A Summary of Facts Comparing the Beliefs of Muslims vs. Those of Ibn Taymiyyah and The Philosophers’

A Summary of Facts Comparing the Beliefs of Muslims vs. Those of Ibn Taymiyyah and The Philosophers’

• 1.
  A SUMMARY OFFACTS COMPARING THE BELIEFS OF MUSLIMS VS. THOSE OF IBN TAYMIYYAH AND THE PHILOSOPHERS’ August 29, 2011 Posted by Sheikh Abu Adam http://sunnianswers.wordpress.com/ A QUICK LOOK AT THE RESULTS OBTAINED MUSLIM sayings Ibn Taymiyyah’s versus those of the sayings versus philosophers those of the philosophers Number of 13 6 disagreements Number of 1 5 agreements Number of 0 3 similarities Total number of 14 14 beliefs compared % of agreements 7% 36% % of similar 0% 21% sayings % of similar 7% 57% sayings or
• 2.
  agreements FALSE PROPAGANDA &ACCUSATIONS A common accusation of the wahabis and other anthropomorphists throughout history, is that the mainstream scholars of Islam, the Sunnis, the Asħˆariyys and Maaturiidiyys, took their beliefs from the Aristotelian philosophers. For someone with insight into the science of belief, this is obviously ridiculous, as they are bitter enemies, but those who do not have this insight might be affected by such fear mongering. FACT 1 In reality, however, the reason why Sunni scholars engaged deeply into arguments based on pure reasoning, was to refute the beliefs of the philosophers. Accordingly, they studied their concepts and terminology, and then showed how the Aristotelian arguments were wrong using the terminology of philosophy. FACT 2 On the other hand, Ibn Taymiyyah also studied Aristotelian arguments, particularly as presented by the Spanish philosopher Ibn Rusħd (the grandson). His purpose, however, was quite different. What he wanted was to find arguments against the Sunnis that could be used to defend and support his anthropomorphist belief that Aļļaah is something with a size, in a location, that moves and goes through changes. During this process he even adopted some beliefs that are identical or equivalent to those of the Aristotelians. He was however a rhetorician of proportions, knowing how to sound convincing to the naïve, without actually saying much at all. He rarely defines his terms or clarifies exactly what the point of disagreement is. He sidetracks a lot and makes long and useless discussions arguing about terminology, “if you by this word this, then I say that,” even when he knows very well that this is not what his opponent means. He also hides his own views by arguing through quoting others, or by saying, “it could be said to that…” or the like. That is why you find him extremely long winded and incredibly vague. It is because he beats around the bush so much, that many scholars never discovered him and caught him red handed with his anthropomorphist agenda. ANALYSIS OF COMPARISON OF MUSLIM & IBN TAYMIYYAH
• 3.
  BELIEFS VS PHILOSOPHERS Thebelow table outlines some of the fundamental principles of belief that are disputed between the philosophers, the Sunnis and Ibn Taymiyyah, to see who resembles one another more. Be forewarned that the Wahabis will try to skew the results below by making two of the principle issues into many issues. The first principle issue is that Aļļaah is not a body, i.e. not something in a direction that can be pointed at. It is based on this principle that they denied that any of the words ascribing meanings to Aļļaah in the Qur’aan and the Sunnah, such as nazala, jaa’, istawa, wajh, yad, ˆaynayn, janb, qadam, ‘işbiˆ, and yamiin, can be understood in terms of movement, shape, parts, limbs or the like. So it becomes according to them, nazala (descend by movement), jaa’ (came by movement), istawa (become settled), wajh (face), yad (forelimb), ˆayn (organ of sight), janb (side), qadam (foot), ‘işaabiˆ (fingers), and yamiin (right hand side), etc. In contrast, the ‘Asħˆariyys will either simply narrate such words, when apparently ascribed to Aļļaah, without assigning any meaning, but denying a bodily meaning, or they will look at what the Arabic language allows of meanings, and choose one meaning that befits the Creator. For example, jaa’ becomes “His orders came,” and “istawa” becomes “controls”, and wajh becomes “what is done for His sake”, and so on. This is not denial of attributes, as the followers of Ibn Taymiyyah claim, it is a denial of limbs, and this comes back to one principle belief, namely that Aļļaah is not a body, i.e. not something with size or shape or borders. Since Ibn Taymiyyah believes that Aļļaah is a body, he interprets any word that can be understood in a bodily manner as having a bodily meaning, whereas Muslims interpret such words in ways that do not involve bodily attributes. There are therefore many differences on interpretation that in reality come back to one single principle. The second principle issue is the Muslim principle belief that Aļļaah is not something that events happen in, not something that changes, in contrast with the opposite belief of Ibn Taymiyyah. This is another principle belief with many sub questions in the same manner as the first principle issue. For example, ghađab will be interpreted by Ibn Taymiyyah as emotional change, whereas Muslims will understand it as Aļļaah willing punishment, without Him changing or being in time. That being said, here are the details of the analysis: The belief of the The belief of the The belief of Ibn
• 4.
  philosophers Sunnis Taymiyyah (Asħˆariyys, Maaturiidiyys and noble Ĥanbaliyys) 1. Most of the Nothing is eternal He believed that philosophers other than Aļļaah, Aļļaah is an eternal believed that the and He is not a body. body (i.e. limited world is eternal. Aţ-Ţaĥaawiyy said: in all 6 directions They believed {He is now as – a 3 dimensional that matter is He always was, shape) and that eternal and that eternally with His there have always there are one attributes, before been other bodies or more eternal His creation came with Him, coming bodies (something into being.} The into existence, with size) (Adħ- existence of a body one after another Dħakħiirah, 13). without a beginning eternally without a (Adħ-Dħakħiirah is is impossible, beginning.[1] a book written by because it needs a Accordingly, there a Turkish scholar creator to specify its is one eternal body, to judge between shape. Aţ-Ţaĥaawiyy while other bodies Al-Ghazaaliyy and said {in brackets}: are eternal in kind in the philosophers, {The six directions} his view. as ordered by up, down, front, Muĥammad Al- back, left and right Faatiĥ) {do not contain Him} because that would make Him {like all created things} Similarity to Disagree Identical (in philosophers meaning, but not in naming; he calls the eternal body Aļļaah, while the philosophers do not.) 2. The philosophers It is rationally Ibn Taymiyyah said said that the possible for the it is not rationally world (anything world to cease to possible that there other than Aļļaah) exist completely. be no creation
• 5.
  cannot cease We only know that it (something other to exist (Adħ- will continue by the than Aļļaah), Dħakħiirah, 65). In scriptures that tell us because Aļļaah must other words, it is a about resurrection always create.[2] must to them that and eternal life in This is because other than Aļļaah Paradise or torture in his actions are not exists. Hell. beginningless and endless according to Ibn Taymiyyah, but happen one after another.[3] In other words, it is a must to him that other than Aļļaah exists. Similarity to Disagree Identical in philosophers meaning, but not in naming. 3. The philosophers The Sunnis say that Ibn Taymiyyah said do not accept to Aļļaah has a Will, and that Aļļaah must say that Aļļaah has that it is impossible always create, as choice in whether that Aļļaah should mentioned. He said to create or not need/ be compelled Aļļaah has a choice in (Adħ-Dħakħiirah, to create. what to create, but 71). not whether to create or not.[4] Similarity to Disagree Identical philosophers 4. The philosophers The Sunnis said that Ibn Taymiyyah cannot prove that all other than Aļļaah cannot prove that the world needs need to be created by the world needs a a creator based Him, and that He is creator based on on their premises. not of created kind, his premises. This is This is because such as bodies, so because he said that they claimed that He does not need a Aļļaah himself is in a matter, and what creator. place and has 6 limits they call “the first Aţ-Ţaĥaawiyy said (i.e. 3 dimensional) mind”, and some {in brackets}: {The and yet is not created
• 6.
  other parts ofthe six directions} up, (see footnote 1). He world, are eternal. down, front, back, is therefore unable (Adħ-Dħakħiirah, left and right {do not to establish that 87) contain Him} because things with 6 limits that would make need a creator, i.e. Him {like all created all the world as we things} know it. After all, if such a complex body can exist without a creator, then what about simpler ones? Similarity to Disagree Identical philosophers 5. The philosophers Aļļaah has the power Aļļaah has the power said that it is only to create infinitely to create infinitely possible for Aļļaah many creations many creations to create one appearing over time. appearing over time. single thing, and He cannot create a body. (Adħ- Dħakħiirah, 99). Similarity to Disagree Disagree philosophers 6. The philosophers Sunnis said that He said that Aļļaah refused to Aļļaah is attributed is attributed with ascribe to Aļļaah with knowledge, knowledge, power, attributes that power, life, will, life, will, hearing, affirm meanings hearing, seeing and seeing and speech to Aļļaah Himself, speech that are not that are not merely and are not mere merely negations negations of their negations. That is, of their opposites. opposites. He said, knowledge, power, They said that these however, that these life, will, hearing, are eternal and change over time. seeing, and speech. unchanging attributes Even when they that are not in time use these words, and affirm meanings they intend by that are eternally
• 7.
  them the negation true of Aļļaah, of some meaning. and are not mere (Adħ-Dħakħiirah, negations of flaws. 106). Similarity to Disagree Disagree philosophers 7. The philosophers Although there are Ibn Taymiyyah agreed to say differences regarding believed that the that the creator the details of this creator is a body is not a body, nor issue, Sunnis said located above like a body, and that Aļļaah is not in creation,[5] with He is not in time, time or in place, or created events in it, place, direction, direction. The bases such as or existing in for this is the movement.[6]His something else. Quranic, “He does basis for this is That is, to ascribe not resemble taking all scriptures attributes to Aļļaah anything”, which is ascribing a meaning that negate what understood literally, to Aļļaah according does not befit Him. and any other to the customary They also agreed scripture is meanings; the to ascribe to Him understood in light of meanings that apply meanings related it. The reason for to creation. He then to creating, such as this is that the interprets the providing, creating, reality of the Quranic, “He does controlling etc. Creator’s existence not resemble (Adħ-Dħakħiirah, must be complete in anything” 106) perfection, and accordingly. He created existence is understands this non- need in each and resemblance to every sense, mean different from because it needs a creation the way creator. Since Aļļaah created things differ is not created, He from one another, so cannot resemble He is bigger in size created things. This than anything else, is shown by the stronger, etc. Quranic Accordingly, he rhetorical, “Is the interpreted words
• 8.
  One that Createslike ascribed to Aļļaah in what does not the scriptures as create?” meaning physical attributes and change, such as limbs, place, movement, emotions, and so on. Similarity to Identical Disagree philosophers 8. The philosophers Aļļaah knows He said that Aļļaah denied that Aļļaah everything with an knows everything, knows particulars. eternal knowledge but that it changes (Adħ-Dħakħiirah, that does not change. over time in terms 172). of particulars as the future becomes past.[7] Similarity to Disagree Similar (because philosophers this means he believed that Aļļaah’s knowledge is bounded by time. ) 9. The philosophers The Sunnis said there I haven’t seen Ibn discussed whether is no way of knowing Taymiyyah mention the universe itself, such a thing without this, so we’ll give him as a total body, has revelation from the benefit of the a self that speaks Aļļaah. doubt. and moves by will. (Adħ-Dħakħiirah, 179). Similarity to Disagree Disagree philosophers 10. The The Sunnis said that Ibn Taymiyyah is philosophers said the hit to the floor very vague on this that normal cause and the breaking of issue. However, actually influences the glass are two it appears that
• 9.
  in reality itseffect, different creations of he is close to the i.e. the causes Aļļaah, thus the hit muˆtazilite view, between created has no real influence, namely that things things, such as only apparently and do have actual glass hits floor according to the intrinsic influence – glass breaks is normal correlation on each other, but a matter of real that Aļļaah has that this is created influence. (Adħ- created between in them, and they Dħakħiirah, 219). things, such as: use it by Aļļaah’s heat (one creation) permission.[8] This is – burn (another half way to the belief creation), of the philosophers, hit (one creation) who believed that – break (another such influence is not creation), created. For example, jump off cliff (one it could be then, creation) – fall down according to him heat (another creation), (one creation) – burn etc. (a creation brought into existence by heat.) Similarity to Disagree Similar philosophers 11. The The Asħˆariyys Ibn Taymiyyah Aristotelians agreed that if bodies agreed with the believed that are divided, one Aristotelians and bodies do not would eventually criticized the contain indivisible reach an element Asħˆariyys for elements that are that is not divisible. their claim that not divisible in the Not by force, and all bodies must mind’s eye. not even in the consist of indivisible mind’s eye could it particles.[10]This is be divided. This is because he believed because if one said Aļļaah to be a body, e.g. that a stone is and did not want to infinitely divisible into say openly that this infinite quantities, body is divisible. then this would He did however say
• 10.
  necessitate that the that it is shrinkable, stone has infinite as seen in the quantity, which would quote in last quoted mean that its size paragraph ofthis is infinite, and this article. is clearly not the case.[9] Similarity to Disagree Identical philosophers 12. The Platonic It is impossible that Since Ibn Taymiyyah philosophers other than Aļļaah allows for created believed that the could exist without a kinds to be eternal, human soul is beginning. he would say that beginningless. the human soul Aristoteleans as a kind could be disagreed. (Adħ- beginningless, even Dħakħiirah, 248). if he did not say this about the soul in particular. Similarity to Disagree Similar philosophers: 13. The Since the apparent Ibn Taymiyyah has philosophers meaning of the no dispute with denied bodily scriptures is that Sunnis on this matter resurrection, as there will be bodily – as far as I know. well as Hell and resurrection and Hell Paradise, and or Paradise for them, said that what we must accept this. the prophets said There is no reliable regarding this evidence contrary to are all figures of this. The philosophers speech. (Adħ- reasoned that the Dħakħiirah, 261). non-existent cannot re-exist, because it will be something else. The answer is that it was possible
• 11.
  in existence in the first place, so one cannot say it becomes impossible in existence after that. Similarity to Disagree Disagree philosophers 14. The The primary bases Ibn Taymiyyah philosophers for religious claims to stick to developed their knowledge are the the scriptures more opinions on Qur’aan and than anyone, but theology without ĥadiitħ.[11] As for due to his blindness support from the mind, its role is he ended up revelation. (Adħ- to conceptualize and understanding them Dħakħiirah, 270). judge in terms of in a contradictory true and false. It is manner,[12] and in the tool by which the a way that ruins the scriptures can be premises for proving understood through that Aļļaah exists by sound deductive observing creation. reasoning, and For details see the avoiding PDF article: contradictory ideas. Rational Quranic It is not in itself a Islam vs Wahabism tool for knowing See also: facts of religion. For children: “How However, the can we know that all knowledge that other religions than Aļļaah exists, has Islam are incorrect Will, Power and when there are so Knowledge can be many?” achieved without scripture, because creation definitely needs a creator. Likewise, the mind alone can reach the
• 12.
  conclusion that Muĥammad ibn ˆAbduļļaah was indeed the Messenger of Aļļaah. In short, the premises for knowing that the Qur’aan and the Prophet’s teachings are sources of true information are reached by the mind by observation of the nature of creation. Similarity to Disagree Disagree philosophers MUSLIM sayings Ibn Taymiyyah’s versus those of the sayings versus philosophers those of the philosophers Number of 13 6 disagreements Number of 1 5 agreements Number of 0 3 similarities Total number of 14 14 beliefs compared % of agreements 7% 36% % of similar 0% 21% sayings % of similar 7% 57%
• 13.
  sayings or agreements [1] IbnTaymiyyah said: “This middle saying among the three sayings of Al-Qaađii Abuu Yaˆlaa is the one that agrees with what Aĥmad says and others among the imaams. He [i.e. Aĥmad ibn Ĥanbal – and this is a lie, Aĥmad believed what Muslims believe, but that is another matter (Trans.)] has stated, “Aļļaah is in a particular direction, and He is not spread out in all directions. Rather, He is outside the world, distinct from His creation, separate from it, and He is not in every direction.” This is what Aĥmad, may Aļļaah have mercy upon him, meant when he said, “He has a limit that only He knows.” If Aĥmad had meant the direction towards the ˆArsħ (Throne) only, then this would be known to Aļļaah’s slaves, because they know that Aļļaah’s limit from this direction is the ˆArsħ, so we know then that the limit they do not know is unqualified, and is not specified for the direction of the ˆarsħ.” (Bayaan Talbiis Al-Jahmiyyah, 1/438) Accordingly, Ibn Taymiyyah’s saying was that Aļļaah has one limit which is known, and that is the ˆArsħ, and that the other directions are also limited, but these are unknown to us. This is understood from his support to the expression “He is not spread out in all directions”. This is made even clearer in his statement: “That something existing should not be increasing, or decreasing, or neither increasing nor decreasing, and yet exist and not have a size – this is impossible.” (Bayaan Talbiis Al-Jahmiyyah, 1/601) In other words, he is of the opinion that everything that exists, including the Creator, must have a size. According to Ibn Taymiyyah then, Aļļaah has a size limited by 6 limits.
• 14.
  He is alsoof the opinion that creation as a kind has always existed without a beginning, because he believes that Aļļaah’s creating happens in time. Therefore, he argues, Aļļaah has always been doing one act after another (i.e. creating) without a beginning. He says: “It is a necessity of Aļļaah’s self to act, but not an act in particular, and not having something done in particular, so there is no eternal object in the world, and He is not a complete cause for anything in the world, but He has in beginningless eternity always been a complete cause for something, one after another…” (Aş-Şafadiyyah, 2/97) Since nothing exists in his belief, except what has a size, we can understand that he believes bodies to be eternal in kind, even if each individual body has a beginning, except the Creator’s. [2] He says: “It is a necessity of Aļļaah’s self to act, but not an act in particular, and not having something done in particular,…” (Aş-Şafadiyyah, 2/97) [3] Ibn Taymiyyah said: “It has become clear that nothing can come into existence except from an actor that does something one after another.” (Aş-Şafadiyyah, 2/ 141) He also said: “An act is impossible except bit by bit.” (Aş-Şafadiyyah, 2/141) [4] See footnote 2. [5] See footnote #1 [6] Ibn Taymiyyah said : In the above statement, Ibn Taymiyyah addresses his opponent, who has stated that movement must have a beginning, so it cannot be an attribute of perfection. Ibn Taymiyyah responds to this: “Beginning
• 15.
  for its kindor each distinct movement? The first is impossible, but the second is accepted as true.” (Dar’ Taˆaaruđ A-ˆAql wa-n-Naql, 4/160) In other words, it is not impossible that there are infinitely many movements in the past in Ibn Taymiyyah’s view, and it can be an attribute of Aļļaah, since it is an attribute of perfection in his view. This is based on his belief that Aļļaah is a body, because a body that cannot move is “stuck” and it is better to be able to move than to be stuck. Sunnis believe that Aļļaah is not a body, so the attributes of being able to move or being stuck do not apply to Him. Note that movement is not an attribute of perfection, because movement happens due to the need to move, although being stuck is even worse, as it signifies inability to do what one needs to to do. Both movement and being stuck are thus attributes of imperfection. Ibn Taymiyyah also said: “So this is not correct except according to what they innovated by their saying “Aļļaah does not move and things do not come into existence in Him,” by which they denied that He settled on the throne after being unsettled and that He comes on the Day of Judgment and other things that Aļļaah described Himself with in the Qur’aan and ĥadiitħ.” (Al-Fataawaa Al-Kubraa, 5/128) He also said: It has become clear that other than the necessary in existence can influence the necessary in existence (the necessary in existence, i.e. Allaah(. This shows that Ibn Taymiyyah considered Aļļaah to have bodily attributes based on his understanding of the scripture texts. He understood them according to the customary meanings that are true of creation. [7] Ibn Taymiyyah said regarding Aļļaah’s attribute of knowledge:
• 16.
  “This attribute isbeginningless, since it is impossible that He be attributed with it as some particular time (and not others). However, one should not delve deeply on this and end up saying what the kalaam scholars say: “Verily He knows the event when it happens with a beginningless knowledge,” for this implies that the knowledge of something previously non-existing during both its existence and non- existence one single knowledge. This is irrational, because knowledge follows what exists.” He says this, because He believes Aļļaah to must be in time, since He believes He is a body (see footnote1,) and that Aļļaah’s beginninglessness is a beginningless series of moments. See one of Ibn Taymiyyah’s follower’s argument for this with a rebuttal here:Aļļaah is not in time. [8] Ibn Taymiyyah plays word games on this issue, so it is hard to catch what he is actually saying. However, the following phrase of his is telling. Because he rejects the idea that created things have real influence, as the Sunnis say, and then states: He says: If Aļļaah created causes, and created through them other things, and controlled the matters of the skies and the earth, then this would be more complete in ability than creating something by itself, without creating another power, other than it, by which He creates it. In other words, He is saying that the power of creating can be put in causes, and other created things. This means that he believes that Aļļaah could have partners in creating, which is another shirk to add to the list of the other ones he commits. This belief is identical to that of the Muˆtazilah. This is not perfection, as he claims, but in contradiction to it, because it is among the perfect attributes of Aļļaah that His Power is not merely a possibility, but an uncreated eternal necessary attribute. Aļļaah’s attribute of Power is necessary in existence, and therefore not amendable. Had it been amendable, or shareable, then this would mean that it was not necessary in the first place, and it would have needed a creator, like anything that is subject to specification and change. Actually, Ibn Taymiyyah’s argument is identical to Christian arguments like this one. A related topic regarding omnipotence is also presented here.
• 17.
  [9] See alsothis article. [10] Ibn Taymiyyah said: “Some of the authors in Kalaam science make the affirmative belief in the indivisible particle of bodies the saying of the Muslims, and claim that denying it is the saying of the non-Muslims. This is because they don’t know anything about the sayings of the Muslims except what they found in the books of their shaykħs, the people of kalaam science, the innovation in religion that the Salaf and the Imams spoke against.” (Minhaaj As-Sunnah An-Nabawiyyah, 138) [11] Scholarly ijmaaˆ consensus and Islamic legal analogy (qiyaas) are also proofs, of course, but these are established as proofs by Qur’aan and ĥadiitħ. [12] This article addresses this problem: The ‘Simple’ Wahabi Belief II: Contradiction versus narration