|
|
Post by khalidnayaz on Jul 6, 2016 13:04:34 GMT
Respected Mufti saheb
Where do the aqaid of ibn e taimiyya rahimahullah and his followers stand as some ulama like I read on 'reliable fatawa' consider this to be absolute kufr, as they are similar to those of mujassima. Their contention is that, certain matters of shaik ibne taimiyya and those who follow him have come in the open due to printing of certain books like the one by darmi, which leaves no doubt regarding these peoples' inclinations in attributes of Allah subhahu WA ta'la. A book by name kufr and shirk of ibn e taimiyya is also available from reliable fatawa.com. Yet I have noticed our akaabir of deoband not calling these people to be deviant to such an extent.
Again I wish to know whether there is any scope of shaykh ibn e taimiyya' s inclinations being of ijthihadi in nature and thus given the benifit of holding a different opinion.
If fatawa of 'reliablefatwas.com' are absolute, what will be the ruling regarding performing salah behind aimma of harmain who may be holding similar views unless of course their clarification is made known to all. If this issue be discussed with present elders of deoband of various regions, may be it would be better.
I had also posted this in Q & A section. After waiting for more than a month I thought may be this is the appropriate place to post this query.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zameel on Jul 7, 2016 14:13:34 GMT
Yet I have noticed our akaabir of deoband not calling these people to be deviant to such an extent. The Akābir of Deoband did not have a consistent view on Ibn Taymiyyah. The shaykh ul-ḥadīth of Dār al-‘Ulūm Deoband, Mawlānā Ḥusayn Aḥmad Madanī (1296 – 1377 H), a great scholar and student of Shakh al-Hind, ‘Allāmah Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī and Muftī ‘Azīz al-Raḥmān Deobandī, had read the works of Ibn Taymiyyah while he stayed in Madīnah. He disliked attaching the title “Shaykh ul-Islām” before his name ( Malfūẓāt Muḥaddith Kashmīrī, Idārah Ta’līfāt Ashrafiyyah, p. 370), and he said: “While I was staying in Madīnah Munawwarah, I saw [Ibn Taymiyyah’s] writings and treatises. I even saw some books which are probably not found in any of the libraries of Hindustan. Having read all of them, I came to the conclusion – upon insight – that there was an open deviation and departure from the path of Ahlus Sunnah found in him.” ( Anwār al-Bārī, Idārah Ta’līfāt Ashrafiyyah, 13:463) He also said: “I am certain, having read his unpublished treatises, that he was guilty of innovation in beliefs, tajsīm and so on.” ( Anwār al-Bārī, Idārah Ta’līfāt Ashrafiyyah, 13:362) These were reported by Sayyid Aḥmad Riḍa Bijnorī, a student of Mawlānā Ḥusayn Aḥmad Madanī, both from the latter’s writings and his lectures. He also stated that the reason Mawlānā Ḥusayn Aḥmad Madanī held such a negative view of Ibn Taymiyya, while others did not, is because he had the opportunity to read more of his works than they did (ibid.). But this does not mean other Akābir did not have strong words in criticism of Ibn Taymiyyah. When there was a need for it, they would make strong criticisms of him. For instance, ‘Allāmah Ẓafar Aḥmad al-‘Uthmānī said: “Ibn Taymiyyah is accustomed to generating opinions in which he is isolated from the (Ahl al-Sunnah wa l-)Jamā‘ah, and opposes Consensus and all the madhhabs of the Salaf – to Allāh is the complaint!” (ولكن ابن تيمية مجبول على إحداث أقوال يشذ فيها عن الجماعة، ويخالف الإجماع ومذاهب السلف كلها، فإلى الله المشتكى) ( I‘lā’ al-Sunan, Idārat al-Qur’ān wa l-‘Ulūm al-Islāmiyyah, 14:299) Hence, one reason why there are both favourable and unfavourable – sometimes very unfavourable – opinions of Ibn Taymiyyah is the accessibility/inaccessibility of his works. A controversial personality like Ibn Taymiyyah, who we know to have held many problematic opinions, must be avoided by laypeople. |
|
|
|
Post by bin Ādam on Jul 8, 2016 3:54:53 GMT
Bhai Shaukat, if a person is not from the Ahlus sunnah, that would not automatically put him outside the fold of Islam. If you look at what our akaabir say about Maududi, they agree that he is a muslim but definitely out of the Ahlus sunnah wal jamaah. Same reasoning could apply to other personalities, and Allah ﷻ knows best.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deoband on Jul 8, 2016 8:34:33 GMT
Bhai Shaukat, if a person is not from the Ahlus sunnah, that would not automatically put him outside the fold of Islam. If you look at what our akaabir say about Maududi, they agree that he is a muslim but definitely out of the Ahlus sunnah wal jamaah. Same reasoning could apply to other personalities, and Allah ﷻ knows best. Yes i agree with you that sometimes a person would be out of Ahlus sunnah wal jamaah but not automatically Kafir as u have mentioned. I just wanted to add those lines because reliablefatwas.com and many others say that Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah r.a and his school of thought and his followers are Mushriks like Mujasimas (معاذاللہ). And when and where any Muhaqqiq scholar has said that Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah r.a is not from Ahlus sunnah wal jamaah ? And is not it obvious from writing of Mufti Taqi Usmani DB that it is incorrect to criticize Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah r.a from having slightly varied view from Ahlus sunnah wal jamaah ( i am talking only this specific issue not others like 3 Talaqs etc) What does it mean ? I think he is including Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah r.a in fold of Ahlus sunnah wal jamaah. And as you says that Mododi Sahib was not from Ahlus sunnah wal jamaah, It is obvious from writings of almost all Deobandi Scholars that he gone wrong in having opposed views from Salaf and no Scholar quote Mododi Sahib writings / Quotes in their fatwas or writings as Mododi Sahib was not reliable. واللہ اعلم بالصواب Nowhere on reliablefatwas is Ibn Taymiyyah branded a mushrik or non-muslim. Holding beliefs of Kufr or Shirk does not necessarily expel someone from Islam. As for whether Ibn Taymiyyah is from Ahlus Sunnah or not, if propounding such beliefs as Allah having a body, direction and size, Allah having several limits from various sides, Allah being able to sit on the back of a mosquito, Hell-fire ending even for the disbelievers, and going against Ijma' in dozens of other issues etc. is not enough to expel someone from Ahlus Sunnah, then there is nothing that can expel someone from Ahlus Sunnah i.e. there is no such thing as Ahlul Bid'ah. The 72 sects must all necessarily be vacant. Such perverted beliefs of Ibn Taymiyyah that have surfaced only relatively recently in a manner that leaves absolutely no doubt as to their attribution to Ibn Taymiyyah, mainly due to the mass-propagation of his books by the Salafis of this age, confirm conclusively the correctness of the innumerable "Jarh Mufassar" made against Ibn Taymiyyah by Ulama during his age and afterwards, who all condemned Ibn Taymiyyah severely, some even going as far as declaring him to be outside the fold of Islam. Such severe and detailed criticism overrides any praise of Ibn Taymiyyah by Ulama who may quite possibly have been ignorant of many of Ibn Taymiyyah's perverted beliefs. Shaykh-ul-Islam Husain Ahmad Madani expressed certainty that Ibn Taymiyyah was guilty of Tajseem (anthropomorphism) only after having read some of his works which had not been published yet: “I am certain, having read his unpublished treatises, that he was guilty of innovation in beliefs, tajsīm and so on.” (Anwār al-Bārī, Idārah Ta’līfāt Ashrafiyyah, 13:362) As for this age, the publication and mass-propagation of his works by the Salafis have lifted the veil of ambiguity from his beliefs. |
|
|
|
Post by Deoband on Jul 9, 2016 9:21:18 GMT
Can you explain it further and give references from Fiqh and Aqaid Books related it ? This difference between Kufr that expels one from Islam, and Kufr that does not, is from the Salaf-us-Saaliheen who refrained from doing Takfeer of deviant groups such as the Khawarij and Mu'tazilites despite such groups holding clear beliefs of Kufr. The following article by Allamah Zafar Ahmad Uthmani explains why the shirk of the Muslim grave-worshippers does not cause them to become Kuffaar Mushrikeen. www.deoband.org/2013/01/aqida/allah-and-his-attributes/the-peak-of-comprehension-on-the-categories-of-polytheism/A good book to read on this topic is as-Sawaa-iq ul-Ilaahiyyah by Shaykh Sulayman ibn Abdil Wahhab, which is a refutation and condemnation against the mass-takfeer and massacres committed by his own brother, Muhammad ibn Abdil Wahhab. He demonstrates in this book that this distinction between the two types of Kufr or two types of Shirk was recognised by even scholars whom Muhammad ibn Abdil Wahhab regards to be Imams (and Muslims), such as Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibnul Qayyim. Here is an excerpt from Ibnul Qayyim's book, Kitab al-Salah wa Ahkam Tarikiha, which explains this difference using the sayings of the Salaf-us-Saaliheen as proof: Having said this, there are reliable scholars of the past, such as Allamah Alauddin al-Bukhari (d. 841 AH) who deemed that Ibn Taymiyyah's abhorrent beliefs were enough to expel him from Islam. |
|
|
|
Post by Deoband on Jul 9, 2016 10:14:40 GMT
Here is an excerpt from as-Sawaa-iq ul-ilaahiyyah in which Shaykh Sulayman ibn Abdul Wahhab addresses his brother informing him that his Takfeer based on the shirk of the Muslims has no precedence from the scholars of the past:
The True Ulama have never hesitated to use the words "bid'ah", "kufr" and "shirk" wherever it occurs. However, none had ever resorted to the Mass-Takfeer and Mass-slaughter which Ibn Abdul Wahhab had embarked on.
Today, the many children (salafi subsects) of Ibn Abdul Wahhab, continue to regard the Barelwis, other pseudo-sufis, and when convenient, even their own siblings (other salafi subsects), as *no takfeer*s, Mushrikeen, Murtadeen, Mubaahud Dam, Waajibul Qatl, etc. Salafi Groups such as ISIS, al-Qaida, Boko Haram, ash-Shabab, Pakistani Fake Taliban are in fact the most faithful adherents to the "Deen" of their Father-Figure, Ibn Abdul Wahhab
|
|
|
|
Post by asad786ahmed on Jul 9, 2016 16:00:38 GMT
Allama Hafiz Ibn Hajar Asqalani, a great scholar, was opposed to Ibn-e Taymiyya's unconventional views in reference to his aqida and he wrote his foreword to al-Radu al-fir In it he expresses a very sound and balanced opinion about Ibn-e-Taymiyya  "Notwithstanding all his excellence Ibn-e-Taymiyya is a human being, liable to error, while following the right path as well. Most of his views are right and one should draw upon these and perform divine supplication for Ibn-e-Taymiyya. He should not, however, be followed on the issues in which he had erred. He is helpless in those views." Even though his beliefs according to many are outwardly kufr and some not kufr, but very close to it in the sense that for normal and lay people, without a doubt it is a pathway to it, we cannot call him a kafir for the following reasons: •we do not know the situation of his beliefs when he passed away. •we do not know if he retracted his beliefs before he passed away. It is well known that he did retract some. •many things could be attributed to him that are actually in reality not. •even if he had these beliefs when he passed away, it was his honest belief of what the belief of the way of salaf and haq was. He didn't intend to leave the aqaaid of islam he just rejected what was passed done the generations thinking it was erred. So to call him a kafir isnt a good stance to have. That being said, some of his beliefs are outwardly kufr, after reading all his beliefs one would come to that inevitable conclusion. However in no way, does that mean we can call him a kafir for the above mentioned reasons. It will just be بينه وبين الله. |
|
|
|
Post by Deoband on Jul 11, 2016 11:28:06 GMT
Brother Shaukat, I've made my stance very clear: Pointing out that someone holds dangerous beliefs of Kufr such as Tajseem does not necessarily equate to Takfeer. I'll quote later in this thread some of those dangerous beliefs straight from the books of Ibn Taymiyyah which are currently being propagated by the Salafis today, and which even someone with a bit of knowledge can understand to be Tajseem.
Please clarify your contention more. Are you claiming that accusing someone of Tajseem is necessarily equivalent to calling that same person a Kaaafir? For example, when Shaykh Husain Ahmad Madani expressed certainty that Ibn Taymiyyah was guilty of Tajseem (anthropomorphism), after having read some of Ibn Taymiyyah's unpublished treatises, then is that Takfeer? Yes or no? In other words, by affirming Tajseem for Ibn Taymiyyah, did Shaykh Husain Ahmad Madani declare Ibn Taymiyyah to be outside the fold of Islam?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deoband on Jul 16, 2016 9:24:26 GMT
Brother Deoband, 1.Please explicitly show references that state that holding belief of Tajseem is کفر دون کفر ? 2.And what is criteria for things to be included in کفر دون کفر ? as u included Tajseem in it, so u would know its criteria. Please enlighten me as i want to know more about it. Jazakallaho Khaira I've learnt this from the Ulama I follow. Pointing out someone's Kufr such as Tajseem does not automatically entail Takfeer. It appears to be a well-accepted principle. I've also confirmed this with Mufti Zameelur. I've never bothered asking for Dalaa-il regarding this principle. You may ask the Ulama you follow for the Dalaa-il regarding this. You seemed to have missed the following question to you which requires a simple Yes or No answer |
|
