Note: Mawlana Bilal Ali Ansari had urged me to translate this some time ago, but during my samā’ of Bukhārī with Mawlana Fazlur Rahman al-Azami, after showing him a manuscript version of the letter and him encouraging me to also translate it, did I find tawfiq to translate it. May the Barakah be for both of them!
(Persian) A response-letter to the unity of virtues, Mu’īn al-Dīn al-Thattāī. Its contents include the banishment of doubts in the speech of Shaykh Taqī al-Dīn Ahmad bin Taymiyya al-Hanbalī, and an exposition on his virtues and his ineffable appreciation amongst the Sunnī scholars; and a refutation who of those who seek to undermine his status, and a revealing of his proper theological beliefs. May Allah be pleased with him and all the Sunnī scholars. It is written as follows (tehrir yaft):
In the name of Allah, the Munificent, the Gracious. Limitless praise to Allah, the emanator of virtues, and the inspirer of wisdoms. And ceaseless salutations on the Prophet, the master of Arabs and non-Arabs; and upon his exalted family, his exalted Companions, those of lofty determination!
Thereafter says: Walī Allāh bin ‘Abd al-Rahīm al-Dihlawī, may Allah treat him and his father with His boundless grace.
The honorable letter has arrived from the one who is ever-assisting truth and Allah’s religion, seeking to uncover the moral condition of Shaykh Taqī al-Dīn Ahmad bin Taymiyya al-Hanbalī, may Allah treat him with excellence, and what beliefs should be held regarding Ibn Taymiyya. And although I am at a distance (i.e. hesitate to answer) I see it necessary to reply to the letter. That which I believe, and I hope all Muslims believe as well, about the scholars of Islam is that they are the bearers of the Quran and the Sunnah, defenders of Sunnī theology. The Hadīth (states) that they are morally proper by the moral endorsement of the Messenger (alayhis salam), where he affirmed: From every generation and class, the righteous (‘adūl) will carry this knowledge. (And he must hold respect for them) even if (these scholars) say statements that he is not pleased with, as long as (those statements) are not repudiated by the Quran and prophetic practice and scholarly consensus.
And that such a scholar’s speech holds multiple interpretive possibilities (muhtamal), and there is juridical scope for intellectual discussion, regardless of the view is in theological, legal, or ontological matters. On the heels of this very theory, we hold our beliefs in the exalted Shaykh Ibn al-‘Arabī, and the revivalist Shaykh Ahmed al-Sirhindi—they are from the intimately chosen of the slaves of God. And we don’t care what people say (recklessly or negatively) about these two; so, too, with Ibn Taymiyya. We have researched his intellectual production and life and verified that he was a scholar of the scripture of Allah, including its semantic and legal meaning, and of the sunnah of the Messenger (limitless blessings on him), and the traditions of the early generations of Islam, skillful in their legal and linguistic implications; a master of Arabic grammar, and prolific in expounding the Hanbali school, including its substantive law and legal theory. He was unmatched in brilliance, and exceedingly eloquent in defending the beliefs of those who follow the Sunnah. There is no mention of sin nor innovation traded down the generations about him (yu’thar)—Allah!—except in some matters for which he was constrained (duyyiqa) for. And in (these few matters) he held an evidentiary proof from the Quran, Sunnah, and the traditions of the Salaf. The appearance/existence of such a learned man is exceedingly rare—and who can reach his academic production in writing or lectures? And those put a chokehold on him, they did not reach a tenth (mi’shār) of what Ibn Taymiyya had been gifted by Allah, may He be exalted—even if the constraint of theirs was grounded in a justified scholarly debate. And how is this any different than the legal debates and differences between the Sahaba—what is required but to speak well (of the Sahaba) or hold our tongues?
It has been mentioned that Ibn Taymiyya said: “In truth, Allah, exalted be He, is above the throne.” (Waliullah continues): There are three intellectual positions here. The first is to establish for Allah (from divine sources) from those points which cannot be authenticated. And the truth in this matter is that Allah, exalted be He, has established for himself the direction of above-ness, and the prophetic reports are explicit on this. This has been reported from Imām Tirmidhī, narrating from Imām Mālik, and his contemporaries. Second, does the rational intellect permit a literal understanding of this understanding, or does it demand to construct a metaphorical meaning? And the truth in this matter is that that the intellect demands it should be construed literally, in the core of the issue.
The third is that is it necessary to interpret the verse (about Allah’s directionality) or can we remain silent on its literal words, without diving into its interpretation? The truth here is that no authentic or canonical prophetic report demands that interpretation is obligatory, nor that the use of such statements is inherently impermissible. Abu Tahir al-Kurdi (i.e., al- Gurānī) reported to me from his father (Ibrāhīm al-Gurānī) that Ibn Hajar al- ‘Asqalāni said: “No necessity of interpretation of the Mutashābihāt has been reported from the Messenger (salutations on him), nor that anyone is barred from interpreting these verses.” It is inconceivable that Allah would command the Messenger (salutations on him) to convey what has been revealed to him, and that Allah would say: Today I have perfected for you for your religion, and the Messenger having failed to explain this issue (lit. he abandoned the section), with the result that we are unable to distinguish from what we may attribute to Allah Ta’ālā from that which we may not. And this is also despite the exalted Messenger exhorting “the present should convey to the absent” so that (those present) may transmit the Messenger’s statements, actions, and those acts performed in front of him. That nothing was mentioned proves that they (the Sahaba and the early generations) were united on the theological matters in a manner Allah decreed. Allah has demanded we maintain His transcendence, per His verse: And there is nothing like Him—so whoever does otherwise, he has contravened the path of the scholars.
And the aforementioned is also the position of Abū ’l-Ḥasan al-Ash‘arī [d. 324] from what I have researched. Abū Tahir al-Madanī (al-Gurānī) read to me from the script of his father (Ibrahim al-Kurdi al -Gurānī) that Imām Hassan al-Ash’arī said: I follow Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal as it concerns Allah’s attributes, and that Allah is above the throne. And Ibn Taymiyya’s position can be interpreted in either the first or the third possibilities (that Waliullah mentioned above). When we rely on our true consciousness (wijdān—mystical intuition may also be employed here), then there is little doubt that Allah possesses a special relationship with His throne unlike with any other creation! And we do not find any statement more forceful and eloquent than istiwā ‘ala al-‘arsh, just as we do not find any expression in elaborating on seen and auditory matters than sam’ and basar. And Allah knows more than all in all matters.
And Ibn Taymiyya has been accused of halting people from visiting the Prophet of Allah (salutations on him!). Yet, no evidence from his books or lectures proves that he made such a pronouncement. For Ibn Taymiyya did not ban visitations to the Prophet of Allah, in an absolute manner, but visitations that were premised only on visiting the Prophet, with the proof of the prophetic report: Do not make burdensome travel except to three (Masjids), and the prophetic report: Do not turn my grave into a festival. If there is juridical scope for Ibn Taymiyya’s statement, it is not appropriate we should be harsh on him—whoever is harsh, the harshness is on him!
And Ibn Taymiyya has been accused of denying the existence of the Ghawth, the Qutb, and Khidhr, and the one the Shī’ahs claim to be the Mahdi. It is correct for the Sunnī to believe such as long as his belief is anchored in the Quran, the Sunnah, and scholarly consensus. And silence is permissible for those matters which hold no scriptural grounding, and (it is also permissible) that he also not believes in them. And whoever has established these matters from the Sufis, they have not done so from the Quran or the Sunnah, unless through divine inspiration (kashf)—and kashf is not a proof in the Sharia. And that which I understand from his speech that the above statements are from the speech of an innovator whose theological beliefs are corrupted, per the judgement of the Sharia, for the Messenger’s statement (salutations on him!): Whoever introduces a matter that is not a part of our religion it is forsaken. And even if Ibn Taymiyya categorically denied the existence of such figures then even then we may not pass judgement of kufr or fisq on him! And here is a wonderfully subtle point: How many matters are there the Sharia does not allude to, for submission, nor affirms, but the intellect concludes those matters? Such as our speech that ten times ten equals a hundred—or by unveiling or intuition, such as the statement that perfect love is established for the complete slaves of Allah, and it is the inclination of a particular element to its unrestricted root, like the inclination of every genus towards its natural habitat. And these judgements and issues are truth. If someone were to understand these matters as a part of the Sharia, he would be in error. And if he were to place these (unestablished from the Sharia, but established from ‘Aql) matters in the place of those evidenced by the Sharia, with the result that he scorns who do not hold these beliefs, or he seeks to uphold them against its deniers as actual content from divine law, he would be similarly at fault.
Ibn Taymiyya has also been accused of denying the Shī’ī belief regarding the hidden Imam, and he was perfectly within his right to do so, for all of the Ash’arī have done so—I do not know of a single one who affirmed the existence (of the Shī’ī 12th Imam)!
Finally, Ibn Taymiyya is claimed to have disrespected Sayyidunā ‘Alī, may Allah’s pleasure cradle him, and Allah forbid that he ever engaged in such! I have researched his works, and found that some sentences were brought forth to challenge the Shī’ī’s defamation of the first three Caliphs, may Allah be pleased with them, as it is mentioned in al-Tajrīd (by Nasīr al-Dīn al-Tūsī). So this Imam (Ibn Taymiyya) rose up and enumerated a range of qualities the Shī’īs concede to be found in Sayyidunā ‘Alī, may Allah be pleased with him, as if to say these ostensible faults you consider to be present in the first three Caliphs are also embodied by Sayyidunā ‘Alī (and they don’t exist in any of the four!). And Sayyidunā ‘Alī is well-regarded by us (Sunnis), as he is by you, so what your response is to my claims is also our response to the first three Caliphs. And this manner of argument is from his brilliance in knowledge and excellence in debate and inferential reasoning, and, further, Ibn Taymiyya’s supreme acknowledgement of Sayyidunā ‘Alī’s unmatched virtues.
Based on this theoretical outline, a well-known canon emerges that the opinion, if not reprehensible… (the full quote is in Minhaj al-Sunnah, which says: “if an opinion is not heterodox, then there is no blame on the one who holds it.”)
And (the same case is applied to his saying,): “The Ummah did not manifest the same wrath for the murder of Sayyidunā ‘Uthmān as they did for the murder of Sayyidunā Hussein.” And his saying, “Then he preferred sayyidunā Abu Bakr,” etc., means responding to the Shiites in their attack on al-Siddīq, who barred the allocation of Fadak; that it was a source of harm to Fātima, may Allah be pleased with her, while the Prophet, may Allah’s prayers and sanctity be upon him, said, “He who harms Fātima harms me.” The bottom line is that such matters are an exception to absolute harm, because it (i.e., the denial of Fadak) is legislated by the Sharia. And likewise is the Messenger saying, “They harm me,’” etc. Far be it from Ibn Taymiyya to slander Ali and Fatima, may Allah be eternally happy with them! Rather, Ibn Taymiyya wrote this by way of attacking the premise of the opponent’s argument, as if he said your libel of Abu Bakr is similar to slander against Ali and Fatima—may Allah be pleased with them both!—and your (i.e., to the Shiites) answer is our answer in its entirety.
And other statements of Ibn Taymiyya are partly in proving the inconsistency of the Shiites in their demonstration that sayyidunā Ali is preferred over the three caliphs, as mentioned in the final chapters of al-Tajrīd. So Ibn Taymiyya emerged to prove virtues for the first three Caliphs what the Shiites proved for Sayydiunā ‘Alī, or even greater virtues. And there is no disrespect in preference, for this hierarchy is the position of the Sunnīs. And Allah forbid that they would ever labor to disrespect sayyidunā ‘Alī!
So, too, is the reasoning with the verse of purity—that it is part of the legal will of Allah and not the cosmic will of Allah (i.e., that the purity of the Ahl al-Bayt is a legal matter and not an ontological one in that they are ma’súm): this reasoning is completely valid, as we learn from other Quranic verses: Allah wills ease for you and not difficulty and Allah intends to forgive you, including other topical verses. I exhort every Muslim to remember Allah in this discussion, and other inexorable issues. Allah! Allah! May He forbid that any Muslim should disdain or insult an incredibly gifted jurist (as Ibn Taymiyya)!
The above is what was possible as a response to your letter, and nothing urged me to write this except my own well-wishes for you. Allah knows more about its reality!
Photo by Darklabs India on Unsplash
Mollā Saaleh Baseer
Mollā Saaleh Baseer completed his Dars-i Niẓāmī in Azaadville, where he was authorized in Saḥīḥ al-Bukhārī by Mawlana Faḍl al-Raḥmān al-ʿĀẓamī and Mawlana Moosa Patel. He earned his bachelor’s in History from Columbia University. He spent three years writing Fatwas and studying the knowledge of the Hukama under Shaykh Amin Kholwadia’s supervision. He is a PhD candidate at Harvard, in the History Department, studying Islamic legal theory in the postclassical world, Akbarian political theory, and nineteenth-century American legal history. He hails from northern California as his ancestors belong to the Muslim polity of India, namely, Haiderabad of the Asaf Jah Khāndān.
Leave a Reply to ServantCancel reply