دار التوحيد Dr'ul Tawhd

Author Topic: DIDNT SHAYKH MUHAMMAD BIN ABDIL WAHHB DECLARE TAKFR UPON IBNU ARAB?  (Read 47 times)

Izhr'ud Dn

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
  • فَفِرُّوا إِلَى اللَّهِ

بِسْمِ اللّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ
Didnt Shaykh Muhammad bin Abdil Wahhb Rahimahullh Declare Takfr upon Ibnu Arab?

In this article, Inshllh we will take in hand the statement of Muhammad bin Abdil Wahhb Rahimahullh mentioned in one of his letters regarding him not declaring Takfr upon Muhyid Dn Ibnu Arab, the leader of the ideology of Wahdatul Wujd (the idea of the unity of existence) who claims that -Hsh (God-forbid)- Allhu Tal is in everything. In the letter he sent to the people of al-Qasm after he takes in hand the slanders and base-less accusations regarding himself, the Shaykh Rahimahullh says,

وإني أكفّر ابن الفارض وابن عربي

() And that I declare Takfr upon Ibnul Fridh and Ibnu Arab

He then says in response to all of these claims:


جوابي عن هذه المسائل، أن أقول: سبحانك هذا بهتان عظيم

My response to all of these matters is: Glory be to You (O Allh) this is a great slander! (ar-Rasilush Shakhsiyyah, p. 12, 1st letter)

This letter is also found in the compilation named ad-Durarus Saniyyah as the first pamphlet. As seen, the Shaykh Rahimahullh is belying the claim that he declares Takfr upon the leaders of Ittihd (unity) Ibnu Arab and Ibnul Fridh whom share the same Kufr Aqdah (creed).

This matter has become problematic for many and a lot of different claims have emerged because of it. This is why as some attempted to declare Takfr upon the Shaykh Rahimahullh, others who wanted to free Ibnu Arab and his companions from guilt try to legitimize him with this statement of the Shaykh Rahimahullh. Many others have asserted that this is a false and distorted statement ascribed to the Shaykh Rahimahullh.

Years ago, when we heard this statement by the Shaykh Rahimahullh, we quickly ruled that this statement was false due to the influence of our ignorance and as a reason we presented the statements of the Shaykh declaring Takfr upon Ibnu Arab. However, the educational discipline we have received over the years has showed us that unless there are serious presumptions and evidences these claims are based upon, the claim that there are distortions in any scholars book is an ignorant attribute which is far from Ilm (sacred knowledge). This letter by the Shaykh Rahimahullh and other pamphlets/letters which are considered Mushkil (problematic) reached us the same way the other pamphlets/letters of the Shaykh Rahimahullh has reached us. Just as the Qurniyyn who reject the Sunnah call the Ahdth (pl. Hadth) which suit their book Sahh (Authentic) and call the Ahdth which do not suit their book Mawd (Fabricated) which all come from similar narrators, calling every statement which does not suit our Aqdah (creed) fabricated or distorted is an attribute which has no relation with good intentions and the Akhlq (etiquettes/manners) of Ilm. This is why regarding the statements of our scholars which seem Mushkil, it is better to compile and reconcile them with their other statements, and this occurs with substituting their Mushkil statements with their Muhkam (Clear) statements, as the phrase goes.

When we examined the books of the Shaykh Rahimahullh, the only place wherein it seems as if he positively mentions of Ibnu Arab and his followers is in the above mentioned statement. In all other places, he makes mention of Ibnu Arab as a leader of Kufr (disbelief) and Dallah (deviation). I would like to narrate a few of these statements in example,


وهذا اشتهر عنه أنه على دين ابن عربي الذي ذكر العلماء أنه أكفر من فرعون، حتى قال ابن المقري الشافعي: من شك في كفر طائفة ابن عربي فهو كافر
() It is well-known that this person is upon the Dn (religion) of Ibnu Arab -whom the scholars mentioned is more a disbeliever than Firawn (Pharaoh)-, until Ibnul Muqr ash-Shfi said, Whoever doubts regarding the Kufr of the group of Ibnu Arab is a Kfir. (ar-Rasilush Shakhsiyyah, p. 72, 11th letter)

Elsewhere while mentioning the people of Wahdatul Wujd he Rahimahullh says,


هذا الذي ذكر أهل العلم أنهم أكفر من اليهود والنصارى، وقال بعضهم: من شك في كفر أتباعه فهو كافر، وذكرهم في الإقناع في باب حكم المرتد، وإمامهم ابن عربي
These are those people whom the Ahlul Ilm (people of sacred-knowledge; the scholars) mentioned to be more disbelieving than the Yahd (Jews) and the Nasr (Christians). Some of them said, Whoever doubts regarding the Kufr of the followers of this group is a Kfir. The (author of the book on Hanbal Fiqh) al-Iqn mentioned them in the Chapter on the Hukm (Ruling) of the Murtad (Apostate). Their Imm is Ibnu Arab. (ar-Rasilush Shakhsiyyah, p. 136-137, 20th letter)

He Rahimahullh also said,


يتبعون مذهب ابن عربي وابن الفارض. وقد ذكر أهل العلم أن ابن عربي من أئمة أهل مذهب الاتحادية، وهم أغلظ كفراً من اليهود والنصارى. فكل من لم يدخل في دين محمد  صلى الله عليه وسلم ويتبرأ من دين الاتحادية، فهو كافر بريء من الإسلام، ولا تصح الصلاة خلفه، ولا تُقبل شهادته

They follow the Madhhab (path) of Ibnu Arab and Ibnul Fridh, while the Ahlul Ilm have mentioned that Ibnu Arab is from the leaders of the Madhhab of Ittihd and while they are worse in Kufr than the Yahd and the Nasr. So, whoever does not enter into the Dn of Muhammad Sallallhu Alayhi wa Sallam and does not free himself from the Dn of Ittihdiyyah is a Kfir who is free from Islm; the Salh (daily prayers) prayed behind him will not be valid and his testification will not be accepted. (ar-Rasilush Shakhsiyyah, p. 189, 28th letter)

Thus, this is the view of the Shaykh Muhammad bin Abdil Wahhb Rahimahullh regarding the Madhhab of Wahdatul Wujd who assert the unity of Allhu Tal with the universe, the Madhhab of Ittihd, and Ibnu Arab, Ibnul Fridh, and their followers who lead these Btil (false) Madhhib (pl. Madhhab). He Rahimahullh clearly declares Takfr upon all of these.

As for what he mentioned in the beginning, his statements not declaring Takfr upon them, this is -in any case- regarding the cases of two Muayyan (specific) individuals and it is not hesitation regarding the Aqdah of Wahdatul Wujd being Kufr or not. The Kufr of this Aqdah which asserts everything in the universe is Allhu Tal will not be doubted even by a regular Muslim or even a Jew or a Christian -let alone a scholar!.. Likewise, the Shaykh Rahimahullh clarifies that this Aqdah is Kufr in the statements which we have quoted, and he even narrates with approval the Fatw (religious verdict) by the Shfi scholar, Ibnul Muqr (837H) that even the one who hesitates regarding the Kufr of Ibnu Arab and his followers is a Kfir.

Primarily, the statement of Ibnul Muqr Rahimahullh is regarding those who adopt the Aqdah of Ibnu Arab and those who do not declare Takfr upon them. As for the personality of Ibnu Arab, the scholars before and after Ibnul Muqr Rahimahullh have made Ijm (consensus) upon the Aqdah of Ittihd being Kufr, however, some of them -in their books- refrained from declaring Takfr upon Ibnu Arab who articulated this Btil Aqdah.

The scholars whom refrained from declaring Takfr upon Ibnu Arab possessed this view by negating the Kufr of Ittihd from him, made Tawl (forceful interpretation) of his statements, and sometimes denied these statements belonged to him. For example, the circumstance of Jallud Dn as-Suyt Rahimahullh who defends Ibnu Arab is like this. If he and his likes were not to consider the Kufr of Ittihd to be Kufr and were not to negate this type of Kufr from Ibnu Arab, they would not have defended him by claiming his statements could mean something other than the apparent meaning. The book as-Suyt wrote to defend Ibnu Arab named Tanbhul Ghab bi Tabriati Ibni Arab is available. Herein, as-Suyt has lengthened the word on defending Ibnu Arab and has stated that the statements of Ibnu Arab are Kufr in Dhhir (outwardly), however, he claims that these may have Tawl available in accordance with the Sharah. Attention should be paid to as-Suyt using the word Dhhir (outwardly), since in Usl (Methodology), Dhhir is that which can be interpreted in two ways, where one (interpretation) is more preponderant than the other. Whereas Nass (unequivocal; textual proof) is that which cannot be interpreted except as having one single meaning.

Thus, as-Suyt and his likes who claim that Ibnu Arabs statements are open to making Tawl (forceful interpretation) actually state that his statements are not clear rather they contain multi-probabilities. Otherwise, whoever states that Ibnu Arab or any other who stated open Kufr may not be Kfir or claims that it is permissible for some people to speak Kufr is a Kfir.

The only issue here at hand is to look at how as-Suyt and his likes explain the open Kufr of Ibnu Arab and if they have a Tawl to save themselves, and this is not our job; it is not possible for us to do so. Since these people have passed away, we do not have the ability to know what kind of an inner Itiqd they had and what type of explanation they brought to which statement of Ibnu Arab. Besides, while as-Suyt objects to declaring Takfr upon Ibnu Arab, he only mentions the possibility of making Tawl of his statements after mentioning many other possibilities, such that these Kufr statements might have been inserted in his books by others and that these books may even by falsely attributed to him; he does not mention this as something certain, nor is it apparent that he defends that all of Ibnu Arabs Kufr statements may be made Tawl of. At the moment, although I do not recall where exactly this is mentioned, I do remember seeing in some works by Shaykhul Islm Ibnu Taymiyyah Rahimahullh the mention of Tawl made to the statements of Ibnu Arab by his devotees; they had brought forth such astonishing explanations even to statements of clear cut Kufr which would be thought to have no possibility of Tawl.

Despite the fact that all of such claims are comprised of Btil (false) and Fsid (invalid) Tawl, before giving a certain Hukm to these people, what they actually defend must be established. If they refrain from identifying statements which do not have any explanation as Kufr, then they are Kfir; however, even if this is not their circumstance, they still deserve Tadhr (punishment for discretionary crime) and punishment for trying to justify and clear such Zandiqah (pl. Zindq; heretics).

While explaining their Kufr to be more severe than the Kufr of the Yahd (Jews) and the Nasr (Christians), Shaykhul Islm Ibnu Taymiyyah Rahimahullh says regarding those whom defend the people of Wahdatul Wujd,


وَهَكَذَا هَؤُلَاءِ الِاتِّحَادِيَّةُ: فَرُءُوسُهُمْ هُمْ أَئِمَّةُ كُفْرٍ يَجِبُ قَتْلُهُمْ وَلَا تُقْبَلُ تَوْبَةُ أَحَدٍ مِنْهُمْ إذَا أُخِذَ قَبْلَ التَّوْبَةِ فَإِنَّهُ مِنْ أَعْظَمِ الزَّنَادِقَةِ الَّذِينَ يُظْهِرُونَ الْإِسْلَامَ وَيُبْطِنُونَ أَعْظَمَ الْكُفْرِ وَهُمْ الَّذِينَ يَفْهَمُونَ قَوْلَهُمْ وَمُخَالَفَتَهُمْ لِدِينِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ وَيَجِبُ عُقُوبَةُ كُلِّ مَنْ انْتَسَبَ إلَيْهِمْ أَوْ ذَبَّ عَنْهُمْ أَوْ أَثْنَى عَلَيْهِمْ أَوْ عَظَّمَ كُتُبَهُمْ أَوْ عُرِفَ بِمُسَاعَدَتِهِمْ وَمُعَاوَنَتِهِمْ أَوْ كَرِهَ الْكَلَامَ فِيهِمْ أَوْ أَخَذَ يَعْتَذِرُ لَهُمْ بِأَنَّ هَذَا الْكَلَامَ لَا يَدْرِي مَا هُوَ أَوْ مَنْ قَالَ إنَّهُ صَنَّفَ هَذَا الْكِتَابَ وَأَمْثَالَ هَذِهِ الْمَعَاذِيرِ الَّتِي لَا يَقُولُهَا إلَّا جَاهِلٌ أَوْ مُنَافِقٌ؛ بَلْ تَجِبُ عُقُوبَةُ كُلِّ مَنْ عَرَفَ حَالَهُمْ وَلَمْ يُعَاوِنْ عَلَى الْقِيَامِ عَلَيْهِمْ فَإِنَّ الْقِيَامَ عَلَى هَؤُلَاءِ مِنْ أَعْظَمِ الْوَاجِبَاتِ؛ لِأَنَّهُمْ أَفْسَدُوا الْعُقُولَ وَالْأَدْيَانَ عَلَى خَلْقٍ مِنْ الْمَشَايِخِ وَالْعُلَمَاءِ وَالْمُلُوكِ وَالْأُمَرَاءِ وَهُمْ يَسْعَوْنَ فِي الْأَرْضِ فَسَادًا وَيَصُدُّونَ عَنْ سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ.
The Ittihdiyyah (pantheists; the sect of those who believe the unity, i.e., Wahdatul Wujd) are also the same: their leaders are the Imms of Kufr, it is obligatory to kill them and the Tawbah (repentance) of anyone of them will not be accepted when they are seized before they make Tawbah. For verily, they are from amongst the greatest of the Zandiqah whom manifest Islm outwardly and conceal the greatest Kufr (in their hearts). They are those whom comprehend their own statements and comprehend that they oppose the Dn (religion) of the Muslimn.

Anyone who affiliates with them, defends them, praises them, values their books, who is known for supporting and assisting them, who dislikes speaking regarding them, or who starts making excuses for them saying that he does not know exactly what these statements mean or says that he does not know if he wrote this book and other similar excuses which no one except a Jhil (an ignorant person) or a Munfiq (hypocrite) would say, must be punished. Moreover, it is obligatory to punish everyone who is aware of their circumstance and does not help resisting them, for verily, resisting these people is one of the most important obligations. This is because they have corrupted the minds and the Adyn (pl. Dn; religions) of a people from the Mashyikh (pl. Shaykh), the Ulam (pl. lim; scholars), the kings, and the leaders while they are spreading corruption throughout the world and preventing people from following the path of Allh.
(Ibnu Taymiyyah, Majmul Fatw 2/132)

Shaykhul Islm Ibnu Taymiyyah Rahimahullhs anticipation for overall punishment to those who continue supporting the ones who defend the Aqdah of Wahdatul Wujd with various excuses even though they clearly declare Takfr of them and he Rahimahullh describing some of them as Jhil and others Munfiq should be pondered upon This means that all of them may not be Munfiq. These possibilities are also valid for as-Suyt and his likes.

There are many scholars like as-Suyt who do not declare Muayyan (specific) Takfr of Ibnu Arab while they accept that the Aqdah of Ittihd is Kufr. In example, from amongst the Shfi scholars, Zakariyy al-Ansr Rahimahullh (d. 926H) in Asnal Matlib, 4/119; Ibnu Hajar al-Haytam Rahimahullh (d. 974H) in Tuhfatul Muhtj, 9/82; al-Khatb ash-Shirbn (d. 977H) in Mughnil Muhtj, 5/428; have rejected Ibnul Muqrs statement regarding the matter. They have claimed Ibnu Arab to be one of the Awliy (pl. Wal; saints) and that his statements are not to be understood in its Dhhir context. So much that there is nearly nobody from the latter Shfi scholars who agree with Ibnul Muqr. Whereas, in the declarations of Ibnu Arab there are statements which contain clear Kufr which cannot be interpreted. For example, he has said, The slave is the Rabb (Lord), and the Rabb is the slave; Woe to me! If only I had known which one is the Mukallaf (legally responsible)?. His books Fussul Hikam and their likes are full of such Kufr. We do not know how these scholars made Tawl of these Kufr statements, they will give their account to Allh Subhnahu.

The scholars who incline to the Ashar, Qubr (Grave Worshippers), and Sf Aqid (pl. Aqdah; creed) are not the only ones who do not make Tawl of his statements and accept that they are Kufr while they having Husnud Dhann (the utmost purity of good thoughts/expectations) and they leave his condition to Allh, there are even scholars who possess the Salaf Aqdah that do this. For example, after mentioning the Kufr statements which occur in Ibnu Arabs books and after mentioning the criticism and the declaration of Takfr of the scholars upon him, Imm adh-Dhahab -a student of Shaykhul Islm Ibnu Taymiyyah Rahimahullh- has stated,


إلا أن يكون ابن العربي رجع عن هذا الكلام، وراجعَ دين الإِسلْام، فعليه من اللَّه السلام.
Except that Ibnu Arab withdrew from these statements, and returned to the Dn of Islm; then may Allhs peace be upon him!..

Then he Rahimahullh says,


ولعلَّ ذَلِكَ وَقَعَ منه فِي حال سكرِه وغيبته، فنرجو له الخير.
It may be that this occurred from him in a state of drunkenness and a state of absent-mindedness. Then, we wish good for him. (Trkhul Islm, Drul Gharbil Islmi, 14/274-279)

Thus, it has become clear that some of the scholars had Husnudh Dhann regarding Muhyid Dn Ibn Arab and while accepting that the Kufr statements mentioned in his books are Kufr, they have dissociated him from these statements. Others have not made these Tawll and Husnudh Dhann and they have declared Muayyan (specific) Takfr upon him and have spoken harshly regarding him. In his book Tanbhul Ghab il Takfri Ibni Arab, Burhnud Dn al-Biq has brought together the statements of about forty scholars who declare Takfr upon him. This list of scholars may be attained from the following link. Without doubt, this is the preferred opinion, meaning while the views of Ibnu Arab are Kufr, he himself is Kfir and he needs to be treated as one. This means that he may not be treated like a scholar or a Wal (saint), when his name is mentioned, mercy and forgiveness is not sought for him, his Islm is not attested to, etc. The reason being his books which contain Kufr are widespread and the Muhaqqiq (verifier) scholars have attested that these books belong to him and that he is upon this Aqdah and consequently, they have declared Takfr upon him. His repentance from these has not reached us with certainty. Claiming his statements have a Tawl which is in accordance with the Sharah is also Btil (false). If he made these statements in a state of Jazb (ecstasy), then when he came to his senses, it would be necessary for him to make Tawbah (repentance) from this. It is also not reasonable for him to be in a state of continuous Jazb during the weeks and months he wrote the books. In short, the statements of the scholars who have made Husnudh Dhann regarding him are not accurate, and on top of this, there is a danger that this may legitimatize the Kufr of this Zindq (heretic) in the eyes of the people.

As a matter of fact, the scholars have severely condemned and criticized the Mubtadiah (pl. Mubtadi; innovators) who have not reached the Kufr level of Ibnu Arab, and in most cases, not even declared Takfr upon, and they have convicted these Mubtadiah in the eyes of the people so that they may not incline to their statements. Many of the Zandiqah (pl. Zindq; heretics) of Wahdatul Wujd have used the acquittal of Ibnu Arab, Hallj, and their likes by some of the scholars sourced from their Husnudh Dhann towards them while spreading this Aqdah amongst the people. In short, the statements of the scholars who do not declare Takfr upon Ibnu Arab are mistaken and even Btil. Even so, while they accept that his Kufr statements are Kufr, they are not in a circumstance of being declared Takfr upon.

Mull Aliyyul Qr Rahimahullh says in his refutation to the Wahdatul Wujd,


اعْلَم أَن من اعْتقد حَقِيقَة عقيدة ابْن عَرَبِيّ فكافر بِالْإِجْمَاع من غير النزاع وَإِنَّمَا الْكَلَام فِيمَا ذا أول كَلَامه بِمَا يَقْتَضِي حسن مرامه
Know that the one who believes in the Haqqah (reality) of the Aqdah (creed) of Ibnu Arab is a Kfir (disbeliever) by Ijm (scholarly consensus) without any dispute. The discussion is only regarding the one who makes Tawl of his statements with that which necessitates his good intent. (ar-Raddu alal Qilna bi Wahdatil Wujd, 154-155)

Likewise, when the sons of Shaykhul Islm Muhammad bin Abdil Wahhb Rahimahumullh were asked regarding such people, they said,


فمن أهل العلم من أساء به الظن، بهذه الألفاظ وأمثالها، ومنهم من تأول ألفاظه، وحملها على غير ظاهرها، وأحسن فيه الظن.
From amongst the Ahlul Ilm (People of Sacred Knowledge) are those who have thought bad about these statements and there likes, and from amongst them are those who made Tawl of his statements, interpreted it with other than its Dhhir (apparent) meaning, and thought good about him. (ad-Durarus Saniyyah, 3/21)

Thus, it is understood that there is Ittifq (agreement) that the ideas of Wahdatul Wujd which Ibnu Arab and his likes defend is Kufr and that even those who do not say that this is Kufr are Kfir. With this, there is Ikhtilf regarding the circumstance of Ibnu Arab as a Muayyan (specific) individual. Some of the scholars have made Husnudh Dhann regarding Ibnu Arab and they have distanced him from the idea of Ittihd (unity) and have said that his books were distorted or they have stated that his statements are misunderstood and they have tried to make Tawl of his statements. As everyone who has a small portion of Ilm knows, this is because giving a ruling to a Fil (an action) and giving a ruling to the Fil (actor) is not always the same thing. While accepting that the Aqdah of Ittihd is Kufr, if a person negates the idea of Ittihd belonging to Ibnu Arab and defends that Ibnu Arab should not be declared Takfr upon, then there is no path to declare Takfr of such person. This is because Takfr can only be the case when a person names Kufr (disbelief) as mn (belief) and accepts that Ibnu Arab claims that everything is Allh while pausing from declaring Takfr upon him.

As for the statement of Shaykhul Islm Muhammad bin Abdil Wahhb Rahimahullh regarding him not declaring Takfr upon Ibnu Arab and Ibnul Fridh, then this is a matter related to Muayyan Takfr as was pointed above. If a person pauses from declaring Takfr upon a Muayyan (specific) individual, there is no reason for declaring Takfr upon this person if he has some reasons devoid of naming Kufr (disbelief) as mn (belief). This is why those who claim that the Shaykh Rahimahullh is a Kfir since he did not declare Takfr upon Ibnu Arab or -at the least- claim that these statements are Kufr and that these are slanders ascribed to the Shaykh are in great Dallah (misguidance). This is because this statement contains a huge Btil in the Dn as to every person who does not declare Takfr upon every Muayyan Kfir being Kfir and it also contains attacking numerous scholars who did not declare Takfr upon Ibnu Arab and his likes.

These possibilities are found in the statement by the Shaykh Rahimahullh:

The first: It may be that in the beginning, the Shaykh Rahimahullh followed the view of the scholars who had Husnudh Dhann regarding Ibnu Arab and while declaring Takfr upon the Aqdah of Wahdatul Wujd, he chose the opinion that Ibnu Arab is distant from this Kufr. This is because the majority of the scholars during the Shaykhs era had Husnudh Dhann regarding Ibnu Arab. As for the Shaykh, he followed this popular opinion found in the circles of knowledge during his era, and afterwards he verified the matter, stopped having Husnudh Dhann for him, and declared Takfr upon him. However, the probability of this occurrence is weak according to us, this is because before the Shaykh Rahimahullh started his Dawah, he examined the books of Shaykhul Islm Ibnu Taymiyyah and Allmah Ibnul Qayyim Rahimahumallh, he adopted the views in these books, and began his Dawah soon after. It is not quite possible for a person who reads the books of Shaykhul Islm Ibnu Taymiyyah Rahimahullh to be unaware of his exposure of the statements of Ibnu Arab.

The second: The Shaykh Rahimahullh has stated this because he was not acquainted with the later state of Ibnu Arab and Ibnul Fridh; whether they made Tawbah from these statements or not. He has done this out of Shar (religious) politics; he has not done this to confirm the Kufr of these people or to claim that they are Muslim while being upon their state of Kufr. Hence, everyone who studies the Dawah of the Shaykh Rahimahullh knows that he concentrated more on directing people to the Aqdah of Tawhd rather than dealing with Muayyan individuals and events. Here, the same thing is at stake; he says the following after mentioning many accusations,


وإني أكفر ابن الفارض، وابن عربي; وإني أحرق دلائل الخيرات، وروض الرياحين، وأسميه روض الشياطين.
And that I declare Takfr upon Ibnul Fridh and Ibnu Arab, that I burn Dalilul Khayrt and Rawdhur Rayhn (the Garden of Basil), and also that I name it Rawdhush Shaytn (the Garden of the Devils)

After refuting all of these claims, he explains what is true regarding himself, by saying,


وأما المسائل الأخر، وهي: أني أقول لا يتم إسلام الإنسان حتى يعرف معنى لا إله إلا الله، وأني أعرف من يأتيني بمعناها، وأني أكفر الناذر إذا أراد بنذره التقرب لغير الله، وأخذ النذر لأجل ذلك، وأن الذبح لغير الله كفر، والذبيحة حرام; فهذه المسائل حق، وأنا قائل بها
And as for the other issues, and they are: that I say a persons Islm does not become complete until he knows the meaning of La Ilaha Illallh, that I make those who come to me aware of its meaning, that I declare Takfr upon the one who vows a Nadhr (vow) if he intends to come close to other than Allh by this and makes Nadhr for this reason, that making Dhabh (slaughtering) to other than Allh is Kufr (disbelief) and that (the meat of) such sacrifice is Harm (forbidden); then these issues are the truth and I say these.

The books mentioned as Dalilul Khayrt and Rawdhur Rayhn maybe books full of Btil Khurft (false superstitions) and they maybe even deserving of being burnt, and even being named as Rawdhush Shaytn (the Garden of the Devils). However, the Shaykh states that he did not do these. He really has not done these; this is because it is possible that he Rahimahullh wrote this letter in the beginning of his Dawah, and that he may have not dealt with such things due to some benefits. Likewise, he may have not had the need to openly express the Kufr of Ibnu Arab and his likes, or he may really have hesitated regarding the final stance of Ibnu Arab. His main goal was to call the people to Tawhd and to distance them from Shirk, rather than dealing with Muayyan subjects.

Whereas, many Dut (pl. D, callers) of today toss the Dawah of Tawhd aside and prefer to expose the Kufr in the books of Ibnu Arab, Mawln, and others, or mentioning some Bidah and Khurft at the Mawlid ceremonies and in some books of Du, and only gather around those who react to such things yet ignorant of the most basic fundamentals of Tawhd.

What we understand from the statements of the Shaykh is that he concentrated on explaining the meaning of La Ilaha Illallh and that he explained the other matters only in appropriate times and places.

Wallhu Alam (and Allh knows best)!

Wal Hamdulillhi Rabbil lamn (and all praise is due to Allh, the Lord of the Worlds)!
Shaykh'ul Islm Ibnu Taymiyyah (Rahimahullh) stated,

والعالم يعرف الجاهل؛ لأنه كان جاهلا، والجاهل لا يعرف العالم لأنه لم يكن عالما

"The lim (scholar) recognizes the Jhil (ignorant) since he was once a Jhil. The Jhil does not recognize the lim since he has never been an lim." (Shaykh'ul Islm Ibnu Taymiyyah, Majm'ul Fatw, 13/235)

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
644 Views
Last post 14.08.2015, 02:44:57 AM
by Fahm'us Salaf
0 Replies
799 Views
Last post 13.10.2015, 06:39:08 AM
by Ummah
0 Replies
772 Views
Last post 19.04.2017, 03:18:26 PM
by Ummah
4 Replies
1167 Views
Last post 10.05.2018, 06:57:55 AM
by Julaybib
1 Replies
635 Views
Last post 25.08.2019, 03:25:14 AM
by Izhr'ud Dn
0 Replies
577 Views
Last post 08.04.2018, 07:12:10 PM
by Ummah
0 Replies
400 Views
Last post 02.08.2018, 01:43:19 AM
by Izhr'ud Dn
0 Replies
212 Views
Last post 08.02.2019, 01:39:43 AM
by Izhr'ud Dn
1 Replies
119 Views
Last post 20.10.2019, 09:56:41 PM
by Izhr'ud Dn
0 Replies
32 Views
Last post 23.10.2019, 02:32:34 AM
by Izhr'ud Dn