Biography of Ibn Qayyim al-Jawaziyyah

from Jalal Abualrub’s English Translation of Ibn al-Qayyim’s, Zad-ul Ma`ad

He is Abu  Abdullah Shams ad-Din  Muhammad , Ibn  Abu Bakr, son of Ayyub, son of Sa`d, son of ‘Huraiz, son of Makki, az-Zur`ii  and then the resident of Damascus.
He was born in the lunar month of Safar the year 691 AH (after the Hijrah ). He died in Damascus on a Thursday on the thirteenth day of the lunar month of Rajab in the year 751 after the Hijrah (or AH). Judges, notables and large crowds attended his funeral.  He was sixty years old when he died.

Ibn Qayyim al-Jauziyyah is known by this name because his father, Abu Bakr, was the Qayyim or supervisor of the school known by the name, Al-Jauziyyah, in Damascus.  Abu Bakr’s children and grandchildren were known as the children of the Qayyim of al-Jauziyyah for generations after that. Al-Jauziyyah was built by Mu`hyi ad-Din Ibn al-‘Hafidh Ya`hya Ibn Al-Jauzi; its building finished in the year 652 AH . In the year 1327 AH, it was turned to a courthouse. Al-Jauziyyah was burned during the Syrian revolution against France, during France’s occupation of Syria in the early part of the twentieth century.

Ibn al-Qayyim was born in the village of Zur`, which, as we stated, is located in the area of `Horan, a fertile area close to Damascus. Later on, he moved to Damascus and learned from its scholars.  He was raised in a house of knowledge and virtue and began his education with his father, who died in 723 AH. Ibn al-Qayyim was a sea of all types of knowledge, especially knowledge of the religion and the Arabic Language. All those who wrote biographies of Ibn al-Qayyim testified to his vast knowledge in the Sunnah, Fiqh (minor aspects of the religion), Arabic Language, `Hadith, as well as, being a scholar of healing through divine medicine. Ibn al-Qayyim authored numerous beneficial books with his beautiful handwriting and also had a vast collection of books authored by the scholars of the Salaf  and latter generations. He had an exceptional standard of character. He was neither envious, nor harmed anyone, or felt rage or hatred against anyone.  He taught at the school known by, ‘as-Sadriyyah’, and led the prayer at al-Jauziyyah.

Ibn al-Qayyim, known for being an exalted worshipper of Allah, used to spend a good part of the night in Qiyam voluntary prayer. His prayer was lengthy and full of devotion and he used to perfect its Ruku’ and Sujud. His conduct was exemplary and he was known for having a pure heart. He repented often to Allah (سُبحانَهُ وتَعالى) and invoked Him for forgiveness, prompting one of his students, Imam Ibn Kathir, to state, “I do not know of anyone who is a more active worshipper than he is!”  When he performed Hajj, the people of Makkah were astonished at the tremendous devotion in which Ibn al-Qayyim performed acts of worship and rituals of `Hajj, such as Tawaf (circumambulating) the Ka`bah in Makkah.

Among Ibn al-Qayyim’s best qualities is that he dedicated his life from the time he met his Shaikh, Shaikh al-Islam Ibn Taimiyyah, until he died to defending the Sunnah against all innovations in the religion whether in the creed or practical aspects of the religion. He called to implementing the Sunnah and discarding Taqlid, which pertains to blindly imitating the statements and opinions of people without relying on evidence contained in the Quran and Sunnah. He also dedicated his efforts to invalidating and exposing the deviant practices and creeds of the misguided Sufi sects, which rely on innovation as their tool of destruction against Islam.

Ibn al-Qayyim met Ibn Taimiyyah in the year 712 AH and remained with him the rest of his life. He became Ibn Taimiyyah’s student, even though he was a scholar in his own right, and shared with him the responsibility of carrying and defending the Sunnah and its knowledge, until Ibn Taimiyyah died in 728 AH. Ibn al-Qayyim remained truthful to this Da`wah (call) and asserted in a poem that through the efforts of Ibn Taimiyyah, Allah (سُبحانَهُ وتَعالى) permitted him to go back to the way of as-Salaf As-Sali`h.

Ibn al-Qayyim was impressed by Ibn Taimiyyah’s style of writing and imitated it while defending the true religion against deviant sects. This is why Ibn al-Qayyim is called, ‘The Second Shaikh al-Islam’.

Whenever Ibn al-Qayyim defended the Sunnah against the people of Bid`ah , he would first read what those sects believed and then refute their creeds and statements relying on the Quran and authentic Sunnah.

When he researched a subject, Ibn al-Qayyim would refer to the text of the Quran and Sunnah and derive the various rulings of the religion using them as the resource of knowledge. He would often mention several evidences to support a certain ruling. He would also mention the opinions and statements from the scholars of previous generations and sometimes would support their statements by relying on various evidence he collected from the Quran and Sunnah. When refuting a statement, he would mention his evidence, as well as, the evidence of those who did not agree with him then would refute their opinions.

The resources of knowledge that Ibn al-Qayyim relied on are the Quran, the Sunnah and the Ijmaa` , if he did not know of anyone who disagreed with the Ijma` with regards to a certain ruling. Next, he would rely on the Fatwa or the religious opinion or decree of the Prophet’s companions, if there were no other companions who contradicted their Fatwa. He would then rely on the Fatwa of the successive generation that came after the generation of the companions, which is the generation of the At-Tabi`un. He would then rely on Qiyas .

Furthermore, Ibn al-Qayyim would not show an inclination towards or preference for any Madh-hab (school of thought), such as the ‘Hanafi, Maliki, Shafii or ‘Hanbali Madhhabs, which are attributed to Imams Abu ‘Hanifah An-Nu`man, Malik Ibn Anas, Ash-Shafii and Ahmad Ibn ‘Hanbal. Ibn al-Qayyim called for Ijtihad by those qualified to use this method and firmly defended the Aqeedah (Creed) and the way as-Salaf as-Sali`h understood, practiced and conveyed the religion. He used a highly eloquent and persuasive style of writing to convey his knowledge.

Many students who later became scholars of knowledge in their own right learned from Ibn al-Qayyim. His knowledge, teachings and books are still used today as a major resource of authentic knowledge by those who are dedicated students of religious knowledge.

Scholars Praise the Good Qualities and Tremendous Knowledge of Ibn al-Qayyim

Al-Qhadhi (Judge) Burhan ad-Din az-Zur`ii stated that during his time, there was not a more knowledgeable scholar than Ibn al-Qayyim. The known scholar Ibn Rajab al-‘Hanbali said that Ibn al-Qayyim learned the ‘Hanbali Madhhab and learned with Taqi ad-Din Ibn Taimiyyah, and became proficient in all aspects of Islamic knowledge. Also, the scholar of `Hadith and historian Imam adh-Dhahabi stated that Ibn al-Qayyim was proficient in `Hadith, Fiqh and the Arabic Language. Shaikh Jamal ad-Din Ibn Taghri Bardi stated that Ibn al-Qayyim was excellent at several aspects of knowledge, such as Tafsir (meaning contained in the Quran), Fiqh, Arabic Language and grammar, `Hadith, Usul al-Fiqh (foundations of Islamic Jurisprudence), and so forth.

Several other scholars, such as ash-Shaukani and as-Suyuti, praised the knowledge of Ibn al-Qayyim. One of Ibn al-Qayyim’s famous students, Imam Ibn Kathir who wrote the famous Tafsir (explanation) of the Quran said about him, “He heard narration of `Hadith and was proficient in the religion in various aspects of knowledge, especially Tafsir, `Hadith and the Quran and Sunnah. When Shaikh al-Islam Ibn Taimiyyah returned from his trip to Egypt in 712 AH, Ibn al-Qayyim learned from him until Ibn Taimiyyah died. Ibn al-Qayyim collected vast knowledge from Ibn Taimiyyah adding to the knowledge that he collected before. He became authoritative in various aspects of knowledge because of what he learned, which was substantial. Even though Ibn al-Qayyim became a famous scholar, teacher and author in his lifetime, he was uniquely active by day and night collecting more knowledge and invoking Allah (سُبحانَهُ وتَعالى) and supplicating to Him.”

Like all reformers before him, Ibn al-Qayyim suffered oppression. He conveyed the true Islamic knowledge fearing none, except Allah (سُبحانَهُ وتَعالى) and supported his Shaikh, Imam Ibn Taimiyyah, in his struggle against Bid`ah and deviant sects and creeds. When Ibn Taimiyyah was jailed by unjust rulers, Ibn al-Qayyim was jailed along with him.

In the last term in jail, Ibn al-Qayyim was kept away from Shaikh al-Islam Ibn Taimiyyah, who died soon after. Ibn al-Qayyim was released from jail after Ibn Taimiyyah died; most of the population of Damascus attended Ibn Taimiyyah’s funeral and grieved for their tremendous loss.

Surely, there is a difference between the funerals held for the scholars of Sunnah and those held for the scholars of Bid`ah and deviation. For instance, around two million people attended the funeral of Imam Ahmad Ibn `Hanbal when he died in Baghdad. At that time, Ahmad was supported by the Caliph and loved by people. Also, Baghdad was the largest city in the world. When Ibn Taimiyyah died, Damascus was not a very large town. Therefore, when sixty thousand men, women and children attend someone’s funeral –like Ibn Taimiyyah’s funeral- in Damascus during that time, this means that most of its population attended that funeral.

Imam Ahmad Ibn `Hanbal is held as having a higher degree of knowledge, scholarly status and level than Ibn Taimiyyah had. Imam Ahmad ibn `Hanbal was blessed and elevated in honor and grade by taking the tremendous stance he took in defense of the true Islamic Creed. This is why he is rightfully called, ‘Imamu Ahli as-Sunnah’.

Imam Ibn Taimiyyah followed in the footsteps of the Imams who came before him, such as Imam Ahmad Ibn `Hanbal.  They were brothers and Imams who defended the true Islamic Faith and raised high the flag of the Sunnah. Muslims love and respect these two Imams and their countless brethren Imams who came before and after them who explained, supported and defended Allah’s religion. How can Muslims reward them for their efforts and for preserving the religion of our Prophet, Muhammad, peace be on him, as fresh as the day it was revealed to him? All what we can say is repeat what Allah (سُبحانَهُ وتَعالى) said in the Quran,

 وَالَّذِينَ جَاءُوا مِنْ بَعْدِهِمْ يَقُولُونَ رَبَّنَا اغْفِرْ لَنَا وَلإِخْوَانِنَا الَّذِينَ سَبَقُونَا بِالإِيمَانِ وَلاَ تَجْعَلْ فِي قُلُوبِنَا غِلاَّ لِلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا رَبَّنَا إِنَّكَ رَءُوفٌ رَحِيمٌ 

{And those who came after them say: “Our Lord! Forgive us and our brethren who have preceded us in Faith, and put not in our hearts any hatred against those who have believed. Our Lord! You are indeed full of kindness, Most Merciful.”} [59:10]

Ibn Rajab al-‘Hanbali said, “Ibn al-Qayyim was jailed several times, sometimes held along with Ibn Taimiyyah. In their last term in jail, they were kept in separate rooms in a castle.”

Teachers of Ibn al-Qayyim

Ibn al-Qayyim learned knowledge with many teachers, among them his father, Abu Bakr Ibn Ayyub.  He also learned knowledge of `Hadith with Abu Bakr Abdul Da-im, Arabic Language with Abu Abdullah Ibn Abi al-Fat`h and Fiqh with Muhammad Safi ad-Din al-Hindi.

As we stated, Ibn al-Qayyim learned with Ibn Taimiyyah and benefited from his vast knowledge in the areas of Tafsir, `Hadith, Fiqh, Usul, `Ilm al-Fara-idh (inheritance) and Creed. He was his devoted student for approximately sixteen years.

Among Ibn al-Qayyim’s teachers were Ibn Maktum, ‘Ala ad-Din al-Kindi, Muhammad Ibn Abu al-Fat`h, Ayyub Ibn al-Kamal, Judge Badr ad-Din Ibn Jama`ah and Abu al-Fat’h al-Ba`albaki.  May Allah (سُبحانَهُ وتَعالى) grant them His Mercy.

Students of Ibn al-Qayyim

Ibn al-Qayyim’s students included an impressive list of Imams of knowledge, such as Ibn Kathir, Ibn Rajab al-‘Hanbali, Ibn Qudamah al-Maqdisi, al-Fairuzabadi, who wrote the famous Arabic dictionary known by, al-Qamus al-Mu`hit, and others. Ibn al-Qayyim’ s two children, Ibrahim and Musharraf ad-Din, whose name was Abdullah, also learned with him.

Books Ibn al-Qayyim Authored

Ibn al-Qayyim authored a large number of books, such as:
1. Ijtima` al-Juyush al-Islamiyyah `Ala Ghazw al-Mu'attilah wal-Jahmiyyah.
2. A`hkamu Ahli adh-Dhimmah.
3. I'lamu al-Muwaqqi`in `an Rabbi al-`Alamin.
4. Ighathatu al-Lahfan min Masa-id ash-Shaitan.
5. Al-Fawa-id.
6. Tahdheebu Sunani Abi Dawood.
7. Madariju as-Salikin.
8. Ad-Da-o wad-Dawa.
9. ‘Uddatu as-Sabirin wa-Dhakheeratu ash-Shakirin.
10. Hidayatu al-`Hayara fi Ajwibati an-Nasara.

Ibn al-Qayyim authored many other books about the various aspects of Islamic Knowledge, some still in the form of manuscripts. May Allah (سُبحانَهُ وتَعالى) reward him with His Mercy and Pleasure.

This biography of Imam Ibn al-Qayyim is somewhat based on the biography that Shaikh Abdul Hadi Wahbeh and Shaikh `Irfan Abdul Qadir `Hassunah collected from various resources of biography of famous imams, such as, Ad-Durar al-Kaminah [4:21-23]; Al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah [14:234-235]; Shadharat adh-Dhahab [6:168-170]; An-Nujumu az-Zahirah [10:249]; Al-Badr-u-t-Tali’ [2:142-146]; and so forth

http://www.islamlife.com/religion2/component/content/article/69-later-scholars/567-biography-of-ibn-qayyim-al-jawaziyyah

IBN SINA ABU ‘ALI AL-HUSAYN (980-1037)

Ibn Sina (Avicenna) is one of the foremost philosophers in the Medieval Hellenistic Islamic tradition that also includes al-Farabi and Ibn Rushd His philosophical theory is a comprehensive, detailed and rationalistic account of the nature of God and Being, in which he finds a systematic place for the corporeal world, spirit, insight, and the varieties of logical thought including dialectic, rhetoric and poetry.

Central to Ibn Sina’s philosophy is his concept of reality and reasoning. Reason, in his scheme, can allow progress through various levels of understanding and can finally lead to God, the ultimate truth. He stresses the importance of gaining knowledge, and develops a theory of knowledge based on four faculties: sense perception, retention, imagination and estimation. Imagination has the principal role in intellection, as it can compare and construct images which give it access to universals. Again the ultimate object of knowledge is God, the pure intellect.

In metaphysics, Ibn Sina makes a distinction between essence and existence; essence considers only the nature of things, and should be considered apart from their mental and physical realization. This distinction applies to all things except God, whom Ibn Sina identifies as the first cause and therefore both essence and existence. He also argued that the soul is incorporeal and cannot be destroyed. The soul, in his view, is an agent with choice in this world between good and evil, which in turn leads to reward or punishment.

Reference has sometimes been made to Ibn Sina’s supposed mysticism, but this would appear to be based on a misreading by Western philosophers of parts of his work. As one of the most important practitioners of philosophy, Ibn Sina exercised a strong influence over both other Islamic philosophers and medieval Europe. His work was one of the main targets of al-Ghazali’s attack on Hellenistic influences in Islam. In Latin translations, his works influenced many Christian philosophers, most notably Thomas Aquinas. 

1           Biography

2          Reason and reality

3          Theory of knowledge

4          Metaphysics

5          The existence of God

6          The soul

7          Reward and punishment

8          Poetry, character and society

9          Links to the West

List of works

References and further reading

1    Biography

Ibn Sina was born in AH 370/AD 980 near Bukhara in Central Asia, where his father governed a village in one of the royal estates. At thirteen, Ibn Sina began a study of medicine that resulted in ‘distinguished physicians . . . reading the science of medicine under [him]’ (Sirat al-shaykh al-ra’is (The Life of Ibn Sina): 27). His medical expertise brought him to the attention of the Sultan of Bukhara, Nuh ibn Mansur, whom he treated successfully; as a result he was given permission to use the sultan’s library and its rare manuscripts, allowing him to continue his research into modes of knowledge.

When the sultan died, the heir to the throne, ‘Ali ibn Shams al-Dawla, asked Ibn Sina to continue al vizier, but the philosopher was negotiating to join the forces of another son of the late king, Ala al-Dawla, and so went into hiding. During this time he composed his major philosophical treatise, Kitab al-shifa’ (Book of Healing), a comprehensive account of learning that ranges from logic and mathematics to metaphysics and the afterlife. While he was writing the section on logic Ibn Sina was arrested and imprisoned, but he escaped to Isfahan, disguised as a Sufi, and joined Ala al-Dawla. While in the service of the latter he completed al-Shifa’ and produced the Kitab al-najat (Book of Salvation), an abridgment of al-Shifa’. He also produced at least two major works on logic: one, al-Mantiq, translated as The Propositional Logic of Ibn Sina, was a commentary on Aristotle’s Prior Analytics and forms part of al-Shifa’; the other, al-Isharat wa-‘I-tanbihat (Remarks and Admonitions), seems to be written in the ‘indicative mode’, where the reader must participate by working out the steps leading from the stated premises to proposed conclusions. He also produced a treatise on definitions and a summary of the theoretical sciences, together with a number of psychological, religious and other works; the latter include works on astronomy, medicine, philology and zoology, as well as poems and an allegorical work, Hayy ibn Yaqzan (The Living Son of the Vigilant). His biographer also mentions numerous short works on logic and metaphysics, and a book on ‘Fair Judgment’ that was lost when his prince’s fortunes suffered a turn. Ibn Sina’s philosophical and medical work and his political involvement continued until his death.

2 Reason and reality

Ibn Sina’s autobiography parallels his allegorical work, Hayy ibn Yaqzan. Both clarify how it is possible for individuals by themselves to arrive at the ultimate truths about reality, being and God. The autobiography shows how Ibn Sina more or less taught himself, although with particular kinds of help at significant moments, and proceeded through various levels of sophistication until he arrived at ultimate truths.

Such progress was possible because of Ibn Sina’s conception of reality and reasoning. He maintains that God, the principle of all existence, is pure intellect, from whom other existing things such as minds, bodies and other objects all emanate, and therefore to whom they are all necessarily related. That necessity, once it is fully understood, is rational and allows existents to be inferred from each other and, ultimately, from God. In effect, the totality of intelligibles is structured syllogistically and human knowledge consists of the mind’s reception and grasp of intelligible being. Since knowledge consists of grasping syllogistically structured intelligibles, it requires the use of reasoning to follow the relations between intelligibles. Among these intelligibles are first principles that include both concepts such as ‘the existent’, ‘the thing’ and ‘the necessary’, that make up the categories, and the truths of logic, including the first-figure syllogistics, all of which are basic, primitive and obvious. They cannot be explained further since all explanation and thought proceeds only on their basis. The rules of logic are also crucial to human development.

Ibn Sina’s stand on the fundamental nature of categorical concepts and logical forms follows central features of Aristotle’s thought in the Prior Analytics (see ARISTOTLE §§4-7). Borrowing from Aristotle, he also singles out a capacity for a mental act in which the knower spontaneously hits upon the middle term of a syllogism. Since rational arguments proceed syllogistically, the ability to hit upon the middle term is the ability to move an argument forward by seeing how given premises yield appropriate conclusions. It allows the person possessing this ability to develop arguments, to recognize the inferential relations between syllogisms. Moreover, since reality is structured syllogistically, the ability to hit upon the middle term and to develop arguments is crucial to moving knowledge of reality forward.

Ibn Sina holds that it is important to gain knowledge. Grasp of the intelligibles determines the fate of the rational soul in the hereafter, and therefore is crucial to human activity. When the human intellect grasps these intelligibles it comes into contact with the Active Intellect, a level of being that emanates ultimately from God, and receives a ‘divine effluence’. People may be ordered according to their capacity for gaining knowledge, and thus by their possession and development of the capacity for hitting on the middle term. At the highest point is the prophet, who knows the intelligibles all at once, or nearly so. He has a pure rational soul and can know the intelligibles in their proper syllogistic order, including their middle terms. At the other end lies the impure person lacking in the capacity for developing arguments. Most people are in between these extremes, but they may improve their capacity for grasping the middle term by developing a balanced temperament and purity of soul (see LOGIC IN ISLAMIC PHILOSOPHY §1).

In relation to the older debate about the respective scopes of grammar and logic, Ibn Sina argues that since logic deals with concepts that can be abstracted from sensible material, it also escapes the contingencies of the latter. Language and grammar govern sensible material and therefore have a different domain; indeed, languages are various and their rules of operation, their grasp of sensible material, are likewise articulated variously (see LANGUAGE, PHILOSOPHY OF). Nevertheless, languages make available the abstracted concepts whose operation is governed by logic; yet if language deals with contingencies, it is not clear how it can grasp or make available the objects of logic. At times, as for example in al-Isharat, Ibn Sina suggests that languages generally share a structure.

3 Theory of knowledge

In his theory of knowledge, Ibn Sina identifies the mental faculties of the soul in terms of their epistemological function. As the discussion of logic in §2 has already suggested, knowledge begins with abstraction. Sense perception, being already mental, is the form of the object perceived (see SENSE AND REFERENCE §I). Sense perception responds to the particular with its given form and material accidents. As a mental event, being a perception of an object rather than the object itself, perception occurs in the particular. To analyse this response, classifying its formal features in abstraction from material accidents, we must both retain the images given by sensation and also manipulate them by disconnecting parts and aligning them according to their formal and other properties. However, retention and manipulation are distinct epistemological functions, and cannot depend on the same psychological faculty; therefore Ibn Sina distinguishes faculties of relation and manipulation as appropriate to those diverse epistemological functions (see EPISTEMOLOGY IN ISLAMIC PHILOSOPHY §4).

Ibn Sina identifies the retentive faculty as ‘representation’ and charges the imagination with the task of reproducing and manipulating images. To conceptualize our experience and to order it according to its qualities, we must have and be able to reinvoke images of what we experienced but is now absent. For this we need sensation and representation at least; in addition, to order and classify the content of representation, we must be able to discriminate, separate out and recombine parts of images, and therefore must possess imagination and reason. To think about a black flag we must be able to analyse its colour, separating this quality from others, or its part in the image from other images, and classify it with other black things, thereby showing that the concept of black applies to all such objects and their images. Imagination carries out this manipulation, allowing us to produce images of objects we have not seen in fact out of the images of things we have experienced, and thereby also generating images for intelligibles and prophecies.

Beyond sense perception, retention and imagination, Ibn Sina locates estimation (wahm). This is a faculty for perceiving non-sensible ‘intentions that exist in the individual sensible objects’. A sheep flees a wolf because it estimates that the animal may do it harm; this estimation is more than representation and imagination, since it includes an intention that is additional to the perceived and abstracted form and concept of the animal. Finally, there may be a faculty that retains the content of wahm, the meanings of images. Ibn Sina also relies on a faculty of common sense, involving awareness of the work and products of all the other faculties, which interrelates these features.

Of these faculties, imagination has a principal role in intellection. Its comparison and construction of images with given meanings gives it access to universals in that it is able to think of the universal by manipulating images (see UNIVERSALS). However, Ibn Sina explains this process of grasping the universal, this emergence of the universal in the human mind, as the result of an action on the mind by the Active Intellect. This intellect is the last of ten cosmic intellects that stand below God. In other words, the manipulation of images does not by itself procure a grasp of universals so much as train the mind to think the universals when they are given to the mind by the Active Intellect. Once achieved, the processes undergone in training inform the mind so that the latter can attend directly to the Active Intellect when required. Such direct access is crucial since the soul lacks any faculty for retaining universals and therefore repeatedly needs fresh access to the Active Intellect.

As the highest point above the Active Intellect, God, the pure intellect, is also the highest object of human knowledge. All sense experience, logic and the faculties of the human soul are therefore directed at grasping the fundamental structure of reality as it emanates from that source and, through various levels of being down to the Active Intellect, becomes available to human thought through reason or, in the case of prophets, intuition. By this conception, then, there is a close relation between logic, thought, experience, the grasp of the ultimate structure of reality and an understanding of God. As the highest and purest intellect, God is the source of all the existent things in the world. The latter emanate from that pure high intellect, and they are ordered according to a necessity that we can grasp by the use of rational conceptual thought (see NEOPLATONISM IN ISLAMIC PHILOSOPHY). These interconnections become clearer in Ibn Sina’s metaphysics.

4 Metaphysics

Metaphysics examines existence as such, ‘absolute existence’ (al-wujud al-matlaq) or existence so far as it exists. Ibn Sina relies on the one hand on the distinction in Aristotle’s Prior Analytics between the principles basic to a scientific or mathematical grasp of the world, including the four causes, and on the other hand the subject of metaphysics, the prime or ultimate cause of all things - God. In relation to the first issue, Ibn Sina recognizes that observation of regularities in nature fails to establish their necessity. At best it evinces the existence of a relation of concomitance between events. To establish the necessity implicated in causality, we must recognize that merely accidental regularities would be unlikely to occur always, or even at all, and certainly not with the regularity that events can exhibit (see CAUSALITY AND NECESSITY IN ISLAMIC THOUGHT). Thus, we may expect that such regularities must be the necessary result of the essential properties of the objects in question.

In developing this distinction between the principles and subject of metaphysics, Ibn Sina makes another distinction between essence and existence, one that applies to everything except God. Essence and existence are distinct in that we cannot infer from the essence of something that it must exist (see EXISTENCE). Essence considers only the nature of things, and while this may be realized in particular real circumstances or as an item in the mind with its attendant conditions, nevertheless essence can be considered for itself apart from that mental and physical realization. Essences exist in supra-human intelligences and also in the human mind. Further, if essence is distinct from existence in the way Ibn Sina is proposing, then both the existence and the nonexistence of the essence may occur, and each may call for explanation.

5 The existence of God

The above distinctions enter into the central subject matter of metaphysics, that is, God and the proof of his existence. Scholars propose that the most detailed and comprehensive of Ibn Sina’s arguments for God’s existence occurs in the ‘Metaphysics’ section of al-Shifa’ (Gutas 1988; Mamura 1962; Morewedge 1972). We know from the Categories of Aristotle that existence is either necessary or possible. If an existence were only possible, then we could argue that it would presuppose a necessary existence, for as a merely possible existence, it need not have existed and would need some additional factor to bring about its existence rather than its non-existence. That is, the possible existence, in order to be existent, must have been necessitated by something else. Yet that something else cannot be another merely possible existence since the latter would itself stand in need of some other necessitation in order to bring it about. or would lead to an infinite regress without explaining why the merely possible existence does exist. From this point, Ibn Sina proposes that an essential cause and its effect will coexist and cannot be part of an infinite chain; the nexus of causes and effects must have a first cause, which exists necessarily for itself: God (see GOD, ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF § I ).

From his proof of God’s existence. Ibn Sina goes on to explain how the world and its order emanates from God. Whereas ARISTOTLE (§ 16) himself did not relate the Active Intellect that may be implied in On the Soul III with the first, ever-thinking cause of the universal found in Book XII of his Metaphysics, later commentators on his work (for example, ALEXANDER OF APHRODISIAS) identified the two, making the Active Intellect, the principle that brings about the passage of the human intellect from possibility to actuality, into the first cause of the universe. Together with this is the proof of God’s existence that sees him not only as the prime mover but also as the first existent. God’s self-knowledge consist in an eternal act that results in or brings about a first intelligence or awareness. This first intelligence conceives or cognizes the necessity of God’s existence, the necessity of its own existence, and its own existence as possible. From these acts of conception, other existents arise: another intelligence, a celestial soul and a celestial body, respectively. The last constitutes the first sphere of the universe, and when the second intelligence engages in its own cognitive act, it constitutes the level of fixed stars as well as another level of intelligence that, in turn, produces another intelligence and another level of body. The last such intelligence that emanates from the successive acts of knowing is the Active Intellect, that produces our world. Such emanation cannot continue indefinitely; although being may proceed from intelligence, not every intelligence containing the same aspects will produce the same effects. Successive intelligences have diminished power. and the active intellect, standing tenth in the hierarchy, no longer possesses the power to emanate eternal beings.

None of these proposals by Ibn Sina give grounds for supposing that he was committed to mysticism (for an opposing view, see MYSTICAL PHILOSOPHY IN ISLAM § I). His so called ‘Eastern philosophy’, usually understood to contain his mystical doctrines, seems to be an entirely Western invention that over the last two hundred years has been read into Ibn Sina’s work (see Gutas 1988). Nevertheless, Ibn Sina combines his Aristotelianism with a religious interest, seeking to explain prophecy as having its basis in a direct openness of the prophet’s mind to the Active Intellect, through which the middle terms of syllogisms, the syllogisms themselves and their conclusions become available without the procedure of working out proofs. Sometimes the prophet gains insight through imagination, and expresses his insight in figurative terms. It is also possible for the imagination to gain contact with the souls of the higher spheres, allowing the prophet to envisage the future in some figurative form. There may also be other varieties of prophecy.

6 The soul

In all these dealings with prophecy, knowledge and metaphysics, Ibn Sina takes it that the entity involved is the human soul. In al-Shifa’, he proposes that the soul must be an incorporeal substance because intellectual thoughts themselves are indivisible. Presumably he means that a coherent thought, involving concepts in some determinate order, cannot be had in parts by different intellects and still remain a single coherent thought. In order to be a coherent single unity, a coherent thought must be had by a single, unified intellect rather than, for example, one intellect having one part of the thought, another soul a separate part of the thought and yet a third intellect having a third distinct part of the same thought. In other words, a coherent thought is indivisible and can be present as such only to an intellect that is similarly unified or indivisible. However, corporeal matter is divisible; therefore the indivisible intellect that is necessary for coherent thought cannot be corporeal. It must therefore be incorporeal, since those are the only two available possibilities.

For Ibn Sina, that the soul is incorporeal implies also that it must be immortal: the decay and destruction of the body does not affect the soul. There are basically three relations to the corporeal body that might also threaten the soul but, Ibn Sina proposes, none of these relations holds true of the incorporeal soul, which therefore must be immortal. If the body were a cause of the soul’s existence, or if body and soul depended on each other necessarily for their existence, or if the soul logically depended on the body, then the destruction or decay of the body would determine the existence of the soul. However, the body is not a cause of the soul in any of the four senses of cause; both are substances, corporeal and incorporeal, and therefore as substances they must be independent of each other; and the body changes and decays as a result of its independent causes and substances, not because of changes in the soul, and therefore it does not follow that any change in the body, including death, must determine the existence of the soul. Even if the emergence of the human soul implies a role for the body, the role of this corporeal matter is only accidental.

To this explanation that the destruction of the body does not entail or cause the destruction of the soul, Ibn Sina adds an argument that the destruction of the soul cannot be caused by anything. Composite existing objects are subject to destruction; by contrast, the soul as a simple incorporeal being is not subject to destruction. Moreover, since the soul is not a compound of matter and form, it may be generated but it does not suffer the destruction that afflicts all generated things that are composed of form and matter. Similarly, even if we could identify the soul as a compound, for it to have unity that compound must itself be integrated as a unity, and the principle of this unity of the soul must be simple; and, so far as the principle involves an ontological commitment to existence, being simple and incorporeal it must therefore be indestructible (see SOUL IN ISLAMIC PHILOSOPHY).

7 Reward and punishment

From the indestructibility of the soul arise questions about the character of the soul, what the soul may expect in a world emanating from God, and what its position will be in the cosmic system. Since Ibn Sina maintains that souls retain their identity into immortality, we may also ask about their destiny and how this is determined. Finally, since Ibn Sina also wants to ascribe punishment and reward to such souls, he needs to explain how there may be both destiny and punishment.

The need for punishment depends on the possibility of evil, and Ibn Sina’s examination maintains that moral and other evils afflict individuals rather than species. Evils are usually an accidental result of things that otherwise produce good. God produces more good than evil when he produces this sublunary world, and abandoning an overwhelmingly good practice because of a ‘rare evil’ would be a privation of good. For example, fire is useful and therefore good, even if it harms people on occasion (see EVIL, PROBLEM OF). God might have created a world in another existence that was entirely free of the evil present in this one, but that would preclude all the greater goods available in this world, despite the rare evil it also contains. Thus, God generates a world that contains good and evil and the agent, the soul. acts in this world; the rewards and punishments it gains in its existence beyond this world are the result of its choices in this world, and there can be both destiny and punishment because the world and its order are precisely what give souls a choice between good and evil.

8 Poetry, character and society

Identifying poetic language as imaginative, Ibn Sina relies on the ability of the faculty of imagination to construct images to argue that poetic language can bear a distinction between premises, argument and conclusion, and allows for a conception of poetic syllogism. Aristotle’s definition of a syllogism was that if certain statements are accepted, then certain other statements must also necessarily be accepted (see ARISTOTLE §5). To explain this syllogistic structure of poetic language, Ibn Sina first identifies poetic premises as resemblances formed by poets that produce ‘an astonishing effect of distress or pleasure’ (see POETRY).

The resemblances essayed by poets and the comparisons they put forward in poems, when these are striking, original and so on, produce an ‘astonishing effect’ or ‘feeling of wonder’ in the listener or reader. ‘The evening of life’ compares the spans of a day and a life, bringing the connotations of the day to explain some characteristics of a lifespan. To find this use of poetic language meaningful, the suggestion is that we need to see the comparison as the conclusion of a syllogism. A premise of this syllogism would be that days have a span that resembles or is comparable to the progression of a life. This resemblance is striking, novel and insightful, and understanding its juxtaposition of days and lives leads subjects to feel wonder or astonishment. Next, pleasure occurs in this consid­eration of the poetic syllogism as the basis of our imaginative assent, paralleling assent in, for example, the demonstrative syllogism: once we have accepted the premise, we are led to accept the associations and imaginative constructions that result; once we accept the comparison between days and lives, we can understand and appreciate the comparison between old age and evening. Ibn Sina also finds other parallels between poetic language and meaningful arguments, showing that pleasure in imaginative assent can be expected of other subjects; assent is therefore more than an expression of personal preferences. This validity of poetic language makes it possible for Ibn Sina to argue that beauty in poetic language has a moral value that sustains and depends on relations of justice between autonomous members of a community. In his commentary on Aristotle’s Poetics, however, he combines this with a claim that different kinds of poetic language will suit different kinds of characters. Comedy suits people who are base and uncouth. while tragedy attracts an audience of noble characters (see AESTHETICS IN ISLAMIC PHILOSOPHY).

9 Links to the West

Latin versions of some of Ibn Sina’s works began to appear in the early thirteenth century. The best known philosophical work to be translated was his Kitab al-shifa’, although the translation did not include the sections on mathematics or large sections of the logic. Translations made at Toledo include the Kitab al-najat and the Kitab al-ilahiyat (Metaphysics) in its entirety. Other sections on natural science were translated at Burgos and for the King of Sicily. GERARD OF CREMONA translated Ibn Sina’s al-Qanun f’1-tibb (Canon on Medicine). At Barcelona, another philosophical work, part of the Kitab al-nafs (Book of the Soul), was translated early in the fourteenth century. His late work on logic, al-Isharat wa-‘l-tanbihat, seems to have been translated in part and is cited in other works. His commentaries on On the Soul were known to Thomas AQUINAS and ALBERT THE GREAT, who cite them extensively in their own discussions.

These and other translations of Ibn Sina’s works made up the core of a body of literature that was available for study. By the early thirteenth century, his works were studied not only in relation to Neoplatonists such as AUGUSTINE and DUNS SCOTUS, but were used also in study of ARISTOTLE. Consequently, they were banned in 1210 when the synod at Paris prohibited the reading of Aristotle and of ‘summae’ and ‘commenta’ of his work. The force of the ban was local and only covered the teaching of this subject: the texts were read and taught at Toulouse in 1229. As late as the sixteenth century there were other translations of short works by Ibn Sina into Latin, for example by Andrea Alpago of Belluno (see ARISTOTELIANISM, MEDIEVAL §3; ISLAMIC PHILOSOPHY: TRANSMISSION INTO WESTERN EUROPE; TRANSLATORS).

See also: AESTHETICS IN ISLAMIC PHILOSOPHY; ARISTOTELIANISM IN ISLAMIC PHILOSOPHY; EPISTEMOLOGY IN ISLAMIC PHILOSOPHY; LOGIC IN ISLAMIC PHILOSOPHY; SOUL IN ISLAMIC PHILOSOPHY; ISLAMIC PHILOSOPHY: TRANSMISSION INTO WESTERN EUROPE

List of works

Ibn Sina (980-1037) Sirat al-shaykh al-ra’is (The Life of Ibn Sina), ed. and trans. WE. Gohlman, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1974. (The only critical edition of Ibn Sina’s autobiography, supplemented with material from a biography by his student Abu ‘Ubayd al-Juzjani. A more recent translation of the Autobiography appears in D. Gutas, Avicenna and the Aristotelian Tradition: Introduction to Reading Avicenna’s Philosophical Works, Leiden: Brill, 1988.)

- (980-1037) al-Isharat wa-‘l-tanbihat (Remarks and Admonitions), ed. S. Dunya, Cairo, 1960; parts translated by S.C. Inati, Remarks and Admonitions, Part One: Logic, Toronto, Ont.: Pontifical Institute for Mediaeval Studies, 1984, and Ibn Sina and Mysticism, Remarks and Admonitions: Part 4, London: Kegan Paul International, 1996. (The English translation is very useful for what it shows of the philosopher’s conception of logic, the varieties of syllogism, premises and so on.)

- (980-1037) al-Qanun fi’l-tibb (Canon on Medi­cine), ed. I. a-Qashsh, Cairo, 1987. (Ibn Sina’s work on medicine.)

(980-1037) Risalah fi sirr al-qadar (Essay on the Secret of Destiny), trans. G. Hourani in Reason and Tradition in Islamic Ethics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. (Provides insights into a neglected area of Ibn Sina’s thought.)

(980-1037) Danishnama-i ‘ala’i (The Book of Scientific Knowledge), ed. and trans. P Morewedge, The Metaphysics of Avicenna, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1973. (This is a translation of a metaphysical work in Persian.)

- (c 1014-20) al-Shifa’ (Healing). (Ibn Sina’s major work on philosophy. He probably began to compose al-Shifa’ in 1014, and completed it in 1020. Critical editions of the Arabic text have been published in Cairo, 1952-83, originally under the supervision of I. Madkour; some of these editions are given below.)

- (c.1014-20) al-Mantiq (Logic), Part 1, al­Madkhal (Isag6ge), ed. G. Anawati, M. El-Khodeiri and F. al-Ahwani, Cairo: al-Matba’ah al-Amiriyah, 1952; trans. N. Shehaby, The Propositional Logic of Ibn Sina, Dordrecht: Reidel, 1973. (Volume I, Part 1

of al-Shifa’.)

- (c 1014-20) al-‘Ibarah (Interpretation), ed. M. El-Khodeiri, Cairo: Dar al-Katib al-Arabi, 1970. (Volume 1, Part 3 of al-Shifa’.)

- (c 1014-20) al-Qiyas (Syllogism), ed. S. Zayed and I. Madkour, Cairo: Organisme General des Imprimeries Gouvernementales, 1964. (Volume I, Part 4 of al-Shifa’.)

- (c 1014-20) al-Burhan (Demonstration), ed. A.E. Affifi, Cairo: Organisme General des Imprimeries Gouvernementales, 1956. (Volume I, Part 5 of al-Shifa’.)

(c 1014-20) al-Jadal (Dialectic), ed. A.F Al-Ehwany, Cairo: Organisme General des Imprimeries Gouvernementales, 1965. (Volume I, Part 7 of

al-Shifa’.)

- (c 1014-20) al-Khatabah (Rhetoric), ed. S. Salim, Cairo: Imprimerie Nationale, 1954. (Volume I, Part 8 of al-Shifa’.)

- (c.1014-20) al-Ilahiyat (Theology), ed. M.Y. Moussa, S. Dunya and S. Zayed, Cairo: Organisme General des Imprimeries Gouvernementales, 1960; ed. and trans. R.M. Savory and D. A. Agius, ‘Ibn Sina on Primary Concepts in the Metaphysics of al-Shifa’, in Logikos Islamikos, Toronto, Ont.: Pontifical Institute for Mediaeval Studies, 1984; trans. G.C. Anawati, La metaphysique du Shifa’, Etudes Musulmanes 21, 27, Paris: Vrin, 1978, 1985. (This is the metaphysics of al-Shifa’, Volume I, Book 5.)

- (c 1014-20) al-Nafs (The Soul), ed. G.C. Anawati and S. Zayed, Cairo: Organisme General des Imprimeries Gouvernementales, 1975; ed. F. Rahman, Avicenna’s De Anima, Being the Psychological Part of Kitab al-Shifa’, London: Oxford University Press, 1959. (Volume 1, part 6 of al-Shifa’.)

- (c 1014-20) Kitab al-najat (The Book of Salvation), trans. F. Rahman, Avicenna’s Psychology: An English Translation of Kitab al-Najat, Book II, Chapter VI with Historical-philosophical Notes and Textual Improvements on the Cairo Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1952. (The pyschology of al-Shifa’.)

IBN KHALDUN

He is indeed the one outstanding personality in the history of a civilization whose social life on the whole was 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short'. In his chosen field of intellectual activity he appears to have been inspired by no predecessors, and to have found no kindred souls among his contemporaries, and to have kindled no answering spark of inspiration in any successors ; and yet, in the Prolegomena (Muqaddimat) to his Universal History he has conceived and formulated a philosophy of history which is undoubtedly the greatest work of its kind that has ever yet been created by any mind in any time or place. It was his single brief 'acquiescence' from a life of practical activity that gave Ibn Khaldun his opportunity to cast his creative thought into literary shape.

A STUDY OR HISTORY. Vol. III. Arnold ]. Toynbee. Royal Institute of International Affairs and Oxford University Press. p. 321-322.

---

INTRODUCTION:

Ibn Khaldun is the most important figure in the field of History and Sociology in Muslim History. He is one of those shining stars that contributed so richly to the understanding of Civilization. In order for one to understand and appreciate his work, one must understand his life. He lived a life in search of stability and influence. He came from a family of scholars and politicians and he intended to live up to both expectations. He would succeed in the field of Scholarship much more so than in any other field.

CHILDHOOD AND EARLY YEARS:

He is Abdurahman bin Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Al-Hasan bin Jabir bin Muhammad bin Ibrahim bin Abdurahman bin Ibn Khaldun. His ancestry according to him originated from Hadramut, Yemen. He also traced his ancestry through another genealogy as supplied by Ibn Hazem using his grandfather who was the first to enter Andalusia back to Wail ibn Hajar one of the oldest Yemenite tribe. In either case, the genealogy points to his Arab origin although scholars do question the authenticity of both reports due to the political climate at the time of these reports.[1]

Ibn Khaldun was born in Tunis on Ramadan 1, 732 (May 27, 1332)[2]. He received a traditional education that was typical of his family’s rank and status. He learned first at the hands of his father who was a scholarly person who was not involved in politics like his ancestors. He memorized the Qur’an by heart, learned grammar, Jurisprudence, Hadith, rhetoric, philology, and poetry. He had reached certain proficiency in these subjects and received certification in them. In his autobiography, he does mention the names these scholars.[3]

He continued studies until the age of 19 when the great plague would sweep over the lands from Samarkand to Mauritania. It was after this plague that Ibn Khaldun would receive his first public assignment.[4] This would start his political career that would forever change his life.

IN TUNISIA AND MOROCCO

Ibn Tafrakin, the ruler of Tunis, called Ibn Khaldun to be the seal bearer of his captive Sultan Abu lshaq. It is here that Ibn Khaldun would get first hand look at the inner workings of court politics and the weakness of the government. It would not be long before he would get an opportunity to leave Tunis.[5]

In 1352 (713 A. H.) Abu Ziad, the Emir of Constantine, marched his forces on Tunis. Ibn Khaldun accompanied Ibn Tafrakin with the forces that would ward off Abu Ziad’s attacks. Tunis was defeated and Ibn Khaldun escaped to Aba, where he lived with al-Mowahideen. He would move back and forth through Algeria and settled in Biskra.[6]

At that same time in Morocco Sultan Abu Enan, who had recently settled on the throne of his father, was on his way to conquer Algeria. Ibn Khaldun would travel to Tlemcen to meet the Sultan. Ibn Khaldun mentions that the Sultan honored him and sent him with his chamberlain Ibn Abi Amr to Bougie to witness its submission to Sultan Abu Enan.[7]

Ibn Khaldun would stay in the company of the Chamberlain while the Sultan moved back to the capital, Fez. In 1354 (755 A.H.) Ibn Khaldun would accept the invitation to join the council of Ulama and would move to Fez. He would eventually be promoted to the post of the seal bearer and would accept it reluctantly, because it was inferior to the posts once occupied by his ancestors.[8]

Ibn Khaldun would use his stay in Fez to further his studies. Fez at this time was a capital of Morocco and enjoyed the company of many scholars from all over North Africa and Andalusia. He was also being promoted from one position to another.[9]

Ibn Khaldun was an ambitious young man and at this point of his life, he would begin to engage in court politics. Ibn Khaldun would conspire with Abu Abdullah Muhammad, the dethroned ruler of Bougie who was captive in Fez at that time. Abu Abdullah is from the Banu Hafs which were patrons of Ibn Khaldun’s Family.[10]

Sultan Abu Enan would find out about the conspiracy and would imprison Ibn Khaldun. Abu Abdullah would be released from prison and Ibn Khaldun would linger on for two years. Sultan Abu Enan would fall ill and die before fulfilling his promise to release Ibn Khaldun. The Wazir Al-Hassan ibn Omar ordered the release of Ibn Khaldun who was restored to his former position.[11]

ESCAPE FROM MOROCCO TO SPAIN

The political climate was tense and Ibn Khaldun would again test his fate and conspire against the Wazir with al-Mansur.[12] This loyalty would be short lived too. He would conspire with Sultan Abu Salem who would overthrow Al-Mansur. Ibn Khaldun would get the position of Secretary and the repository of his confidence (Amin as-Sir).[13]

Here Ibn Khaldun would excel in his position and would compose many poems. He would occupy this position for two more years and would then be appointed as the Chief Justice. He would show a great ability in this position. However due to constant rivalry between him and high officials he would lose favor with the Sultan.[14]

However this would not matter because a revolt would take place and Sultan Abu Salem would be overthrown by Wazir Omar. Ibn Khaldun would side with the victorious and would get his post with higher pay. Ibn Khaldun was ambitious as ever and wanted a higher position, namely that of the Chamberlain. For reasons unknown, perhaps he was not trusted, he was refused. This upset him enough to resign his position. This in turn upset the Wazir. Ibn Khaldun would ask to leave Fez and go back to Tunisia and this request would be refused. It was then that he would ask the Wazir’s son-in-law to intercede on his behalf to be allowed to go to Andalusia.[15]

FROM SPAIN TO TUNISIA

Sultan Muahmmad al-Ahmar, the king of Granada, was deposed by his brother Ismail who was supported by his brother-in-law. Sultan Muhammad was a friend of Sultan Abu Salem who helped him when he was deported to Andalusia by Sultan Abu Enan. When Sultan Abu Enan died and Sultan Abu Salem became the ruler that friendship was rekindled. Further when Ismail al-Ahmar was declared king of Granada in a place revolt, Sultan Muhammad took refuge in Morocco with Sultan Abu Salem. They were welcomed with great fanfare, Ibn Khaldun was present at the festivities. Among Sultan Muhammad’s party was his wise Wazir Ibn al-Khatib who developed a close friendship with Ibn Khaldun.[16]

Sultan Muhammad would attempt to restore his throne in Granada through an agreement with Pedro the cruel, the King of Castile. Pedro would delay the execution of the agreement upon hearing of Sultan Abu Salem death. Sultan Muhammad would appeal to Ibn Khaldun to get the assistance from Wazir Omar. Ibn Khaldun would use his influence to help him. Further Ibn Khaldun was entrusted to care for Sultan Muhammad’s family in Fez. The Wazir would grant Sultan Muhammad Ronda and the surrounding country. Sultan Muhammad would continue his efforts and recapture his throne in 1361 (763 A. H.). He would recall his Wazir Ibn al-Khatib.[17]

When the relationship between Ibn Khaldun would turn sour and uncertain he would turn towards Andalusia. He would be welcomed and honored well by Sultan Muhammad who admitted him to his private council. In the following year Sultan Muhammad would send Ibn Khaldun on an Ambassadorial mission to Pedro, the King of Castile. Ibn Khaldun would conclude and peaceful terms between them. Pedro would offer Ibn Khaldun a position in his service and to return to him his family’s former estate at Castile. Ibn Khaldun would decline the offer.[18]

Upon his return from Castile, Ibn Khaldun would offer Pedro’s gift to him to the Sultan and in return, the Sultan would give him the Village of Elvira. Soon Ibn Khaldun would be restless once more and in the following year, he would receive an invitation from his friend Abu Abdullah, who had recaptured his throne at Bougie. Ibn Khaldun left Granada in 1364 (766 A.H.) for Bougie after asking permission to leave from Sultan Muhammad.[19]

ADVENTURES IN NORTH AFRICA

Ibn Khaldun would arrive in Bougie at the Age of 32 years. His plans have finally been realized. The period of imprisonment in Fez did not go to waste. He would enter the city as favorite guest. He would accept the position of Hajib for Emir Muhammad. This life of power would not last long as in the following year Abul Abbas would kill the Emir Muhammad, his cousin. Ibn Khaldun handed the city to him and retired to the city of Biskra. He would continue his political work in relaying the tribes to the service of this Emir or that Sultan. He would continue his practice of shifting loyalties as the times and opportunities afforded him. He would finally retire to a far outpost south of Constantine, fort Salama.[20]

In Fort Salama he would enjoy this peaceful existence and would begin to write down his famous Muqqddimah and first version of his universal history at the age of forty-five years.[21]

He would dedicate his work to the current Emir of Constantine, Sultan Abul Abbas. Tranquility did not last long with Ibn Khaldun, as he needed more reference works which were not available at this far outpost. He used the occasion of the Abul Abbas’s conquest of Tunisia to go to Tunis. This would be the first time he would return to the town of his birth since leaving it over 27 years ago.[22]

There would be political forces at work against him once more and this time before he would fall out of favor he would use a convenient occasion 1382 to leave North Africa behind never to return.[23]

TO EGYPT

Ibn Khaldun was granted permission from Sultan Abul Abbas to go to Hajj. He arrived in Alexandria in October 1382 ( 15^th Shabaan 784 A. H.) at the ripe age of 50. He spent a month preparing to leave for Hajj but was unable to join the Caravan bound for the Holy Lands. He turned towards Cairo instead. Here he wold live his final days. He was warmly welcomed by scholars and students. His fame for his writings had already preceded him. He lectured at Al-Azhar and other fine schools. He would get the chance to meet with Sultan az-Zahir Barquq who would appoint him to teach at the Kamhiah school.[24]

He would enjoy the favors of the Sultan. He would be appointed as a Maliki Judge on the Sultans whim and anger. He would fare well and tried to fight corruption and favoritism. Again conspiracies against him would work its way and he would be relieved of this duty. His relief of duty would coincide with his family’s disaster. The ship carrying his family and belongings would sink in a storm.[25]

It was then that he would take permission to go to the Pilgrimage to the Holy Lands. He would return and be well received and appointed to a teaching position in the newly built school (Bein al-Qasrein) He would lecture in Hadith, particularly Imam Malik’s Muwatta. He would then be appointed to Beibers Sufi institute with a generous salary. The state of affairs of Egypt would be disturbed as a rival of Sultan Barquq, Yulbugha would organize a successful revolt. Sultan Barquq would stage another revolt and would be restored to his former throne. Ibn Khaldun during this period would suffer and would have his position restored to him with the return of the victorious Sultan Barquq to Power.[26]

Ibn Khaldun during this period would devote his time to lecturing and study as wellas to completing his Universal History. After Yulbugha’s revolt, he would write about Asabiyah and its role in the rise and fall of states. He would apply his theory to the Egyptian theater since the time of Salah ad-Din.[27]

After fourteen years since leaving the position of the Chief Maliki judge Ibn Khaldun would reassigned to the post upon the death of the presiding Judge. The state would again fall into disarray upon the death of Sultan Barquq’s and his son’s ascension. Ibn Khaldun would not be a party to these revolts and would ask permission to visit Jerusalem. He would join the Sultan Faraj’s caravan on its way back from Damascus. Again due to political intrigue he would be relived of his duties as judge for the second time. This would not matter because he would be called to accompany the Sultan on perilous Journey with fate to Damascus.[28]

MEETING TAMERLANE

During Ibn Khaldun’s stay in Egypt he would be asked by Sultan Faraj of Egypt to accompany him on his expedition to Damascus. News reports have confirmed the movement of Tamerlane’s war party towards Damascus. Sultan Faraj with his army were on their way to Damascus. It seems that Ibn Khaldun was asked firmly to accompany the Sultan to Damascus.[29]

The Sultan would only stay for two weeks in Damascus, as he had to leave due to rumors that a revolt back in Cairo was in the works. Ibn Khaldun and some notables were left behind in Damascus. It was now up to the leaders of Damascus to deal with Tamerlane. Ibn Khaldun had suggested to them to consider the terms of Tamerlane. It was the task of another Qadi, Ibn Muflih, to discuss the terms with Tamerlane. When Ibn Muflih returned from Tamerlane’s camp, the terms were not agreeable to the residents of Damascus.[30]

Since it was the suggestion of Ibn Khaldun to come to terms with Tamerlane, Ibn Khaldun felt obliged to meet with Tamerlane personally. Ibn Khaldun would leave Damascus and go to the camp of Tamerlane. It is questionable whether he went on his own or in an official capacity. Ibn Khaldun took some gifts with him for Tamerlane and they were well received. Ibn Khaldun would stay in Tamerlane’s camp for thirty-five days.[31]

Over this period, Ibn Khaldun would have many meetings with Tamerlane and they would converse through an interpreter, Abd al-Jabbar al-Khwarizmi (d. 1403). Ibn Khaldun’s account is the only detailed account available. The subjects that they would discuss were varied and some were unrecorded. W. Fischel lists 6 specific topics which they talked about:

1. On Maghrib and Ibn Khaldun’s Land of origin.
2. On heroes in History.
3. On predictions of things to come.
4. On the Abbsid Caliphate
5. On amnesty and security "For Ibn Khaldun and his Companion."
6. On Ibn Khaldun’s intention to stay with Tamerlane.[32]

Ibn Khaldun impressed the conqueror enough to ask him to join his court. Some biographers have suggested that he did and written down his eloquent appeal to return to Egypt to settle his affairs, get his books and family and join Tamerlane. It however is more likely that Ibn Khaldun left on good terms with Tamerlane and have accomplished his mission of extracting favorable terms for the people of Damascus.[33]

Ibn Khaldun’s departing words lend credence to the fact that he would not be returning to his service:

"Is there any generosity left beyond that which you have already shown me? You have heaped favors upon me, accorded me a place in your council among your intimate followers, and shown me kindness and generosity- which I hope Allah will repay to you in like measures."[34]

FINAL DAYS IN EGYPT :

Upon Ibn Khaldun’s return to Egypt, he was restored as the Malikite Qadi. Due to the political situation within the community of Malikite Qadis Ibn Khaldun would be dismissed and reinstated three times during the five-year period. Finally, he died while he was in office on Wednesday March 17^th 1406 (25^th of Ramadan 808). He was buried in the Sufi Cemetery outside Bab an-Nasr, Cairo at the age of seventy-four years.[35]

THE MAGNUM OPUS "AL-MUQADDIMAH"

He would his write his Introduction to his book of universal history in a span of five months.[36] This impressive document is a gist of his wisdom and hard earned experience. He would use his political and first had knowledge of the people of Maghrib to formulate many of his ideas. This document would summarize Ibn Khaldun’s ideas about every field of knowledge during his day. He would discuss a variety of topics. He would discuss History and Historiography. He would rebuke some of the historical claims with a calculated logic. He would discuss the current sciences of his days. He would talk about astronomy, astrology, and numerology. He would discuss Chemistry, alchemy and Magic in a scientific way. He would freely offer his opinions and document well the "facts" of the other point of view. His discussion of Tribal societies and social forces would be the most interesting part of his thesis. He would illuminate the world with deep insight into the workings and makings of kingdoms and civilizations. His thesis that the conquered race will always emulate the conqueror in every way.[37] His theory about Asbyiah (group feeling) and the role that it plays in Bedouin societies is insightful. His theories of the science of Umran (sociology) are all pearls of wisdom. His Introduction is his greatest legacy that he left for all of humanity and the generations to come.

http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ik/klf.htm

Shaykh al-Islaam ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullaah) Prepared by Abu Rumaysah

He is the mujtahid and reformer of his age, Ahmad bin Abd al-Haleem bin Abd as-Salaam bin Abd Allaah bin Abu Qaasim ibn Taymiyyah al-Harraanee Taqi ad-Deen Abu al-Abbaas bin Shihaab ad-Deen. He rose the flag of the belief and understanding of Ahus Sunnah in his time, at a time when innovation, misguidance, and corruption was widespread, being preached by even some of the People of Knowledge that became well known in later times.

Due to ibn Taymiyyah’s firm stance against all that was false and corrupt he earned the envy and hatred of all those that he opposed - who were many - and as such had many lies heaped around him. The purpose of this section is to show this scholar in his true light and expose those lies heaped around him.

Al-Haafidh al-Bazzaar said, depicting the opponents of ibn Taymiyyah, "you would not see a scholar opposing him (ibn Taymiyyah), dissuading from him, filled with hatred for him, except that he was the most greedy of them in gathering the worldly goods, the most cunning of them in acquiring them, the most ostentatious of them, the most desirous for reputation…and the most prolific of them in having lies on his tongue." [ ‘al-A`laam al-Uliyyah’ (pg. 82) of al-Bazzaar.]

The Praise of the Scholars of him:

Many of the scholars of his time and after his time praised Shaykh al-Islaam for his knowledge, asceticism, piety, and following closely the way of the salaf. Many of these statements of praise were collected in a book written by al-Haafidh ibn Naasir ad-Deen entitled ‘Radd al-Waafir’ refuting the extreme claim of the one that said calling ibn Taymiyyah, ‘Shaykh al-Islaam’, was unbelief.

Al-Haafidh adh-Dhahabee said, "It was amazing when he mentioned an issue over which there was a difference of opinion, and when he gave evidence and decided the strongest opinion - and he could perform ijtihaad due to his fulfilling it’s conditions. I have not seen one who was quicker than he at recalling a verse which pertained to the issue that he derived from it, nor a man who was more strong in recalling texts and referring them to their sources. The Sunnah was in front of his eyes and upon the tip of his tongue with eloquent phrases and an open eye.

He was a sign from the signs of Allaah in tafseer and expounding upon it. With regards to the foundation of the religion and knowledge of the differing opinions (on an issue) then he was unequalled - this alongside his generosity, courage and lack of attention to the joys of the soul.

And maybe his legal rulings in the various sciences reached three hundred volumes, rather more and he was always saying the truth for the sake of Allaah, not caring for the blame that came to him.

Whosoever associates with him and knows him well accuses me of deficiency/slackness with regards to him. Whosoever opposes him and differs with him accuses me of exaggeration, and I have been wronged by both parties - his companions and his opponents.

He was white skinned with black hair and a black beard with a few grey hairs. His hair reached his earlobes. His eyes were eloquent tongues, and had broad shoulders and a loud, clear voice with a fast recitation. He was quick to anger but overcame it with patience and forbearance.

I have not seen his like for supplications (to Allaah) and seeking succour with Him, and his abundant concern for others. However I do not believe him to be infallible, rather I differ with him on both fundamental and subsidiary matters for he - despite his vast learning, extreme courage, fluid mind, and regard for the sanctity of the religion - was a man from amongst men. He could be overcome with sharpness and anger in discussion, and attack his opponents (verbally) hence planting enmity in their souls towards him.

If only he were gentle to his opponents then there would have been a word of agreement over him - for indeed their great scholars bowed to his learning, acknowledged his ability and lack of mistakes, and conceded that he was an ocean having no limits and a treasure having no equivalent. However they harboured ill feeling against him….and every person’s saying can be taken or left

He used to preserve the prayers and fasts, glorifying the laws outwardly and inwardly. He did not give fatwa out of poor understanding for he was extremely intelligent, nor out of lack of knowledge for he was an overflowing ocean. Neither did he play with the religion but derived evidence from the Qur`aan, Sunnah and Qiyaas (analogy) and proved and argued following the footsteps of the Imaams who preceded him, so he has a reward if he erred and two rewards if he was correct.

He fell ill in the castle (in which he was imprisoned) with a serious disease until he died on the night of Monday 20^th Dhul Qa`dah, and they prayed over him in the mosque of Damascus. And afterwards many talked about the number that attended his funeral prayer, and the least number given was fifty thousand." [‘ad-Durar al-Kaaminah’ of ibn Hajr al-Asqalaanee under the biography of ibn Taymiyyah]

Ibn Hajr al-Asqalaanee said, "the shaykh of our shaykhs, al-Haafidh Abu al-Yu`maree (ibn Sayyid an-Naas) said in his biography of ibn Taymiyyah: ‘al-Mizzi encouraged me to express my opinion on Shaykh al-Islaam Taqi ad-Deen. I found him to be from those who had acquired a fortunate of knowledge in the sciences that he had. He used to completely memorise and implement the Sunan and Aathaar (narrations). Should he speak about tafseer then he would carry its flag, and should he pass a fatwa in fiqh then he knew its limits. Should he speak about a hadeeth then he was the companion of its knowledge and fully cognisant of its narrations. Should he give a lecture on Religions and Sects then none was seen who was more comprehensive or meticulous than he, he surpassed his contemporaries in every science, and you would not see one like him, and his own eye did not see one like himself.

He used to speak on tafseer and a large number of people would attend his gatherings, and an agreeable number would return (having drunk) from his sweet, rich ocean. It continued in this way until the sickness of envy crept (into the hearts) of the people of his city. The people given to faultfinding gathered together and picked out anything that could be disapproved of in his beliefs, and they memorised certain of his statements with respect to this. They undermined him due to this and laid traps for him by which they could declare him to be an innovator. They thought that he had left their way, and split off from their sect. So they argued with him, and he with them, and some of them cut relations with him, and he with them.

Then he argued with another group who was attributed to the Fuqaraa (a group of the Sufis) who thought that they were on the minute details of the inner reality and upon its truth. And he exposed these Orders….

Then this reached the first group and they sought help from those who cut relations with him and harboured malice towards him. So they took the matter to the rulers, each of them having decided that he was a disbeliever. And they prepared a meeting and inspired the ignorant people to spread the word amongst the great scholars. And they took steps to transfer the matter to the king of Egypt and as a result he (ibn Taymiyyah) was arrested and put in prison. And gatherings were convened to discuss the spilling of his blood, calling for this purpose the people from the small mosques and students - those people who would argue to make others happy, and those who would argue to show their cleverness, and those who declared takfeer and called for disassociation. And your Lord Knows what is in their hearts and what they proclaim. And the one who announced his kufr was no better than the one who argued to make others happy.

And the sting of their plots crept up on him, and Allaah made futile every plot, and rescued him at the hands of those who He chose…

Then he continuously moved from one trial to another and in all his life he did not move from trouble except into trouble. Then there followed what followed in the matter of his arrest and he stayed there in prison until he died, and to Allaah all matters return. On the day of his funeral the streets were crowded, and the Muslims came from every roadway…’" [ibid]

Ibn Hajr al-Asqalaanee also said, "I read in the handwriting of al-Haafidh Silaah ad-Deen al-Balaa`ee in endorsement of the shaykh of our shaykhs al-Haafidh Bahaa ad-Deen Abdullaah bin Muhammad bin Khaleel: ‘Our shaykh and master and Imaam in matters that are between Allaah and us, the Shaykh of research (tahqeeq), traversing, with those that followed him, the best way. Possessor of many excellent qualities and radiant proofs that all the nations have acknowledged are beyond enumeration. May Allaah make us benefit from his outstanding knowledge, and make us benefit from him in this life and the hereafter. He is the Shaykh, the Imaam, the Aalim who understands the affairs, the deeply devoted, the ocean (of knowledge), the pole of light, the Imaam of Imaams, the blessing to the Muslim nation, the sign of the scholars, the inheritor of the Prophets, the last of the Mujtahids, unique amongst the scholars of the Religion - Shaykh al-Islaam, proof of the scholars, the example for the creatures, proof for the learned ones, effacer of the innovators, sword of the disputers, ocean of knowledge, beneficial treasure, the interpreter of the Qur`aan, the amazement of the times, unique in this age and others. Indeed Taqi ad-Deen (ibn Taymiyyah) is the Imaam of the Muslims, the proof of Allaah against the creation, the joiner of the righteous, the one who is like those who have preceded, the mufti of the sect, helper of the truth, the sign of guidance, the pillar of the Huffaadh, Knight of the meanings of words, cornerstone of the Sharee`ah, originator of new sciences Abu al-Abbaas ibn Taymiyyah." [Ibid. From this book taken on it’s own it is very difficult to discern ibn Hajr’s own opinion on ibn Taymiyyah was. For all he did was to gather all the material he could find on the Shaykh and then start off the account with all those scholars who wrote against him, and end with all those scholars who supported him. It would seem likely that ibn Hajr’s own stance would be in line with those whom he finished off his biography with, due to their being his Shaykhs. This reasoning is supported with the next quote from ibn Hajr. Allaah knows best.]

Ibn Hajr said, "…those of his stances that were rejected from him were not said by him due to mere whims and desires and neither did he obstinately and deliberately persist in them after the evidence was established against him. Here are his works overflowing with refutations of those who held to tajseem yet despite this he is a man who makes mistakes and is also correct. So that which he is correct in – and that is the majority – is to benefited from and Allaah’s Mercy should be sought for him due to it, and that which he is incorrect in should not be blindly followed. Indeed he is excused for his mistakes because he is one of the Imaams of his time and it has been witnessed that he fulfilled the conditions of ijtihaad…

From the astonishing qualities of this man was that he was the strongest amongst men against the People of Innovation, the Rawaafidah, and the Hululiyyah, and the Ittihaadiyyah, and his works on this are many and famous, and his fataawaa on them cannot be counted, so how the eyes of these innovators must have found joy when they heard those who declared him to be a kaafir! And how delighted they must have been when they saw those who did not declare him to be a kaafir in turn being labelled kaafir! It is obligatory upon the one who has donned the robe of knowledge and possesses intelligence that he consider the words of a man based upon his well-known books or from the tongues of those who are trusted to accurately convey his words – then to isolate from all of this what is rejected and warn from them with the intention of giving sincere advice and to praise him for his excellent qualities and for what he was correct in as is the way of the scholars.

If there were no virtues of Shaykh Taqi ad-Deen except for his famous student Shaykh Shams ad-Deen ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, writer of many works, from which both his opponents and supporters benefited from then this would be a sufficient indication of his (ibn Taymiyyah’s) great position. And how could it be otherwise when the Shaafi`ee Imaams and others, not to speak of the Hanbalees, of his time testified to his prominence in the (Islamic) sciences…" [From Ibn Hajr’s endorsement of ‘Radd al-Waafir’ contained at the end of the book.]

Ibn Katheer said, "the least he would do when he heard something was to memorise it and then busy himself with learning it. He was intelligent and had much committed to memory, and he became an Imaam in tafseer and everything linked to it and knowledgeable in fiqh. Indeed it was said he was more knowledgeable of the fiqh of the madhabs then the followers of those very same madhabs in his time and other than his time. He was a scholar in Usul and the branches of the religion and grammar and the language and other textual and intellectual sciences…no scholar of a science would speak to him except that he thought that that science was the speciality of ibn Taymiyyah. As for hadeeth then he was the carrier of its flag, a haafidh and able to distinguish the weak from the strong, fully acquainted with the narrators…" [‘al-Bidaayah wan Nihaayah’ (14/118-119) of ibn Katheer.]

He also said, "He was, may Allaah have mercy upon him, from the greatest of scholars, also from those who err and are correct. However his errors with respect to his correct rulings were like a drop in a huge ocean and they are forgiven him as is authentically reported by Bukhaaree, ‘when a ruler makes a ruling, and he is correct then he has two rewards, and if he has erred then he has one reward.’"

He also mentioned that when the scholars of his time gathered for a sitting with ibn Taymiyyah to discuss his work ‘Aqueedah al-Hamawiyyah’ that his replies to their accusations could not be rebutted. [‘al-Bidaayah wan Nihaayah’ (14/5)]

Similarly he mentioned that when the scholars sat to argue with him with regards to his Aqueedah al-Waasitiyyah the argument ended with them accepting all that was contained in the book as in vol. 14 of ‘al-Bidaayah’ under the heading ‘Aqd al-Majaalis ath-Thalaatha’

Al-Haafidh al-Mizzi said, "I have not seen the likes of him, and his own eye had not seen the likes of himself. And I have not seen one who was more knowledgeable than him of the Book and the Sunnah of His Messenger, nor one who followed them more closely." [‘Hayaat Shaykh al-Islaam ibn Taymiyyah’ (pg. 21) of Shaykh Bahjatul Baitaar.]

Al-Haafidh ibn Daqeeq al-Eid said, "when I met ibn Taymiyyah I saw a man with all the sciences in front of his eyes, he took from them what he wished and he left what he wished." [ ‘Min Mashaheer al-Mujaddidayn’ (pg.26) of Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan] This after he had said, "by Allaah I did not think that there remained the likes of you." [ ‘al-Bidaayah wan Nihaayah’ (14/27) of ibn Katheer and ‘Dhail `alaa Tabaqaat al-Hanabilaa’ (2/392) of ibn Rajab.]

The Qaadee of Qaadees ibn al-Hureeree said, "if ibn Taymiyyah was not Shaykh al-Islaam than who is?" [‘Hayaat Shaykh al-Islaam’ (pg.26)]

Al-Haafidh al-Bazzaar said, "I have not seen him mention any of the pleasures and attractions of this world, he did not delve into worldly conversations and he never asked for any of its livelihood. Instead he directed his attentions and conversations to seeking the Hereafter and what could get him closer to Allaah." [‘al-A`laam al-Uliyyah’ (pg.52) of al-Bazzaar.]

Al-Shaykh Mullaa Alee al-Qaaree said, "it will become clear to the one who studies ‘Madaarij as-Saalikeen’ (of ibn al-Qayyim) that these two (ibn Taymiyyah and ibn al-Qayyim) are from the greatest of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaa`ah, and from the Awliyaa of this nation." [‘Mirqaat al-Mafaateeh’ (8/251-252) his commentary to ‘Mishkaat al-Masaabeeh’, as quoted from in ‘Shubuhaat Ahl al-Fitna’ (pg. 442) of Abdurrahmaan Dimisqiyyah.]

Muhammad bin Abdul Barr as-Subkee said, "by Allaah no one hates ibn Taymiyyah except for an ignoramus or the possessor of desires which have diverted him from the truth after he has come to know it." [‘Radd al-Waafir’ (pg.95) of ibn Naasir ad-Deen]

Al-Haafidh Abdurrahmaan ibn Rajab al-Hanbalee said, "he is the Imaam, the legal Jurist, the Mujtahid, the Scholar of Hadeeth, the Haafidh, the Explainer of the Qur`aan, the Ascetic, Taqee ad-Deen Abu al-Abbaas Shaykh al-Islaam, the most knowledgeable of the knowledgeable, it is not possible to exaggerate his renown when he is mentioned….he, may Allaah have mercy upon him, was unique in his time with respect to understanding the Qur`aan and knowledge of the realities of faith." [‘adh-Dhail `alaa Tabaqaat al-Hanaabilaa’ (2/387-392) of ibn Rajab]

The Imaam of the Hanafees, Badr ad-Deen (Mahmud bin Ahmad) al-`Ainee said, "whosoever says ibn Taymiyyah is a kaafir the he is in reality himself a kaafir, and the one who accuses him of heresy is himself a heretic. How is this possible when his works are widely available and there is no hint of deviation or dissension contained therein." [‘Radd al-Waafir’ (pg. 245)]

As-Suyutee quotes from az-Zamlakaanee that he said, "our Master, our Shaykh, the Imaam, the Scholar, the Unique (al-Awhad), the Haafidh, the Mujtahid, the Ascetic, the Worshipper (Aabid), the Example, the Imaam of the Imaams, the example for the Nation, the sign of the scholars, the inheritor of the Prophets, the Last of the Mujtahids, unique (Awhad) scholar of the Religion, the Blessing for Islaam, the Proof of the Scholars (A`laam), the proof of the Mutakallimeen, the effacer of the innovators, endowed with exalted and amazing sciences, the Reviver of the Sunnah. The one by whom Allaah has greatly favoured us with, and established the proof with against His enemies. …Taqee ad-Deen ibn Taymiyyah…"

Then as-Suyutee follows this up by saying, "I have quoted this biography from the handwriting of the Allaamah, the unique individual of his time, Shaykh Kamaal ad-Deen az-Zamlakaanee, may Allaah have mercy on him who used to say, ‘one who had more memorised than him has not been seen in the last five hundred years.’" [‘al-Ashbaah wa an-Nadhaa’ir an-Nahwiyyah’ (3/681), see also ‘Dhail alaa Tabaqaat al-Hanaabila’ (2/392-393)]

As-Suyutee said in the course of discussing his biography, "Shaykh al-Islaam, the Haafidh, the Faqeeh, the Mujtahid, the distinguished Mufassir, the rarity of his time, Scholar of the Ascetics" [‘Tabaqaat al-Huffaadh’ (pg. 516 no. 1144), and ‘al-Asbaah wa al-Nadhaa’ir’ (3/683) of as-Suyutee.]

We could mention many more scholars who praised him but insha’Allaah what we have quoted above is sufficient to paint a more just and true picture of this Imaam. As for those scholars that applied the title ‘Shaykh al-Islaam’ to him then they are numerous and would require a separate volume to list them [As has been done by some scholars, from amongst them ibn Naasir ad-Deen in the aforementioned book ‘ar-Radd al-Waafir’]

The Accusations against him:

From what has preceded it is clear that Shaykh al-Islaam had many enemies, and many jealous rivalries who plotted against him together to try to make out that he was an innovator. So we advise anyone who wishes to criticise the Shaykh that he must make sure that his criticisms are based firmly upon the written works of ibn Taymiyyah, not merely upon the words of other than him, as done by his opponents.

What follows is an investigation of the points of belief that ibn Taymiyyah was accused of having deviances in. We have left out the various legal positions he had for which he was attacked for due to their relative unimportance.

On the works of Taqi ad-Deen Subki and his son Taaj ad-Deen Subki:

Much of what is written against ibn Taymiyyah are based upon the works of these two scholars. ‘Rasaa`il as-Subkiyyah’ of Shaykh Taqi ad-Deen and the various biographical works of Taaj ad-Deen for example ‘Tabaqaat ash-Shaafi`iyyah’.

As for the works of Taqi ad-Deen then adh-Dhahabee wrote to him, censuring him for what he had written, and his erroneous claims, to which as-Subkee replied saying, "As for what you say with regard to ash-Shaykh Taqi ad-Deen, then I am convinced of the great scope, the ocean-like fullness and vastness of his knowledge of the transmitted and intellectual sciences, his extreme intelligence, his ijtihaad and his attainments in that which surpass description. And I have always held to this opinion. Personally, his status in my eyes is greater and more esteemed, for the asceticism, piety, religiosity, his helping the truth and standing firm on it for the sake of Allaah alone, his adherence to the path of the salaf and his abundant taking from it, and his strangeness in this time, nay any time." [‘ad-Durar al-Kaamina’ of ibn Hajr under the biography of ibn Taymiyyah (1/159) and ‘Dhail Tabaqaat al-Hanaabilah’ (2/392) of ibn Rajab al-Hanbalee.]

As for his son, Taaj ad-Deen, then unfortunately, he went to extremes in criticising ibn Taymiyyah, due to his highly partisan and sectarian attitude. Such that as-Sakhaawee endorsed the following words about him, following his statement, "did any of the Hanbalees raise their heads (i.e. become prominent)":

"This is from the strangest of things, and the most sectarian/partisan of attitudes, and this is why the Qaadee of our time, and Shaykh of the madhab al-Izz al-Kanaanee wrote under this statement, ‘and likewise Allaah did not raise the heads of the Mu`attila’ and then he said about Taaj ad-Deen Subki, ‘he is a man having little manners, lack of scholarly integrity, ignorant of Ahl as-Sunnah and their ranks.’" [ ‘al-I`laan bi at-Tawbeekh liman Dhamma at-Taareekh’ (94-95) of as-Sakhaawee]

A glimpse of his attacks can be seen in ‘Albani Unveiled’ (pp 114-116) and in what follows the truth of the above criticism will become clear, and a more severe and devastating reality will become apparent, and that is the amount of lies that are heaped around the pillars of Ahlus Sunnah in all ages by individuals that claim to be supporting the truth.

On the book ‘Naseehah adh-Dhahabiyyah’:

A book ascribed to adh-Dhahabee in which he launches a severe attack on ibn Taymiyyah, but in reality was not written by him, but falsely ascribed to him, this due to many reasons:

2. No one who is familiar with the works of adh-Dhahabee mentioned this as one of his works.
3. Adh-Dhahabee remained the student of ibn Taymiyyah until the latters death.
4. All of the sayings of adh-Dhahabee in the books that are affirmed to be from him, to do with ibn Taymiyyah, revolve around praise and respect of him. (A glimpse of these has preceded).
5. This letter is written in the handwriting of ibn Qaadee ash-Shuhba, an enemy of ibn Taymiyyah.

We have not seen one who ascribes this book to adh-Dhahabee after Qaadee ash-Shuhba except for his contemporary, al-Haafidh as-Sakhaawee, may Allaah have mercy on him, who merely followed him. [From the book, ‘at-Tawdeeh al-Jallee fee ar-Radd alaa Naseeha adh-Dhahabiyyah al-Manhula alaa al-Imaam adh-Dhahabee’ (pp85-86) by Shaykh Muhammad bin Ibraaheem ash-Shaybaanee, with summary]

2. The Accusation that ibn Taymiyyah held Allaah to be a body, of composite parts having organs.

Amongst those contemporary, and recent writers who accused Shaykh al-Islaam of this are: al-Habbashee al-Huraree, as-Saqqaaf and his mentor Zaahid al-Kawtharee. In fact all the attacks that are about to be raised will find their origins with one, or all of the three personalities mentioned above, from the writers of recent and contemporary times.

As-Saqqaaf says, after previously quoting an-Nawawees ruling of unbelief on the one who ascribes to Allaah a jism (body):

"Entering into this category is al-Harraanee (i.e. ibn Taymiyyah)…who has affirmed tajseem (Allaah having a body) in many of his books. So from this is his saying in ‘at-Ta`sees’ (1/101): ‘and there is not in the Book of Allaah, nor in the Sunnah of His Messenger, nor a statement from any of the Salaf of this ummah and it’s Imaams that He is not a jism, and that His Attributes are not bodily, consisting of organs…’ I say: By Allaah who originated the heavens and the Earth - your saying is ignorance and misguidance. Is not Allaah - the Most High’s - saying, "there is nothing like Him" sufficient in negating tajseem and it’s reality, O al-Harraanee?!! And what about the Imaams of the Ummah and the Salaf - O al-Harraanee - and their censure of tashbeeh…." [‘Daf Shubah at-Tashbeeh’ (pp 245-246) with it’s footnotes by Saqqaaf. ]

Shaykh Mashur Salmaan said in reply to this, "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 stated 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 Kalaam (innovated speech and rhetorics). However as-Saqqaaf has conveniently omitted the beginning of the quotation from Shaykh al-Islaam ibn Taymiyyah, where he clearly stated: Qaaloo (they said)!!

From them: that Saqqaaf overlooks the words of Shaykh al-Islaam ibn Taymiyyah - may Allaah have mercy upon him - concerning the overall usage of this term in reference to Allaah - the Mighty and Majestic - and he halted where he halted upon with knowledge. However justice is very rare - and there is no movement and power except with Allaah.

Shaykh al-Islaam said, in the course of this topic, ‘indeed the term al-Jism (body), al-Arad (organs), al-Mutahayyiz (extent) are newly invented terminoligies. We have mentioned many a time before that the Salaf and the Imaams have not spoken about such things - neither by way of negation, nor by way of affirmation. Rather they declared those who spoke about such matter to be innovators, and went to great lengths to censure them.’

This is what has repeatedly been affirmed by Shaykh al-Islaam - may Allaah have mercy on him - in many of his books, such as: ‘Sharh Hadeeth an-Nuzool’ (pp. 69-76), ‘Majmoo’ al-Fataawaa’ (3/306-310, 13/304-305), ‘Minhaaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah’ (2/134-135, 192, 198-200, 527). Indeed in ‘Sharh Hadeeth an-Nuzool’ Shaykh al-Islaam has labelled ascribing Allaah with the term jism, by saying, ‘an innovation in the Sharee`ah, a corruption of the language, and a contradiction to the [sound] intellect. Rather it is repudiated by the Sharee`ah, the language and the [sound] intellect.’

And from them: Shaykh al-Islaam mentions the intended meaning of ascribing Allaah with the term jism, by saying: ‘whosoever alleges that the Lord is a jism - with the meaning that he accepts division, separation and partition (for Allaah) - then he is the most disbelieving of people and the most ignorant. Indeed, his statement is more evil than the one who says that Allaah has a son - with them meaning that a part of Him split and thus became His son.’" [ ‘al-Asaalah’ magazine (no.4 pp.54-55), see also his ‘Rudood wat Ta’qubaat’ (pp 21-23) ]

And at this point we quote from a writer of the own ranks of the accusers: Dr. Sa`eed Ramadaan al-Bootee who says, "and we are amazed when we see the extremists declaring ibn Taymiyyah, may Allaah have mercy upon him, of being an unbeliever. And also at them saying that he was one who held Allaah to be a body (mujassid), and I have studied long and hard as to where I could find a statement or a word from ibn Taymiyyah that he wrote or said which would indicate his holding Allaah to be a body as was quoted from him by as-Subki and others [This is a clear indication from al-Bootee of the injustice done against ibn Taymiyyah by the likes of as-Subki and others], and I have not found anything from him like this. All I found was him saying in his legal rulings, ‘Indeed Allaah has a Hand as He said, and has risen over the Throne as He said, and He has an Eye as He said’"

And he adds to this, " I referred to the last work written by Abu al-Hasan al-Ash`aree, ‘al-Ibaanah’, and I found him saying exactly what ibn Taymiyyah said [on the issue of the Names and Attributes of Allah]…" [‘Nadwa Ittjaahaat al-Fiqr al-Islaamee’ (pp 264-265) of al-Bootee.]

The Claims of ibn Batuta:

Amongst the contemporaries of ibn Taymiyyah who accused him of tajseem was the travelling historian, ibn Batuta who said, "I was present in Damascus on Friday where he (ibn Taymiyyah) was admonishing and reminding the people from the minbar (pulpit) of the congregational mosque. During his speech he said: Indeed Allaah descends to the lowest heaven of the world just as I am descending now. He then descended one step of the minbar…" [‘al-Rihlah’ (1/110) of ibn Batuta.]

The falsehood of this can be seen from many angles:

2. This contradicts the madhab of ibn Taymiyyah concerning the Attributes of Allaah - the Most High - which was the same as the madhab of the Salaf, being built upon the saying of Allaah, ‘there is nothing like Him, He is the Hearing and the Seeing’.
3. Ibn Taymiyyah says in ‘at-Tadmuriyyah’ (pg. 20), "It is a must to affirm that which Allaah 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 Ascending like my ascending, or His Nuzool (descent) is like my descent - then he has resembled and likened Allaah to the creation. Rather it is a must to affirm (Allaah’s Attributes) without resemblance, and to negate (what Allaah negates for Himself), without ta`teel (divesting Allaah of His Attributes)."
4. Likewise he said in ‘Majmoo` al-Fataawaa’ (5/262), "whosoever considers the Attributes to be like the attributes of the creation - such that Istawaa of Allaah is like the ascending of the creation, or His Nuzool is like the descending of the creation, or other than that - then he is a deviated innovator." And he repeats this principle over and over again in his works.
5. It is not possible that ibn Batuta witnessed ibn Taymiyyah deliver this speech, since ibn Batuta clearly states in his ‘Rihla’ (1/102) that he entered Damascus on the 9^th of Ramadhaan in the year 728H. However Shaykh al-Islaam was - before, during and after that time - in prison. Ibn Katheer states in ‘al-Bidaayah wan Nihaayah’ (14/135) that ibn Taymiyyah was imprisoned on the 6^th of Sha’baan in the year 728H and remained there until his death on the 20^th of Dhul Qa’dah 728H [These dates are endorsed in ‘al-A`laam al-Uliyyah’ (pg.84) of al-Bazzaar, and ‘Sahdharaat adh-Dhahab’ (6/80) of ibn al-Amaad.]
   
6. Ibn Batuta, may Allaah have mercy upon him, did not write the book ‘Rihla’ with his own hand, rather it was collected by Muhammad bin Jazee al-Kalbee who writes in the introduction to ‘Rihla’, "and I have quoted the meaning of the words of Shaykh Abu Abdullaah (ibn Batuta) with words that give the meaning that he intended…."
7. Ibn Batuta started his journey on the 2^nd of Rajab 725H and completed it on the 3^rd of Dhul Hijjah 756H and he did not write anything down, rather after this journey he dictated to al-Kalbee the events of his journey from memory. Hence the door is open for mistakes, and it is highly likely that ibn Batuta did not witness what he claimed to have witnessed, but merely conveyed the accusations that were in vogue at that time against Shaykh al-Islaam from his enemies.
8. Ibn Batuta himself was opposed to ibn Taymiyyah, for he states in ‘Rihla’ (1/309), ‘and from the great Hanbalee Legal Jurists of Damascus was ibn Taymiyyah, except that he was lacking in his intellect.’ Hence it would have been easy for him to take on board the accusations without verifying them.
9. Ibn Taymiyyah has a separate book concerning Allaah’s Descending called, ‘Sharh Hadeeth an-Nuzool’. In it is no trace whatsoever of the anthropomorphic beliefs that he has been falsely accused of.
10. Ibn Taymiyyah was not the khateeb of the aforementioned masjid, rather it was Qaadee al-Qazwaynee. Ibn Batuta himself says in his ‘Rihla’ (1/107), "and at the time of my entering it (Damascus) their Imaam was Qaadee Jalaal ad-Deen Muhammad bin Abd ar-Rahmaan al-Qazwaynee from the great legal jurists, and he was the khateeb of the masjid…."
11. Ibn Taymiyyah did not used to give admonitions and reminders to the people from the minbar, rather he used to sit upon a chair. Al-Haafidh adh-Dhahabee said, "and he became very famous and well-known, and he started giving tafseer of the Might Book from his memory, on the days of Jumu`ah, sitting upon a chair." And ibn Batuta states in his ‘Rihla’ (1/108), "it was the habit of the scholars of hadeeth to read books of hadeeth on a raised chair." And a raised chair in the Arabic language is called, ‘minbar’. [‘Lisaan al-Arb’ (5/189)]
12. This is why ibn Hajr mentioned in his ‘Durar al-Kaaminah’, "and he used to speak on the minbar in the way of the explainers of fiqh and hadeeth, and he used to mention in an hour, what another was unable to mention in many sittings, as if the sciences were displayed in front of his eyes" Meaning by this that he sat on a chair as done by the scholars of hadeeth.

[The above discussion is taken from ‘Min Mashaaheer al-Mujaddidayn’ (pp 27-29) of Shaykh Saalih al-Fowzaan, and ‘ibn Taymiyyah al-Muftaraa alayhi’ (pp 50-60) of Shaykh Saleem al-Hilaalee.

Ibn Hajr al-Asqalaanee also mentioned in ‘Durar al-Kaaminah’ (pg. 154) quoting from at-Tufee that, "and they mentioned that he mentioned the hadeeth of Descent and he descended two steps of the minbar and he said, ‘Like this descending of mine’ so he was imputed with tajseem (fa nusiba ilaa at-tajseem)"

This statement is by no means an evidence against ibn Taymiyyah as it only states ‘they mentioned’ mentioning no eye witnesses, And in fact it only confirms, along with all that has preceded, that these were lies being spread against ibn Taymiyyah. This is the reason that at-Tufee only said, ‘he was imputed with tajseem’ using uncertain phraseology.]

So with the above it is clear that the account of ibn Batuta cannot be depended upon due to his obvious confusion and the lack of coherency of his account, and due to it’s clear contradiction to the written words of ibn Taymiyyah.

And with this the gross exaggeration of Taaj ad-Deen Subki can also be discerned, where he said, "none of them (scholars) denied that he had said, ‘Allaah had directions and is a composition of particles coming together’" [ See ‘Albani Unveiled’ (pg.116)]

3. The Accusation that ibn Taymiyyah held Allaah to be subject to direction (jihha).

Nowhere in the works of ibn Taymiyyah has he used the word jihha in describing Allaah. Rather the basis of this accusation arises from his following our Salaf and clearly stating that Allaah is outside of His creation, above the heavens, over His Throne. When reading this, the misguided philosophers (mutakallimeen) argued that this position of ibn Taymiyyah necessitated that Allaah have a direction.

The Position of the Salaf as to Allaah being distinct from creation:

Know that the verses of the Qur`aan on this issue, clear and unequivocal in their meaning, run into hundreds, and likewise the ahaadeeth, that Allaah is above His creation and over His Throne. These are well known so we will suffice here with stating the position of the Salaf on this issue as it is they who understood the Qur`aan and Sunnah the best.

Below is a translation of some points from 'Khalq Af`aal al-Ebaad' of Imaam Bukhaaree (RH), pp.13+. All narrations quoted are authentic insha`Allaah according to the takhreej done of the works quoted. The narrators are mainly Taabi`ee and those that came immediately after.

"6) Wahb bin Jareer said, ‘The Jahmiyyah are heretics, they think that He has not risen over His Throne.’

13) Ibn al-Mubaarak said, ‘we do not say as the Jahmiyyah say that Allaah is on the earth, rather He has risen over His Throne.’

14) And it was said to him, ‘how should we know our Lord?’ He said, ‘above the Heavens, over/upon (`alaa) His Throne’

29) Sufyaan ath-Thawree was asked about the verse, "and He is with you wheresoever you are". He said, ‘His Knowledge.’

64) Sadqa said, ‘I heard Sulaiman at-Taimi saying, ‘if I were asked, "where is Allaah?" I would say, "above (fee) the heaven". And if it said, "where was the Throne before the Heaven?" I would say, "over the water." And if it is said, "where was the Throne before the water?" I would say, "I do not know."’

And Imaam Bukhaaree said, ‘and that (i.e. his answer) was because of the saying of Allaah, "and they cannot encompass anything of His Knowledge except what He wills." i.e. except what He explains.’

[This shows that the question ‘where is Allaah’ was considered allowed by the Salaf, and how could it be otherwise when the Prophet (SAW) himself asked the slave girl, "where is Allaah" as is established firmly in the saheeh of Imaam Muslim. So do not be misguided by the neo-Jahmiyyah of today, Saqqaaf and al-Habbashee and their likes who try to declare the above hadeeth of Muslim as weak, and make out that the above question is a bid`ah, having only the classical Jahmiyyah as their precedents.]

66) Muhammad bin Yusuf said (one of the teachers of Bukhaaree), ‘the one who says that Allaah is not over (`alaa) His Throne is a kaafir. And the one who thinks that Allaah did not speak to Moses is a kaafir.’

103) Ibn Mas`ud (RA) said about His saying, "then He rose over His Throne", - ‘the Throne is over the water, Allaah is above (fawqa) the Throne and He knows what you are upon.’

104) Qataada said about His saying, "and He is Allaah in the Heaven and in the Earth" - ‘the One Who is worshipped in the heaven and in the earth.’"

Below are further points translated from ‘Sharh Usul I`tiqaad Ahlus Sunnah’ of al-Laalikaa`ee (d.414, pp396+)

"660) Abdullaah bin Abbaas (RA) said, ‘Verily Allaah was above His Throne before He created anything, then He created the creation and decreed what was to exist until the Day of Judgement.’

662) Bashr bin Umar said, ‘I heard more then one of the Mufassir say about the verse, "The Most Merciful istawaa upon the Throne" - istawaa means rose above.’

665) Rabee`(one of the teachers of Maalik) was asked about the verse, "The Most Merciful rose over His Throne" - ‘how did He rise?’ He replied, ‘al-Istawaa (rising) is known, and the how is not comprehensible, and from Allaah is the message, and upon the Messenger is the preaching, and upon us is believing.’

670) Maqaatil bin Hayaan said about His saying, "and there is no secret discourse of 3 people except He is the fourth, or of 5 people and He is the sixth" - ‘He is above His Throne, and nothing is hidden from His knowledge.’

673) Imaam Ahmad was asked, ‘Allaah is above the seventh heaven, above His Throne, distinct from his creation, and His Power and Knowledge are in every place?’ He replied, ‘yes, above the Throne and His Knowledge is in every place.’

675) Imaam Ahmad was asked about the verse, "and He is with you wheresoever you are", and the verse, "there is no secret discourse of 3 people except that he is the fourth." – he replied, ‘(meaning) His Knowledge, He is the Knower of the seen and the unseen, His knowledge encompasses everything, and our Lord is above the Throne without setting limits and giving description, and His Kursi is as the expanse of the heavens and the earth with His Knowledge.’"

Imaam Awzaa`ee said, "we used to say, while the Taabi`een were many, ‘indeed Allaah is above His Throne, and we believe in what occurs in the Sunnah to do with His Attributes’" [ Related by al-Bayhaqi in ‘Asmaa was Sifaat’ (pg. 408) and ibn Hajr declared it’s chain of narration to be good as in ‘Fath al-Baaree’ (13/406).]

Imaam Abdullaah bin Ahmad quoted Abdullaah ibn Mubaarak as saying, ‘...I bear witness that You are above Your Throne above the seven heavens and this is not as the enemies of Allaah say, the heretics.’ [ ‘Sharh as-Sunnah’ of Imaam Abdullaah]

He also quoted Abdullaah ibn Mubaarak as saying, ‘we know that our Lord is above the seven heavens over the Throne, and we do not say as the Jahmiyyah say that he is here,’ pointing with his hand to the earth. [Ibid.]

Abu Haneefah (RH) said, when asked of his opinion of the one who says, ‘I do not know whether Allaah is in the heavens or on the earth.’ -

‘He has disbelieved, because Allaah says, "The Most Merciful rose above the Throne.", and His Throne is above His seven heavens.’ He was then asked, ‘what if he said that Allaah is above His Throne but he does not know whether the Throne is in the heavens or on the earth?’ He said, ‘He has disbelieved, because He has denied that He is above the heavens and whosoever denied that He is above the heavens has disbelieved.’ [‘al-Uluww’ of adh-Dhahabee, also ‘Sharh Aqueedah at-Tahaawiyyah’ of ibn Abee al-Izz al-Hanafee.]

Ibn Khuzaymah (the Imaam of the muhadditheen of his time) said, ‘whosoever does not affirm that Allaah is above His heavens, over/upon (`alaa) His Throne and He is distinct from His creation, must be forced to repent. If he does not repent then he must be beheaded and thrown in the garbage dump so that the Muslims and thimmis (Jews and Christians living under the Islamic State) would not suffer from his stinking smell.’ [‘at-Tawheed’ of ibn Khuzaimah, also quoted by al-Haakim in ‘al-Ma`rifah’]

Imaam Abul Hasan al-Ash`aree (d.290) in ‘al-Ibaanah’ brings a whole chapter on ‘Istawaa’ (Allaah Rising over His Throne), in the course of his discussion he said, ‘and some people say, from the Mu`tazila and Jahmiyyah and Hururiyya, about the saying of Allaah, "The Most Merciful rose upon His Throne", that he istawla (conquered), Milak (owned), Qahr (dominated), and that Allaah is in every place, and they denied Allaah being above His Throne, as the People of Truth say...’

[‘al-Ibaanah’ (pg. 120+) containing an excellent refutation of the above claim. This also refutes clearly what Abu Mansur al-Baghdaadee states in his ‘Farq bayna al-Firaq’ that, "The majority go the way of saying that the meaning of "Istawaa" is establishing dominance (al-qahr) and victory (al ghalaba), that is, the Merciful vanquished the Throne (al-rahmanu ghalaba al-`arsh) and overcame it (wa qaharahu). He mentioned the Throne specifically because it is the greatest of created things (a`dhamu al-makhluqat)."

It should be said to him, ‘establish the throne and then sit on it’, what majority? When the totality of the Salaf held that Istawaa meant that Allaah has risen over His Throne. Not only that but the very Imaam that Abu Mansur claims to follow, al-Ash`aree refutes his very claim as being misguidance!]

The quotes on this run into the hundreds from the salaf, and the books written on this by the early scholars of Islaam are many but we do not wish to lengthen the discussion beyond what is necessary.

So we say to those that accuse ibn Taymiyyah of giving Allaah a direction, because of this belief of his: Your accusation necessitates that all of the above Salaf also held Allaah to have a jihha, including the two great Companions, ibn Mas`ud and ibn Abbaas. So if you were to declare ibn Taymiyyah as misguided due to this, then you must do the same with the Salaf. We seek refuge with Allaah from such misguidance!

Ibn Taymiyyah said,

"And when it became established in the souls of the addressees (of the revelation) that Allaah is the Highest of the High, and the He is Above everything, the understanding of His saying, "Indeed He is (fee) the Heaven" became that He was High and Above everything. Likewise the slave girl when it was said to her, "where is Allaah," she said, "(fee) the Heaven," meaning above, without designating for Him a created body or His being contained in His Creation….Furthermore whosoever thinks that Allaah being (fee) the Heaven means that the Heaven surrounds or encloses Him, then he is a liar if he is quoting someone else or misguided if He believes this with respect to His Lord. We have not heard anyone understand this from this word (fee) just as we have not seen anyone quote this from anyone else" [‘Bayaan Talbees al-Jahmiyyah’ (1/559) of ibn Taymiyyah]

He said in ‘Darr at-Ta`aarud’ (1/253), "so when the Creator, the Exalted is separate and distinct from the creation, high above it, and there is nothing in existence save the Creator and created, then there is nothing that exists alongside Him which is besides Him, let alone that He – Subhaanahu – should be in some existing thing which surrounds and encompasses Him."

Ibn Taymiyyah said,

"The people fall into three groups over the convention of the use of the word jihha. A group that negates it, another that affirms it, and a third that explains the issue. This difference is present amongst the followers of the Four Imaams who affirmed the Attributes of Allaah and the difference of the Ahlul Hadeeth and Sunnah, specifically, over this is a difference in wording, not in meaning. This is why a group from the Companions of Ahmad - like the Tameemiyyeen and al-Qaadee in one of his two sayings - negated it yet another, larger group, affirmed it - and this is the last saying of al-Qaadee. This is because the word jihha could be used to refer to that which is subject to time and space (wujood) or that which is not (ma`doom) and it is known that there is nothing present except for the Creator and creation.

So if the word jihha is used to refer to something that exists other than Allaah then it refers to something created by Allaah and Allaah is not encompassed or confined by any of his creation. If the word is used to refer to something outside time and space, i.e. above the creation, then there is nothing there except Allaah." [‘Minhaaj as-Sunnah’ (1/216) of ibn Taymiyyah.]

So it is clear with all of this that ibn Taymiyyah did not believe Allaah to be subject to any of the created direction, nor did he believe Allaah to be surrounded in any way by His creation.

3) The Accusation that ibn Taymiyyah held Allaah to be subject to limitation (hadd)

The innovators looked into the works of ibn Taymiyyah and saw him mentioning the word hadd with respect to Allaah and immediately assumed that he held Allaah to be subject to limitation and without and further research declared him as a deviant or kaafir. The error of this accusation will become clear, by the Permission of Allaah.

The basis of this accusation lies with the authentic saying related from Abdullaah bin Mubaarak as is related in ‘Tabaqaat al-Hanaabila’ (1/267), "I said to Ahmad: it is reported from ibn al-Mubaarak that it was asked him, ‘how should we know our Lord?’ to which he replied, ‘over (fee) the Seventh Heaven, over His Throne with hadd.’ So Imaam Ahmad said: this is how we believe it." [Related by ad-Daarimee in ‘Radd alaa Mareesee’ (pg.34), Abdullaah bin Ahmad in ‘as-Sunnah’ (1/175), al-Bayhaqi in ‘Asmaa was Sifaat’ (pg. 467). Imaam adh-Dhahabee said in ‘al-Uluww’ (pg. 152 - of the mukhtasar), "this is saheeh, established from ibn al-Mubaarak and Ahmad may Allaah be pleased with him." Ibn Taymiyyah said in ‘al-Hamawiyyah’ (5/184 - of Majmoo al-Fataawaa), "this is famous and established from ibn Mubaarak via many routes, and it is also established from Ahmad bin Hanbal, and Ishaaq bin Raahawayyah and other Imaams." See also ‘Sharh Aqueedah at-Tahaawiyyah’ (pg. 240). See also the refutation of al-Kawtharees feeble attempts to declare this narration da`eef in ‘Daf` Shubah al-Ghawiyyah’ (pp73-74) of Shaykh Muraad Shukree.]

But was the meaning of the Imaams in saying this? Was it establishing limits for Allaah with the meaning of the walls of a house setting its limits, or something else? Or does Allaah have an Attribute of hadd? What is the reconciliation between this narration from Imaam Ahmad and the previous one mentioned above (no.675)?

Ibn Taymiyyah says,

"These words that he mentioned would be applicable if they had said that He has an Attribute and it is hadd, as suggested by this person who tries to refute them. This has not been said by anyone and neither would any intelligent person say this, for this statement has no reality to it due to their not existing a single Attribute from the Attributes that He is described with, such as Hand and Knowledge, that has been specified as hadd. All that is meant here is what distinguishes something from something else with regards to its description and measure as is well known of the word hadd when dealing with the clearly defined things. For example it is said: the hadd of man, meaning those characteristics that distinguish him as being a man." [ ‘Talbees al-Jahmiyyah’ (1/442) of ibn Taymiyyah.]

So historically when the Jahmiyyah, denied the Attributes of Allaah, and denied his being above His Throne, rather they said He is everywhere, then some of the Salaf replied to this by saying that indeed Allaah has a hadd with the meaning: that which distinguishes Him from anything else, in that He has Risen over His Throne and is distinct from creation. Ibn Taymiyyah said,

"So when the Jahmiyyah said: indeed the Creator is not distinguished from the creation, and they denied the Attributes which distinguish Him, and they denied His Power (qadr), to the extent that the Mu`tazila said, when we acknowledge that He is Living, Knowing and all-Powerful (only), then we have come to know His reality. They say: indeed He is not distinct from other than Him. Rather they depict Him, either with negative descriptions such as: He is not in the world, nor out of the world, and not this and not that, or they make Him to be encompassed by the creation.

So Abdullaah bin Mubaarak made clear that the Lord is over His Throne, distinct from the creation, and he mentioned hadd because the Jahmiyyah used to say: He does not have a hadd, and whatsoever does not have a hadd cannot be distinct from creation, and cannot be above the creation because that would necessitate a hadd. So when the Ameer al-Mu`mineen Abdullaah ibn al-Mubaarak was asked: ‘How should we know Him?’ He said, ‘above His Heavens, over His Throne, distinct from His creation.’ So they said, ‘this implies that which the Jahmiyyah negate, and with this negation of theirs they negate the fact that He is present over the Throne, distinct from creation.’ So they asked him, ‘with hadd?’ And he replied ‘with hadd’.

So this is what is understood by anyone who understands what was between the sayings of the believers of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaa`ah and the Jahmiyyah." [Ibid (1/443)]

Then ibn Taymiyyah discusses the statements of those from the salaf who negated the usage of the word hadd, and those who used it, and explains that in reality both groups were saying the same thing, and the difference was merely one of wording not of meaning:

"If the understood meaning of this word is that Allaah is in any way enclosed by His creation, then Allaah is Greater and more Mighty, rather His Kursi is as the expanse of the Heavens and the earth…and if what is meant by this word is that he is distinct from His creation, then He is as the Imaams of Ahlus Sunnah said about Him: over His Heavens, above His Throne, distinct from creation." [‘at-Tadmuriyyah’ (pg.46)of ibn Taymiyyah, see also for further detail, ‘Talbees al-Jahmiyyah’ (2/163)]

So after all this, it becomes clear that ibn Taymiyyah did not hold Allaah to be subject to limitation, and it becomes clear that the word hadd was used by some of the Salaf with the meaning: distinguishing characteristics, when it became necessary to do so to refute the various deviant groups at that time.

5. The Accusation that ibn Taymiyyah held Allaah subject to movement (Harakah)

The basis of this accusation is that, like the Salaf, ibn Taymiyyah believed that Allaah descends to the Lowest Heaven in the last third of the night, and that He has the Attribute of Coming (Majee`). So the opponents adduced against him that he held Allaah to move from one place to another, and this resembles Allaah to His creation.

A glimpse at the belief of the Salaf to do with Descent:

Imaam al-Aajurree (d.360) says in his exposition on Aqueedah, under the chapter ‘to have faith and trust that Allaah descends to the lowest heaven every night.’

"Faith in this is obligatory, and it is not allowed for the intelligent Muslim to say, ‘how does he descend?’ - and none would answer this except the Mu`tazila. [For example the saying of some, that His command descends, and the saying of others that His angels descend etc.] As for the people of truth, then they say, ‘faith in this is obligatory without asking how. Because the narrations are authentic to the Messenger (SAW) - that Allaah descends to the lowest heaven every night - and the ones who transmitted this narration to us are the ones that transmitted the rules of the lawful and prohibited, the knowledge of salaah, zakaah, fasting, hajj, and jihaad. So just as the scholars accepted these from them then like this they accepted from them these Sunan. They said, ‘the one who opposed these is horribly misguided’ - warning him and warning against him." [ ‘ash-Sharee`ah’ (pg. 272)]

Then he goes on to mention the ahaadeeth that occur on this subject.

The great hadeeth master, ibn Khuzaymah brings a chapter heading in his work ‘at-Tawheed’, "mentioning the narrations of Descent," in which he mentions many ahaadeeth to do with this Attribute.

al-Laalikaa`ee (d.414) brings a chapter heading in his encyclopaedic work on aqueedah - Sharh Usul I`tiqaad - , "what is related about the Descent of the Lord, Blessed and Exalted, is He"

He states that the ahaadeeth that Allaah descends to the lowest heaven have been reported by twenty companions and then....

"775) Fudail bin Ayaad (Taabi`ee) said, ‘when you hear the Jahmi say, "I disbelieve in a Lord Who descends"- say - "I believe in a Lord Who does what He wills"’

776) Yahya bin Ma`een said, ‘when you hear the Jahmi say, "I disbelieve in a Lord Who descends", then say, ‘I believe in a Lord Who does what He desires."’

777) Imaam Ahmad said, ‘He descends as He wills, according to His Knowledge and Power and Greatness. He encompasses everything with His Knowledge.’

Similar narrations occur in Khalq Af`aal al-Ebaad of Imaam al-Bukhaaree and ‘Ghunya at-Taalibeen’ of Abdul Qaadir Jeelaanee.

Imaam Abdullaah bin Ahmad narrates in his work ‘as-Sunnah’,

"508) After mentioning the hadeeth of Descent the people said to Shareek, ‘verily there are a people who reject these ahaadeeth.’ He said, ‘what do they say?’

They said, ‘they abuse these ahaadeeth.’

He replied, ‘Those who brought (i.e. Companions) these ahaadeeth, are those who brought the Qur`aan, and that the prayers are five, and the Hajj to the House, and the fast of Ramadaan. And we do not know Allaah except by these ahaadeeth.’

509) Abaad bin al-Awaam said, Shareek bin Abdullaah came to us about fifty years ago. He said (Abaad), ‘I said, "O Abu Abdullaah, verily there is a people with us from the Mu`tazila who reject these ahaadeeth."’

He said, ‘so he narrated to me about ten ahaadeeth to do with this (i.e. the Descent of Allaah) and said, "as for us we take our religion from the taabi`een from the companions of the Messenger (SAW), from where do they take theirs?"’"

Abul Hasan al-Ash`aree (d.294) said, "and we believe in all the narrations that the People of Transmission have established about the Descent to the lowest heaven and that the Lord says, ‘is there one who is asking? Is there one who is seeking forgiveness?’ And in the generality of what they transmit and establish, at odds to what the people of deviancy and misguidance say." [‘al-Ibaanah’ (pg. 60) of Abu Hasan al-Ash’aree]

He also said, "and we believe in the ahaadeeth that have come from the Messenger (SAW) that Allaah descends to the lowest Heaven and says, ‘is there one who is seeking forgiveness?’" [‘al-Maqaalaat’ (pg. 224) of Abu Hasan al-Ash’aree]

So we say yet again, if by ibn Taymiyyah’s affirmation of this Attribute, that Allaah indeed Descends to the lowest heaven as befits His Majesty, is misguidance then so are all of the above scholars, and in fact Ahlus Sunnah itself misguided! And so is the very Imaam that the accusers claim to follow misguided, Abu Hasan al-Ash`aree!

Ibn Taymiyyah says, while discussing the use of the word ‘harakah’,

"…like Harb al-Kirmaanee, and Uthmaan bin Sa`eed ad-Daarimee and others. Indeed these clearly used the word harakah and they made clear that this was the madhab of the Imaams of Ahlus Sunnah and Hadeeth from the early and the later.

Harb al-Kirmaanee mentioned that this was the saying of the Imaams of Ahlus Sunnah that he had met, like Ahmad bin Hanbal, and Ishaaq bin Raahawiyyah, and Abdullaah bin Zubair al-Humaidee and Sa`eed bin Mansur.

Sa`eed bin Mansoor and others said: indeed harakah (movement) is from the necessary qualities of life and every living thing moves. They made out that denying this was from the saying of the Jahmiyyah upon whom Ahlus Sunnah are agreed with respect to their misguidance and innovation.

Another group from the Salaf, like Nu`aym bin Hammad al-Khazaa`ee, and Bukhaaree the author of the ‘Saheeh’, and Abu Bakr ibn Khuzaymah, and others like Abu Umar bin Abd al-Barr, affirmed the meaning of what they (the first group) affirmed but they named it Actions (of Allaah). From these were those that forbade the use of the word harakah due to its not being narrated." [‘Dar at-Ta`aarud’ (7/2)]

He said, "the word harakah was affirmed by a group from Ahlus Sunnah and Hadeeth and this is what was mentioned by Harb bin Ismaa`eel al-Kirmaanee in his ‘Sunnah’ which he relates from a group of Imaams that he met like al-Humaidee and Ahmad bin Hanbal….

Some groups of Ahlus Sunnah negated the usage of the word harakah like Abu al-Hasan at-Taymee and Abu Sulaymaan al-Khattaabee….

What is narrated from Imaam Ahmad is the rejection of the one that negates movement but neither is the usage of the word harakah established from him, even though he may have affirmed some types (of Attributes and Actions) that the affirmer (of the word harakah) would have placed within the ranks of the word harakah. For when he heard someone narrating the hadeeth of Descent and saying, ‘He Descends without movement and transmission, and without change.’ So Imaam Ahmad rejected this and said, ‘say as the Messenger (SAW) said, for he was more shy of His Lord than you.’" [‘al-Istiqaamah’ (1/70)]

So from this we learn that:

2. From the salaf were those who negated the usage of the word harakah because it did not occur in the Qur`aan and Sunnah when describing Allaah, but they affirmed the Attributes of Descent, Coming etc.
3. From the salaf were those who affirmed the word harakah meaning that Allaah Comes, and Descends etc. and it is not like the movement of the Creation but rather as it befits His Majesty.
4. Shaykh al-Islaam quotes the two sayings stating that in meaning that they are the same and that there is no resembling Allaah to His creation in this. He himself only affirms the Attributes of Allaah without adding anything further.

Finally ibn Taymiyyah belonged to the first group above. So with all of this, the fourth accusation is cleared and all praise is due to Allaah.

5) The Accusation that ibn Taymiyyah held the Hellfire to come to an end:

Another accusation by which the opponents declared ibn Taymiyyah to be misguided due to his contradicting the ‘consensus’ on this issue. Yet nowhere in the works of ibn Taymiyyah does he say this, in fact what we find from him is the exact opposite, and we challenge anybody who accuses ibn Taymiyyah of this to bring his proof.

Ibn Taymiyyah says,

"The Salaf of this nation, its Imaams, and the whole Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaa`ah are agreed that there are some things from the creation that will not come to an end in their entirety like Paradise, Hellfire, the Throne, and others. No one believed that all of the creation would come to an end except for a group from the People of innovated speech (Ahl al-Kalaam) and those who agreed with them from amongst the Mu`tazila and their likes. This is an invalid opinion which contradicts the Book of Allaah, the Sunnah of His Messenger and the consensus of the nation and its Imaams." [‘Bayaan Talbees al-Jahmiyyah’ (1/851)]

This is from one perspective, as for the other than it is over the issue of the Punishment of the Hellfire coming to an end. This is an issue over which there is a difference of opinion emanating from the Salaf themselves as the reader of the Tafseers of at-Tabari, as-Suyuti and others can see under the verse 11:107 and 6:128. It is possible to explain these narrations in two ways: the first being that the saying of some of the Companions and Taabi`een that, ‘their will come a time when there will be no-one in Hellfire’ is to be taken literally. The second is that it is to be taken to refer only to the Muslims in the Hellfire.

No matter how we take it, to rule someone’s deviancy or unbelief based on this is not possible, for only one who contradicts a consensus that is firmly established to exist, and unequivocal in it’s meaning can be ruled to be a deviant or a disbeliever. This is not the case here despite the efforts of some scholars to make it seem so. Even if it were so, then neither ibn Taymiyyah or ibn al-Qayyim held this view, so do not be deceived by what the likes of as-Subki writes in his ‘al-I`tibaar bi Baqaa al-Jannah wa an-Naar’ (forming part of his ‘Risaa`il’).

As-Subki says, in the course of his discussion on this point,

"…I came across the aforementioned book and he mentioned in it three opinions over the Hellfire coming to an end. 1) both Paradise and Hell will end and he said that no one from the salaf held this opinion. 2) that both are eternal. 3) that Paradise remains and Hellfire will come to an end. And he inclined to this position and said that this was the madhab of the Salaf." [‘al-I’tibaar’ (pg. 201)]

The opponents who read this book, thought that as-Subki was referring to ibn Taymiyyah and hence the origin of this accusation against ibn Taymiyyah. But in reality this is from the words of ibn al-Qayyim and it seems that as-Subki did not even fully read what this Imaam had to say!"

Ibn al-Qayyim says: ‘Al-Haadee al-Arwaah’ (pg. 429+),

"And this is an issue over which the latter people differed over, falling into three opinions:

2. That both Paradise and Hell will come to an end and are not eternal, rather just as all created things they will come to an end.
3. That both will remain, never coming to an end.
4. That Paradise is eternal, and the Hellfire will come to an end.

We will mention these opinions and their proponents along with their evidences, and we will reject what contradicts the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger.

1) As for the first saying, then it was said by Jahm bin Safwaan, the Imaam of the Jahmiyyah, and he did not any precedent in this from the Salaf - neither in the Companions, nor the Taabi`een, nor any of the Imaams of Islaam, or indeed anyone from Ahlus Sunnah. Rather this saying was one that was rejected by the Imaams and they declared the unbelief of the ones that held to it, as is mentioned in ‘as-Sunnah’ of Abdullaah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal reporting from Khaarijah bin Mus`ab that he said, "I declare the Jahmiyyah to be unbelievers due to three verses from the Book of Allaah, Azza wa Jall, ‘its (Paradise) provision and food is eternal’ and they say it will end. ‘Verily this is Our provision which will never finish’, and they say they will. ‘Whatever is with you will pass away, and what is with Allaah will remain’"…

2) As for the saying that the Hellfire is eternal, then Shaykh al-Islaam said, "there are two famous opinions from the Salaf and Khalaf and this difference is known to exist amongst the Taabi`een." I say: and here are seven opinions on this:

2. That the one entering it will never leave, this being the saying of the Khawaarij and Mu`tazila.
3. That it’s inhabitants will be punished for a time but then this punishment will be changed for them and they will live in a normal manner, gaining pleasure from the Fire, due to its being in conformity to their nature. This is the saying of the Imaam of the Ittihaadiyyah (anthropomorphists) ibn Arabee at-Taa`ee…
4. That its inhabitants will be punished for a time, then they will be removed from it, and another creation placed in Hell. This opinion was one that the Jews related to the Messenger (SAW) and he declared them liars due to it as did Allaah by saying, "and they (the Jews) say: the Fire will not touch us but for a few days. Say: have you taken a covenant from Allaah, so that Allaah will not break His Covenant? Or is it that you say of Allaah what you know not. And those who believe and do righteous deeds, they are dwellers of Paradise, they will dwell therein forever." This saying is then the saying of the enemies of Allaah, the Jews, and they are the shaykhs of its proponents. The Qur`aan, Sunnah, and the consensus of the Sahaabah and the Taabi`een and the Imaams indicate this opinions invalidity. Allaah says, ‘and they will not leave it’….
5. That its inhabitants will leave it and the Fire will remain, being empty, this is related by Shaykh al-Islaam (ibn Taymiyyah). And this opinion is also refuted by the Qur’aan and Sunnah as has preceded.
6. That it will come to an end due to its being created. It is impossible for anything that is created to remain forever, this is the saying of Jahm bin Safwaan, and he does not distinguish in this between the Fire and Paradise.
7. That its inhabitants will die and lose movement and remain in there as inanimate things, and they will not be affected by pain. This is the saying of Abu al-Hudhail al-Alaaf, the Imaam of the Mu`tazila, and in this ruling he does distinguish between Paradise and Hell.
8. That its Creator and Lord will cause it to come to an end, for He has given it a limited period.

Shaykh al-Islaam said, "this (last) saying was related from Umar, ibn Mas`ud, Abu Hurayrah, Abu Sa`eed and others." Abd bin Humaid related - and he is from the most noble of the scholars of hadeeth - in his famous tafseer, ‘Sulaymaan bin Harb reported to us, from Salma, from Thaabit from Hasan who said, "Umar said: if the people of Hell were to remain in the Fire to the extent of the stones in a mountain there would be a day that they would leave it."’

And he said, ‘Hajaaj bin Minhaal, from Hammaad bin Salma, from Humaid from Hasan that Umar bin al-Khattaab said, "if the People of the Fire were to remain in the Fire to the extent of the stones in a mountain there would be a day that they would leave it.’" He mentioned this in the tafseer of His saying, "they will stay in there for periods" (Naba`a: 23).

So Abd, who is from the Imaams of the Huffaadh and scholars of Sunnah relates from these two noble personalities: Sulaymaan bin Harb and Hajjaaj bin Minhaal, who in turn narrate from Hammad bin Salma, and he narrates from Thaabit and Humaid, and these two from Hasan. And this is sufficient to show the excellence of this isnaad.

And Hasan, even if he did not hear anything from Umar, relates this also from some of the Taabi`een. If this was not authentic from Umar, according to him, then why did he narrate it and designate his narration with certainty by saying, "Umar said"? And why did those Imaams narrate it from him without rejection or refutation when it is known that they rejected anything that contradicted the Sunnah and refuted matters less than this? So if this saying was from those that contradicted the Qur’aan and Sunnah and ijmaa of the Imaams then they would have been the first to reject it.

There is no doubt that the one who sticks to this opinion of Umar, and narrates it from him means a portion/type of the inhabitants of the Fire. For the people (i.e. Muslims) that are punished due to their sins, then these people would leave it and they would not stay in it the extent of the stones in a mountain. And the word, ‘People of the Fire’ is not specific to the believers in the Oneness of Allaah, rather it is specific to their enemies, as the Prophet (SAW) said, "as for the People of the Fire who are it’s inhabitants, then they will neither live or die in their." [Saheeh Muslim]What has preceded does not contradict His saying, ‘they will remain in their forever’ and His saying, ‘and they will never leave it’."…

…Ibn Mas`ud said, "there will come a time in which there will be no-one in the Fire and that is after they have remained in there for periods." The likes of this is related from Abu Hurayrah, both being reported by al-Baghawee in his tafseer. Then he says after this, "and the meaning of these according to Ahlus Sunnah, if they are established, is that no one of the People of faith will remain in there."…." [‘al-Haadee al-Arwaah’ (pp. 429 +)]

So with this it is clear that both ibn Taymiyyah and his student did not hold the Hellfire to come to an end or that the punishment would cease for the unbelievers. Were it not for the fear of lengthening the discussion beyond what is necessary, we would quote from the tafseer of ibn Taymiyyah in which he makes clear that certain types of people would remain in the Hellfire forever, for example, Pharaoh.

http://islamworld.net/docs/tay.html