Modern 'Ash'aris Tampering With The 'Aqeedah Works of The Maliki Scholars

Modern 'Ash'arǱ Tampering with the 'Aqeedah Works of the MǙlikǱ Scholars
_________________________________________________________________________
Studies in Contemporary 'Ash'arŝ Polemics

Vol.4
Shaykh Mashhźr Hasan ńl SalmŅn
(hafidhahullŅh)
ON MODERN 'ASH'ARŜ TAMPERING

WITH THE 'AQEEDAH WORKS OF
THE MńLIKŜ SCHOLARS1
WITH A MENTION OF AL-KAWTHARŜ'S DEFAMATION OF
IBN TAYMIYYAH AND IBN UL-QAYYIM
(rahimahumullŅh)
__________________________________
If only the matter was limited to delving into 'Ilm ul-KalĆm and the argumentation of those
who
have been censured! Yet it has even led to many of the later verifiers to play about
with the
books of the 'Ulama of the past in order to support the bĆtil that they had authored. It is
well
known that: "whoever believes in a madhhab then that leads him to become a defence
lawyer for
the madhhab and to expunge verses and ahĆdeeth from the meanings which AllĆh
and His
Messenger intended." 2
Rather, this can also lead to dishonesty in transmission and
expunging the
statements from the intent of the author and can even lead to omission and tampering!
Speech
on
1 suchfrom
Abridged distortion is plentiful
Abź 'AbdullŅh Muhammad and theal-HammŅdŝ,
'AbdullŅh position that
MasŅ'ilwe are meant
ul-'Aqeedah to discuss
allatŝ QarrarahŅ al- here does not
Aimmat ul-MŅlikiyyah [Creedal issues that the MŅlikŝ ImŅms Affirmed]. Intro. Shaykh Abź 'Ubaydah Mashhźr
permit
bin Hasan ńl SalmŅn, (AmmŅn, Jordan: DŅr ul-Athariyyah, 1429 AH/2008 CE), p.5-23.Translatedby'AbdulHaq
to expound fully, I
ibnKofiibnKwesial-Ashantŝ. mean (that we are studying) what is related to the support of the past
MĆlikĩ
Al-'AllŅmah Abŝ Muhammad Badŝ'uddeen ar-RŅshidŝ as-Sindŝ, at-TawŅm al-Mar'ashah fŝ BayŅn TahreefŅt Ahl
2
ur-Ra'y al-Mudhishah,p.126.
ImĆms for the 'aqeedah and manhaj of the Salaf us-SĆliheen. However, I will give some
______________________________________________________________________________
examples so
1
as to leave the
© SalafiManhaj 2009noble reader to decide.
_________________________________________________________________________
FIRST EXAMPLE: OMISSION IS TREACHERY

The respected Shaykh, Dr 'Abdul-Muhsin bin Muhammad ar-Rayyis, may AllĆh preserve
and
safeguard him, conducted a doctorate at ImĆm Muhammad bin Saud Islamic University in
Riyadh entitled Usşl ul-Fiqh 'inda al-QĆdĩ 'AbdulWahhĆb: Jam'an wa Tawtheeqan wa DirĆsatan
[Legal
Theory According to QĆdĩ 'AbdulWahhĆb: A Compilation, Verification and Study]. It was
published by DĆr ul-Buhşth li'd-DirĆsĆt al-IslĆmiyyah wa IhyĆ at-TurĆth in Dubai in 1424
AH/2003 CE in one large volume of 763 pages as part of the Silsilat ud-DirĆsĆt il-Usşliyyah,
no.14.
Dr ar-Rayyis (hafidhahullĆh) dedicated the third section of the study to 'The Academic Life of
al-QĆdĩ 'AbdulWahhĆb (rahimahullĆh)' and within it included a case study of his 'aqeedah on
page 11 of his actual doctoral thesis, yet it was omitted from the published version on page 26
and mentioned within the biography of al-QĆdĩ 'AbdulWahhĆb, on pages 62-64 of the published
version, al-QĆdĩ 'AbdulWahhĆb's 'aqeedah with good words. Within this section he stated:
Al-QĆdĩ 'AbdulWahhĆb was Salafĩ in 'aqeedah and was of the seniors of Ahl
us-
Sunnah. The senior ImĆms of Ahl us-Sunnah wa'l-Jamah testified to this about him
such as Shaykh ul-IslĆm Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn ul-Qayyim and al-Qurtubĩ may AllĆh
have mercy on them all. Ibn ul-Qayyim stated:
Al-QĆdĩ 'AbdulWahhĆb, the ImĆm of the MĆlikĩs in al-'IrĆq and one of the seniors of Ahl
us-Sunnah, may AllĆh have mercy on them, clearly stated that AllĆh made istiwĆ over His
Throne with His Essence. Shaykh ul-IslĆm Ibn Taymiyyah transmitted this from him in
more than one instance within his books and al-Qurtubĩ transmitted this (from al-
QĆdĩ
'AbdulWahhĆb) in Sharh AsmĆ ul-HusnĆ 3.
Just as al-QĆdĩ (rahimahullĆh) clearly expressed this Salafi 'aqeedah that he believed in when
he mentioned creedal issues in his books or as was transmitted from him by
his
contemporaries or those who came after him. Of these expressions of his Salafĩ
'aqeedah
3 are when
Ibnul-Qayyim, heul-Juyźsh
IjtimŅ stated: ul-IslŅmiyyah,p.124
Al-Bahr ul-Muheet,vol.4,p.1578,Drad-Duwaysh(ed.)
4 For this reason the saying of AllĆh,
______________________________________________________________________________ 2
"Indeed, Our word to a thing when We intend it is but that We say to it, "Be," and it is."
© SalafiManhaj 2009
{an-Nahl (16): 40}
Is real and not as how the Mu'tazilah say.4

Al-QĆdĩ 'AbdulWahhĆb also said:
For its emphasis with a verbal noun (takleeman) benefits reality and that he (MoosĆ) heard AllĆh's
Speech and that He spoke to MşsĆ...5
Then heModern
(rahimahullĆh) alsowith
'Ash'arǱ Tampering faced the RĆfidah,
the 'Aqeedah resisted
Works of the MǙlikǱ them and shamed them
Scholars
_________________________________________________________________________
and
Thus, it is the
affirmed alsofutility
relayedof
intheir
the Shar' via athis
beliefs, linguistic route that AllĆh
is documented withinsaid,
his fiqh works. This was due
to his residence"And
in AllĆh spoke
al-'IrĆq to Moses
wherein he with
was[direct] speech."
in close proximity to them, al-
{an-NisĆ (4): 164}
QĆdĩ
'AbdulWahhĆb stated:
With this we annul the permissibility of it being possible that a remnant of the Qur'Ćn
did
not reach us or the possibility that some individual Companions affirmed (as part of the
Qur'Ćn) that which is not affirmed in the Mus-haf. We also sever the false claims of
the
RĆfidah, who defame the concurred upon Mus-haf, that the complete Qur'Ćn is actually
in
the possession of the (hidden) ImĆm who according to them is the "ImĆm uz-ZamĆn".6
All of these statements testify to al-QĆdĩ's (rahimahullĆh) purity in 'aqeedah, and,
after
enquiry and investigation, I did not find that any of the seniors of Ahl us-Sunnah
wa'l-
Jama'ah ascribed to al-QĆdĩ 'AbdulWahhĆb matters which indicated deviation in his ideas
or misguidance in his beliefs which opposed the manhaj of Ahl us-Sunnah wa'l-Jama'ah.
This lengthy quote is omitted from the DĆr ul-Buhşth print and this omission was without the
permission of the author of the thesis. From the evidences of this intentional omission from
the
thesis is in the introduction wherein it was stated (in the original thesis): The first
case study
contains six sub-categories, yet in the published version in book form it states: 'there
are five
sub-categories' and omits the first one which is in regards to the 'aqeedah of
al-QĆdĩ
'AbdulWahhĆb al-BaghdĆdĩ. The researcher ar-Rayyis had a chapter toward the end of the
thesis
entitled 'The Most Important Results Gained from the Research', pp.554-556 (page
numbers
which have been clearly typed) and then mentioned eight points the first of them being:
5 As-Suyźtŝ, al-Muzhar,vol.1,p.363;alsosee al-Bahr ul-Muheet,vol.4,p.1578
Indeed al-QĆdĩ 'AbdulWahhĆb (rahimahullĆh) was Salafĩ in 'aqeedah and from
6
QŅdŝ 'AbdulWahhŅb, al-IshrŅf,vol.1,pp.76,130
the
7
Translator's note: For more on al-QŅdŝ 'AbdulWahhŅb al-BaghdŅdŝ refer to this paper here, from pp.23-34:
http://www.salafimanhaj.com/pdf/SalafiManhaj_Qabd
seniors of Ahl us-Sunnah in al-'IrĆq.7
______________________________________________________________________________
Yet in the DĆr ul-Buhşth print (pp.622-624) there are seven points and the 3
aforementioned
initial one is omitted! All of this certifies that the omission was intentional and that the hand
of
_________________________________________________________________________
distortion lay in the hands of the publishers of the thesis. You may also be surprised at the
fact,
SECOND EXAMPLE: OMITTING IMPORTANT STATEMENTS
O nobleTHE
FROM reader, that the
BOOK printed copyBY
AT-TAMHEED of AL-BńQILńNŜ
the book form which was sent to the author
AL-MńLIKŜ
AND THEN
before final ACCUSING SHAYKH UL-ISLńM IBN TAYMIYYAH AND
IBN UL-QAYYIM OF FABRICATION!
print did not contain this omission! This therefore is a conspiracy against the Salafi
'aqeedah and
The brother researcher (i.e. Abş 'AbdullĆh Muhammad 'AbdullĆh al-HammĆdĩ) in this book of
these are textual
ours (i.e. MasĆ'ildistortions
ul-'Aqeedahmotivated by hatred. al-Aimmat
allatĩ QarrarahĆ I fear for those who intentionally
ul-MĆlikiyyah) distort
transmits important
and
quotes
change
from thetexts in ImĆms
MĆlikĩ order towherein
agree with their
AllĆh's desires
'Uluww andHis
over notcreation
to agreeiswith understanding
affirmed, the some
even though
truth
of them made ta'weel of some of the SifĆt al-Khabariyyah. He transmits directly from their books
that
whichthere
havewill
beenbe printed
a punishment unto him
and written and going
without the reward is based
through on the action.in doing so! As
any intermediaries
much as he was able.
Of these MĆlikĩ ImĆms that the author (Abş 'AbdullĆh Muhammad 'AbdullĆh al-HammĆdĩ)
transmits from is al-BĆqilĆnĩ, his Shaykh Ibn Abĩ Zayd al-QayrawĆnĩ 9,

his student al-
QĆdĩ
'AbdulWahhĆb bin Nasr al-BaghdĆdĩ 10,
the latter of them benefitting from the previous ones as
Ibn ul-Qayyim expressed in as-SawĆ'iq ul-Mursalah, vol.3, pp.904-905 (of the abridged
version).
Al-QĆdĩ al-BĆqilĆnĩ and his affirmation of AllĆh's 'Uluww is an important matter as
8
"there is
absolutely no 'Ash'arĩ Mutakallim more virtuous than him" as adh-Dhahabĩ stated
in al-
'Uluww li-'Alĩ il-'Adheem, vol.4, pp.1298-1301 and he transmitted al-BĆqilĆnĩ's lengthy
statements
from his two books al-IbĆnah and at-Tamheed. And in reality these (quotes from al-BĆqilĆnĩ) were
taken from the works of Shaykh ul-IslĆm Ibn Taymiyyah in al-FatĆwĆ al-Hamawiyyah, pp.445-
447;
Majmş' al-FatĆwĆ, vol.5, p.99; Naqd ut-Ta'sees, vol.2, p.531; and from Ibn ul-Qayyim in IjtimĆ' ul-
Juyşsh al-IslĆmiyyĆh, p.302 and as-SawĆ'iq ul-Mursalah, vol.3, p.906 of the abridged
version. Adh-
Dhahabĩ transmitted these statements of al-BĆqilĆnĩ in as-Siyar, vol.17, pp.558-559 in
the
biography (of al-BĆqilĆnĩ) and those who came later quoted from adh-Dhahabĩ!
8 Seehisbiographybytheauthorofthisbook.
9 Seethefollowingthirdexamplewhichwillbegiven.
10
He has some important words wherein he affirmed AllŅh's 'Uluww in his book Sharh 'Aqeedat Ibn Abŝ Zayd al-
QayrawŅnŝ fŝ KitŅbihi ar-RisŅlah, p.174-178; also see Dara' Ta'Ņrud al-'Aql wa'n-Naql, vol.6, pp.203-204; and
IjtimŅ' ul-Juyźsh al-IslŅmiyyah,p.164.
______________________________________________________________________________ 4
_________________________________________________________________________
The book at-Tamheed was first published and printed with the 'tahqeeq' (!!) of
Mahmşd al-
Khudayrĩ and Muhammad Abş Rĩdah in 1954 CE. 11 Within this edition the text which contains
affirmation of 'Uluww is removed! I do not know if the two editors (al-Khudayrĩ and Abş Rĩdah)
did this intentionally or the omission was from the manuscript copy that they depended
upon.12
In any case, what is important is that they clearly expressed within their edit 13
that (on page
265)
they both asked their Shaykh, al-Kawtharĩ, about the transmission (wherein al-BĆqilĆnĩ
affirms
AllĆh's 'Uluww) and al-Kawtharĩ totally negated there being such a passage of this sort from
al-
BĆqilĆnĩ saying: "I do not know whether Ibn ul-Qayyim falsely ascribed this to al-
BĆqilĆnĩ
in order to trick the Muslims..."! 'ImĆduddeen Haydar followed them in this
distortion and
omission in his edition of at-Tamheed which was subsequently published! 14

Muhammad
RamadĆn
'AbdullĆh also boldly followed them all in his thesis al-BĆqilĆnĩ and his KalĆm Views 15.
Within
11 thisnote: I was not sure if the date given here was a typo error and supposed to be '1354 AH'
Translator's
because later Shaykh Mashhźr will mention that: "Yźsuf al-MakŅrthŝ al-Yasź'ŝ edited at-Tamheed three
he stated about following the words which were transmitted from Shaykh ul-
years after the first one in 1358 AH (1939 CE) and it was published and printed." So if Yźsuf al-
IslĆm Ibn
MakŅrthŝ al-Yasź'ŝ's edition was three years later than the first one by al-Khudayrŝ and Abź Rŝdah's then their
Taymiyyah
version andbeen
could not have Ibn ul-Qayyim
originally wherein
printed in 1954 AllĆh's
CE but rather around 'Uluww is affirmed:
1355 AH (1936 CE), unless of course
it was a later print. Furthermore,
Whoever contemplatesI found on the
onKing Saud University
these texts whichLibraries Catalogue
have been that al-Khudayrŝ
relayed andfrom both Ibn Taymiyyah
Abź Rŝdah's edition was also printed in 1947 CE (1366 AH) by DŅr ul-Fikr al-'Arabŝ in Cairo. See:
and Ibn ul-Qayyim (rahimahumullĆh) will have no doubt that al-BĆqilĆnĩ shared
http://212.138.39.186/digital/336894.html
their
The Library Catalogue also mentions details of a print in 1957 CE by Maktabah ash-Sharqiyyah (Librairie
Orientale)inBeirut,yettheLibraryCataloguedoesnotgivethedetailsoftheeditorsofthebook:
http://catalog.library.ksu.edu.sa/uhtbin/cgisirsi/zDIJ8xf3HI/CENTRAL/133100014/9
I had therefore thought that this indicates that the date of '1954 CE' given may be a typo error or a later print,
being the print mentioned above dated 1957. However, I then discovered that Yźsuf al-MakŅrthŝ al-Yasź'ŝ's print
was in 1957 CE, being the 1957 Print found in the King Saud Library Catalogue. So in fact the typo error was
wherein Shaykh Mashhźr mentions: "Yźsuf al-MakŅrthŝ al-Yasź'ŝ edited at-Tamheed three years after
the first one in 1358 AH (1939 CE) and it was published and printed." It should actually be 1958 CE!
Yźsuf al-MakŅrthŝ al-Yasź'ŝ is in fact: Reverend Richard Joseph McCarthy, hence the nisba he used in his Arabic
edits'al-Yasź'ŝ'(theJesuit),Iwillmentionmoreonhimonthenextpage,seeftn.18.
12
This is more accurate and later we will come across the words of al-'AllŅmah Muhammad bin 'AbdurRazzŅq
Hamza (rahimahullŅh) onthis.
13 Intheirspecialappendixwhichtheyplacedattheendofthebook.
14
Translator's note: ThiswaspublishedinBeirut: Mu'assassatul-Kutubath-ThaqŅfiyyah,1407AH/1987CE
15 Baghdad,Iraq:Matba'atal-Ummah,1986CEandcomprises639pages.
______________________________________________________________________________ 5
_________________________________________________________________________
madhhab in regards to the SifĆt al-Khabariyyah and accepting the Shari' texts as they
have
been transmitted upon the apparent meaning without ta'weel.16

Then he said:
However, I want to stop slightly at this juncture in regards to the words that
they (Ibn
Taymiyyah and Ibn ul-Qayyim) transmitted from al-BĆqilĆnĩ. I say: I am not able to trace
the book al-IbĆnah in order to ascertain the veracity and authenticity of what
Ibn
Taymiyyah transmitted from al-BĆqilĆnĩ due to it not being extant in the libraries
even
though I have tried hard to search for it. As for the book at-Tamheed which was edited
by
the two noble professors Muhammad 'AbdulHĆdĩ Abş Rĩdah and Mahmşd Muhammad
al-Khudayrĩ then it does not contain these words that Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn ul-Qayyim
relayed from him (i.e. al-BĆqilĆnĩ). For this reason, I am not really convinced of
the
authenticity of this transmission and I do not view that Abş Bakr al-BĆqilĆnĩ used to
affirm
the SifĆt al-Khabariyyah as was claimed by Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn ul-Qayyim.17
Abş 'Ubaydah 18 says: the editor thus negated the existence of the transmission from
the book
16 Al-BŅqilŅnŝ wa ńrŅuhu al-KalŅmiyyah [al-BŅqilŅnŝ andhisKalŅmViews],p.139
which he could not find and then affirmed other than it yet 'what is affirmed takes
17 Ibid.,pp.139-140
precedence
18
Translator's note: i.e.ourShaykh,ShaykhMashhźr.
Translator's note: See ftn. 11, this appears to be a typo error, as Yźsuf al-MakŅrathŝ al-Yasź'ŝ's edition was in
over
19 what is negated' so there is no need for his previous loud-mouthing! As for
1957/1958 CE not in 1358 AH (1939 CE). Yźsuf al-MakŅrathŝ al-Yasź'ŝ is in fact: Reverend, Dr Richard Joseph
the book at-
McCarthy(1913-1981CE). BorninChicopee(USA)heattendedtheCathedralHighSchoolinSpringfieldandthen
Tamheed
went then
on to the Holy Cross the
Collegetwo initial
in Worcester, MA.editors of it
In 1933 he joined clearly
the Jesuit mentioned
Order and read Philosophytwo
at reasons which
Shadowbrook and Weston College from 1936-39, after which he went to Baghdad where he studied Arabic for
indicate the
three years and then returned to Weston College where he read Theology from 1941-45. He completed another
deficiency of the manuscript (that they depended upon). Then Yşsuf al-MakĆrthĩ al-Yasş'ĩ
year of Arabic from 1947-47 at Gregorian University and then went to Campion Hall, Oxford where he studied for
edited
his D.Phil. in the faculty of Oriental Studies, 1947-51, where his Postgraduate studies were to be in the field of
IslamicTheology.
at-Tamheed three years after the first one in 1358 AH (1939 CE) 19
and it was
published and
He attended the lectures of HAR Gibb and studied Turkish with Geoffrey Lewis. Joseph Schact was his
supervisor during his Postgraduate studies. He returned to Baghdad in 1951 and stayed there for seventeen years.
Arabic became part of his daily life and he even conducted his Christian sermons in Arabic and focused on IrŅqŝ
dialect in particular, immersing himself in the language. He also co-authored Spoken Arabic of Baghdad with
Faraj Raffouli in 1964-65. He taught at Baghdad College which was a Jesuit College open to Christians and
Muslims and then later taught at Baghdad State University. Refer to J.D. Latham, "Obituary of Rev., Dr. RJ
McCarthy (1913-1981)" in British Society for Middle Eastern Studies, vol.8, no.1, 1981, pp.76-79. McCarthy
translatedanumberofworksofthe'AshŅ'irahsuchas:
______________________________________________________________________________ 6
_________________________________________________________________________
printed. He relied upon a manuscript copy that the previous two editors of the book
did not
utilise. And on pages 261-262 of it are the texts that Shaykh ul-IslĆm and his students
transmitted
from al-BĆqilĆnĩ and said was in the book! Yet with this, the author of al-BĆqilĆnĩ and his
Kalam
Views (pp.143-144) was arrogant and said: "I can only be convinced of the authenticity
of the
manuscript copy of at-Tamheed" intending by this the manuscript copy which was edited
by
the two professors Mahmşd Muhammad al-Khudayrĩ and Muhammad 'AbdulHĆdĩ Abş Rĩdah!
At the same time he totally doubts the manuscript copy that was edited, printed and
published
by Yşsuf al-MakĆrthĩ al-Yasş'ĩ in which we find much of the chapters that indicate that
al-
BĆqilĆnĩ believed that AllĆh made istiwĆ' over the Throne, the Face, two hands,
Fawqiyyah,
Nuzşl and affirmation of other SifĆt ul-Khabariyyah of AllĆh, Mighty and
Majestic. He
(Muhammad RamadĆn 'AbdullĆh) believes that these chapters in the manuscript copy
of at-
Tamheed published by al-MakĆrthĩ was tampered with by the Hashwiyyah in order to
make it
appear as though a senior 'Ash'arĩ ImĆm was in agreement with their views. The two editors
of
at-Tamheed (i.e. Mahmşd Muhammad al-Khudayrĩ and Muhammad 'AbdulHĆdĩ Abş Rĩdah) say:
20
If we were to believe Ibn21Taymiyyah and his student Ibn ul-Qayyim in what they both transmitted
from
1. at-Tamheed
The it would
Theology of al-Ash'ari necessitate that we affirm that what is present between our hands in the
(Beirut:ImprimaturCatholique1953).
form
2. of the and
Freedom copy of at-Tamheed
Fulfillment: is Translation
An Annotated incomplete. However,
of al-Ghazali's we are
al-Munqidh minunable
al-dalal to
anddo anything except doubt
Other Relevant Works of al-Ghazali (Boston:Twayne,1980).
the veracity of their (Ibn Taymiyyah's and Ibn ul-Qayyim's) assertion due to the clear conflict that
3. Al-Ghazali's Deliverance from Error (Cairo,TheAmericanUniversityPress)
is observed between the madhhab of al-BĆqilĆnĩ and the meaning that has been ascribed to him by
4. Kitab ul-Bayan: Miracle and Magic: A Treatise on the Nature of the Apologetic Miracle and its
the two authors who are well-known for believing in Tahayyuz (spatial limits). Our master, al-
Differentiation from Charisms, Trickery, Divination, Magic and Spells (Beirut: Maktabah ash-
'AllĆmah al-Hujjah, Shaykh Muhammad ZĆhid al-Kawtharĩ the Shaykh ul-IslĆm of the Ottoman
Sharqiyyah(LibrairieOrientale),1958).
Caliphate wrote to us regarding this saying: "there is nothing at all extant of what Ibn ul-Qayyim
Refer to the appendix of at-Tamheed by al-BŅqilŅnŝ
20
ascribed to him (al-BĆqilĆnĩ) in his which
bookwas edited by Mahmźd
at-Tamheed. Muhammad
I do al-Khudayrŝ
not know whether Ibn ul-Qayyim
andMuhammad'AbdulHŅdŝ Abź Rŝdah,p.265.
ascribed that to him out of fabrication in order to deceive the Muslims, or whether he thought it
______________________________________________________________________________ 7
was another book with the title at-Tamheed by al-BĆqilĆnĩ." In any case, our trust in the (manuscript)
copy of at-Tamheed that we have in our hands is stronger than our trust in what Ibn Taymiyyah and
Ibn ul-Qayyim transmitted.
_________________________________________________________________________
Abş 'Ubaydah says: the camels are not watered like this! 22
For the book has transcribed
copies of
it and the two editors (i.e. Mahmşd Muhammad al-Khudayrĩ and Muhammad 'AbdulHĆdĩ Abş
Rĩdah) relied upon a copy which was incomplete, while Ibn Taymiyyah transmitted
from the
actual (complete) book. So judging Ibn Taymiyyah to have erred in this, let alone accusing
him of
fabrication and fraudulence, at least needs to be supported with an authentic and complete
copy!
21
Al-BŅqilŅnŝ wa ńrŅuhu al-KalŅmiyyah [al-BŅqilŅnŝ and his KalŅm Views], p.143-144. This was also
transmittedinanabridgedform,
As for al-Kawtharĩ then andinaffirmationofwhatwasstated,byDrAhmadMuhammadNźrSayfinhis
he is well-informed about manuscripts, and there is a complete
introductiontothe tahqeeq, Sharh 'Aqeedat Ibn Abŝ Zayd al-QayrawŅnŝ li'l-QŅdŝ 'AbdulWahhŅb,pp.103-104.
Turkish
Abź 'Ubaydah says: the hateful al-Kawtharŝ launched a campaign against the 'Ulama of IslŅm and the famous
copy of ImŅms
well-known the book at-Tamheed
especially (by
the likes of Shaykh al-BĆqilĆnĩ)
ul-IslŅm Ibn Taymiyyahin the 'ątif Afendi
(rahimahullŅh). Library,
For al-Kawtharŝ said 23 the likes of this
could
abouthiminthebook al-IshfŅq 'alŅ AhkŅm it-TalŅq (p.86):
If we were to say that Islam was not tested during its latter stages by anyone more harmful
than Ibn Taymiyyah in disuniting the word of the Muslims, we would not be exaggerating in
that. He was accommodating to the yahźd and the NasŅra.
Al-Kawtharŝ said on page 69 of the same book: "If Ibn Taymiyyah is still regarded as a Shaykh ul-IslŅm
then IslŅm needs salŅm!" Whoever has words like this should not be listened to whatsoever and it was upon
the two editors to enter the house from its adequate door and to have traversed a moderate academic method in
tahqeeq by compiling all of the manuscript copies, examining them and documenting what is within them. Yet
vain desires had a major influence in what the two editors outlines and went towards, as a result they both fell
intofabricationanddenial!
22
Translator's note: ThisisanArabicexpressionused inastonishmentwhenadvising.
23
Translator's note: The library was originally founded by Ahmet Pasha, the son of Mehmet Pasha, in 1678 as
the firstlibrary having an independent building after Koprulu Library in Ottoman State, being the second in this
category, Atif Mustafa Efendi Library was established Vefa Quarter of Istanbul by Atif Efendi in1741 who was a
poet and worked as Chief Registrar during Sultan Mahmźd the First's period. Having its resources of revenues
and administration determined in the foundational decree, three book memorizers, a reader, a binder and a
cleaner were all employed. Book memorisers were required to stay in three lodgings. Besides being on duty five
days a week (except for Tuesdays and Fridays), they were also required to lead the congregational prayers.
According to the charter, librarians were to be chosen from the aptitude and religious people, perform their own
duties and not to pass them on to their assistants or deputies. Having 2857 book in its establishment, Atif Efendi
Library has expanded its collection over time. Therearemanymanuscriptslikeseveralauthorscalligraphyworks,
several old book copies, nice binders, ornaments and miniature works and signet albums. The collection of
MehmetZekiPakalinisamongthecollectionofthelibrary.Having3,228manuscriptsand6,358printedbooksin
old alphabet; the library's collection is currently comprised of 25,905 books.
Currently, one Head Librarian, another librarian - a graduate of Library Department under the Literature
Faculty of Istanbul University, two security guards and technical personnel, total of five, are on duty. Working in
affiliation with Suleymaniye Library, digitalization of the manuscript works in Atif Efendi Library has not been
started. For more on the manuscripts available at the Sulaymaniyyah Complex in Turkey see:
http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/file_download.php/947fbdde3895fae06e48344779629befturkey_suleymaniye.pd
f
______________________________________________________________________________ 8
_________________________________________________________________________
not have been hidden from him, except to the one who rides his desires and arrives at what he
is
not pleased with in order to curse the ImĆms of guidance. La hawla wa la quwwata ila billĆh!
I found an important article by Professor, al-'AllĆmah al-Muhaddith Shaykh
Muhammad
'AbdurRazzĆq Hamza entitled al-ImĆm al-BĆqilĆnĩ wa KitĆb ut-Tamheed which was published at
the
end of al-Kawtharĩ wa Ta'leeqĆtuhu by al-'AllĆmah Muhammad Bahjat ul-BaytĆr, pp.117-129. It
is
mentioned herein that which supports this authenticity of Shaykh ul-IslĆm Ibn
Taymiyyah's
transmission from the book at-Tamheed, and that what Ibn Taymiyyah transmitted is
absolutely
verified and confirmed being present in the complete manuscript copy. I will open up
the
opportunity to clarify by making it apparent to the noble reader that it is a lie by the disputers
to
accuse Ibn Taymiyyah of deception in transmission! Shaykh Muhammad 'AbdurRazzĆq Hamza
(rahimahullĆh) stated:
ImĆm Abş Bakr bin at-Tayyib al-BĆqilĆnĩ has a well-known status with the 'Ulama of kalĆm, and
especially among his Jama'ah of 'Ash'arĩs who gained fame due to their refutations of the
Mu'tazilah and others who they viewed opposed the Sunnah. His book at-Tamheed has values to
whoever knows the estimation of al-BĆqilĆnĩ and his efforts are praiseworthy in supporting the
Sunnah and defending it. After some time, AllĆh preserved a number of manuscript copies of this
book even after the narrations of the Salaf were made extinct with the catastrophic incidents of the
time especially the transgression of the Tartars and Mongols which was of the most important
challenges to IslĆm and its principles. The manuscripts differ in the preservation of the contents
and their sources, they are the following:
1. A copy in the Ayasofya Library, 24

MS no.2201, it was mentioned by Professor Helmut Ritter 25
and
he mentioned the history of its transcription, stating that it was written in 478 AH.
2. A copy in MustafĆ 'ątif Library, MS no.2233 and the Cultural Department of the Arabic University
of Cairo took a Microfilm copy of this manuscript and then sent a Microfilm copy to me so that I
could compare it with the following third manuscript. The number of folios is 247 and the date of
Translator's note: Based in Istanbul, built by Sultan Mahmut the First, it was built in Ayasofya Mosque in
24
when it was written is 555 AH.
1739-40.ItwasjoinedtotheSüleymaniyeLibraryin1967.
3. The Paris copy, and the most accurate date for when it was written goes back to 472 AH based on
25
Translator's note: a German Orientalist and Arabist who edited and translated a vast array of Arabic
some words that are found towards the end of the manuscript after the words 'completion of the
manuscriptsandpublishedthem.
book'. However, after these words there is that which indicates that the copy was completed
______________________________________________________________________________ 9 after
900 AH, so
© SalafiManhaj AllĆh knows best. The number of pages is around 90. What is amazing is that those
2009
who published and distributed this copy: did not mention the words which indicate the accurate
date of when it was written.
_________________________________________________________________________
In comparison to the copy in the MustafĆ 'ątif Library, the Paris Library copy we found to be
deficient by about 72 folios which equal 30 folios of the Parisian manuscript copy. The place of
deficiency is: between folio 60 and 61, and this place in the printed version is after the 14 th
line of
page 160 before the chapter 61 which is entitled 'Chapter: The Statement on the Meaning of
al-Jabr'. The 'ątifiyyah manuscript has therefore revealed that the Parisian manuscript has been
damaged after folio 60 of it. Just as it can be witnessed that 25 chapters are missing which
are
affirmed in its index. I will mention these chapters from the 'ątifyyah manuscript copy with their
folio numbers and maybe I will mention something from the first part of the chapters in order to
show that it is not deficient and to verify that damage has been done to the Parisian manuscript
copy which refutes the claim (of its accuracy) made by the two who published the complete book
from the Paris copy (i.e. Mahmşd Muhammad al-Khudayrĩ and Muhammad 'AbdulHĆdĩ Abş
Rĩdah).
The first damage within the Parisian manuscript is found just after the end of folio 60 the point
in which the 'ątifiyyah manuscript proceeds with 'daleel wa laysa al-kalĆm fi'l-ItlĆqĆt wa'l-
IbarĆt, wa innma'l-kalĆm fi'l-Ma'Ćnĩ' which goes on for ten lines on the "b" side of folio 114
which completes the chapter. Then the author (i.e. al-BĆqilĆnĩ) says: 'Chapter: Speech Regarding
the Meaning of as-Siffah (the Attribute) and is it a Description or of the Same Meaning?' then
speech concerning this continues in four folios from the 'ątifyyah manuscript. Then he (al-
BĆqilĆnĩ) says: 'Daleel ąkhar (Another Proof)' which is found on the "a" side of folio 119 along
with another proof on the "a" side of folio 120, and then a chapter discussing al-Ism and its
derivatives and if it is to be named or not which is on the "b" side of folio 120. Then after a folio
and three lines down into folio 121 al-BĆqilĆnĩ says: 'Faslun' and then after three lines of the "b"
side of folio 123 he says: 'Mas'alah (issue)' and after five lines of the "a" side of folio 124 he
mentions another issue and then at the start of the "a" side of folio 125 al-BĆqilĆnĩ says 'Fasl ąkhar
min al-KalĆm fĩ Hadha'l-BĆb (Another Chapter from Speech in this Topic)' . In the first part of the "a"
side
of folio 126 there is another chapter on the AsmĆ' and within the "b" side of folio 126 there is to
be found: 'Chapter Discussing Negation of the Belief that the Qur'Ćn is Created' and he includes
other sections and issues within this chapter up to the folio 136. Then al-BĆqilĆnĩ says: 'Chapter: If
someone says "what is the proof that AllĆh has a Face?"'. Within the "a" side of folio 137 is
'Chapter: If someone says: "do they say that He is everywhere?"' It should be said: we seek AllĆh's
refuge! Rather He is above the Throne as He informed in His Book when He said,
Ƃ ȃăȂăƬąǇơ ÊǉąǂăǠƒǳơ ȄƊǴăǟ

ĄǺºăǸąƷċǂǳơƃ
And AllĆh says,
"The Most Merciful [who is] above the Throne established."
______________________________________________________________________________
{TĆ HĆ (20): 5} 10
_________________________________________________________________________
ƂĄƤďȈōǘǳơ ĄǶÊǴƊǰƒǳơ ĄƾăǠąǐ ăȇ

ÊǾąȈƊǳÊƛƃ
"To Him ascends good speech..."
{FĆtir (35): 10}26
And AllĆh says,
Ƃ ÊƔƖăǸċǈǳơ ȄÊǧ ǺďǷ ąǶĄƬǼÊǷƊƗƃ
"Do you feel secure that He who [holds authority] in the heaven..."
{al-Mulk (67): 16}
If AllĆh was everywhere then He would be inside the stomach of a person and inside his mouth,
exalted is AllĆh from that! It would also obligate that He would increase with the increase of places
if He created places which He had not created prior, and He would decrease when these places
would decrease if such places were subsequently nullified. It would also mean that AllĆh is on the
earth, behind our backs, to our right hand sides and to our left hand sides and Muslims have
concurred contrary to this and the error of the one who says it. It they say: AllĆh, Mighty and
Majestic, says,
ƂćǾºƊǳ Êƛ ÊǑąǁŋȏơ ȄÊǧăȁ ǾºƊǳ Êƛ ƔƖǸċǈǳơ

ȄÊǧ ȃÊǀōǳơ ăȂĄǿăȁƃ
ć Ê
"And it is AllĆh who is [the only] deity in the heaven, and on the earth [the only] deity."
So He informed that He is in both the heavens and the earth, and He said,
{az-Zukhruf (43): 84}
Ƃ ƊǹȂĄǼÊǈąƸČǷ
ƒ ăǶĄǿ
ă ăǺȇÊǀōǳơċȁ
ă ơȂƊǬċƫơ
ǺȇÊǀōǳơ ǞăǷ ǾōǴǳơ ōǹÊƛƃ
"Indeed, AllĆh is with those who fear Him and those who are doers of good."
{an-Nahl (16): 128}
26
Translator's note: Ibn Katheer mentioned in his tafseer: means, words of remembrance, recitation of
Qur'Ņn, and supplications. This was the view of more than one of the Salaf.IbnJareerrecordedthatAl-MukhŅriq
bin Sulaym said that "'AbdullŅh bin Mas'źd, may AllŅh be pleased with him, said to them, "If we tell you a
hadeeth, we will bring you proof of it from the Book of AllŅh. When the Muslim servants says, 'Glory and praise
be to AllŅh, there is no god worthy of worship except AllŅh, AllŅh is Most Great and blessed be AllŅh,' an angel
takes these words and puts them underhiswing,thenheascendswiththemtotheheaven.Hedoesnottakethem
past any group of angels but they seek forgiveness for the one who said them, until he brings them before AllŅh,
may He be glorified." Refer to Online version of tafseer:
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1912&Itemid=91
______________________________________________________________________________ 11
_________________________________________________________________________
And AllĆh says,
ƂȃăǁƊƗăȁ ĄǞăǸąǇ ƊƗ ƖăǸƌǰăǠăǷ ȄÊǼċǻ Êƛ

ƖƊǧƢăƼ ăƫ Ɗȏ ƊǱƢƊǫƃ
"[AllĆh] said, "Fear not. Indeed, I am with you both; I hear and I see."
{TĆHĆ (20): 46}
And AllĆh says,
ƂąǶĄȀĄǠÊƥơăǁ ăȂĄǿ ōȏ Êƛ ÇƨƊưºƊǴ ƊƯ ȃăȂąƴ

ċǻ ǺÊǷ ƌǹȂƌǰ ăȇ ƢăǷƃ
"There is in no private conversation three but that He is the fourth of them..."

{al-MujĆdilah (58): 7}
It should be said to them:
ƂćǾºƊǳ Êƛ ÊǑąǁŋȏơ ȄÊǧăȁ ǾºƊǳ Êƛ ƔƖǸċǈǳơ

ȄÊǧ ȃÊǀōǳơ ăȂĄǿăȁƃ
ć Ê
"And it is AllĆh who is [the only] deity in the heaven, and on the earth [the only] deity."
{az-Zukhruf (43): 84}
Means: that: He is the god of the people of the earth and the god of the people of the heavens as
the Arabs say: "a noble person was obeyed in al-'IrĆq and obeyed in HijĆz" meaning that the
ƒ ă ă ă
person was obeyed in both places by the people of both lands. It does not mean that essence of the
mentioned person is present in both HijĆz and al-'IrĆq. When AllĆh says,
Ƃ ƊǹȂĄǼÊǈąƸČǷ ǶĄǿ ăǺȇÊǀōǳơċȁ ơȂƊǬċƫơ

Is that He is with them by preserving, supporting and aiding them, it does not mean that His
"Indeed,
Essence AllĆhExalted
is with them, is withisthose who that.
AllĆh from fear As
Himforand those
AllĆh's who are doers of good."
saying,
{an-Nahl (16): 128}
Ƃ ƖăǸƌǰăǠăǷ ȄÊǼċǻ Êƛ ƃ
"Indeed, I am with you both..."

{TĆHĆ (20): 46}
Has to be interpreted and AllĆh's saying,
ƂąǶĄȀĄǠÊƥơăǁ ăȂĄǿ ōȏ Êƛ ÇƨƊưºƊǴ ƊƯ ȃăȂąƴ

ċǻ ǺÊǷ ƌǹȂƌǰ ăȇ ƢăǷƃ
______________________________________________________________________________ 12
_________________________________________________________________________
"There is in no private conversation three but that He is the fourth of

them..."
{al-MujĆdilah (58): 7}
Means that AllĆh has knowledge about them and what hidden things that they hide and their
private conversations, this is only to be used as has been transmitted in the Qur'Ćn and for this
reason this is not permissible to say, in making an analogy, that: AllĆh is in a city or with the bull or
with the donkey or with the sinful or with crazed. These meanings are not to be used as an analogy
for,
Ƃ ƊǹȂĄǼÊǈąƸČǷ
ƒ ăǶĄǿ
ă ăǺȇÊǀōǳơċȁ
ă ơȂƊǬċƫơ
"Indeed, AllĆh is with those who fear Him and those who are doers of good."
{an-Nahl (16): 128}
So the interpretation has to be according to what we described: that it is not permissible to say
that
the meaning of His istiwĆ' over His Throne is that he made isteelĆ over it, as the poet said:
"istawĆ Bishrun 'ala'l-'IrĆq, min ghayri Safy aw Dam MihrĆq"27
27 Translator's note: Thefalseinterpretationof"isteela"(i.e."He conquered theThrone")wasinitiallyasserted

by QŅdŝ 'Abdul-JabbŅr the founder of Mu'tazilŝ thought and then taken on board by the 'Ash'arŝs. Yet this
interpretationisinvalidfromanumberofaspects:
The Arabic language does not allow that the meaning of "IstawŅ" is "isteelŅ", and this meaning is not quoted
from any of the trusted ImŅms of Arabic linguistics, rather it has been authentically transmitted from them that
they totally rejected this meaning. Take for example, Abź 'AbdullŅh Muhammad bin ZiyŅd Ibn al-A'rŅbŝ (d. 231
AH/845 CE), who was the son of a Sindi slave and the foster-child of the famous Kufan philologist, al-Mufaddal
bin Muhammad ad-Dabbŝ. His prodigious memory was a storehouse of Arabic philology, folklore and poetry. He
was an ImŅm in Arabic linguistics and philology who questioned al-Asma'ŝ and Abź 'Ubaydah Ma'mar bin al-
Muthanna. Some fragments of his works are present in the collection of manuscripts collected by the Royal
Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences in Amsterdam, refer to its inventory here:
http://www.islamicmanuscripts.info/inventories/amsterdam/inventory-academy-collection.pdf
He is not to be confused with Abź Sa'eed Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn ZiyŅd ibn Bishr ibn al-A'rŅbŝ (d. 341
AH/952 CE) from Basra and then Makkah, who was the student of Abź DŅwźd as-SijistŅnŝ and author of KitŅb
ul-Mu'jam,whoIbnAbŝ Zaydnarratedfrom.
Ibn al-A'rŅbŝ said (as reported in Khateeb al-BaghdŅdŝ, TŅreekh BaghdŅd, vol.5, p.283 and al-LŅlikŅ'ŝ, Sharh
Usul I'tiqŅd, vol.3, p.399 with a saheeh sanad): "Ibn Abŝ DŅwood wished that I seek out some of the phrases of
the Arabs and their meanings. (So he said): ""the Most Merciful IstawŅ upon the Throne" {TŅ HŅ (20):
5} "IstawŅ" meaning "IstawlŅ"?" I said to him, "by AllŅh this does not mean this and I have never
seen this." Al-Khaleel ibn Ahmad was asked: "Have you seen in the language "IstawŅ" taken to mean
"IstawlŅ"?" Towhichhereplied, "This is neither known to the Arab nor possible in the language."
This is why Ibn al-Jawzŝ says in ZŅd al-Maseer, vol.3, p.213: "This meaning is rejected according to the
linguists." Ibn Abdul Barr said in at-Tamheed, vol.7, p.131: "Their saying in explanation of IstiwŅ that it
means IsteelŅ is not correct in the language."
______________________________________________________________________________ 13
_________________________________________________________________________
IsteelĆ' is: dominance and power and AllĆh has always been Dominant, Powerful, All-Mighty and
Able, AllĆh's saying,
ƂÊǉąǂăǠƒǳơ ȄƊǴăǟ ȃăȂăƬąǇơ ċǶƌƯƃ
"...and then established Himself above the Throne."
{al-A'rĆf (7): 54}28
This false meaning was mentioned by the later grammarians and linguists who inherited this understanding
from the Mu'tazilah and the Jahmiyyah. They did not rely upon narrations for this view, rather they relied on the
alleged saying of the poet, "istawŅ Bishrun 'ala'l-'IrŅq". This was utilised by GF HaddŅd in Islamic Belief and
Doctrine According to Ahl al-Sunna, Vol.1: A Repudiation of "Salafi" Innovations (Mountain View, CA: ASFA,
1996), p.106 - the book has Hisham KabbŅni's name on the cover yet was more than likely penned
by GF HaddŅd whose name appears inside as 'editor'! Thefollowinghavetobetakenintoaccount:
9 This line of poetry is not classed as being an authentic Arabic poem because it has not been transmitted
via a credible route. It is neither referred to nor found in any collections of Arabic poetry, and cannot be
traced.
9 There is no known origin in history for this line, and neither is there any indication in this line that
would show that the poet meant istawŅ with the meaning of istawlŅ such that it could be depended
upon.
9 (It is possible that) this poem is distorted and its correct phraseology is, "Bishrun qad istawlŅ 'ala'l-
'IrŅq".
9 Even if this poem is authentic and it is not distorted then it still is not a proof for them, rather it is
against them because Bishr was the brother of the Khaleefah al-Umawŝ (the Umayyad Caliph)
'AbdulMalik bin MarwŅn, and he (Bishr) was the Ameer of 'IrŅq and he made IstawŅ upon it as was the
habit of the leaders that they sit above the throne of the kingdom, and this conforms to the meaning of
this word as mentioned in His, the Exalted, saying, "...that you may mount upon their backs (li
tastawź alŅ dhuhoorihŝ)" {Zukhruf (43):14}
9 Ibn al-A'rŅbŝ said: "He is on His Throne as He has told us. He said, O Abu 'AbdullŅh, does it not mean
istawlŅ (possess, take control)? Ibn al-A'rŅbŝ said: How can you know that? The Arabs do not say istawlŅ
unless there are two people competing for a throne, then whichever of them prevails, they describe as
istawlŅ."Referto LisŅn al-'Arab,vol.2,p.249.
Refer to Online paper by Aboo Rumaysahentitled A Comparison of the Ta'weels of the Mu'tazilah to the Ta'weels
of the Later Ash'arees.
28
Translator's note: the tafseer ofIbnKatheerstates:
As for AllŅh's statement,
ƂÊǉąǂăǠƒǳơ ȄƊǴăǟ ȃăȂăƬąǇơ ċǶƌƯƃ

"...and then established Himself above the Throne."
...the people had several conflicting opinions over its meaning. However, we follow the way
that our righteous predecessors took in this regard, such as MŅlik, al-AwzŅ'ŝ, ath-Thawrŝ,
al-Layth bin Sa'd, ash-Shafi'ŝ, Ahmad, IshŅq bin RŅhawayh and the rest of the scholars of
Islam, in past and present times. Surely, we accept the apparent meaning of, al-IstiwŅ',
without discussing its true essence, equating it (with the attributes of the creation), or
______________________________________________________________________________ 14
_________________________________________________________________________
Means the opening of this description, from whence it did not occur and this refutes what they say
(when they say it means "AllĆh conquered the Throne").'
This is the chapter that ImĆm Ibn ul-Qayyim transmitted in his book IjtimĆ' ul-Juyşsh al-IslĆmiyyah,
pp.119 and 120 of the al-Muneeriyyah print. In comparing the two we find that
the
transmission (from Ibn ul-Qayyim) is word for word. This is what was denied by al-
Kawtharĩ the one in denial. This exonerates ImĆm Ibn ul-Qayyim from the accusation of
fabricating (the quote from al-BĆqilĆnĩ) which was claimed by al-Muftarĩ al-AffĆk al-
Kawtharĩ as mentioned by the two editors of at-Tamheed (i.e. al-Khudayrĩ and Abş Rĩdah)
on page 265 of their commentary of it. Al-Kawtharĩ said at the time that: "there is nothing at
all extant of what Ibn ul-Qayyim ascribed to him (al-BĆqilĆnĩ) in his book at-Tamheed. I
do not know whether Ibn ul-Qayyim ascribed that to him out of fabrication in
order to
deceive the Muslims, or whether he thought it was another book with the title at-Tamheed
by al-BĆqilĆnĩ." O Kawtharĩ! I say: you overlooked the manuscript in the 'ątifiyyah Library in
Istanbul where you lived! And I will even say that he saw the manuscript and that he proved the
truthfulness and trustworthiness of ImĆm Ibn ul-Qayyim and his detail in transmission, as all
testify to be they those who agree with him or not from his time up to now. The 'ątifiyyah
manuscript indicates your buhtĆn (O Kawtharĩ!) and your lies and vilification against this ImĆm (Ibn
ul-Qayyim) and it also shows your hate and falsehood in your heart against the Muslim ImĆms and
their trustworthiness. You (O Kawtharĩ) are indeed treacherous and a distorter!
Let's return to the 'ątifiyyah manuscript: the author (al-BĆqilĆnĩ) mentioned some chapters at
the beginning of the "a" side of folio 129 entitled: 'Speech Concerning Seeing AllĆh with the Eyes'
and then he mentioned a chapter and eight issues which go on to the "b" side of folio 145, and
altering or denying it (in any way or form). We also believe that the meaning that comes to
those who equate AllŅh with the creation is to be rejected, for nothing is similar to AllŅh,
ƂĄŚÊǐăƦƒǳơ ĄǞȈÊǸċǈǳơ ăȂĄǿăȁ ÆƔąȄăǋ

ÊǾÊǴƒưÊǸƊǯ ăǆąȈƊǳƃ
"There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing."
{ash-ShźrŅ (42): 11}
Indeed, we assert and affirm what the Imams said, such as Nu'aym bin HammŅd Al-
KhuzŅ'ŝ, the teacher of ImŅm al-BukhŅrŝ, who said, "Whoever likens AllŅh with His
creation, will have committed Kufr. Whoever denies what AllŅh has described Himself
with, will have committed Kufr. Certainly, there is no resemblance (of AllŅh with the
creation) in what AllŅh and His Messenger have described Him with. Whoever attests to
AllŅh's attributes that the plain ńyŅt and authentic Hadeeths have mentioned, in the
manner that suits AllŅh's majesty, all the while rejecting all shortcomings from Him, will
have taken the path of guidance."
Refer to Online version of tafseer:

http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1242&Itemid=62
______________________________________________________________________________ 15
_________________________________________________________________________
then on the "a" side of folio 148 entitled 'Chapter: Speech Concerning Ability' and he mentioned
two chapters and eight issues which continue to the "a" side of folio 152 which is 'Chapter: Speech
Concerning the Nullification of Birth'. Within the "a" side of folio 155: 'Chapter: Speech
Concerning Creation of the Servants Actions' wherein al-BĆqilĆnĩ mentions their doubts and
answers them, along with mentioning the verses that they utilise and answering the doubts with a
separate chapter. Then he mentioned ten issues in a chapter up to the second line of the "b" side
of folio 160: 'Chapter: The Obligation of Calling them Qadariyyah'. Then on the fourth line of the
"b" side of folio 164 there is a chapter.
I have transmitted these chapters what you see in order for the publishers (of at-Tamheed) to see
that the author (al-BĆqilĆnĩ) was not heedless to these issues in the chapters, as the two
editors
make out. In fact, the manuscript that the initial two editors of at-Tamheed (i.e. Mahmşd
Muhammad al-Khudayrĩ and Muhammad 'AbdulHĆdĩ Abş Rĩdah) utilised is damaged and
incomplete and this is what led them to such polemic and arrogance and to accuse the author of
heedlessness and a lack of honesty.
Going back to the 'ątifiyyah manuscript: within the "a" side of folio 171: 'Chapter: Speech on
the Meaning of Deen' and on the "b" side of the folio is speech regarding ĩmĆn and IslĆm, AsmĆ'
and AhkĆm. On the "a" side of folio 172: 'Chapter: Speech Regarding the Meaning of IslĆm' and
on the "b" side: 'Chapter: Naming a FĆsiq a Believer'. On the "b" side of folio 173: 'Chapter:
Speech Concerning al-Wa'd and al-Wa'eed' and at the top of the "b" side of folio 175: 'Chapter:
Speech on al-Khusşs and al-'Umşm'. On the "b" side of folio 179: 'Chapter: Speech Concerning
al-ImĆmah' and at the top of folio 186 the issue of al-Khabr which is the first issue found on folio
61 of the Paris manuscript copy. What we indicated are the chapters and sections of folio 114 to
the top of folio 186 of the 'ątifiyyah manuscript copy. So there is discrepancy between folio 60 and
folio 61 of the Paris copy and we hypothesise that around 30 folios of it are missing which is about
a quarter of the Paris copy.
So it is affirmed without disputation that the Paris manuscript copy, which the publishers of at-
Tamheed (i.e. al-Khudayrĩ and Abş Rĩdah) relied upon, is damaged and incomplete. So do they still
persist in holding to the claim that it is not incomplete? And do they still continue with their
arrogance against al-BĆqilĆnĩ? And their claim that their damaged and incomplete manuscript is
more trustworthy according to them than what was transmitted by two noble ImĆms whose
truthfulness and trustworthiness has been agreed on from their time up to now? These being
ImĆms of 'aql and naql: Shaykh ul-IslĆm Ibn Taymiyyah and his student al-'AllĆmah al-Muhaqqiq
Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah may AllĆh have mercy on them and be pleased with them. I saw what
they transmitted and quoted from in the 'ątifiyyah manuscript by chapter and number. This was
published and printed in Beirut in 1957 CE by the Publications of al-Hikma University in BaghdĆd. So
does the fraudulent liar al-Kawtharĩ have any proof after it has emerged that he lied against ImĆm
Ibn ul-Qayyim and accused him of fabrication and treachery.
______________________________________________________________________________ 16
_________________________________________________________________________
As for defaming Shaykh ul-IslĆm Ibn Taymiyyah with vile terms of expressions then this is bad
manners and ignorance not to mention distant from the reality and true situation. Like their (i.e. al-
Khudayrĩ and Abş Rĩdah's) words about Ibn Taymiyyah's praise of al-BĆqilĆnĩ as being "unusual
for him" and their statement about Ibn Taymiyyah being "well-known for Tahayyuz (spatial
confinement)" and other such jesting and foolery which shows their ignorance. Respectable and
just 'Ulama, Arabs and non-Arabs, have admitted the virtue of these two Shaykhs (Ibn Taymiyyah
and Ibn ul-Qayyim) and none deviate from them except for the ignoramuses or one affected by
Shu'oobiyyah 29
or those who have hatred and venom, such as al-Kawtharĩ. As for what they
(i.e.
Mahmşd Muhammad al-Khudayrĩ and Muhammad 'AbdulHĆdĩ Abş Rĩdah) drone on about that
affirming AllĆh's 'Uluww over His Throne is an "affirmation of tajseem" or the likes of such things
that they regurgitate and try to negate from al-BĆqilĆnĩ's book at-Tamheed then we say to them in all
frankness: retract from that! For it is not your arena, leave that to the believers who know AllĆh by
His Names and Attributes from His Book and from the speech of His Messenger. Rather your job
is to merely publish and distribute, for what you have done is not what a truthful publisher does.
Then I ask them, after the affirmation of this from the book at-Tamheed, what do you to have to
say now about the book at-Tamheed and its author al-BĆqilĆnĩ? And then I ask them about
the
statement of their "master" and hujjah al-Kawtharĩ when he said: "there is nothing at all extant
of what Ibn ul-Qayyim ascribed to him (al-BĆqilĆnĩ) in his book at-Tamheed. I do
not
know whether Ibn ul-Qayyim ascribed that to him out of fabrication in order to deceive the
Muslims, or whether he thought it was another book with the title at-Tamheed by
al-
29
Translator's note: a form of anti-Arab partisanship and nationalism which focused on denigrating the Arabs
and promoting anti-Arab feeling. It was developed mainly by some Persian scholars as a response to rapid
Arabisation of their land in the 9 th and 10 centuries CE. It was also popular in al-Andalźs among some of the
Berber converts to Islam as well as some white European converts to Islaam. Some of its famous poets include
IbnGharsiyah(thesonofGarcia),BashhaaribnBurdandothers.
There are many contemporary forms of this kind of thinking among Muslims as can be observed in: the
stubborn adherence to localised languages and mockery of Arabic; hatred of Arabs, which in reality can in most
cases be traced to hasad over oil and wealth; emphasis on the Arabs no longer possessing fus-ha; condemnation
of Muslims who wear thobes; promoting the view that certain races, other than the Arabs, have the true and
correct understanding of Islam; exaggerate the notion that one can be a Muslim without being an Arab, in order
todenigrateArabiclanguageandArabinvolvementinIslametc.
Those who can be said to have fallen into this contemporary Shu'źbiyyah ideology are: the movement of WD
Muhammad; Abdur-RahmŅn Muhammad (of the 'Singular Voice' blog); the Pakistani nationalists; the Hanafis
and Sufis of the Indian sub-continent, some of whom make ridiculous statements such as "Urdu is the closest
language to Arabic"; the Turkish nationalists who feel that they own the Haramayn; the Iranian Shi'ites and
Ayatollahs who extol the virtues of their Persian heritage even when it conforms with pure shirk and many other
partisan nationalists who fall exactly into Shu'źbiyyah. ImŅm Abź Muhammad Ibn Qutaybah ad-Dŝnawarŝ
critiqued them in his book ar-Radd 'ala'ish-Shu'źbiyyah. George H. Gardner and Sami A. Hanna conducted a
study entitled Al-Shu'ubiyyah Up-Dated: A Study of the 20th Century Revival of an Eighth Century Concept in
The Middle East Institute Journal,vol.20,no.3,Summer1996.
______________________________________________________________________________ 17
_________________________________________________________________________
BĆqilĆnĩ"? Who in the East and West encompasses the knowledge to negate what is found in the
manuscript copy of at-Tamheed from the fourth century up until the fourteenth century?
Who
encompasses the knowledge to make this general and absolute negation except for the one who
knows the unseen? Does al-Kawtharĩ in the 14 th

Century AH encompass knowledge of all of the
manuscript copies of the book at-Tamheed in the East and West spanning over ten centuries?!
Abş 'Ubaydah says: you will never be pleased with the ImĆms of Salafiyyah O you
hateful
people! The truth is clear and the bĆtil is obscure and speech has to be with truth and justice
and
with wara' and taqwĆ avoiding partisanship, desires and prejudice. This is in regards to
instances
of doubt and confusion, then how can those, while they are like this, reach guidance
and
accuracy which will remove doubt from their hearts from the ImĆms and senior 'Ulama. It
may
be that the later ones, especially during the era of openness and enlightenment paid
attention to
the likes of these narrow methods which inform of the manifest inattention and they worked
on
setting the record straight acting on what Shaykh ul-IslĆm Ibn Taymiyyah
acknowledged in
Majmş' al-FatĆwĆ, vol.15, p.308:
If the matter revolves between one who errs by punishing the innocent and one who
errs
by forgiving the sinful, then this (latter one) is the better of the two errors.
Abş 'Ubaydah says: we accept this from some of the reckless ones 30
who make tadleel and
takfeer
of Shaykh ul-IslĆm, and I intend by this: that they deem him to be in error even
though he is
entirely innocent from the claims, yet as for those who make tadleel, tafseeq and tabdĩ' of
him out
of oppression and enmity, then by AllĆh this is from fasĆd and ifsĆd. However it may be that
they
became more aware when they realised what Shaykh ul-IslĆm also acknowledged in
Majmş' al-
30
I mentioned a group of them in my introduction to the tahqeeq of the book by al-'AlŅ'ŝ al-Arba'źn al-
FatĆwĆ, vol.3, pp.348-349 when he stated:
Mughniyyah bi 'Uyyźn FunźnihŅ 'an al-Ma'een ('AmmŅn,Jordan:DŅrul-Athariyyah).
It is a must for a person to possess within him both ignorance and oppression and then
______________________________________________________________________________ 18
AllĆh accepts the tawbah of whomsoever He wills. The believing servant will always
have
the truth made clear to him of what he was ignorant of prior and retract from doing
what
_________________________________________________________________________
Salaf) authentic speech along with sound intellectual principles and thus inclined
towards
Salafiyyah in a way which you have seen. So woe to you if you doubt the
authenticity of his
speech, for those who negate what al-BĆqilĆnĩ stated do not know the firm and
verified
statement in regards to the matter. Thus when they found this (affirmation of 'Uluww) in a
book
from some books which they circulate, they did not circulate the meaning of the
THIRD EXAMPLE: TAHREEF OF THE MUQADDIMAH OF IBN ABŜ
Book and
ZAYD AL-QAYRAWńNŜ'S RISńLAH
Sunnah with its authentic Salafĩ Usşl and they resorted to denial or distortion! As
The RisĆlah of Ibn Abĩ Zayd al-QayrawĆnĩ has been printed on a number of occasions in: Fes,
happened in the
Cairo, Tunisia, London, Paris and other places. The MĆlikĩs East and West depend on this and
following cases:
have studied it, teach it, instruct it, preserved it, explained it and made poetry about it.
It is
organised into different
3
1
topics related to the Sharee'ah: tawheed, fiqh, ĆdĆb and
discusses about
four thousand topics. 'AbdulFattĆh Abş Ghuddah 32

edited and printed a version entitled
al-
'Aqeedah al-IslĆmiyyah allatĩ yunashsha' 'alayhĆ as-SighĆr. In this work he distorted,
appended and
omitted parts of ar-RisĆlah and this was clarified by al-'AllĆmah Shaykh Bakr Abş
Zayd
FOURTH EXAMPLE: THE COMMENTARIES OF 'ABDUL'AZEEZ
(rahimahullĆh) in his book 'Aqeedat us-Salaf: Muqaddimat Ibn Abĩ Zayd al-QayrawĆnĩ li-
AL-GHUMńRŜ
KitĆb 'ar- TO THE SEVENTH PART OF 'AT-TAMHEED 33' BY
IBN 'ABDULBARR
RisĆlah' ANDrepresented
and this was HIS REFUTATION OF THE
in the book BELIEFS
Tahreef OF min MĆkhudh Ahl ul-
un-Nusşs
THE
AhwĆ'SALAF
fi'l-
IstidlĆl.
31 From the introduction of al-'AllŅmah, Shaykh Bakr Abź Zayd (rahimahullŅh) to the Nudhm of Ahmad bin
Musharrafal-IhsŅ'ŝ (d.1398AH)tothe Muqaddimat Ibn Abŝ Zayd al-QayrawŅnŝ,p.8
32
Our Shaykh, al-AlbŅnŝ, refuted him in his introduction to Sharh al-'Aqeedat ut-Tahawiyyah and in a separate
published and printed treatise entitled Kashf un-NiqŅb 'amŅ fŝ Kalimaat Abŝ Ghuddah min al-AbŅteel wa'l-
IftirŅ'Ņt. Shaykh 'Abdul'Azeez ar-Rubay'Ņn refuted Abź Ghuddah in as-Sayf al-'Aqbarŝ 'ala'l-AbŅteel Tilmeedh
al-Kawtharŝ. Shaykh 'AbdullŅh bin SŅlih al-Madanŝ refuted him in his introduction to the book al-MuqŅbalah
Bayna'l-HudŅ wa'd-Dalaal by 'AbdurRazzŅq Hamza. ProfessorMuhammadFihrin at-Tasawwuf: Bayna'l-Haqq
wa'l-Khalq, p.220 refuted Abź Ghuddah and Shaykh Shams al-Haqq al-AfghŅnŝ also has a refutation of Abź
Ghuddahwhichhasnotbeenpublishedanddistributedasofyet.
33
PrintedandpublishedbytheWizŅratul-AwqŅfinMorocco.
______________________________________________________________________________ 19
_________________________________________________________________________
Of the very important transmissions which have had a good influence on the later
'Ulama,
especially the MĆlikĩs, are the acknowledgements of Ibn 'AbdulBarr in affirming
AllĆh's
Attributes, 'Azza wa Jall, especially in regards to AllĆh's 'Uluww 34.

The researcher, the
respected
brother (Abş 'AbdullĆh Muhammad 'AbdullĆh al-HammĆdĩ) transmitted what Ibn 'AbdulBarr
stated and brought attention to important issues related to such quotes. Also from the important
issues that bypassed his attention were the opposing commentaries and interpretations
which
seek to destroy the lofty Sunnĩ acknowledgments of Ibn 'AbdulBarr. This is from the games of
the editor and publisher (al-GhumĆrĩ) and the recklessness of the commentator, for his like and
pen blot out the acknowledgements of this scholar, Mutafannin (polymath), Muhaqqiq (editor),
Mudaqqiq (adept scholar), Muhaddith and ImĆm which all Sunnĩs are delighted with in different
times and places.
Our brother, the researcher Abş UsĆmah YĆseen NazĆl (hafidhahullĆh)
wrote a
comprehensive and beneficial study refuting the interpretations of al-GhumĆrĩ entitled
IjtimĆ'
Juyşsh at-Tawheed fĩ IkhrĆj ad-DalĆl min HawĆmish (al-Juz' as-SĆbi') min KitĆb at-
Tamheed, which we
are working to print and publish inshĆ'AllĆh for DĆr ul-Athariyyah.
Last but not least, this work is a beneficial effort wherein the author (Abş 'AbdullĆh
Muhammad 'AbdullĆh al-HammĆdĩ) supported the authentic creed and sound manhaj with clear
expressions and valuable transmissions from ImĆms whose virtue has been agreed upon
and
whose knowledge has been admitted. Within this it is clear to all who possess two eyes that: this
saved group established
And out last its
du'aroots in all
is that history
praise and that
is due its rope
to AllĆh, the is extended
Lord of and its chain
the Worlds
of
transmission
Written by, is connected, and it is not possible for all of the powerful of the earth to gather to
dispute
Abş with it Mashhşr
'Ubaydah because bin
it agrees
Hasanwith
ąl the fitrah and was followed by the people of
virtue and
SalmĆn
knowledge.Jordan
'AmmĆn, May AllĆh reward the author (Abş 'AbdullĆh Muhammad 'AbdullĆh al-
You will find this in at-Tadhkirah by ImŅm al-Qurtubŝ when he argued with some of the judges and defended
HammĆdĩ)
34
the belief in 'Uluww by referral to the speech of Ibn 'AbdulBarr in at-Tamheed. Refer to the book al-ImŅm al-
with good for his effort that he made and place it in his good actions, and may AllĆh
Qurtubŝ: Shaykh A'immat Tafseer,p.161.
make it
______________________________________________________________________________ 20
©
beneficial for2009
SalafiManhaj IslĆm and the Muslims.
_________________________________________________________________________
27 Rajab 1429 AH (July 30 2008 CE)
______________________________________________________________________________
21
_________________________________________________________________________
AL-KAWTHARŜ'S DEFAMATION OF IBN

TAYMIYYAH AND IBN UL-QAYYIM
Al-Kawtharĩ is famed for his absurd condemnations of the following scholars and even making
takfeer of some of them:
1. Due to the narrations on the SifĆt from ImĆm HammĆd bin Salamah (d. 167
AH), al-
Kawtharĩ accused him of being a Mushabbihah.
2. ImĆm 'UthmĆn bin Sa'eed ad-DĆrimĩ (d. 280 AH).
3. ImĆm 'AbdullĆh ibn ul-ImĆm AhmĆd (d. 290 AH), al-Kawtharĩ claims (with no evidence
as per usual) that he authored books "under pressure of the Hashwiyyah", Kawtharĩ
also claims that "the views of the idol worshippers are recorded within his book".35
4. ImĆm Abş Bakr Muhammad bin IshĆq bin Khuzaymah (d. 311 AH), the author of
a
Saheeh and KitĆb ut-Tawheed. Kawtharĩ says that his book KitĆb ut-Tawheed is in
reality a
"book of shirk due to it containing the ideas of the idol worshippers"!?36

5. ImĆm al-HĆfidh Shaykh u-IslĆm Ibn Abĩ HĆtim (d. 327 AH), al-Kawtharĩ accused him of
being a "miskeen with a corrupted belief" 37.
6. ImĆm Abu'l-Hasan 'Umar bin Ahmad ad-DarĆqutnĩ (d. 385 AH) author of a Sunan,
al-
Kawtharĩ accused him of having corrupted beliefs and of being a "miskeen, who was
blind" 38.
7. The ImĆm, Muhaddith, the trustworthy one, the Shaykh of the Sunnah and the
senior
35 ImĆm
See MaqalŅt Abş Nasr 'UbaydullĆh
al-Kawtharŝ,pp.301,307,315-23, bin Sa'eed
324-32,325,326,329,338. al-WĆ'ilĩ as-Sijzĩ, who was Hanafi in his madhdhab
36
Al-'AllŅmah 'AbdurRahmŅn bin YahyŅ al-YamŅnŝ al-Mu'allimŝ, Shaykh al-AlbŅnŝ (ed.), at-Tankeel bimŅ fŝ
and Salafi in 'aqeedah (d. 444 AH). 39
Al-Kawtharĩ called him: "a munĆfiq",
"jĆhil",
Ta'neeb ul-Kawtharŝ min al-AbŅteel (Riyadh: DŅr ul-IftŅ' as-Saudiyyah, 1403 AH, 2 nd Edn.), pp.29, 133; Tabdeed
"accursed",
udh-DhulŅm, p.108; Kawtharŝ's"foolish" and wa's-SifŅt
ta'leeqŅt on AsmŅ' other such(Beirut:vile
DŅr statements.
ul-Kutub al-'Alamiyyah), p.267;
MaqŅlŅt ul-Kawtharŝ,pp.315,330.
8. Shaykh ul-IslĆm Ibn Taymiyyah.
37
Ta'neeb ul-Kawtharŝ,pp.167,168.
38
Ta'neeb ul-Kawtharŝ,pp.239,244,261-62.
39
For his elevated status, the magnitude of his leadership and his glorious position among the ImŅms of IslŅm
see: al-AnsŅb, vol.12, pp.217-18; al-LubŅb, vol.3, p.353; Siyar A'lŅm un-NubalŅ', vol.17, p.654-57; al-'Ibr, vol.2,
pp.285-86; Tadhdhkirat ul-HuffŅdh, vol.3, pp.1118-1120; TabaqŅt ul-HuffŅdh, p.429; ShadharŅt udh-Dhahab,
vol.3, p.pp.271-72. Also see the books of the Hanafis such as al-JawŅhir ul-Madiyyah, vol.2, p.495 and TŅj ut-
TarŅjim,p.39.
______________________________________________________________________________ 22
_________________________________________________________________________
9. ImĆm Ibn ul-Qayyim.

10. ImĆm Shah WaliullĆh ad-Dehlawĩ.
11. ImĆm Muhammad bin 'AbdulWahhĆb.
12. ImĆm Muhammad bin 'Ali ash-ShawkĆnĩ.
With regards to Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullĆh), al-Kawtharĩ makes takfeer of Ibn Taymiyyah as
well
as making tabdĩ' and tadleel of him. Kawtharĩ says: "his kufr is agreed upon" 40
and "there is
agreement on his misguidance, deviance, innovation and heresy" 41
and "he is
not from
the 73 sects" 42
!!? Kawtharĩ also stated: "he is a Mujassim who has clear tajseem, from
those
who went to extremes in tajseem, much worse than the KarrĆmiyyah, he is
from those
who are extreme in tashbeeh" 43

!! Al-Kawtharĩ refers to Shaykh ul-IslĆm Ibn
Taymiyyah as
being: "deceived", " a misguided deviator", "a sign of misguidance", "from the
ImĆms of
misguidance", "misguided many of the servants (of AllĆh)", "deviant in creed
and
actions", "this filthy one is from the greatest of deviants", "an
extremist" (?!),
"ignorant", "miskeen", "from the excessive fools", "affected in his mind and deen",
"an
innovator", "from Ahl ul-Bida'", "worse than the philosophers who deny the
Day of
Gathering", "worse than the Mu'tazilah". 44

Kawtharĩ also said about Ibn Taymiyyah that:
...if we were to say that Islam was not tested during its latter stages by anyone more harmful than
40 Ibn
See the Taymiyyah in disuniting
intro of al-Kawtharŝ the word(Beirut:
to ar-RasŅ'il as-Subkiyyah of the'ńlam
Muslims,
ul-Kutub),we would
pp.24, not be exaggerating in that. He
27, 35,48and79;also
see Tabdeed udh-DhulŅm,p.157
was accommodating to the yahşd and the NasĆra.45
Seetheintroofal-Kawtharŝ to ar-RasŅ'il as-Subkiyyah,pp.27,28;alsosee Tabdeed udh-DhulŅm,p.81
Shaykh Shams as-Salafĩ al-AfghĆnĩ states:
41
42
Tabdeed udh-DhulŅm,p.167
What has been mentioned is an example and clear proof that al-Jarkasĩ (i.e. al-Kawtharĩ 'the
43
Tabdeed udh-DhulŅm, pp.8, 17 and 63; also see MaqŅlŅt u-Kawtharŝ, p.285; also see the intro of al-Kawtharee
Circassian')
to ar-RasŅ'il was an enemy to authentic IslĆm and one who hated its ImĆms. It also indicates that he
us-Subkiyyah,p.79
44
was
See a liar
the intro who wastoentrenched
of al-Kawtharŝ in lying
ar-RasŅ'il as-Subkiyyah, and
pp.19, 27,deception
29, 30, 32, 54, and
55 anddeficient in his religious position and
79; also see Tabdeed
udh-DhulŅm, pp. 7, 9, 16-18, 30, 63, 67, 80, 84, 105; also see Kawtharŝ's ta'leeqŅt to Dhayźl Tadhdhkirat ul-
trustworthiness, for he was sinful and a dajjĆl. Because the biography of Shaykh ul-IslĆm is
HuffŅdh ofadh-Dhahabŝ,p.188
documented in the book of the people of IslĆm:
45
Al-IshfŅq,p.86
______________________________________________________________________________ 23
_________________________________________________________________________
Who was the one who protected the blood of the Muslims and protected the honour of their
women, including the MĆturĩdiyyah and 'AshĆ'irah, and repelled the plots of the Mongols from ShĆm
if not Shaykh ul-IslĆm Ibn Taymiyyah?
Who authored the great book MinhĆj us-Sunnah which refuted the RĆfidah and the yahşd?
Who authored the great book as-SĆrim al-Maslool 'alĆ ShatĆ'im ar-Rasool, against the NasĆra
who
cursed the Messenger of AllĆh (sallallĆhu 'alayhi wassallam)?
Who authored al-JawĆb us-Saheeh liman Baddal Deen al-Maseeh?
So after this how can it be said that Shaykh ul-IslĆm Ibn Taymiyyah was an polytheist who was
accommodating to the yahşd and the NasĆra 46?
With regards to Ibn ul-Qayyim (rahimahullĆh), al-Kawtharĩ dedicated a book to attacking Ibn ul-
Qayyim entitled Tabdeed udh-DhulĆm
4 al-Mukhayyim min Nooniyyati Ibn il-Qayyim,
7
which is a
commentary to the book as-Sayf as-Saqeel fi'r-Radd 'alĆ Ibn Zafeel 48.
Some of the
disgraceful and
abusive language that al-Kawtharĩ refers to Ibn ul-Qayyim with, including takfeer, tabdĩ',
and
tadleel, is as follows: "kĆfir or himĆr ("he is either a disbeliever or a donkey"!!!?)",
"mulhid
(deviant)", "khabeeth (filth)", "mal'şn (accursed)", "wiskh (dirt)", "najas (unclean and
46 Shams as-Salafŝ al-AfghŅnŝ, 'ńda al-MŅturŝdiyyah li'l-'Aqŝdah as-Salafŝyyah wa Mawqifahum min Tawhŝd al-
impure)", "fadm (dim-witted)", "baleed (an idiot)", "naffĆj (a show-off)",
Asma wa's-SifŅt [The Enmity of the MŅturŝdŝs to the Salafŝ 'Aqŝdah and their Position on Tawhŝd al-Asma wa's-
"mutakhalif
SifŅt]vol.1(TŅ'if,KSA:Maktabahas-Siddŝq,1993CE/1413AH),pp.356-57.
47 ShaykhShamsas-Salafial-Afghanistatesinibid.p.358:
This book is ascribed to Taqiuddeen as-Subkŝ ('Ali bin 'AbdulKŅfŝ, d.756 AH), the father of
TŅjuddeen as-Subkŝ ('AbdulWahhŅb bin 'Ali, d.771 AH). Common sense and transmission
distances this book from actually being a book authored by Taqiuddeen as-Subkŝ. As for
common sense, then such disgraceful vile abusive language does not befit one who fears
AllŅh, rather it such language suits the abusive language of the poets. As for via
transmission, then this book was not mentioned before az-Zabŝdŝ did who was one of the
biographers of Taqiuddeen as-Subkŝ. Yet even his son, TŅjuddeen made no mention of the
book within his biography of his father within at-TabaqŅt and he spent his younger and
older life with his father. If this book was really authored by Taqiuddeen as-Subkŝ it would
have been relied upon by the enemies of Shaykh ul-IslŅm Ibn Taymiyyah and what az-
Zabŝdŝ mentioned does not mean that the actual book is extant.
48
ShaykhShamsas-Salafŝ al-AfghŅnŝ statesinibid.p.358:
It is not known about Ibn ul-Qayyim that he was ever referred to as "Ibn Zafeel", the name
"Zafeel" is not known to have been the name of any of his grandparents from either his
father's side or his mother's. Dr Bakr bin 'AbdillŅh mentions a long story regarding al-
Kawtharŝ and "Zafeel", refer to at-Taqreeb il-Fiqh Ibn il-Qayyim, vol.1, p.31. This story
indicates that al-Kawtharŝ is a slanderous liar.
______________________________________________________________________________ 24
_________________________________________________________________________
(backward)", "waqih (shameless)", "ignorant", "miskeen", "an innovator", "jilf (rude)",

"muta'Ćlim (a pseudo-scholar)", "radiyĆ (ruined)" and also "a heretic" 49
!!?
Kawtharĩ also stated about ImĆm Ibn ul-Qayyim: "mujassim", "mushabbih",
"hashwĩ",50
"afflicted in mind and deen", "from the misguided and the transgressors",
"from the
mujassimah and their brothers the Jews and Christians", "he caused much
deception
upon the Ummah, not within the dunya but by poisoning IslĆm" 51
!!
Kawtharĩ also stated: "...his kufr reached an amount wherein it is not permissible to
keep
quiet", "have the heretics, deviants and detractors of the Sharee'ah even
reached more
than this? Not even ten of them have!", "the heretics, deviants and detractors
of the
Sharee'ah have not done more in going against IslĆm and the Muslims than him..."52
Kawtharĩ also says about Ibn ul-Qayyim: "may AllĆh curse him", "upon him is the curse
of
AllĆh", "may AllĆh make him ugly", "damn him!", "may AllĆh humiliate him", "away with him",
"may AllĆh break his back", "he deserves curses due to his going against the creed of
the
Muslims", "damn Ibn Taymiyyah and his companion", "damned is the follower and the
one
being followed", "may AllĆh fight him", "may AllĆh fight them", "may AllĆh save from what the
fitna
49 theyudh-DhulŅm,
See Tabdeed caused".pp.20-1,
53
23-4, 25-6, 28-9, 31, 35, 37, 39, 47, 51, 55, 59, 61, 68, 73-4, 76-7, 79, 85, 87,
91,93,139,147-48,155,164-66,184.
Shaykh Shams as-Salafĩ al-AfghĆnĩ highlights 54:
50 Ibid.,pp.22,24,39,93.
Many great Hanafĩ ImĆms defended Shaykh ul-IslĆm Ibn Taymiyyah and ImĆm Ibn ul-Qayyim, I
51 Ibid.,pp.10,22,39,63,77,149.
52
will mention some of their testimonies as "a witness from its people bears testimony" and in order
Ibid.,pp.57-8,182.
53 to indicate that Kawtharĩ is a rapacious plotter and an immoral failure. Of these scholars are:
Ibid.,pp.26,34,37,47,55,91,99,121,140,143,149,150,155,165,182-83.
Translator's
ImĆm Note: all praise is due
Zaynuddeen to AllŅh, for the oppressive
'AbdurRahmĆn bin 'Aliempty calls of Kawtharŝ
at-Tafahanĩ were not
(d. 835 answered
AH), the by
head of judges, who was
AllŅh and in fact AllŅh has made the legacy of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn ul-Qayyim praiseworthy among the
also the head of the Hanafis 55
even on the admission of Kawtharĩ 56,
he has some good words in
Ummah with their books, works and writings used, referred to and well known to this day, while the books and
defence
names of Shaykh
of his opposers ul-IslĆm
have been forgottenIbn
and Taymiyyah.
rendered insignificant
57 in comparison to these two great
mountainsofknowledge,andallpraiseisduetoAllŅh.
54
ShaykhShamsas-Salafial-Afghani, op.cit.,pp.360-61.
55
His biography can be referred to as-SakhŅwŝ in ad-Daw ul-LŅmŝ' li Ahl il-Qarn at-TŅsŝ' (Beirut: Maktabah al-
Hayyah),vol.4,p.98-100andalsoin al-FawŅ'id ul-Bahiyyah,pp.88-9.
______________________________________________________________________________ 25
_________________________________________________________________________
ImĆm Badruddeen Mahmşd bin Ahmad al-'Aynĩ, the author of 'Umdat ul-QĆrĩ (d. 855 AH), who
Kawtharĩ goes to excess with and values over Ibn Hajar, just as he values his 'Umdah over al-Fath 58.
ImĆm al-'Aynĩ has some very important words in defence of Shaykh ul-IslĆm Ibn Taymiyyah which
affects the hearts of those with justice.59

Al-'AllĆmah al-MulĆ 'Ali al-QĆrĩ (d. 1014 AH) who Kawtharĩ himself calls "NĆsir us-Sunnah". 60
He
also has some statements in defence of Shaykh ul-IslĆm Ibn Taymiyyah and ImĆm Ibn ul-Qayyim
which shows justice and fairness, far from injustice.61

ImĆm WalĩullĆh ad-Dehlawĩ (d. 1176 AH) and al-'Allamah Sayyid Mahmşd al-Alşsĩ, the Mufti of
the Hanafis, as well as his son and grandson.62
So this shows who really have to review their claims to wanting an end to "ad hominem
attacks"
on scholars and the like.
56 Seeal-Kawtharŝ's ta'leeqŅt to Dhayool Tadhdkirat ul-HuffŅdh byal-HŅfidhadh-Dhahabŝ,p.300.
57
Refer to his taqreedh in Ibn NŅsirudden ad-Dimishqŝ, Zuhayr ash-ShŅweesh (ed.), ar-Radd ul-WŅfir 'alŅ man
za'ama in man atlaq 'alŅ Ibn Taymiyyah "Shaykh ul-IslŅm", fahuwa KŅfir (Beirut: Maktabah al-Islamiyyah,
1393 AH, 1 st
Edn.), pp.151-55; also refer to Abu'l-Ma'Ņlŝ Mahmźd Shukrŝ al-Alźsŝ, Shaykh Muhammad bin
'AbdillŅh as-Subayyal and Muhammad al-Gheehab (intros.) GhŅyat ul-AmŅnŝ fi'-Radd 'ala'n-NabahŅnŝ
(Alexandria:DŅrIhyŅ us-Sunnah),vol.2,pp.136-38.
58
Seeal-Kawtharŝ, at-TŅj ul-Lajŝnŝ,pp.4-9
59
Shaykh Shams as-Salafŝ al-AfghŅnŝ states (op.cit., p.361): His taqreedh to the book ar-Radd ul-WŅfir, pp.158-
65 and refer to GhŅyat ul-AmŅnŝ, vol.2, pp.128-32. From the samples of ImŅm MulŅ 'Ali al-QŅrŝ's defence of
Shaykhul-IslŅmIbnTaymiyyahandcensuringthosewhoslanderhimarethefollowing:
What are they except for Salqa'a Balqa'a and the ones who make takfeer out of them are
Salama'a bin Qalma'a and HayyŅn bin BayyŅn and Hayy bin Bayy and Dull bin Dudill and
DalŅl bin at-TalŅl.
Healsosaid:
Whoever says he (i.e. Ibn Taymiyyah) is a kŅfir, the person who says this is the real kŅfir.
And whoever ascribes to him (i.e. Ibn Taymiyyah) heresy, then the person who ascribes this
is the real heretic.
This is an example for Kawtharŝ and his followers to take into consideration. As for "Salqa'a Balqa'a" it means:
empty, and "Salama'a bin Qalma'a" means: unknown. Refer to al-QŅmźs, p.953. "HayyŅn bin BayyŅn" and "Hayy
binBayy"mean:heisunknownandsoishisfather,see LisŅn ul-'Arab,vol.13,p.441andvol.14,p.375.
"Dull bin Dudill": with a kasra and a dhammah means one who is entrenched in misguidance, or one whose
father is unknown, or one who has no good at all in him. See al-QŅmźs, p.24. "DalŅl bin at-TalŅl": means 'DŅl
TŅl',amisguidedperson,referto as-SahhŅh,vol.4,p.1644andalsoreferto LisŅn ul-'Arab,vol.11,p.395.Itmeans
that such people are devoid of taqwŅ and trustworthiness, have no good in them and are entrenched in
misguidance.
60
Tabdeed udh-DhulŅm,p.100
61
MirqŅt ul-MafŅteeh Sharhu MishkŅt il-MasŅbeeh,vol.8,pp.251-52.
62
Refer to Khayruddeen al-Alźsŝ, JalŅ ul-'Ayn'ayn fŝ MahŅkimat ul-Ahmadayn (Beirut: DŅr ul-Kutub al-
'Alamiyyah),pp.43-46and GhŅyat ul-'AmŅnŝ,vol.2,pp.127-88.
______________________________________________________________________________ 26
_________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
27

Modern 'Ash'aris Tampering With The 'Aqeedah Works of The Maliki Scholars

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Modern 'Ash'aris Tampering With The 'Aqeedah Works of The Maliki Scholars

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Modern 'Ash'arǱ Tampering with the 'Aqeedah Works of the MǙlikǱ Scholars

Studies in Contemporary 'Ash'arŝ Polemics

Shaykh Mashhźr Hasan ńl SalmŅn

ON MODERN 'ASH'ARŜ TAMPERING

FIRST EXAMPLE: OMISSION IS TREACHERY

'AbdulWahhĆb) in Sharh AsmĆ ul-HusnĆ 3.

Is real and not as how the Mu'tazilah say.4

transmits from is al-BĆqilĆnĩ, his Shaykh Ibn Abĩ Zayd al-QayrawĆnĩ 9,

omission in his edition of at-Tamheed which was subsequently published! 14

been transmitted upon the apparent meaning without ta'weel.16

1. A copy in the Ayasofya Library, 24

Ƃ ȃăȂăƬąǇơ ÊǉąǂăǠƒǳơ ȄƊǴăǟ

ƂĄƤďȈōǘǳơ ĄǶÊǴƊǰƒǳơ ĄƾăǠąǐ ăȇ

{FĆtir (35): 10}26

And AllĆh says,

Ƃ ÊƔƖăǸċǈǳơ ȄÊǧ ǺďǷ ąǶĄƬǼÊǷƊƗƃ

ƂćǾºƊǳ Êƛ ÊǑąǁŋȏơ ȄÊǧăȁ ǾºƊǳ Êƛ ƔƖǸċǈǳơ

And AllĆh says,

ƂȃăǁƊƗăȁ ĄǞăǸąǇ ƊƗ ƖăǸƌǰăǠăǷ ȄÊǼċǻ Êƛ

ƂąǶĄȀĄǠÊƥơăǁ ăȂĄǿ ōȏ Êƛ ÇƨƊưºƊǴ ƊƯ ȃăȂąƴ

"There is in no private conversation three but that He is the fourth of them..."

ƂćǾºƊǳ Êƛ ÊǑąǁŋȏơ ȄÊǧăȁ ǾºƊǳ Êƛ ƔƖǸċǈǳơ

Ƃ ƊǹȂĄǼÊǈąƸČǷ ǶĄǿ ăǺȇÊǀōǳơċȁ ơȂƊǬċƫơ

"Indeed, I am with you both..."

ƂąǶĄȀĄǠÊƥơăǁ ăȂĄǿ ōȏ Êƛ ÇƨƊưºƊǴ ƊƯ ȃăȂąƴ

"There is in no private conversation three but that He is the fourth of

27 Translator's note: Thefalseinterpretationof"isteela"(i.e."He conquered theThrone")wasinitiallyasserted

ƂÊǉąǂăǠƒǳơ ȄƊǴăǟ ȃăȂăƬąǇơ ċǶƌƯƃ

"...and then established Himself above the Throne."

{al-A'rĆf (7): 54}28

ƂÊǉąǂăǠƒǳơ ȄƊǴăǟ ȃăȂăƬąǇơ ċǶƌƯƃ

ƂĄŚÊǐăƦƒǳơ ĄǞȈÊǸċǈǳơ ăȂĄǿăȁ ÆƔąȄăǋ

Refer to Online version of tafseer:

knows the unseen? Does al-Kawtharĩ in the 14 th

four thousand topics. 'AbdulFattĆh Abş Ghuddah 32

Attributes, 'Azza wa Jall, especially in regards to AllĆh's 'Uluww 34.

27 Rajab 1429 AH (July 30 2008 CE)

AL-KAWTHARŜ'S DEFAMATION OF IBN

"book of shirk due to it containing the ideas of the idol worshippers"!?36

being a "miskeen with a corrupted belief" 37.

9. ImĆm Ibn ul-Qayyim.

who are extreme in tashbeeh" 43

Gathering", "worse than the Mu'tazilah". 44

accommodating to the yahşd and the NasĆra 46?

(backward)", "waqih (shameless)", "ignorant", "miskeen", "an innovator", "jilf (rude)",

affects the hearts of those with justice.59

which shows justice and fairness, far from injustice.61

the Hanafis, as well as his son and grandson.62

56 Seeal-Kawtharŝ's ta'leeqŅt to Dhayool Tadhdkirat ul-HuffŅdh byal-HŅfidhadh-Dhahabŝ,p.300.

You might also like