The Kufr and Shirkiyyah Philosophy of Ibn Taymiyyah

INTRODUCTION

Among the vilest of Ibn Taymiyyah’s beliefs is his hypothesis  of the universe being eternal. By eternity is meant  existing independently without having been created. It is a never-ending existence. It has neither a beginning nor an ending.  The eternity of the universe is  the belief of the Greek philosophers. When Ibn Taymiyyah dabbled with philosophy he lost the path  of Islam. He deviated into the  kufr of the Greek philosophers. Their ‘rational’ arguments exercised a profound impact on him. He thus conjectured the belief: hawaadithu la awwala laha,  that is, temporal things (things which come into existence from non-existence) have no beginning since they are always preceded by another temporal entity ad infinitum.  

Although the coprocreep Salafis of our age are desperately labouring to clear Ibn Taymiyyah of this kufr, they fail miserably in the task for the simple reason that in at least seven of his books, Ibn Taymiyyah has explicitly propounded his theory of the eternity of the universe. Ibn Taymiyyah’s theory of kufr has attained the rank of  Tawaatur  in Ulama circles. The belated attempts to exonerate Ibn Taymiyyah from his kufr belief must be dismissed with contempt. The evidence to confirm his belief is overwhelming. Al-Baani, the devoted muqallid of Ibn Taimiyyah  is the seal  of confirmation. No one can honestly deny the attribution of the kufr concept to Ibn Taymiyyah, when Al-Baani himself confirms it. 

We are not the first to refute this kufr of Ibn Taymiyah. Great Ulama of the past have thoroughly debunked  the kufr and shirk which Ibn Taymiyyah  had promoted with his satanic  hypothesis of the universe  being eternal in species.  The coprocreep Salafis stupidly and monotonously  moan that the great Ulama of the past did not understand the statements of  Ibn Taymiyyah. These stupid coprocreeps labour under the misapprehension that everyone shares in their stupidity. Their contention is ludicrous. They are capable of fabricating  statements of exoneration which they will attribute to Ibn Taymiyyah, but they will not be  able to deny what Ibn Taymiyyah propounded in his seven kutub which are published and available. That Ibn Taymiyyah had in fact propounded the theory of the eternity of the  universe, is undeniable. The denial of the Salafis is of no consequence and is dismissed with contempt.

This short post is based on  the Refutation of Ibn Taumiyyah’s kufr beliefs authored by Shaikh Abdullah Al Harari. Extracts from his kitaabAl-Maqaalaatus Sunniyyah fi Kashfi Dhalaalaati Ahmad Bin Taimiyyah, are presented in paraphrased  form for better comprehension of an English reading public.

IBN TAYMIYYAH’S AVERMENT THAT TEMPORAL (NON-ETERNAL) ENTITIES HAVE NO BEGINNING

Ibn Taymiyyah subscribed  to the belief that  the genus of temporal (non-eternal) entities has no beginning. The genus  of all things has always existed with Allah. In other words, Allah Ta’ala did not precede the genus  of non-eternal entities. They  are co-eternal with Him. His precedence is over specific elements or members of the  non-eternal entities. In other words, each individual non-eternal entity is, intrinsically, new and created. However, non-eternal entities as a genus have been eternal just as Allah Ta’ala is eternal. Simply put, he believed that Allah Ta’ala did not exist before the genus of the myriads of  entities in the universe.

Consider the example of a donkey. The donkey exists in the mind in the abstract form  as a genus. This donkey genus has millions and  billions  of donkeys  ad infinitum  in existence in the material world. According to the theory of Ibn Taymiyyah, while all these trillions and ‘impossibillions’ of donkeys  ad infinitum will die one after the other, the donkey species will never come to an end. It will continue  ad infinitum  since it is  eternal with Allah Ta’ala, never having had a beginning nor will there ever be an ending for the donkey species. It is not possible for the species of donkeys to ever become extinct.

There always had been donkeys co-eternally with Allah Ta’ala. This bizarre concept vividly displays the stupidity of Ibn Taymiyyah who propounded the preposterously stupid kufr belief that despite the donkeys in the species  perishing, the donkey species always existed co-eternally with Allah Ta’ala. He was too dumb in his brains to understand  that  with individual donkeys in the material world,  there can be no donkey species
being eternal. He miserably failed to understand  the simple reality  of every donkey perishing regardless of a donkey  having preceded it. Even the preceding ass had perished, and the one which had preceded it, and the one preceding it and so on until the point of the first created donkey is reached. But in the belief of this lunatic there was never a first donkey because a  donkey is always preceded by another donkey. Ibn  Batutah had indeed struck the nail on the head of  Ibn Taymiyyah’s insanity when he commented about him:  “There is something amiss with his brains.”

This vile kufr concept of Ibn Taymiyyah applies to all  things in the universe. In terms of this weird theory of kufr, Hadhrat Aadam (alayhis salaam) was not the first created human being because human beings  are a species to which belongs  the myriads of people. So whilst the individual persons in the human species are of temporal origin and liable to perish, the human species can never be annihilated since it is co-eternal with Allah Ta’ala. Thus, Aadam (alayhis salaam) was preceded by another Aadam or some other human being who in turn was preceded by another  person and so on  ad infinitum.  This is Ibn Taymiyyah’s corrupt belief of kufr which he states in the words:  Alhawaadithu bin-Nau’ la awwala laha (Temporal or non-eternal things have no beginning). 
  
According to him, the universe is co-eternal with  Allah Azza Wa Jal in so far as its genus is concerned. In other words, a universe precedes it (i.e. the current universe) with another universe which in turn was preceded by another universe  ad infinitum.  This is the most repugnant of his beliefs. It is abundantly clear that such a corrupt belief is the  effect of  mental disequilibrium. In this belief, Ibn Taymiyyah is  violently in conflict with the  clear textual evidence of the Qur’aan, Sunnah and the Ijmaa’ (consensus) of Muslims.  He has submitted this  vile belief of kufr in seven of his kutub (works), namely,   

1.Muwaafaqatu Sareehil Ma’qool Lisaheehil Manqool  
2. Minhaajus Sunnatin Nabawiyyah 
3. Kitaabu Sharhi Hadithin Nuzool  
4. Kitaabu Sharhi Hadithi Imraan Bin Husain  
5. Kitaabu Naqdi Maraatibil Ijmaa’  
6. Majmoo’atu Tafseer Min Sitti Suwar  
7. Kitaab on Fataawa.  

All these works are published and they testify to the corrupt belief of kufr to which Ibn Taymiyyah subscribed.

His Irrational Theory of Kufr in Muwaafaqatu Sareehil Ma’qool In  Muwaafaqatu Sareehil Ma’qool 

He states:  “The majority of the Ahl Hadith and those who concur with them do not view species to be non-eternal, but eternal.  In other words the species (or genus) of things have no temporal origin. They did not come into existence in time, but  are co-eternal with Allah Ta’ala. 

They distinguish between the non-eternity of the species and the non-eternity of an individual member of the species, just as the majority of intellectuals distinguish between perpetuity of species and perpetuity of any given  member of the species.”  Thus, in terms of his corrupt hypothesis, whilst the species, e.g. the human being is eternal, the individual members of this genus such as Zaid, Bakr, Abdullah  ad infinitum, are not eternal. The individual members of the genus are  created in time whilst the genus, i.e. humans, is uncreated. Only a severely corrupted brain sees logic in this insanely illogic and irrational theory of kufr.

At another place, in refutation of another stupid principle of the philosophers, viz., that  whatever is not void of a non-eternal element is non-eternal for contrary to that the non-eternal element will then be eternal, he (Ibn Taimiyyah) cites Al-Abhari who says:  “We do not accept this (aforementioned principle).

The corollary will only follow  if a particular motion is indispensable to a physical body, whereas this is not the case. On the contrary, every motion is preceded by a motion without a beginning.”  Ibn Taymiyyah then comments:  “The pattern here is the same as before.  The indispensable eternal entity is the species of the non-eternal entity, not the actual non-eternal entity. We do not accept that a current non-eternal entity is dependent on the termination of that which has no limit, assuming that motion is non-eternal in the realm of eternity. On the contrary, the current non-eternal entity is preceded by non-eternal entities without a beginning.” 

These rubbish so-called ‘principles’ are mentioned here merely to present the evidence for the claim that Ibn Taymiyyah believed in the eternity of the universe  –  that it is co-eternal with Allah Ta’ala. He postulates this kufr concept by saying with the self-contradictory hypothesis that a created (non-eternal) object is preceded by another temporal (non-eternal) object, which again is preceded by another temporal object and so  on,  is the process of procession from a preceding object  ad  infinitum.    The bunkum of this rubbish is self evident.

Yet again he says in his book, Muwaafaqatu Sareehil Ma’qool Lisaheehil Manqool:  “Where in the Qur’aan is there clear indication of every moving entity being non-eternal or a possible, that movement exists only with a non-eternal entity or a possible entity, that non-eternal entities are never void of what exists with them, and that a non-eternal is that which is  not free of non-eternal members?  And where is the possibility  negated in the Qur’aan of non-eternal entities (such as the donkey and the pig) not having a beginning.”  

This extremely weird concept of Ibn Taymiyyah testifies to  his idiocy. Only a brain jarred and eternally damaged with some sort of insanity can conjecture the stupidity of a temporal (created in time) being  not having an origin in time. He was too stupid to understand the meaning of the Qur’aanic aayat which states that only Allah Ta’ala was the First. And, his brains could not understand the simple meaning of the Hadith which categorically affirms a beginning for creation and the Hadith stating that the Qalam  or the  Arsh  was the  first created object. Despite  this unequivocal affirmation, Ibn  Taymiyyah insists that there was always an Arsh before the current Arsh, and that the species of Arsh is co-eternal  with Allah Ta’ala, there never  ever having been a moment when there was no Arsh. Divine Thrones are created and annihilated  one after the other in rapid succession. But never was there a time when there was no Arsh because Arsh is co-eternal with Allah Ta’ala. This then is the conspicuous kufr of Ibn Taymiyyah. Thus, Allah Ta’ala does not possess the power to annihilate the Arsh  or even the donkey species because what is eternal  has no beginning and no ending, hence it is indestructible. This then is the concept of Allah’s attribute of Qudrat (Power) in the brains of Ibn Taymiyyah. He, by means of this bizarre, irrational, weird concept of kufr stripped Allah Ta’ala of His Attributes and rendered Him an impotent  creating force lacking omnipotence over what ensues from him. Only a  man with a scorbutic sensorium is capable of such a dastardly paroxysm. 

Ibn Taymiyyah averred that the eternity of the universe is eternal as a species while the individual members of the abstract theory of the universe are temporal or not eternal. Kaethari’s response in his annotation to  As-Saifus Saqeel Fir Raddi  Ala Ibniz  Zafeel  is:  “How can the species be eternal  (in the past) whilst its individual members are non-eternal? Such an averment can only be uttered by one in a fit of insanity. The future differs. Abu Ya’la Hambali states in Al-Mu’tamad: ‘Noneternal entities have a beginning whence they issued. The mulhidah (heretics) believe otherwise.’  (As-Saifus Saqeel  was written by the Shaafi’ authority, Imaam Taqiyyud Deen As Subki (rahimahullah) in refutation of Ibn al Qayyim’s  An-Nuniyyah  in which he (Ibn al Qayyim) espouses the corrupt beliefs of his Ustaaz, Ibn Taimiyyah)

He (Abu Ya’la) is among the imaams of the composer  –  i.e. Ibnul Qayyim. Thus, he (Ibnul Qayyim) and his shaikh (Ibn Tayyimah) are among the heretics according to Abu Ya’la. They are therefore worse off than him (Abu Ya’la) in deviation. We ask Allah Ta’ala for safety (of Imaan, Aameen).”

Although Abu Ya’la the deviate, is their  imaam, he too condemns the belief  of created beings having no beginning, propounded by Ibn Taymiyyah as heresy in view of the extreme corruption and irrationality of this kufr belief.

His  Self-Contradiction  and  Pure  Shirk  in  Minhaajus Sunnah

Ibn Taimiyyah says in  Minhaajus Sunnatin Nabawiyyah:  “If you tell us that we have affirmed non-eternal entities for Allah, our response to you is, ‘Yes’. This is our declaration  which the Shariah and intelligences point out.”  

In it (Al-Minhaaj) he furthermore says:  “…Negation of the possibility of non-eternal entities not having a beginning is an unprecedented approach in the Shariah by the consensus of the Ulama of the Sunnah. It is a dangerous and dreaded approach intellectually. In fact, it is decried by numerous parties.”

At another place (in Al-Minhaaj) he says:  “Thus, it is not possible for something of this universe to be eternal,  although it is permissible for the species of non-eternal entities to be perpetual from eternity.  The reason for this is that eternity is not defined as a limited entity. On the contrary, every set time  is preceded by another time. Thus, it does not follow from the perpetuity of the species the eternity of a given object.

From this it is obvious that Ibn Taymiyyah acknowledges and believes in the timelessness of the individual members of species without specification. Despite a specific member perishing, the membership of  the species is eternal in his  stupid, irrational theory.  His contention,  ‘it is not possible for something of this universe to be eternal’, is therefore, a manifest self-contradiction in that the procession of donkeys is never-ending, for if it would ever end, the logical conclusion would  be the annihilation of the species, and this is negated by Ibn Taymiyyah’s corrupt kufr belief of  the eternity of the genus of things.  This is the gist of what he is saying, together with what Al-Jalaal Ad-Dawwaani quoted from him in  Kitaabu Sharhil Adhudiyyah,  that: “I have seen in some script of Ibn Taymiyyah this statement of his  –  i.e. timelessness of the genus  –  in regard to the Arsh.” In other words, he (Ibn Taymiyyah) believes that the genus of Arsh is eternal  –  never was there an Arsh but an Arsh  existed before the previous Arsh from eternity, and that an Arsh comes into being then becomes non-existent then comes into being then becomes non-existent ad infinitum. Simply put, the genus of Arsh is eternal and eternally existed with Allah. Whilst  the  existence of a specific Arsh at this present moment of time is non-eternal, the species of Arsh, however,  is eternal. Thus, the species which is also ‘something of this universe’  is eternal. The self-contradiction of Ibn Taymiyyah is therefore conspicuous.  Just as the individual members of the species, e.g. a black donkey, a brown donkey, etc., are entities of the universe, so too is the donkey species an entity of the world because without individual donkeys there can be no donkey species in existence.

The postulate that the donkey species is not of the universe, hence is eternal, is pure  shirk  to which Ibn Taymiyyah subscribed.

Elsewhere in  Al-Minhaaj  he says:  “Some say that it is with the will and power of Allah  –  that is, the action of Allah is with His will and power  –  one after the other. However, He was always attributed with it (action).  Thus, it (the action of Allah) is noneternal in relation to the individual members, and timeless (eternal) in species,  as is the view of the Imaams of the Ahl Hadeeth and others, viz. the followers of Shaafi’, Ahmad and other groups.”  Just look at this  fabrication and blatant falsehood! It is his old  habit of attributing fabricated and vile statements to the Muhadditheen. He is completely alone in this (fabrication), conforming only to the later philosophers. But he attributes a pure fabrication to the Muhadditheen and Fuqaha of the Shaafi’, Hambali and other Madhabs. He in fact slanders them. None of them ever proclaimed this stark kufr which Ibn Taymiyyah attributes to them.

By means of this slander his ploy was to disseminate his fabricated belief among Muslims of weak minds whilst portraying himself too great to be accused of conformity with the philosophers in this aqeedah. He has been unable to cite  the name of even a single authority of the Ahlus Sunnah who  had subscribed to his concept of blatant kufr and shirk.

His Brazen Kufr in Naqdu Maraatibil Ijmaa’ 

Ibn Taymiyyah rebutted Ibn Hazm in  Naqdu Maraatibil Ijmaa’ on account of the latter quoting Ijmaa’ on the belief that Allah Ta’ala was eternally alone and nothing was with Him (in the eternal past), and on the belief that anyone having a contrary belief is a kaafir in the unanimous opinion of Muslims. Upon this Ibn Taymiyyah averred:  “Even more  astonishing is his (Ibn Hazm’s) narration of Ijmaa’ on the kufr of one who disputes that Allah Subhaanahu was eternally on his own and nothing was with him.”  These words of Ibn Taymiyyah unequivocally affirm his i’tiqaad (belief) that the universe as a genus is eternal; Allah Ta’ala did not precede it in existence. He believed that the material universe is co-eternal with Allah Ta’ala, and that it is impossible  for Allah Azza Wa Jal to ever have been alone at any stage in eternity. He further brazenly claims that to believe that Allah Ta’ala existed before the universe and that He was Alone without any creation, is kufr.

His Hypothesis of Kufr in His Sharah of the Hadith of Imraan Bin Husain   

In the  Sharh of the Hadith of Imraan Bin Husain (radhiyallahu anhu),  he says: “There is neither Shar’i nor logical negation of the  hypothesis that the species of temporal entities were eternally with Him. On the contrary,  these temporal entities  are of His perfection. Allah Ta’ala states: “Is that Being Who creates like those who do not create? Don’t you take lesson?” (Surah Nahl, Aayat 17) 

He (Ibn Taimiyyah) furthermore says:  “Creation has always been with Him…However, many people confuse species with a specific member (of the species).”

His Kufr Commentary of Hadithun Nuzool

In the commentary of the Hadith pertaining to the  Nuzool (Descent) of  Allah Ta’ala,  he says in refutation of those who declare that whatever is not free of  temporal members, is itself non-eternal, and in refutation of those who say that whatever does not  precede temporal entities, is itself non-eternal:  “(They make these contentions) because  they have not differentiated between the species of non-eternal entities and between a particular non-eternal entity.” 

By this Ibn Taymiyyah intends that the view  which predicates with the Dhat of Allah Ta’ala temporal entities which have no beginning does  not demand Him being non-eternal. He argues in confusion like a  drunken  man. A temporal entity is temporal because it has an origin in time. Nothing of the Dhat  of Allah Azza Wa Jal is temporal. If temporality is affirmed for the Divine Dhat it logically follows that He  –Nauthubillah!  –  is non-eternal.

Kufr in his Fataawa

In his  Fataawa  he avers:  “From this, too, is clear that the sound rational proofs of the  philosophers (he refers to the Muslim philosophers) also point out to the math-hab of the Salaf, for the thrust of their arguments is that the Supreme Being was always faa’il (active), and that it is not possible rationally for Him to be active after dormancy and for an activity or action to be possible for Him after  it was not possible.  This and all their arguments simply affirm the eternity  of the species of action.

Kufr in His Tafseer

In his  Tafseer of Surah A’laa  he states:  “The  proof of the  view espousing  the impossibility of temporal entities having no beginning has been established to be weak.”

Confirmation  by  the  Ulama  of  the  Kufr  of  Ibn Taymiyyah’s Beliefs 

This aqeedah of Ibn Tai
Ymiyyah has been confirmed by Hafiz Subki in his treatise,  Ad-Durratul Mudhiyyah  and by Hafiz Abu Sa’eed Al-Alaa-ee. It is furthermore established from Subki’s famous Qaseedah narrated by his student,  As-Safdi who is also the student of Ibn Taymiyyah. In fact,  it is  reported by even the supporters of Ibn Taymiyyah. The qaseedah is composed of a rebuttal of Al-Huliyy and then of Ibn Taymiyyah for his view of the eternity of the universe as a genus and his view of temporal entities having no origin for their existence just as there is no beginning for the existence of Allah…

Allaamah Al-Bayaadhi Hanafi states in his kitaabIshaaraatul Maraam  after a dissertation on the proofs of the non-eternity of the universe:  “Ibn Taimiyyah’s notion of the  eternity of the Arsh
is thus  baatil (false and corrupt), as mentioned  in Sharhul Adhudiyyah.” 

The Muhaddith and Usooli (Aalim of Ilmu Usoolil Fiqh), Badrud Deen Zarkashi quoted consensus of Muslims in Tansheeful Masaami’  on the kufr of one who views the universe to be eternal in species. After citing the view of the  philosophers who contend that  the universe is eternal in matter and form, while some are of the view that it (the universe) is eternal in matter but non-eternal as far as form is concerned, he (Zarkashi) asserts: “Muslims declare them to be astray and kaafir.”

Haafiz Ibn Daqeequl Eid, Qaadhi Iyaadh Maaliki, Haafiz Zainud Deen Al-Iraaqi, Haafiz Ibn Hajar in the Sharh of Bukhaari as well as other Ulama have issued similar statements.

In Ash-Shifaa, Qaadhi Iyaadh states:  “Similarly, we categorically declare  kaafir one who avers that  the universe is eternal (neither having  a beginning nor an ending) or has any doubts in this regard following the doctrine of certain philosophers and atheists.” 

Ibn Taymiyyah adopted  this kufr view of the philosophers after effecting a minor cosmetic change to it.

In  Fat-hul Baari  Haafiz Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalaani (rahimahullah) states:  “Our Shaikh, Al-Iraaqi, says in Sharhut Tirmizi: ‘The correct protocol in declaring to be kaafir one who rejects Ijmaa’ is to confine it to matters of the Deen  whose wujoob (compulsory nature) is known self-evidently, such as the five daily Salaat. Some explain it as: ‘Rejection of something known through tawaatur, among which is the non-eternity of the world,”  (i.e. the temporality and annihilation of the universe are established by such nusoos (narrational evidence) which is of the Tawaatur category). 

Ibn Daqeequl Eid said:  ‘There has arisen  a person who has claimed mastery in the  rational sciences and who is inclined to philosophy.  He opined that one who  opposes the temporality of the world will not be declared to be a kaafir  in view of it (i.e. declaring  him a kaafir)  being  in conflict with Ijmaa’. He has latched on to our statement that a rejecter of Ijmaa’ will not be declared kaafir unconditionally. Textual Shar’i evidence has to be produced  by way of tawaatur (for substantiating  a belief to be kufr).’

This argument is utterly baseless.  It is the product of either intellectual blindness or deliberate blindness.  The case of the temporality of the world  is substantiated with  Ijmaa’ and tawaatur transmission.” (End of Ibn Hajar’s dissertation)

The Lexicographer and Haafiz of Hadith, Muhammad Murtadha Az-Zabeedi states in  Sharhul Ihya  whilst discussing the  takfeer  (charge of kufr) against the philosophers:  “And similarly, is their view of the  eternity  of the universe, for no Muslim has ever subscribed to anything of this sort (of kufr).”

Elsewhere he states:  “In Sharhu Aqeedat-Ibni Haajib, Subki says:  ‘Be aware that the position of atoms and occurrences is that all are temporal. Thus the whole world is temporal. There is consensus among Muslims, in fact among all faiths on this score. Anyone holding a dissenting view is a  kaafir for going against Qat’i Ijmaa’ (Absolute Consensus).”

Ibn Taymiyyah’s Shirk in the Light of the Qur’an 

Ibn Taymiyyah’s averment of the species of the world being eternal is in conflict with the Qur’an, the explicit Hadith, the Ijmaa’ of the Ummah and the demand of intelligence. Allah Ta’ala states in the Qur’aan:  “He is  the First and the Last.” (Surah Hadeed, Aayat 3)

The only meaning of:  “He is the First,”  is that the Eternal Being is nothing other than Him. In other words, First in every respect is Allah Alone; besides Him nothing else. Then Ibn Taimiyyah committed  shirk  by assigning other objects as associates with Allah Ta’ala in the conception of  Him being the First, whereas Allah Ta’ala declared it (being the first) to be His exclusively. On the other hand precedence or priority in so far as created beings are  concerned is a relative issue. The one is before the other. Thus, water enjoys relative precedence, that is, it is the first created object followed by the Arsh, followed by the Sublime Pen and Lauh Mahfuz, followed by the earth, then the firmament and then as mentioned by Allah Ta’ala in the Aayat:  “He (Allah) then spread out the earth.”  (Surah Naazi’aat, Aayat 30)

Ibn Taymiyyah Discarding an Authentic Hadith for His Baseless Opinion of Kufr

In the Hadith, Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) states: “Allah Ta’ala existed when nothing else  besides Him existed.”  This Hadith is narrated by Imaam Bukhaari in  Kitaabu Bad-il Khalq  and also by others. Similarly  is another narration corroborating this Hadith, reported by Abu Mu’aawiyah:  “Allah Ta’ala existed before everything else,”  and the narration: “Allah Ta’ala existed whilst nothing existed with Him.”  Thus there was nothing before Him and nothing  with Him because ‘Firstness’  (being the first) is exclusive with Him. Being  ‘First’ is not a relative concept with respect to Allah Azza Wa Jal.

Regarding  the narration of Bukhaari at the end of his  Jaami’, namely,  the Hadith:  “Allah Ta’ala existed whilst nothing preceded Him,”  it  will definitely be understood in the light of the narration which appears in  Kitaabu Bad-il Khalq. It is not permissible to give preference to the narration:  “Allah Ta’ala existed whilst nothing preceded Him,”  over the narration: “Allah Ta’ala existed when nothing else existed,”  as Ibn Taymiyyah alluded to in view of the  meaning of:  “Allah Ta’ala existed whilst nothing preceded Him,”  apparently  conforming to his baseless opinion. Haafiz Ibn Hajar (rahimahullah) referred to it in  Sharhul Bukhaari  when citing the Hadith:  “Allah Ta’ala existed whilst nothing preceded Him.”  Thus, speaking of Ibn Taymiyyah’s aim of giving preference to this narration over the former to infer his belief of affirming temporal entities having no beginning, he (Haafiz Ibn Hajar) says:  “This is among the most  despicable views attributed to Ibn Taimiyyah.”

Similarly, the narration of Imaam Muslim (rahimahullah):  “O Allah! You are the First. Thus, nothing precedes you,” will be read in conjunction with Bukhaari’s narration:  “Allah Ta’ala existed when nothing else existed.”  If the narration of Muslim is not read in conjunction with Bukhaari’s narration, but given preference, it will be tantamount to subscribing to the view of the philosophers and rendering Bukhaari’s narration void.

In Bukhaari appears these two Hadith narrations:  

(1) “Allah existed when nothing existed with Him.”

(2) “Allah existed whilst nothing existed before Him.

In order to bolster his kufr view of the eternity of the universe, Ibn Taymiyyah gave preference to the second narration from which he inferred that whilst nothing existed before Allah Ta’ala, the universe existed together with Him, that is, the universe is co-eternal with Allah Ta’ala. In so doing, he arbitrarily without any valid Shar’i basis implied the refutation of the first  narration and similar others which explicitly declare that at one stage  nothing existed with Him.  Another Hadith also explicitly negates anything being co-eternal with Him:  “Allah existed and nothing existed with Him.

It is either Ibn Taymiyyah’s perversity or ignorance or mental derangement which constrained him to discard  an authentic Hadith, and adopt another narration from which he  extravasated support for his baseless opinion of kufr. He furthermore, failed to provide a viable explanation for the narrations which explicitly negate co-eternity of any thing with Allah Azza Wa Jal.

All the narrations have to be read in conjunction for a proper understanding. There is no conflict. The primary Hadith on this topic is:  “Allah existed and nothing existed”,  and the corroborative narration:   “Allah existed and nothing existed with Him.”  The other Hadith (No.2 above) has to be incumbently understood in the light of this primary Hadith which  affirms eternity for only Allah Ta’ala, and negates eternity for all other things.

Thus, Ibn Taymiyyah flouted the Qur’aan, the Hadith and the demand of intelligence which only atheists and their ilk have defied. 

The attribution of this (kufr) to Ibn Taymiyyah is not dubious, for he stated it in seven of his kutub as we have mentioned. In some he termed it  ‘the eternity of the universe as a  genus’. Even if it be assumed that Ibn Taymiyyah  did not explicitly mention it (his kufr belief) in his seven works which are available for anyone who wishes to gain first-hand knowledge, as these works have been published, the testimony of the two eminent Haafiz and Imaams, Taqiyyud-Deen Subki and Abu Sa’eed Alaai (rahimahumullah) who are unanimously accepted as authorities, would be sufficient.

Ibn Taymiyyah, the Philosophers and the Salaf

Ibn Taymiyyah acquired this concept, that is, the eternity of the universe in  species, from the later philosophers due to his engrossment in philosophy as stated by Imaam Dhahabi,  despite his (Ibn Taymiyyah’s)  vehement criticism of Aristotle and others besides him over their view of the universe being eternal in genus, composition and external form. Be that as it may, a class of philosophers does not subscribe to this doctrine. Ibn Ameerul Haaj states in his kitaab,  At-Taqreer Wat Tahbeer:  “Moreover, historical data reveals that among them, that is, the philosophers, there are those  who say that the  universe is  of temporal origin. Thus, there is no consensus among them  on this score.

It should be noted that this man (Ibn Taymiyyah) frequently hurls invectives at the philosophers, whereas he is in accord with their later generation.  He does this to pull wool over the eyes of people; to give the impression that he speaks on the pedestal of the Muhadditheen, whereas he is in total conflict with the Ulama of Hadith and  Fuqaha by virtue of his claim that  the world in genus is eternal; it  has been with Allah eternally; the temporal entities being only the specific individuals of creation. With this (false notion) he belied the Kalaam of Allah and started blurting out a series of incoherent utterances. 

How is it possible and conceivable for  a species to exist without individual members? Furthermore, his averment of the species being eternal whilst the individual members of the species are temporal defeats his case. The human species cannot exist without individual human beings.  The species is a reality only  with the reality of individual members. His affirmation of temporality  for the individual members  is in fact affirmation of temporality for even the species to which the individual members are attached.  The self-contradiction is thus conspicuous.
The origin of this calamity which befell him (Ibn Taymiyyah) was his dabbling with philosophy, hence one of their theories clung to his  brains. Dhahabi has narrated that  Ibn Taymiyyah dabbled with philosophy and  Ilmul Kalaam (i.e. the rational science developed by the Ulama-e-Haqq to refute the kufr of the philosophers). But the kalaam in which Ibn Taymiyyah immersed himself was evil rationalism which is the kalaam of the deviates –  the people of desire who are the sects of bid’ah in I’tiqaad (Belief).

Thus, on what basis does he align himself with the Salaf and on what basis do his followers regard him to be a follower of the Salaf? In fact, he revolts against the Salaf. The Salaf, all of them without exception, were unanimous in the belief that Allah Alone is the Absolute First; nothing shares this attribute with Him. He (Ibn Taymiyyah), on the other hand, makes the species and genus of the world Allah’s partners. He is therefore adrift from Tawheed. Whither is he and whither is Tawheed?  They are poles apart, mutually repellent.

Allah Ta’ala’s Eternal Attributes of Ghadhab (Wrath) and Ridha (Pleasure)

According to Ibn Taymiyyah the  speech and the will of temporal entities belonging to an  eternal species is predicated  to the Dhaat (Being) of Allah Ta’ala. In effect this will mean that an attribute of Allah Ta’ala is temporal and perishable, since a temporal member of the imagined eternal species is perishable. However, this fallacy of Ibn Taymiyyah is debunked by what Abul Fadhl At-Tameemi in his kitaab,  I’tiqaadul Imaam Ahmad, states. He writes: “According to the Madhab of Ahmad  Bin Hambal (rahmatullah alayh),  Allah Azza Wa Jal becomes enraged and He also  becomes pleased. He possesses the attributes of wrath and pleasure. In support,  Imaam Ahmad recited the Aayat:  ‘And do not transgress the limits in it (food) lest My wrath descends upon you. Those upon whom My wrath descends have indeed fallen by the wayside.’  (Surah Taha, Aayat 81) Here Allah Ta’ala associates wrath with His Dhaat.

And Allah Azza Wa Jal says:  ‘When they caused grief to Us, We extracted retribution from them.’ (Surah Zukhruf, Aayat 55) Interpreting the words,  ‘When they made Us grieve,’  Ibn Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu) said: ‘It means:  ‘they angered Us.” Similarly, Allah Ta’ala declares:  “His  punishment is Jahannam wherein  he will dwell forever, and Allah is displeased with him and curses him.” (Surah Nisaa, Aayat 93)

There are numerous Aayaat in the Qur’an similar to these. Divine Anger/Wrath and Divine Pleasure  are two of Allah’s eternal attributes. Thus,  Allah’s Wrath and Pleasure are predicated with His Eternal Prescience related to the temporal occurrences. In other words, Allah Azza Wa Jal eternally possessed fore-knowledge of the  temporal episodes to which either His Wrath or Pleasure will be directed.   

The Hanaabilah (Ulama of the Hambali  Madhab) refute the contention  of the Divine Attributes of Wrath and Pleasure being of temporal origin or creations. Hence they state:  ‘One who avers so has to necessarily accept that Allah Azza Wa  Jal’s anger at the kaafireen will terminate and, similarly, His pleasure with the Ambiya and Mu’mineen. Thus, eventually He will not be pleased with His Friends and nor displeased with His enemies.” (Whilst we  agree 100%  with the belief that Allah’s Attributes of Wrath and Pleasure are eternal, we differ with the rational argument proffered by the Hanaabilah in substantiation of this Waajib Belief. There is no incumbency to believe that a temporal or a created entity/being  will necessarily terminate because a created being can perpetually  endure, forever and forever without ever being annihilated. Such entities are the souls of the Mu’mineen, Jannat, Jahannum and there may be  numerous other beings and entities whose perpetuation Allah Ta’ala has desired. And, Allah knows best.  The simple rational argument to debunk Ibn Taymiyyah’s kufr is to say that the predication of temporality for the Divine Attributes implies a defect in the Dhaat of Allah Azza Wa Jal – Nauthubillaah! – Mujlisul Ulama) 

“Certain things are figuratively designated with an attribute on account of being the product of the attribute. Hence, the adhaab  and  iqaab  (punishment and chastisement) of Allah Ta’ala are designated  ghadhab  and  sakhat  (anger and displeasure) in view of being the products of Wrath. When experiencing earthquakes and heavy rains, Muslims unhesitatingly say that these are the Qudrat (Power) of Allah Ta’ala. There is no censure among them for such a statement for it means that the phenomenon is the product of Allah Ta’ala’s Qudrat.

Sometimes a person says in his Du’aa: ‘O Allah! Forgive us according to Your Ilm (knowledge) about us.’ The purport here is: ‘…the acts  which You have knowledge about.’  Thus, what is known  ((ma’loom)  is described by the term  knowledge  (Ilm).   Similarly,  murtadha (the effect of  ridha-pleasure)  is described as ridha (pleasure),  and  maghdoob (the object of  wrath) is called ghadhab (wrath).”     (End of Abul Fadhl’s Dissertation)

The meaning of this explanation is that while the occurrences, e.g. the earthquake and the beneficial rain, are the  temporal (having originated in time) products of  the Divine Attributes of Ghadhab (Wrath) and Ridha (Pleasure) respectively, these (i.e. the Attributes) are eternal

The above is a wonderful dissertation. It scuttles the argument of Ibn Taymiyyah’s followers that the Sifaat (attributes) of Allah Ta’ala are temporal, i.e. they are acquired in time  –  that at one time they did not exist and came into existence later.  They make this fallacious contention on the basis of the well-known Hadith of Shafa’ah (Intercession on the Day of Qiyaamah) when Aadam (alaihis salaam) will say:  “Allah’s Wrath today is unprecedented. Never did He become so wrathful and never will He become so wrathful.” 

These  Mushabbihhah (anthropomorphists  –  Ibn Taymiyyah and his  followers) opine that on that occasion of Qiyaamah there will develop  for Allah Ta’ala a new attribute in His Dhaat (Being).  

The above dissertation (of At-Tameemi in elaboration of Imam Ahmad’s stance on the Sifaat of Allah Ta’ala) exposes the corrupt understanding of those who seek to align themselves with the Madhab of Imam Ahmad (rahimahullah), whereas, in reality, they are in conflict with him.

Ibn Taymiyyah Displaying His Ignorance

Ibn Taymiyyah’s self-contradiction can be adequately gauged from his statement that,  “We only attribute to Allah Ta’ala such sifaat which He attributes to Himself.”  But, in diametric contradiction of this contention he says in  Al-Muwaafaqah: “Where is  it in the Qur’aan that the concept of ‘no beginning for non-eternal entities’ is impossible?

Our response is:  Where  in the Qur’aan and Sunnah is mentioned this concept of  hawaadith laa awwala laha  –  there is no beginning for non-eternal entities? This aqeedah is faasid (corrupt) and violently clashes with the Aqeedah of Islam. Muslims have absolutely no relationship with this belief.    

In having proffered this corrupt question, Ibn Taymiyyah has simply displayed his ignorance. There are innumerable tenets of Islam,  despite not being in the Qur’an,  constitute even fundamentals of the Deen. In the Qur’an there is no mention of the 5 Fardh Salaat, the number of raka’ts, the method of performance of the Salaat, the wordings of the Athaan, that Athaan is to be proclaimed  for the Five daily Salaat, and no mention of the thousands of masaa-il which are attached to all departments of the Deen. Ibn Batuta had correctly observed: “There is something wrong with this man’s brains.”

The  Absurdity  of  Ibn  Taymiyyah’s  ‘Hawaadith  Laa Awwala Laha’ Postulate 

The Imaam of Hadith and Lughat, Muhammad Murtadha Az-Zabeedi said in his  Sharh of Ihyaa-ul Uloom  which is integrated with the  matan (the original text of Imaam Ghazaali  –  in refutation of Allah Ta’ala being haadith or  non-eternal  and in refutation of Ibn Taymiyyah’s kufr): “If He (Allah Ta’ala) is haadith, and not  Qadeem, He will be in need of a  muhdith (that is, an entity originating Him  from non-existence to existence, Na’uthubillah)  and that  muhdith  will  be in need of another muhdith  ad infinitum.   Something dependent on a chain  ad infinitum (tasalsul)  will never be obtained. In other words, if the chain is  ad infinitum  it follows that a  haadith  (a temporal entity) will never be obtained from it, for previously it was mentioned that the absurdity, that is, the existence of  hawaadith laa awwala laha, necessarily means that the existence of a current  haadith  is impossible. Furthermore, the  ad infinitum  chain leads to a vacuum in  an infinite  chain  in view  of a current  haadith  being unobtainable. And this is inconceivable. 

If the matter reaches a finite number then  daur  (unending rotation/vicious circle) will necessarily follow which is also absurd, for it necessarily means that an entity precedes and follows itself! Thus, in the light of hudooth (the concept of timebound objects not having a beginning) leading to  daur  or tasalsul  which are absurd, it follows that the concept of hawaadith laa awwala laha is absurd.

In  Sharhul Fiqhil Akbar, Mulla Ali  Qaari (rahimahullah )states:  “Then you should know that the term Ahlul Qiblah (the people who follow the Qiblah  –  Muslims) refers  to those people who agree with and accept the axiomatic tenets (Dhururiyaat  –  the fundamentals) of the Deen, such as the hudooth (non-eternity) of the world, the resurrection of physical bodies, Allah Ta’ala’s knowledge of universal and individual entities and other issues of a similar nature. Thus, regardless of life-long constancy in acts of Taa-at and Ibaadat (obedience and worship), a man  will not be from the Ahlul Qiblah if he subscribes to the belief of the eternity of the universe, or he negates evil (being the creation of Allah), or he negates the (all-embracing) knowledge of Allah Subhaanahu of the particulars and details in creation.”

On the basis of this established principle of the Deen (as explained by Mullah  Ali Qaari, above), understand  the logical proof for the temporality of the universe, which is everything besides Allah. May Allah grant you taufeeq to understand through His Mercy.

A physical body is never free of motion and rest. These two actions  are temporal for with the coming into being of one the other becomes non-existent.  Therefore, whatever is not free of will never be obtained from it, for previously it was mentioned that the absurdity, that is, the existence of  hawaadith laa awwala laha, necessarily means that the existence of a current  haadith  is impossible. Furthermore, the  ad infinitum  chain leads to a vacuum in  an infinite  chain  in view  of a current  haadith  being unobtainable. And this is inconceivable.  If the matter reaches a finite number then  daur  (unending rotation/vicious circle) will necessarily follow which is also absurd, for it necessarily means that an entity precedes and follows itself! Thus, in the light of hudooth (the concept of timebound objects not having a beginning) leading to  daur  or tasalul  which are absurd, it follows that the concept of hawaadith laa awwala laha is absurd.” In  Sharhul Fiqhil Akbar, Mulla Ali  Qaari (rahimahullah) states:  “Then you should know that the term Ahlul Qiblah (the people who follow the Qiblah  –  Muslims) refers  to those people who agree with and accept the axiomatic tenets (Dhururiyaat  –  the fundamentals) of the Deen, such as the hudooth (non-eternity) of the world, the resurrection of physical bodies, Allah Ta’ala’s knowledge of universal and individual entities and other issues of a similar nature. Thus, regardless of life-long constancy in acts of Taa-at and Ibaadat (obedience and worship), a man  will not be from the Ahlul Qiblah if he subscribes to the belief of the eternity of the universe, or he negates evil (being the creation of Allah), or he negates the (all-embracing) knowledge of Allah Subhaanahu of the particulars and details in creation.” On the basis of this established principle of the Deen (as explained by Mullah  Ali Qaari, above), understand  the logical proof for the temporality of the universe, which is everything besides Allah. May Allah grant you taufeeq to understand through His Mercy. A physical body is never free of motion and rest. These two actions  are temporal for with the coming into being of one the other becomes non-existent.  Therefore, whatever is not free of temporality  is itself temporal (having originated  in time). Thus, all physical objects are of temporal origin. There are three premises in this proof.

One: Physical objects are not free of motion and rest. This premise is palpable and self-evident. There is no need for reflection to comprehend this issue.  One who understands a physical body to be neither at rest nor in motion is an enemy of intelligence and blindly arrogant to reality.

Two:  Motion and rest being temporal is evidenced by the one alternating  with the other. This is witnessed in all physical bodies. And in so far  as those objects are concerned in which this is not discernable, intelligence rules the possibility of a motionless body moving and a moving  body halting. Thus, the arrival of  one of the two states (motion or rest) is temporal by virtue of its arrival (in time), whilst the former state is temporal by virtue of its passing into oblivion. If its eternity is confirmed its non-existence would be impossible.

Three:  Whatever is not free of temporality is also  temporal, and cannever be eternal. If this is not the case, it will follow that every temporal entity is preceded by temporal entities having no beginning (hawaadith laa awwala laha). And whatever from the temporal entities does  not have a beginning  does not end at the existence of the present temporal entity. Furthermore, the cessation of something which has no end is absurd and impossible, for if you consider the present temporal  entity, then turn to the one before it and so forth in sequence, you will never come to an end point. The entry into existence of some temporal entity which has no end is impossible.  And if reaching the end is possible then a beginning for those temporal entities is confirmed which proves the hypothesis (of Ibn Taymiyyah) to be fallacious.

In adequately and  convincingly proving rationally the fallacy of  hawaadith laa awwala laha  and affirming the correctness of a continuous future chain of time-bound entities  ad infinitum  the
Ulama-e-Haqq have proffered the example of one who vows:  “I will not give that person a dirham on a particular day until I give him a dirham a day before. And I will not give him a dirham a day before until I give him a dirham before that ad infinitum.” It is obvious that giving the other person the promised dirham on the set day is impossible as it hinges on something impossible  – completion of an unbroken and continuous chain of giving a dirham ad infinitum. Undoubtedly, their claim of  hawaadith laa awwala laha  fits this example. The Active Agent, for example, sets a universe into orbit  in our present time and in the times of the past suspended on setting prior motion one by one into eternity. The motion for the universe in a set time represents the promised dirham which is preceded by infinite dirhams. Thus, motion coming into existence  for the universe in the present time is impossible just as it is impossible for the promised dirham to be realised in a given time for the beneficiary.

Then there is the example of the bounties of Jannat. A person vows:  “I will not give so-and-so person a dirham unless I give him a dirham after that and so forth forever and ever.”  Any intelligent person will not doubt the rational possibility of this. It translates to the one taking the vow never terminating his gifting of a dirham once he starts giving. This example is clearly in accord with what we subscribe to in regard to the bounties of Jannat for the Mu’mineen and in accord with our belief of punishment in Jahannam for the philosophers who advocate the concept of the timelessness of the universe and people of their ilk – the scientists – and all the kuffaar.

Our arguments have conclusively validated the theory of substances being time-bound. Substances inherently carry temporary states which are time-bound. And anything inherently carrying a time-bound entity will be time-bound. Thus, this world can never be eternal and timeless as Ibn Taymiyyah has falsely tried to promote.

A SIMPLE ELABORATION

The academic  arguments of the Ulama in  refutation of Ibn Taymiyyah’s  belief of kufr  and shirk will generally not be understood. The facts which have been presented are extracts from the Refutation of Ibn Taymiyyah’s beliefs by Shaikh Abdullah Al-Harari, Al-Maqaalaatus Sunniyyah fi Kashfi Dhalaalaati Ahmad Bin Taimiyyah, which we have paraphrased for better comprehension. However, despite the paraphrasing, much of the arguments will be incomprehensible to laymen. We therefore present this simple elaboration for easy and better understanding.

Ibn Taymiyyah  subscribed to the kufr view of  the eternity of the universe which was propounded by  some Greek philosophers.  Despite his overt and vehement criticism of the philosophers, he dabbled in their philosophy and became entrapped in its quagmire of kufr. His study of philosophy exerted the  terrible impact of kufr on him. Thus, Ibn  Taymiyyah became the victim of  the kufr expounded by the philosophers. Although he dabbled in philosophy, Ibn Taymiyyah was a mere simulacrum of the philosophers as well of the Muhadditheen. He tried in vain to walk along two divergent paths at the same time, hence he was neither in the camp of the philosophers nor in the camp of the Muhadditheen as the Qur’aan says of the munaafiqeen“They are neither here nor there; they fluctuate between that.” 

From these atheist Greek philosophers he acquired the belief of the eternity of the universe, namely the universe is uncreated and has been existing co-eternally with Allah Azza Wa Jal, and being an eternal eternity, the universe will never come to an end. This postulate is pure  shirk  in its  shirk fil wujood  or to associate a being or entity in the eternity attribute of Allah. When eternity is attributed to a being/entity it implies the independent everlasting existence of the being; that it had no origin in time; that  it will never end; that it is indestructible; that Allah Ta’ala lacks the power to annihilate it; that it exists as a partner with Allah Azza Wa Jal in eternal life and indestructibility. 

Whilst he vehemently berated the philosophers, he abortively attempted to acquit himself in the style and language of the Muhadditheen, proclaiming himself  a follower of the Madhab of Imaam Ahmad Bin  Hambal (rahmatullah alayh). In  this devious exercise he resorted to blatant lies by making the sweeping claim that the Muhadditheen and Imaam Ahmad also subscribe to the kufr view of the eternity of the universe. However, despite his sweeping claims  he has miserably failed to cite the specific statements of  any  authority of the Ahlus Sunnah to substantiate his vile contention of the eternity of the universe.

In propounding his kufr theory, he displayed weird irrationality which leads one to conclude that he suffered some kind of mental derangement. According to his theory and belief of  the eternity of the universe,  temporal entities (things which have an origin in time) while perishable, the species to which they belong is eternal.    The species or genus is uncreated and co-eternal with Allah Ta’ala according to his belief. As such it is indestructible. Allah Ta’ala is  unable to annihilate the eternal genus. Since the universe is eternal in Ibn Taymiyyah’s belief, it is indestructible by virtue of its attribute of eternity in the same way as Allah Azza Wa Jal is indestructible and cannever be annihilated.

Ibn Taymiyyah seeks to overcome the palpable obstacles to his theory by affirming  the attribute of eternity to the genus of things, not to the individual members of the genus/species. For example  donkey is a species consisting of innumerable individual donkeys. While  the individual donkeys come into existence in time and also perish, the donkey species will never perish nor become extinct. The automatic creation of donkeys will continue eternally  ad infinitum, and Allah Azza Wa Jal lacks the power to bring to an end the  donkey species.  The procession of donkeys will automatically take place eternally. Only a man with donkey brains can so brazenly postulate such a donkey theory which puts even asses to shame.

Far from overcoming any obstacle to his donkey postulate  of hawaadith la awwala laha (i.e. temporal/created things have no beginning),  he only complicates the irrational incongruency sinking deeper into the quagmire of irrationality and stupidity by predicating his theory  to species/genus.  The palpable ludicrousness of  this kufr is established by the  self-evident fact that a species of any thing cannot exist without its individual members. If there are no individual donkeys, there can be no donkey species in real existence. For a species to be eternal, the imperative corollary is that there has to be a donkey or some donkeys which are also eternal. There has to be somewhere in the universe a donkey or a few donkeys who have had no beginning in time. These donkeys  are ageless and timeless. Trillions of years cannot be attributed to them since the postulate affirms eternity for them, neither did they have a beginning nor will they have an ending. These donkeys  –  the gods of Ibn Taymiyyah – did not come into being from non-existence.  

Whilst the Ahlus Sunnah Wal  Jama’ah affirms such existence for only Allah Azza Wa Jal, Ibn Taymiyyah predicates it (eternal existence) for even donkeys.

Al-Baani’s Dissociation from Ibn Taimiyyah’s Abhorrent Beliefs of Kufr and Shirk

The abhorrence of this belief of kufr and shirk constrained even a deviant like Al-Baani who is Ibn Taymiyyah’s devoted and ardent muqallid, to aver:

“In the Hadith: ‘Verily, the first object created by Allah Ta’ala was the Pen.’  , there  also is refutation of the one who contends:

Temporal things have no beginning, and that every creation is preceded by a creation ad infinitum’, so that it is not possible to say that this was the first creation. The Hadith negates this view. Prior to the Qalam (Pen) there was absolutely no creation. Verily, Ibn Taymiyyah in his elaboration in refutation of the philosophers, attempting to prove (his theory) of temporal things have no beginning, came up with arguments which bewilder the intelligence and which most hearts cannot accept.  …….

That view of his is not acceptable. On  the contrary it is rejected by this Hadith. Many a time we (Ibn  Taymiyyah’s followers) yearned  that Ibn Taymiyyah had not dabbled in this domain (of philosophy) because  discussion therein resembles philosophy and Ilmul Kalaam (which Salafis abhor).”    (Saheeh of Al-Baani, Vol.1, page 208)

Again in his  Commentary of Aqeedatut Tahaawi,  Al-Baani says:  “Verily,  the Ulama are unanimous that there was a first creation. Those who maintain that temporal things had no beginning are in conflict with this Consensus (Ijma’)  since they explicitly claim that every creation was preceded by a creation ad infinitum as Ibn Taimiyyah has expressly said in some of his kutub.”  (Page 35)

Belated attempts have been made by coprocreep Salafis to exonerate Ibn Taymiyyah  from his beliefs of kufr and shirk, but to no avail. Even Al-Baani the devoted follower of Ibn Taymiyyah, and the ‘mujaddid’ of Salafi’ism in this era, had no option other than to denounce and reject this vile belief of kufr and shirk propounded by his Imaam. Al-Baani’s explicit rejection is more than adequate confirmation for the contention that Ibn Taymiyyah had  subscribed to the kufr view of  the eternity of the universe. Hanging his head with shame and grief, Al-Baani had no alternative other than to dissociate from the kufr of his master, Ibn Taymiyyah, albeit acquitting himself very mildly in relation to the vitriolic  vituperation which Salafis disgorge against the Aimmah of the Madhabs in general, and Imaam Maturidi and Imaam  Ash’ari (rahimahumullah( in particular. In  this  biased attitude they portray their  dubiousness and dishonesty. On the one hand, they  apologize for Ibn Taymiyyah’s explicit kufr and shirk, but  the prolixity of the stupidities their brains excrete testifies to  their insincerity and deviation.

Ibn  Taymiyyah  in  Abnegation  of  Every  Belief  of  Islam Related to Creation 

This belief of Ibn Taymiyyah is in diametric conflict with not only the Ijma’ of the Ulama, but with the uncorrupted intelligence of every Muslim who understands the simple truth that  only Allah Azza Wa Jal is the One and Only Eternal Being Who has no partner and  no co-existing entity. Muslims do not require any  daleel  for understanding and accepting this transcendental truth which is inborn in the heart of every Mu’min. The postulation  of co-existence with Allah Azza Wa Jal is shirk in His Wujood (Existence) which is an idolatrous concept  of the mushrikeen.  There is no  scope in Islam for such beliefs of shirk.

On the basis of this belief of kufr and shirk, Ibn Taymiyyah  by implication, is in abnegation of every Belief of Islam related to creation. Thus, Hadhrat Aadam (alayhis salaam) is not the first created man because the kufr belief affirms that every creation is preceded by another created being/thing of the same species. If Hadhrat Aadam (alayhis salaam) is  treated as an individual member of the species of mankind, it  follows that there had existed  other human beings before him. This is explicit kufr.  If Hadhrat Aadam (alayhis salaam) is regarded as a member of a specific species designated ‘Aadam’ apart from the general genus of  mankind, then it follows that  the Aadam (alayhis salaam) whom Allah Ta’ala  created in Jannat and about whom He said to the Malaaikah“Verily, I shall be  creating a Khalifah on earth.”,  was not the first Aadam since the kufr theory hallucinated  by Ibn Taymiyyah postulates another Aadam of the same kind having preceded him. This is utter ludicrous, irrational kufr.

The very same kufr is the consequence of denial of the  Qalam (The Pen)  being the first  created object as stated explicitly by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Whilst Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that the  Qalam  is the first created object, Ibn Taymiyyah contends with his kufr theory that the Qalam was preceded by another Qalam which in turn was preceded by another Qalam and so on  ad infinitum,  there being no first Qalam ever since the species of Qalam is co-eternal with Allah Azza Wa Jal. The kufr of the theory is absolutely shocking. What type  of a brain could have  disgorged  such sewerage muck?

Even the Arsh, the  Malaaikah, the Jinn and every creation of Allah Azza Wa Jal  are all co-eternal with Him according to Ibn Taimiyyah’s theory of shirk and kufr. Even if the numerous deflections from the Path of the Ahlus  Sunnah to which Ibn Taymiyyah subscribe in both Belief and Practice have to be ignored, this one belief of  hawaadith la awwala laha  is sufficient to condemn him to everlasting perdition in the Aakhirah.

The authentic Ahaadith explicitly proclaim that the Arsh did not exist at one stage. Allah Ta’ala brought it into existence from pure non-existence. But Ibn Taymiyyah  claims that the species of the Arsh is co-eternal with Allah Ta’ala, there never ever having been a time when there was no Arsh, and there  never will be a time in the future when there will be no Arsh, and by virtue of its (the Arsh’s) eternity,  Allah Ta’ala lacks the power to  annihilate it – Nauthubillaah!

The Kufr Consequence of Ibn Taimiyyah’s Belief 

Furthermore, an axiomatic  consequence arising from this belief is the impotence of Allah Azza Wa Jal  –  Nauthubillah!

The logical consequence of the belief of the eternity of the universe by species is that Allah Ta’ala is not in control of creation, and that created beings, things and objects are automatically generated by the entities preceding them.  The theory postulates the eternity of the species. Eternity is independent of a Creator. It (the eternal being) perpetuates itself by virtue of its existence being self-subsisting, having had  no origin and being itself uncreated. It is therefore a massive canard and the perpetration of deliberate fraud to assert that the individual  members of an eternal species  are the creations of an independent Creator apart from the eternal species to which  the individual donkey belongs.

The individual donkey being a member of the eternal donkey species, in terms of the kufr theory, does not require a Creator for its (the donkey’s) appearance is necessitated by the donkey which preceded it. If this is not so, the species would not be predicated with eternity. It is simply a rational necessity for donkeys to evolve of their own accord  ad infinitum  to sustain the eternity of the donkey species. Thus, Allah Azza Wa Jal is not the Creator of the individual members of the species according to the logical demand of the theory of kufr and shirk, for if it be assumed that Allah Ta’ala wills a cessation of  the individual donkeys appearing on earth, the logical conclusion would be the termination of the species. But  an eternal  entity cannot be terminated or annihilated. If it can, it would not be eternal.

This argument holds good for every thing, every iota, and every atom in the universe. Each object belongs to a species, and the kufr  theory contends that all species are eternal, hence all the successive individual member of temporal origin in the myriads of species owe their origin to the eternity of the parental species whose existence and perpetual subsistence are entirely independent of Allah Azza Wa Jal. Every thing in the universe thus generates as a logical consequence of its eternal species. Thus, Allah Ta’ala is not the Creator of a single thing in the universe, the universe itself being eternal according to the kufr of Ibn Taymiyyah. Yet, the Qur’aan declares:  “When Allah intends to create anything, He (simply) says: ‘BE!’,  and that thing comes into existence (from the state of pure nonexistence).”   It does not come into existence  as an automatic consequence of a preceding entity of the same species, which has now disappeared into oblivion.

Creation according to the Qur’an is the effect of Allah’s  Will and Power. It is not  the product of  any  self-subsisting  eternal species which perpetuates itself eternally by the automatic substitution of one individual member by another ad infinitum.

The upshot of Ibn Taymiyyah’s kufr and shirk theory is that all entities in the universe  –  the sun, moon, planets, stars, mankind, the animal kingdom, birds, insects, the stone kingdom and whatever there happens to  be in the universe, big or small, progress automatically from preceding members of the species to which they belong. This automatic progression from preceding entities is an eternal process which sustains the eternity of the species. Thus, all entities in  the  universe cease to be the makhlooq (created beings)  of Allah Azza Wa Jal. On the contrary, every thing is the automatic creation of the species to which it belongs. Everything is beyond the power and control of Allah Azza Wa Jal.

This could be easily understood by a simple illustration.  The millions of donkeys roaming on the earth are members of the donkey species which according to Ibn Taymiyyah is eternal. Now does Allah Ta’ala have the power to annihilate all donkeys and terminate the donkey species? The answer can  only be  ‘yes’ or  ‘no’. There is no third option. If it is yes, then  the whole rubbish, irrational kufr  theory of Ibn Taymiyyah falls flat  – debunked and deposited into the gutter for the simple reason that what is eternal cannot be terminated or annihilated.  It is meaningless and downright  stupid to contend that an eternal species can be annihilated.  

Therefore, to sustain the kufr theory, it can only be said:  ‘No’, Allah Ta’ala  does not have the power to terminate the eternal species  by  annihilating all the donkeys. The vile kufr of this conclusion is self-evident. In fact, this is precisely the logical consequence of Ibn Taymiyyah’s theory of the eternity of the species. In  the final analysis according to  the kufr theory Allah Ta’ala is not the Creator of anything in the universe since  all species are eternal, hence they procreate automatically to sustain their own eternity.

This evil theory of kufr is  also the belief of the atheist scientists of our age. According to them everything in the universe simply came into existence automatically without the intervention of a conscious, powerful eternal Creator Who possesses all the attributes of excellence. 

Debunking All the Rubbish of Ibn Taymiyyah

Debunking all the rubbish of Ibn Taimiyyah, the Qur’an Majeed says:

“What! Do you not see that,  for Allah prostrate whatever is in the heavens, whatever is in the earth, the sun, the moon, the mountains, the trees, the animals and numerous among mankind. And for numerous has  the punishment been decreed. Whomever Allah disgraces, for him there is no  one to honour. Verily, Allah does as He wills.”  (Al-Hajj, aayat 18)

Allah Azza Wa Jal is a conscious Being Who creates as He wills and whatever He wills. He is not  subservient  to any hallucinated  eternal species which sustains its own imagined eternity by perpetuating  the automatic progression of its individual members, one after the other  ad infinitum.  While Ibn Taymiyyah postulated that the entire universe with its species is eternal, whose existence is independent from Allah Ta’ala, not at all reliant on Allah Ta’ala, the Qur’an Majeed declares:

“It is He Who has created for you everything which is in the earth. Then He focused  towards the sky and fashioned it into seven skies. And, He is aware of everything.” (Baqarah aayat 29)

“All praise is for Allah Who has created the heavens and the earth, and Who has created  darkness and light.” (AlAn’aam, aayat 1)

“Verily, your Rabb is Allah Who has created the heavens and the earth in six days.” (Yoonus, aayat 3)

“Verily, the number of months by Allah  is  twelve in the Book of Allah from the day He created the heavens and the earth…..” (At-Taubah, aayat 36)

The Qur’an is replete with hundreds of aayaat  explicitly stating that Allah had created the heavens and the earth  –  that creation of the universe had a beginning  –  that the twelve months commenced from the day Allah Ta’ala had created the heavens and the earth. The Qur’aanic announcement  of the creation of the universe by Allah Ta’ala debunks the satanic kufr theory of the eternity of the universe.  This one single theory of kufr  is in fact a denial of the whole of Islam. It denies the advent of Qiyaamah.

Since the universe is eternal and indestructible according to the mushrik’s hallucination, the destruction of the universe explicitly stated in the Qur’an  is a logical  ‘falsehood’ being an axiomatic  consequence of the kufr theory. Describing the destruction of Ibn Taymiyyah’s eternal universe, the  Qur’an states;

“When the sun loses its light; when  the stars fall down (scattered and destroyed); when the mountains  will be made to  fly about; when the pregnant camels are forsaken………when the sky will be opened up;……..( Surah Takweer)

“When the  sky splits (into bits and pieces); when the stars are scattered (and fall into destruction); when the oceans pour forth; when the graves are inverted………”  (  Surah Infitaar)

So while Ibn Taymiyyah subscribed to the eternity of the universe, Allah and His  Rasool taught this Ummah that the universe will one day come to an end. But an ‘eternal’ entity cannot end. It cannot be annihilated. This kufr is the product of Ibn Taymiyyah’s theory of the eternity of the universe.

Soul-Searching for the Salafis

The  devotees of Ibn Taymiyyah should answer: Does Allah have the power to annihilate the universe  –  its species and its individual members? As long as they seek to interpret and cover up the kufr of Ibn Taymiyyah with their  confounded prolixity, and not  outrightly reject the abominable kufr theory, they will not be able to answer. They will find themselves inextricably entrapped with either a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ answer.  If they say that Allah Ta’ala does have the power to destroy the universe, they would then be  debunking Ibn Taymiyyah’s eternity of the universe concept of kufr. But they are not prepared for this. On the other hand, if they uphold the vile theory and say that Allah Ta’ala lacks the power to destroy the universe, they become murtadd of the worst order.

Salafis should ponder and understand the implications of Ibn Taimiyyah’s evil theory and  their attempt to make it presentable by means of  evil interpretation. The effect of this vile hypothesis is to predicate Allah Azza Wa Jal with impotency. It is to believe that Allah Ta’ala is not the Creator since the universe with its myriads of species procreates automatically by virtue of  its imagined eternity. It is irrational and downright stupid and false to maintain that Allah Ta’ala is the Creator of the individual members of a species when the species itself is eternal, having had no beginning and  will be never-ending. It is a self-subsisting eternal entity which cannot be destroyed and which compulsorily sustains its own eternity by procreating automatically its own individual members  ad infinitum.  Thus,  the universe being eternal is a denial of the advent of Qiyaamah which will bring about the destruction of the universe. But how can such destruction find room in Ibn Taymiyyah’s eternal universe?

With  this kufr postulate, Ibn Taimiyyah has stripped Allah Azza Wa Jal of all of His Sifaat (Attributes), rendering him an inanimate  mechanical force from which ensues some sort of activity over which He has no control and no knowledge such as the sun emitting light and heat without  having the power to control the  emission of light and heat and without  having knowledge of its activity.  But, the Qur’an states:  “The sovereignty of the heavens and the earth belong only to Allah. He creates whatever He wishes…..Verily, He is fully aware and knowledgeable (of his creation and what He creates).”    -(AsShuraa’, aayat 49)

Even the early mushrikeen possessed a clearer understanding of the Creator than Ibn Taymiyyah who became entrapped with philosophy. The Qur’aan  says:  “And, if you (O Muhammad!) ask them (the mushrikeen): ‘Who created the heavens and the earth?’, they will most assuredly say: ‘Al-Azeez (The Mighty Allah), Al-Aleem (The All-Knowing Allah) created it.” (AzZukhruf, aayat 9)  Even  the mushrikeen did  not believe  the universe to be an uncreated entity having existed eternally, independent of Allah Azza Wa Jal.

The attempt which coprocreep Salafis of our time are making to defend Ibn Taymiyyah is  nothing but pulling wool over the eyes of the ignorant  and unwary. They are citing statements allegedly made  by Ibn Taymiyyah denying  the eternity of the universe. They should explain Ibn Taymiyyah’s explicit statements pertaining  to the eternity of the universe  to be found in at least seven of his kitaabs–  the names of  these kutb  are mentioned  in this refutation. Even Al-Baani, the devoted and ardent follower of Ibn Taymiyyah expressed concern, regret and grief for this kufr view of Ibn Taymiyyah. The Salafis cannot claim  ignorance in this regard. Surely, they are aware of  AlBaani’s refutation of Ibn Taymiyyah’s view of the eternity of the universe.  Ibn Taymiyyah having propounded the theory of the universe’s eternity is irrefutable. Countless Ulama and great authorities of the Shariah have examined and refuted his kufr statements. The claim that all the Ulama did not understand Ibn Taymiyyah’s words should be referred to the  eternal baboons and eternal donkeys which are the individual members of  Ibn Taymiyyah’s eternal species  stemming from the eternity of  the universe.  

These Salafis who  are desperate to salvage the  kufr image of Ibn Taymiyyah are among the worst liars. They will fabricate just any  lie to save Ibn Taymiyyah’s skin. They should  refer to the seven books of Ibn Taymiyyah wherein he  has explicitly propounded his  theory of the eternity of the universe. Furthermore, Salafis are notorious for their  taqiyah (holy hypocrisy).  In the  attempt to peddle their beliefs and practices, they will resort to blatant lies. This is an attitude  which has been inherited from  Ibn Taymiyyah the founder of the Salafi religion who resorted to double-talk calculated to deceive. When he was arraigned in the court of the Qaadhi to answer for his kufr, he overtly repented, proclaiming himself to be a Shaafi’ and a follower of Imaam Ash’ari. After being freed, he lapsed again into the propagation of his kufr

This kufr theory of Ibn Taymiyyah has hitherto been hidden from the Ummah of this age. The coprocreep, anonymous Salafi who had written a virulent and baseless  condemnation of Imaam Maturidi and the Ulama of Deoband  has provided the opportunity for an in depth study of Ibn Taymiyyah’s writings. Now, much of his deviation,  even kufr and shirk which were hitherto unknown to Muslims is surfacing. It devolves on the Ulama of the Ahlus Sunnah to expose the scourge represented by Ibn Taymiyyah. The flabby arguments and  Taqiyah  of the Salafis will not be able to conceal the  kufr and shirk of Ibn Taymiyyah.

“Haqq has arrived and baatil has vanished.” (Qur’aan)

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s