This is deep! This is an article by a brother named Yahya Michot. Deenport posted the link and thought I would share here. I know there are tons of his followers who visit the site, so it won’t hurt them to see his grave!
Click Here to See the Pictures Read the Article
Salam,
This brother Yahya Michot (from Belgium) is an expert/authority in Europe when it comes down to Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy upon him, just so you know. A little bit more respect is in place I feel for the shaykh and who (claims to) admire him, Salafis and non-Salafis. The brother makes some good points/remarks in his article. Apparently his burial site is not visited that much (as you suppose) as the grave of Ibn al-’Arabi rahimahullah is. Isn’t this strange?
Funny enough Ibn Taymiyyah r. was buried on the cemetary of the Sufis in Damascus. Who would have thought that?
Shaykh ‘l-Islam al-Hafiz Taqiyyu ‘d-Din ‘Ali Ibn `Abdi ‘l-Kafi as-Subki writes in the Preface of his book ad-Durratu ‘l-Mudiyyah :
“By his claims Ibn Taymiyyah innovated foul things in the usul of belief, and infringed the foundations of Islam, and in the same time covered himself under the pretext of following the Book and Sunnah, outwardly showing that he was a caller to Truth and a guide to heaven, while on the contrary he deviated from following the Book and Sunnah to innovation, and deviated from the consensus of the Muslims by infringing the ijma`. He said what leads to the attribution of a body and of composition to the Divine Essence, and that it is not impossible that Allah is composed by parts. He said that the Essence of Allah Ta`ala contains contingent elements (hawadith) that the Qur’an is also contingent, and that Allah spoke it after it was not, that He speaks and keeps silent, and that phenomena take place in Him in the same way they take place in created beings. He crossed the limit to the point of claiming that the world is eternal, and was coherent with this assumption to the point of claiming that there is no beginning for the contingencies, Hence, he confirmed that – according to his opinion – the eternal attributes [of Allah] are contingent and the contingent created entities are eternal. None has ever joined those two opinions together in any religion. He was not among the seventy-three groups into which the Ummah is divided [i.e. he is neither a Sunni, nor a member of one of the seventy two heretic sects, but rather the founder of a new sect of his own]. In spite of all of this being horrible kufr, it is little compared to what he innovated in the furu’.”
Salam,
Why was he buried as a muslim then and at the cemetary of the Sufis in specific and did so many people attend his funeral?
Generally the scholars maintained that he “repented” from heresy before his death.
The following is something I wrote some time ago regarding the athar of his supposed tawbah:
Both Hafith Ibn Hajr and القاضي شهاب الدين النويري affirmed its authenticity, as well as others. Suffice to say that these two men are not liars, nor deemed untrustworthy in narration, unlike the example of Hamdhani and Imam Juwayni.The quote of Ibn Hajr quoting Barzaali reads:
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
شهد من يضع خطه آخره أنه لما عقد مجلس لتقي الدين أحمد بن تيمية الحراني الحنبلي بحضرة المقر الأشرف العالي المولوي الأميري الكبيري العالمي العادلي السيفي ملك الأمراء سلار الملكي الناصري نائب السلطنة المعظمة أسبغ الله ظله ، وحضر فيه جماعة من السادة العلماء الفضلاء أهل الفتيا بالديار المصرية بسبب ما نقل عنه ووجد بخطه الذي عرف به قبل ذلك من الأمور المتعلقة باعتقاده أن الله تعالى يتكلم بصوت ، وأن الاستواء على حقيقته ، وغير ذلك مما هو مخالف لأهل الحق ، انتهى المجلس بعد أن جرت فيه مباحث معه ليرجع عن اعتقاده في ذلك ، إلى أن قال بحضرة شهود : ( أنا أشعري ) ورفع كتاب الأشعرية على رأسه ، وأشهد عليه بما كتب خطا وصورته :
(( الحمد لله ، الذي أعتقده أن القرآن معنى قائم بذات الله ، وهو صفة من صفات ذاته القديمة الأزلية ، وهو غير مخلوق ، وليس بحرف ولا صوت ، كتبه أحمد بن تيمية . والذي أعتقده من قوله : ( الرحمن على العرش استوى ) أنه على ما قاله الجماعة ، أنه ليس على حقيقته وظاهره ، ولا أعلم كنه المراد منه ، بل لا يعلم ذلك إلا الله تعالى ، كتبه أحمد بن تيمية . والقول في النزول كالقول في الاستواء ، أقول فيه ما أقول فيه ، ولا أعلم كنه المراد به بل لا يعلم ذلك إلا الله تعالى ، وليس على حقيقته وظاهره ، كتبه أحمد بن تيمية ، وذلك في يوم الأحد خامس عشرين شهر ربيع الأول سنة سبع وسبعمائة )) هذا صورة ما كتبه بخطه ، وأشهد عليه أيضا أنه تاب إلى الله تعالى مما ينافي هذا الاعتقاد في المسائل الأربع المذكورة بخطه ، وتلفظ بالشهادتين المعظمتين ، وأشهد عليه بالطواعية والاختيار في ذلك كله بقلعة الجبل المحروسة من الديار المصرية حرسها الله تعالى بتاريخ يوم الأحد الخامس والعشرين من شهر ربيع الأول سنة سبع وسبعمائة ، وشهد عليه في هذا المحضر جماعة من الأعيان المقنتين والعدول ، وأفرج عنه واستقر بالقاهرة
The main gist and points were translated by others so I will simply reproduce it here:An enquiry [of his position] was conducted with several scholars [in Cairo] and a written statement was written against him, in which he said: “I am Ash`ari,” and his handwriting is found with what he wrote verbatim, namely: “I believe that the Qur’an is a meaning which exists in Allah ’s Essence (mi`na qaa’imun bi dhaat Allaah), and it is an Attribute from the pre-eternal Attributes of His Essence (wa huwa Sifatun min Sifaati dhaatihi al-qadeema), and that it is uncreated (wa huwa ghayru makhlooq), and that it does not consist in the letter nor the voice (wa laysa bi Harfin wa la Sawt), and that His saying: “The Merciful established Himself over the Throne” is not taken according to its external meaning (laysa `ala zaahirihi), and I don’t know in what consists its meaning, nay only Allah knows it, and one speaks of His “descent” in the same way as one speaks of His “establishement” (wa al-qawlu fi al-nuzooli kal-qawli fi al-istiwaa’).”
It was written by Ahmad ibn Taymiyya and they witnessed over him that he had repented of his own free will from all that contravened the above. This took place on the 25th of Rabee` al-awwal of the year 707 and it was witnessed by a huge array of scholars and others.
—-I have also read that Imam Ash-Shawkaani also affirmed it in البدر الطالع .
So the scholars generally give him that benefit of the doubt.
Allah Knows Best!
It would only be fair that I post here the pseudo-salafi response to this however,
http://www.hdrmut.net/vb/showpost.php?p=1052915782&postcount=2
Whatever the case, it is as it is and it was as Allah had willed it, and we ask Allah to forgive Imam Ibn Taymiyyah and us Amin!
Salam,
Jazzak Allah, may you give us a translated summary of what the pseudo-salafi response was, my Arabic is not sufficient enough to understand it.
Amin!
Not sure what your point is. If it’s just a fyi, that’s fine, but given your obvious antipathy toward Ibn Taymiyya, you should realize that Ibn Taymiyya’s grave may be run-down and unkept, whereas Ibn Arabi’s is clean and maintained, but it’s obvious we will all one day become nothing but dust and bones and only our deeds will avail us. Most of the anbiyya’s graves are unknown and who knows what condition they may be in. Trying to insinuate unworthiness of a person based on the condition of his grave shows nothing but desperation to villify. I really hope this wasn’t done with bad faith. There’s nothing deep about his article.
Apparently you did not read the article. The author is very clear in the fact that he deems Ibn Taymiyyah “Shaykhul Islam” and also that he believes the grave should be taken better care of.
The deepness, however, is within other facts of the article that you do not seem to see.
As for Ibn Taymiyyah, he has been refuted by many of the ‘Ulama’ of his time and after.
Actually I read the entire article. I’m not questioning the author in my previous post, although his sensationalism and editorialization can not be cured by simply inserting at the end that the grave should be better taken care of. But I’m wondering what are the other “deep facts” that i missed that apparently prompted you to give it some exposure, maybe it’s likening it to GITMO cells, and insinuating like many western authors have that Ibn Taymiyya’s ideology is what has led to the problems of today, something Sufis get very wide-eyed about when they hear it. Anyhow, like I said, there’s no merit to this, can’t even call it analysis really. As for Ibn Taymiyya being refuted, name one scholar who wasn’t. Even the great Ash-Shafii was criticized by many of his contemporaries and others (e.g. Ibn al-Labbad). Again, what’s you point? It just seems like you’re trying to take a cheap shot.
Imam Malik, Awza’i, Nakha’i, Shafi’i, Layth ibn Sa’ad, Abdur-Rahman ibn Mahdi, Imam Al-Bayhaqi, Imam An-Nasa’i, Abu Dawud As-Sijistani …
None were attacked by Ahlus Sunnah for their creed. Some questioned, but their books were not burnt and they were not branded Hashawis or anthropomorphists by their fellow Sunni comrades.
Subjective analysis you have made and no one is obliged to accept it. Good thing really, considering if you had taken off the lens of your egocentrism you would have seen that in multiple places within the 10 page article he praised Ibn Taymiyyah. He even translated a wonderful excerpt (2 pages long) regarding the funeral procession of Ibn Taymiyyah, not calling into question anything therein – which was nearly complete praise for “Shaykh Ul Islam”.
As for the claims you have made regarding the intent for quoting this article, I can see you have a Thann ظن issue. I’m not wasting my time on it, and you shouldn’t either. Though a way to benefit your time regarding the issue of Thann is to read, from none other than the “Taimiah.org” site the following article:
http://www.taimiah.org/Display.asp?f=13bloogh00045.htm
Maybe, and we sincerly hope, you will benefit more from it than apparently you have from the article of Yahyah Michot.
was-Salam
I’m glad you qualified your statement to restrict refutations to creedal issues. But you know the great Imam al-Ghazzali’s books were also burned. Anyhow, it’s obvious I don’t have much to gain from this discussion given you can’t even answer my simple question as to what was your purpose in posting this article, it’s interesting how you deflect criticism as as a hasn adh-dhun issue.
By the Batiniyyah? I mentioned by the Sunnis. Hope you read the article
Try al-Turtushi who wrote a treatise refuting Ihya, Qadi Iyad who issued a fatwa in favour of burning the Ihya, among several others. Last I checked they were still considered sunnis by the ulema and the ummah. Btw, thanks for the article.
They did not attack him for his ‘aqidah. Greater than Tartushi was Ibn Al-Jawzi who wrote I`lam al-ahya’ bi aghlat al-Ihya’ as well as alluded to the ‘many da’if’ hadith therein.
If you noticed, you asked me to name some of the Imams. I did, and then suddenly you throw in Ghazzali.
Well I will throw in greater than Ghazzali as I already mentioned others who greater than He; Imam An Nawawi, who never had his creed attacked
The Hanafi, Imam At-Tahawi also did not have his creed attacked. So I have done my part in fulfilling your request.
Glad you enjoyed the article.
was-Salam
Salam bro Abul Layth,
I have to agree with bro MUA there is nothing deep about this article of bro Yahya Michot. Could you specify exactly what you mean and what your intentiones were to post this article? I’m curious now.
I did read the article, several times but it is not that special. It’s interesting but more articles are interesting. There is nothing wrong with the author’s praise for Ibn Taymiyyah I feel. The contrast between his grave and that of Ibn ‘Arabi, who was just as controversial or may be even more, is astonishing to be honest.
I can’t read the article in Arabic you posted, what is it about?
Imam an-Nawawi was actually attacked for his creed, so what you state is not correct. See this link: http://1bnothaimeen.blogspot.com/2008/03/blog-post_31.html
This is attack was made in this book:
Liqa‛ bab a-Maftuh S. 42-43. Dar Al-Watan. Riyad. 1414.
I read this on a German site.
Greetings,
Harun
Ibn Uthaymin is a neo-muqatili anthropomorphist. We have shown his parroting of their words elsewhere:
http://seekingilm.com/archives/105
http://seekingilm.com/archives/119
I challenge you “harun” to bring us an Imam the Ummah has gathered around who has bashed the ‘aqidah of Imam An-Nawawi from the past!
Instead you bring forth the khalaf, for you cannot bring forth from our salaf! The Shafi’i jurists and their major Imams are unanimous that the creed of Imam An-Nawawi is the creed of Ahlus Sunna! Then comes along a nobody – a man who is not even an established mujtahid – who parrots the criminal creed of the muqatiliyyah mujassimites, and you act as if his words hold validity against the Imam of Imams, the second shafi’i of this Ummah, Imam An-Nawawi!
I seek Allah’s refuge from such ignorance Amin!
Salam bro Abul Layth,
Your response to me is quite outrageous in many ways, may Allah forgive you.
I can’t bring forward an imam from the past or our salaf, may Allah be pleased with them all, who has “bashed”, to speak with your words, the aqida of imam al-Nawawi rahimullah, which I don’t deny is correct. I just wanted to point out that there are people who actually attacked his aqida, which doesn’t mean I agree with them.
As for Bin ‘Uthaymin, may Allah have mercy on him, a little bit more respect for him is in place because he was a scholar whether you agree with him or not. This is code of honour between students and scholars, to which categories we both don’t belong so we need not slander him at all or call him names, may Allah forgive for this too. I didn’t mean to imply that his words hold validity, you completely misunderstood my post.
Friendly greetings,
Harun
p.s. brother I’m sorry to say but you really need to try and control your temper and certain tendencies against fellow muslims because these are not proper adab for the one seeking ‘ilm.
Ibn Taimiyya before becoming an Ashari towards the end of his life, had an extremely rabid and evil belief in God, where like the Christians he used to see that God can give up some of His lordship qualities to His creation, and so if He ma3adhallah wishes He would make Himself so small to pass through the head of needle, or ride behind the back of mosquito, this is found in his majmoo al fatawaa, and further more he used to see that the creation always existed with Allah, as Allah always created with the regression of time, thus negating His attribute of Al-Awal, and al-Qadeem, furthermore he was mujassim of the hardest core where he used to see attributes of ‘Ayn, ‘Wajh and ‘Yad for example, to be literal Eyes, Face and Hand, and he explicitly used to express that these attributes are integral parts to Allah’s essence, and are not like His attributes of knowledge, power, and differentiates between two forms of sifaat, thus portraying God to be a body with organs, and the same statement/belief was affirmed by the mujasim of this time Ibn Uthaiymeen.
You can click here to see for yourself in this debate the details of these false beliefs from Ibn Taimiyya’s works in this video by shaykh saeed fawdah, where the wahhabis have no answer for:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReOrBDOl4a0&feature=channel_page
Wahhabis are deviants, their beliefs and those of the neo hanbalites before them is that of falsehood and is against the fitrah of the human beings with which they know God from the spiritual world before their earthly life, where they promised Allah that they are to worship Him only, and have came to know Him the All-Independent Unique All-Magnificent, contrary to what the wahhabis wish to portray him.
Wahhabi beliefs are kufr.
ibn uthamiyeen was no good scholar, may Allah have mercy now, the beliefs of tajseem are kufr.
yes ihya was attacked, but did you know while his books were being in the process of being burnt, the Prophet sallahu alaye wasalam himself intervened, approved of the entire ihya from cover to cover,and lashed in the dream one of those who was heading the burning effort, such that even when got awake the lash marks remained, and then he repented, and Allah swt made ihya so popular along with rumi’s masnawi that they have becomes the second most revered books after the quran from the west till the east.
Can the same thing be said of ibn taimiyya? This individual’s books became so unpopular, and out of use, that people for centuries even stopped printing them, and nobody knew of this man nor his work, until some thief from Nejd revived them for his own personal agenda and that of his bandit patrons, and through him this dead man and his books gained popularity amongst a cult of people known for their notoriority by every nation with their rotten fruits, and are getting marginalized more and more as the speak against the peoples natural fitra upon which they are born, such that in coming few years they are to become so insignificant bi idnillah that they are to fall of from any noteworthy attention, according to the glad tiding by the Prophet sallahu aliyhe wasalam’s dream seen recently.
Salam brother / sister Usooli,
Can I ask you two questions?
1.) Where does this seemingly apparent hate in your heart come from?
2.) What is your proof Ibn Taymiyyah RAHIMULLAH became an Ash’ari towards the end of his life? I sincerely want to know.
Greetings,
Harun
Usooli,
You are a lair dajjal. Why are you making up all this stuff? Don’t you fear Allah man. You have even the audacity to bring the Prophet (saw) into this. You are a lair. Abul Layth should ban you from ever writing in this forum sense you are a lair.
No doubt Ihya has some good in it, but also, there are many mistakes. So what? Do you need to lie in order to proof your point. You are like the christian who use their dreams as evidence. But we are Muslim and that is not our way in proofing things.
I can’t believe you think Ibn Taymiyyah was unknown in his time. How ignorant are you? Have you ever read anything about history? If he was unknown, why did the rulers put him in prison?
If he was unknown, then why is he the teacher of Ibn al-Qayyim? And why does Ibn al-Qayyim quote him all of the time?
And how did he become ash’ari, you kathaab? Where did you get this from?
I have studied the works of Ibn Taymiyyah and his students, and without a doubt, he is Shaykul Islam.
You can hate and make-up all the lies that you want about our ‘ulemaa, but insha’Allah I can’t wait till we all stand before Allah, so that he can give us the clear judgment in which you deserve. Remember, the lair are nothing in the sight of Allah, the All-Mighty.
“Enough for a man to be called lair is that he narrates all that he hears” (Hadith)
May Allah destroy the lair
@ abu zayd
Why is that most pseudo salafis, like yourself, always like to curse and criticize so much? To be honest, what Usooli wrote, was something I wanted to know about myself, as I have never heard it before, but that does not mean that I will call him a dajjal for that.
Secondly, only a fool would make fun of a dream of a believer; if I remember correctly, dreams are 46th part of nubuwwa, and whoever saw the prophet( sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam) in dream has indeed seen him, as satan can not take his place.
As Salaamu Alaykum,
I don’t want to be un-Islamic and beautify other Muslims, but personally, I have only seen good from brother Usooli.
Labeling him as a dajjal is a misassessment to say the least.
Shukran
Ibn Ahmad
ASLAM O ALAKUM
plz send me the picture of ibne tamiyyah grave…i have some problem here….or tell me plz that the grave of ibne tammyah is made by mud …