Ads by Muslim Ad Network


No announcement yet.


No announcement yet.

Usul al-Hanabila: Ibn Qudamah (d. 620 H) and Early Hanabila vs Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728)

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Usul al-Hanabila: Ibn Qudamah (d. 620 H) and Early Hanabila vs Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728)

    Reading Shaykh Yusuf bin Sadiq al-Hanbali's commentary of Lum'ah al I'tiqad of Ibn Qudamah al-Maqdisi, I have come across many things which are explicit refutations of Ibn Taymiyyah and the doctrines of the Mujassima who follow him. Shaykh Yusuf has full isnad back to Ibn Qudamah, and if someone wishes I can quote it (rather than typing it out I will simply take a picture of the page with the Sanad). Feel free to ask for which printed versions the books quoted correspond with below, for help in locating the correct pages etc.

    Before I go further, I will give a brief discussion on why in particular Ibn al-Banna al-Hanbali's quotation is important, state what Shaykh Yusuf's position on Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Jawzi is and then I will bring some statements of Imam Qudamah affirming the attributes found in the Qur'an (highlighting how easy it is to misinterpret pure Hanbali aqeedah, even of scholar who is clearly opposed to Ibn Taymiyyah's views via what he quotes). I will then quote from Ibn Qudamah's own understanding of exactly what he means and a quote Shaykh Yusuf brings of an early figure of the Hanabila - Imam Ibn al-Banna, to prove both Ibn Qudamah and Ibn al-Banna were not upon the Aqeedah the Taymiyyans so wish he was upon.

    Where did the followers of Ibn Taymiyyah err?

    Why is Ibn al-Banna's quotation important? The Karramiyya (Mujassima who use Kalam) who hold the beliefs of Ibn Taymiyyah such as Sh. Yasir Qadhi and especially certain people on this forum, believe that a corruption of the Hanbali maddhab occured where the early hanabila never understood Allah in other than physical, dimensioned, bounded manner e.g. they think that the early hanabila never showed opposition to the nuzul of Allah as being a physical descent. I will show clearly that this is false.

    These followers of Ibn Taymiyyah have such a disease in their hearts that they interpret the very words of the Hanabila (e.g. their rejection of limits and boundaries) as other than their clear meaning. There is then hypocrisy with them - they accuse others of not following al-Zahir (the apparent), whilst they themselves do not follow them themselves. It is interesting to note that al-Hanabila did say they follow "al-Zahir" - as strict literal affirmation not affirming any deduction beyond the exact wording of the text.

    If I affirm Yad this is fine. If I affirm Yad that is a physically dimensioned hand, this is not affirmation of just the apparent - it is affirmation beyond the apparent. This form of literal interpretation is viewed as kufr by Ibn al-Banna (as it contradicts the belief that Allah is without boundaries, limits and that there is nothing above and below him, as in the hadith of Sahih Muslim). The difference between the two has been lost to the "literalists" of today, who instead make an interpretation of the attributes (generally a limited, bounded one), going beyond the methodology of the Hanabila. When the Hanabila affirmed the Zahir - they affirm the wording of the text.

    Moreover the Hanabila maintained Allah is free of limits and boundaries - and they understood limits and boundaries in the same way as the Ash'ari understand them. The quote of Imam Ibn al-Banna which Ibn Qudamah has brought will explicitly demonstrate this beyond any reasonable doubt.

    Shaykh Yusuf's opinions on (Taqi ad-Din Ahmed) Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Jawzi

    Shaykh Yusuf calls Ibn Taymiyyah "Shaykh al-Islam", a designation with which he is referred to amongst the Hanabila. Moreover he accepts him as one of the four authorities on the Hanbali maddhab in fiqh, alongside Ibn Qudamah, Majd ad-din Ibn Taymiyyah (the grandfather of Taqi ad-din Ahmed) and Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali.

    However he states that the opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah do not represent the official opinions of the Hanabila on matters of Aqeedah and the books of his (and his students e.g. Ibnul Qayyim) should be avoided. He states Ibn Taymiyyah's opinions are not decisive and are only selectively considered.

    He accuses many "Salafi" commentaries of Athari/Hanbali Aqeedah works available in the market as not respecting the authors intention (I have seen a laughable live example of this where such a "salafi" reads out Imam Ibn Balban negation of Makan (place) for Allah, and then he essentially negates al-Balbani's statement, his statement being taken from the work of Ibn Hamdan (d. 695 H), who died in the lifetime of Ibn Taymiyyah, and some good examples can also be seen in Ibn Uthaymeen, may Allah forgive him,'s commentary on the Durar al-Madiyyah of Imam al-Saffarini.)

    Finally with regards to Ibn Jawzi, he states that his views do not represent the correct Hanbali aqeedah and that he mixed Hanbali and Ash'ari views.

    He states that Hanbali aqeedah should be taken from the authorities in it, such as Ibn Qudamah, al-Kalwadhani and also the later scholars such as Ibn Balban and Abd al-Baqi.

    (There are also numerous other Hanbali scholars and works he mentions e.g. Usul al-Sunnah (but not Kitab al-Sunnah whose attribution he says is questionable) of Imam Ahlus Sunnah, Imam Ahmad himself, Sharh al-Sunnah attributed to al-Barbahari, Mukhtasar al-Mu'tamad fi Usul al-Din and Ibtal al-Ta'wilat of Qadi Abu Ya'la, Nihayah al-Mubtadi'in by Ibn Hamdan and more advanced works such as al-Ha'iya of Ibn Abu Dawud, Lawami al-Anwar and Lawa'ih al-Anwar of Imam as-Saffarini, al-Aqawil al-Thiqat of Mar'i bin Yusuf al-Karmi. Apparently Imam as-Saffarini's works are considered very advanced containing difficult and laborious terminology. So Shaykh Yusuf advises the more accessible summary by Hasan al-Shatti, Mukhtasar Lawami al-Anwar.)

    Ibn Qudamah affirming the attributes as found in the Qur'an
    The reason why these disputes (e.g. the branching out of the Jahmiyyah and Muqatiliyyah) happened is due to the purity of the Aqeedah of the Salaf, which if misinterpreted can easily lead to heresy. As with most misinterpretations, similar to the mistakes of the khawarij who kill their fellow Muslims, the mistakes of the followers of Ibn Taymiyyah hinge around reading and following some statements of the Hanabila but not others.

    Thus when the Hanabila themselves clarify what they mean, the Taymiyyans reject this and concoct a narrative of the Ash'aris corrupting the doctrines of the Hanbalis throughout history, ignoring the creedal works of the Hanbalis and instead resorting to the works of famous anthropomorphists (e.g. Muqatil ibn Sulayman, Muhammad bin Karram, Uthman bin Sa'id/ the author of his work etc.), labeling them as 'Salaf' when in reality they were no more 'Salaf' than the likes of Wasil Ibn Ata and Jahm bin Safwan, who lived before and with them.
    I will prove this by quoting the statements of a modern Hanbali who rejects Taymiyyan aqeedah, showing how his statements can be easily misconstrued.

    From what has come in the ayat concerning the attributes is the statement of Allah, the Mighty and Majestic: 'And the Wajh of Your Lord, full of Majesty and Honour will, abide forever.' His saying free of imperfection and Exalted is He: 'On the contrary, His Yadahu are widely outstretched' His statement, Exalted is He, in which He informs us that Isa bin Maryam peace be upon him said: 'You know what is in my inner-self, though I do not know what is in Your Nafs.' And His statements, free of imperfections is: "And you lord ja'a" His statement, Exalted is He: 'Do they then wait for anything other than that Allah ya'tiya to them' (etc. and he goes on quoting Ayat concerning the Sifat al-Mutashabihat)


    This and others similar to it from those whose chain of narration are authentic, and whose reporters are acceptable; We believe in it, and do not reject it, nor deny it, nor do we interpret it with an interpretation which contradicts its Zahirah (ولا نتأولە بتأويل يخالف ظاهره)


    From the Sunnah is the statement of the Prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam: 'Our Lord, may He be Blessed and Exalted, yanzilu to the lowest heaven every night.'

    - Lum'ah al-Itiqad of Imam Ibn Qudamah
    Imam Qudamah goes on to affirm other such attributes such as Ghadab (translated anger), Allah's attribute of aboveness etc.

    What did Ibn Qudamah and the Hanabila intend?

    Now what the Taymiyyan does is he reads such things above and ignores what Imam Ibn Qudamah and others of the Hanabila say in regards to them. He does not read, or wish to understand certain other statements within the very same creed, and in other works of Ibn Qudamah or the very explicit statements of prior Hanabila which clarify what they understood by Zahirah. The Anthropomorphist thinks, "by Zahirah he means the literal, physical meaning of such things." So he interprets Yadahu as two physical hands having dimension, Wajh as a physical face having dimension, interpreting the attribute of Nuzul (given in the verse above - Yanzilu) as a literal physical descent, occupying space and involving movement.

    He thinks that Ibn Qudamah and the Hanabila are on his side.

    Let us find out if that is the case.

    In the same work, Ibn Qudamah states the following:

    We do not make comparisons with the attributes of creations, nor do we use the names by the innovators. And we know that Allah, Glorified and Exalted is he, has no similar and equal: 'There is nothing whatsoever like Him. And he is al-Sami al-Basir.' Hence everything that is imagined by the mind or produced in ones thought, then surely Allah is different from it.
    - Lum'ah al-Itiqad of Imam Ibn Qudamah
    The above is also a statement of the Sahabah, particularly Imam Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah quoted in the Aqeedah of Imam Ahmad (riwayah Abu Bakr al-Khallal al-Hanbali):

    Imam Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah Said,
    "Whatever comes into your mind, Allah is other than that"
    - Al-Aqeedah Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (Riwayah Abu Bakr Al-Khallal), 1/116
    Imam Ibn Qudamah further states before all of this however,

    Imam Abu Abd Allah Ahmad bin Hanbal, may Allah have mercy on him, said concerning the saying of the Prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam 'Verily Allah yanzilu to the heaven of this world' and 'Verily, Allah will be seen on the Day of Resurrection' and what is similar to these narrations:

    "We believe in it and testify to the truthfulness of it, without explaining 'how' and without 'meaning', nor do we reject anything of it. We know that whatever the Messenger Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam came with is the truth; we do not reject anything from the Messenger of Allah Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam, nor do we describe Allah with more than he described himself with, without any limit nor any boundaries. "There is nothing equal to him, and He is al-Sami' al-Basi' We say as He said and describe Him with what he described Himself with nor do we go beyond this. The descriptions of those who attempt to describe him cannot grasp Him. We believe in all of the Qur'an, the muhkam and mutashabih. We do not reject any of His attributes due to them appearing repulsive, we do not go beyond the Qur'an and the narrations and we do not know how to understand them, except through the truthfulness of the Messenger Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam and the affirmation of the Qur'an"

    - Lum'ah al-Itiqad of Imam Ibn Qudamah
    Also mentioned by Ibn Qudamah in Dhamm al-Ta'wil Hadith 33, Qadi Abu Ya'la in Ibtal al-Taw'wilat vol.1, no.9, and Ibn Battah (d.387 H) in al-Ibanah vol.7 Hadith 5, who reports it via Abdullah bin Hanbal instead of Hanbal bin Ishaq.
    I have highlighted some points in red. These points will be very problematic for Taymiyyans. Imam Ahmad is saying we have to accept the Nuzul (descent) without how and without understanding any meaning. I.e. you accept it as something the interpretation of which is with Allah. Imam Ahmad then rejects limits and boundaries for Allah - he rejects giving the physicallist interpretation. This quote by Imam Ahmad is particularly useful in refuting both the Mushabiha and the Mu'atillah as it also contains phrases such as "we do not reject any of His attributes due to them appearing repulsive" that our fellow claimants of Ash'arism, the blind followers of Muhammad Abduh at al-Azhar, should take good note regarding.

    I will quote something by Ibn Qudamah later as a refutation to those who say "If you don't understand it you can't believe in it" which is obviously a false concept as it means that every lay non-arab Muslim who is confused by anything in the Qur'an would be innovators/kuffar.

    By the way, who is saying all of this? Is it Ibn Qudamah himself? In fact he is quoting Imam Ahmad.

    This matches other authentic reports of how Imam Ahmad dealt with this, e.g.:
    A man asked Imam Ahmad concerning the statement: 'Verily Allah yanzilu every night to the heaven of this world and he (i.e. Imam Ahmad) said: 'this hadith is authentic.' The man asked 'does His Qudrah or he himself yanzilu? Imam Ahmad responded: 'Woe to you, what is this! Pass the hadith on as it has come'

    - Al Tabsirah fi Usul al-Din p.146 of Imam al-Shirazi (d. 468 H), also in Ibtal al-Ta'wilat, Hadith 260 by Qadi Abu Yala etc. And the statement 'pass over them, as they come' with regards to the attributes is also narrated by al-Marudhi in Ibn Battah's al-Ibanah vol.7, page 253.
    By the way the Atharis also strongly reject the stance of the Ash'ari some of whom e.g. made Tawil Tafsili of verses without linguistic attribution (I mean where Allah is not mentioned as the Jarr' e..g. in Ayn Allah, 'Allah' is Jarr' thus linguistic attribution has occured, and it is known that the Ayn does not refer to something other than the attribute of Allah), such as the verse of his descent, saying e.g. "his mercy descends".

    Ibn Qudamah himself explains, in a different work, that not understanding the meaning does not mean belief in them is impossible:
    "We do not need to know the meanings of what was intended by Allah, the Exalted, from his Attributes, Mighty and Majestic (is he). Indeed He did not intend regarding them any action, nor did he connect to them any responsibility aside from believing in them. The belief in them, without knowledge of their meaning is possible; and indeed belief with ignorance is correct. Certainly, Allah the Exalted, ordered belief in His angels, His books and his messengers, and what is revealed to them; even if we do not know from that except the names."

    - Tahrim al-Nazar of Ibn Qudamah, p.51
    Also Ibn Qudamah states:
    "And the correct opinion is that the mutashibih ayat that have been revealed concerning the Attributes of Allah, Glorified is He, are obligatory to believe in and it is prohibited to seek their interpretation, such as the statement of Allah, the exalted: 'al-Rahman did istawa over the Throne' 'Rather his Yad are widely outstretched', '...which I created with My Yadayy...', 'And there will remain the Wajh of your Lord,', 'Sailing under Our Ayun' and similar to them. The Salaf, may Allah have mercy upon them, agreed on affirming them, passing over them as they came, and leaving the interpration of them. For indeed Allah, Glorified is He, has censured the seekers of interpretation and paired them, in His censuring, with those who seek discord and named them 'the people of deviation'"

    - Rawdah al-Nazir of Ibn Qudamah, vol 1, page 215.
    Insha'Allah I can tell what the Taymiyyan is thinking:

    But Ibn Qudamah explicily said "We believe in it, and do not reject it, nor deny it, nor do we interpret it with an interpretation which contradicts its Zahirah"

    If the above quotes were somehow not clear enough, that Ibn Qudamah and the Hanbalis before him take the opinion of Imam Ahmad which is the absolute prohibition of any interpretation whatsoever with regards to these attributes, that all one needs to know about them is their name and to have belief in them, consigning the howness including meaning to Allah (Tafwid), that he does not have limits and boundaries and that Imam Ahmad rejecting as innovation the statements of the man who asked if Allah himself comes, then I will settle this matter once and for all by quoting an early authority in the Hanbali school - Ibn al-Banna (d. 471 H), who will inform us of the meaning of "Zahirah" according to the Hanabila:

    He stated clearly when explaining the Sifat of Nuzul:
    "And this and what resembles it; then taking al-Nuzul to be descending to empty space, occupying space and movement, is kufr. To carry it upon its zahirihi (apparentness) is permissible."

    - Al-Usul al-Mujarradah of Ibn al-Banna, p.47
    And there it is. Sound evidence that the statement of the Hanbalis when they say "Zahir" does not mean the literal meaning the Taymiyyan's think (i.e. that Allah physically descends), it means means the wording of the ayah or hadith.

    Shaykh Yusuf explains this after bring this quotation from Imam Ibn al-Banna:
    "Apart from it being very clearly stated that Nuzul should not be understood as 'movement', it is also an important statement for it contains proof that the usage of '(its) apparentness' does not mean the literal meaning of the word in this context (i.e. in relation to Allah and His Attributes); for Ibn al-Banna first rejected the literal meaning (i.e. moving from one place to another), and only later stated that 'to carry it upon its apparent' (hamalaha 'ala zahiri) is permissible; indicating that when the word 'apparent' (zahir) is used, it refers to the wording of the ayah or hadith and not the literal meaning of the word itself."

    - Commentary on Lum'ah al-Itiqad by Shaykh Yusuf bin Sadiq al-Hanbali p.37
    Moreover we have an early authority of the Hanabila saying it is kufr to affirm physical descent. Imam Ahmad himself rejected such a belief, and the Hanabila negate limit and boundaries for Allah.

    Note: I did not quote later Hanbali scholars like Ibn Hamdan, Ibn al-Balban and as-Saffarini, for it is painfully obvious by explicit statements in their works that their views do not support the views of Ibn Taymiyyah (and the Taymiyyans who have some comprehension on this forum have realised that and so concoct a narrative explaining why such people differ with what the Taymiyyan considers is "salafi" aqeedah).

    Thus none of the Hanbali Usul scholars support the opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah, instead they hold the view that one should affirm the attributes Bi La Kayfa Wa La Ma'na, negating Hadd (limits) for Allah, not understanding e.g. the descent as a physical descent, passing over the Ayat al-Mutashabihat whilst affirming the attribute within them. Note that the view of Ahlus Sunnah is based on Dalil, explicit and found in multiple works and in the Hadith of the Prophet Alayhis Salam himself - in explicit wording - whilst the view of Ahlul Biddah, the followers of the Karrami Ibn Taymiyyah, is based off of baseless interpretation, following weak hadith, misunderstanding the statements of the Salaf - picking and choosing them -, engaging in hermeneutics without any evidence that the ones who they perform such things on actually believed it they way they wish they did and abusing/rejecting the faculty of reason.

    Amir ul-Muminin Sayyiduna Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah said,
    "Mahma tasawwarta bi-balik, fallahu bi-khilaf dhalik,"
    Whatever comes into your mind, Allah is other than that,

    Al-Aqeedah Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (Riwayah Abu Bakr al-Khallal),

  • #2
    Jazakallahu khayran for this informative thread.

    This is also connected to the issue at hand: Post #373 from "Belief of Hanbalis / Atharis (past) vs "Salafis"":

    How Ibn Taymiyya left the way of his mainstream Hanbali forefathers

    The Shaykh Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) was from a scholarly family from Harran and was born there in 661 AH. They were upon the Hanbali Madhhab.
    His father Shihab al-Din - who was from among his teachers - was a Hanbali scholar and passed away in 682 AH. His grandfather was Majd al-Din Ibn Taymiyya (d. 652 AH), who was among the top scholars of the Hanabila and one of their major A`imma!

    The Shaykh [Taqi al-Din] Ibn Taymiyya started studying knowledge early and learned the Hanbali Madhhab in a classical way and was a mainstream Hanbali just like the scholars from among his family. When his father passed away he was in his twenties.
    When he was around thirty years old he started to develop ideas in Fiqh and 'Aqida, which were not in line with the mainstream Hanbali way and with the way of his forefathers. He regarded these new ideas as correct and regarded that which he had learned before as deviant ideas. It were these new ideas, which caused him problems with the Ash'ari AND Hanbali (!) scholars of his time.

    He (Ibn Taymiyya) said while speaking about the issue of God's Self being subject to changes or not (i.e. Hulul al-Hawadith fil Dhat al-Ilahiyya, which he himself usually calls as Sifat Ikhtiyariyya) the following (see Majmu' al-Fatawa):

    ولكن هذه المسألة ومسألة الزيارة، وغيرهما حدث من المتأخرين فيها شبه. وأنا وغيري كنا على مذهب الآباء في ذلك! نقول في الأصلين بقول أهل البدع، فلما تبين لنا ما جاء به الرسول دار الأمر بين أن نتبع ما أنزل الله، أو نتبع ما وجدنا عليه آباءنا، فكان الواجب هو اتباع الرسول

    But regarding this issue (Hulul al-Hawadith / al-Sifat al-Ikhtiyariyya, i.e. God being subject to changes) and the issue of visitation (Ziyara, of the Prophetic grave) and other [issues] there happened doubts [and confusion] between the later scholars.
    Me and others used to be on the way of the forefathers regarding these [issues]; we would say in the two foundations (Aslayn, i.e. Usul al-Din (foundations of beliefs) and Usul al-Fiqh (foundations of jurisprudence)) [the same as] the statement of the people of innovation (Ahl al-Bida').
    So when that which the Messenger had came with became clear to us, the issue became one between following that which was sent down by Allah or to follow that which we found our forefathers upon. So that which was obligatory [upon us] was to follow the Messenger.

    - end of quote-

    Note that he does not just mention the issue of Hulul al-Hawadith (an issue of creed!) and the issue of visitation [of the Prophetic grave] (an issue of Fiqh), but even mentions the Aslayn (i.e. Usul al-Din and Usul al-Fiqh) in general (!) and that he used to be an innovator - in his later view - in this!
    What should also be noted here is that not a single Hanbali prior to him spoke against the issue of visitation of the blessed grave of our beloved Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and those after him in generally disagreed with him on this. As for the issue of God being subject to changes, then the absolute majority of the Hanbalis before and after him believed that Allah ta'ala is transcendent from this and openly stated so!

    Salih bin 'Abd al-'Aziz Al al-Shaykh - one of the scholars of contemporary "Salafis" - said in his Sharh al-'Aqida al-Wasitiyya:

    شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية نشأ على غير مذهب السلف ، نشأ مبتدعاً ،لم يكن على طريقة السلف الصالح بل نشأ على غير طريقة السلف الصالح ، ومشايخه لم يكونوا على طريقة السلف الصالح ، يعني أكثر مشايخه إلا نُدَّر منهم . هذه ذكرها عن نفسه قال في موضع في الفتاوى (وأما أنا فقد كنت في الأصلين على غير طريقة السلف الصالح) هذه موجودة النص في الفتاوى ، شيخ الإسلام إنما هداه الله جل وعلا لذلك متأخراً يعني بعد سنة تسعين ، ستمائة وتسعين ، يعني وعمره جاوز الثلاثين أو هو حول الثلاثين ، لم ينشأ على العقيدة الصحيحة ، ولذلك رأى الغربة ، وأكثر مشايخه من الحنابلة على طريقة السلف لكنهم في الصفات يفوضون ، في الصفات عندهم يفهمون مذهب أحمد أنه التفويض .وهذا باطل . فشيخ الإسلام كان يواجه أشياء عظيمة في زمنه

    Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya grew up on a way other than that of the Salaf. He grew up as an innovator and he was not upon the way of the Salaf al-salih, but rather grew up on a way other than the Salaf al-salih.
    His teachers were [also] not upon the way of the Salaf al-salih, meaning most of them except very few of them. This is something that he had mentioned regarding himself; he said in a passage in [Majmu'] al-Fatawa (it's a paraphrase) "As for me, then I used to be in the Aslayn (i.e. Usul al-Din and Usul al-Fiqh) on a way other than that of the Salaf al-salih"; this is explicitly stated in al-Fatawa.
    Rather Allah - jalla wa 'ala - guided Shaykh al-Islam later on to this [correct way], meaning after the year 690 AH; meaning when his age was more than 30 years or around 30 years. He did not grew up on the correct creed and that is why he encountered loneliness [later on].
    Most of his teachers from among the Hanbalis were upon the way of the Salaf al-salih, but regarding the [divine] attributes they would consign [the meaning]. Regarding the [divine] attributes they understood consignment (Tafwidh) as the Madhhab of [Imam] Ahmad and this is falsehood.
    So Shaykh al-Islam was encountering major issues in his time...

    - end of quote -

    Bakr Abu Zayd - anoter one of the scholars of contemporary "Salafis" - said in his book al-Nadha`ir (p. 128) after mentioning Ibn Taymiyya:

    وقد رجع عما كان عليه من مذهب الأباء إلى طريقة السلف

    He returned from that which he was upon from the way of the forefathers to the way of the Salaf.
    - end of quote -

    Thereafter he quoted the mentioned statement above from Majmu' al-Fatawa as a proof.

    Comments and thoughts:
    - Ibn Taymiyya regarded that which his own Hanbali forefathers - among whom there were major scholars of the Madhhab! - were upon as deviant later on.
    - His own Hanbali teachers regarded Tafwidh as the correct way!
    - According to "Salafi" Mashayikh most of the scholars of his time - including Hanabila! - did not know the correct creed! This means that according to their understanding the creed of the people of today is better than the people of the past, while the religious texts indicate the exact opposite!!
    - Their statements clearly includes a cultist behavior towards Ibn Taymiyya.



    Edit this module to specify a template to display.