Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
gogiison2

Minhaj Al Sunnah- Ibn Taymiyyah

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Imam al asr madad

Bismillah

Salaam wr wb.

I was having a discussion with a Salafi brother, and I linked him here: http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/ibn_taimiyah/en/chap6.php

He says he checked the book and asked a scholar as well, and no luck in finding those alleged sayings from the Answering-Ansar website. I checked Wikipedia and I see it says the Minhaj al Sunnah is a 4 volume book. I assume they mean the original Arabic is 4 volumes. On the AA website it references some of the sayings with volume 8, so I'm wondering if anyone knows if they got the information from a translated text and then just added the Arabic along with it; and also if anyone knows which translation they used, because this Salafi is pretty adamant that such statements are not in the Minhaj al Sunnah book. JazakAllah to any that can help me out.

Edited by gogiison2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ibn Taymiyyah is horribly misunderstood and maligned by any and all groups within Islam. However, I think the Shi'a specifically have a problem with him because he tried to refute Shi'ism.

Does this mean what Answering-Answer says about him, with their references, is false?

Edited by gogiison2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imam al asr madad

Bismillah

Salaam wr wb.

I was having a discussion with a Salafi brother, and I linked him here: http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/ibn_taimiyah/en/chap6.php

He says he checked the book and asked a scholar as well, and no luck in finding those alleged sayings from the Answering-Ansar website. I checked Wikipedia and I see it says the Minhaj al Sunnah is a 4 volume book. I assume they mean the original Arabic is 4 volumes. On the AA website it references some of the sayings with volume 8, so I'm wondering if anyone knows if they got the information from a translated text and then just added the Arabic along with it; and also if anyone knows which translation they used, because this Salafi is pretty adamant that such statements are not in the Minhaj al Sunnah book. JazakAllah to any that can help me out.

the new edition is 4 volumes, the old one 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

same here

i would prefer to do independent research or read from a more authentic source

It seems that it's a hot-going site amongst the people on this board.

okay, i see, but he says he checked both of the editions and nothing of this sort is found.

What constitutes the difference between the first and second editions apart from the lengths?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What constitutes the difference between the first and second editions apart from the lengths?

Not sure, brother, that's what I'm trying to get figured out, inshaAllah. The possibility of someone editing the newer editions came to mind, but we would have to prove that in order to use that against him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

sometimes

there are more and others

(wasalam)

If there was tahreef in Minhaj al-Sunnah, then that works to the advantage of Ibn Taymiyyah rather than against him. I think we need to wait until Lord Botta sees the thread, assuming he chooses to reply.

On a similar note, Dr. Tahir ul-Qadri does quote Allamah ibn Taymiyyah many times, so I still stand by my opinion that he is a highly misunderstood and maligned character.

Also, Ibn Taymiyyah was a follower of the Qadiri order of tasawwuf or so I've read. So, I would highly doubt that he could be classified as a nawasib if he were true to the teachings of that order.

Edited by ninjaslim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are 2 editions, one is in 4 volumes, the other is in 8 volumes. The older one is in 8 volumes.

This man is the SCARIEST man that has EVER been known as "Shaykh al-Islam"

The man who said man kuntu mawlaa fa haatha aliyyun mawlaa is a weak hadith!!!! He has made so many lies about Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal.

The one who compared the Prophet's daughter (Sawa) to hypocrites.

man I give up.

Anyone who knows a LITTLE about the knowledge of Hadith should read the joke he has written "Minhaj al-Sunnah"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

sometimes

there are more and others

(wasalam)

hah the very same argument whch was crushed by brother lord botta frm where the OP flew away when got trapped bcz of his ignorancy. Man you lack very much behind...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ibn Taymiyyah is horribly misunderstood and maligned by any and all groups within Islam. However, I think the Shi'a specifically have a problem with him because he tried to refute Shi'ism.

Refuted, antagonized, demonized, marginalised... plenty of verbs you're missing there bro...

Oh I almost forgot... He SANCTIONED VIOLENCE AGAINST SHIAS... and HE'S the one misunderstood?

Brother, do you reject every allegation that was presented against him? EVERY single one? I find that hard to believe...

(wasalam)

Edited by Legio Invicta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Refuted, antagonized, demonized, marginalised... plenty of verbs you're missing there bro...

Oh I almost forgot... He SANCTIONED VIOLENCE AGAINST SHIAS... and HE'S the one misunderstood?

Brother, do you reject every allegation that was presented against him? EVERY single one? I find that hard to believe...

(wasalam)

This is my positions on ibn Taymiyyah:

1) I don't reject or affirm any of the allegations brought forth against him.

2) I don't take much knowledge from him, even thought he may very well be a fountain knowledge, given that many of those in and after his time did refer to him as Shaykh ul-Islam in certain fields.

3) I don't malign him out of principle that a Muslim should not attack a scholar regardless of how many differences he or she may have with them. All of the scholars pursue or pursued their line of work with the same intention: to serve Islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not really all that true. Read Minhaj Al-Sunnah. In the early chapters, he attacks tajseem and accuses some of the early Shias to have adopted tajseem.

Eh? Shias say Allah will never been seen. Sunnis say (based on what Taymiyyah and co have said) that he will be seen on the Day of Judgement. Who's doing tajseem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my positions on ibn Taymiyyah:

1) I don't reject or affirm any of the allegations brought forth against him.

2) I don't take much knowledge from him, even thought he may very well be a fountain knowledge, given that many of those in and after his time did refer to him as Shaykh ul-Islam in certain fields.

3) I don't malign him out of principle that a Muslim should not attack a scholar regardless of how many differences he or she may have with them. All of the scholars pursue or pursued their line of work with the same intention: to serve Islam.

I have a fundamental issue with Point 3. The assumption that religious scholars become scholars only to serve Islam is so laughable if you look around. Religion is big business, in fact the biggest business. It rakes in money when the going is good and even more when it is bad. Read history of the world, how priests/religious scholars have always been a force to reckon with even for the Pharoh and tyrants of that stature. Look around in this day and age, most of the Mullahs are there because they landed up there not because they started off thinking they will serve Islam. Imagine 2 hundred years later people calling Scumbags like Ludhyanvi as sheikh ul islam and justifying his murderous rants against Shi'as.

I believe if Sunnis specially moderate and open minded ones like you Ninja, ponder on a few basic questions you will become Shi'a. At the same time Shi'as need to clean up their act and come to the true teachings of Imams (as).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allah (swt) will ask each scholar on the Day of Judgment a series of three questions. One of them is why they chose to become a scholar. I'll leave the questioning and judgment to Allah (swt). Until then, I'll go by my assumption.

That's not really all that true. Read Minhaj Al-Sunnah. In the early chapters, he attacks tajseem and accuses some of the early Shias to have adopted tajseem.

Could you explain this a bit more? It's very interesting to hear this when I've heard quite the contrary for most of my life. Although, to ibn Taymiyyah's credit, I have not read any of his works.

Edited by ninjaslim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh? Shias say Allah will never been seen. Sunnis say (based on what Taymiyyah and co have said) that he will be seen on the Day of Judgement. Who's doing tajseem?

Seeing Allah in judgement day is the view of most of Ahlul Sunnah before Ibn Taymiyah.

Could you explain this a bit more? It's very interesting to hear this when I've heard quite the contrary for most of my life. Although, to ibn Taymiyyah's credit, I have not read any of his works.

He quotes Abu Hasan Al-Ash'ari in his Maqalaat Al-Islamiyeen who mentions six groups of Rafidhis that have accepted tajseem.

- Al-Hishamiya, that goes back to Hisam bin Al-Hakam, who said that their Lord has a body, that it is long wide and deep, the length is equal to the width... he has a color, a taste, a smell, etc...

- Another Hishamiya, that goes back to Hisham bin Salem Al-Jawaleeqi, who said that their lord looks like a man but has no blood or flesh, and that he has a nose, ears, mouth, and eye.

Ibn Taymiyah then states that Ibn Al-Nawbakhti has pointed the same about some of the early Shia scholars. Then Ibn Taymiyah quotes Ibn Hazm who said that the first person that said that Allah has a body is Hisham (bin Al-Hakam).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing Allah in judgement day is the view of most of Ahlul Sunnah before Ibn Taymiyah.

Ibn Taymiyyah agrees with this view does he not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing Allah in judgement day is the view of most of Ahlul Sunnah before Ibn Taymiyah.

He quotes Abu Hasan Al-Ash'ari in his Maqalaat Al-Islamiyeen who mentions six groups of Rafidhis that have accepted tajseem.

- Al-Hishamiya, that goes back to Hisam bin Al-Hakam, who said that their Lord has a body, that it is long wide and deep, the length is equal to the width... he has a color, a taste, a smell, etc...

- Another Hishamiya, that goes back to Hisham bin Salem Al-Jawaleeqi, who said that their lord looks like a man but has no blood or flesh, and that he has a nose, ears, mouth, and eye.

Ibn Taymiyah then states that Ibn Al-Nawbakhti has pointed the same about some of the early Shia scholars. Then Ibn Taymiyah quotes Ibn Hazm who said that the first person that said that Allah has a body is Hisham (bin Al-Hakam).

JuzakAllahu Khair for your response. In light of your response above, I have another question. What kind of tajseem (if any) does ibn Taymiyyah believe in?

My second question to you is regarding the vision of Allah (since I think you can give an objective answer on this). You said that many of the scholars of Ahlul Sunnah that preceded ibn Taymiyyah affirmed that the believer will see Allah on the Day of Judgment. I have heard this, but did they mean sight through corporeal vision? (This is something I have never been sure of, even though my reasoning has always led me to not accept this, but I'm weary of rejecting it and generally very careful with aqeedah).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing Allah in judgement day is the view of most of Ahlul Sunnah before Ibn Taymiyah.

Ibn Taymiyah then states that Ibn Al-Nawbakhti has pointed the same about some of the early Shia scholars. Then Ibn Taymiyah quotes Ibn Hazm who said that the first person that said that Allah has a body is Hisham (bin Al-Hakam).

(bismillah)

(salam)

so mr t took the ideas from the shias

bravo

light post. no need to reply

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JuzakAllahu Khair for your response. In light of your response above, I have another question. What kind of tajseem (if any) does ibn Taymiyyah believe in?

In a nutshell, he establishes the attributes without tashbeeh. I don't know if that falls under tajseem in your book, but once again, there are a lot of scholars out there that have said the same before him.

My second question to you is regarding the vision of Allah (since I think you can give an objective answer on this). You said that many of the scholars of Ahlul Sunnah that preceded ibn Taymiyyah affirmed that the believer will see Allah on the Day of Judgment. I have heard this, but did they mean sight through corporeal vision? (This is something I have never been sure of, even though my reasoning has always led me to not accept this, but I'm weary of rejecting it and generally very careful with aqeedah).

There are several authentic hadiths narrated by different Sahabis that state that we will see Allah. I recommend you pick up a copy of Al-Sharee'ah by Al-Ajiri (d. 360 AH). He quotes Imam Malik, Sufyan bin Uyayna, Ahmad bin Hanbal, Al-Qasim bin Salam, Ikrimah the mawla of Ibn Abbas. Ahmad bin Hanbal also says that whoever rejects this is a kaffir. Whether or not that is the case, the salaf are very serious about this issue because it has clear evidences from the Qur'an and the sunnah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a nutshell, he establishes the attributes without tashbeeh. I don't know if that falls under tajseem in your book, but once again, there are a lot of scholars out there that have said the same before him.

There are several authentic hadiths narrated by different Sahabis that state that we will see Allah. I recommend you pick up a copy of Al-Sharee'ah by Al-Ajiri (d. 360 AH). He quotes Imam Malik, Sufyan bin Uyayna, Ahmad bin Hanbal, Al-Qasim bin Salam, Ikrimah the mawla of Ibn Abbas. Ahmad bin Hanbal also says that whoever rejects this is a kaffir. Whether or not that is the case, the salaf are very serious about this issue because it has clear evidences from the Qur'an and the sunnah.

I have no problem with ibn Taymiyyah when he establishes the attributes of Allah without tashbeeh. Doing so does not fall under tajseem and seems to be one of the precedents amongst the scholars of Ahlul Sunnah. Although, I still take Imam Abu Hanifa's view (and that of the Maturidis) as presented in al-Fiqh al-Akbar.

As for seeing Allah on the Day of Judgment, surely one could affirm all of those traditions and the Qur'anic evidence, but metaphorically interpret "see", no? I waddle on this issue a lot.

Edited by ninjaslim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you talking about the Fiqhul Akbar that has arrived to us through the mutakalim Mohammed bin Muqatil Al-Razi? The same person that was weakened by Al-Thahabi and Ibn Hajar? The man that was mentioned in front of Al-Bukhari who said, "For me to fall from the sky to the earth is better than to narrate through Mohammed bin Muqatil." (Lisan Al-Mizan, Ibn Hajar)

As for seeing Allah on the Day of Judgment, surely one could affirm all of those traditions and the Qur'anic evidence, but metaphorically interpret "see", no? I waddle on this issue a lot.

Akhi, the deen is clear and Allah choose a language that people can understand to convey his messages. Unfortunately, the term "metaphor" has been attributed to everything that people cannot understand that falls under religion. For example, the maturidiyah said that the hadith of iman having around seventy parts is a metaphor. They said this because they don't believe that iman has levels. Then, people attributed the term "metaphor" to the attributes of Allah, because they couldn't understand them. However, you will notice that the scholars of the salaf didn't use terms like "metaphor" to associate meanings with words.

The people of kalam said:

Head = head of a man (real meaning)

Head = head of a tribe (metaphorical)

The salaf said:

Head = head of a man (real meaning)

Head = head of a tribe (real meaning)

You'll also have a really hard time finding statements by the salaf in which they would describe a verse as metaphorical. Their associations with words would only revolve around context. That's a very summarized version of the debate. If you are interested, look up Kitabul Iman by Ibn Taymiyah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...