.’ When the man said, ‘I would like you to pray. I have nobody to lead me. I am in great difficulties,’ Rasűlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm) said, ‘Perform ablution and then say, “O my Rabb! I turn towards Thee through Thine Beloved Prophet, whom Thou hast sent as a blessing upon
people. I ask from Thee! O Muhammad (’alaihi ’s-salâm)! I turn towards my Rabb through thee. O my Allah! Make him an intercessor for me!” ’ Also Imâm al-Baihakî reported that the blind man stood up and, blessed with the sense of sight, walked away. Rasűlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm) himself did not pray but taught him the prayer. He wanted him to turn towards Allâhu ta’âlâ, to entreat Him and to put Rasűlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm) as an intercessor and wished his prayer to be accepted in this way. He was and has been put as an intercessor both when he was alive and after his death. The Salaf as-Sâlihîn, after his death, said this
prayer very often and attained their wishes through it. As reported by at-Tabarânî and al-Baihaki, a man whose request was not accepted by the Caliph ’Uthmân (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) went to Hadrat ’Uthmân ibn Hanîf, a Sahâbî, and asked his help. He taught him this prayer. When he approached the Caliph after saying the prayer, his request was accepted. In a hadîth reported by at-Tabarânî, Rasűlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm), when praying, said, ‘For the right of Thine Prophet and Thine other prophets preceding him’. Tawajjuh, tawassul, istighâtha and tashaffu’ through him, through other prophets or Awliyâ’ all mean the same thing. Islam has also declared it permissible to put some kind of deed or ’ibâda as an intermediary. The Hadîth informs that, of old, some people who were imprisoned in a cave, entreated by mentioning their old deeds done only for the sake of Allâhu ta’âlâ and the stone that had plugged the opening of the cave opened the way and they were rescued. While a prayer is accepted for the sake of
one’s own good deeds, it is certain that the prayers sent through those who have performed the best deeds will be accepted. ’Umar ibn al-Khattâb (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) prayed for rain by putting Hadrat ’Abbâs (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) as an intermediary. None of us, Sahâbat al-kirâm objected to it. The reason why he did not pray through Rasűlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm) or through his blessed grave but through Hadrat ’Abbâs was because he deemed himself very low and considered Rasűlullah’s (’alaihi ’s-salâm) relatives higher than himself. His praying through Hadrat ’Abbâs, in actual fact, meant praying through Rasűlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm). The words ‘tawassul’, ‘tawajjuh’ or ‘istighâtha’ do not show that the one through whom you pray is higher than the one to whom you pray, because the one with a high status is made an intermediary
while asking from the one with a higher status. ‘Istighâtha’ means ‘asking for help from somebody by putting someone else as an intermediary’. The former is higher than the intermediary. Muslims, when praying through Rasűlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm) or Awliyâ’, do not think otherwise. Nothing else comes to their hearts when saying these words. Allâhu ta’âlâ alone is the One who is prayed to and is asked from; the Prophet is an intermediary, a mediator between. Only Allâhu ta’âlâ helps by creating or making; the Prophet is the cause, the intermediary of the help. Allâhu ta’âlâ is the Real Helper, and Rasűlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm) is the symbolic helper. A hadîth reported by al-Bukhârî declares, ‘On the Rising Day, they will pray first through Âdam, then through Műsâ and then
through Muhammad (’alaihimu ’s-salâm).’ ‘Praying through Rasűlullah’ means ‘asking him to pray’. He is alive in his grave and perceives the demand of the person who asks from him. According to an authentic narration, there was dearth in the time of Amîr al-Mu’minîn ’Umar (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) and a Sahâbî visited Rasűlullah’s (’alaihi ’s-salâm) grave and said, ‘O Rasűl-Allâh! Pray for your umma so that it shall rain! Your umma are about to perish.’ Rasűlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm) showed himself to him in his dream and said that it would rain. And it did rain. He also said in the dream, ‘Go to ’Umar! Tell him my salâm! Give him the good news that it will rain. Tell him to act mildly.’ ’Umar (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) was severe and strict in carrying out the commands of the religion. The Sahâbî told the Caliph about his dream. The Caliph listened and wept. According to some reports, this Sahâbî was Bilâl ibn Hârith al-Muzanî (radiy-Allâhu ’anh). Here, the point is not the dream but the Sahâbî’s praying through Rasűlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm) in his dream. As it is seen, Rasűlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm) can be asked also after his death, as it was done when he was alive, to pray so that one’s wishes might come true. In addition to the fact that wishes have come true through his praying and intercession, there is the fact that others’ prayers sent through him before he was born, when he was alive or after his death have been accepted. On the Rising Day, he will intercede with Allâhu ta’âlâ for his umma, and his intercession will be accepted. This fact has been reported as ijmâ’ by Islamic scholars. Hadrat ’Abdullah ibn ’Abbâs (radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ) reported the hadîth saying that Allâhu ta’âlâ declared to ’Îsâ (’alaihi ’s-salâm), ‘O ’Îsâ! Believe in Muhammad (’alaihi ’s-salâm)! And command your umma that those of your umma who will live in his time should believe in him! Had it not been for Muhammad (’alaihi ’s-salâm), I would not have created Prophet Âdam (’alaihi ’s-salâm). Had it not been for Muhammad (’alaihi ’s-salâm), I would not have created Paradise and Hell. I created the ’Arsh on the water. It moved. When I wrote, “Lâ ilâha ill Allâh,” on it, it stopped.’ This hadîth was reported with sahîh references by Hâkim. Would not a prayer be accepted, which is asked for the sake of such a prophet, who has such a high status and infinite honour, and who attained Allâhu ta’âlâ’s blessings? Would not a prayer sent by asking for his intercession be accepted?”[1] The
---------------------------------
[1] This passage is translated from Ibn Hajar al-Makkî’s Jawhar al-munzam. It is also quoted in Shawâhid al-haqq.
prayers which Nűh, ’Ibrahîm and other prophets had asked for the sake of Muhammad (’alaihimu ’s-salâm) are written in tafsîr books.
Imâm as-Subkî, as quoted in Shawâhid al-haqq, said, “There are two forms of tawassul of Rasűlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm); the first one is to ask from Allâhu ta’âlâ for the sake of his high status and baraka. One of the terms ‘tawassul’, ‘istighâtha’ and ‘tashaffu’ ’ is used when praying so. All of them mean the same. He who prays by expressing one of these terms asks from Allâhu ta’âlâ by putting Rasűlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm) as an intermediary. He asks from, prays to, Allâhu ta’âlâ through him. Even in worldly affairs, He immediately gives the thing which is asked from Him by putting someone whom He loves very much as an intermediary. The second form of tawassul of Rasűlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm) is to ask him to pray to Allâhu ta’âlâ so that you may attain your wish, for he is alive
in his grave and understands what is asked from him and he can ask for it from Allâhu ta’âlâ. Also in the next world, he will be asked to intercede, and he will intercede, and his intercession will be accepted.”
Hadrat Shihâb ad-dîn ar-Ramlî, as quoted in the book Shawâhid al-haqq, said, “Prophets and Awliyâ’ can be made intermediaries even after their death. The mu’jizât of prophets and the karâmât of Awliyâ’ do not cease after their death. The hadîth clearly declares that prophets are alive and perform salât and hajj in their graves. It is known also that martyrs are alive and they help warriors.”
Muhammad ibn ’Abd al-Wahhâb[1] read Ibn Taimiyya’s and his disciple Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya’s books and deviated from the right path. He got their ideas fixed into his mind.
---------------------------------
[1] For detailed information about that person, see the books Confessions of a British Spy, and Advice for the Muslim, available from Hakîkat Kitâbevi.