http://www.islamicboard.com/quran/34030-let-those-who-oppose-messengers-commandment-beware.html
{"...And let those who oppose the Messenger's commandment beware lest some trial befall them or a painful torment be inflicted upon them."}
[Qur'an an-Nur 24; 63]
Examples:
1 - Ibn 'Abbas reported that the Messenger of Allah said:
"Do not enter upon your women when returning from a journey at night."
He then narrated that the Messenger of Allah returned once with a caravan at night, whereupon two men with him slipped away and secretly went to their families, even though they had heard the Prophet forbidding them from doing so. Subsequently, both of them found a man with his wife.
['Sunan ad-Darimi'; # 444, and it is authentic]
2 - Salamah bin al-Akwa' reported:
"A man ate with the Messenger of Allah using his left hand. The Prophet said to him: "Eat with your right hand." The man arrogantly said: "I am unable to do so." The Prophet then said: "May you never be able to do so." The man was never again able to raise his right hand to his mouth."
['Sahih Muslim'; # 2021]
3 - Abu Yahya as-Sagi narrated:
"We were walking through the alleyways of Basrah to the door of some scholars of Hadith. So, I quickened my strides and a man from amongst the people of Basrah came to us and sarcasitically said: "Raise your feet well above the wings of the Angels and do not break them (a mocking reference to the hadith "...the Angels lower their wings for the seeker of knowledge...")." His feet then became stiff and he fell right where he was standing."
['Bustan al-'Arifin' by an-Nawawi; p. 92]
4 - Muhammad bin Isma'il at-Taymi said:
"I read in some narrations that, upon hearing the words of the Prophet: "If one of you awaken from sleep, then he should not dip his hand in a container unless he washes his hand because he does not know where it was while he was sleeping," an innovator said: "I know where my hands went while in bed, so I do not have to fulfill this command!" Consequently, upon waking up the next morning, his hand - up to the forearm - was found inserted into his anus."
['Bustan al-'Arifin' by an-Nawawi; p. 94]
5 - Ibn Kathir narrated, on the authority of Ibn Khalkan:
"It has reached us from a trustworthy group of people who travelled from Basrah to Damascus that they were in a village called Dir Abi Salamah, and in it, there was a man from the bedouins who would mock others excessively and was quite ignorant.
One day, the siwak and its virtues were mentioned in his presence, so, he said: "By Allah, I do not use the siwak except to clean my back passage." So, he took a stick of siwak and stuck it in his rectum in mockery. He was in great pain that night, and for the next nine months, he would complain of a great pain in his stomach and rectum. Then, he experienced labor pains just as a pregnant woman would suffer, and suddenly, a creature with the body of a giant rat, the head of a fish, four paws, and a tail the length of a human hand whose end looked like that of a rabbit's came out of the man's body. When the creature came out, it woke up and screamed three times, so, the man's daughter got up and smashed its head open, killing it. The man himself only lived two days more, saying on his deathbed: "This creature has killed me! It cut my intestines apart!" This event was witnessed by a large group of people from this village, including the village khatib."
['al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah'; 13/263]
6 - Anas bin Malik narrated:
"The Messenger of Allah sent a man from his Companions to a man from the people of disbelief in order to call him to Allah - the Blessed and Exalted - so, he said to the Companion:
"What is this Lord of yours that you call me to? Is He made of iron? Is He made of copper? Is He made of silver? Is He made of gold?"
So, the Companion returned to the Prophet and told him of what had happened, so, he sent the Companion back a second time. The man told him the same thing, so, he was sent a third time. The man told him the same thing, so the Companion returned and informed the Prophet, so, Allah - the Blessed and Exalted - sent a lightining bolt that struck the man and burned him up.
The Messenger of Allah then said: "Verily, Allah - the Blessed and Exalted - has sent upon this man that you know a lightning bolt which has burned him up."
The verse was then revealed: {"... He sends lightning bolts, and therewith He strikes whom He Wills, yet they dispute about Allah, and He is mighty in strength and severe in punishment."} [ar-Ra'd; 13]"
[Reported by al-Bayhaqi in 'as-Sunan al-Kubra' (11259), al-Haythami in 'Majma' az-Zawa'id' (7/24), and it is authentic]
7 - Ibn al-Jawzi reported, on the authority of 'Abd al-Majid bin 'Abd al-'Aziz:
"In Khurasan, there was a man with us who used to make copies of the Mushaf in three days. One day, a man came to him and asked: "How long did it take you to write this?" So, the man held up his thumb, index, and middle fingers, saying: "In three days, {"...and nothing of fatigue touched Us."} [Qaf; 38]"
So, these three fingers of his suddenly became stiff, and he was never able to use them again."
['Sayd al-Khatir'; p. 398]
8 - adh-Dhahabi reported:
"Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Malik az-Zayyat ordered that a long piece of wood be brought, pierced with many iron nails. He would torture his prisoners with this wood - among which was Ahmad bin Hambal - saying: "I have never had mercy upon anyone, as mercy is something that weakens the soul."
Later on, when he was imprisoned in the same jail, he was tortured using the same device. When he would scream for mercy, it was said to him: "Mercy is something that weakens the soul."
['Siyar A'lam an-Nubala''; 11/172]
9 - al-Hafidh Abu Sa'id as-Sam'ani reported, on the authority of al-Qadi Abu at-Tayyib:
"We were sitting in a gathering in the mosque of al-Mansur, and a young man from Khurasan came to us, asking about the ruling on a particular issue. We gave him an answer, using a hadith narrated by Abu Hurayrah as proof. He replied: "I do not accept the hadith of Abu Hurayrah." He didn't even finish his sentence, when a large snake fell from the ceiling of the mosque, with the people dispersing from its path as it began to chase the youth. The people told him to repent, and as soon as he said: "I repent," the snake disappeared, leaving no trace of its existence."
['Siyar A'lam an-Nubala'' (2/618), and Ibn Taymiyyah reports a similar incident in 'Majmu' al-Fatawa' (4/538), except that the snake kills the youth in his version]
10 - adh-Dhahabi reported:
"A man came to Ibn Sirin and said: "I had a dream in which I had a glass filled with water in my hand. Suddenly, the glass shattered, with the water remaining as it was."
Ibn Sirin said to him: "Fear Allah! Verily, you had no such dream. I will not be taken to account for your lying, but, this dream would indicate that your wife will die, and her child will survive."
When the man left, he said: "By Allah, he is right. I had no such dream."
When he arrived home, he found that his pregnant wife was dead, and her newborn child had survived."
['Siyar A'lam an-Nubala''; 4/617]
11 - Ibn al-Qayyim narrated:
"...and it is reported that in Egypt, there was a man who would maintain the mosques, making the call to prayer, etc. He was, by all outward means, an obedient person and devout worshipper.
One day, as he usually would, he ascended the minaret to make the call to prayer. At the base of the minaret, there was a Christian woman standing. He saw her, and was seduced by her looks. So, he descended the minaret, went to her, and entered her home. She said to him: "Who are you, and what do you want?"
He replied: "I want you."
She said: "Why?"
He said: "You have enslaved my eyes, and you have captured my heart."
She said: "I will never answer your desire in a doubtful or suspicious manner."
He said: "OK, so, I will marry you, then."
She said: "You are a Muslim, and I am a Christian. My father will never allow me to marry you."
He said: "So, I will become a Christian."
She said: "If you wish to do so, go ahead."
So, the man became a Christian in order to marry this woman, and lived with the woman's family in her house. Later on that day, however, he was on the roof of the house. He fell from the roof and died without even having enjoyed his new bride. So, he lost the woman, and he lost his religion."
['ad-Da' wad-Dawa''; p. 127]
12 - Ibn Kathir narrated, on the authority of Ibn al-Jawzi:
"There was an unfortunate man from the Mujahidin who were fighting in the lands of the Romans. So, when the Muslims were in one of their expeditions and surrounding a land of the lands of the Romans, he looked to a woman of the Romans who was sitting in a fortress therein, and he became attracted to her and sent her a message asking how he could reach her. She replied: "As soon as you conquer this area, then come up to the fortress and you can have me," so, as soon as the area was conquered by the Muslims, he did this.
From that point on, there was not a single skirmish that the Muslims would be engaged in except that he would be up in the fortress with her. This caused the Muslims great sadness and distress, and it became very hard on them to deal with this reality. After a while, they went up to the fortress where he was staying with this woman and said to him: "What happened to all the Qur'an you knew? What happened to your knowledge? What happened to your fasting? What happened to your Jihad? What happened to your prayer?"
So, he replied to them: "Know that I have forgotten all of the Qur'an I used to know except for these verses: {"Those who disbelieve wish that they were Muslims. Leave them to eat and enjoy, and let them be preoccupied with false hope. They will come to know!"} [al-Hijr; 2-3] and I now have wealth and children with them.""
['al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah'; 11/68]
13 - Sa'id bin al-Musayyib narrated:
"My grandfather said: "I came to the Prophet, so, he said to me: "What is your name?" I said: "Huzn (sadness)." He said: "Your name is now Sahl (ease)." I said: "I will not change a name that my father gave me."""
Sa'id bin al-Musayyib commented: "So, this sadness has remained in our lineage ever since."
['Sahih al-Bukhari'; # 6190]
Ibn Hajar mentions:
Ibn at-Tin said: "What Ibn al-Musayyib meant when he said "...this sadness has remained in our lineage ever since," is the absence of an ease in acquiring anything they want. "
ad-Dawudi said: "He meant that they always have some type of harshness in their mannerisms, except that Sa'id's harshness was directed into anger for the Sake of Allah."
Others have said: "This is an indication of the harshness that has remained in the character of his descendents, as the experts in lineage have mentioned that the character of all of his descendents are well-known for bad manners that have not left them until now."
['Fath al-Bari'; 10/590]
14 - Sufyan ath-Thawri said:
"I was granted the understanding of the entire Qur'an. When I accepted a gift from the ruler, this understanding was taken away from me."
[Reported by Bakr Abu Zayd in 'Hilyat Talib al-'Ilm'; p. 7]
15 - Ibn al-Jazwi reported, on the authority of 'Abd al-Hamid:
"I saw a man who would constantly have intercourse with his wife while she was menstruating. So, he himself eventually began menstruating. When he finally repented, the menstruating stopped."
['Sayd al-Khatir'; p. 398]
Rabu, 02 Desember 2009
Sekilas Tentang Jalaludin Ar-Rumi
Jalal ud Din Rumi was born in Balkh in 604H. His father left the city, and Rumi met in travel Farid ud Din ‘Attar, who gave his book “Israr-nama” (book of mysteries) to Rumi while he was a child. Then after residing in different land, he and his family settled in Qonya, where Rumi became a teacher in the Madrasah established by his father. In 642 H, Shamsi Tabriz came to Qonya, and Rumi became his student, and he was so attached to him that he left teaching and would isolate with Shamsi Tabriz. And Rumi’s student seeing the bad influence of Shams Tabriz on Rumi threatened Shams Tabriz who fled to Tabriz, and Rumi went there and brought his Peer back. Then he was further threatened and he went to Damascus, and Rumi became sad of this separation and he wrote then his poems called “Divan e Shams e Tabrizi”. Then there are different stories, but some people say Shamsi Tabriz came later and was assassinated by some students of Rumi. Rumi wrote later his Sufi tales called “Mathnawi” and he died in 672H. The Sufi Tosun Bayrak even claim in the introduction of his translation of Ibn ‘Arabi’s book “Divine governance of the human kingdom” that Ibn ‘Arabi in his way to Damascus met Rumi before Rumi went to Qoniya, and later ibn ‘Arabi’s student Sadr Qunawi met Rumi many times in Qonya.
One can see in the poems of this “Divan” clear call to Wahdatul Wujud (unity of existence) and Wahdatul Adyan (unity of religions). Nicholson translated some poems of this divan and called his book: “Selected poems from “Divan e Shams e Tabrizi”” and d this has been published by Ibex publishers.
P 29-31, poem 8:
The man of God is drunken without wine,
The man of God is full without meat.
The man of God is distraught and bewildered,
The man of God has no food or sleep.
The man of God is a king ‘neath darvish-cloak,
The man of God is a treasure in a ruin.
The man of God is not of air and earth,
The man of God is not of fire and water.
The man of God is a boundless sea,
The man of God rains pearls without a cloud.
The man of God hath hundred suns.
The man of God is made wise by the Truth,
The man of God is not learned from book.
The man of God is beyond infidelity and religion,
The man of God right and wrong are alike.
The man of God has ridden away from Not-being,
The man of God is gloriously attended.
The man of God is concealed, Shamsi Din;
The man of God do thou seek and find!
Comment: The last sentence shows that Rumi believes his Peer Shamsi Tabriz is in fact Allah, and the man of Allah seek and find him. And what a lie upon Allah's religion, the Muslims are not beyond infidility and religion, rather they follow the religion revealed by Allah, and these Batinis Sufis want to destroy the religion of Truth and replace it with their own religion inspired by Shaytan.
P 47-49, poem 12:
“Every form you see has its archetype in the placeless world;
If the form perished, no matter, since its original is everlasting.
Every fair shape you have seen, every deep saying you have heard,
Be no cast down that it perished; for that is not so.
Whereas the spring-head is undying, its branch gives water continually;
Since neither can cease, why are you lamenting?
Conceive the Soul as a fountain, and these created things as rivers:
While the fountain flows, the rivers run from it.
Put grief out of your head and keep quaffing this river-water;
Do not think of the water failing; for this water is without end.
From the moment you came into the world of being of being,
A ladder was placed before you that you might escape.
First you were mineral, later you turned to plant,
Then you became animal: how should this be a secret to you?
Afterwards you were made man, with knowledge, reason, faith;
Behold the body, which is a portion of the dust-pit, how perfect it has grown!
When you have travelled on from man, you will doubtless become an angel;
After that you are done with this earth: your station is in heaven.
Pass again even from angelhood: enter that ocean,
That your drop may become a sea which is a hundred Seas of ‘Oman.
Leave this ‘Son”, say ever ‘One’ with all your soul;
If your body has aged, what matter, when the soul is young?
Comment: One can clearly see that Rumi believes in unity of existence and his teachings have nothing to do with Islam.
P 59-61, poem 15:
This house wherein is continually the sound of the viol,
Ask of the master what house is this.
What means this idol-form, if this is the house of the Ka’ba?
And what means this light of God, if it is a Magian temple?
In this house is a treasure which the universe is too small to hold;
This house and this master is all acting and pretence.
Lay no hand on the house, for this house is a talisman;
Speak not with the master, for he is drunken overnight.
The dust and rubbish of this house is all musk and perfume;
The roof and door of this house is all verse and melody.
In fine, whoever has found the way into this house
is sultan of the world and Salomon of the time.
O master, bend down thy head once from this roof,
For in thy fair face is a token of fortune.
I swear by the soul that save the sight of thy countenance,
All, tho’ ‘twere the kingdom of the earth, is fantasy and fable.
The garden is bewildered to know which is the leaf, and which the blossom;
The birds are distracted to know which is the snare and which the bait.
This is the Lord of heaven, who resembles Venus and the moon,
This is the house of Love, which has no bound or end.
Like a mirror, the soul has received thy image in its heart;
The tip of thy curl has sunk into the heart like a comb.
Forasmuch as the women cut their hands in Joseph’s presence,
Come to me, O soul, for the Beloved is in the midst.
All the house are drunken- none has knowledge
Of each who enters that he is so-and-so or so-and-so
Do not sit intoxicated at the door: come into the house quickly;
He is in the dark whose place is the threshold.
Those drunk with God, tho’ they be thousands, are yet one;
Those drunk with lust-tho’ it be a single one, he is a double.
Go into the wood of lions and reck not of the wound,
For thought and fear- all these are figments of women.
For there is no wound: all is mercy and love,
But the imagination is like a bar behind the door.
Set fire to the wood, and keep silence, O heart;
Draw back thy tongue, for thy tongue is harmful.
Comment: Rumi does shamelessly compare the Ka’ba with Magian temple, he claims Allah resembles Venus, also after explaining Wahdtul Wujud, he finally declares that being wounded by a lion is a mercy and only result of imagination.
P 71-73: poem 17:
“I was on that day when the Names were not,
Nor any sign of existence endowed with name.
By me Names and Named were brought to view
On the day when there were not ‘I’ and ‘We.’
For a sign, the tip of the Beloved’s curl became a centre of revelation;
As yet the tip of that fair curl was not.
Cross and Christians, from end to end,
I surveyed; He was not on the Cross.
I went to the idol-temple, to the ancient pagoda;
No trace was visible there.
I went to the mountain of Heart and Candahar;
I looked; he was not in that hill-and-dale.
With set purpose I fared to the summit of Mount Qaf;
In that place was only the ‘Anqa’s habitation.
I bent the reins of search to the Ka’ba;
He was not in that resort of old and young.
I questioned Ibn Sina on his state;
He was not in Ibn Sina’s range.
I fared towards the scene of “the bow-lenghts’s distance”;
He was not in that exalted court.
I gazed into my heart;
There I saw Him, He was nowhere else.
Save pure-souled Shamsi Tabriz
None ever was drunken and intoxicated and distraught.”
Comment: the ‘Anqa for Sufis is an imaginary bird, representing the soul of man, and it is the Simurgh in Persian mythology, and the book “The speech of Birds” of Farid ud Din ‘Attar is based on these birds that want to see their King Simurgh. Also Sufis attribute many stories of saints being in this hidden mount Qaf.
How shocking, Rumi does not find Allah where the Prophet (saw) performed Miraj and Allah talked to Him, and this is referred by “the bow-lenghts’s distance” (Qaba Qawasayn) in Suran An-Najm, yet Rumi claims to find Allah in his heart. Also how Rumi equates the Ka’ba with temples and Cross, La Hawla wala Quwwata ila Billah.
P 105-107, poem 26:
From the bosom of Self I catch continually a scent of the Beloved:
How should I not, every night, take Self to my bosom?
Yestereve I was in Love’s garden: this desire came into my head:
His sun peeped forth from mine eye: the river (of tears) began to flow.
Each laughing rose that springs from his laughing lip
Has escaped the thorn of being, had avoided Dhu’lifqar.
Every tree and blade of grass was dancing in the meadow,
But in the view of the vulgar they were bound and at rest.
Suddenly on one side our Cypress appeared,
So that the garden became senseless and the plane clapped its hands.
A face like fire, wine like fire, love afire- all three delectable;
The soul, by reason of the mingled fires, was wailing ‘Where shall I flee?’
In the world of Divine Unity is no room for Number,
But Number necessarily exists in the world of Five and Four.
You may count a hundred thousand sweet apples in your hand:
If you wish to make One, crush them all together.
Behold, without regarding the letters, what is the language in the heart;
Pureness of colour is a quality derived from the Source of Action.
Shamsi Tabriz is seated in royal state, and before him
My rhymes are ranked like willing servants.
Comment: the example of hundred apples being crushed clearly shows that for these people existence is one, and differentiating between different existences is wrong. Also Rumi being a servant of Shamsi Tabriz shows that he considers his Peer as a manifestation of Allah.
P 121-123, poem 30:
“Thee I choose, of all the world, alone;
Wilt thou suffer me to sit in grief?
My heart is as a pen in thy hand,
Thou art the cause if I am glad or melancholy.
Save what thou willest, what will have I?
Save what thou showest, what do I see?
Thou mak’st grow out of me now a thorn and now a rose;
Now I smell roses and now pull thorns.
If thou keep’st me that, that I am;
If thou would’st have me this, I am this.
In the vessel where thou givest colour to the soul
Who am I, what is my love and hate?
Thou wert first, and last thou shalt be;
Make my last better than the first.
When thou are hidden, I am of the infidels;
When thou art manifest, I am of the faithful.
I have nothing, except thou hast bestowed it;
What dost thou seek from my bosom and sleeve?
P125-127, poem 31:
What is to be done, O Moslems? for I do not recognize myself.
I am neither Christian, nor Jew, nor Gabr, nor Moslem.
I am not of the East, nor of the West, nor of the land, nor of the sea;
I am not of Nature's mint, nor of the circling' heavens.
I am not of earth, nor of water, nor of air, nor of fire;
I am not of the empyrean, nor of the dust, nor of existence, nor of entity.
I am not of India, nor of China, nor of Bulgaria, nor of Saqsin
I am not of the kingdom of 'Iraqain, nor of the country of Khorasan
I am not of the this world, nor of the next, nor of Paradise, nor of Hell
I am not of Adam, nor of Eve, nor of Eden and Rizwan.
My place is the Placeless, my trace is the Traceless ;
'Tis neither body nor soul, for I belong to the soul of the Beloved.
I have put duality away, I have seen that the two worlds are one;
One I seek, One I know, One I see, One I call.
He is the first, He is the last, He is the outward, He is the inward;
I know none other except 'Ya Hu' and 'Ya man Hu.'
I am intoxicated with Love's cup, the two worlds have passed out of my ken;
I have no business save carouse and revelry.
If once in my life I spent a moment without thee,
From that time and from that hour I repent of my life.
If once in this world I win a moment with thee,
I will trample on both worlds, I will dance in triumph for ever.
O Shamsi Tabriz, I am so drunken in this world,
That except of drunkenness and revelry I have no tale to tell
Comment: What is it except clear Kufr and departure from the religion of Islam. Someone writes he is not a Muslim, and people describe him as a Muslim mystic, and Allah's religion has nothing to to with Rumi's writings. Anyone reading books of Hadith will see that the religion of the Sahabah learned from the ¨Prophet (saw) has nothing to do with this fabricated religion by misguided Sufis.
P 147-149, poem 147, in this long poem, below are some sentences:
“O thou whose command Hell and Paradise obey,
Thou art making Paradise like Hell-fire to me: do not so.
In thy plot of sugar-canes I am secure from poison;
Thou minglest the poison with the sugar: do not so,
My soul is like a fiery furnace, yet it sufficed thee not
By absence thou art making my face pale as gold: do not so.”
Comment: For these misguided Batinis Sufis, paradise and hell is a plot, and in reality none of these exist.
P 163-165: Poem 41:
“I saw my Beloved wandering about the house:
Ha had taken up a rebeck and was playing a tune.
With a touch like fire he was playing a sweet melody,
Drunken and distraught and bewitching from the night’s carouse.
He was invoking the cup-bearer in the mode of ‘Iraq:
Wine was his object, the cup-bearer was only an excuse.
The beauteous cup-bearer, pitcher in hand,
Stepped forth from a recess and placed it in the middle.
He filled the first cup with that sparkling wine-
Didst thou ever see water set on fire?
For the sake of those in love he passed it from hand to hand,
Then bowed and kissed the lintel.
My beloved received it from him, and quaffed the wine:
Instantly o’er his face and heard ran flashes of flame.
Meanwhile he was regarding his own beauty and saying to the evil eye,
‘There has not been nor will be in this age another like me. I am the Divine Sun of the world, I am the Beloved of lovers,
Soul and spirit are continually moving before me.’
Comment: The words “Divine Sun” (Shamsul Haqq) refer to Rumi’s teacher Shams Tabriz, and also in poem 64 p 175-177, the last sentences are:
“From the Sun (Shams) who is the glory of Tabriz seek future bliss,
For he is a sun, possessing all kinds of knowledge, on the spiritual throne.”
Also in the introduction, Nicholson told that sometimes Rumi is ambiguous in referring his teacher Shams Tabriz as being Allah, and he quoted the end of one of the poem of Divan (T. 180. 2) finishing with sentence:
“That monarch supreme had shut the door fast;
To-day he has come to the door, clothed in the garment of mortality”
Note: Divan T is the Tabriz Edition published version in 1280 AH, and his editor is Riza Kuli Khan, with the nom de plume Hidayat, and he is an authority of Persian history and literature.
So it shows that in all these poems, Rumi is hinting at his Beloved Shams Tabriz being in fact Allah.
In his appendix 1, Nicholson quoted a poem of Rumi from his “Divan” T.257.11a:
“I have circled awhile with the nine fathers in each heaven,
For years I have revolved with the stars in their signs.
I was invisible awhile, I was united with Him,
I was in the kingdom of “or nearer”, I saw what I have seen.
I have my nourishment from God, like a child in the womb;
Man is born once, I have been born many times.
Clothed in the mantle of corporal limbs, I have busied myself often with affairs,
And often I have rent this mantle with my own hands.
I have passed nights with ascetics in the monastery,
I have slept with infidels before the idols in the pagoda.
I am the theft of rogues, I am the pain of the sick,
I am both cloud and rain, I have remained in the meadows.
Never did the dust of annihilation settle on my skirt, O dervish!
I have gathered a wealth of roses in the meadow and garden of eternity.
I am not of water nor fire, I am not of the forward wind;
I am not moulded clay: I have mocked them all.
O son, I am not Shamsi Tabriz, I am the pure Light;
If thou seest me, beware! Tell it not to any, that thou hast seen.”
So this shows that behind Shams Tabriz, there was divine light according to Rumi, and Shams Tabriz told him not to tell this to anyone, that he was not Shams Tabriz but Allah in human cloth. Allahul Musta'an
And what Kufr is greater than this? These people clearly write their true creed and they hide it in most places and propagate it under the name of Islam in order to convert people to their fabricated religion. But their creed has nothing to do with the pure religion of Allah. May Allah protect us from this great danger.
"The forbidden Rumi" or last part of the "Divan Shams Tabrizi"
"The Forbidden Rumi" written by Will Johnson and Nevit Ergin is a translation of the 23th and last part of the “Divan” of Jalal ud Din Rumi. One can read in the book many poems of heresy and unity of religions:
P 157 in the poem "Everyone is welcome to This school", Rumi writes about unity if religions:
"Muslim, Christian, Jew, Zoroastrian:
All are welcome here"
P 159 in the poem "A stranger to myself" Rumi explains this even more.
"Islam and other faiths
have all come around so recently
yet Love has no beginning or end.
You can't call the unbeliever an infidel
if he's been the latest victim of love"
In the poem "I am the One" Rumi shows his belief in Wahdatul Wujud
"I became the One
whose name everybody takes an oath to.
I became Jesus to the moon.
I rose up and passed through the sky
I am the drunk Moses.
God himself lives inside this patched cloak.
I am crazy, insane, drunk out of mind
I don't listen to advice and deserve to be locked up"
he said at the end of this poem:
"When Muhammad sees me drunk, my face pale,
he kisses my eyes, then I prostrate before him.
I am today's Muhammad,
but not the Muhammad of the past
I am the phoenix of the time"
P 154 in the last two sentences of the poem "You can't get away" Rumi calls people to become heretics, saying :
"If you don't act like a heretic
you can't reach the truth in Islam"
Comment: this is a pure lie on the pure religion of Islam, Never did any Prophet or their Companions acted like heretics, rather this is the satanic saying of these misguided Sufis and their religion of heresy.
May Allah send Salah and Salam on the Prophet (saw), his household, Companions and those who follow them.
Compiled by Ali Hassan Khan di umm-ul-qura.org
One can see in the poems of this “Divan” clear call to Wahdatul Wujud (unity of existence) and Wahdatul Adyan (unity of religions). Nicholson translated some poems of this divan and called his book: “Selected poems from “Divan e Shams e Tabrizi”” and d this has been published by Ibex publishers.
P 29-31, poem 8:
The man of God is drunken without wine,
The man of God is full without meat.
The man of God is distraught and bewildered,
The man of God has no food or sleep.
The man of God is a king ‘neath darvish-cloak,
The man of God is a treasure in a ruin.
The man of God is not of air and earth,
The man of God is not of fire and water.
The man of God is a boundless sea,
The man of God rains pearls without a cloud.
The man of God hath hundred suns.
The man of God is made wise by the Truth,
The man of God is not learned from book.
The man of God is beyond infidelity and religion,
The man of God right and wrong are alike.
The man of God has ridden away from Not-being,
The man of God is gloriously attended.
The man of God is concealed, Shamsi Din;
The man of God do thou seek and find!
Comment: The last sentence shows that Rumi believes his Peer Shamsi Tabriz is in fact Allah, and the man of Allah seek and find him. And what a lie upon Allah's religion, the Muslims are not beyond infidility and religion, rather they follow the religion revealed by Allah, and these Batinis Sufis want to destroy the religion of Truth and replace it with their own religion inspired by Shaytan.
P 47-49, poem 12:
“Every form you see has its archetype in the placeless world;
If the form perished, no matter, since its original is everlasting.
Every fair shape you have seen, every deep saying you have heard,
Be no cast down that it perished; for that is not so.
Whereas the spring-head is undying, its branch gives water continually;
Since neither can cease, why are you lamenting?
Conceive the Soul as a fountain, and these created things as rivers:
While the fountain flows, the rivers run from it.
Put grief out of your head and keep quaffing this river-water;
Do not think of the water failing; for this water is without end.
From the moment you came into the world of being of being,
A ladder was placed before you that you might escape.
First you were mineral, later you turned to plant,
Then you became animal: how should this be a secret to you?
Afterwards you were made man, with knowledge, reason, faith;
Behold the body, which is a portion of the dust-pit, how perfect it has grown!
When you have travelled on from man, you will doubtless become an angel;
After that you are done with this earth: your station is in heaven.
Pass again even from angelhood: enter that ocean,
That your drop may become a sea which is a hundred Seas of ‘Oman.
Leave this ‘Son”, say ever ‘One’ with all your soul;
If your body has aged, what matter, when the soul is young?
Comment: One can clearly see that Rumi believes in unity of existence and his teachings have nothing to do with Islam.
P 59-61, poem 15:
This house wherein is continually the sound of the viol,
Ask of the master what house is this.
What means this idol-form, if this is the house of the Ka’ba?
And what means this light of God, if it is a Magian temple?
In this house is a treasure which the universe is too small to hold;
This house and this master is all acting and pretence.
Lay no hand on the house, for this house is a talisman;
Speak not with the master, for he is drunken overnight.
The dust and rubbish of this house is all musk and perfume;
The roof and door of this house is all verse and melody.
In fine, whoever has found the way into this house
is sultan of the world and Salomon of the time.
O master, bend down thy head once from this roof,
For in thy fair face is a token of fortune.
I swear by the soul that save the sight of thy countenance,
All, tho’ ‘twere the kingdom of the earth, is fantasy and fable.
The garden is bewildered to know which is the leaf, and which the blossom;
The birds are distracted to know which is the snare and which the bait.
This is the Lord of heaven, who resembles Venus and the moon,
This is the house of Love, which has no bound or end.
Like a mirror, the soul has received thy image in its heart;
The tip of thy curl has sunk into the heart like a comb.
Forasmuch as the women cut their hands in Joseph’s presence,
Come to me, O soul, for the Beloved is in the midst.
All the house are drunken- none has knowledge
Of each who enters that he is so-and-so or so-and-so
Do not sit intoxicated at the door: come into the house quickly;
He is in the dark whose place is the threshold.
Those drunk with God, tho’ they be thousands, are yet one;
Those drunk with lust-tho’ it be a single one, he is a double.
Go into the wood of lions and reck not of the wound,
For thought and fear- all these are figments of women.
For there is no wound: all is mercy and love,
But the imagination is like a bar behind the door.
Set fire to the wood, and keep silence, O heart;
Draw back thy tongue, for thy tongue is harmful.
Comment: Rumi does shamelessly compare the Ka’ba with Magian temple, he claims Allah resembles Venus, also after explaining Wahdtul Wujud, he finally declares that being wounded by a lion is a mercy and only result of imagination.
P 71-73: poem 17:
“I was on that day when the Names were not,
Nor any sign of existence endowed with name.
By me Names and Named were brought to view
On the day when there were not ‘I’ and ‘We.’
For a sign, the tip of the Beloved’s curl became a centre of revelation;
As yet the tip of that fair curl was not.
Cross and Christians, from end to end,
I surveyed; He was not on the Cross.
I went to the idol-temple, to the ancient pagoda;
No trace was visible there.
I went to the mountain of Heart and Candahar;
I looked; he was not in that hill-and-dale.
With set purpose I fared to the summit of Mount Qaf;
In that place was only the ‘Anqa’s habitation.
I bent the reins of search to the Ka’ba;
He was not in that resort of old and young.
I questioned Ibn Sina on his state;
He was not in Ibn Sina’s range.
I fared towards the scene of “the bow-lenghts’s distance”;
He was not in that exalted court.
I gazed into my heart;
There I saw Him, He was nowhere else.
Save pure-souled Shamsi Tabriz
None ever was drunken and intoxicated and distraught.”
Comment: the ‘Anqa for Sufis is an imaginary bird, representing the soul of man, and it is the Simurgh in Persian mythology, and the book “The speech of Birds” of Farid ud Din ‘Attar is based on these birds that want to see their King Simurgh. Also Sufis attribute many stories of saints being in this hidden mount Qaf.
How shocking, Rumi does not find Allah where the Prophet (saw) performed Miraj and Allah talked to Him, and this is referred by “the bow-lenghts’s distance” (Qaba Qawasayn) in Suran An-Najm, yet Rumi claims to find Allah in his heart. Also how Rumi equates the Ka’ba with temples and Cross, La Hawla wala Quwwata ila Billah.
P 105-107, poem 26:
From the bosom of Self I catch continually a scent of the Beloved:
How should I not, every night, take Self to my bosom?
Yestereve I was in Love’s garden: this desire came into my head:
His sun peeped forth from mine eye: the river (of tears) began to flow.
Each laughing rose that springs from his laughing lip
Has escaped the thorn of being, had avoided Dhu’lifqar.
Every tree and blade of grass was dancing in the meadow,
But in the view of the vulgar they were bound and at rest.
Suddenly on one side our Cypress appeared,
So that the garden became senseless and the plane clapped its hands.
A face like fire, wine like fire, love afire- all three delectable;
The soul, by reason of the mingled fires, was wailing ‘Where shall I flee?’
In the world of Divine Unity is no room for Number,
But Number necessarily exists in the world of Five and Four.
You may count a hundred thousand sweet apples in your hand:
If you wish to make One, crush them all together.
Behold, without regarding the letters, what is the language in the heart;
Pureness of colour is a quality derived from the Source of Action.
Shamsi Tabriz is seated in royal state, and before him
My rhymes are ranked like willing servants.
Comment: the example of hundred apples being crushed clearly shows that for these people existence is one, and differentiating between different existences is wrong. Also Rumi being a servant of Shamsi Tabriz shows that he considers his Peer as a manifestation of Allah.
P 121-123, poem 30:
“Thee I choose, of all the world, alone;
Wilt thou suffer me to sit in grief?
My heart is as a pen in thy hand,
Thou art the cause if I am glad or melancholy.
Save what thou willest, what will have I?
Save what thou showest, what do I see?
Thou mak’st grow out of me now a thorn and now a rose;
Now I smell roses and now pull thorns.
If thou keep’st me that, that I am;
If thou would’st have me this, I am this.
In the vessel where thou givest colour to the soul
Who am I, what is my love and hate?
Thou wert first, and last thou shalt be;
Make my last better than the first.
When thou are hidden, I am of the infidels;
When thou art manifest, I am of the faithful.
I have nothing, except thou hast bestowed it;
What dost thou seek from my bosom and sleeve?
P125-127, poem 31:
What is to be done, O Moslems? for I do not recognize myself.
I am neither Christian, nor Jew, nor Gabr, nor Moslem.
I am not of the East, nor of the West, nor of the land, nor of the sea;
I am not of Nature's mint, nor of the circling' heavens.
I am not of earth, nor of water, nor of air, nor of fire;
I am not of the empyrean, nor of the dust, nor of existence, nor of entity.
I am not of India, nor of China, nor of Bulgaria, nor of Saqsin
I am not of the kingdom of 'Iraqain, nor of the country of Khorasan
I am not of the this world, nor of the next, nor of Paradise, nor of Hell
I am not of Adam, nor of Eve, nor of Eden and Rizwan.
My place is the Placeless, my trace is the Traceless ;
'Tis neither body nor soul, for I belong to the soul of the Beloved.
I have put duality away, I have seen that the two worlds are one;
One I seek, One I know, One I see, One I call.
He is the first, He is the last, He is the outward, He is the inward;
I know none other except 'Ya Hu' and 'Ya man Hu.'
I am intoxicated with Love's cup, the two worlds have passed out of my ken;
I have no business save carouse and revelry.
If once in my life I spent a moment without thee,
From that time and from that hour I repent of my life.
If once in this world I win a moment with thee,
I will trample on both worlds, I will dance in triumph for ever.
O Shamsi Tabriz, I am so drunken in this world,
That except of drunkenness and revelry I have no tale to tell
Comment: What is it except clear Kufr and departure from the religion of Islam. Someone writes he is not a Muslim, and people describe him as a Muslim mystic, and Allah's religion has nothing to to with Rumi's writings. Anyone reading books of Hadith will see that the religion of the Sahabah learned from the ¨Prophet (saw) has nothing to do with this fabricated religion by misguided Sufis.
P 147-149, poem 147, in this long poem, below are some sentences:
“O thou whose command Hell and Paradise obey,
Thou art making Paradise like Hell-fire to me: do not so.
In thy plot of sugar-canes I am secure from poison;
Thou minglest the poison with the sugar: do not so,
My soul is like a fiery furnace, yet it sufficed thee not
By absence thou art making my face pale as gold: do not so.”
Comment: For these misguided Batinis Sufis, paradise and hell is a plot, and in reality none of these exist.
P 163-165: Poem 41:
“I saw my Beloved wandering about the house:
Ha had taken up a rebeck and was playing a tune.
With a touch like fire he was playing a sweet melody,
Drunken and distraught and bewitching from the night’s carouse.
He was invoking the cup-bearer in the mode of ‘Iraq:
Wine was his object, the cup-bearer was only an excuse.
The beauteous cup-bearer, pitcher in hand,
Stepped forth from a recess and placed it in the middle.
He filled the first cup with that sparkling wine-
Didst thou ever see water set on fire?
For the sake of those in love he passed it from hand to hand,
Then bowed and kissed the lintel.
My beloved received it from him, and quaffed the wine:
Instantly o’er his face and heard ran flashes of flame.
Meanwhile he was regarding his own beauty and saying to the evil eye,
‘There has not been nor will be in this age another like me. I am the Divine Sun of the world, I am the Beloved of lovers,
Soul and spirit are continually moving before me.’
Comment: The words “Divine Sun” (Shamsul Haqq) refer to Rumi’s teacher Shams Tabriz, and also in poem 64 p 175-177, the last sentences are:
“From the Sun (Shams) who is the glory of Tabriz seek future bliss,
For he is a sun, possessing all kinds of knowledge, on the spiritual throne.”
Also in the introduction, Nicholson told that sometimes Rumi is ambiguous in referring his teacher Shams Tabriz as being Allah, and he quoted the end of one of the poem of Divan (T. 180. 2) finishing with sentence:
“That monarch supreme had shut the door fast;
To-day he has come to the door, clothed in the garment of mortality”
Note: Divan T is the Tabriz Edition published version in 1280 AH, and his editor is Riza Kuli Khan, with the nom de plume Hidayat, and he is an authority of Persian history and literature.
So it shows that in all these poems, Rumi is hinting at his Beloved Shams Tabriz being in fact Allah.
In his appendix 1, Nicholson quoted a poem of Rumi from his “Divan” T.257.11a:
“I have circled awhile with the nine fathers in each heaven,
For years I have revolved with the stars in their signs.
I was invisible awhile, I was united with Him,
I was in the kingdom of “or nearer”, I saw what I have seen.
I have my nourishment from God, like a child in the womb;
Man is born once, I have been born many times.
Clothed in the mantle of corporal limbs, I have busied myself often with affairs,
And often I have rent this mantle with my own hands.
I have passed nights with ascetics in the monastery,
I have slept with infidels before the idols in the pagoda.
I am the theft of rogues, I am the pain of the sick,
I am both cloud and rain, I have remained in the meadows.
Never did the dust of annihilation settle on my skirt, O dervish!
I have gathered a wealth of roses in the meadow and garden of eternity.
I am not of water nor fire, I am not of the forward wind;
I am not moulded clay: I have mocked them all.
O son, I am not Shamsi Tabriz, I am the pure Light;
If thou seest me, beware! Tell it not to any, that thou hast seen.”
So this shows that behind Shams Tabriz, there was divine light according to Rumi, and Shams Tabriz told him not to tell this to anyone, that he was not Shams Tabriz but Allah in human cloth. Allahul Musta'an
And what Kufr is greater than this? These people clearly write their true creed and they hide it in most places and propagate it under the name of Islam in order to convert people to their fabricated religion. But their creed has nothing to do with the pure religion of Allah. May Allah protect us from this great danger.
"The forbidden Rumi" or last part of the "Divan Shams Tabrizi"
"The Forbidden Rumi" written by Will Johnson and Nevit Ergin is a translation of the 23th and last part of the “Divan” of Jalal ud Din Rumi. One can read in the book many poems of heresy and unity of religions:
P 157 in the poem "Everyone is welcome to This school", Rumi writes about unity if religions:
"Muslim, Christian, Jew, Zoroastrian:
All are welcome here"
P 159 in the poem "A stranger to myself" Rumi explains this even more.
"Islam and other faiths
have all come around so recently
yet Love has no beginning or end.
You can't call the unbeliever an infidel
if he's been the latest victim of love"
In the poem "I am the One" Rumi shows his belief in Wahdatul Wujud
"I became the One
whose name everybody takes an oath to.
I became Jesus to the moon.
I rose up and passed through the sky
I am the drunk Moses.
God himself lives inside this patched cloak.
I am crazy, insane, drunk out of mind
I don't listen to advice and deserve to be locked up"
he said at the end of this poem:
"When Muhammad sees me drunk, my face pale,
he kisses my eyes, then I prostrate before him.
I am today's Muhammad,
but not the Muhammad of the past
I am the phoenix of the time"
P 154 in the last two sentences of the poem "You can't get away" Rumi calls people to become heretics, saying :
"If you don't act like a heretic
you can't reach the truth in Islam"
Comment: this is a pure lie on the pure religion of Islam, Never did any Prophet or their Companions acted like heretics, rather this is the satanic saying of these misguided Sufis and their religion of heresy.
May Allah send Salah and Salam on the Prophet (saw), his household, Companions and those who follow them.
Compiled by Ali Hassan Khan di umm-ul-qura.org
Menyoal Ibnu Taimiyah dan Turunnya Allah ke Langit Dunia
Amongst the many scandals of the Jahmite Ash'aris is the manner of their discussion regarding Ibn Taymiyyah and the issue of when Allaah descends, whether His Throne becomes unoccupied (yakhloo minhu al-arsh) or not (laa yakhloo minhu al-arsh) - an issue spoken of by the Salaf in response to the statements being made by the Jahmites of the time.
In his lecture on the biography of Abu Hasan al-Ash'ari one amongst the Jahmite Ash'aris of Philadelphia said:
So this was their methodology, we don't say Allaah made istiwaa on the Throne "bi hadd", with a limit, with a boundary, with a barrier. So he made istiwaa over the Throne and then there is a barrier between him and the Throne, that's the takyeef, thats giving it a kaifiyyah that's, a modality and they did not used to say that. They didn't say that He made istiwaa over the Throne and the Throne became full of Him and He descends to the first heaven without the Throne becoming empty of him. They did not say nothing like that ...some people who came later who were Hanbalees said some of that stuff [with a snug smile on his face] .... OK Ibn Taymiyah used to say that [laughter from audience] he is the one who used to say that... this was not the methodology of the early Hanbalee scholars and Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (rahimahullaahu ta'aalaa) himself. So this needs to be kept in mind.
Although there are numerous issues in this statement (some of which we have addressed elsewhere) we will suffice with only the parts that have been highlighted. To see some of the previous issues clarified see these articles: Here, here and here.
Get some good background information that puts this topic into a wider historical context by reading this article: The Origins of Jahmeespeak (here).
Understanding What These Jahmites Are Upon From a Historical Perspective
First we need to look at the behaviour of the Salaf towards the likes of these Jahmites - for their negating that Allaah is above the Creation, separate and distinct from it, and we will take from the example of Abdullaah bin Abi Ja'far ar-Raazee (d. after 200H) - as is narrated by Ibn Abee Haatim in his "ar-Radd 'alal-Jahmiyyah" and which was quoted by Imaam adh-Dhahabi (in al-Uluww):
Here is a translation of the above quote:
From Saalih bin ad-Darees who said: Abdullaah began beating the head of a relative of his who held the view of Jahm. So I saw him beating him on his head with a sandal whilst saying, "No (I will not stop), (not) until you say Ar-Rahmaan ascended above the Throne, separate and distinct from His creation (ar-Rahmaanu 'alal-arsh istawaa, baa'inun min khalqihi)."
And by Ibn al-Qayyim (in Ijtimaa' Juyoosh al-Islaamiyyah):
And the translation of the above quote:
Saalih bin ad-Darees said: Abdullaah bin Abi Ja'far (ar-Raazee) began beating a relative of his - who held the view of Jahm - on his head with a sandal whilst saying, "No (I will not stop), (not) until you say Ar-Rahmaan ascended above the Throne, separate and distinct from His creation (ar-Rahmaanu 'alal-arsh istawaa, baa'inun min khalqihi)." It was mentioned by Abdur-Rahmaan bin Abi Haatim in the book "ar-Radd alal-Jahmiyyah".
The Jahmites were the first to start denying Allaah is above His creation, above the Throne, and they were the first to start denying the Sifaat Fi'liyyah or af'aal iktiyaariyyah (those actions of Allaah that are tied to His will and choice) - and this happened well over a century, if not two, before the Ash'arites were even known as a faction - so the Salaf stood to refute their falsehood, and to discipline them - and we see Abdullaah bin Abi Ja'far ar-Raazee using a sandal for someone affected with the poison of Jahm - and today - it is befitting that such people are beaten with two sandals - because they have no excuse in following the falsehood of Jahm bin Safwan which has been exposed the world over - so there is no excuse for following falsehood once its reality has been made manifest - and is there any falsehood that is not as abundantly clear than that of the Jahmites who negated their is a Lord above the heaven?
The Jahmites began to say, "Allaah is in every place" and these were the Hulooli Jahmees, and there were other Jahmites who began to say, "Allaah does not have a place", and they were the Mu'attil Jahmees, those who were saying things like, "He is not inside the universe, nor outside of the universe". And they also began to say regarding Allaah's Nuzool, "We disbelieve in a Lord that moves from His place", and they said this latter phrase in order to deny Allaah's actions such as al-istiwaa (Ascent over the Throne) and an-Nuzool (Descent). And they began reviling the narrations and raising doubts such as whether Allaah leaves the Throne when descending or not. So the Salaf stood to expose, refute and discipline such people and to clarify the truth. And you have to remember that this was almost two centuries before the As'hari madhhab was formalized and known as such.
And the Jahmites whom we are addressing in this article are simply the 20th century offsprings of those Jahmites of old - they haven't brought anything new, since falsehood merely regenerates itself and brings nothing new. So these Jahmite Ash'aris whom we are addressing they are negators of Allaah being above His creation, above His Throne, and they are negators of Allaah's istiwaa and negators of Allaah's Nuzool. And their precedence in that is their Jahmite ancestors of old.
And we have to distinguish between the earlier figures in the Ash'ari madhhab like Abu Hasan al-Ash'ari and Abu Bakr al-Baqillani from the Later Ash'aris (after Imaam ul-Haramayn al-Juwaynee, d. 478H) who simply adopted the views of the Jahmiyyah and the Mu'tazilah into their creed. Al-Ash'ari and al-Baqillani affirmed Allaah is above His Throne, with His essence, and that He has the attributes of Face, Hand and Eyes, without any of that resembling or being likened to the creation and without that necessitating for Allaah, confinement in space or being a body like the bodies. And you can see other articles on this site for a corroboration of that:
Al-Baqillani: Allah is above the Throne with His Essence, without that necessitating tajseem (here)
Al-Baqillani: Allaah is above the Throne and not in every place (here)
Al-Baqillani: Affirms sifaat Fi'liyyah (here)
Al-Baqillani: Affirms attributes of Face Hands and Eyes Without ta'weel or Takyeef (here)
Jahmite Ash'aris Shaken and Disturbed By Al-Baqillani's Affirmation al-uluww for Allaah (here)
Al-Qurtubi's Corroboration of al-Baqillani's Affirmation of al-uluww (here)
Buth the (later and contemporary) Jahmite Ash'aris negate these attributes of Allaah because they reverted back to the original roots of ta'teel which lie in the doctrines of the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah.
And their reasons are that saying that Allaah is "above" means, by necessity, declaring him to be a body, subject to non-essential, incidental attributes (a'raad, such as space, location, direction, length, breadth, depth, etc.) and also because performance of actions by Allaah means that events occur within Him and this necessitates change (which only the creation is subject to) - and in reality these claims they made were the heritage of the Jahmites as well as the fabrications of their own minds - and they are not the necessities of the clear verses of the Qur'aan and the clear ahaadeeth of the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).
Get some good background information that puts this topic into a wider historical context by reading this article: The Origins of Jahmeespeak (here).
And inshaa'Allaah we will address their doubts and misconceptions and let this article be the disciplinary sandal of Abdullah bin Abi Ja'far ar-Raazee (rahimahullaah) ...
Uncovering the Jahmite's Dishonesty and Scandalous Fraud
Before proceeding to uncover the scandal it is appropriate to demonstrate exactly how these Jahmite's behave and there is nothing more appropriate to illustrate than what has been quoted in another article:
There emerged a group who showed enmity towards Ibn Taymiyyah, some of them did not understand his words, and some of interpreted his words upon the foundational principles of those besides him, so such a one did not act justly, even if he [Ibn Taymiyyah] spoke the truth. So for example, an-Nawawee in al-Majmoo' says, "Whoever claims Allaah is a jism (body), then he is a disbeliever by the unanimous agreement of the Muslims".
And Ibn Taymiyyah when he was asked, "Can the [saying] be applied to Allaah that he is a jism (body)?". So he replied: "This is innovated speech, however I do not declare the one who says Allaah is a body (jism) to be a disbeliever". So then they said, "Ibn Taymiyyah says that Allaah is a body (jism)". Yet Ibn Taymiyyah says, "This is innovated speech" and in other places in his books, such as "Sharh Hadeeth in-Nuzool", he says, "We say to the one who says Allaah is a body (jism): What is your intent by this? If your intent is that Allaah is divisible and separable (into parts), then this is a statement of disbelief, the one who says it is more severe in disbelief than the Jews and the Christians. And if the intent of the one who says it is that Allaah is true (i.e. exists and is true and real), that He is separate from the creation (aalam) and can be alluded to, then this is an innovatory statement, but the one who says it is not a disbeliever".
Remember this well, for this is the behaviour of the Jahmite Ash'aris in what they quote from and ascribe to Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah. Pretending to wave the flag of Tanzeeh (which is in reality ta'teel and Tahreef) does not grant you authority to use deception when discussing the statements of others.
Point 1: On Integrity in Quoting and Narrating Other People's Statements
When you ascribe a viewpoint or statement to others - even if they are your opponents or adversaries - it is not permissible to fabricate lies upon them and to accuse them of originating something they did not originate when it is in fact the saying of someone else which they mentioned, discussed and evaluated.
So when we look at the book of Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah "Sharh Hadeeth in-Nuzool" - the explanation of the Hadeeth of Descent - we find that the entire book was written in response to a question.
Here is the opening page of the book:
In the opening page of the book we can see that a question has been posed to Shaykh ul-Islaam:
What does our chief and our shaykh, Shaykh ul-Islaam, the good example for mankind, may Allaah strengthen him and be pleased with him, say regarding two men who argued concerning the hadeeth of an-Nuzool (descent), one of them an affirmer and the other a negator:
The affirmer said: Our Lord descends every night to the lowest heaven when there remains the last third of the night. The negator replied: How does He descend? The affirmer replied: He descends without asking how. The negator replied: Does the Throne become unoccupied (of Him) or not become unoccupied (of Him). The affirmer replied: This is an innovated saying, and a fabricated opinion.
The negator replied: This is not my answer, rather it is evading the answer. The affirmer replied: This is your answer.
The negator replied: It is His command (amr) and mercy (rahmah) that descends. The affimer replied: His command and His mercy descend at all times (kullu saa'ah) and the descent has been specified by the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) in the last third of the night.
The negator replied: The night is not equal in the countries, for in one country the night is fifteen hours long and its day is nine hours long. And in another country it is sixteen hours long while the day is eight hours long, and vice versa. Hence, there is variation in the length and shortness of the night, according to regions and countries. And in some countries the night and day are equal, and in some countries the night extends until it lasts for most of the twenty-four hours with the day only lasting for a short time. It is necessitated from this that it is always the last third of the night, and that the Lord is always descending to the heaven.
And putting and end to this doubt and ambiguity, and subduing the people of misguidance is what is being requested.
He (Shaykh ul-Islaam) responded ...
Thus, the entire book was written in response to this question. And as we shall see, this question arose because of the doubts of the Jahmees who negated the Actions of Allaah tied to His will, the sifaat fi'iliyyah, like istiwaa and nuzool. And with no surprises - that's what the Ash'aris are upon too.
And in attempting to negate Allaah's Nuzool, they began to raise questions such as "Is Allaah always descending since it is always night at some place or other"? And "Does the Throne become unoccupied of Him or not?" And they started saying "We do not believe in a Lord that moves from His place (yazoolu an makaanihi)", intending by that to negate the sifaat fi'liyyah. This was their aim in raising these doubts.
They were the first to raise these questions of doubt and ambiguity aimed at nullifying the texts - and today's Jahmite Ash'aris simply follow their ancestry. The difference being that the very first Jahmites never had access to the philosophical ideas of the Greek and Hindu Mushriks (Atomism) which the Mu'tazili and Ash'arite Theologians used and by which they continued the work of the Jahmiyyah in stripping Allaah of His attributes based upon rational and philosophical arguments.
And this is typical of the Jahmite mindset which simply inherited the ta'teel of the Mushrik Sabean Philosophers amongst the Chaldeans of the people of Nimrod. And it is said that al-Ja'd bin Dirham (the originator of the negation of Allaah's attributes in this Ummah) was from the land of Harraan where the remnants of these people remained and he took their sayings. And then from al-Ja'd did Jahm Ibn Safwaan take his speech and popularize it.
Point 2: On Actually Understanding or Grasping What Your Opponent or Adversary is Saying or Discussing Before Ascribing to Them or Imputing Them With Anything
Ibn Taymiyyah discusses each part of the abovementioned question posed to him, and we will take up the discussion from when he discusses the issue raised by the negator in the original dialogue between the two men as to whether the Throne becomes unoccupied or not when Allaah descends.
The subject is introduced on pages 132-133, when Ibn Taymiyyah begins addressing the doubts invented by the Jahmee negators:
Ibn Taymiyyah's Commentary and Discussion on the Topic
We can summarise Ibn Taymiyyah's words on this topic in the following points:
ONE: Ibn Taymiyyah says that the person saying this maybe one who negates Allaah is above the Throne or one who affirms Allaah is above the Throne. Depending on what he believes will determine how he is to be answered. If he does not affirm Allaah is above the Throne to begin with, then his question, "Does the Throne become unoccupied of Him or not" is false speech, since it is something that follows on from Him being above the Throne. And if he affirms Allaah is above the Throne, then there is a different course of dialogue with him, and Ibn Taymiyyah covers that response over the next few pages (pp. 135-137). And as the person asking this question could be:
One who claims Allaah is in every place (like the Huloolee Jahmees), or
It could be one who says He is neither separate from the creation nor within it (like the Mu'attil Jahmees), which means He does not exist as this is something impossible, or
It could be one who affirms Allaah being above the creation but he denies the Nuzool (descent) making ta'weel of it (with Allaah's "mercy" or "command") .
Then each one has a different response, so Ibn Taymiyyah refutes each one of these and deals with the false ta'weels of the last group in detail, demolishing them from their foundations (pp.139-149).
And from the noteworthy things he mentions in the course of refuting the ta'weel of the last group is (p. 138):
And one of the negators of al-uluww (Allaah being above the heavens, above His Throne) was asked about the Nuzool (Descent) and he replied: "His command descends". And so the questioner said to him: "To you there is nothing above the universe, so from whom did the command descend? From pure nothingness?" And so he was stupefied (overcome).
TWO: Between pages 149 to 162, Ibn Taymiyyah mentions what has been reported from the affirmers (Ahl ul-Ithbaat) on the specific issue of whether when Allaah descends, does His Throne become unoccupied of Him or not? And he mentions the three sayings held by the Ahl ul-Hadeeth wal-Athar.
Here are the relevant pages where he quotes the opinions from the Salaf:
He states:
Then after all this: When He descends, does the Throne become unoccupied of Him or does it not become unoccupied? This is a different matter about which the affirmers (Ahl ul-Ithbaat) have spoken:
So amongst them are those who said: the Throne does not become unoccupied of Him, and this is transmitted from (Imaam) Ahmad bin Hanbal in his risaalah to Musaddad, and from Ishaaq bin Raahawaih, and Hammaad bin Zaid and Uthmaan bin Sa'eed ad-Daarimee and others ... (p.149)
And Ibn Taymiyyah mentions some of these narrations that have been transmitted from those whom he mentions (p. 151):
Al-Khallaal said in the book "as-Sunnah" - [mentions chain of narration]: Bishr bin as-Suraa asked Hammaad bin Zaid (d.179H): "O Abu Ismaa'eel, the hadeeth which has come: Our Lord descends to the lowest heaven, does He move from one place to another (min makaanin ilaa makaanin)? So Hammaad remained silent for a while and then said: "He is where He is (huwa fee makaanihi), and He comes close to His creation however He wills".
And the verifier of the treatise adds in the footnote, "This narration was reported by al-Uqaylee in his book ad-Du'afaa (1/142) through Ja'far al-Firyaabee. And Ibn Battah also reported it in al-Ibaanat ul-Kubraa with something similar, as occurs in Mukhtasar al-Ibaanah (p. 197) through Abu Haatim, from Sulayman bin Harb. And Ibn Taymiyyah also reported it in Dar ut-Ta'aarud al-Aql wan-Naql (2/24) and in al-Isfahaaniyyah (p. 25) and he ascribed it to al-Khallaal in Kitaab us-Sunnah.
NOTE: Bishr bin as-Suraa - he used to be a Jahmee, adh-Dhahabee quotes the saying of al-Humaydee about him, "Jahmee, it is not permissible to write from him", and adh-Dhahabee followed this up by saying, "As for Tajahhum, then he recanted from that, and his hadeeth is in the six books (of hadeeth)". And al-Bukhari says about him, as occurs in al-Meezaan, "Bishr bin as-Suraa, Abu Amr, the admonisher, theologian (mutakallim)", and Ibn Ma'een said, "thiqah". He died in 195H.
So he used to be a Jahmee, and he is the one who posed this question to Hammaad bin Zayd, in relation to the hadeeth of Nuzool, "Does He move from one place to another (min makaanin ilaa makaanin)...", and Hammaad bin Zayd (d. 179H) said, "He is where He is..." using the phrase "...huwa fee makaanihi..." and at this time the clangor made by the later Ash'arite Theologians by way of the words jihah (direction) and makaan (place, location) had not occurred, we are speaking here just after the middle of the second century, and that's around two centuries before the formalization of the Ash'ari madhhab.
And this doubt that the Jahmite Ash'aris use, it is the legacy of the Jahmites before them from the second century after hijrah - as we can clearly see from this doubt raised by Bishr bin as-Suraa.
And Ibn Taymiyyah also brings on page 151 the same narration from Ibn Battah in his al-Ibaanah.
Then on page 152 he brings another narration from Ibn Battah:
Ibn Battah said: [mentions chain of narration]: Alee bin Khushram said: Ishaaq bin Raahawaih said: I entered upon Abdullaah bin Taahir [the Ameer] and he said: "What are these ahaadeeth that you are narrating?" I said: "[About] what thing, may Allaah rectify the Ameer?" He said, "YOu are narrating that Allaah descends to the lowest heaven". I said: "Yes, the trustworthy (narrators) who also narrate the (ahaadeeth) of the ahkaam (rulings) have narrated them". He said: Does He descend and leave His Throne?" He (Ishaaq) said: I said: Is He able to descend without the Throne being unoccupied of Him?" He said: "Yes". I said: "And why are you speaking about this?"
And on page 153 Ibn Taymiyyah comments on this, saying:
And Abdullah bin Taahir - and he is the best of those who had authority over Khurasaan. He used to know that Allaah was above the Throne, but His descending became difficult for him due to his impression that this would necessitate the Throne being unoccupied of Him. So the Imaam, Ishaaq confirmed from him (that he holds) that He is above the Throne, and he said to him, "Is He able to descend without the Throne being unoccupied of Him", and the ameer said, "Yes", and Ishaaq said to him, "Why are you speaking about this?"
So he (Ishaaq) says that if He is able to do that, then it is not binding from His descending that the Throne becomes unoccupied of Him, and thus it is not permissible to object against the Nuzool (descent) because it necessitates that the Throne becomes unoccupied of Him. And this would be an easier (situation) than the objection of one who said: "There is not anything above the Throne" as a result of which (such a one) rejects both this and that (i.e. Allaah being above the Throne, and His descent).
And Ibn Taymiyyah continues on page 160, saying (about the other two views):
And this translates:
And the Ahl ul-Hadeeth have three sayings regarding this (having already covered the first on page 149):
Amongst them: The one who rejected that it should be said: It becomes unoccupied or does not become unoccupied, as al-Haafidh Abdul-Ghaniyy al-Maqdisee and others say (p.161).
And amongst them: The one who says "Rather, the Throne becomes unoccupied of Him" and Abul-Qasim Abdur-Rahmaan bin Abee Abdillaah bin Muhammad bin Mandah has authored a work which he called, "A Reply To The One Who Claimed That Allaah Is in Every Place (Fee Kulli Makaan), and To the One Who Claims Allah Does Not Have a Place (Laysa Lahu Makaan) And To The One Who Interpreted the Descent Upon Other Than the Descent"...
And the intent of Ibn Mandah (d. 475H) was to refute the Jahmiyyah, those who said that a) Allaah is in every place (the Hulooli Jahmees) and also those who claimed that b) Allaah does not have a place, which means He does not exist and this faction are those Mu'attil Jahmees who said "He is not outside the creation, nor within the creation" and also c) those who made ta'weel of the nuzool to something else.
And here some of the Salaf used the word "makaan" in response to the sayings of the Jahmiyyah (see further below) - and they used this word when quoting what the Jahmiyyah were saying and clarifying the truth in that regard, and their intent was clear - that Allaah exists, separate and distinct from His creation and that Allaah is where He is, above His Throne, above the seven heavens, without that necessitating enclosure, since there is nothing in existence, outside of and separate and distinct from the creation, except the Creator - in opposition to the Jahmites who began to say either a) He is in every place or b) He is not in any place. So some of the Salaf like Hammaad bin Zayd (d. 179H), said - in relation to the Nuzool, which the Jahmites (both the Hulooli and Mu'attil types) tried to reject - "huwa fee makaanihi" meaning, He is where He is (above the Throne) and He comes close to His creation however He wills.
And we are speaking here just after the middle of the second century (i.e. around 150H) and the clangor of the Mutakallimoon Ash'arite Theologians about terms they began using such as "makaan" (space, location) and "jihah" (direction) and enclosure by space (tahayyuz) and so on - in order to deny Allaah's uluww (ascendancy with His Essence) - had not happened at this point. That happened well over a century after (at the end of the third and beginning of the fourth century) when they inherited the legacy of the Mu'tazilah and Jahmiyyah (in denial of the attributes).
Note: The Ibn Mandah (d. 470H) referred to here by Shaykh ul-Islaam is the son of the other Ibn Mandah (d. 395H) who also wrote "ar-Radd alal-Jahmiyyah" and on page 174, after discussing the risaalah of Ibn Mandah (the son), Ibn Taymiyyah says: "The generality of the refutation of Ibn Mandah is sound and applies to them, however he added certain things on account of which innovation was ascribed to him, and this is why they used to prefer his father, Abu Abdullaah [Ibn Mandah (d.395H)] over him, and Ismaa'eel bin Muhammad bin al-Fadl at-Taymee and others used to speak about him (the son) regarding that as is well known about them."
THREE: And between these pages (pp.149-161) Ibn Taymiyyah mentions narrations from the Salaf in this regard which show the doubts raised by the Jahmites - and from them:
What is narrated by Abu Bakr al-Athram in "as-Sunnah" regarding Fudayl bin 'Iyaad (d.187H)
Ibraaheem bin al-Ash'at said: I heard Fudayl bin 'Iyaad say: When a Jahmee says to you, "I disbelieve in a Lord that moves from His place (yazool an makaanihi)" then say, "I believe in a Lord that does what He wills".
And Ibn Taymiyyah explains this by saying:
Al-Fudayl bin Iyaad (may Allaah have mercy upon him) intended to oppose the Jahmee who says that no actions tied to will and choice (al-af'aal al-ikhtiyaariyyah), actions tied to Allaah's will) are established with Him, and thus, we cannot imagine about Him that He "comes (majee')" or "arrives (Ityaan)" or "descends (Nuzool)" or "ascends (istiwaa)" and other such actions from the actions tied to will and choice (al-af'aal al-ikhtiyaariyyah) that are established with Him. So al-Fudayl said: When a Jahmee says to you, "I disbelieve in a Lord that moves from His place (yazool an makaanihi)" then say, "I believe in a Lord that does what He wills". So he commanded him to believe in a Lord that does what He wills of the actions that are established with His Self, and which He wills, he (al-Fudayl) did not mean the performed actions (occurring in the creation, that Allaah creates) separate from Him [but he meant the actions established with His Self]. And the likes of this is what has been reported from al-Awzaa'ee (d. 157H) and others from the Salaf, that they said regarding the hadeeth of Nuzool: "He does what He wills".
And Ibn Taymiyyah quotes from al-Laalikaa'ee, who narrates Ahmad bin Alee al-Abaar that he said:
I heard Yahyaa bin Ma'een (d. 233H) say: When you hear a Jahmee say: "I disbelieve in a Lord that descends", then say: believe in a Lord that does what He wishes".
And then Ibn Taymiyyah refutes the opinion of the Mutakallimoon (Theologians, amongst the Ash'arees) and others who tried to use the saying of al-Fudayl bin Iyaad "I believe in a Lord that does what He wills" to mean that Allaah creates the action of "Nuzool" in something else that is separate from Him (i.e. something in the creation) and thus when it is said, "Allaah's Nuzool" it is not an action established with Allah but an action that Allaah created, established in other than Him - making the fi'l (action) to be the maf'ool (that which is done). So Ibn Taymiyyah explains that they say this because
To them the actions of Allaah refer to actions He creates in the creation which are established with other than Himself, and that He does not perform actions Himself as such and
They deny that any affairs (actions) that are tied to His Will occur from Him, because this necessitates in their view that He undergoes changes (hawaadith, events).
So Ibn Taymiyyah refutes them on this issue (pp. 155-160) and establishes that what al-Fudayl bin Iyaad meant by his saying was to establish those actions for Allaah that are tied to His will and choice (al-fi'l al-ikhtiyaariyy).
FOUR: With respect to Ibn Mandah (the son), Shaykh ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah discusses his viewpoint in the risaalah that he wrote (referred to ealier) and he spends the next 40 pages summarising what Ibn Mandah (the son) said. Ibn Mandah was attempting to refute three groups of people who all denied the Nuzool but in different ways. And they were
The Hulooli Jahmites who said Allaah is in every place
The Mu'attil Jahmites who said Allaah is not in any place
the Mutakallimoon who made ta'weel of the Nuzool - doing that on account of their belief that Allaah has no Sifaat Fi'liyyah (actions tied to Allaah's will).
And Ibn Mandah also wrongly held that those who clarified that when Allaah descends, He is able to descend without the Throne becoming unoccupied of Him, - and they said that in response to the Jahmites who were saying, "I disbelieve in a Lord that moves from His place" - he (Ibn Mandah) held that by saying such a thing, they also denied the Nuzool, due to his mistaken notion that Nuzool can only be by the Throne becoming unoccupied of Him.
We can summarize and highlight the main points from the 40 page discussion with the following points:
(A) Ibn Taymiyyah covers the critique of Ibn Mandah (the son) upon the authenticity of the risaalah of the Imaam Ahmad to Musaddad in which there occurs, "and then He (Allaah) descends to the lowest heaven and the Throne does not become unoccupied of Him (laa yakhloo minhu al-arsh)..." - as this opposes Ibn Mandah's opinion and methodology of refuting the Jahmees, so he argues that it is not authentically ascribed to Imaam Ahmad. However, this risaalah is established from Imaam Ahmad, and Ibn Taymiyyah says (p. 201):
As for the risaalah of Ahmad bin Hanbal to Musaddad bin Musrahad, then it is well known to Ahl ul-Hadeeth was-Sunnah from the companions of Ahmad and others, they all took it with acceptance. And Abu Abdullah Ibn Battah mentioned it in his book "al-Ibaanah", and more than one (person) relied upon it, and wrote (a copy of it) with his own script, such as al-Qaadee Abu Ya'laa.
(B) Ibn Taymiyyah mentions that Ibn Mandah (the son) narrated all the ahaadeeth on the subject and said that none of them mention that the Throne becomes unoccupied of Him and he treats those who said "Allaah descends and the Throne does not become unoccupied of him..." [and they said this in refutation of the Jahmiyyah] to be the same as those who say, "No space is empty of Him" and those who say, "Allaah is in no place". And Ibn Taymiyyah comments on this view of Ibn Mandah (the son) saying:
I say: Those who speak with that (from the Ahl ul-Hadeeth) [meaning those who say "the Throne does not become unoccupied of Him"] did not say: "This wording is in the hadeeth", and there is not anything in the hadeeth that "the Throne does not become unoccupied of Him" or "the Throne becomes unoccupied of Him" as is claimed by those who claim that. So there is nothing in the hadeeth, neither the wording of those who affirm that, nor the wording of those who negate that...
(C) Ibn Taymiyyah mentions what Ibn Mandah (the son) quotes from his father (d. 395H) on page 175-176:
My father said in refuting the one who made ta'weel of the descent (an-nuzool) to other than the descent and who sought to use fabricated ahaadeeth to nullify the authentic narrations: "And al=Mareesee (d. 218H) claimed that he speaks with the hadeeth of descent, but he distorted it in front of those who attended his gathering, and in his khutbah he rejected what Allaah revealed of proofs in His Book, and what the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) explained in that He descends with His Essence (bi dhaatihi), and he interpreted the descent figuratively to mean "Command (al-amr)" and "Prohibition (an-nahee)", not a real descent, and he claimed that their scholars, knowledgeable of the usool declare Allaah free of movement (changing places), and so he nullified everything that has been narrated on this subject, since his madhhab is other than what is manifest from the hadeeth, and (due to) his dependence upon the futile figurative interpretation, and corrupt understanding...
And after Ibn Mandah (the son's) quote from his father, Ibn Taymiyyah said (p.179):
So this is what Abdur-Rahman (Ibn Mandah) quoted from the speech of his father, and his father was more knowledgeable than him, had greater understanding and was more upright and exact in his speech.
(D) Ibn Taymiyyah continues to cover Ibn Mandah's reply and documents the part where Ibn Mandah treats those who say, "I disbelieve in a Lord that descends and ascends" to be the same as those who say, "I believe in a Lord [whose] Throne does not become unoccupied of Him" - and he considers both of these to be negators of Allaah's Nuzool. This is because of his erroneous understanding of the hadeeth, as Ibn Taymiyyah points out himself. Ibn Taymiyyah says regarding the likes of al-Fudayl bin Iyaad and what they said (i.e. "I believe in a Lord that does what He wills"):
It is known that the intent of those (i.e. the likes of al-Fudayl bin 'Iyaad and Yahyaa bin Ma'een) was to affirm al-fi'l al-ikhtiyaariyy (the action of Allaah tied to His will) that is established with Him. However, alongside this, there is nothing in their speech that shows that they believed that the Throne became unoccupied of Him, or that He does not remain upon the Throne (due to His descent) - as Abdur-Rahmaan has mentioned and as he claims is the meaning of the hadeeth.
Here Ibn Taymiyyah (p. 182) declares Ibn Mandah (the son) to be in error with regard to his understanding of the hadeeth itself (of an-Nuzool) and of what some of the Salaf said in refuting the Jahmiyyah (like al-Fudayl and Yahyaa bin Ma'een).
The essence of what Ibn Taymiyyah discusses in this section is that Ibn Mandah wrongly thought that when they (the Salaf) said "We believe in a Lord that does what He wills", that they understood the Throne to become unoccupied of Him and that He no longer remains above the Throne - and he (Ibn Mandah) thought that this is a defense of the affirmation of the descent (an-nuzool) and that anyone who denied this was negating the descent (an-nuzool) but he was mistaken in that - and as a result of some of what he put in this book he was spoken against, as Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned previously.
Although we have not finished this article yet, the deception and scandal of the Jahmite Ash'ari in his casual and snide remark in what we have quoted from him at the very beginning should be manifestly clear at this stage, even though we have not finished yet. Ibn Taymiyyah is simply discussing the various viewpoints held by the Ahl ul-Hadeeth wal-Athar regarding questions and doubts raised first by the Heretical Jahmites to whom they were responding. And these Heretical Jahmites began saying "Does Allaah move from His place?" and "Does the Throne become unoccupied of Him?" and so on, and so they invented these phrases and these doubts and the Salaf investigated these sayings with a view to arriving what is correct regarding them.
And we see the Ash'arites after them, who acquired the tools of the Greek and Hindu philosophical concepts which they entered into their theology and used to negate Allaah's uluww and Allaah's Sifaat Fi'liyyah - in the same vain as that of the Jahmites before them - and they inherited the legacy of the Jahmites, and they also retained the influence of the Mu'tazilites and adopted the ta'weels of Bishr al-Mareesee al-Hanafee al-Jahmee.
FIVE: Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah at the end of this section, after mentioning all of the narrations that Ibn Mandah (the son) included in his treatise, then says on pages 200-201:
You should pay very close attention here, as this represents the essence of the whole discussion on this issue:
... and he (meaning Ibn Mandah) shows rejection against the one who says "the Throne does not become unoccupied of Him", and he considers this (statement) to be the same as the one who says, "He is in every place" and (the same) as the one who says, "He is not in a place".
And his (Ibn Mandah's) speech is of the same category of speech as the faction that thinks that only two sayings are possible:
The saying of the one who says: He descends with a descent in which His Throne becomes unoccupied of Him
The saying of the one who says: There isn't any descent at all, to begin with - such as the saying of the one who says: He does not have any action established with His self that occurs out of His choice.
And these two groups [i.e. Ibn Mandah on the one hand and the Mutakallimoon, those who negate the sifaat fi'liyyah]: There is no Nuzool in their view except the Nuzool that the bodies of the servants are described with, [that] which necessitates the vacating of one space and occupying of another.
Amongst them [the first group] are those who negate the descent (an-nuzool) from Him, freeing him from the likes of that.
And amongst them [the second group] who affirm for him a descent of this type, which necessitates vacating a place and occupying another.
So those (the first, those negating the nuzool) say (to the second group), "This is falsehood", thus the first saying is incumbent - just as those who oppose them (the second group) say (to the first group) "That saying is falsehood", so the second saying is incumbent.
And they (the second group, such as the likes of Ibn Mandah) carry the speech of the Salaf, "He does what He wills" to mean that it is a descent in which His Throne becomes unoccupied of Him, and those who oppose them (from the Mutakallimoon) carry it upon the meaning that (Allaah doing what He wills means) it is an action separate from Allaah [meaning Allaah does not do the action of Nuzool, but creates the act in something other than Him, thus making it from His maf'oolaat and not His af'aal].
And to sum up: Those who say that the Throne becomes unoccupied of Him are a very small faction amongst Ahl ul-Hadeeth. And the majority of them are upon (the view) that His Throne does not become unoccupied of Him (laa yakhloo minhu al-arsh), and this is what is reported from the Imaams known for the Sunnah.
And there has not been reported from any single one of them with an isnaad that is authentic or weak that the Throne becomes unoccupied of Him and what Abdur-Rahman (Ibn Mandah) has mentioned about weakening those narrations from Ishaaq (bin Raahawaih), then we have mentioned the other established narration which Ibn Battah and others have reported.
And we mentioned also the wording established from Sulayman bin Harb and Hammaad bin Zayd, reported by al-Khallaal and others.
As for the risaalah of Ahmad bin Hanbal to Musaddad bin Musrahad, then it is well known to Ahl ul-Hadeeth was-Sunnah from the companions of Ahmad and others, they all took it with acceptance. And Abu Abdullah Ibn Battah mentioned it in his book "al-Ibaanah", and more than one (person) relied upon it, and wrote (a copy of it) with his own script, such as al-Qaadee Abu Ya'laa.
The affair is crystal clear. Ibn Taymiyyah has simply narrated what has come from the likes of Imaam Ahmad, Ishaaq bin Raahawaih, Hammaad bin Zaid and others all of whom clarified that Allaah does not have to leave the Throne in order to descend, and this clarification was made in response to the Jahmites, the Huloolis and the Mu'attils amongst them, who attempted to negate the Nuzool in their own ways - amongst which was their saying, "I disbelieve in a Lord that moves from His place (yazoolu an makaanihi)" . So the Salaf clarified that Allaah does whatever He wills and His Nuzool does not mean He leaves the Throne and becomes encompassed within the Creation - and this is what the Jahmites intended, and they reviled these narrations which were reported through tawaatur (successive, large-scale transmission).
Get some good background information that puts this topic into a wider historical context by reading this article: The Origins of Jahmeespeak (here).
So we request the Philadelphian Jahmite Ash'ari to recant and to make clarification of his error in his claim about Ibn Taymiyyah, that he was the one who originated this matter. Rather it was the theological ancestors of this Jahmite who initiated this matter in the time of the likes of Abdullah Ibn al-Mubaarak, Hammaad bin Zayd, and Fudayl bin Iyaad, and these Scholars clarified the truth, as did Imaam Ahmad and Ishaaq bin Raahawaih.
Its no surprise that it was the Jahmites who stirred this issue against Ishaaq bin Raahawaih by complaining to the Ameer Abdullaah bin Taahir about his narrating the ahaadeeth of Nuzool, exactly as they have come.
And its no surprise that the same Jahmites stirred this issue in the time of Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah.
And its no surprise that it is the same species of Mareesee Jahmite in our times, the likes of al-Kawtharee, al-Habashee and their followers and tail-ends who have stirred this issue against Ahl us-Sunnah - there precedence in all of that being none other than al-Ja'd bin Dirham and al-Jahm bin Safwan.
SIX: Right at the very end of this book "Sharh Hadeeth in-Nuzool" Ibn Taymiyyah states what is obligatory in this matter (p. 459):
Ibn Taymiyyah said:
And that which it is obligatory [to speak with] definitively: Is that Allaah, there is nothing that is a likeness to Him in everything that He has described Himself with. Thus, anyone who describes Him with the likeness of the attributes of the creation in anything from amongst the things, then he is errant, definitively, absolutely. Such as the one who says, "He descends, undergoing motion and movement (yataharrak, yantaqil) just like a person descends from the roof to the lowest part of the house" and like the saying of the one who says, "His Throne becomes unoccupied of Him, and so His descent is vacating one space and occupying another", and this is baatil (false), it is obligatory to free the Lord from this, as has preceded.
And here Ibn Taymiyyah has made it very clear - that those who speak about Allaah's Nuzool in the terms of what is found in the creation - are speaking with falsehood - and that it is obligatory to free Allaah from this.
POINT 3: What is Now Obligatory Upon the Jahmite Ash'ari Who Sought To Accuse Ibn Taymiyyah Of Originating This Matter
After everything that has preceded the Jahmite Ash'ari has no option except to apologise and recant for what he said. More specifically, it would be befitting and in accord with the truth for him to say:
I take back my mockery and sarcasm against Ibn Taymiyyah when I implied he was amongst the first of those who said that Allaah's Throne does not become unoccupied of Him when He makes the Nuzool. I acknowledge my factual error in this regard and accept that in actual fact this is narrated from the Salaf and Ibn Taymiyyah was simply discussing why and how this issue arose and he quoted specifically from Imaam Ahmad and others. So I am mistaken in that regard and take this back.
I realise that my Jahmite belief of negating that Allaah is above the Throne, above the seven Heavens, does not in any way allow me to misrepresent the words of my opponent, or to falsely accuse my opponent of something that did not originate with him, and that I should apply the Qur'anic principle of not letting hatred of a people prevent from abiding by justice.
I acknowledge the feebleness of my intellect, in fact, the feebleness of the intellects of a thousand Jahmites like me combined, compared to that of Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah and I now understand and appreciate what adh-Dhahabee means when he says, in his various statements of praise for Ibn Taymiyyah:
...the prodigy of the era, author of amazing works, and (a manifestation) of excessive intelligence...His associates and also his enemies humble themselves in front of his sciences, acknowledge the swiftness of his understanding, that he is a river which has no banks (i.e. no end), a treasure for which there is no equal...He would not approach (any matter) with a faulty and evil understanding, rather he had excessive intelligence. And nor would he approach any matter with lack of knowledge, for he was an overflowing ocean, having firm knowledge and insight of the Book and the Sunnah, without there being any equal to him in that... And if he was to talk about the various religions and factions, no one who was more vast in knowledge or greater in meticulousness could be seen. He surpassed his contemporaries in every science and my eyes have not seen the likes of him and nor have his eyes seen the likes of himself...
For Ibn Taymiyyah discussed the issue with breadth and depth - and taking it all from the Salaf - and it wasn't simply something he said of his own accord, and what I stated was simply an ignorant and shallow statement that completely misrepresents the truth of the situation.
I acknowledge that it was actually the Jahmites who originated this issue - those with whom I share the belief that Allaah is not above His Throne, above His creation, and that He does not have actions tied to His Will and Choice - they (the early Jahmites) originated this issue in order to deny the Nuzool - something which I also do - following them in that.
Following on from the last point, I acknowledge that the reason why this issue arose was because my Jahmite Ancestry began to say "Allah is in every place" and "Allah is in no place", and "It is not Allah that descends, but His Command, or His Mercy that descends" and "I disbelieve in a Lord that moves from His place" and so when my Jahmite Ancestry began to raise these issues, the likes of Hammaad bin Zayd, Abdullah Ibn al-Mubaarak, Fudayl bin Iyaad, Ishaaq bin Raahawaih and others stood to clarify the truth and to warn from falsehood - and that this was in the middle to the end of the second century, well before the likes of Abul-Hasan al-Ash'ari and Abu Bakr al-Baqillani.
I acknowledge the severity of the Salaf in dealing with the poison of Jahm (of negating Allah being above the Throne, and negating His having sifaat Fi'liyyah), such as what was done by Abdullah bin Abi Ja'far with his relative who began speaking with the speech of Jahm - and I realise that all of this took place centuries before the later Ash'arite Mutakallimoon acquired this same Jahmite poison into their kalaamist theology - and this helps me to position my own Jahmite aqeedah more accurately in terms of what its real sources and roots are.
I understand the importance of actually understanding what my opponent said, and what he actually wrote before opening my mouth, and so I resolve not to do this again.
sumber:The Philadelphian Jahmite Ash'ari Scandals Of 2009: Regarding Ibn Taymiyyah, Allaah's Nuzool and the Jahmee Invented Doubt Concerning Whether the Throne Becomes Unoccupied or Not
In his lecture on the biography of Abu Hasan al-Ash'ari one amongst the Jahmite Ash'aris of Philadelphia said:
So this was their methodology, we don't say Allaah made istiwaa on the Throne "bi hadd", with a limit, with a boundary, with a barrier. So he made istiwaa over the Throne and then there is a barrier between him and the Throne, that's the takyeef, thats giving it a kaifiyyah that's, a modality and they did not used to say that. They didn't say that He made istiwaa over the Throne and the Throne became full of Him and He descends to the first heaven without the Throne becoming empty of him. They did not say nothing like that ...some people who came later who were Hanbalees said some of that stuff [with a snug smile on his face] .... OK Ibn Taymiyah used to say that [laughter from audience] he is the one who used to say that... this was not the methodology of the early Hanbalee scholars and Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (rahimahullaahu ta'aalaa) himself. So this needs to be kept in mind.
Although there are numerous issues in this statement (some of which we have addressed elsewhere) we will suffice with only the parts that have been highlighted. To see some of the previous issues clarified see these articles: Here, here and here.
Get some good background information that puts this topic into a wider historical context by reading this article: The Origins of Jahmeespeak (here).
Understanding What These Jahmites Are Upon From a Historical Perspective
First we need to look at the behaviour of the Salaf towards the likes of these Jahmites - for their negating that Allaah is above the Creation, separate and distinct from it, and we will take from the example of Abdullaah bin Abi Ja'far ar-Raazee (d. after 200H) - as is narrated by Ibn Abee Haatim in his "ar-Radd 'alal-Jahmiyyah" and which was quoted by Imaam adh-Dhahabi (in al-Uluww):
Here is a translation of the above quote:
From Saalih bin ad-Darees who said: Abdullaah began beating the head of a relative of his who held the view of Jahm. So I saw him beating him on his head with a sandal whilst saying, "No (I will not stop), (not) until you say Ar-Rahmaan ascended above the Throne, separate and distinct from His creation (ar-Rahmaanu 'alal-arsh istawaa, baa'inun min khalqihi)."
And by Ibn al-Qayyim (in Ijtimaa' Juyoosh al-Islaamiyyah):
And the translation of the above quote:
Saalih bin ad-Darees said: Abdullaah bin Abi Ja'far (ar-Raazee) began beating a relative of his - who held the view of Jahm - on his head with a sandal whilst saying, "No (I will not stop), (not) until you say Ar-Rahmaan ascended above the Throne, separate and distinct from His creation (ar-Rahmaanu 'alal-arsh istawaa, baa'inun min khalqihi)." It was mentioned by Abdur-Rahmaan bin Abi Haatim in the book "ar-Radd alal-Jahmiyyah".
The Jahmites were the first to start denying Allaah is above His creation, above the Throne, and they were the first to start denying the Sifaat Fi'liyyah or af'aal iktiyaariyyah (those actions of Allaah that are tied to His will and choice) - and this happened well over a century, if not two, before the Ash'arites were even known as a faction - so the Salaf stood to refute their falsehood, and to discipline them - and we see Abdullaah bin Abi Ja'far ar-Raazee using a sandal for someone affected with the poison of Jahm - and today - it is befitting that such people are beaten with two sandals - because they have no excuse in following the falsehood of Jahm bin Safwan which has been exposed the world over - so there is no excuse for following falsehood once its reality has been made manifest - and is there any falsehood that is not as abundantly clear than that of the Jahmites who negated their is a Lord above the heaven?
The Jahmites began to say, "Allaah is in every place" and these were the Hulooli Jahmees, and there were other Jahmites who began to say, "Allaah does not have a place", and they were the Mu'attil Jahmees, those who were saying things like, "He is not inside the universe, nor outside of the universe". And they also began to say regarding Allaah's Nuzool, "We disbelieve in a Lord that moves from His place", and they said this latter phrase in order to deny Allaah's actions such as al-istiwaa (Ascent over the Throne) and an-Nuzool (Descent). And they began reviling the narrations and raising doubts such as whether Allaah leaves the Throne when descending or not. So the Salaf stood to expose, refute and discipline such people and to clarify the truth. And you have to remember that this was almost two centuries before the As'hari madhhab was formalized and known as such.
And the Jahmites whom we are addressing in this article are simply the 20th century offsprings of those Jahmites of old - they haven't brought anything new, since falsehood merely regenerates itself and brings nothing new. So these Jahmite Ash'aris whom we are addressing they are negators of Allaah being above His creation, above His Throne, and they are negators of Allaah's istiwaa and negators of Allaah's Nuzool. And their precedence in that is their Jahmite ancestors of old.
And we have to distinguish between the earlier figures in the Ash'ari madhhab like Abu Hasan al-Ash'ari and Abu Bakr al-Baqillani from the Later Ash'aris (after Imaam ul-Haramayn al-Juwaynee, d. 478H) who simply adopted the views of the Jahmiyyah and the Mu'tazilah into their creed. Al-Ash'ari and al-Baqillani affirmed Allaah is above His Throne, with His essence, and that He has the attributes of Face, Hand and Eyes, without any of that resembling or being likened to the creation and without that necessitating for Allaah, confinement in space or being a body like the bodies. And you can see other articles on this site for a corroboration of that:
Al-Baqillani: Allah is above the Throne with His Essence, without that necessitating tajseem (here)
Al-Baqillani: Allaah is above the Throne and not in every place (here)
Al-Baqillani: Affirms sifaat Fi'liyyah (here)
Al-Baqillani: Affirms attributes of Face Hands and Eyes Without ta'weel or Takyeef (here)
Jahmite Ash'aris Shaken and Disturbed By Al-Baqillani's Affirmation al-uluww for Allaah (here)
Al-Qurtubi's Corroboration of al-Baqillani's Affirmation of al-uluww (here)
Buth the (later and contemporary) Jahmite Ash'aris negate these attributes of Allaah because they reverted back to the original roots of ta'teel which lie in the doctrines of the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah.
And their reasons are that saying that Allaah is "above" means, by necessity, declaring him to be a body, subject to non-essential, incidental attributes (a'raad, such as space, location, direction, length, breadth, depth, etc.) and also because performance of actions by Allaah means that events occur within Him and this necessitates change (which only the creation is subject to) - and in reality these claims they made were the heritage of the Jahmites as well as the fabrications of their own minds - and they are not the necessities of the clear verses of the Qur'aan and the clear ahaadeeth of the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).
Get some good background information that puts this topic into a wider historical context by reading this article: The Origins of Jahmeespeak (here).
And inshaa'Allaah we will address their doubts and misconceptions and let this article be the disciplinary sandal of Abdullah bin Abi Ja'far ar-Raazee (rahimahullaah) ...
Uncovering the Jahmite's Dishonesty and Scandalous Fraud
Before proceeding to uncover the scandal it is appropriate to demonstrate exactly how these Jahmite's behave and there is nothing more appropriate to illustrate than what has been quoted in another article:
There emerged a group who showed enmity towards Ibn Taymiyyah, some of them did not understand his words, and some of interpreted his words upon the foundational principles of those besides him, so such a one did not act justly, even if he [Ibn Taymiyyah] spoke the truth. So for example, an-Nawawee in al-Majmoo' says, "Whoever claims Allaah is a jism (body), then he is a disbeliever by the unanimous agreement of the Muslims".
And Ibn Taymiyyah when he was asked, "Can the [saying] be applied to Allaah that he is a jism (body)?". So he replied: "This is innovated speech, however I do not declare the one who says Allaah is a body (jism) to be a disbeliever". So then they said, "Ibn Taymiyyah says that Allaah is a body (jism)". Yet Ibn Taymiyyah says, "This is innovated speech" and in other places in his books, such as "Sharh Hadeeth in-Nuzool", he says, "We say to the one who says Allaah is a body (jism): What is your intent by this? If your intent is that Allaah is divisible and separable (into parts), then this is a statement of disbelief, the one who says it is more severe in disbelief than the Jews and the Christians. And if the intent of the one who says it is that Allaah is true (i.e. exists and is true and real), that He is separate from the creation (aalam) and can be alluded to, then this is an innovatory statement, but the one who says it is not a disbeliever".
Remember this well, for this is the behaviour of the Jahmite Ash'aris in what they quote from and ascribe to Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah. Pretending to wave the flag of Tanzeeh (which is in reality ta'teel and Tahreef) does not grant you authority to use deception when discussing the statements of others.
Point 1: On Integrity in Quoting and Narrating Other People's Statements
When you ascribe a viewpoint or statement to others - even if they are your opponents or adversaries - it is not permissible to fabricate lies upon them and to accuse them of originating something they did not originate when it is in fact the saying of someone else which they mentioned, discussed and evaluated.
So when we look at the book of Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah "Sharh Hadeeth in-Nuzool" - the explanation of the Hadeeth of Descent - we find that the entire book was written in response to a question.
Here is the opening page of the book:
In the opening page of the book we can see that a question has been posed to Shaykh ul-Islaam:
What does our chief and our shaykh, Shaykh ul-Islaam, the good example for mankind, may Allaah strengthen him and be pleased with him, say regarding two men who argued concerning the hadeeth of an-Nuzool (descent), one of them an affirmer and the other a negator:
The affirmer said: Our Lord descends every night to the lowest heaven when there remains the last third of the night. The negator replied: How does He descend? The affirmer replied: He descends without asking how. The negator replied: Does the Throne become unoccupied (of Him) or not become unoccupied (of Him). The affirmer replied: This is an innovated saying, and a fabricated opinion.
The negator replied: This is not my answer, rather it is evading the answer. The affirmer replied: This is your answer.
The negator replied: It is His command (amr) and mercy (rahmah) that descends. The affimer replied: His command and His mercy descend at all times (kullu saa'ah) and the descent has been specified by the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) in the last third of the night.
The negator replied: The night is not equal in the countries, for in one country the night is fifteen hours long and its day is nine hours long. And in another country it is sixteen hours long while the day is eight hours long, and vice versa. Hence, there is variation in the length and shortness of the night, according to regions and countries. And in some countries the night and day are equal, and in some countries the night extends until it lasts for most of the twenty-four hours with the day only lasting for a short time. It is necessitated from this that it is always the last third of the night, and that the Lord is always descending to the heaven.
And putting and end to this doubt and ambiguity, and subduing the people of misguidance is what is being requested.
He (Shaykh ul-Islaam) responded ...
Thus, the entire book was written in response to this question. And as we shall see, this question arose because of the doubts of the Jahmees who negated the Actions of Allaah tied to His will, the sifaat fi'iliyyah, like istiwaa and nuzool. And with no surprises - that's what the Ash'aris are upon too.
And in attempting to negate Allaah's Nuzool, they began to raise questions such as "Is Allaah always descending since it is always night at some place or other"? And "Does the Throne become unoccupied of Him or not?" And they started saying "We do not believe in a Lord that moves from His place (yazoolu an makaanihi)", intending by that to negate the sifaat fi'liyyah. This was their aim in raising these doubts.
They were the first to raise these questions of doubt and ambiguity aimed at nullifying the texts - and today's Jahmite Ash'aris simply follow their ancestry. The difference being that the very first Jahmites never had access to the philosophical ideas of the Greek and Hindu Mushriks (Atomism) which the Mu'tazili and Ash'arite Theologians used and by which they continued the work of the Jahmiyyah in stripping Allaah of His attributes based upon rational and philosophical arguments.
And this is typical of the Jahmite mindset which simply inherited the ta'teel of the Mushrik Sabean Philosophers amongst the Chaldeans of the people of Nimrod. And it is said that al-Ja'd bin Dirham (the originator of the negation of Allaah's attributes in this Ummah) was from the land of Harraan where the remnants of these people remained and he took their sayings. And then from al-Ja'd did Jahm Ibn Safwaan take his speech and popularize it.
Point 2: On Actually Understanding or Grasping What Your Opponent or Adversary is Saying or Discussing Before Ascribing to Them or Imputing Them With Anything
Ibn Taymiyyah discusses each part of the abovementioned question posed to him, and we will take up the discussion from when he discusses the issue raised by the negator in the original dialogue between the two men as to whether the Throne becomes unoccupied or not when Allaah descends.
The subject is introduced on pages 132-133, when Ibn Taymiyyah begins addressing the doubts invented by the Jahmee negators:
Ibn Taymiyyah's Commentary and Discussion on the Topic
We can summarise Ibn Taymiyyah's words on this topic in the following points:
ONE: Ibn Taymiyyah says that the person saying this maybe one who negates Allaah is above the Throne or one who affirms Allaah is above the Throne. Depending on what he believes will determine how he is to be answered. If he does not affirm Allaah is above the Throne to begin with, then his question, "Does the Throne become unoccupied of Him or not" is false speech, since it is something that follows on from Him being above the Throne. And if he affirms Allaah is above the Throne, then there is a different course of dialogue with him, and Ibn Taymiyyah covers that response over the next few pages (pp. 135-137). And as the person asking this question could be:
One who claims Allaah is in every place (like the Huloolee Jahmees), or
It could be one who says He is neither separate from the creation nor within it (like the Mu'attil Jahmees), which means He does not exist as this is something impossible, or
It could be one who affirms Allaah being above the creation but he denies the Nuzool (descent) making ta'weel of it (with Allaah's "mercy" or "command") .
Then each one has a different response, so Ibn Taymiyyah refutes each one of these and deals with the false ta'weels of the last group in detail, demolishing them from their foundations (pp.139-149).
And from the noteworthy things he mentions in the course of refuting the ta'weel of the last group is (p. 138):
And one of the negators of al-uluww (Allaah being above the heavens, above His Throne) was asked about the Nuzool (Descent) and he replied: "His command descends". And so the questioner said to him: "To you there is nothing above the universe, so from whom did the command descend? From pure nothingness?" And so he was stupefied (overcome).
TWO: Between pages 149 to 162, Ibn Taymiyyah mentions what has been reported from the affirmers (Ahl ul-Ithbaat) on the specific issue of whether when Allaah descends, does His Throne become unoccupied of Him or not? And he mentions the three sayings held by the Ahl ul-Hadeeth wal-Athar.
Here are the relevant pages where he quotes the opinions from the Salaf:
He states:
Then after all this: When He descends, does the Throne become unoccupied of Him or does it not become unoccupied? This is a different matter about which the affirmers (Ahl ul-Ithbaat) have spoken:
So amongst them are those who said: the Throne does not become unoccupied of Him, and this is transmitted from (Imaam) Ahmad bin Hanbal in his risaalah to Musaddad, and from Ishaaq bin Raahawaih, and Hammaad bin Zaid and Uthmaan bin Sa'eed ad-Daarimee and others ... (p.149)
And Ibn Taymiyyah mentions some of these narrations that have been transmitted from those whom he mentions (p. 151):
Al-Khallaal said in the book "as-Sunnah" - [mentions chain of narration]: Bishr bin as-Suraa asked Hammaad bin Zaid (d.179H): "O Abu Ismaa'eel, the hadeeth which has come: Our Lord descends to the lowest heaven, does He move from one place to another (min makaanin ilaa makaanin)? So Hammaad remained silent for a while and then said: "He is where He is (huwa fee makaanihi), and He comes close to His creation however He wills".
And the verifier of the treatise adds in the footnote, "This narration was reported by al-Uqaylee in his book ad-Du'afaa (1/142) through Ja'far al-Firyaabee. And Ibn Battah also reported it in al-Ibaanat ul-Kubraa with something similar, as occurs in Mukhtasar al-Ibaanah (p. 197) through Abu Haatim, from Sulayman bin Harb. And Ibn Taymiyyah also reported it in Dar ut-Ta'aarud al-Aql wan-Naql (2/24) and in al-Isfahaaniyyah (p. 25) and he ascribed it to al-Khallaal in Kitaab us-Sunnah.
NOTE: Bishr bin as-Suraa - he used to be a Jahmee, adh-Dhahabee quotes the saying of al-Humaydee about him, "Jahmee, it is not permissible to write from him", and adh-Dhahabee followed this up by saying, "As for Tajahhum, then he recanted from that, and his hadeeth is in the six books (of hadeeth)". And al-Bukhari says about him, as occurs in al-Meezaan, "Bishr bin as-Suraa, Abu Amr, the admonisher, theologian (mutakallim)", and Ibn Ma'een said, "thiqah". He died in 195H.
So he used to be a Jahmee, and he is the one who posed this question to Hammaad bin Zayd, in relation to the hadeeth of Nuzool, "Does He move from one place to another (min makaanin ilaa makaanin)...", and Hammaad bin Zayd (d. 179H) said, "He is where He is..." using the phrase "...huwa fee makaanihi..." and at this time the clangor made by the later Ash'arite Theologians by way of the words jihah (direction) and makaan (place, location) had not occurred, we are speaking here just after the middle of the second century, and that's around two centuries before the formalization of the Ash'ari madhhab.
And this doubt that the Jahmite Ash'aris use, it is the legacy of the Jahmites before them from the second century after hijrah - as we can clearly see from this doubt raised by Bishr bin as-Suraa.
And Ibn Taymiyyah also brings on page 151 the same narration from Ibn Battah in his al-Ibaanah.
Then on page 152 he brings another narration from Ibn Battah:
Ibn Battah said: [mentions chain of narration]: Alee bin Khushram said: Ishaaq bin Raahawaih said: I entered upon Abdullaah bin Taahir [the Ameer] and he said: "What are these ahaadeeth that you are narrating?" I said: "[About] what thing, may Allaah rectify the Ameer?" He said, "YOu are narrating that Allaah descends to the lowest heaven". I said: "Yes, the trustworthy (narrators) who also narrate the (ahaadeeth) of the ahkaam (rulings) have narrated them". He said: Does He descend and leave His Throne?" He (Ishaaq) said: I said: Is He able to descend without the Throne being unoccupied of Him?" He said: "Yes". I said: "And why are you speaking about this?"
And on page 153 Ibn Taymiyyah comments on this, saying:
And Abdullah bin Taahir - and he is the best of those who had authority over Khurasaan. He used to know that Allaah was above the Throne, but His descending became difficult for him due to his impression that this would necessitate the Throne being unoccupied of Him. So the Imaam, Ishaaq confirmed from him (that he holds) that He is above the Throne, and he said to him, "Is He able to descend without the Throne being unoccupied of Him", and the ameer said, "Yes", and Ishaaq said to him, "Why are you speaking about this?"
So he (Ishaaq) says that if He is able to do that, then it is not binding from His descending that the Throne becomes unoccupied of Him, and thus it is not permissible to object against the Nuzool (descent) because it necessitates that the Throne becomes unoccupied of Him. And this would be an easier (situation) than the objection of one who said: "There is not anything above the Throne" as a result of which (such a one) rejects both this and that (i.e. Allaah being above the Throne, and His descent).
And Ibn Taymiyyah continues on page 160, saying (about the other two views):
And this translates:
And the Ahl ul-Hadeeth have three sayings regarding this (having already covered the first on page 149):
Amongst them: The one who rejected that it should be said: It becomes unoccupied or does not become unoccupied, as al-Haafidh Abdul-Ghaniyy al-Maqdisee and others say (p.161).
And amongst them: The one who says "Rather, the Throne becomes unoccupied of Him" and Abul-Qasim Abdur-Rahmaan bin Abee Abdillaah bin Muhammad bin Mandah has authored a work which he called, "A Reply To The One Who Claimed That Allaah Is in Every Place (Fee Kulli Makaan), and To the One Who Claims Allah Does Not Have a Place (Laysa Lahu Makaan) And To The One Who Interpreted the Descent Upon Other Than the Descent"...
And the intent of Ibn Mandah (d. 475H) was to refute the Jahmiyyah, those who said that a) Allaah is in every place (the Hulooli Jahmees) and also those who claimed that b) Allaah does not have a place, which means He does not exist and this faction are those Mu'attil Jahmees who said "He is not outside the creation, nor within the creation" and also c) those who made ta'weel of the nuzool to something else.
And here some of the Salaf used the word "makaan" in response to the sayings of the Jahmiyyah (see further below) - and they used this word when quoting what the Jahmiyyah were saying and clarifying the truth in that regard, and their intent was clear - that Allaah exists, separate and distinct from His creation and that Allaah is where He is, above His Throne, above the seven heavens, without that necessitating enclosure, since there is nothing in existence, outside of and separate and distinct from the creation, except the Creator - in opposition to the Jahmites who began to say either a) He is in every place or b) He is not in any place. So some of the Salaf like Hammaad bin Zayd (d. 179H), said - in relation to the Nuzool, which the Jahmites (both the Hulooli and Mu'attil types) tried to reject - "huwa fee makaanihi" meaning, He is where He is (above the Throne) and He comes close to His creation however He wills.
And we are speaking here just after the middle of the second century (i.e. around 150H) and the clangor of the Mutakallimoon Ash'arite Theologians about terms they began using such as "makaan" (space, location) and "jihah" (direction) and enclosure by space (tahayyuz) and so on - in order to deny Allaah's uluww (ascendancy with His Essence) - had not happened at this point. That happened well over a century after (at the end of the third and beginning of the fourth century) when they inherited the legacy of the Mu'tazilah and Jahmiyyah (in denial of the attributes).
Note: The Ibn Mandah (d. 470H) referred to here by Shaykh ul-Islaam is the son of the other Ibn Mandah (d. 395H) who also wrote "ar-Radd alal-Jahmiyyah" and on page 174, after discussing the risaalah of Ibn Mandah (the son), Ibn Taymiyyah says: "The generality of the refutation of Ibn Mandah is sound and applies to them, however he added certain things on account of which innovation was ascribed to him, and this is why they used to prefer his father, Abu Abdullaah [Ibn Mandah (d.395H)] over him, and Ismaa'eel bin Muhammad bin al-Fadl at-Taymee and others used to speak about him (the son) regarding that as is well known about them."
THREE: And between these pages (pp.149-161) Ibn Taymiyyah mentions narrations from the Salaf in this regard which show the doubts raised by the Jahmites - and from them:
What is narrated by Abu Bakr al-Athram in "as-Sunnah" regarding Fudayl bin 'Iyaad (d.187H)
Ibraaheem bin al-Ash'at said: I heard Fudayl bin 'Iyaad say: When a Jahmee says to you, "I disbelieve in a Lord that moves from His place (yazool an makaanihi)" then say, "I believe in a Lord that does what He wills".
And Ibn Taymiyyah explains this by saying:
Al-Fudayl bin Iyaad (may Allaah have mercy upon him) intended to oppose the Jahmee who says that no actions tied to will and choice (al-af'aal al-ikhtiyaariyyah), actions tied to Allaah's will) are established with Him, and thus, we cannot imagine about Him that He "comes (majee')" or "arrives (Ityaan)" or "descends (Nuzool)" or "ascends (istiwaa)" and other such actions from the actions tied to will and choice (al-af'aal al-ikhtiyaariyyah) that are established with Him. So al-Fudayl said: When a Jahmee says to you, "I disbelieve in a Lord that moves from His place (yazool an makaanihi)" then say, "I believe in a Lord that does what He wills". So he commanded him to believe in a Lord that does what He wills of the actions that are established with His Self, and which He wills, he (al-Fudayl) did not mean the performed actions (occurring in the creation, that Allaah creates) separate from Him [but he meant the actions established with His Self]. And the likes of this is what has been reported from al-Awzaa'ee (d. 157H) and others from the Salaf, that they said regarding the hadeeth of Nuzool: "He does what He wills".
And Ibn Taymiyyah quotes from al-Laalikaa'ee, who narrates Ahmad bin Alee al-Abaar that he said:
I heard Yahyaa bin Ma'een (d. 233H) say: When you hear a Jahmee say: "I disbelieve in a Lord that descends", then say: believe in a Lord that does what He wishes".
And then Ibn Taymiyyah refutes the opinion of the Mutakallimoon (Theologians, amongst the Ash'arees) and others who tried to use the saying of al-Fudayl bin Iyaad "I believe in a Lord that does what He wills" to mean that Allaah creates the action of "Nuzool" in something else that is separate from Him (i.e. something in the creation) and thus when it is said, "Allaah's Nuzool" it is not an action established with Allah but an action that Allaah created, established in other than Him - making the fi'l (action) to be the maf'ool (that which is done). So Ibn Taymiyyah explains that they say this because
To them the actions of Allaah refer to actions He creates in the creation which are established with other than Himself, and that He does not perform actions Himself as such and
They deny that any affairs (actions) that are tied to His Will occur from Him, because this necessitates in their view that He undergoes changes (hawaadith, events).
So Ibn Taymiyyah refutes them on this issue (pp. 155-160) and establishes that what al-Fudayl bin Iyaad meant by his saying was to establish those actions for Allaah that are tied to His will and choice (al-fi'l al-ikhtiyaariyy).
FOUR: With respect to Ibn Mandah (the son), Shaykh ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah discusses his viewpoint in the risaalah that he wrote (referred to ealier) and he spends the next 40 pages summarising what Ibn Mandah (the son) said. Ibn Mandah was attempting to refute three groups of people who all denied the Nuzool but in different ways. And they were
The Hulooli Jahmites who said Allaah is in every place
The Mu'attil Jahmites who said Allaah is not in any place
the Mutakallimoon who made ta'weel of the Nuzool - doing that on account of their belief that Allaah has no Sifaat Fi'liyyah (actions tied to Allaah's will).
And Ibn Mandah also wrongly held that those who clarified that when Allaah descends, He is able to descend without the Throne becoming unoccupied of Him, - and they said that in response to the Jahmites who were saying, "I disbelieve in a Lord that moves from His place" - he (Ibn Mandah) held that by saying such a thing, they also denied the Nuzool, due to his mistaken notion that Nuzool can only be by the Throne becoming unoccupied of Him.
We can summarize and highlight the main points from the 40 page discussion with the following points:
(A) Ibn Taymiyyah covers the critique of Ibn Mandah (the son) upon the authenticity of the risaalah of the Imaam Ahmad to Musaddad in which there occurs, "and then He (Allaah) descends to the lowest heaven and the Throne does not become unoccupied of Him (laa yakhloo minhu al-arsh)..." - as this opposes Ibn Mandah's opinion and methodology of refuting the Jahmees, so he argues that it is not authentically ascribed to Imaam Ahmad. However, this risaalah is established from Imaam Ahmad, and Ibn Taymiyyah says (p. 201):
As for the risaalah of Ahmad bin Hanbal to Musaddad bin Musrahad, then it is well known to Ahl ul-Hadeeth was-Sunnah from the companions of Ahmad and others, they all took it with acceptance. And Abu Abdullah Ibn Battah mentioned it in his book "al-Ibaanah", and more than one (person) relied upon it, and wrote (a copy of it) with his own script, such as al-Qaadee Abu Ya'laa.
(B) Ibn Taymiyyah mentions that Ibn Mandah (the son) narrated all the ahaadeeth on the subject and said that none of them mention that the Throne becomes unoccupied of Him and he treats those who said "Allaah descends and the Throne does not become unoccupied of him..." [and they said this in refutation of the Jahmiyyah] to be the same as those who say, "No space is empty of Him" and those who say, "Allaah is in no place". And Ibn Taymiyyah comments on this view of Ibn Mandah (the son) saying:
I say: Those who speak with that (from the Ahl ul-Hadeeth) [meaning those who say "the Throne does not become unoccupied of Him"] did not say: "This wording is in the hadeeth", and there is not anything in the hadeeth that "the Throne does not become unoccupied of Him" or "the Throne becomes unoccupied of Him" as is claimed by those who claim that. So there is nothing in the hadeeth, neither the wording of those who affirm that, nor the wording of those who negate that...
(C) Ibn Taymiyyah mentions what Ibn Mandah (the son) quotes from his father (d. 395H) on page 175-176:
My father said in refuting the one who made ta'weel of the descent (an-nuzool) to other than the descent and who sought to use fabricated ahaadeeth to nullify the authentic narrations: "And al=Mareesee (d. 218H) claimed that he speaks with the hadeeth of descent, but he distorted it in front of those who attended his gathering, and in his khutbah he rejected what Allaah revealed of proofs in His Book, and what the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) explained in that He descends with His Essence (bi dhaatihi), and he interpreted the descent figuratively to mean "Command (al-amr)" and "Prohibition (an-nahee)", not a real descent, and he claimed that their scholars, knowledgeable of the usool declare Allaah free of movement (changing places), and so he nullified everything that has been narrated on this subject, since his madhhab is other than what is manifest from the hadeeth, and (due to) his dependence upon the futile figurative interpretation, and corrupt understanding...
And after Ibn Mandah (the son's) quote from his father, Ibn Taymiyyah said (p.179):
So this is what Abdur-Rahman (Ibn Mandah) quoted from the speech of his father, and his father was more knowledgeable than him, had greater understanding and was more upright and exact in his speech.
(D) Ibn Taymiyyah continues to cover Ibn Mandah's reply and documents the part where Ibn Mandah treats those who say, "I disbelieve in a Lord that descends and ascends" to be the same as those who say, "I believe in a Lord [whose] Throne does not become unoccupied of Him" - and he considers both of these to be negators of Allaah's Nuzool. This is because of his erroneous understanding of the hadeeth, as Ibn Taymiyyah points out himself. Ibn Taymiyyah says regarding the likes of al-Fudayl bin Iyaad and what they said (i.e. "I believe in a Lord that does what He wills"):
It is known that the intent of those (i.e. the likes of al-Fudayl bin 'Iyaad and Yahyaa bin Ma'een) was to affirm al-fi'l al-ikhtiyaariyy (the action of Allaah tied to His will) that is established with Him. However, alongside this, there is nothing in their speech that shows that they believed that the Throne became unoccupied of Him, or that He does not remain upon the Throne (due to His descent) - as Abdur-Rahmaan has mentioned and as he claims is the meaning of the hadeeth.
Here Ibn Taymiyyah (p. 182) declares Ibn Mandah (the son) to be in error with regard to his understanding of the hadeeth itself (of an-Nuzool) and of what some of the Salaf said in refuting the Jahmiyyah (like al-Fudayl and Yahyaa bin Ma'een).
The essence of what Ibn Taymiyyah discusses in this section is that Ibn Mandah wrongly thought that when they (the Salaf) said "We believe in a Lord that does what He wills", that they understood the Throne to become unoccupied of Him and that He no longer remains above the Throne - and he (Ibn Mandah) thought that this is a defense of the affirmation of the descent (an-nuzool) and that anyone who denied this was negating the descent (an-nuzool) but he was mistaken in that - and as a result of some of what he put in this book he was spoken against, as Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned previously.
Although we have not finished this article yet, the deception and scandal of the Jahmite Ash'ari in his casual and snide remark in what we have quoted from him at the very beginning should be manifestly clear at this stage, even though we have not finished yet. Ibn Taymiyyah is simply discussing the various viewpoints held by the Ahl ul-Hadeeth wal-Athar regarding questions and doubts raised first by the Heretical Jahmites to whom they were responding. And these Heretical Jahmites began saying "Does Allaah move from His place?" and "Does the Throne become unoccupied of Him?" and so on, and so they invented these phrases and these doubts and the Salaf investigated these sayings with a view to arriving what is correct regarding them.
And we see the Ash'arites after them, who acquired the tools of the Greek and Hindu philosophical concepts which they entered into their theology and used to negate Allaah's uluww and Allaah's Sifaat Fi'liyyah - in the same vain as that of the Jahmites before them - and they inherited the legacy of the Jahmites, and they also retained the influence of the Mu'tazilites and adopted the ta'weels of Bishr al-Mareesee al-Hanafee al-Jahmee.
FIVE: Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah at the end of this section, after mentioning all of the narrations that Ibn Mandah (the son) included in his treatise, then says on pages 200-201:
You should pay very close attention here, as this represents the essence of the whole discussion on this issue:
... and he (meaning Ibn Mandah) shows rejection against the one who says "the Throne does not become unoccupied of Him", and he considers this (statement) to be the same as the one who says, "He is in every place" and (the same) as the one who says, "He is not in a place".
And his (Ibn Mandah's) speech is of the same category of speech as the faction that thinks that only two sayings are possible:
The saying of the one who says: He descends with a descent in which His Throne becomes unoccupied of Him
The saying of the one who says: There isn't any descent at all, to begin with - such as the saying of the one who says: He does not have any action established with His self that occurs out of His choice.
And these two groups [i.e. Ibn Mandah on the one hand and the Mutakallimoon, those who negate the sifaat fi'liyyah]: There is no Nuzool in their view except the Nuzool that the bodies of the servants are described with, [that] which necessitates the vacating of one space and occupying of another.
Amongst them [the first group] are those who negate the descent (an-nuzool) from Him, freeing him from the likes of that.
And amongst them [the second group] who affirm for him a descent of this type, which necessitates vacating a place and occupying another.
So those (the first, those negating the nuzool) say (to the second group), "This is falsehood", thus the first saying is incumbent - just as those who oppose them (the second group) say (to the first group) "That saying is falsehood", so the second saying is incumbent.
And they (the second group, such as the likes of Ibn Mandah) carry the speech of the Salaf, "He does what He wills" to mean that it is a descent in which His Throne becomes unoccupied of Him, and those who oppose them (from the Mutakallimoon) carry it upon the meaning that (Allaah doing what He wills means) it is an action separate from Allaah [meaning Allaah does not do the action of Nuzool, but creates the act in something other than Him, thus making it from His maf'oolaat and not His af'aal].
And to sum up: Those who say that the Throne becomes unoccupied of Him are a very small faction amongst Ahl ul-Hadeeth. And the majority of them are upon (the view) that His Throne does not become unoccupied of Him (laa yakhloo minhu al-arsh), and this is what is reported from the Imaams known for the Sunnah.
And there has not been reported from any single one of them with an isnaad that is authentic or weak that the Throne becomes unoccupied of Him and what Abdur-Rahman (Ibn Mandah) has mentioned about weakening those narrations from Ishaaq (bin Raahawaih), then we have mentioned the other established narration which Ibn Battah and others have reported.
And we mentioned also the wording established from Sulayman bin Harb and Hammaad bin Zayd, reported by al-Khallaal and others.
As for the risaalah of Ahmad bin Hanbal to Musaddad bin Musrahad, then it is well known to Ahl ul-Hadeeth was-Sunnah from the companions of Ahmad and others, they all took it with acceptance. And Abu Abdullah Ibn Battah mentioned it in his book "al-Ibaanah", and more than one (person) relied upon it, and wrote (a copy of it) with his own script, such as al-Qaadee Abu Ya'laa.
The affair is crystal clear. Ibn Taymiyyah has simply narrated what has come from the likes of Imaam Ahmad, Ishaaq bin Raahawaih, Hammaad bin Zaid and others all of whom clarified that Allaah does not have to leave the Throne in order to descend, and this clarification was made in response to the Jahmites, the Huloolis and the Mu'attils amongst them, who attempted to negate the Nuzool in their own ways - amongst which was their saying, "I disbelieve in a Lord that moves from His place (yazoolu an makaanihi)" . So the Salaf clarified that Allaah does whatever He wills and His Nuzool does not mean He leaves the Throne and becomes encompassed within the Creation - and this is what the Jahmites intended, and they reviled these narrations which were reported through tawaatur (successive, large-scale transmission).
Get some good background information that puts this topic into a wider historical context by reading this article: The Origins of Jahmeespeak (here).
So we request the Philadelphian Jahmite Ash'ari to recant and to make clarification of his error in his claim about Ibn Taymiyyah, that he was the one who originated this matter. Rather it was the theological ancestors of this Jahmite who initiated this matter in the time of the likes of Abdullah Ibn al-Mubaarak, Hammaad bin Zayd, and Fudayl bin Iyaad, and these Scholars clarified the truth, as did Imaam Ahmad and Ishaaq bin Raahawaih.
Its no surprise that it was the Jahmites who stirred this issue against Ishaaq bin Raahawaih by complaining to the Ameer Abdullaah bin Taahir about his narrating the ahaadeeth of Nuzool, exactly as they have come.
And its no surprise that the same Jahmites stirred this issue in the time of Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah.
And its no surprise that it is the same species of Mareesee Jahmite in our times, the likes of al-Kawtharee, al-Habashee and their followers and tail-ends who have stirred this issue against Ahl us-Sunnah - there precedence in all of that being none other than al-Ja'd bin Dirham and al-Jahm bin Safwan.
SIX: Right at the very end of this book "Sharh Hadeeth in-Nuzool" Ibn Taymiyyah states what is obligatory in this matter (p. 459):
Ibn Taymiyyah said:
And that which it is obligatory [to speak with] definitively: Is that Allaah, there is nothing that is a likeness to Him in everything that He has described Himself with. Thus, anyone who describes Him with the likeness of the attributes of the creation in anything from amongst the things, then he is errant, definitively, absolutely. Such as the one who says, "He descends, undergoing motion and movement (yataharrak, yantaqil) just like a person descends from the roof to the lowest part of the house" and like the saying of the one who says, "His Throne becomes unoccupied of Him, and so His descent is vacating one space and occupying another", and this is baatil (false), it is obligatory to free the Lord from this, as has preceded.
And here Ibn Taymiyyah has made it very clear - that those who speak about Allaah's Nuzool in the terms of what is found in the creation - are speaking with falsehood - and that it is obligatory to free Allaah from this.
POINT 3: What is Now Obligatory Upon the Jahmite Ash'ari Who Sought To Accuse Ibn Taymiyyah Of Originating This Matter
After everything that has preceded the Jahmite Ash'ari has no option except to apologise and recant for what he said. More specifically, it would be befitting and in accord with the truth for him to say:
I take back my mockery and sarcasm against Ibn Taymiyyah when I implied he was amongst the first of those who said that Allaah's Throne does not become unoccupied of Him when He makes the Nuzool. I acknowledge my factual error in this regard and accept that in actual fact this is narrated from the Salaf and Ibn Taymiyyah was simply discussing why and how this issue arose and he quoted specifically from Imaam Ahmad and others. So I am mistaken in that regard and take this back.
I realise that my Jahmite belief of negating that Allaah is above the Throne, above the seven Heavens, does not in any way allow me to misrepresent the words of my opponent, or to falsely accuse my opponent of something that did not originate with him, and that I should apply the Qur'anic principle of not letting hatred of a people prevent from abiding by justice.
I acknowledge the feebleness of my intellect, in fact, the feebleness of the intellects of a thousand Jahmites like me combined, compared to that of Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah and I now understand and appreciate what adh-Dhahabee means when he says, in his various statements of praise for Ibn Taymiyyah:
...the prodigy of the era, author of amazing works, and (a manifestation) of excessive intelligence...His associates and also his enemies humble themselves in front of his sciences, acknowledge the swiftness of his understanding, that he is a river which has no banks (i.e. no end), a treasure for which there is no equal...He would not approach (any matter) with a faulty and evil understanding, rather he had excessive intelligence. And nor would he approach any matter with lack of knowledge, for he was an overflowing ocean, having firm knowledge and insight of the Book and the Sunnah, without there being any equal to him in that... And if he was to talk about the various religions and factions, no one who was more vast in knowledge or greater in meticulousness could be seen. He surpassed his contemporaries in every science and my eyes have not seen the likes of him and nor have his eyes seen the likes of himself...
For Ibn Taymiyyah discussed the issue with breadth and depth - and taking it all from the Salaf - and it wasn't simply something he said of his own accord, and what I stated was simply an ignorant and shallow statement that completely misrepresents the truth of the situation.
I acknowledge that it was actually the Jahmites who originated this issue - those with whom I share the belief that Allaah is not above His Throne, above His creation, and that He does not have actions tied to His Will and Choice - they (the early Jahmites) originated this issue in order to deny the Nuzool - something which I also do - following them in that.
Following on from the last point, I acknowledge that the reason why this issue arose was because my Jahmite Ancestry began to say "Allah is in every place" and "Allah is in no place", and "It is not Allah that descends, but His Command, or His Mercy that descends" and "I disbelieve in a Lord that moves from His place" and so when my Jahmite Ancestry began to raise these issues, the likes of Hammaad bin Zayd, Abdullah Ibn al-Mubaarak, Fudayl bin Iyaad, Ishaaq bin Raahawaih and others stood to clarify the truth and to warn from falsehood - and that this was in the middle to the end of the second century, well before the likes of Abul-Hasan al-Ash'ari and Abu Bakr al-Baqillani.
I acknowledge the severity of the Salaf in dealing with the poison of Jahm (of negating Allah being above the Throne, and negating His having sifaat Fi'liyyah), such as what was done by Abdullah bin Abi Ja'far with his relative who began speaking with the speech of Jahm - and I realise that all of this took place centuries before the later Ash'arite Mutakallimoon acquired this same Jahmite poison into their kalaamist theology - and this helps me to position my own Jahmite aqeedah more accurately in terms of what its real sources and roots are.
I understand the importance of actually understanding what my opponent said, and what he actually wrote before opening my mouth, and so I resolve not to do this again.
sumber:The Philadelphian Jahmite Ash'ari Scandals Of 2009: Regarding Ibn Taymiyyah, Allaah's Nuzool and the Jahmee Invented Doubt Concerning Whether the Throne Becomes Unoccupied or Not
Senin, 30 November 2009
Seperti Apakah Gambaran Surga Itu?
…We asked, “From what is Paradise built?” He said, “Bricks of gold and silver and mortar of fragrant musk; its pebbles are pearls and rubies, and its soil is saffron. Whoever enters it is blessed with joy and will never be miserable; he will remain there forever and never die; his clothes will never wear out, and his youth will never fade away.”
[Mishkāt al-Masābīh, 3/89, no. 5630]
sumber: salaf-stories.blogspot.com
[Mishkāt al-Masābīh, 3/89, no. 5630]
sumber: salaf-stories.blogspot.com
Kitab Mantiqu Thair
“The speech of birds” (Mantiqu’t-Tair) of Faridu’ d-Din ‘Attar translated by Peter Avery, published by THE ISLAMIC TEXTS SOCIETY.
This Sufi tale written by Attar is a travel of thirty birds (representing the souls of thirty Sufis) to see their King called the Simurgh (representing God), and during their travel, the hoopoe (same as Hud Hud of Sulayman) is their leader (representing the Sufi Shaykh), and the Hoopoe in this long and difficult travel tells others birds different Sufis tales, and sometimes he answers to the difficulties of the birds. So in fact the Hoopoe teaches to them stories containing Wahdtul Wujud and Wahdatul Adyan, so the birds arrive at the end of the travel.
About the meaning of Simurgh, Peter Avery quoted p 473 in note 40: “Nicholson in his “Commentary on the Mathnawi” Book 1, verse 1441 says: “In Persian Mysticism the simurgh represents God or the soul as a mode of Divine being…and (it) is supposed to dwell on mount Qaf like the ‘anqa with which it is often identified”
Also before Avery also explained that “si” in Persian also means “Thirty”, so “si murgh” would means “Thirty birds”. And at the end, the thirty birds when they come to the place of seeing the Simurgh, there was no Simurgh, but the thirty birds “si murgh” discover that they were the Simurgh (God), meaning Attar plays with words and identifies these thirty Sufis birds “si murgh” with their God Simurgh
Read the end and conclusion of this long tale:
“The Sun of Proximity shone before them.
The lives of all by Its rays were cauterized.
Then by reflection, the faces of the thirty birds of the world
The face of the Simurgh found, from the world
When these thirty birds looked hard,
No doubt about it, these thirty birds were that “Thirty-Birds”
In amazement all of them were startled;
Again, in another way did they become amazed.
Themselves the complete Simurgh they saw;
The Simurgh Himself was all the time the si murgh!
When upon the Simurgh they looked,
These thirty birds, they were that Other.
And if they looked at both together,
Both were the one Simurgh in every way;
These were that One, and that One was these;
In all the world nobody has heard this!
All those were left consumed by astonishment:
They were bereft of the faculty of thought, and could not work it out.
Since they, from a state of nothingness, nothing understood,
Wordlessly that Majesty they dumbly questioned.
They asked for the unveiling of this mighty secret;
They asked for the solution of You being us and being You.
Wordlessly from that majesty came the reply,
That, “A mirror is this sun-like Majesty.
Whoever comes to it sees himself;
Body and soul, soul and body he sees in it.
As you came here thirty birds,
Thirty in this mirror have you appeared.
Were you to come back forty or fifty birds,
Still from yourselves would the veil be lifted.
Although numerous you have arrived,
You see yourself and it is yourself you have seen:
How might the eye of anyone reach to Us;
The eye of an ant and the Pleiades reach?
Have you seen an ant that could lift an anvil?
A gnat that could take an elephant between its teeth?
What you knew, when you saw it, it was not that,
And what you said and heard, it was not that.
All these valleys which you have put behind you,
And all this manliness that each of you has performed,
All in Our effecting have you been,
You have lain in the vale of the Essence of the Attributes.
Since you have remained thirty birds amazed,
Been left without hearts and without patience, and without spirit,
We are infinitely better than any thirty birds,
Because We are the quintessential Thirty Birds.
You are obliterated to Us in a hundred glories and graces
That through Us you might again discover yourselves.
You have finally been obliterated in Us:
The shadow has become lost in the Sun, and Peace be upon you.”
So long as they were on the march, this had been the burden of the hoopoe’s exhortations.
Now they had arrived, neither was beginning nor ending left;
So here the exhortations were drawing to a close:
No voyager and no guide was left, and the journey was accomplished.”
Let’s read now some stories of this book that the Hoopoe taught its traveling students:
‘Attar and Wahdatul Wujud
P 14 and after, ‘Attar shows his belief in Wahdatul Wujud (unity of existence):
“The throne is on water and the world is on air.
Forget water and air; all is God
Throne and cosmos are no more than talismans.
He alone exists. All this is no more than a name.
Look how this world and that world are He,
Not other than Him, and were there other, that also would be He.
All is of one Essence but in varied categories:
All one language but of differing idiom.
Man must be the acknowledger of the King,
Although he sees the Shah on a hundred guises.
Be not in error. He knows who He is.
Since all is He, why should there be any mistaking?
It is those who cannot see straight who fall into error:
This is the sightedness of the man who denies God attributes.
Ah the pity! Nobody possesses the power:
Eyes blind and the world filled with sunlight!
If you do not see this, you mislay understanding.
See all He and lose yourself.
Strange how everyone’s girded for the quest,
But far from all and yet sitting with Him,
…
That which you say and that which you know, they are you.
Know yourself: you are a hundred times you.
Know Him through Him, not through the self;
The Way to Him arises from Him, not from senses.
…
If they have said He is utmost good, or if they have said, bad,
Whatever they said about Him they have said about themselves.
…
Since there was no Prophets and Apostles,
For anyone, a morsel of the Whole of the Whole,
All helplessly fell to the dust:
Crying out, “We know You not”, they came.
Who might I be that I should boast of knowing?
He becomes knowing who consorts only with Him.
Since apart from Him in both worlds there is no-one,
With whom might He consort? This is the torment and the longing.
…
Whatever God brought from oblivion into existence,
All fell before Him in worship.
When at last His creative act came to Adam,
From behind a hundreds veils He brought him in jealous guardianship.
He said, “O Adam be you the ocean of bounty.
All these are worshippers. Be you the worshipped”.
Than one who turned his head away from worshiping him,
Became a monster and accursed, and did not share the secret.
…
P 332 and after, we have a story explaining Wahdatul Wujud
“An old woman went up to Abu ‘Ali
She bore a draft for gold. She said, “Take this from me.”
The Shaykh answered her: “I have a covenant that no more
Except from God will I take anything at all.”
The old woman at once asked: “O Abu ‘Ali,
Whence then have you acquired double-vision?
You in this Way, Abu ‘Ali, are not the man for binding
And loosening.
How much longer will you, if you are not squint-eyed,
See another?”
In this place a man has no other in sight,
Because in it there is neither Ka’ba nor temple.
Both from Him hear the words plain,
And with Him his being remains permanent
None but He at any time does the person see,
None but He knows the person eternally.
He is both in Him, from Him, and with Him.
Also, beyond all these three it were good to be.
Whoever has not in the Ocean of Unity become lost,
Though he were Adam himself, he would not be of mankind.
Everyone of the people of virtue and the people of infamy,
Has a sun within the invisible Invisible.
Ultimately there will be a day when this sun
Will take them to itself, throwing down the veil.
Whoever to his own sun has attained,
Know you for certain that the good and the bad has reached.
So long as you exist, good and bad are here.
When you have disappeared, all will be gain.
But if you continue to remain in your own being,
You will experience plenty of good and ill, and a long road.
As soon as from nothingness you became apparent,
In the grip of the self you became ensnared.
Would that now you were as at first,
That is to say, that of being you were void.
Cleanse yourself entirely of the attributes of evil.
After this, empty of all, turn to duts.
How do you know in your body what
Corruption you carry, what an ash-pit you have?
Snakes and scorpions are under the curtain in you.
They are asleep and have not found themselves.
Were you to pull out a hair-tip of theirs
Each of them you would arouse like a hundred dragons.
Everyone has an inferno full of serpents.
So long as you are self-preoccupied, it is Hell’s business.
If you come out cleansed of each in their turn,
Then you will enter a sweet beneath the sod.
But if not, under the ground what scorpions, what snakes
Will be biting you hard until the Day of Reckoning!
Every one who is unaware of this cleansing,
Whomever you take is a worm in the earth.
How much more, oh ‘Attar, must there be of this metaphorical language?
Come back to the question of the mysteries of Oneness.
The wayfaring man, when he reaches this valley,
The space in which the man stands will raise from the Way;
He will vanish, because He becomes apparent.
He will be struck dumb, because He becomes the speaker.
The part is changed: it becomes the whole. Neither whole nor part,
A form it will be, neither soul nor limb the attribute.
All the four elements will go beyond all the four:
A hundred thousand they’ll become; more than a hundred thousand.
In the schools of this wondrous mystery,
See a hundred thousand intellects parched-lipped.
What is reason here? Fallen at the door
It is like the new-born babe born deaf.
An atom of this mystery on whomever it has shone,
He has averted his head from both worlds’ realm.
Since himself this person is not a hair in the midst,
How should he not twist, as if it were a hair, his head from the world?
Although this person is not, yet all this is this person;
Whether being he is or not-being, still this person is.
Comment: One can see that these Sufis only want to purify the evils of humans so they leave their human attributes and they think that doing so will unify them with Allah, Na’uzu Billah, and in this satanic state, there is no Ka’ba and no temple. And this Kufr of unity of existence is the greater Kufr of all, worse than that of Jews, Christians, Polytheists of Quraysh and others.
‘Attar and Wahdatul Adyan (unity of religions)
P 165 and after:
“One night Ruhul Amin was in the Lote Tree
The call, “I am with you”, from the Presence he was hearing
“A devotee”, he said, “At this time must be calling on Him;
I don’t know whether anyone knows who it is.
What I do know is that it is an exalted servitor;
His carnal spirit dead, he is of a living heart.”
He thereupon wanted to know who it was.
Of him no news was traced in all the Seven Heavens.
To earth he returned, and soured the seas.
Still round the world he wandered,
Never that he devoted slave to see. He said, “O God,
Please, now, guide me to him.”
God Almighty answered: “Set off for Rum.
Go into an unbelievers’ cloister. Recognise him.”
Gabriel went and saw him, plain,
Who at that very moment to an icon was he praying, weeping grievously.
Gabriel was profoundly moved at this.
Back to the Presence crying out he came.
Gabriel gave tongue. He said: “O the self-sufficient,
Unveil for me this mystery.
Him I saw in a monastery, for he invokes the idols.
Is it out of Your kindness that You respond to him?”
Almighty God replied: “He is of a heart darkened:
He does not know. Because of this he has mistaken the way.
If unwittingly he mistook the road, that error
I, since I am not unwitting, have not taken the wrong way.
Even now, do I grant him access to the Court:
My benevolence will be visited upon him, the pardon-seeker.”
This He said and opened the way for his spirit;
To utter the words “Lord” his tongue He loosed,
That you might know that this is the Community:
That what goes on here is unharmful.
Though you have for this Court nothing to offer,
Nothing’s fallen by the wayside. Don’t worry;
Not every pious ascetic exempted is bought;
Nothingness, too, at His Court may be bought”
Comment: So we can see that the Christian idol worshiper is answered by Allah, and this is a clear hint towards Wahdatul Adyan (unity of religions).
Avery said in notes that “I am with you” is the translation of “Labayka”. So for these misguided Sufis, Allah says “Labayka” to Christian idol worshiper, while in the Quran, Allah told that he hates polytheism, and the heavens were close to be destroyed hearing that people attributing a son to Allah, and ‘Attar tells us that Allah says “Labayka” to someone involved in trinity and Idol worship. Allahul Musta’an.
P 410 and after, we have another story of Shibli showing this unity of religions
When Shibli had gone from this desolate place,
Some gallant fellow saw him in a dream.
He asked: “How has God treated you, oh Lucky one?”
Shibli answered: “When my reckoning turned out tricky,
Since He saw myself so much my own enemy,
Saw my weakness and despair and incapacity,
He was moved by compassion for my helplessness.
Then out of kindness He entirely forgave.”
O Creator, to You I am a helpless wayfarer;
To You am I like an ant stuck in a pit.
I do not know what I am fit for,
Or where I am or what or who I am.
Bodyless, luckless, profitless,
Destitute, distracted, lacking heart.
A life in the blood of anguish melted,
Life’s requital unpaid,
Whatever has been done, the fine is being exacted;
Upon my lips life is reaching the end.
The heart having eluded me, the Faith having been lost,
My form is passing away, the meaning lost.
I am neither an unbeliever nor a Muslim do I remain,
Staying bewildered between the two.
Neither believer nor infidel, what should I do?
Left bemused and without resolution, how should I act?
I am caught in the narrow gate,
The face turned to the wall of phantasy.
For me, unable to help myself, open wide this door,
And to this one fallen by the wayside show the way.
Although the slave has no provision at all for the road,
Yet he never rests at all from tears and sighs.
You could with this sighs burn his sin away,
And with his tears, wash clean the Black Book.
To whomsoever has for harvest his oceans of tears,
Say “Come”, because he is worthy of this dwelling place.
But to him the burden of whose eyes is not tears of blood,
Say “Go”, for he has nothing to do with us.
Comment: So here Shibli tells he is not a Muslim, and says whomsoever has tears is welcomed, so ‘Attar clearly says that Sufis follow their own fabricated religion of love, whether one is non-Muslim. These people were not satisfied with the religion of Allah, so they abandoned it and invented their religion inspired by Shaytan to misguide people and throw them in hell-fire.
‘Attar and Nur Muhammadi (the Prophetic light)
Farid ud Din ‘Attar believes that the creation was created through the Prophet’s light, and he wrote p 26 and after:
“Both worlds through his existence found a name.
The Throne too through his name was established.
Like dew-drops they came out of the Ocean of Munificence:
The creatures of the cosmos in his wake into being.
The purpose of his Light was created beings.
It was the origin of inexistences and existences.
God when He saw that Absolute Light in His presence,
He created from its light a hundred oceans of light.
For Himself that pure Soul He created.
For it the creaturely world He created.
Creation has no purpose but him.
Purer than he there is no being.
That which first appeared from the Invisible of the Invisible
Was his Pure Light without doubt.
After that this Light exalted its banner aloft.
It turned into the Throne and the Dais and the Tablet and the Pen.
One unfurling of his Pure light is the world;
One unfurling is the seed and is Adam.
When the Majestic Light became apparent,
Prostrate it fell before the Creator.
Centuries in prostration was it fallen;
Life-times with head bowed was it in the standing position (ruku’) standing.
Years were they (the banner of light) occupied with the standing position.
In making the profession of Faith there was also a whole lifetime.
From the orisons of the Light if that Ocean of Mystery,
Obligatory for the whole Community prayer became.
God held that Light, shinning like the sun and the moon,
Breast to breast undifferentiated for ages long.
Then to the ocean of reality suddenly
He opened for that Light a clear way!;
When that light saw the surface of the Sea of Mysteries,
Agitation upon it fell because of the Power and Glory.
Casting about, it turned on itself seven times;
The seven circumferences of the firmament became visible.
Every glance that from God reached towards it,
Became a star and the galaxies were revealed.
After this Pure Light found repose.
The Throne was exalted and the Dais discovered a name.
The Throne and the Dais the reflection of his Essence arose.
Then the Angels out if its attributes arose.
From his breaths lights became manifest,
And from his thought-filled heart the mysteries appeared.
The secret of the spirit is from the World of Thought alone:
Only ‘Did I breath from my spirit into him’
When those breaths and those mysteries were conjoined,
For this reason souls became a multitudinous body.
Since the hangers-on of his Light the people came,
The Apostle to all because of this he inevitably became.
He became the Deputy until the Day of Reckoning
For the sake of all the creatures of time.
…
His light since it was the origin of existences,
His essence since it was the bestower of every essence”
Comment: Anyone having reason can see the falsehood of this creed, and this is the religion of Batini and Shi’ah, Zoroastrians and others, this has nothing to do with the religion of Islam. These people have nothing from the Quran or the Sunnah to justify such an heretical creed, rather they follow Shaytan who wants to destroy the religion of the Prophet (saw) as he destroyed the Jewish and Christian religion.
‘Attar and defense of Iblis
P292 and after, we have a story of Iblis knowing the secret of Allah and that he will be forgiven:
“The hoopoe said: “When God was breathing this quintessential spirit
Into the body of Adam, which was water and earth,
He wished that all the host of the Angels
Should no knowledge discover of the soul, nor any trace,
He commanded: ‘Oh Hallowed Ones of Heaven,
At this time before Adam make prostration.’
All of them bowed their heads to the ground;
Consequently not one saw that holy secret.
Then Iblis came and instantly whispered,
‘No-one will see any prostration of my part.
Were my head from my body to be riven,
It would not matter when I have this neck!
I am quite aware that Adam is not of dust;
I would lose my head without any fear, to discover the secret.’
Since Iblis had not his head on the ground,
He witnessed the mystery, for he was hiding furtively.
God the Almighty to him called: ‘Oh wandering spy,
You are in there for seeing the secret.
Now you have seen the treasure that I have hidden here,
I will kill you, lest you spread it about the world.
For is not, outside of the guards, hidden
Any place where the Padshah deposits a treasure?
Assuredly, anyone in whose sight he puts it away,
He should kill: draw a line through his life.
You are a man of treasure: you choose a corner to lurk in.
Your choice ought to be the cutting off your head,
And if I do not cut it off from your trunk this very moment,
You could be spreading this matter all over the world.’
Iblis answered: ‘Oh God, a reprieve grant this slave.
Make some remedy for this betrayer of duty.’
Almighty God answered: ‘Sparing you rests with Me.
The torque of accursedness I have rested round your neck.
Your name, that of The Deceiver do I register,
So that you till the Resurrection stay the accursed.’
After this, Iblis said: ‘That Holy Treasure
Since to me it has been revealed, how should a curse be feared?
The curse belongs to You. Forgiveness belongs to You.
The slave belongs to You. Destiny’s disposal belongs to You.
If the curse be my destiny, there is no fear:
Poison there has to bee too: not everything is the antidote.
Since I have seen the creature’s seeking execration,
I have with impropriety filched your curse already.’
This is how the seeking has to be, if a seeker you are.
You are no seeker in the sense of overcoming;
If you fail to find Him in all your nights and days,
That will not be His loss. The deficiency will lie in the seeking.”
Comment: So according to this nonsense Iblis has seen the secret Allah put in human being, and he is not scared of the curse of Allah because seeing this secret. What a clear opposition to the religion of Islam. Allah never put any kind of secret in Adam, this is pure invention and a shameless lie upon Allah. These people are like polytheists who attribute to Allah things Allah never revealed. And Allah described Iblis refusal to prostrate due to his pride, not because he wanted to see any kind of secret.
After seeing all of this, it is clear that Farid ud Din Al-‘Attar is a heretic Batini, and these people attribute their invented religion to Islam, else ignorant laymen will not follow them. And it is also clear that the publisher of this book THE ISLAMIC TEXTS SOCIETY also want to destroy the pure religion of Islam and replace it with their religion of Wahdadtul Wujud and clear Kufr.
May send Salah and Salam on the Prophet (saw), his household, Companions and those who follow them.
Compiled by Ali Hassan Khan di umm-ul-qura.org
This Sufi tale written by Attar is a travel of thirty birds (representing the souls of thirty Sufis) to see their King called the Simurgh (representing God), and during their travel, the hoopoe (same as Hud Hud of Sulayman) is their leader (representing the Sufi Shaykh), and the Hoopoe in this long and difficult travel tells others birds different Sufis tales, and sometimes he answers to the difficulties of the birds. So in fact the Hoopoe teaches to them stories containing Wahdtul Wujud and Wahdatul Adyan, so the birds arrive at the end of the travel.
About the meaning of Simurgh, Peter Avery quoted p 473 in note 40: “Nicholson in his “Commentary on the Mathnawi” Book 1, verse 1441 says: “In Persian Mysticism the simurgh represents God or the soul as a mode of Divine being…and (it) is supposed to dwell on mount Qaf like the ‘anqa with which it is often identified”
Also before Avery also explained that “si” in Persian also means “Thirty”, so “si murgh” would means “Thirty birds”. And at the end, the thirty birds when they come to the place of seeing the Simurgh, there was no Simurgh, but the thirty birds “si murgh” discover that they were the Simurgh (God), meaning Attar plays with words and identifies these thirty Sufis birds “si murgh” with their God Simurgh
Read the end and conclusion of this long tale:
“The Sun of Proximity shone before them.
The lives of all by Its rays were cauterized.
Then by reflection, the faces of the thirty birds of the world
The face of the Simurgh found, from the world
When these thirty birds looked hard,
No doubt about it, these thirty birds were that “Thirty-Birds”
In amazement all of them were startled;
Again, in another way did they become amazed.
Themselves the complete Simurgh they saw;
The Simurgh Himself was all the time the si murgh!
When upon the Simurgh they looked,
These thirty birds, they were that Other.
And if they looked at both together,
Both were the one Simurgh in every way;
These were that One, and that One was these;
In all the world nobody has heard this!
All those were left consumed by astonishment:
They were bereft of the faculty of thought, and could not work it out.
Since they, from a state of nothingness, nothing understood,
Wordlessly that Majesty they dumbly questioned.
They asked for the unveiling of this mighty secret;
They asked for the solution of You being us and being You.
Wordlessly from that majesty came the reply,
That, “A mirror is this sun-like Majesty.
Whoever comes to it sees himself;
Body and soul, soul and body he sees in it.
As you came here thirty birds,
Thirty in this mirror have you appeared.
Were you to come back forty or fifty birds,
Still from yourselves would the veil be lifted.
Although numerous you have arrived,
You see yourself and it is yourself you have seen:
How might the eye of anyone reach to Us;
The eye of an ant and the Pleiades reach?
Have you seen an ant that could lift an anvil?
A gnat that could take an elephant between its teeth?
What you knew, when you saw it, it was not that,
And what you said and heard, it was not that.
All these valleys which you have put behind you,
And all this manliness that each of you has performed,
All in Our effecting have you been,
You have lain in the vale of the Essence of the Attributes.
Since you have remained thirty birds amazed,
Been left without hearts and without patience, and without spirit,
We are infinitely better than any thirty birds,
Because We are the quintessential Thirty Birds.
You are obliterated to Us in a hundred glories and graces
That through Us you might again discover yourselves.
You have finally been obliterated in Us:
The shadow has become lost in the Sun, and Peace be upon you.”
So long as they were on the march, this had been the burden of the hoopoe’s exhortations.
Now they had arrived, neither was beginning nor ending left;
So here the exhortations were drawing to a close:
No voyager and no guide was left, and the journey was accomplished.”
Let’s read now some stories of this book that the Hoopoe taught its traveling students:
‘Attar and Wahdatul Wujud
P 14 and after, ‘Attar shows his belief in Wahdatul Wujud (unity of existence):
“The throne is on water and the world is on air.
Forget water and air; all is God
Throne and cosmos are no more than talismans.
He alone exists. All this is no more than a name.
Look how this world and that world are He,
Not other than Him, and were there other, that also would be He.
All is of one Essence but in varied categories:
All one language but of differing idiom.
Man must be the acknowledger of the King,
Although he sees the Shah on a hundred guises.
Be not in error. He knows who He is.
Since all is He, why should there be any mistaking?
It is those who cannot see straight who fall into error:
This is the sightedness of the man who denies God attributes.
Ah the pity! Nobody possesses the power:
Eyes blind and the world filled with sunlight!
If you do not see this, you mislay understanding.
See all He and lose yourself.
Strange how everyone’s girded for the quest,
But far from all and yet sitting with Him,
…
That which you say and that which you know, they are you.
Know yourself: you are a hundred times you.
Know Him through Him, not through the self;
The Way to Him arises from Him, not from senses.
…
If they have said He is utmost good, or if they have said, bad,
Whatever they said about Him they have said about themselves.
…
Since there was no Prophets and Apostles,
For anyone, a morsel of the Whole of the Whole,
All helplessly fell to the dust:
Crying out, “We know You not”, they came.
Who might I be that I should boast of knowing?
He becomes knowing who consorts only with Him.
Since apart from Him in both worlds there is no-one,
With whom might He consort? This is the torment and the longing.
…
Whatever God brought from oblivion into existence,
All fell before Him in worship.
When at last His creative act came to Adam,
From behind a hundreds veils He brought him in jealous guardianship.
He said, “O Adam be you the ocean of bounty.
All these are worshippers. Be you the worshipped”.
Than one who turned his head away from worshiping him,
Became a monster and accursed, and did not share the secret.
…
P 332 and after, we have a story explaining Wahdatul Wujud
“An old woman went up to Abu ‘Ali
She bore a draft for gold. She said, “Take this from me.”
The Shaykh answered her: “I have a covenant that no more
Except from God will I take anything at all.”
The old woman at once asked: “O Abu ‘Ali,
Whence then have you acquired double-vision?
You in this Way, Abu ‘Ali, are not the man for binding
And loosening.
How much longer will you, if you are not squint-eyed,
See another?”
In this place a man has no other in sight,
Because in it there is neither Ka’ba nor temple.
Both from Him hear the words plain,
And with Him his being remains permanent
None but He at any time does the person see,
None but He knows the person eternally.
He is both in Him, from Him, and with Him.
Also, beyond all these three it were good to be.
Whoever has not in the Ocean of Unity become lost,
Though he were Adam himself, he would not be of mankind.
Everyone of the people of virtue and the people of infamy,
Has a sun within the invisible Invisible.
Ultimately there will be a day when this sun
Will take them to itself, throwing down the veil.
Whoever to his own sun has attained,
Know you for certain that the good and the bad has reached.
So long as you exist, good and bad are here.
When you have disappeared, all will be gain.
But if you continue to remain in your own being,
You will experience plenty of good and ill, and a long road.
As soon as from nothingness you became apparent,
In the grip of the self you became ensnared.
Would that now you were as at first,
That is to say, that of being you were void.
Cleanse yourself entirely of the attributes of evil.
After this, empty of all, turn to duts.
How do you know in your body what
Corruption you carry, what an ash-pit you have?
Snakes and scorpions are under the curtain in you.
They are asleep and have not found themselves.
Were you to pull out a hair-tip of theirs
Each of them you would arouse like a hundred dragons.
Everyone has an inferno full of serpents.
So long as you are self-preoccupied, it is Hell’s business.
If you come out cleansed of each in their turn,
Then you will enter a sweet beneath the sod.
But if not, under the ground what scorpions, what snakes
Will be biting you hard until the Day of Reckoning!
Every one who is unaware of this cleansing,
Whomever you take is a worm in the earth.
How much more, oh ‘Attar, must there be of this metaphorical language?
Come back to the question of the mysteries of Oneness.
The wayfaring man, when he reaches this valley,
The space in which the man stands will raise from the Way;
He will vanish, because He becomes apparent.
He will be struck dumb, because He becomes the speaker.
The part is changed: it becomes the whole. Neither whole nor part,
A form it will be, neither soul nor limb the attribute.
All the four elements will go beyond all the four:
A hundred thousand they’ll become; more than a hundred thousand.
In the schools of this wondrous mystery,
See a hundred thousand intellects parched-lipped.
What is reason here? Fallen at the door
It is like the new-born babe born deaf.
An atom of this mystery on whomever it has shone,
He has averted his head from both worlds’ realm.
Since himself this person is not a hair in the midst,
How should he not twist, as if it were a hair, his head from the world?
Although this person is not, yet all this is this person;
Whether being he is or not-being, still this person is.
Comment: One can see that these Sufis only want to purify the evils of humans so they leave their human attributes and they think that doing so will unify them with Allah, Na’uzu Billah, and in this satanic state, there is no Ka’ba and no temple. And this Kufr of unity of existence is the greater Kufr of all, worse than that of Jews, Christians, Polytheists of Quraysh and others.
‘Attar and Wahdatul Adyan (unity of religions)
P 165 and after:
“One night Ruhul Amin was in the Lote Tree
The call, “I am with you”, from the Presence he was hearing
“A devotee”, he said, “At this time must be calling on Him;
I don’t know whether anyone knows who it is.
What I do know is that it is an exalted servitor;
His carnal spirit dead, he is of a living heart.”
He thereupon wanted to know who it was.
Of him no news was traced in all the Seven Heavens.
To earth he returned, and soured the seas.
Still round the world he wandered,
Never that he devoted slave to see. He said, “O God,
Please, now, guide me to him.”
God Almighty answered: “Set off for Rum.
Go into an unbelievers’ cloister. Recognise him.”
Gabriel went and saw him, plain,
Who at that very moment to an icon was he praying, weeping grievously.
Gabriel was profoundly moved at this.
Back to the Presence crying out he came.
Gabriel gave tongue. He said: “O the self-sufficient,
Unveil for me this mystery.
Him I saw in a monastery, for he invokes the idols.
Is it out of Your kindness that You respond to him?”
Almighty God replied: “He is of a heart darkened:
He does not know. Because of this he has mistaken the way.
If unwittingly he mistook the road, that error
I, since I am not unwitting, have not taken the wrong way.
Even now, do I grant him access to the Court:
My benevolence will be visited upon him, the pardon-seeker.”
This He said and opened the way for his spirit;
To utter the words “Lord” his tongue He loosed,
That you might know that this is the Community:
That what goes on here is unharmful.
Though you have for this Court nothing to offer,
Nothing’s fallen by the wayside. Don’t worry;
Not every pious ascetic exempted is bought;
Nothingness, too, at His Court may be bought”
Comment: So we can see that the Christian idol worshiper is answered by Allah, and this is a clear hint towards Wahdatul Adyan (unity of religions).
Avery said in notes that “I am with you” is the translation of “Labayka”. So for these misguided Sufis, Allah says “Labayka” to Christian idol worshiper, while in the Quran, Allah told that he hates polytheism, and the heavens were close to be destroyed hearing that people attributing a son to Allah, and ‘Attar tells us that Allah says “Labayka” to someone involved in trinity and Idol worship. Allahul Musta’an.
P 410 and after, we have another story of Shibli showing this unity of religions
When Shibli had gone from this desolate place,
Some gallant fellow saw him in a dream.
He asked: “How has God treated you, oh Lucky one?”
Shibli answered: “When my reckoning turned out tricky,
Since He saw myself so much my own enemy,
Saw my weakness and despair and incapacity,
He was moved by compassion for my helplessness.
Then out of kindness He entirely forgave.”
O Creator, to You I am a helpless wayfarer;
To You am I like an ant stuck in a pit.
I do not know what I am fit for,
Or where I am or what or who I am.
Bodyless, luckless, profitless,
Destitute, distracted, lacking heart.
A life in the blood of anguish melted,
Life’s requital unpaid,
Whatever has been done, the fine is being exacted;
Upon my lips life is reaching the end.
The heart having eluded me, the Faith having been lost,
My form is passing away, the meaning lost.
I am neither an unbeliever nor a Muslim do I remain,
Staying bewildered between the two.
Neither believer nor infidel, what should I do?
Left bemused and without resolution, how should I act?
I am caught in the narrow gate,
The face turned to the wall of phantasy.
For me, unable to help myself, open wide this door,
And to this one fallen by the wayside show the way.
Although the slave has no provision at all for the road,
Yet he never rests at all from tears and sighs.
You could with this sighs burn his sin away,
And with his tears, wash clean the Black Book.
To whomsoever has for harvest his oceans of tears,
Say “Come”, because he is worthy of this dwelling place.
But to him the burden of whose eyes is not tears of blood,
Say “Go”, for he has nothing to do with us.
Comment: So here Shibli tells he is not a Muslim, and says whomsoever has tears is welcomed, so ‘Attar clearly says that Sufis follow their own fabricated religion of love, whether one is non-Muslim. These people were not satisfied with the religion of Allah, so they abandoned it and invented their religion inspired by Shaytan to misguide people and throw them in hell-fire.
‘Attar and Nur Muhammadi (the Prophetic light)
Farid ud Din ‘Attar believes that the creation was created through the Prophet’s light, and he wrote p 26 and after:
“Both worlds through his existence found a name.
The Throne too through his name was established.
Like dew-drops they came out of the Ocean of Munificence:
The creatures of the cosmos in his wake into being.
The purpose of his Light was created beings.
It was the origin of inexistences and existences.
God when He saw that Absolute Light in His presence,
He created from its light a hundred oceans of light.
For Himself that pure Soul He created.
For it the creaturely world He created.
Creation has no purpose but him.
Purer than he there is no being.
That which first appeared from the Invisible of the Invisible
Was his Pure Light without doubt.
After that this Light exalted its banner aloft.
It turned into the Throne and the Dais and the Tablet and the Pen.
One unfurling of his Pure light is the world;
One unfurling is the seed and is Adam.
When the Majestic Light became apparent,
Prostrate it fell before the Creator.
Centuries in prostration was it fallen;
Life-times with head bowed was it in the standing position (ruku’) standing.
Years were they (the banner of light) occupied with the standing position.
In making the profession of Faith there was also a whole lifetime.
From the orisons of the Light if that Ocean of Mystery,
Obligatory for the whole Community prayer became.
God held that Light, shinning like the sun and the moon,
Breast to breast undifferentiated for ages long.
Then to the ocean of reality suddenly
He opened for that Light a clear way!;
When that light saw the surface of the Sea of Mysteries,
Agitation upon it fell because of the Power and Glory.
Casting about, it turned on itself seven times;
The seven circumferences of the firmament became visible.
Every glance that from God reached towards it,
Became a star and the galaxies were revealed.
After this Pure Light found repose.
The Throne was exalted and the Dais discovered a name.
The Throne and the Dais the reflection of his Essence arose.
Then the Angels out if its attributes arose.
From his breaths lights became manifest,
And from his thought-filled heart the mysteries appeared.
The secret of the spirit is from the World of Thought alone:
Only ‘Did I breath from my spirit into him’
When those breaths and those mysteries were conjoined,
For this reason souls became a multitudinous body.
Since the hangers-on of his Light the people came,
The Apostle to all because of this he inevitably became.
He became the Deputy until the Day of Reckoning
For the sake of all the creatures of time.
…
His light since it was the origin of existences,
His essence since it was the bestower of every essence”
Comment: Anyone having reason can see the falsehood of this creed, and this is the religion of Batini and Shi’ah, Zoroastrians and others, this has nothing to do with the religion of Islam. These people have nothing from the Quran or the Sunnah to justify such an heretical creed, rather they follow Shaytan who wants to destroy the religion of the Prophet (saw) as he destroyed the Jewish and Christian religion.
‘Attar and defense of Iblis
P292 and after, we have a story of Iblis knowing the secret of Allah and that he will be forgiven:
“The hoopoe said: “When God was breathing this quintessential spirit
Into the body of Adam, which was water and earth,
He wished that all the host of the Angels
Should no knowledge discover of the soul, nor any trace,
He commanded: ‘Oh Hallowed Ones of Heaven,
At this time before Adam make prostration.’
All of them bowed their heads to the ground;
Consequently not one saw that holy secret.
Then Iblis came and instantly whispered,
‘No-one will see any prostration of my part.
Were my head from my body to be riven,
It would not matter when I have this neck!
I am quite aware that Adam is not of dust;
I would lose my head without any fear, to discover the secret.’
Since Iblis had not his head on the ground,
He witnessed the mystery, for he was hiding furtively.
God the Almighty to him called: ‘Oh wandering spy,
You are in there for seeing the secret.
Now you have seen the treasure that I have hidden here,
I will kill you, lest you spread it about the world.
For is not, outside of the guards, hidden
Any place where the Padshah deposits a treasure?
Assuredly, anyone in whose sight he puts it away,
He should kill: draw a line through his life.
You are a man of treasure: you choose a corner to lurk in.
Your choice ought to be the cutting off your head,
And if I do not cut it off from your trunk this very moment,
You could be spreading this matter all over the world.’
Iblis answered: ‘Oh God, a reprieve grant this slave.
Make some remedy for this betrayer of duty.’
Almighty God answered: ‘Sparing you rests with Me.
The torque of accursedness I have rested round your neck.
Your name, that of The Deceiver do I register,
So that you till the Resurrection stay the accursed.’
After this, Iblis said: ‘That Holy Treasure
Since to me it has been revealed, how should a curse be feared?
The curse belongs to You. Forgiveness belongs to You.
The slave belongs to You. Destiny’s disposal belongs to You.
If the curse be my destiny, there is no fear:
Poison there has to bee too: not everything is the antidote.
Since I have seen the creature’s seeking execration,
I have with impropriety filched your curse already.’
This is how the seeking has to be, if a seeker you are.
You are no seeker in the sense of overcoming;
If you fail to find Him in all your nights and days,
That will not be His loss. The deficiency will lie in the seeking.”
Comment: So according to this nonsense Iblis has seen the secret Allah put in human being, and he is not scared of the curse of Allah because seeing this secret. What a clear opposition to the religion of Islam. Allah never put any kind of secret in Adam, this is pure invention and a shameless lie upon Allah. These people are like polytheists who attribute to Allah things Allah never revealed. And Allah described Iblis refusal to prostrate due to his pride, not because he wanted to see any kind of secret.
After seeing all of this, it is clear that Farid ud Din Al-‘Attar is a heretic Batini, and these people attribute their invented religion to Islam, else ignorant laymen will not follow them. And it is also clear that the publisher of this book THE ISLAMIC TEXTS SOCIETY also want to destroy the pure religion of Islam and replace it with their religion of Wahdadtul Wujud and clear Kufr.
May send Salah and Salam on the Prophet (saw), his household, Companions and those who follow them.
Compiled by Ali Hassan Khan di umm-ul-qura.org
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)
