[faqir]

Mullah `Ali Al-Qari said:

...in the book Sħarĥ usħ-Sħama’il of Ibn Ĥajar, he states: “Ibn Al-Qayyim said that his sħaykħ Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned something superb, which is that when he saw his Lord putting his hand between his shoulders, then that place was honored with a “`adħbah”. Al-`Iraqi (the sħaykħ of Al`Asqalani) said, “I did not find a basis for this statement,” i.e. any ĥadith.” Then Ibn Ĥajar said, “Rather, this statement is from their opinion and their deviance, because it is based on what they concluded and went to great lengths to prove, and attacked Ahlu-s-Sunnah for denying, namely the belief that Allah has a direction and body. They have ugly statements and bad beliefs in this regard that make ears go deaf and are judged as lies and calumnies. May Aļļaah make them both ugly, and anyone that accepts their saying.”

(Mirqatu-l-Mafatiĥ 8/216)


Reference:

–`Ali Al-Qari. Mirqatu-l-Mafatiĥ. 11 vols. Beirut, Lebanon: Dar Al-Kotob Al-ilmiyah, 2001.

Translated by sidi Abu Adam [may Allah reward him]

مرقاة المفاتيح ج8/ص216

وفي شرح الشمائل لابن حجر قال ابن القيم عن شيخه ابن تيمية أنه ذكر شيئاً بديعاً وهو أنه لما رأى ربه واضعاً يده بين كتفيه أكرم ذلك الموضع بالعذبة قال العراقي لم نجد لذلك أصلاً يعني من السنة وقال ابن حجر بل هذا من قبل رأيهما وضلالهما إذ هو مبني على ما ذهبا إليه وأطالا في الاستدلال له والحط على أهل السنة في نفيهم له وهو إثبات الجهة والجسمية لله تعالى ولهما في هذا المقام من القبائح وسوء الاعتقاد ما تصم عنه الآذان ويقضي عليه بالزور والبهتان قبحهما الله وقبح من قال بقولهما

[NMS]

faqir, on Sep 17 2008, 10:10 PM, said:

Mullah `Ali Al-Qari said:

...in the book Sħarĥusħ-Sħa'il of Ibn Ĥajar, he states: "Ibn Al-Qayyim said that his sħaykħ Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned something superb, which is that when he saw his Lord putting his hand between his shoulders, then that place was honored with a "`adħbah". Al-`Iraqi (the sħaykħ of Al`Asqalani) said, "I did not find a basis for this statement," i.e. any ĥadith." Then Ibn Ĥajar said, "Rather, this statement is from their opinion and their deviance, because it is based on what they concluded and went to great lengths to prove, and attacked Ahlu-s-Sunnah for denying, namely the belief that Allah has a direction and body. They have ugly statements and bad beliefs in this regard that make ears go deaf and are judged as lies and calumnies. May Aļļaah make them both ugly, and anyone that accepts their saying."

(Mirqatu-l-Mafatiĥ 8/216)


Reference:

–`Ali Al-Qari. Mirqatu-l-Mafatiĥ. 11 vols. Beirut, Lebanon: Dar Al-Kotob Al-ilmiyah, 2001.

Translated by sidi Abu Adam [may Allah reward him]

I came across this quote many months ago in Mirqat al Mafatih in Arabic, which can be found online.



The interesting part isn't the one translated by Abu Adam, it is the part that comes right after that, which is the reply of Mullah Ali al Qari to Ibn Hajar al Haytami's statement against sh. Ibn Taimiyyah and Ibnul Qayyim rahimahuma Allah..







Mullah Ali al Qari said in reply to Ibn Hajar al Haytami's statment above :



مرقاة المفاتيح شرح مشكاة المصابيح - (ج 13 / ص 63)
وفي شرح الشمائل لابن حجر قال ابن القيم عن شيخه ابن تيمية أنه ذكر شيئا بديعا وهو أنه لما رأى ربه واضعا يده بين كتفيه أكرم ذلك الموضع بالعذبة قال العراقي لم نجد لذلك أصلا يعني من السنة وقال ابن حجر بل هذا من قبل رأيهما وضلالهما إذ هو مبني على ما ذهبا إليه وأطالا في الاستدلال له والحط على أهل السنة في نفيهم له وهو إثبات الجهة والجسمية لله تعالى ولهما في هذا المقام من القبائح وسوء الاعتقاد ما تصم عنه الآذان ويقضي عليه بالزور والبهتان قبحهما الله وقبح من قال بقولهما والإمام أحمد وأجلاء مذهبه مبرؤون عن هذه الوصمة القبيحة كيف وهي كفر عند كثيرين

أقول: صانهما الله عن هذه السمة الشنيعة والنسبة الفظيعة ومن طالع شرح منازل السائرين لنديم الباري الشيخ عبد الله الأنصاري الحنبلي قدس الله تعالى سره الجلي وهو شيخ الإسلام عند الصوفية حال الإطلاق بالاتفاق بين له أنهما كانا من أهل السنة والجماعة بل ومن أولياء هذه الأمة



some of the words are too difficult for me to translate, but he basically defends the 2 shaikhs (Ibn Taimiyyah and Ibnul Qayyim) and says that they were from ahl Assunnah and from the awliya' of this ummah.



what I quoted above was only part of his reply to al Haytami.


Here is the complete reply (a little lengthy), Mullah Ali al Qari's words are in blue. :

أقول:

صانهما الله عن هذه السمة الشنيعة والنسبة الفظيعة ومن طالع شرح منازل السائرين لنديم الباري الشيخ عبد الله الأنصاري الحنبلي قدس الله تعالى سره الجلي وهو شيخ الإسلام عند الصوفية حال الإطلاق بالاتفاق بين له أنهما كانا من أهل السنة والجماعة بل ومن أولياء هذه الأمة
ومما ذكر في الشرح المذكور ما نصه على وفق المسطور هو قوله على بعض عبارة المنازل:

(وهذا الكلام من شيخ الإسلام (عبد الله الأنصاري) يبين مرتبته من السنة ومقداره في العلم وأنه بريء مما رماه أعداؤه الجهمية من التشبيه والتمثيل على عاداتهم في رمي أهل الحديث والسنة بذلك كرمي الرافضة لهم بأنهم نواصب والناصبة بأنهم روافض والمعتزلة بأنهم نوائب حشوية وذلك ميراث من أعداء رسول الله في رميه ورمي أصحابه بأنهم صباة قد ابتدعوا دينا محدثا وهذا ميراث لأهل الحديث والسنة من نبيهم بتلقيب أهل الباطل لهم بالألقاب المذمومة وقدس الله روح الشافعي حيث يقول وقد نسب إليه الرفض إن كان رفضا حب آل محمد فليشهد الثقلان أني رافضي ورضي الله عن شيخنا أبي عبد الله بن تيمية حيث يقول إن كان نصبا حب صحب محمد فليشهد الثقلان أني ناصبي وعفا الله عن الثالث حيث يقول فإن كان تجسيما ثبوت صفاته وتنزيهها عن كل تأويل مفتر فإني بحمد الله ربي مجسم هلموا شهود واملؤوا كل محضر ثم بين في الشرح المذكور ما يدل على براءته من التشنيع المسطور والتقبيح المزبور وهو ما نصه أن حفظه حرمة نصوص الأسماء والصفات بإجراء أخبارها على ظواهرها وهو اعتقاد مفهومها المتبادر إلى إفهام العامة ولا نعني بالعامة الجهال بل عامة الأمة كما قال مالك رحمه الله وقد سئل عن قوله تعالى الرحمن على العرش استوى طه كيف استوى فأطرق مالك رأسه حتى علاه الرحضاء ثم قال الاستواء معلوم والكيف غير معقول والإيمان به واجب والسؤال عنه بدعة فرق بين المعنى المعلوم من هذه اللفظة وبين الكيف الذي لا يعقله البشر وهذا الجواب من مالك رحمه الله شاف عام في جميع مسائل الصفات من السمع والبصر والعلم والحياة والقدرة والإرادة والنزول والغضب والرحمة والضحك فمعانيها كلها معلومة وأما كيفيتها فغير معقولة إذ تعقل الكيف فرع العلم بكيفية الذات وكنهها فإذا كان ذلك غير معلوم فكيف يعقل لهم كيفية الصفات والعصمة النافعة من هذا الباب أن يصف الله بما وصف به نفسه ووصف به رسوله من غير تحريف ولا تعطيل ومن غير تكييف ولا تمثيل بل يثبت له الأسماء والصفات وينفي عنه مشابهة المخلوقات فيكون إثباتك منزها عن التشبيه ونفيك منزه عن التعطيل فمن نفى حقيقة الاستواء فهو معطل ومن شبهه باستواء المخلوقات على المخلوق فهو مشبه ومن قال هو استواء ليس كمثله شيء فهو الموحد المنزه) اه كلامه وتبين مرامه وظهر أن معتقده موافق لأهل الحق من السلف وجمهور الخلف فالطعن التشنيع والتقبيح الفظيع غير موجه عليه ولا متوجه إليه فإن كلامه بعينه مطابق لما قاله الإمام الأعظم والمجتهد الأقدم في فقهه الأكبر ما نصه :
( وله تعالى يد ووجه ونفس فما ذكر الله في القرآن من ذكر الوجه واليد والنفس فهو له صفات بلا كيف ولا يقال إن يده قدرته أو نعمته لأن فيه إبطال الصفة وهو قول أهل القدر والاعتزال ولكن يده صفته بلا كيف وغضبه ورضاه صفتان من صفاته بلا كيف ) اه

وحيث انتفى عنه اعتقاد التجسيم فالمعنى الذي ذكره في الحديث الكريم له وجه وجيه ظاهر وتوجيه لأهل التنبيه باهر سواء رأى النبي ربه في المنام أو تجلى الله سبحانه عليه بالتجلي الصوري المعروف عند أرباب الحال والمقام وهو أن يكون مذكرا بهيئته ومفكرا برؤيته الحاصلة من كمال تحليته والله أعلم بأحوال أنبيائه وأصفيائه الذين رباهم بحسن تربيته وجلى مرائي قلوبهم بحسن تجليته حتى شهدوا مقام الحضور والبقاء وتخلصوا عن صداء الحظور والفناء رزقنا الله أشواقهم وأذاقنا أحوالهم وأخلاقهم وأحيانا على طريقتهم وأماتنا على محبتهم وحشرنا في زمرتهم.

This post has been edited by NMS: 17 September 2008 - 10:14 PM

[tauqir_attari]

Did Imam Ali al Qari(rh) support the view of Ibn Taymiah that "which is that when he saw his Lord putting his hand between his shoulders, then that place was honored with an “adhbah"

From where did Ibn Taymiah get this statement?

I think , had there been any source of this statement , then Imam Ibn Hajar (rh) and Imam Iraqi (rh) would have certainly found out. But Ibn Hajr (rh) said "Rather, this statement is from their opinion and their deviance, because it is based on what they concluded and went to great lengths to prove, and attacked Ahlu-s-Sunnah for denying, namely the belief that Allah has a direction and body. They have ugly statements and bad beliefs in this regard that make ears go deaf and are judged as lies and calumnies. May Allaah make them both ugly, and anyone that accepts their saying.”

What i want to know is , did Mulla Qari (rh) agree with this view of Ibn Taymiah ? And most important, what is the Source of this statement??

[suleimanibnsalim]

So did Mulla `Ali al-Qari agree with the statement of Ibn Taymiyyah or say that it was not said.

[Murat Yazici]

I have read in a source (don't remember where exactly) that Mulla `Ali al-Qari praised Ibn Taymiyya. So, what is written above does not surprise me.

On the other hand, al-Nabahânî rahimahullah says that al-Qari criticised Ibn Taymiyya and quotes the following words from al-Qari (as translated elsewhere by Dr. Haddad):

Al-Qârî said in his commentary on `Iyâd's al-Shifâ':

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) on this chapter.

http://www.livingisl.../itay_e.html#17

Is there an English translation of al-Nabahânî's Shawâhid al-Haqq? More can be found in that book.

We also have the following:

Al-Qari said in Mirqat al-Mafatih (1892 ed. 2:137 = 1994 ed. 3:300):

"A whole group of them [the early Muslims], as well as later scholars, said that whoever believes Allahu ta'ala to be in a particular physical direction is an unbeliever, as al-`Iraqi has explicitly stated, saying that this was the position of Abu Hanifa, Malik, al-Shafi`i, al-Ash`ari, and [Ibn] al-Baqillani."

Al-Qari reiterates this fatwa in Sharh al-Fiqh al-Akbar (1984 'Ilmiyya ed. p. 57) and Sharh 'Ayn al-'Ilm (1989 ed. 1:34). (See: Footnote #432 on p. 253 of the translation of Ibn Jahbal's "The Refutation of Him Who Attributes Direction to Allah" by Dr. G. F. Haddad, Aqsa Publications, Birmingham, UK, 2008.)

***

Does anybody dispute that Ibn Taymiyya attributed direction to Allahu ta'ala?

This post has been edited by Murat Yazici: 26 February 2010 - 09:36 AM

[faqir]

as-salam `alaikum

A brother on SF posted:


[quote - article: 'Changing Views of Ibn Taymiyya' - by Khaled El-Rouayheb, who said]:

'In any case, al-Qari' al-Harawi was far from being a "Taymiyyan". His own theological works show this clearly. In his Sharh Bad' al-amali, completed towards the end of his life, al-Qari' al-Harawi showed little or no traces of being influenced by Ibn Taymiyya. God, he wrote, is not in any direction, in explicit contrast to the claims of the mushabbiha and Karramiyya who claim that He is above His throne. God's speech, he wrote, does not consist of words and sounds, in explicit contrast to the Karramiyya and Hanbalis ['Ali al-Qari' al-Harawi, Sharh bad' al-amali (Istanbul: Matba'at al-Haydari, 1295AH) 7-9]. Literalist interpretation was rejected in favour of the two options of tafwid and ta'wil. Al-Qari' al-Harawi preferred the option of tafwid, and his justification of this preference again took on a mystical tone:

"To leave the meaning (tafwid) to God and believe in the truth of what He says without knowing it's meaning is the ultimate servitude. This is the reason it was the chosen option of the salaf. To explain the problematic passages and reinterpret it as the khalaf do, while not insisting that is what He means, is an act of worship ('ibada) on the part of the servant. However, servitude is more elevated than worship, for servitude is contentment with what the Lord does, while worship is to do what pleases the Lord. Contentment is more elevated than action, so that not being content is unbelief, while not doing sin." [Ibid, 11].

As in the case of al-Sanusi, the preference for the option of tafwid meant suspension of judgement, not literalism. Against the Karramiyya and the mujassima who appealed to the literal sense of the Qur'anic verses stating that God is on the throne, al-Qari' al-Harawi wrote: "they have no argument here, for istawa has many meanings such as istila' ...and there can be no argument when the possibilities are many." [Ibid, 11]. It is hard to imagine the historical Ibn Taymiyya agreeing to all of this.' [end quote]


........



[quote - article: 'Changing Views of Ibn Taymiyya' - Khaled El-Rouayheb]

'In his commentary on the same work, 'Ali al-Qari' al-Harawi was almost as unsympathetic to the claims of Ibn Taymiyya:

"Amongst the Hanbalis Ibn Taymiyya has gone to an extreme by prohibiting travelling to visit the Prophet--may God bless him and grant him salvation--just as others have gone to the opposite extreme in saying: the fact that the visiting is a pious deed is known with certainty and he who denies this is an unbeliever. Perhaps the second position is closer to the truth, for to prohibit something that scholars by consensus deem commendable is unbelief, since it is worse than prohibiting what is [merely] permissable, in regards to which there is agreement [i.e. there is agreement that the prohibition of what is permissable by consensus is unbelief]." ['Ali al-Qari' al-Harawi, Sharh al-Shifa' (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 2001), 2:152].' [end quote].

[Abul Hasan]

faqir, on 25 October 2011 - 05:53 PM, said:

as-salam `alaikum

A brother on SF posted:


quote - article: 'Changing Views of Ibn Taymiyya' - by Khaled El-Rouayheb, who said:

'In any case, al-Qari' al-Harawi was far from being a "Taymiyyan". His own theological works show this clearly. In his Sharh Bad' al-amali, completed towards the end of his life, al-Qari' al-Harawi showed little or no traces of being influenced by Ibn Taymiyya. God, he wrote, is not in any direction, in explicit contrast to the claims of the mushabbiha and Karramiyya who claim that He is above His throne. God's speech, he wrote, does not consist of words and sounds, in explicit contrast to the Karramiyya and Hanbalis ['Ali al-Qari' al-Harawi, Sharh bad' al-amali (Istanbul: Matba'at al-Haydari, 1295AH) 7-9]. Literalist interpretation was rejected in favour of the two options of tafwid and ta'wil. Al-Qari' al-Harawi preferred the option of tafwid, and his justification of this preference again took on a mystical tone:

"To leave the meaning (tafwid) to God and believe in the truth of what He says without knowing it's meaning is the ultimate servitude. This is the reason it was the chosen option of the salaf. To explain the problematic passages and reinterpret it as the khalaf do, while not insisting that is what He means, is an act of worship ('ibada) on the part of the servant. However, servitude is more elevated than worship, for servitude is contentment with what the Lord does, while worship is to do what pleases the Lord. Contentment is more elevated than action, so that not being content is unbelief, while not doing sin." [Ibid, 11].

As in the case of al-Sanusi, the preference for the option of tafwid meant suspension of judgement, not literalism. Against the Karramiyya and the mujassima who appealed to the literal sense of the Qur'anic verses stating that God is on the throne, al-Qari' al-Harawi wrote: "they have no argument here, for istawa has many meanings such as istila' ...and there can be no argument when the possibilities are many." [Ibid, 11]. It is hard to imagine the historical Ibn Taymiyya agreeing to all of this.' [end quote]


........



quote - article: 'Changing Views of Ibn Taymiyya' - Khaled El-Rouayheb

'In his commentary on the same work, 'Ali al-Qari' al-Harawi was almost as unsympathetic to the claims of Ibn Taymiyya:

"Amongst the Hanbalis Ibn Taymiyya has gone to an extreme by prohibiting travelling to visit the Prophet--may God bless him and grant him salvation--just as others have gone to the opposite extreme in saying: the fact that the visiting is a pious deed is known with certainty and he who denies this is an unbeliever. Perhaps the second position is closer to the truth, for to prohibit something that scholars by consensus deem commendable is unbelief, since it is worse than prohibiting what is [merely] permissable, in regards to which there is agreement [i.e. there is agreement that the prohibition of what is permissable by consensus is unbelief]." ['Ali al-Qari' al-Harawi, Sharh al-Shifa' (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 2001), 2:152].' .

Mashallah! I do believe the brother who posted that also posts on here as well these days. Insha'allah, there are more things to quote from the above work.