Mawlana Thanwi on Ibn Taymiyyah (alayhi rahmah)

[dr76]

Assalam alaikum w.w...

Has anyone here read the book -' Kya ibn taymiyya (rah) ulema ahle sunnat wal jamaat me se hain.? ' By Maulana Abu Bakr Ghazipuri sb db.. well its really an interesting read.. he has quoted excerpts from the shaikh's fatawa and his book ' Iqtaza siraat e mustaqeem ' he has not even spared Hazrat Ibn umar (radhiallahu anhu) by calling him a biddati nauzubillah..
I guess Hazrat Maulana Ashraf Ali thanvi (nawwar allahu marqad) was justified in saying that mentioned in the 1st post..

wa assalam..

[Abdalla Alothman]

Asalamu 'alaikum warahmatullah wabarakatuhu

But yes, Shaykh Ibn Tamiyyah (who I do in fact respect) was a Sufi.

The reader should be aware of an annoying habit: Sufis always market Sufim by claiming ownership or alleged affiliation of various scholars like the Four Imams, Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Al-Qayyim, and many others.

In reality those claims are entirely false.

If we were to ask our brother, ibn Mikael, to support his claim with some evidence, he would certainly bring forward the false claims of Ibn Taymiyya wearing the Sufi khirqa. But this report has been transmitted by someone who never met Ibn Taymiyya. The Sufis will also point the audience to a book falsely attributed to Ibn Taymiyya called Al-Masaa-il Al-Tabreeziyya; This book was never known to the students of Ibn Taymiyya nor those who studied him -- not to mention that this book was never in print.

Also, and not to forget, Ibn Taymiyya heavily criticized the Sufi ritual of wearing the Khirqa. Besides the fabricated tradition of the Khirqa the Sufis have no evidence except heavy contrary evidence that shows Ibn Taymiyya's struggle with the Sufis who tricked the rulers to imprison him, and lots of data on Sufi grave worship, mawlid issues, calling the dead for help, comparing Sufis with Christians and Jews, heavy attacks on Ibn Arabi and other Sufis, animosity between him and other Sufis, etc.

Wasalamu 'alaikum warahmatullahi ta'aala wabarakatuh,
Abdalla S. Alothman

[Sulaiman84]

Asalamu 'alaikum warahmatullah wabarakatuhu



The reader should be aware of an annoying habit: Sufis always market Sufim by claiming ownership or alleged affiliation of various scholars like the Four Imams, Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Al-Qayyim, and many others.

In reality those claims are entirely false.

If we were to ask our brother, ibn Mikael, to support his claim with some evidence, he would certainly bring forward the false claims of Ibn Taymiyya wearing the Sufi khirqa. But this report has been transmitted by someone who never met Ibn Taymiyya. The Sufis will also point the audience to a book falsely attributed to Ibn Taymiyya called Al-Masaa-il Al-Tabreeziyya; This book was never known to the students of Ibn Taymiyya nor those who studied him -- not to mention that this book was never in print.

Also, and not to forget, Ibn Taymiyya heavily criticized the Sufi ritual of wearing the Khirqa. Besides the fabricated tradition of the Khirqa the Sufis have no evidence except heavy contrary evidence that shows Ibn Taymiyya's struggle with the Sufis who tricked the rulers to imprison him, and lots of data on Sufi grave worship, mawlid issues, calling the dead for help, comparing Sufis with Christians and Jews, heavy attacks on Ibn Arabi and other Sufis, animosity between him and other Sufis, etc.

Wasalamu 'alaikum warahmatullahi ta'aala wabarakatuh,
Abdalla S. Alothman

What will you say when you're presented with evidence of Ibn Taymiyyah connections to Tasawwuf and following qualified scholarship?

There's more than enough evidence that can be given but what will you do after you see it is the question.

If you reject the evidence from the start, well then what's the point of bringing it up in the first place?

[Ahlussunnah]

You defend him as if he made no mistakes.

It seems you are blindly defending Mawlana Thanavi. Statement of Mawlana Thanavi on Ibn Taymiyya was worse than the view of Ibn Taymiyya regarding Imam Tahawi.

imam Tahawi was an expert in hadith and hadith criticism. Can you substantite your claim from a Muhaddith who was just in his criticisms?

I don't know about just criticism.. Bayhaqi has said even worse regarding Imam Tahawi but still i don't say Imam Bayhaqi was someone who didn't care about what other said, and he was extremist in his approach just like Mawlana Thanavi said regarding Ibn Taymiyyah. The point was, Ibn Taymiyyah said what he said based on his study, not just because of his ta'assub, how could it be when he himself, just after the sentence which was qouted by Allama Lucknavi, said that Imam Tahawi was a Faqih and Muhaddith. He only said that Imam Tahawi's knowledge in the field of criticism of hadith was not like other scholars of this field.
If you don't agree with him then you have full right to criticize him 4 what he said regarding Tahawi. That doens't mean you can call him whatever, like he didn't have a good way of doing tahqeeq, and he kept on writing without caring about others and he didn't care for who was in front of him etc.
Certainly I don't agree with what Mawlana Thanavi said, but still I wont call him someone who held extreme views etc.

Source please. Those who did crticise Imam Dhahabi were Subki and Yafi' regarding the Sufi issue, please reference Imam Lucknawi's criticism.

Dhahabi was more balance than anyone in his books of Tarajum. The only reason the above scholars criticized him was because his salafism in aqeedah and his defense of Hanabila who according to them were Hashawis. Ibn Subki went on insulting his shaykh in his Tabaqat, and accused him of many thing. He even accused Imam Al-Mizzi, Barzali etc.
Allama Lucknavi criticised him for speaking against people like Ibn Arabi who was a heretic according to majority of fuqaha. Most likely, Allama Lucknavi should be criticized for what he said regarding scholars like Dhahabi, not otherwise. Because if Dhahabi was not munsif in his approach then I don't know anyone better munsif than him in writing Biographies.

Allama Lucknavi mention it in "Ar-Rafa' wa At-Takmeel".
Note: What i said regarding Shaykh Abu Ghuddah criticizing Lucknavi for his criticism regarding Dhahabi was a mistake. I mixed two different things.

'Allama Lucknawi praised his work as well.

Meaning Ibn Taymiyyah understand what his opponents was saying.

Regarding the Ziyarah issue, suffice it to say Majority of Ulema, including the hanabilah have ignored his opinion, and only has been revived by our salafi brethen.

If they have ignored it that doesn't mean Ibn Taymiyyah was going against Ijma. There was not any ijma on this at all. We hardly have selected qoute from mutaqaddimeen regarding the actual issu and that falls in support of Ibn Taymiyyah. Apparently the view of Imam Malik held same view, but those who came later they made taweel of his statement. Before Ibn Taymiyya, Qadhi Ayadh, Qadi Husain, Ibn Batta, Ibn Aqeel, Abu Muhammad Juwaini were also of this view. And when Ibn Taymiyya gave his fatwa, there were many scholars who supported him. Some of the fatwa is mention in the Al-Uqud Ad-Duriya by Ibn Abdul Hadi. Those scholars who supported his fatwa were, Ibn Al-Kutbi Ash-Shafi'i, Muhammad Ibn Abdur-Rahman Al-Baghdadi, Abdul Mumin bin Abdul Khaliq Al-Khateeb, Jamaluddeen Yusuf Ibn Al-Batti Al-Hanbali, Abu Amr ibn Abil Waleed Al-Maliki, Abdullah Ibn Abil Waleed Al-Maliki etc. All these are mention in the same book Al-Uqud Ad-Duriyah.

'Allama Lucknawi praised Subki's work on Ziyarah, and i'm sure his own work was phenominal as well.

Everyone, among the supporter of shadd Rihal, who came after Allama Taqi Subki mostly depended on his book, so obviously they were going to praise it. As for those who disagree, they would probably claim that the book contains mistakes regarding Ilmul Hadith which even a beginer can identify.

Allama Lucknavi was of the view of wujub of Ziyarah of Prophets grave, which itself was an odd opinion famous among some zahiris.

[Ahlussunnah]

Who was Abu Bakr Ghazipuri? Look at his deception..
He translate a passage from the book of Imam Ibn Taymiyyah “Iqtidha As-Sirat” like this:
“praying at a place where Prophet (SAW) prayed was only mention from Ibn Umar only among all Sahaba. Doing this act is not the sunnah of Khulafa Rashideen, rather this was from the Bid’ah of Ibn Umar (ye Ibn Umar ki Bid’ato me se hai).”
This is how it was translated in the book “Kya Ibn Taymiyya Ulama e Ahle Sunnat me se hai”.
Look at the whole passage from the book of Ibn Taymiyyah:
فأما قصد الصلاة في تلك البقاع التي وصلى فيها اتفاقا فهذا لم ينقل عن غير ابن عمر من الصحابة بل كان أبو بكر وعمر وعثمان وعلي وسائر السابقين الأولين من المهاجرين والأنصار يذهبون من المدينة إلى مكة حجاجا وعمارا أو مسافرين ولم ينقل عن أحد منهم أنه تحرى الصلاة في مصليات النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم ومعلوم أن هذا لو كان عندهم مستحبا لكانوا إليه أسبق فإنهم أعلم بسنته وأتبع لها من غيرهم وقد قال صلى الله عليه و سلم عليكم بسنتي وسنة الخلفاء الراشدين المهديين من بعدي تمسكوا بها وعضوا عليها بالنواجذ وإياكم ومحدثات الأمور فإن كل محدثة بدعة وكل بدعة ضلالة وتحري هذا ليس من سنة الخلفاء الراشدين بل هو مما ابتدع وقول الصحابي وفعله إذا خالفه نظيره ليس بحجة فكيف إذا انفرد به عن جماهير الصحابة

The Ghazipuri only quoted a part of Arabic text and that too he wrongly translated.

[Ahlussunnah]

Shah Waliyullah Dehlavi had the same view...


قوله صلى الله عليه وسلم : ' لا تشد الرحال إلا إلى ثلاثة مساجد المسجد الحرام والمسجد الأقصى ، ومسجدي هذا ' أقول : كان أهل الجاهلية يقصدون مواضع معظمة بزعمهم يزورونها ، ويتبركون بها ، وفيه من التحريف والفساد ما لا يخفى ، فسد النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم الفساد لئلا يلتحق غير الشعائر بالشعائر ، ولئلا يصير ذريعة لعبادة غير الله ، والحق عندي أن القبر ومحل عبادة ولي من أولياء الله والطور كل ذلك سواء في النهي والله أعلم

(rough translation) And his saying: “No one should travel to visit (any Mosque) except three: Masjid Haraam, Masjid Aqsa and this Masjid.
I (Waliyullah Dehlavi) say: People of Jahiliyyah used to travel to visit sacred places according to them, they used to seek tabarru from it. And in this (practice) was distortion and Fasad which is not hidden. Therefore, the Prophet, sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam, closed the door of this Fasad so that the symbols (of religion) cannot be mixed with non-symbols. so that the door to worship other than Allah cannot be opened. And the truth, according to me, is that the grave and place of worship of Awliya and Mount Tur are all equal with regards to prohibition. And Allah Knows best.
[Hujjat Allah al-Balighah, chapter of Masajid, vol.1, page 325, Daar Al-Jeel]

Allama Shamsul Haq Azeemabadi also qouted this in Awn Al-Ma'bood.

[Zubair]

It seems you are blindly defending Mawlana Thanavi. Statement of Mawlana Thanavi on Ibn Taymiyya was worse than the view of Ibn Taymiyya regarding Imam Tahawi.

Nope, this is the opinoin of many of the Ulema who criticized Ibn taymiyya, amongts them 'Allama Lucknawi, Hafidh ibn Hajar and others. I don't want to dish out some of the things he said, as dr76 has done. Fact remains he was quick to judge, and he judged and critiqued many, wrongfully sometimes, and only a muta'ssiib will deny that.

I don't know about just criticism.. Bayhaqi has said even worse regarding Imam Tahawi but still i don't say Imam Bayhaqi was someone who didn't care about what other said, and he was extremist in his approach just like Mawlana Thanavi said regarding Ibn Taymiyyah. The point was, Ibn Taymiyyah said what he said based on his study, not just because of his ta'assub, how could it be when he himself, just after the sentence which was qouted by Allama Lucknavi, said that Imam Tahawi was a Faqih and Muhaddith. He only said that Imam Tahawi's knowledge in the field of criticism of hadith was not like other scholars of this field.

He seem to imply that those who agree with Mawlana Tahanwi reject everything of Ibn Taymiyya. Read ibn taymiyya's statement and you'll see the exaggeration.

If you don't agree with him then you have full right to criticize him 4 what he said regarding Tahawi. That doens't mean you can call him whatever, like he didn't have a good way of doing tahqeeq, and he kept on writing without caring about others and he didn't care for who was in front of him etc.

i never called him any name, the fact remains He was quick to judge, and was a Mutashadid.

Dhahabi was more balance than anyone in his books of Tarajum. The only reason the above scholars criticized him was because his salafism in aqeedah and his defense of Hanabila who according to them were Hashawis. Ibn Subki went on insulting his shaykh in his Tabaqat, and accused him of many thing. He even accused Imam Al-Mizzi, Barzali etc.

Imam Dhahabi did have a soft spot for hanabilahs, and no doubt he was one of the most just in his treatement of scholars.

Allama Lucknavi criticised him for speaking against people like Ibn Arabi who was a heretic according to majority of fuqaha. Most likely, Allama Lucknavi should be criticized for what he said regarding scholars like Dhahabi, not otherwise. Because if Dhahabi was not munsif in his approach then I don't know anyone better munsif than him in writing Biographies.

'Allama Lucknawi believed Ibn Arabi's works were tampered, and the words of sufis aren't taken at their face value all of the time.

If they have ignored it that doesn't mean Ibn Taymiyyah was going against Ijma. There was not any ijma on this at all. We hardly have selected qoute from mutaqaddimeen regarding the actual issu and that falls in support of Ibn Taymiyyah. Apparently the view of Imam Malik held same view, but those who came later they made taweel of his statement. Before Ibn Taymiyya, Qadhi Ayadh, Qadi Husain, Ibn Batta, Ibn Aqeel, Abu Muhammad Juwaini were also of this view. And when Ibn Taymiyya gave his fatwa, there were many scholars who supported him. Some of the fatwa is mention in the Al-Uqud Ad-Duriya by Ibn Abdul Hadi. Those scholars who supported his fatwa were, Ibn Al-Kutbi Ash-Shafi'i, Muhammad Ibn Abdur-Rahman Al-Baghdadi, Abdul Mumin bin Abdul Khaliq Al-Khateeb, Jamaluddeen Yusuf Ibn Al-Batti Al-Hanbali, Abu Amr ibn Abil Waleed Al-Maliki, Abdullah Ibn Abil Waleed Al-Maliki etc. All these are mention in the same book Al-Uqud Ad-Duriyah.

We don't have many things from the mutaqaddimin, the earlier scholars intent wasn't to exhuast everything, and this is the case with every single science. Majority of the scholars, and i'm sure you wouldn't deny it, had no problem with Shaddur Rihal.

Everyone, among the supporter of shadd Rihal, who came after Allama Taqi Subki mostly depended on his book, so obviously they were going to praise it. As for those who disagree, they would probably claim that the book contains mistakes regarding Ilmul Hadith which even a beginer can identify.

the work is praised not because of anything but the truth contained in it, scholars such as 'Allama Lucknawi were fair and just in their tahqiqat. And do tell us the mistakes that bigginer students can identify.

Allama Lucknavi was of the view of wujub of Ziyarah of Prophets grave, which itself was an odd opinion famous among some zahiris.

Can you reference this please, indeed some of the scholars, from the Ahnaf, said it's wajib, this is because of the usul of the madhaahab.

As for Ibn Taymiyya's statement of Sayyidina Ibn Umar, extrememly uncalled for. But let me guess you're going to defend him over the Sahabi's actions.

[Ahlussunnah]

What can be a more better example of Ta'assub....bbl. If the Ghazipuri was just in his mistranslation than Ahmed Raza Khan was better than him in his criticism of four deobandi scholars, any sane person can tell that Ghazipuris tahreef is worse than the tahreef of Raza Khan... But the ta'ssub... I'll reply at morning.

[SY1]

Ibnu Taymiyyah in the view of certain scholars

Ibnu Taymiyyah had exceeded the bounds regarding the Ahle Bait.
Hadhrat Thanwi had titled him and (his student) Ibnu Qayyim as Sultaan-ul-Qalam (masters of the pen) as they would continue writing without seeing whose head was being chopped off and who they were opposing.

Shah Abdul Azeez has written in Fatawaa Azeezi regarding Ibnu Taymiyyah that his words are not worthy of accepting.

Moulana Shams-ud-Deen Afghani had originally written his kitaab Al-Jawaahir-ul-Bahiyyah `ala Sharh-il-`Aqaaid-in-Nasafiyyah as a commentary, but in reality it was a refutation of Ibnu Taymiyyah.

However, Moulana Shabbeer Ahmad Uthmani was an admirer of Ibnu Taymiyyah. In Bazl-ul-Majhood, Hadhrat Moulana Khaleel Ahmad Saharanpuri had used the title “Shaikh-ul-Islam” for Ibnu Taymiyyah when quoting him and at times, he did
not accept his views.

However, in the zail (minor addition) of Tazkirat-ul-Huffaaz (Pg 316) it is mentioned that whoever gives the title of “Shaikh-ul-Islam”
to Ibnu Taymiyyah is a kaafir.


taken from malfuzaat faqihul ummat - mufti mehmud hasan gangohi

[SY1]

The statements of scholars regarding Ibnu Taymiyyah and Ibnu Qayyim

Our senior scholars have stated regarding Ibnu Taymiyyah and Ibnu Qayyim: (Their knowledge supersedes their intelligence.) The meaning of this is obvious. They explain the Hadeeth that speaks of Allah Ta`ala descending to the sky of the world by saying that Allah descends in the manner one descends from the higher step of a mimbar to the lower step. It is as if they have assumed a physical body for Allah Ta`ala. They are of the opinion of Allah Ta`ala having a bodily form.

taken from malfuzaat faqihul ummat - mufti mehmud hasan gangohi