Topic: Ibn Taymiyah, the devious innovator ...

[Zahhaad]

Bronze, you failed to understand some basic words of mine. I said:

What I seem to remember hearing is that ibn Taymiyah reached the level of a Mujtahid ORIGINALLY, and then apostated from Islam and consequently losing this level of Ijtihaad. Allahu a^lam.

That means, I seem to remember hearing that he reached the level of Mujtahid. As for his having apostated then this is something well documented from the scholars of his time. I wasn't saying that this is what I "seem to remember hearing".

You said:

to judge based on "What I seem to remember hearing is" is very disturbing. If you disgree with his Aqidah, that is one thing but to invoke apostacy based on hearsay is very dangarous. Allah (subhanehu wa ta'alaa) warns us:

I agree that one does not make judgments of apostacy based upon "what I seem to remember hearing". The point is, what I seemed to remember hearing is that he reached Ijtihaad BEFORE apostating. As for the reasons for making Takfeer of him, then I am well clued about this, and I do not go upon what I seem to remember hearing.

Then you said:

Cotrary to what you believe Al-Hafidh Ibn Hajar is aware of the accusations and mentions them in most of his books including Fath Al Bari; and since he is master of jarh Wa Ta'adeel who is relied upon, and would not take things lightly (as he is not known for Tasahul) as you assume:

This is not contrary to what I believe. I agree that Ibn Hajar knew of the accusations. However, he did not confirm whether or not they are true. Due to this, he did not pass judgment of apostacy on Ibn Taymiyah - because he was not certain if the accusations against him were true. This is not specific to Ibn Hajar, there were a large number of ^Ulama who knew about the accusations against Ibn Taymiyah but were not convinced that the accused indeed said such things. Due to this they did not make Takfir of him. If one examines the writings of Ibn Hajar carefully he would notice that Ibn Hajar does not tend to say "Ibn Taymiyah said". But he mentions what has been ATTRIBUTED to him. This is to avoid making any final judgment as to whether Ibn Taymiyah said these things or not.

As for your claim that Taj ad-Din as-Subkiyy prayed for Ibn Taymiyah, then this is utter twaddle and a mean fabrication - and I don't claim the fabrication is on your behalf in the least. Both Taqi as-Subkiyy and Ibn as-Subkiyy considered Ibn Taymiyah a Kafir and were explicit in this.

As for us, then we have a lot of proof and references which show beyond resonable doubt that Ibn Taymiyah did make many of the serious errors that he has been accused of. From them, the belief that the Events (al-Hawadith) are Eternal and without a beginning, the belief that the Hell-Fire would come to an end, the devious saying that Allah sits on the Throne, the blasphemous concept that the Eternal Kalam of Allah consists of letters and sounds, and much more besides this. The person who believes in any of these false ideas is a Kafir blasphemer, even if he was once very knowledgeable of the religion. The person who denies this judgment of Takfir upon the one who accepts any of these ideas, is also a Kafir Blasphemer. These are matters of Consensus. Any scholar who accepted that Ibn Taymiyah said any of those things, undoubtedly considered him to be a Kafir.

You said:

If you read Al-Bidaya wa An-Nihaya, Al Hafidh Ibn Kathir makes it clear 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 refuted. see al-Bidaayah wan Nihaayah V.14 pages 5, 48 - 50. Here is an excerpt:

"They reconvened on Jum'ah, after the Prayer, on the 8th of the same month (Rajab). Shaikh Safiyudeen al-Hindi was present and he had a long discussion with Shaikh Taqiyudeen Ibn Taymiyya), but he was less than a match (Saqiyatuhu latamat Bahran = his water-wheel hit an ocean). Then they agreed that Shaikh Kamaludeen bin Zamalkani to be the one to litigate him (Ibn Taymiyya) [...] Then the situation ended with the council accepting the Aqeedah (Al-Wasityah). The Shaikh (Ibn Taymiyya) returned to his home glorious and honored."

If Ibn Kathir agreed with the Kufr contained in some the aforementioned books, he would have also been a Kafir. Besides, Ibn Kathir had extremism with regard to praising Ibn Taymiyah since he was a student of him and fell into this consequently.

You said:

As for position of Shaikh Al Islam Taqi-ud-Deen As-Subki who was a contemporary of Shaikh Al Islam Ibn Taymiyah, he can't be used as evidence as it is clear that the disferences based on Madhab disqualifies testimony against one another. This is evident from the statements of the two Masters of Jarh wa Ta'adeel, Al Hafidh Ad-Dhahabi and Al Hafidh Ibn Hajar that the statements of contamporaries against ane another is not accepted, even more so if it is due to enmity or (diffrences in) Madhab, as no ane can be safe from Hasad except whom Allah pretects. [see Mizaan Al I'itidaal V. 1 p. 111; Siyar A'alaam An-Nubala' V. 5 P. 399]

And I say, this is completely taken out of context. Taqi as-Subkiyy's position against Ibn Taymiyah was not based on Ikhtilaaf issues. It was due to Ibn Taymiyah breaching the Ijma^ of the Muslims (unanimous agreement) in more than sixty issues. The difference was not based on Madhhab. It was based on the fact that Ibn Taymiyah said things in the Usoul and Furou^ which were TOTALLY alien to the religion. It is not like disputes and insults that occured amongst some of the Salaf, like between Yahya ibn Ma^een and ash-Shafi^iyy. Because their differences were not based on essential matters of belief crucial to one's being a Muslim in the first place. But Taqi as-Subkiyy's allegations against Ibn Taymiyah is that he came up with beliefs which negate one's being a Muslim, and as such his claims must be taken note of and examined and weighed according to the Shari^ah.

There is no such BLANKET dismissal of strong refutations and accusations and positions of contemporaries. It depends on the nature of these things. For example, Jahm ibn Safwan was refuted by his contemporaries, and this hasn't been ignored in the least. This is due to the fact that these strong sayings against him were due to his blasphemous deviations. The same applies in the case of Ibn Taymiyah.

An example of where such strong sayings, condemnations, and insultive words may be ignored, would be in a case for example where scholar X said that the sitting after coming up from the second prostration before standing up for the next Rak^ah is a Sunnah, and scholar Y said it is not even Mustahabb. If scholar X said insultive things against scholar Y and accused him of being ignorant and other things besides this, this could be written off since there is no true basis for these accusations, it is a small difference in the Furou^ which led to them, which has no bearing on one's remaining a Muslim or not whether one accepts the saying of X or Y. As for the cases in which scholar X accuses scholar Y of apostacy then these need to be looked into, and neither Dhahabi nor Ibn Hajar would deny this. This is clear for the one whom Allah enlightened his Heart.

[bronze]

Originally posted by Zahhaad
Bronze, you failed to understand some basic words of mine. I said:

We all do at one time or another, and I appologize if I construed your words to mean other than what you intended.


I agree that one does not make judgments of apostacy based upon "what I seem to remember hearing". The point is, what I seemed to remember hearing is that he reached Ijtihaad BEFORE apostating.

Bismillah, Alhamdulillah,  

Jazakallahu Khairun for the clarification.  My point is to remind you that  make judgments of apostacy is serious and you seem to acknowledge the principle. Insha-Allah I will post Imam Adhabi's words related to Takfir, where he quotes Imam Abul Hassan Al Asha'ri and Shaikh al Islam Ibn Taymiyya -You will find it very interesting.

Salaam

[Muhammed]

the hukm is that
if you call ibn taymiyyah shaykhul islaam without knowing  his blasphemy then you dont commit blasphemy
if you call him sheykhul islaam knowing   his kufr then you need to do the two testification of faith

[Zahhaad]

BarakaAllah fekom ya Akhi Muhammed.

This is a good point - if a person X knows that a person Y has OR had a belief of blasphemy, such as what has been said about Ibn Taymiyah with regard to Tajseem, the belief that the Events are Eternal without Beginning, and others, then if person X calls person Y Shaykh al-Islam he would commit Kufr by this.

This is common these days, with people even labelling the strangest and most ridiculous of those who claim knowledge as Shaykh al-Islam. People such as Qaradawi, Abul ^Ala Mawdoudi and EVEN Sayed Qotob, wal^iyadhu billahi min al-Kufr.

[bronze]

BarakaAllah fekom ya Akhi Muhammed.

This is a good point - if a person X knows that a person Y has OR had a belief of blasphemy, such as what has been said about Ibn Taymiyah with regard to Tajseem, the belief that the Events are Eternal without Beginning, and others, then if person X calls person Y Shaykh al-Islam he would commit Kufr by this.

This is common these days, with people even labelling the strangest and most ridiculous of those who claim knowledge as Shaykh al-Islam. People such as Qaradawi, Abul ^Ala Mawdoudi and EVEN Sayed Qotob, wal^iyadhu billahi min al-Kufr.

Bismillah, Alhamdulillah,

As I promissed last time, concerning the seriousness of Takfir, Here is Imam Ad-Dhahabi's words:

"I saw some words of Al-Ash'ariy (Abul Hassan) that impressed me, that is authentic and narrated by Al-Baihaqiy: ' I heared Aba Hazim Al-Abdawiy, I heared Zahir bin Al-Sarkhasiy say: ' when the moment of death of Abil Hassan Al-Ash'ariy came near, at my residence in Baghdad, he invited me and I came to him. He (Imam Al-Ash'ariy) said: ' Witness from me that I do not make takfir of any one from Ahlul-Qibla because all of them refer to one and only one diety (Allah) ; all of this (disagreement) is due to diffrences of expressions ('Ibaraat).

I (Ad-Dhahabi) say: ' With a similar position i Judge'. Similarly, Our Shaikh Ibn Taymiyya in his last days used to say: 'I do not make takfir of any one from this Ummah' and say: 'The Prophet sallalahu 'alahi wasallam said: "No one will take care of Wudu' except a Believer (M'umin)", and whoever maintains the prayers with Wudu' is a Muslim.' " - Siyar A'alaam An-Nubala' Volume 15, page 88."

I trust rely on the words of those who spend there life authenticating the religious information trasmitted to us from the Messenger of Allah, including the positions of the Scholars (Jarh Wa Ta'adeel). One of the best, Al-Hafidh Ibn Jajar seems to know about the accusations and about the Takfir concerning him as you can see from his statements taken from his endorcement of the book ar-Radd al Wafir written by Ibn Nasir ad-deen ad-Dimashqi As-Shafi'i, witten to refute the Takfir of Shaikh Al Islam Ibn Taymiyya by Al ala' Al Bukhari:

" How is possible not oppose the one who say, 'He (Ibn Taymiyya) is Kafir' including the attack of those who call him Shaikh Al-Islam with Kufr. There is nothing because of referring to him (Shaikh Al-Islam), that would allow for such a behaviour, He is Shaikh Al-Islam without doubt. 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. Her e 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 Allaahs Mercy should b e 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 fata awaa 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 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 Taymiyyahs) great position. And how could it be otherwise when the Shaafi`i Imaams and others, not to mention the Hanbalees, of his time who testified to his prominence in the (Islamic) sciences" -  Ar-Radd al-Wafir page 247 - 248.

I call Ibn Taymiyya Shaikh Al-Islam following the examples of the trustworthy Scholars of his time and those who came after them:

Imam As-Suyuti, narating the biography of Ibn Taymiyya said: "Shaykh al-Islaam, the Haafidh, the Faqeeh, the Mujtahid, the distinguished Mufassir, the rarity of his time, Scholar of the Ascetics" - see Tabaqaatul Huffaadh page 516 .


Salaam,

[Muhammed]

What is the judgement on the one who say that the Hell have an end?

i wait for your reply

[Zahhaad]

bronze, you said:

One of the best, Al-Hafidh Ibn Jajar seems to know about the accusations and about the Takfir concerning him as you can see from his statements taken from his endorcement of the book ar-Radd al Wafir written by Ibn Nasir ad-deen ad-Dimashqi As-Shafi'i, witten to refute the Takfir of Shaikh Al Islam Ibn Taymiyya by Al ala' Al Bukhari:

Hafith ibn Hajar did not write that endorsement! That was put in by some of the fanatical hooligans who loved Ibn Taymiyah and they forged it in the name of Ibn Hajar - this is the TRUTH of the matter, and don't be the fool to believe that Ibn Hajar wrote that emotional twaddle.

Let me ask you this: IF Ibn Hajar thought SO much of Ibn Taymiyah then why was he so careful and so ambiguous and so abstanent from mentioning anything in praise of the man in his very own personal biography?

Qad Yuqal - Ibn Nasir ad-deen ad-Dimashqi As-Shafi'i was known for his fanatical love of Ibn Taymiyah and partisan-like defense of him, until he made Takfir on those who made Takfir of Ibn Taymiyah! Ibn Hajar on the other hand did nothing of the sort. This so-called endorsement remains an wicked fabrication upon the Hafith ibn Hajar.

[bronze]

What is the judgement on the one who say that the Hell have an end?

i wait for your reply

Bismillah, Alhamdulillah,

Eid Mubarak Muhammed, and to All,

First, your question is asked in the context of Ibn Taymiyya's alleged position that he said, "Hell have an end" we need to clear the doubt:

Ibn Taymiyyah said:

"The Salaf of this Ummah, its Imaams, and the whole Ahlus-Sunnah wal Jama'ah are in agreement that there are some things from the creation that will not come to an end in their entirety such as Paradise, Hellfire, and the Throne. No one said that all of the creation would come to an end except for Ahl al-Kalaam such as Jahm Bin Safwaan and those who agreed with him from amongst the Mu'tazila. This is an invalid opinion which contradicts the Book of Allah, the Sunnah of His Messenger (salllahu 'alaihi wasallam) and the Ijma' (consensus) of the Salaf of the Ummah and its Imaams." - Majmu' al-Fatawaa of Ibn Taymiyyah  Volume 18, p. 307.

Note: Ibn Taymiyya expressed a similar position in his writing, Bayaan Talbees al-Jahmiyyah Volume 1 Page 851.

The onus of evidence is upon the person who informed you otherwise. I would like to see a direct quote from Ibn Taymiyya's widely available writings, that is not based on alleged statements by people who had well known disagreements with him.


To answer your question in the general sense, we must know the reason why a person, no mater who he is,  holds such a position. Is it because of the mistake that he committed because he may have used a hadith or Athar that he believed was Sahih but was found to be weak by others. There is a an authentic Hadith in Bukhari which clarifies this consideration: "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." In the context of the question of hell-fire coming to an end, there are athars related to it, in Sharh Aqidatul At-Tahawiyya, we read:

" And this saying, I mean, the saying about the Fire coming to an end with the exception of Jannah - is reported from Umar, Ibn Masu'd, Abu Huraira, Abi Saeed, and others.  Abd bin Humaid related, in his well known tafsir, with an Isnaad to Umar radiallahu 'anhu, That he said: ' if the people of Hell were to remain in the Fire to the extent of the sands 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" (Surah an-Naba', 23).  

- Note: the Hadith is considerd weak by some scholars because the narrator, al-Hassan said, "Qaala Umar" although he did not meet Umar (radiallahu 'anhu); Others accepted it assuming that he heared it from the Tabeen and according to them, If this was not authentic from Umar, he would not have narrated it with the certainty, saying, "Umar said"? , and Allah knows best.

To provide you a hint that most of the accusations against Shaikh Al Islam Ibn Taymiyah are baseless, here is what Al Hafidh Ibn Kathir says, about Shaikh Al Islam Taqi-ud-Deen As-Subki's accusation related to visiting graves:

" Now look at this distortion of (Ibn Taymiyya) whose reply does not contain the prohibition of visiting the graves of Prophets and righteous. Rather he mentioned two views about embarking on a journey or setting out specifically for visiting graves. The visiting of graves with out setting out is one issue, setting out specifically for visiting graves is another issue. The "Shaikh" (Ibn Taymiyya) does not prohibit the visitation that does not involve setting out. In fact he considers it commendable and urges to it. His books (and his writings) on rites and pilgrimage is a proof to that effect. He does not oppose visitation or say, it is a sin, and he did not narrate i'jma' related to its prohibition. And he is not ignorant about the words of the Prophet, sallalahu 'alaihi wasallam: "Visit the graves, it is a reminder of the last day" - see Albidaya wa-annihaya Volume 14, Page 124.

Ibn Taymiyya's position about Visting of Graves can be verified from his books such as, Iqtida' Sirat Al-Mustaqeem. The position Imam al-Haramain Al-Juwayni concerning "setting out to visiting graves" is similar to that of Ibn Taymiyya but no one seems to try to openly oppose him:

Imam An-Nawawi in Sharh Sahih Muslim says:

" The scholars disagree concerning setting out to other than the three mosques, such as going to the graves of the righteous, to special places which are similar. Shaikh Abu Muhammad Al-Juwayni, one of our companions said, 'it is Haraam' " - See Sharh Sahih Muslim Volume 9, page 106.

But Imam an-Nawawi does not support the above position and prefers the position of Al-Qadi 'Iyad, 'the it is not haraam'.

I hope that Allah (subhanehu wa ta'alaa) assist us all with his guidance to be Just; as he is Al-Qadir - Allah (subhanehu wa Ta'alaa) says:
 
"O ye who believe ! Be ye staunch in justice, witnesses for Allah, even though it be against yourselves or (your) parents or (your) kindred, whether (the case be of) a rich man or a poor man, for Allah is nearer unto both (than ye are) . So follow not passion lest ye lapse ( from truth ) and if ye lapse or fall away, then lo! Allah is ever Informed of what ye do."- Surah An-Nisa' 135.

Salaam,

edited by Muhammed
i warned you several times to not say shaykhul islaam for a kaafir.
you are defending this person and lying what eminent scholars of Islam talk about an issue.

i refer you to the book of Imam Subkiyy
al ^itibaar bibaqaa-i l-jannati wan naar

Also in the book

Ibnul-Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah narrates that Ibn Taymiyah said that "hellfire will cease and the blasphemers will exit it"

Cover , Part I

and what u call Naasir al Albani said:

Cover

part I

Look even your own masters said that he said that. some ppl will say that he returned back from what he said, well give us proof
and you are denying that. and search to protect someone who you dont realy know much about him, what you know about him is only what you read in pro wahhabi books

[Zahhaad]

Bronze, you said:

To answer your question in the general sense, we must know the reason why a person, no mater who he is, holds such a position. Is it because of the mistake that he committed because he may have used a hadith or Athar that he believed was Sahih but was found to be weak by others. There is a an authentic Hadith in Bukhari which clarifies this consideration: "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." In the context of the question of hell-fire coming to an end, there are athars related to it, in Sharh Aqidatul At-Tahawiyya, we read:

" And this saying, I mean, the saying about the Fire coming to an end with the exception of Jannah - is reported from Umar, Ibn Masu'd, Abu Huraira, Abi Saeed, and others. Abd bin Humaid related, in his well known tafsir, with an Isnaad to Umar radiallahu 'anhu, That he said: ' if the people of Hell were to remain in the Fire to the extent of the sands 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" (Surah an-Naba', 23).

I say: Firstly, what we read in the Qur'an are Qat^iyy, decisive texts, no room for doubting in them. Due to the great importance of agreeing with whatever is in the Qur'an, the ^Ulama even went to the extent of saying that "whoever states that there is no benefit in Khamar, becomes a Kafir". This is because Allah ta^ala mentioned clearly in His Kitaab that there are benefits in Khamar. The rule regarding the one who rejects something manifest from the Qur'an is strict: takfeer. If the ^Ulama made Takfir on the one who said "there is no benefit in Khamar", then what about the one who denies a crucial part of the ^Aqedah of the Muslim which is explicitly mentioned in more than twenty Ayaat, namely that the Hell-Fire will remain and will not eventually vanish, and similarly that the Kuffar in Hell will not ever leave it.

You mentioned the Hadeeth which is used concerning al-Ijtihad. This does not come in place here, because Ijtihad applies only when there is no explicit text from the Qur'an or Sunnah. And surely, whoever believes that one may make Ijtihad over Qat^iyy texts like the Kitab of Allah and negate the Ayaat, has no right to claim Islam. In this case, the one who denied something clear from the Qur'an through his so-called "Ijtihad" is not excused by this saying of the Prophet, as it does not apply to the case in which there is an explicit text available the meaning of which is agreed upon.

As for what you stated as "the Sharh of Tahawiyyah", then we know full well what you are referring to. It is no more than the condemned explanation written by the accursed Moushrik Ibn Abi al-^Izz al-Hanafiyy (who claimed to be Hanafiyy). He was a fanatical and extreme supporter of Ibn Taymiyah al-Harraniyy, and moreover he was an apostate from Islam. His strange sayings are all rejected. According to the quote you gave, he made Takfir on the likes of Abu Hurayrah, Abu Sa^ed al-Khudriyy, and Ibn Mas^oud by attributing to them Kufr, and even Omar was not safe from his tongue.

The ruling is this: Whoever considers that one may negate the meaning of a decisive text the meaning of which is vital to the beliefs, and still get one reward for doing this due to Ijtihad, is a Kafir.

The person who negates the Qur'an gets no reward for his deed, and his punishment in the Akhirah is severe. Even if he claims to be from the Ahl-el-Hadith who was following a condemned narration and preferring that to the Qat^iyy text in the Qur'an, this does not benefit him. There are a number of rigorously authenticated narrations which indicate clearly and explicitly that the punishment of the Kouffar in Hell is Eternal. Anybody after the time of the Salaf who claimed to have reached the status of Knowledge would have known these narrations. How then could he be so abnoxious and rejecting as to negate these sayings preferring his understanding of what has been said to be an extremely weak narration? These are the doings of the people of desires, not of the people of knowledge.

So as it is clear that there is no Ijtihad over the Muhkam Ayaat in the Qur'an, I return to the topic of Ibn Taymiyah and his invalid saying that the suffering of the people of Hell would end. This position was attributed to him by his most devoted student, Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah (la^natullahi ^alayhi). If you would like to see what Ibn al-Qayyim said, then here is the link:

http://www.anwarul-islam.com/images/hady_alarwah_cover.jpg
http://www.anwarul-islam.com/images/ibnjawziyyah9.jpg

I provided the cover page too in order to avoid any doubts of the authorship of the book. You can check this yourself. In this case, the dilemna remains: The one who negates that this saying came from Ibn Taymiyah, then he must consider Ibn al-Qayyim as having been a Kafir, because according to them he attributed this Kufr to a Muslim person while lying. If they say "we admit that Ibn Taymiyah said this", then they must consider Ibn Taymiyah as a Kafir for negating the Qur'an.

It was well known amongst the scholars of Islam who were contemporaries of Ibn Taymiyah that this fitnah of saying that the Hell-Fire would vanish AND/OR that the torment of the Kouffar would eventually end, undoubtedly was stirred up by Ibn Taymiyah and his viscious tongue. This was what spurred as-Subkiyy to write a whole book about the topic - the point that the opposite had been suggested by this man Ahmad Ibn Taymiyah. This is why Ibn al-Qayyim went to great lengths to defend the position in this book of his, some of which I gave the link to - he went to these lengths in order to defend his Shaykh Ibn Taymiyah. This is why other fanatical and partisan-like followers of Ibn Taymiyah such as Ibn Abi al-^Izz, made efforts to defend the position in their books such as the invalid falsely named "Sharh of ^Aqeedah al-Tahawiyyah". All these efforts were done for the purpose of putting up some defence for the man they loved so dearly, namely al-Harraniyy. Whoever really considered this, and thought to himself why so much was written on this topic by followers of al-Harraniyy after his time as opposed to beforehand, they would realise that it is merely due to the fact that he stirred up this Fitnah in the first place. Otherwise, let them produce such an in-depth discussion on the topic which was written before this man Ibn Taymiyyah by other than a devoted follower.

As a final word, I would like to draw your attention to one thing. Bronze put on his writings a translated quote of Ibn Taymiyah speaking about the Everlastingness of the Hell-Fire. He said:

Ibn Taymiyyah said:
"The Salaf of this Ummah, its Imaams, and the whole Ahlus-Sunnah wal Jama'ah are in agreement that there are some things from the creation that will not come to an end in their entirety such as Paradise, Hellfire, and the Throne. No one said that all of the creation would come to an end except for Ahl al-Kalaam such as Jahm Bin Safwaan and those who agreed with him from amongst the Mu'tazila. This is an invalid opinion which contradicts the Book of Allah, the Sunnah of His Messenger (salllahu 'alaihi wasallam) and the Ijma' (consensus) of the Salaf of the Ummah and its Imaams." - Majmu' al-Fatawaa of Ibn Taymiyyah Volume 18, p. 307.

Notice that this statement of Ibn Taymiyah is regarding the point that Hell-Fire would not end. Although, what has been strongly narrated from Ibn Taymiyah is that he said that the torment of the Kouffar would eventually end. This statement from Majmu' al-Fatawaa does not mention that the Kouffar would stay in Hell for Eternity, it just confirms that Hell from the perspective of being a Creation, will not come to an end, without delving into the details of who would be in Hell, who would come out and so forth. Even despite Ibn Taymiyah having affirmed that Hell-Fire lasts forever in some of his works, the opposite is found in other texts related to him, and this of course would be a case of narrating Ijma^ and then breaching it by oneself. This would not have been the only case in which this occured from Ibn Taymiyah, as he did the same thing in the divorce issue.

And Allah knows best.

[bronze]

Originally posted by Zahhaad
Bronze, you said:

According to the quote you gave, he made Takfir on the likes of Abu Hurayrah, Abu Sa^ed al-Khudriyy, and Ibn Mas^oud by attributing to them Kufr, and even Omar was not safe from his tongue.

Bismillah, Alhamdulillah,

The abusive statements against Ibn Abil-Izz aside, what he mentioned is true and it is  also confirmed by Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani, in his Sharh, Fath Al-Bari where he said:

" Some of those from later days gathered seven sayings on this question, the seventh: 'that its punishment would end and its inhabitants would exit from it; this came by way of some Sahaba, which 'Abd bin Humaid in his tafsir from the narration of Al-Hassan, from Umar, and it is Munqati'and its text: "if the people of Hell were to remain in the Fire to the extent of the sands in a mountain there would be a day that they would leave it. " - Fath Al-Bari Volume 11, Page 422. Note: Ibn Hajr says the Athar could only be applied to Ahlu-Tawhid, provided it is Sahih.

<delted>

This position was attributed to him by his most devoted student, Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah (la^natullahi ^alayhi). If you would like to see what Ibn al-Qayyim said, then here is the link:

http://www.anwarul-islam.com/images/hady_alarwah_cover.jpg
http://www.anwarul-islam.com/images/ibnjawziyyah9.jpg

From the above, how were you able to understand that Ibn Taymiyya said: "the suffering of the people of Hell would end"? Ibn Taymiyya simply narrated as Ibn Hajar narrated in Fath Al-Bari (see above). I have translated What is shown from Hadil Arwah as in the link above (see below).

In contrast to the Ullema who are very carefull including As-Subkiy who does not make Takfir on Ibn Taymiyya or Ibn Al-Qayyim, Zahaad, you show extreem boldness in making Takfir and Al-la'n.

Imam An-Nawawi (Ruhmetullahi 'alaihi) said:

The Ullema agree that cursing (Al-La'n) is Haraam." - Sharh Sahih Muslim Volume 14, page 105.

Before you make Judgement you must reasearch and establish the facts. All of Ibn Al-Qayyim's position concerning Hell-Fire is not as expressed in Hadil Arwah. We are required to reject their statements if it contradicts the Qur'an and Sunnah with out resorting to Takfir, no matter who, as Imam Malik said: "Everyone after the Prophet (sallallaahu 'alaihi wasallam) will have his sayings accepted and rejected; not so the Prophet (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam).

From the link that you provided, to Hadil Arwah - here is what Ibn Al-Qayyim said:

Fourth:
"That its inhabitants will exit it and the Fire will remain, being empty, this  is related by Shaykh al-Islaam (ibn Taymiyyah). And this opinion is also disproved by the Qur'an and Sunnah as mentioned earlier."

Fifth:
"That it will come to an end because it is 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 between the Fire and Paradise."

Sixth:
"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 Imam of the M'utazila, and in this, he
does distinguish between Paradise and Hell."

Seventh:
"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 saying was narrated from Umar, ibn Mas'ud,
Abu Hurayrah, Abu Sa'eed and others." Abd bin Humaid reported, and he is from the noblest of the scholars of hadeeth - in his famous tafseer: Sulayman bin Harb reported to us, from Salma, from Thabit from Al-Hasan who said, "Umar said: if the people of Hell were to remain in the Fire to the extent of the sands/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 sands/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" - (Surah An-Naba'a 23).  Abd, who is from the Imaams of the Huffaadh and scholars of Sunnah reported from these two noble personalities, Sulaymaan bin Harb and Hajjaj bin Minhaal, who in turn narrate from Hammad bin Salma, and he narrates from Thabit and Humaid, and these two from Hasan; and this is enough to show  the excellence of this isnaad.


And Hasan, even if he did not hear anything from Umar, relates this from some of the Tabi`een. If this was not authentic from Umar, according to him, he would have narrated it with certainty by saying, "Umar Bin Al-Khatab said"? And why did those Imams narrate it from him without  rejection or opposition although it is known that they rejected anything that contradicted the Sunnah for much less than this? So if this saying were from what contradicted the Qur'an and Sunnah and ijmaa of the Imams 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 of the inhabitants of the Fire. For
the people (Muslim sinners) 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 (Salllahu 'alaihi wasallam) said: "as for the People of the Fire who are its inhabitants, then they will neither live or die." What has preceded does not contradict His saying, they will remain in their forever and His saying, and they will never leave it." - Hadil Arwah, pages 256 - 257.


From the above, where does Ibn Taymiyya say: "the suffering of the people of Hell would end"? If there is anything, Ibn Al-Qayyim narrates it from Ibn Taymiyya who in turn narrates that the Sahaba (ridwanullahi 'alaihim) A'jma'een said something related to it. The only thing that Ibn Al-Qayyim can be accused - if there was any reason - is his authentication of the Athar reported from Ameerul M'umineen Umar (radiallahu 'anhu) saying: "this is enough to show the excellence of this isnaad" which can be construed to indicate that he may be inclined to the idea as was narrated from Umar (radiallahu 'anhum) who is reported to have said: "if the People of the Fire were to remain in the Fire to the extent of the sands/stones in a mountain there would be a day that they would leave it. "

<deleted>

This was what spurred as-Subkiyy to write a whole book about the topic - the point that the opposite had been suggested by this man Ahmad Ibn Taymiyah.

If there is anything that you should learn from As-Subkiy is that he does not make Takfir of Ibn Taymiyya .

This is why Ibn al-Qayyim went to great lengths to defend the position in this book of his, some of which I gave the link to - he went to these lengths in order to defend his Shaykh Ibn Taymiyah.

The principle of Amana (integrity) in Islam requires us to look at Ibn Al-Qayyim's position from all his works and not to emphesis what can help you attack him. As can be seen from the following words of his taken from several of his well-known books he holds a diffrent position that the the one expressed in Hadil Arwah:

"That Jannah is real, and the Fire is real, they both are created and will not come to an end, forever" - I'jtima' Juyush Al-Islamiy pages 144 - 145.

And in his well known book, Tariq Al-Hijratayn waBaab Ase'adetayn, under the section, Fasl Anna Allaha Khalaqa darayn wakhassa kullu darin Bi-Ahl, he said:

"... That He created a dwelling for those who desire his pleasure, those who work for his obedience and choose his will, and who act uniquely upon his will, that is Jannah. <after describing the pleasures of Jannah, continues> ... And he created a dwelling for those who desire the cause of his anger and his displeasure and prefer thier possessions and stature over his pleasure, those who work in ways that oppose His will and act with actions and words that is disliked, and those who describe Him with what does not befit Him, Those who deny what was related concerning Him by his Messenger with his perfect Sifat (attributes) and nature of his exaltedness; and that is Jahannam. <...until he said> This two dwellings are everlasting dwellings [Wa Hiya daarul Qaraar] (Jannah and Jahannam).

In his other book, Al-Wabil As-Sayb, He confirms his position, above, saying:

"... and accordingly their dwelling is three: A dwelling that is purly good, and a dwelling that is purely wicked; and this two dwellings do not come to an end. And there is a dwelling for those who have good and wicked, and this is a dwelling that will come to an end and it is the dwelling of the disobedient, and that no one from the disobedient among the Muwahideen will remain in Jahannam because once they are punished to the extent of what they deserve they will exit from the Fire and will enter Jannah, and there will only remain a dwelling that is purly good (Jannah), and a dwelling that is purely wicked (Jahannam)" - Al-Wabil As-Sayb page 49, by Ibn Al-Qayyim Al-Jawziya.

Bronze put on his writings a translated quote of Ibn Taymiyah speaking about the Everlastingness of the Hell-Fire. He said:

Notice that my presentation was in response to a clear question that was put by Muhammad who said: "What is the judgement on the one who say that the Hell have an end? " and not as you claimed above. After reading Ibn Al-Qayyims postion you can see that your concern is also addressed.

Salaam,