Misconceptions and Allegations

Allegations of Anthropomorphism

Ibn Batûtah (d.779H) alleges in his Rihlah (1/110):
“I was in present in Damascus on Friday where he (i.e. Ibn Taymiyyah) was admonishing and reminding the people from the pulpit of the congregational mosque During his speech he said: Indeed Allâh descends to the lowest heaven of the world just as I am descending now. He then descended one step of the pulpit ... ”

The falsehood of this claim can be shown from a number of angles:- [1]

Firstly: This contradicts the madhhab (way) of Shaykhul-Islâm Ibn Taymiyyah concerning the Sifât (Attributes) of Allâh - the Most High - which was the same madhhab as that of the Salafus-Sâlih (Pious Predecessors), being built upon the saying of Allâh - the Most High -: “There is no likeness unto Him, and He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer.” [Sûrah ash-Shûrâ 42:11] So Allâh’s Attribute of an-Nuzûl (Descending) is affirmed in a manner that befits His Majesty and Perfection, but it is not like the descending of any of His creation. Indeed, throughout his writings concerning Allâh’s Sifât, Ibn Taymiyah ah clearly states the forbiddance of likening Allâh to His creation.

Ibn Taymiyyah says in at-Tadmuriyyah (p.20): “It is a must to affirm that which Allâh affirms For Himself, whilst negating any likeness to Him with His creation ... Whosoever says: His knowledge is like my knowledge, His Power is like my power, or Love like my love, or Pleasure like my pleasure, or Hand like my hand, or Istawâ (Ascending) like my ascending - then he has resembled and likened Allâh to the creation. Rather, it is a must to affirm (Allâh’s Attributes) without any resemblance, and to negate (what Allâh negates for Himself), without ta’tîl (divesting Allâh of any of His affirmed Attributes).”

Ibn Taymiyyah said in Majmû’ul-Fatâwâ (5/262); “Whosoever considers the Attributes of Allâh to be like the attributes of the creation - such that the Istawâ (Ascending) of Allâh is like the ascending of the creation, or His Nuzûl (Descending) is like the descending of the creation, or other than that - then he is a deviated innovator.”

Secondly: It is not possible that Ibn Batûtah witnessed Ibn Taymiyyah deliver this speech, since Ibn Batûtah clearly states in his Rihlah (1/102) that he entered Damascus on the 9th of Ramadhân in the year 728H. However, Shaykhul-Islâm Ibn Taymiyyah was - before, during and after that time - in prison. Ibn Kathîr states in al-Bidâyah wan-Nihâyah (14/135) that Ibn Taymiyyah was imprisoned on the 6th of Sha’bân in the year 728H and remained there until his death on the 20th of Dhul-Qa’dah 728H.

Thirdly. Ibn Taymiyyah - rahimahullâh - has a separate book concerning the hadîth of Allâh’s Descending, entitled Sharh Hadîthin-Nazûl. In it there is no trace whatsoever of the tashbîh and tamthîl (anthropomorphic beliefs) - that he has falsely been accused of.

Fourthly: Shaykhul-Islâm Ibn Taymiyyah did not used to give admonitions to the people from the pulpit, rather he used to sit upon a chair. Al-Hâfidh adh-Dhahabî said: “And he became very famous and well-known, and he started giving tafsîr of the Mighty Book from his memory, on the days of Jumu’ah, sitting upon a chair.”

Another Lie Against Ibn Taymiyyah

After previously quoting the words of Imâm an-Nawawî concerning the kufr (disbelief) of one who ascribes to Allâh a jism (body), Hasan as-Saqqâf - apparently quoting the words of Ibn Taymiyyah - said in his footnotes to Daf’ Shubah at-Tashbîh (pp.245-246):

“Entering into this category is al-Harrânî (Ibn Taymiyyah) ... who has affirmed tajsîm (Allâh having a jism) in many of his books. So from this is his saying in at-Ta’sîs (1/101): “And there is not in the Book of Allâh, nor in the Sunnah of His Messenger, nor a statement from any one of the Salaf of this Ummah and its Imâms that He is not a jism (body), and that His Attributes are not bodily, consisting of organs ... ” I say: By Allâh who originated the heavens and the earth - your saying is ignorance and misguidance. Is not Allâh - the Most High’s -- saying: “There is no likeness unto Him.” [Sûrah ash-Shûrâ 42:11] sufficient in negating tajsîm and its reality, O al-Harrânî?!! And what about the Imâms of the Ummah and the Salaf - O al-Harrânî - and their censure of tashbîh ... ”

And this is from one of as-Saqqâf’s many deceptions - so beware!

Shaykh Mashûr ibn Hasan - hafidhahallâh - said: [2]
These words are from one who does not know what fairness is, who acts haphazardly in his rulings, and who falsely accuses the Scholars of wickedness. This becomes apparent in a number of ways:-

From them: That the previously mentioned words are not from the writings of Ibn Taymiyyah in which he is clarifying his own views, or even stating them rather, he is quoting the saying of the people of kalâm (innovated spîch and rhetoric). However, as-Saqqâf has conveniently omitted the beginning of the quotation from Shaykhul-Islâm Ibn Taymiyyah, where he clearly stated: Qâlû (they say)!!

From them: That as-Saqqâf overlooks the words of Shaykhul-Islâm Ibn Taymiyyah - rahimuhallâh - concerning the overall use of this term in reference to Allâh - the Mighty and Majestic - and he halted where he halted upon knowledge. However, justice is very rare - and there is no power or movement except with Allâh.

Shaykhul-Islâm said, in the course of this topic: “Indeed, the term al-jism (body), al-’arad (organs), al-mutuhayyiz (extent) and their like, are all newly- nvented terminologies. We have mentioned many a time before, that the Salaf and the Imâms have not spoken about such things - neither by way of negation, nor by way of affirmation. Rather, they declared those who spoke about such matters to be innovators, and went to great lengths to censure them.”

This is what has been repeatedly affirmed by Shaykhul-Islâm - rahimahullâh - in many of his books, such as: Sharh Hadîthin-Nuzûl (pp.69-76), Majmû’al-Fatâwâ (3/306-310, 13/304-305), Minhâj us-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah (2/134-135, 192, 198-200, 567). Indeed in Sharh Hadîthin-Nuzûl (p.71) - Shaykhul-Islâm has labelled ascribing Allâh with the term jism as being: “An innovation in the Sharî’ah, a corruption of the language and a contradiction to the [sound] intellect. Rather, it is repudiated by the Sharî’ah, the language and the [sound] intellect.”

And from them: That Shaykhul-Islâm mentions the intended meaning of ascribing Allâh with the term jism, by saying: “Whosoever alleges that the Lord is composite - with the meaning that he accepts division, separation and partition (for Allâh) - then he is the most disbelieving of people and the most ignorant. Indeed, his statement is more evil than the one who says that Allâh has a son - with the meaning that a part of Him split and thus became His son.”

Concerning the Tarâwîh Prayer

Muhammad Idrîs al-Kândalâwî said in his book Ijtihâd wa Taqlîd (p.88) that the Tarâwîh Prayer consists of twenty rak’ahs only, and: “Imâm Abû Hanîfah, Imâm Mâlik, Imâm ash-Shâfi’î and Imâm Ahmad bin Hanbal - rahimahumullâh - all have ijmâ’ (consensus) upon this.” [3]

Shaykh Badî’ud-Dîn as-Sindî (d.1416H) - rahimahullâh - said in Tanqîd Sadîd (pp.266-268):
“This is an erroneous claim. This is what has been stated in the Hanafî books of Fiqh (jurisprudence), since we do not see any book that can be correctly ascribed to Abû Hanîfah. Rather, what is apparent from looking into al-Muwattâ of Imâm Muhammad (one of the main students of Abû Hanîfah) is that Abû Hanîfah’s madhhab was to pray eleven rak’ahs.

So Imâm Muhammad includes a chapter in al-Muwattâ (p. 110), stating: “Chapter: Establishing the Night Prayer in the month of Ramadhân, and the virtues contained in it.”

Under this chapter he relates four ahâdîth. The first, third and fourth narrations do not make mention of any specified number of rak’ahs for the Tarâwîh Prayer, rather they just mention the excellence of establishing Prayer in congregation and the excellence of the night Prayer in Ramadhân. However, in the second narration eleven rak’ât is mentioned. Then Imâm Muhammad said (p.111): “And we take all of this.” ... Thus, he has shown that his madhhab is eleven rak’ahs, and this can only be the madhhab of Imâm Abu Hanîfah - rahmutallâh ’alayhi - as well.

Imâm ash-Shâfi’î - rahmutallâh ’alayhi - said: “There is no limit to its maximum number, since it is an optional Prayer. Thus, if the standing is lengthened, whilst the number of prostrations shortened (i.e. the number of rak’ahs are fewer), then that is good and that is what is most beloved to me. However, if the numbers of prostrations and bowings are increased (i.e. the number of rak’ahs are increased), then this is also good.” [4]

So it is affirmed that Imâm ash-Shâfi’î - rahimuhullâh - does not advocate restricting the number of rak’ahs to twenty rather, he gives preference for there to be fewer rak’ahs and an increase in the length of standing.

Imâm Ahmad bin Hanbal has approved of eleven rak’ahs as well as twenty, as Shaykhul-Islâm Ibn Taymiyyah says in al-Ikhtiyârât¯ul-Ilmiyyah (p.38) and Shah Walîullâh says in al-Misriyyah (1/174) and al-Musafâ (1/177).

Imâm Mâlik - rahimahullâh - also supports eleven rak’ahs, as Shaykhul-Islâm Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned in al-Ikhtiyârât (p.38) and as Jalâlud-Dean as-Suyûtî mentions in al-Hâwî lil-Fatâwâ (p.350), where he said: al-Jûrî of our companions said, from Mâlik, that he said: “That which ’Umar ibn al-Khattâb gathered the people upon is more beloved to us, and that was eleven rak’ahs, and that was the prayer of Allâh’s Messenger sallallâhu ’alayhi wa sallam.” It was said to him: Eleven rak’ahs with the Witr? So he said: “Yes, and thirteen is close.” Then he said: “I do not know from where they have introduced these numerous rukû’s (bowings).”

Concerning Imâm ash-Shâfi’î

Al-Kawtharî alleged in his Maqâlât (p.381): “Imâm ash-Shâfi’î used to seek tawassul (the means of nearness to Allâh) through Abû Hanîfah, as is mentioned at the beginning of at-Târîkh of al-Khatîb with a Sahîh isnâd (authentic chain of transmission) ... ”

Shaykh al-Albânî - hafidhahallâh - replied in ad-Da’îfah (1/31): “This is not just a mistake, but this is from his many mistakes. Here he is indicating at what al-Khatîb relates (1/123) by way of ’Umar ibn Ishâq ibn Ibrâhîm, who said: We were informed by ’Alî ibn Maymûn, who said I heard ash-Shâfi’î say: “I seek tabarruk (blessings) through Abû Hanîfah, and I go to visit his grave every day. Whenever I want a need to be fulfilled, I pray two rak’ahs and then go to his grave, where I ask Allâh - the Most High - for my need. Not a long time passes before my need is fulfilled.”

This narration is da’îf (weak), rather it is bâtil (futile), since ’Umar ibn Ishâq ibn Ibrâhîm is unknown and nothing is mentioned about him in the books of rijâl (biographies of narrators). It is possible, however, that this ’Umar could actually be ’Amr ibn Ishâq ibn Ibrâhîm ibn Hamîd ibn as-Sakan, Abû Muhammad at-Tûnisî. A biography is recorded about him by al-Khatîb (12/226). He mentioned that he is from al-Bukhârî, who in the year 341 Hijrah, travelled to Hajj and then came to Baghdâd. However, there is no jarh nor ta’dîl (information concerning his invalidity or validity as a narrator) about him, and his condition is unknown. However, it is not possible that it is him, since his Shaykh ’Alî ibn Maymûn - according to the saying of the majority - died in the year 247 Hijrah. So nearly one hundred years elapsed between the death of them both, and thus it is improbable that ’Amr ibn Ishâq met ’Alî ibn Maymûn.

Whatever the case, this narration is weak and there is nothing to support it being authentic. Shaykhul-Islâm Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned the meaning of this narration and then established that it is false. He said in Iqtidâ as-Sirâtul-Mustaqîm (p.165):

“This is a lie, and its being a lie is self-evident to anyone who has knowledge about (historical) narratives. For when ash-Shâfi’î arrived in Baghdâd there was no specific grave that was frequented for making supplication. Indeed, this practice was not even known in the time of ash-Shâfi’î. Moreover, ash-Shâfi’î had seen in al-Hijâz, Yemen, Syria, Irâq and Egypt graves of the Prophets, the Companions and the Tâbi’în. The inmates of such graves were to ash-Shâfi’î - as well as to other Muslims - greater in merit than Abû Hanîfah and the Scholars of his level. So how is it that he offered supplication only at the grave of Abû Hanîfah?! Also, those of the students of Abû Hanîfah who lived to see ash-Shâfi’î - such as Abû Yûsuf, Muhammad, Zafar, al-Hasan ibn Ziyâd and others - did not used to offer supplication at the grave of Abû Hanîfah, nor anyone else’s grave. Furthermore, it is established from the books of ash-Shâfi’î himself, that he hated the veneration of graves out of fear of it causing fitnah (corruption). Thus stories such as this are fabricated by those who lack both knowledge and Dîn, or they are related by those who are unknown and obscure.”

References

1.See Hayat Shaykhul-Islâm Ibn Taymiyah (pp.47-48) of Shaykh Bahjatul-Baytâr and at-Tasfiyah wat-Tarbiyah (p.69) Shaykh ’Alî Hasan al- Halabî.
2. From al-Asâlah Magazine (no.4 pp.64-55).
3. Our purpose here for quoting the following discussion is not to establish whether the Tarâwîh Prayer should consist of eight rak’ahs or twenty. either, it is to show that the claim concerning there being an ijmâ’ upon twenty rak’ahs by the four well-known Imâms is an incorrect claim.
4 . Quoted by Imâm al-Marwazî in Qiyâmal-Layl (p.92).