[cokLoolioli]

Assalaamu Alaykum,

You can download it here: http://www.archive.org/download/aslein4/kalemat.pdf

A brother made some remarks about this book here: http://attahawi.com/2009/06/25/kalim...h-abu-ghuddah/

I just globally read the book and I totally disagree with his short review. This book contains a lot more than just a refutation of Shaykh Albani, which he hardly even mentioned by name.

This book was written because of the lies which were spread about Shaykh Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghuddah. It was said that he declared Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah, Imam Ibn al-Qayyim and Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab as unbelievers, while the opposite is the case.

He shows that he has immense respect for the above persons, and praises them a lot and gives references to his early works and tahqiqs where he talked about Ibn Taymiyya.

- He gives Ibn Taymiyya numerous times lofty titles such as "Shaykh al-Islam" and declares it nonsense that he declared him an unbeliever (p. 24-30).

- He gives immense praise to his student Ibn al-Qayyim and refutes the lie attributed to him that he declared him kafir (p. 30-35). He again refers to his other tahqiqs that were published.

- His refutation of istigatha with the dead (p. 35-38). It was said that he declared it permissible and the one who says that it is shirk: he himself is an unbeliever. This is not the case and totally baatil and asks them "Where did I say that?". Then he says that istigatha is not permissible. He also refers to one of his earlier tahqiq where he refuted the wording 'ghawth al-thaqalayn' used by Imam Abd al-Hayy al-Lucknawi.

- He gives respect to Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and calls him Imam al-Da'wa and states "Allah have mercy on him" behind his name.

- He agrees with the division of tawhid made by Ibn Taymiyya (p. 38).

- He discusses the stance of his teacher Imam Kawthari, and states that he is just one of his many teachers. It does not mean that he is supposed to agree with everything what Imam Kawthari said. Then he stated that he had one big Shaykh in Halab who was totally in love with Ibn Taymiyyah, and said that "If prophethood was not ended, Ibn Taymiyyah would have been a Nabi" (!). See page 39.

- Then in the end he refutes the claim of Albani who said that Isa alayhis salam wil rule according to the Qur'an and the Sunnah, not with the bible or Hanafi fiqh. (p. 40)

- He also dealt with those people who declared Abu Hanifa a Kafir.

- He deals with a discussion about the hijab of a muslim woman (p. 43).

- He also mentioned how he wrote to Imam Zafar Ahmad Thanwi to take back his words against Ibn Taymiyyah when he disagreed with Imam Tahawi. Imam Zafar Ahmad Usmani agreed and changed his remark and did tawba.

- In the footnotes on p. 21 he also mentioned the Deobandi Shaykh Habib al-Rahman al-A'zami with lofty titles and refers to his refutation of Shaykh Albani.

I would say that this book is more of a refutation against some of the hardliners amongst the Muslims who speak very badly about Ibn Taymiyya and call him a kafir or a deviant.

Wassalaam

[sarasaraseda]

Assalam o alaykum,

JazakAllah for this interesting review.

[forebirdo]

Would you be able to translate some parts of it?

[gyjsdtuwr]

Assalaamu Alaykum,


- Then in the end he refutes the claim of Albani who said that Isa alayhis salam wil rule according to the Qur'an and the Sunnah, not with the bible or Hanafi fiqh. (p. 40)

is the Shaykh suggesting that sayyidina Isa will NOT rule by Islamic Shariah?

[qzgCVHex]

Was Shaykh Abd al-Fattah an ash'ari/maturidi?
Other than the obvious signs ie. being a hanafi, student of Shaykh al-Kawthari etc. are there any other indications as to what his 'aqidah was?

[chzvacmyye]

Assalâmu 'Alaykum,

Was Shaykh 'Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghuddah aware of the 'Aqidah of Ibn Taymiyyah (i.e took a deep look in his 'Aqidah books)? Maybe he believes that he repented or simply isn't aware of his 'Aqidah.

[cokLoolioli]

Was Shaykh Abd al-Fattah an ash'ari/maturidi?
Other than the obvious signs ie. being a hanafi, student of Shaykh al-Kawthari etc. are there any other indications as to what his 'aqidah was?

Assalaamu Alaykum,

He says he is on the Aqida of the Salaf which perfectly falls under the Maturidi/Ash'ari schools. He says when it comes to the Aqida on Asma as-Sifat, he affirms what Allah has affirmed for Himself and what the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) affirmed for Allah, without ta'wil, tahrif, tashbih and tamthil. See p. 37.:

[cokLoolioli]

is the Shaykh suggesting that sayyidina Isa will NOT rule by Islamic Shariah?

No ofcourse not. He only mentioned the claim of Shaykh Albani who put Hanafi fiqh with the bible in one line and stated that Isa (alayhissalam) will not rule according to this or something else, but only with the Qur'an and the Sunnah, as if Hanafi fiqh is something else than the Qur'an and the Sunnah.

[ExelePlavisseu]

The reason why Shaykh Albani mentioned the hanafi madhab was because of the statements of some of the Ahnaf that Sayyidina 'Isa will follow the hanafi madhab, when in reality he will be a Mujtahid. I don't think Shaykh Albani intended any malice, at least in that particular statement, towards the Hanafi Madhab.

Ma' Salama

Shaykh AbdulFattah edited some works of Ibn taymiyya and Ibn Qayyim, so i'm pretty sure he was aware of his 'Aqidah, Shaykh AbdulFattah was one who overlooked the bad, and took the good. And know that Ulema throughout centuries have praised Ibn Taymiyya, amongts them Mulla 'Ali Qari and 'Allama 'Ayni. You might want to read the work by Allama Mari' in which Ulema have praised him (Ulema from other than the Hanbali Madhab).

[freddystone]

You might want to read the work by Allama Mari' in which Ulema have praised him (Ulema from other than the Hanbali Madhab).

it would be nice if you mention the name of the book.

[gyjsdtuwr]

as if Hanafi fiqh is something else than the Qur'an and the Sunnah.

dont get me wrong brother i wasnt suggesting that it is something else i myself follow the blessed madhhab of Imam abu Hanifa ra.

the Hanafi madhhab is ofcourse established on the Quran and Sunnah.

[ExelePlavisseu]

it would be nice if you mention the name of the book.

http://al-mostafa.info/data/arabic/d...ostafa.com.pdf

الشهاده الزكيه في ثناء الائمه علي ابن تيميه By 'Allama Mari'

[sarasaraseda]

http://al-mostafa.info/data/arabic/d...ostafa.com.pdf

الشهاده الزكيه في ثناء الائمه علي ابن تيميه By 'Allama Mari'

Assalam o alaykum,

Did Shaykh al-Islam 'Allamah Ayni (may Allah have mercy on him) said that anyone who declares Hafiz ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) to be kafir is a kafir himself and anyone who declares him zindiq is a zindiq himself?

[chzvacmyye]

amongts them Mulla 'Ali Qari and 'Allama 'Ayni. You might want to read the work by Allama Mari' in which Ulema have praised him (Ulema from other than the Hanbali Madhab).

There can be many reasons for Mulla 'Aliy al-Qâri (رحمه الله), one thing is sure he wasn't aware of the beliefs of Ibn Taymiyyah through reliable reports or didn't have the books himself for he himself stated;

Sħarĥ Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar:
“فمن أظلم ممن كذب على الله أو ادعى ادعاء معينا مشتملا على اثبات المكان والهيئة والجهة من مقابلة وثبوت مسافة وأمثال تلك الحالة، فيصير كافرا لا محالة) اهـ.
“Who is more unjust than the one that lied about Aļļaah, or claimed something that included affirming (to Him) a place, shape or direction such as facing, distance and the like… Such a person becomes a kaafir (non-Muslim) without doubt (P. 355).”

–Sharh Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar, Ali Al-Qari, Dar Al-Basħa’ir Al-Islamiyah, Beirut, 1998.

I don't know which books Shaykh 'Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghudda (رحمه الله) edited but it looks like he didn't read all of his books or it could be that he believed in Ibn Taymiyyah's repentance.

الله اعلم

[ExelePlavisseu]

Sidi KhanBaba, i think i did read that, but obviously those statements have no bearing on the issues, statements like those are rejected.

Sidi Zulfiqar, Mulla 'Ali Qari was very well aware of Ibn taymiyya, why do i say that? Because his shaykh, Ibn Hajar Haytami, was very clear on his position on Ibn taymiyya, yet Mulla 'Ali Qari takes the opposite position. Not to mention, if you look at the works of two of them, there seems to be some sort of battle (don't know if that's the right word). For example, both have commentary on Shamail, Mishkat, attesting to someone going to jannah, etc, their position on Ibn Arabi are different as well. About six works total. Now to say that Mulla 'Ali wasn't aware of Ibn taymiyya doesn't seem to hold much weight (in my opinion). And if you look at Sharh Fiqhul Akbar, yes he was maturdi, but he did agree with ithbat of Sifat, and not doing interpretation, as was the stance of Imam al-'Adham.

As for Shaykh AbdulFattah not reading Ibn taymiyya's work, if you read his ta'liqs, at least the ones i've read, he cross references very well, and thus he cross references much of Ibn Taymiyya's work, as i've seen in Ajwaba al-Fadilah, and others. Not to mention him editing Ibn taymiyya's and his student's work.

You might want to read the book i linked.

ma' Salama

[qzgCVHex]

So how does one reconcile between Mulla Ali al-Qari's statement in the sharh, if some of those beliefs were indeed held by Ibn Taymiyyah, and his saying that Ibn Taymiyyah is amongst the awliya of ahl al-sunnah, despite being apparently aware of his beliefs?

Also he regards Ibn Abi al-'Izz a mubtadi', but was he not on the same 'aqidah as Ibn Taymiyyah?

And about this repentance, is this documented anywhere?

[chzvacmyye]

Sidi Zulfiqar, Mulla 'Ali Qari was very well aware of Ibn taymiyya, why do i say that? Because his shaykh, Ibn Hajar Haytami, was very clear on his position on Ibn taymiyya, yet Mulla 'Ali Qari takes the opposite position.

Assalâmu 'Alaykum akhî,

It might be that he is among those who believed that he made repentance, it is known in Ibn Taymiyyah's books that he believes Allâh Most High has a place. If Imâm 'Aliy al-Qâri makes takfîr upon one who attributes place to Allâh Most High then it is highly possible that he believed that Ibn Taymiyyah repented.

About six works total. Now to say that Mulla 'Ali wasn't aware of Ibn taymiyya doesn't seem to hold much weight (in my opinion). And if you look at Sharh Fiqhul Akbar, yes he was maturdi, but he did agree with ithbat of Sifat, and not doing interpretation, as was the stance of Imam al-'Adham. Akhî, whether ithbât or ta'wîl is not important regarding this, the important thing is that he is against attributing direction, place, limit etc. to Allâh Most High. Ibn Taymiyyah attributed place and direction to Allâh Most High.

BarakAllâhu fîkum

[cokLoolioli]

It might be that he is among those who believed that he made repentance, it is known in Ibn Taymiyyah's books that he believes Allâh Most High has a place. If Imâm 'Aliy al-Qâri makes takfîr upon one who attributes place to Allâh Most High then it is highly possible that he believed that Ibn Taymiyyah repented.

Can you give any clear statements (with reference) that Ibn Taymiyya believed that Allah is in a place?

Not your interpretation of his words, but only his text please.

[JakeBarkings]

Assalâmu 'Alaykum akhî,

It might be that he is among those who believed that he made repentance, it is known in Ibn Taymiyyah's books that he believes Allâh Most High has a place. If Imâm 'Aliy al-Qâri makes takfîr upon one who attributes place to Allâh Most High then it is highly possible that he believed that Ibn Taymiyyah repented.

Akhî, whether ithbât or ta'wîl is not important regarding this, the important thing is that he is against attributing direction, place, limit etc. to Allâh Most High. Ibn Taymiyyah attributed place and direction to Allâh Most High.

BarakAllâhu fîkum

I think this is an issue that needs to be investigated. We also have the following quote:

Ibn Taymiyya - one of the Hanbalîs - committed excess when he declared it prohibited to travel to visit the Prophet just as other than him also committed excess saying that it is obligatory in the Religion to know that the Visitation is an act that draws near to Allâh (qurba) and whoever denies it is judged to be a disbeliever (kâfir). Yet the latter view is probably closer to being correct than the first, because to declare prohibited something the Ulema by Consensus declared desirable (mustahabb), is disbelief. For it is graver than to declare prohibited something agreed to be merely permitted (mubâh.)

Al-Qârî, Sharh. al-Shifâ' (2:514).

Reported here:

http://www.livingislam.org/n/itay_e.html#fn-27

[ExelePlavisseu]

The problem with Ibn Taymiyya's works is that he doesn't just give a statement and then leaves it, but he gives a new definition and dwells on it for so long that one looses track of what he's saying. If you read him affirming something, he'll go on and on.

And the Hanbalis are well known for affirming jiha, read Saffarini, mari', Ibn Qudama, another Hanbali (mentioned by Shaykh Nu'mani in his book on Imam ibn Majah, in which he also states Ibn Daqiq al'Id would stay from that hanbali for affirming jiha), etc. But they also deny, either implicitly or explicitly Tamakkun.

Ibn Taymiyya is respected, generally, for his works, as can be seen by Shaykh AbdulFattah, 'Allama Lucknawi, and others.

The best thing to do is to overlook the bad and take the good.

Akhh Murat, the following might interest you:

نعم حكى خلافا للعلماء فيما إذا سافر رد زيارة القبور
فمنهم من قال بالجواز وهو مذهب الجمهور
ومنهم من قال بالكراهة
ومنهم من قال بالتحريم واختار هذا القول ابن بطة وابن عقيل إماما الحنبلية والإمام أبو محمد الجويني
إمام الشافعية وهو اختيار القاضي عياض في إكماله وهو إمام المالكية ومال إلى هذا القول شيخ
الإسلام ابن تيمية

Source: 'Allama Mari' work.
Someone should check it though