[career-builder]

Argument 8

One of the harshest opponents of the Shias was Shaykh al-Islam Imam Ibn Taymiyyah(rah), who was one of the greatest scholars of Ahlesunnah and because of this some of his opponents have slandered him by claiming that he was a Nasibi (i.e. hater of Ahlel Bayt). Shiawesbsite[********************] refers to him as “Imam of the Nasibis, Ibn Taymiyya”. And yet, Ibn Taymiyyah was a lover of Ahlel Bayt; not only did he love the Ahlel Bayt, but he publically declared the necessity of loving the Ahlel Bayt as a part of the creed of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah. So here we would like to refute the commonly used arguments by Shias, which they use inorder to accuse Imam Ibn Taymiyyah(rah) for being a Nasibi.

Before we begin, we would like to make of readers aware regarding the accusations of Shias, that most of the time the Shias misquote Ibn taymiyyah’s statements and misinterpret them. Here is what another esteemed scholar of Ahlesunnah have said regarding these accusations against Imam Ibn Taymiyyah.

With regard to accusation of Nasibism on Imam Ibn Taymiyah, Shah Waliyullah said:
“and it was said that he (Ibn Taymiyyah) showed bad manner while talking about Sayyiduna Ali, may Allah be pleased with him. And I read his statements, so I found some of his statements were actually said in refutation of shia in their insult of the three caliphs for the things which they (the shia) thought to be bad. So this Shaykh (Ibn Taymiyyah) stands for mentioning things like that which existed in Ali (RA). As though he is saying, these things are not actually shortcomings as you have assumed it to be. Because these same things are proven from Sayyidna Ali, and he, may Allah be pleased with him, is well accepted by both shia and sunnis. So the answer you give in defense of Ali (ra) is our answer with regards to the three caliphs. And this was from his (Ibn Taymiyyah’s) great knowledge and powerful ability of debate and his acceptance of the virtues of Sayyidna Ali.” [Taken from Shaykh Muhammad Basheer Siyalkoti’s biography of Shah Waliyullah (pg. 54-59) referring it to "Maktubat Shah Waliyullah" (pg. 18-23)]
Refutation of the accusations of Shiawebsite[********************] against Imam Ibn Taymiyyah(rah)

Accusation 1

While comparing Abu Bakar with Ali bin Abi Talib [as], Ibn Taimiyah states in Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 7 page 331:

وان ولايته الأمة خير من ولاية علي وان منفعته للمسلمين في دينهم ودنياهم اعظم من منفعة علي
“His reign is better than Ali’s reign and his benefit to Muslims in their religion and life is greater than Ali’s”

We don’t know how this is an insult towards Ali [ra]. Ibn Taymiyyah said that Abu Bakr’s reign was better than Ali, not that Ali’s reign was bad. If a sunni says that Abu Bakr was higher in status than Ali, it doesn’t mean Ali’s status was low. Similarly, just before the above qoute Imam Ibn Taymiyya states:
وانه كان اكمل عقلا ودينا وسياسة من الثلاثة
“and he (Abu Bakr) was better in intelligence, religion & politics than the three (Umar, Uthman & Ali).”

Does this mean he was insulting the three caliphs??

Truthseekers can analyze that how pathetic and silly arguments shias create inorder to insult and accuse the reviver of Islam Ibn Taymiyyah(rah).



Accusation 2

Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 8 page 230:

وعلي يقاتل ليطاع ويتصرف في النفوس والأموال فكيف يجعل هذا قتالا على الدين
“Ali fought to secure obedience and rule the people and money, so how can that be deemed as fighting for sake of religion?”

This is a Half quote by Shiawebsite[********************] inorder to fool the ignorant Shias, because they know very well that any lie or false accusation against Ibn Taymiyyah can easily be pushed among the ignorant Shias.

Here is what Ibn Taymiyyah(rah) said:
وعلي يقاتل ليطاع ويتصرف في النفوس والأموال فكيف يجعل هذا قتالا على الدين وأبو بكر يقاتل من ارتد عن الإسلام ومن ترك ما فرض الله ليطيع الله ورسوله فقط ولا يكون هذا قتالا على الدين
“Ali fought to save leadership and to took control over people and property, so how come this is considered the fight for the cause of religion and Abu Bakr fighting apostates and those who stopped giving what was compulsory on them is not the fighting in the cause of religion.”

Explanation: Ibn Taymiyyah’s argument was, if Abu Bakr’s Jihad was not for the sake of religion than Ali’s Jihad was also not for better cause than Abu Bakr. To understand the answer of Ibn taymiyyah we should see the context when he said these words. And when we check that then we will find thatIbn Taymiyyah was actually answering the argument of Shia scholar Al-Hilee, who said that Abu Bakr fought against Banu Hanifa by falsely labelling them as apostates.

Ibn Taymiyya did not say that Ali’s Jihad was not for the sake of religion. He said in his Fatawa…

قال رحمه الله عند الكلام على حديث ( ويح عمار تقتله الفئة الباغية ، يدعوهم إلى الجنة ويدعونه إلى النار ) . حديث صحيح متفق عليه و اللفظ للبخاري .
قال : و هذا أيضاً يدل على صحة إمامة علي و وجوب طاعته

مجموع الفتاوى (4/437

The hadeeth (Oh Ammar will kill him the transgressing group, he calls them to heaven and they call him to hell) is a Sahih hadeeth and agreed upon and this text is Bukharis’s. Ibn Taymiyyah said: and this is proof of the correctness of the leadership of Ali and obeying him.





Accusation 3

We read in Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 8 page 205:

وأما إسلام علي فهل يكون مخرجا له من الكفر على قولين
There are two opinions as to whether Ali’s conversion to Islam released him from kufr or not”

Again even this statement should be analyzed in the context in which it was said, because Ibn Taymiyyah was answering Al-Hilee’s argument that first three caliph were idol-worshippers before their conversion and Ali was Muwahhid from his childhood. Ibn Taymiyyah just applied two fiqh opinions on Ali’s conversion for the sake of answering Shias scholar(al hilli), not necessarily it was his own opinion.



Accusation 4

Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 4 page 137:

وعلي رضي الله عنه كان قصده أن يتزوج عليها فله في أذاها غرض
“Ali intended to marry so as to hurt her (Fatima) on purpose.”

Again Ibn taymiyyah was answering the Shia scholar(al hilli) and this response can easily be understood by those who have common sense. When Abu Bakr was the reason of Fatima’s [ra] anger, then Abu Bakr did not had any intention to do something for his own sake. All he was doing is to save the money for poor and needy. But when Ali was the reason for Fatima’s anger then Ali had his own requirement or need. He was not marrying for someone else, wal ‘iyadh bilAllah, unlike Abu Bakr who was doing that for the sake of poor and needy and was just following Prophet’s [SAW]‘s command.

Now the argument was…. If if if Abu Bakr became Kaffir by hurting Prophet’s daughter (hence hurt Prohet{saw}), then what about the fact that Ali also hurt her, having the fact that Abu Bakr’s intention was to take care of poor and to implement Prophet’s command, on the other hand Ali’s intention was to marry so as to fulfill his own need.

Note that, We are concluding all this in our own words because the discussion in Mihaj As-Sunnah is long. One can just check the book, with the references given by Shiawebsite, to get the whole picture. We’re just representing the scenario of his statements in short.



Accusation 5

Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 7 page 172:

وقد أنزل الله تعالى في على يا أيها الذين آمنوا لا تقربوا الصلاة وأنتم سكارى حتى تعلموا ما تقولون لما صلى فقرا وخلطوا
“Allah had revealed for Ali {O ye who believe! Draw not near unto prayer when ye are drunken, till ye know that which ye utter,} when he prayed and recited and then got mixed up.”

It was about when the wine was NOT prohibited. This incident took place when consummation of wine was permissible, hence no insult for any companions. It’s just a hadeeth which Ibn Taymiyyah qouted in his book. This hadeeth was also qouted by Tahawi, Tabri, Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir, Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud and loads of other scholars.

We know that offering Salah(prayers) in direction other than Kaba is not lawful, yet we will find that Sahaba(ra) including Ali(ra) offered Salah in direction of Bait ul Muqaddas for a particular period of time. Now will the Shias accuse Ali(ra) and Sahaba(ra) for offering Salah in an incorrect direction? No, not at all, because at that time Bayt ul Muqaddas was made as Qibla of muslims and it was lawful to offer prayers in that direction. So similarly when Ali(ra) or other Sahaba(ra) consumed wine then at that time drinking of wine had not been made unlawful, it was permissible to consume wine at that time.

So Ali(ra) didn’t do anything against Shariah, neither Ibn Taymiyyah claimed so, then how could this silly argument be used to denote that Ibn taymiyyah(ra) was Nasibi?



Accusation 6

Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 3 page 53:

فإنه لما أمرهم بقيام الليل فاعتل علي رضي الله عنه بالقدر وأنه لو شاء الله لأيقظنا علم النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أن هذا ليس فيه إلا مجرد الجدل الذي ليس بحق فقال وكان الإنسان أكثر شيء جدلا.
“When he (the Prophet) ordered them to offer the night prayer, Ali [ra] came up with the prepared excuse that ‘if Allah wants he will wake us up’, the prophet realized that this was merely an argument that was not right, therefore he recited {but man is more than anything contentious}”.

Firstly the Shias have inserted a particular word in the translation inorder to portray Ibn taymiyyah in a negative manner. Here is more correct translation:

Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 3 page 53:

فإنه لما أمرهم بقيام الليل فاعتل علي رضي الله عنه بالقدر وأنه لو شاء الله لأيقظنا علم النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أن هذا ليس فيه إلا مجرد الجدل الذي ليس بحق فقال وكان الإنسان أكثر شيء جدلا

” When he (the Prophet) ordered them to offer the night prayer, ‘Ali (ra) used the excuse of Qadar, that if Allah wills He will wake us up ……

Note:We don’t find any word such as “prepared” before the word “excuse” in the text.

Secondly, this was merely an explanation of an authentic narration by Ibn Taymiyyah. Ibn taymiyyah didn’t invent anything from his own, and we must keep in mind that Ali(ra) was not infallible, he used to make humanly errors. This is in contradiction to the Shiism not with Islam. That is why the Shias try to make a big fuss out of it. But as far as Ahlesunnah is concerned then they don’t believe that any of the companion of Prophet(saw) was infallible. On the contrary they have several examples in their authentic books regarding fallible nature of some high ranking Sahaba(ra)[exclusing Ali(ra)]. So this argument by Shias, has not got any solid base.



Accusation 7

Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 8 page 161:

وعلي قد اختلف فيه هل حفظ القرآن كله أم لا
“Ali, there is disagreement about him as to whether he had memorized the whole Quran or not.”

How is this, a kind of insult? There were many great companions who were not Huffaz(memorizers of Quran). Neither is it compulsory to memorize the whole Quran. Secondly the statement of Ibn Taymiyyah just implies that there isn’t a definite proof to declare that Ali(ra) had memorized the whole Quran. And anyone who is unbiased will surely say this is in no way an insult towards Ali(ra).



Accusation 8

Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 6 page 67:

ولم يحصل بقتلهم مصلحة للمسلمين لا في دينهم ولا في دنياهم بل نقص الخير عما كان وزاد الشر
“Their fighting served no benefit for the Muslims in their religion nor in their life, on the contrary the good had been decreased and the evil had been increased.”

Again this is a half quote by shiawebsite. Ibn Taymiyya was replying to the Shia scholar’s argument that Umar used his own Ra’y (opinion) in matter of Talaq(divorce) etc. To this Ibn Taimiya replied that there is nothing bad in using Ra’iy and most of the Sahaba also used their own logic and view, including Ali [ra].

Ibn Taymiyah was trying to refute Shia scholar by arguing that, If one can excuse some selected people(like Ali, etc) for having opinions which in future caused bloodshed among Muslims and did not give any benefit to muslim, then why can’t Umar be excused for having his opinions on small matters.

Do we need to state that the fightings among companions was of no benefit to this Ummah. Thats why we call it ‘Fitna among Sahaba’. This is what Ibn Taymiyyah was saying.

Ibn Taymiyya’s statement:
ومعلوم أن الرأي إن لم يكن مذموما فلا لوم على من قال به وإن كان مذموما فلا رأى أعظم ذما من رأي أريق به دم ألوف مؤلفة من المسلمين ولم يحصل بقتلهم مصلحة للمسلمين لا في دينهم ولا في دنياهم بل نقص الخير عما كان وزاد الشر على ما كان فإذا كان مثل هذا الرأي لا يعاب به فرأى عمر وغيره في مسائل الفرائض والطلاق أولى أن لا يعاب مع أن عليا شركهم في هذا الرأي وامتاز برأيه في الدماء

Translation: and it is known that if the opinion is not blameworthy then there is no blame on the one who argued it and if it were blame worthy then there is no blame greater than an opinion that lead to spilling of blood of thousands and thousands of Muslims when no good to the benefit of the muslims happened by their killing, not in their religion and not in their lives. Instead the good became less than it was and the bad became more than it was. So, if such an opinion does not make it’s holder blameworthy, then the opinion of Umar and others in the issues of Faraid and divorce are more worthy not to make him blameworthy. This is in addition that Ali agreed with them in this opinion but was alone in his opinion related to blood.



Accusation 9

Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 4 page 20:

قوله في على إنه كان يصلي الف ركعة فإن هذا لا فضيلة فيه
“His (Allamah Heli’s) statement that Ali would pray one thousand raka, surely there is no virtue in it”

This is true, because it’s against Prophet’s[saw] sunnah. However at the same time Ibn Taymiyya said that it’s unproven from Ali. So the whole accusation of Shias is baseless.



Accusation 10

It is interesting that Ibn al Hashimi had argued that Ibn Taimiyah loved the Ahl’ul bayt (as). But the reality was comments like the above that we cited that were so outrageous that we read in Lisan al-Mizan, by ibn Hajar, Volume 6, page 320:

وكم من مبالغة لتوهين كلام الرافضي أدته أحيانا إلى تنقيص علي رضي الله عنه
“The exaggeration in refuting the Rafidhi text has sometimes taken him to towards belittling Ali [ra]“

This was personal view of Imam Ibn Hajar(rah). A scholar’s opinion is not hujjah against another scholar. Besides we have just seen that Ibn Taymiyyah(rah) never belittled Ali [ra]. In fact that was his own style of refuting the opponents through using opponent’s logic against them. And some times people failed to understand this style of refuting the opponents, which led them to criticize Ibn taymiyyah(rah).

So let us quote before our readers the clarification and explanation for this style of Ibn Taymiyyah(rah) , by another esteemed scholar of Ahlesunnah:

With regard to accusation of Nasibism on Imam Ibn Taymiyah, Shah Waliyullah said:
“and it was said that he (Ibn Taymiyyah) showed bad manner while talking about Sayyiduna Ali, may Allah be pleased with him. And I read his statements, so I found some of his statements were actually said in refutation of shia in their insult of the three caliphs for the things which they (the shia) thought to be bad. So this Shaykh (Ibn Taymiyyah) stands for mentioning things like that which existed in Ali (RA). As though he is saying, these things are not actually shortcomings as you have assumed it to be. Because these same things are proven from Sayyidna Ali, and he, may Allah be pleased with him, is well accepted by both shia and sunnis. So the answer you give in defense of Ali (ra) is our answer with regards to the three caliphs. And this was from his (Ibn Taymiyyah’s) great knowledge and powerful ability of debate and his acceptance of the virtues of Sayyidna Ali.” [Taken from Shaykh Muhammad Basheer Siyalkoti’s biography of Shah Waliyullah (pg. 54-59) referring it to "Maktubat Shah Waliyullah" (pg. 18-23)]

And if this doesn’t seem to be a satisfactory response to shias then let us place a mirror before them, which will surely shut their mouths.

In the introduction to “Man la Yahduruhu al-Faqih” the Shia scholar al-’Allamah al-Sheikh Muhammad Jawad al-Faqih writes:

مقدمة كتاب من لايحضره الفقيه – ج 1 – ص 709/ جواز السهو على النبي (ص) وسماه اسهاء من الله تعالى تبع في رايه ذلك شيخه محمد بن الحسن بن الوليد وتبعه على رأيه ذلك الشيخ الطبرسي في مجمع البيان كما نقل عنه التنكانبي في قصص العلماء والسيد الجزائري في الانوار النعمانية وفخر الدين الطريحي في مجمع البيان مادة (بدا) والمحقق الفيض الكاشاني في الوافي على مايظهر من كلامه ونقل عن الشيخ البهائي رحمه الله انه قال : ( الحمد لله الذي قطع عمره ولم يوفقه لكتابة مثل ذلك ) ونقل عن الشيخ أحمد الاحسائي انه قال : ( الصدوق في هذه المسألة كذوب ) ولايخلو قولهما من سوء ادب نربأ بامثالهما عن ذلك ونسأل الله العصمة والتوفيق . . . أ.هـ
(9) The permissibility of Sahu (forgetfulness) for the Prophet SAWS: From those who saw this are Muhammad bin al-Hassan bin al-Walid and from those who followed him in his opinion are Sheikh al-Tabrasi in Majma’a al-Bayan as reported from him by Sheikh al-Tinkanbi in Qasas al-’Ulemaa, also al-Sayyed al-Jazaeri in al-Anwar al-Nu’umaniyyah, also Fakhr al-Deen al-Tarihi in Majma’a al-Bayan and al-Muhaqqiq al-Faydh al-Kashani in al-Wafi from what is apparent. It is reported by al-Sheikh al-Bahaee (rah) that he said (About al-Saduq): “Praise be to Allah who cut his life and did not allow him to write what he intended.” and Sheikh Ahmad al-Ahissaee said (About al-Saduq): “In this matter al-Saduq is a liar.” both of them have displayed poor Adab by saying this and we did not expect this from people such as them…( introduction of Man la Yahduruhu al-Faqih vol.1 pg.70)

From this example we find that a shia scholar called another esteemed Shia scholar “al sadooq” as a liar, So will the shias now consider sheikh Al sadooq as liar, just because another Shia scholar called him so?



Accusation 10

Ibn Taimiyah’s views of Sayyida Fatima Zahra (as)
Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 5 page 522:

فإن أبا بكر إمام لا يتصرف لنفسه بل للمسلمين ، والمال لم يأخذه لنفسه بل للمسلمين ، وفاطمة تطلب لنفسها
Verily Abu Bakr is an Imam who did not act for himself but for the Muslims and as for the money, he did not take it for himself but for the Muslims whilst Fatima was demanding it for herself.

Again an argument, whih implies that if according to Shias Abu Bakr(ra) has to be cursed for not giving fadak then according to this logic Fatima(ra) should also be, because Abu Bakr(ra) was not giving Fadak so as to save it for poor, and Fatima(ra) was asking for herself. So why Abu Bakr is to be cursed and not Fatima, may Allah be please with both of them. That is called ‘Ilzami Jawab’ in urdu(something similar to counter attack). This isn’t an insult on any of these great personalities(Fatima and Abubakr), but its using the logic of opponents against them.

This is the full statement of Ibn Taymiyyah…
وليس تبرئة الإنسان لفاطمة من الظن والهوى بأولى من تبرئة أبي بكر فإن أبا بكر إمام لا يتصرف لنفسه بل للمسلمين والمال لم يأخذه لنفسه بل للمسلمين وفاطمة تطلب لنفسها

Translation: It is more worthy to declare that Abu Bakr is free from suspicion and desires than to declare this for Fatima, because Abu Bakr is an Imam who acts for the Muslims and not for himself, he did not take the money for himself but gave it to the Muslims while Fatima asked for this money for herself.



Accusation 11

Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 4 page 132:

أو ليس الله قد ذم المنافقين الذين قال فيهم ومنهم من يلمزك في الصدقات فإن أعطوا منها ورضا وإن لم يعطوا منها إذا هم يسخطون ولو نهم رضوا ما اتاهم الله ورسوله وقالوا حسبنا الله سيوتينا الله من فضله ورسوله إنا إلى الله راغبون فذكر الله قوما رضوا إن اعطوا وغضبوا إن لم يعطوا فذمهم بذلك
Hasn’t Allah (swt) condemned the hypocrites those who said about them {And of them is he who defameth thee in the matter of the alms. If they are given thereof they are content, and if they are not given thereof, behold! they are enraged. If only they had been content with what Allah and His Messenger gave them, and had said, “Sufficient unto us is Allah! Allah and His Messenger will soon give us of His bounty to Allah do we turn our hopes} Allah mentioned people that if they are given they will be pleased, but if they are not given they get angry, and Allah condemned them.

Ibn taymiyyah was refuting the shia scholar who made the anger of Fatima [ra] as something praiseworthy. Ibn taymiiyah refutes the argument of shia scholar( al hilli) by saying that how could it be praiseworthy when Allah condemn this in Qu’ran. So this doesn’t mean that Ibn taymiyyah(rah) was calling Fatima [ra] a hypocrite.(Mazallah). How could it be when Ibn taymiyyah himself, after two three line, called Fatima(ra) “the leader of women of paradise”.?

It’s just the sickness in the brains of Shias, which stops them from understanding the statements of taymiyyah.



Accusation 12

Ibn Taimiyah then proceeds to widen his attacks further to encompass Imam Ali bin Muhammad al-Hadi (as) and Imam Hassan Askari (as) whom he referred to as ‘Askaris’:

“Verily al-Zuhari is more knowledgeable about the Prophetic hadiths, statements and actions than Abu Jafar Muhammad bin Ali and the scholars agreed on that, and (al-Zuhari) was a contemporary of the Prophet (s).
However regarding Musa bin Jafar, Ali bin Musa and Muhammad bin Ali, no one among those who possess knowledge doubt that Malik bin Anas, Hamaad bin Zaid, Hamaad bin Salama, al-Laith bin Saad, al-Awzaei, Yahya bin Saeed, W’akei bin al-Jarah, Abdullah bin al-Mubarak, al-Shafiyee, Ahmad bin Hanbal, Ishaq bin Rahwei and others were more knowledgeable about the Prophetetic hadith than them”Minhaj al Sunnah, Volume 2 page 460-462

How could these views of Imam Ibn Taymiyyah be considered as hatred for Ahlebayt? Ofcourse from the glasses of Rafidism this may appear so, but not according to the mainstream muslims because it isn’t impossible that Non-Ahlebayt could be more knowledgeable than some members from Ahlebayt. This isn’t a correct belief that no one could be more knowledgable than Ahlebayt, and infact there are solid proofs which shows us that this is just the myth of Shias.

Secondly, even this view of Ibn taymiyyah could never be counted as signs of hatred for Ahlebayt, because Ibn Taymiyyah(ra), didn’t say that those Imams DIDN’T have any knowledge at all. He just said some other scholars were more knowledgeable than them. Likewise if one says that honey is sweeter than sugar, then does this mean that sugar is not sweet? Or if any shia says that classical shia scholar sheikh sadooq was more knowledgeable than supreme leader of Iran Khomeini then does it mean that Shia possesses a kind of hatred for Khomeini? What sort of foolishness is this by the Shias?

Thirdly if indeed Ibn taymiyyah(rah) wanted to insult Ahlebayt or that he possessed hatred for them, then he would have said the same thing for ALL the Imams from Ahlebayt. Not just a few later ones. Let us cite before you that what Ibn taymiyyah said regarding some other Imams:

Ali ibn Abi Taalib, al-Hasan and al-Husayn (may Allaah be pleased with them). They are noble Sahaabah and no one doubts their virtue and leadership, but many others shared with them the virtue of being companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and among the Sahaabah there are others who were more virtuous than them, based on saheeh (authentic) evidence from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). (Where as) Ali ibn al-Husayn(4th shia Imam), Muhammad ibn ‘Ali al-Baaqir(5th), Ja’far ibn Muhammad al-Saadiq(6th) and Moosa ibn Ja’far.(7th) They are among the trustworthy and reliable scholars. [Minhaaj al-Sunnah (2/243, 244)]

Thus we leave the case to unbiased people with sense and wisdom, to judge how stupid and silly the Shia arguments are, inorder to attack the great scholar of Ahlesunnah.
Love of Ibn taymiyyah for Ahlebayt:

Lastly to clear before our readers that Ibn taymiyyah(rah) was a true lover of Ahlebayt and all the allegations against him were based on misinterpretations , misquotations and misunderstanding. We would like to present before our readers some of the views of Ibn Taymiyyah(rah) regarding Ahlebayt.

1. Sheikhul-islam Taqiad-deen Abul Abbas Ahmad ibn Abdulhaleem ibn Taymiya said:

وأما من قتل ” الحسين ” أو أعان على قتله أو رضي بذلك فعليه لعنة الله والملائكة والناس أجمعين
“As for killers of Hussein, or those who helped to kill him, or those who were glad with his murder, may curse of Allah, angels and all human be upon them”.

He further said:

من أبغضهم فعليه لعنة الله والملائكة والناس أجمعين
“May curse of Allah, angels and all human be upon the one who would hate them (ahlel-bayt)”.[See “Majmua Fatawa” 1/392].

2. Ibn Taymiyyah said: “The best men of this Ummah after its Prophet are: Abu Bakr; then Umar; third: Uthman; and fourth: Ali Ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with them all).” (Ibn Taymiyyah, Al-Aqeedah Al-Wasitiyyah, Chapter 4)

3. Ibn Taymiyyah said:

وأما علي رضي الله عنه فلا ريب أنه ممن يحب الله ويحبه الله
“And Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, without any doubt is from people who loved Allah, and who were beloved by Allah”.[See: Minhaj us sunna 7 / 218]

4. Ibn taymiyyah said:

وأما كون عليّ وغيره مولى كل مؤمن ، فهو وصف ثابت لعليّ في حياة النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وبعد مماته، وبعد ممات عليّ، فعلي اليوم مولى كل مؤمن
“And Ali and others were mawla of all believers. That’s a description established for Ali during the life of prophet (sallalahu alayhi wa ala alihi wa salam), and after his death, and after the death of Ali (himself). And Ali today is a mawla(friend) of all believers”.[See: Minhaj us sunna 7 / 325]

5. Ibn taymiyyah said:

لا ريب أن موالاة علي واجبة على كل مؤمن، كما يجب على كل مؤمن موالاة أمثاله من المؤمنين
“No doubt that mawlat (friendship) of Ali is obligatory for all believers, as it obligatory on all believers mawlat of believers like him”. [See: Minhaj us sunna 7 / 27]

6. Ibn taymiyyah said:

لا ريب أن علياً رضي الله عنه كان من شجعان الصحابة، وممن نصر الله الإسلام بجهاده، ومن كبار السابقين الأوَّلين من المهاجرين والأنصار، ومن
سادات من آمن بالله واليوم الآخر وجاهد في سبيل الله، وممن قاتل بسيفه عدداً من الكفار

“No doubt that Ali is from the bravest companions, and from those by whose jihad Allah granted victory to islam, and from the greatest who “first to lead the way, of the Muhajirin and the Ansar”.[See: Minhaj us sunna 8 / 76]

7. Ibn Taymiyyah said: “The Ahlus Sunnah should love the Prophet’s family, give them support, and honor the Prophet’s will in regards to them, as he said at Ghadir Khumm: ‘I ask you by Allah to take care of my family; I ask you by Allah to take care of my family.’” (Ibn Taymiyyah, Al-Aqeedah Al-Wasitiyyah, Chapter 4)

8. Ibn taymiyyah said: “They (Ahlus Sunnah) love the people of the household of the Messenger of Allah; they regard them with love and loyalty, and they heed the command of the Messenger of Allah concerning them…but they reject the way of the (Shia) Rafidhis who hate the Sahabah and slander them, and they reject the way of the Nasibis who insult Ahlel Bayt in words and deed.” (Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmoo al-Fatawa, 3/154)

Thus the accusation that Ibn Taymiyyah was Nasibi is one of the most absurd myth, that is always propagated by Shiawebsite amongst ignorant Shias. As we can see, that Ibn Taymiyyah always encouraged in Loving Ahlebayt, and calling it the way of Ahlesunnah. And Ibn taymiyyah himself condemned the creed of Nasibis. Taken from
http://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress....ma%E2%80%99ah/