In Islam it is the belief that ONLY ALLAH existed eternally and He brought all the things from the state of non existence into existence. If any muslims doubts this , it implies that "if" there were other things also existing along with Allah since eternity , then the question comes who made these things? This will give rise to another god who was responsible for this "other things"! Also among the attributes of Allah is 'qadeem'.
But Ibn Taymiah was so much involved in Greek Philosophy that like greek philosophers he said along with Allah , Throne and water also existed along with Allah and they were not created by Allah ( this is total Kufr).
Only Allah existed eternally and HE will exist always.
Shaykhul Islam , hafiz , Ibn Hajar al asqalani said this was the wors thing from Ibn Taymiah among many other bad things in Aqidah reported from Ibn Taymiah.
Plz see the attached scan from Fathul Bari . Those who are interested MUST read this whole artcile to see this deviancy of Ibn Taymiah.
Ibn Taymiyyah's Saying of Hawadith with No Beginning Existing Eternally with Allah
This issue is one of the ugliest issues in belief by which Ibn Taymiyyah dissented from the sound mind and the explicit tradition and Ijma’ of the Muslims. He mentioned this belief in five of his books: "Minhaj-us-Sunnat-in-Nabawiyyah", "Muwafaqatu Sarih-il-Ma’qul li Sahih-il-Manqul", "Sharh Hadith-in-Nuzul", "Sharh Hadith ‘Imran Ibn Husayn", and "Naqdu Maratib-il-’Ijma’".
Ibn Taymiyyah's statement in "Minhaj-us-Sunnat-in-Nabawiyyah", Volume I, page 24 is: If you say to us: You said of the occurrence of the hawadith in Allah, we say to you: Yes, and this saying of ours is what the Shar’ and mind showed.
He replied to Ibn Hazm for reporting the Ijma’ that Allah existed eternally and no thing existed with Him, and that the disagreer with this is a kafir. After these words, Ibn Taymiyyah said: What is stranger than that is his (Ibn Hazm's) reporting the Ijma’ upon the kufr of whoever contended with the belief that Allah existed eternally by Himself and no thing existed with Him.
Ibn Taymiyyah's statement in "Sharh Hadith ‘Imran Ibn Husayn", page 193,: If the kind of the creations is assumed to be eternal with Allah, this companionship is not negated by the Shar’ or the mind, but it is of His perfection. Allah, ta’ala, said that the One Who creates is not equal to whoever does not create. Then Ibn Taymiyyah said: The creation existed eternally with Him. Then he said: but many people confuse the self with the kind.
His statement in "Muwafaqatu Sarih-il-Ma’qul li Sahih-il-Manqul", page 291 is: We said: we do not accept. However, the daily hadith is preceded by hawadith without a beginning.
In the manuscript of "Tashnif-ul-Masami’", page 342, Muhaddith, Usuli Badr-ud-Din az-Zarkashi reported the agreement of the Muslims upon the kufr of whoever says that the kind of the world is eternal. After mentioning that the philosophers said the world is eternal by matter and shape, and that some said it is eternal by matter but its shape is muhdath (has a beginning), he said: and the Muslims charged them (the philosophers) with deviation and kufr. Before that Hafiz Ibn Daqiq al-’Id, Qadi ‘Iyad, and Hafiz Ibn Hajar said the like in "Sharh al-Bukhari". Hafiz as-Subki confirmed this belief about Ibn Taymiyyah in his treatise "ad-Durrat-ul-Mudiyyah" and as said previously, Abu Sa’id al-’Ala'i did too. This belief was reported also by al-Jalal-ud-Dawwani in "Sharh-ul-’Adudiyyah". He said: I saw in a writing of Abul-’Abbas Ibn Taymiyyah the saying that the kind of al-’Arsh is eternal.
The Hanafi ‘Allamah al-Bayyadi mentioned in his book "Isharat-ul-Maram", page 197, after mentioning the proofs about the beginning of the world: Hence, what Ibn Taymiyyah thought of al-’Arsh being eternal, as reported in "Sharh-ul-’Adudiyyah", is invalidated.
In his poem, which is famous even among the defenders of Ibn Taymiyyah, and which contained refuting al-Hilli then Ibn Taymiyyah, among of what as-Subki said: Ibn Taymiyyah has a refutation to what one of the rawafid (some deviant groups) said that was complete. However, he mixed the truth with the hashw [The hashw is done by a group called al-Hashwiyyah. It is a vile group with ignorant members attributing themselves to Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, who is clear of them. They reported words about him which they misunderstood. Then, they continued with their bad belief claiming to cling to the Hadith. The best of the muhaddithun (pl. of muhaddith) in his time, Ibn ‘Asakir used to refrain from teaching them the Hadith and prevent them from attending his circle in Damascus. This group did not have a head or someone to carry its invalid belief, except some scattered efforts which were foiled by the Muslims. Then, around the end of the 700th Hijriyyah year, Ibn Taymiyyah advocated the invalid beliefs and ideas of this group.] whenever he could. He says that there are hawadith with no beginning that occur in Allah. Praise to Allah; He is clear of what he (Ibn Taymiyyah) thinks about Him.
Ibn Taimiyah is characteristically audacious in rejecting hadith which do not conform with his purpose at hand even if those hadith are rigorously authentic (sahih) .
A good example of that is the following case: Al-Bukhari reported in his sahih:
“Allah existed and there was nothing other than Him.”
This hadith is in agreement with the [clear-cut] evidence of the Qur`an, the sunnah, reason, and certain consensus (al-ijmà‘ al-mutayaqqan). However, since it conflicts with his belief in the eternity of the world,45 he turned to another version of this hadith which al-Bukhàri also reported: “Allah existed and their was nothing before Him.” And he rejected the first version in favor of the second on the grounds that the second conforms with another hadith: “You are the first; there is nothing before You.” [He held that the implication was that created things always existed along with Allah] .
Hafiz Ibn Hajr remarked concerning the correct manner of reconciling the apparent contradiction in the above-mentioned hadiths:
“In fact the way to reconcile the two versions of the hadith is to understand the second in light of the first, and not the other way around. Moreover, there is consensus on the principle that reconciliation of two apparently contradictory versions of a text (nass) takes precedence over endorsing one version at the expense of revoking the other. ”
Actually, Ibn Taimáyah’s prejudice blinded him from understanding the two versions of the hadith which, in fact, are not mutually contradictory. That is because the version “Allah existed and there was nothing before Him.” has the meaning which is contained in His name the First; whereas, the version “Allah existed and there was nothing other than Him.” has the meaning contained in His name the One. The proof of this is still another version of the hadith with the wording “Allah existed before everything."
TO SUM UP
1.قال في منهاج السنّة النبوية (1/ 24) : "فإن قلتم لنا: فقد قلتم بقيام الحوادث بالربّ، قلنا لكـم: نعم، وهذا قولنا الذي دلّ عليه الشرع والعقل"
Ibn Taymiyah said in “Minhajus-Sunnah An-Nabawiyyah”, Volume 1, page 24: “If you say to us: You said of the occurrence of the hawadith in Allah, we say to you: Yes, and this saying of ours is what the Shar^ and mind showed”
2.وقد ردّ على ابن حزم في نقد مراتب الإجماع (ص/ 168) لنقله الإجماع على أن الله لـم يزل وحده ولا شىء غيره معه، وأن المخالف بذلك كافر باتفاق المسلمين، فقال ابن تيمية بعد كلام ما نصه: "وأعجب من ذلك حكايته الإجماع على كفر من نازع أنه سبحانه لم يزل وحده ولا شىء غيره معه"
Ibn Taymiyah in “Naqdu Maratibil-^Ijma^, page 168” replied to Ibn Hazm for reporting the Ijma^ that Allah existed eternally and no thing existed with Him, and that the disagreer with this is a kafir. After these words, Ibn Taymiyah said “What is stranger than that is his reporting the Ijma^ upon the kufr of whoever contended with the belief that Allah existed eternally by Himself and no thing existed with Him.”
3.أما عبارته في شرح حديث عمران بن الحصين(ص/ 193)، ومجمرع الفناوى (18/ 239) فهي: "وإن قدّر أن نوعها- أي الحوادث- لم يزل معه فهذه المعية لم ينفها شرع ولا عقل، بل هي من كماله، قال تعالى: أَفَمَن يَخْلُقُ كَمَن لاَّ يَخْلُقُ أَفَلا تَذَكَّرُونَ (سورة النحل/17) وقال: "والخلق لا يزالون معه " إلى أن قال: "لكن يشتبه على كثير من الناس النوع بالعين ".
Ibn Taymiyah said in “Sharh Hadith ^Imran Ibn Husayn, page 193 and Majmu^ Al-Fatawa Volume 18, page 239”: “If the kind of the creations is assumed to be eternal with Allah, this companionship is not negated by the Shar^ or the mind, but it is of His perfection.
Allah, said
أَفَمَن يَخْلُقُ كَمَن لاَّ يَخْلُقُ أَفَلا تَذَكَّرُونَ
which means the One Who creates is not equal to whoever does not create; do you not see?” Then he said “and the creation existed eternally with Him” then he said “but many people confuse the self with the kind”.
4.أمّا عبارته في الموافقة فهي ما نصّه (291): "قلنا: لا نسلم بل يكون الحادث اليومي مسبوقًا بحوادث لا أول لها"
In “Muwafaqat Sarihil-Ma^qul li Sahihil-Manqul, page 291”, Ibn Taymiyah said: “We said: we do not accept. However, the daily haadith is preceded by hawadith without a beginning”.
5.قال العلاّمة البياضي الحنفي في كتابهإشارات المرام (ص/ 197) بعد ذكر الأدلة على حدوث العالم ما نصّه: "فبطل ما ظنه ابن تيمية من قدم العرش كما في شرح العضدية"
The Hanafiyy Scholar Al-Bayyadiyy mentioned in his book “Ishaaraatul-Maraam, page 197”, after mentioning the proofs about the beginning of the world: “Hence, what Ibn Taymiyah thought of al-^Arsh being eternal, as reported in “Sharhul-^Adudiyyah”, is invalidated.”
6. قال الجلال الدواني (الدواني عالم مشهور ترجمه الحافظ السخاوي في البدـر الطالع ووثق) في كتاب شرح العضدية (ص/ 13): "وقد رأيت في بعض تصانيف ابن تيمية القول به- أي بالقدم الجنسي- في العرش"
Jalalud-Din Ad-Dawwaaniyy said in “Sharhul-^Adudiyyah, page 13”: “I saw in a writing of Abul-^Abbas Ibn Taymiyah the saying that the kind of al-^Arsh is eternal.
7. وقد ثبت عن السبكي ما نقله عنه تلميذه الصفدي وتلميذ ابن تيمية أيضًا في قصيدته المشهورة وقال: "ولابن تيمية ردُّ عليـه وفـى بمقصد الردّ واستيفاءِ أضْرُبِهِ
لكنه خَلطَ الحق المبين بما يشوبـُهُ كَـدًرٌ فـي صَفوِمشرَبِهِ
يحاوِلُ الحَشوَ أنَّى كان لهُ حثيثُ سيرٍ بشرقٍ او بمغرِبِهِ
يـرى حـوادث لا مبـدَا لأوَّلـهـا في الله سبحـانَهُ عما يظُنُّ ب"
Taqiyud-Din As-Subkiyy in a famous poem said: “Ibn Taymiyah has a refutation of what one of the rawafid said that was complete. However, he mixed the truth with the hashw whenever he could. He says that there are hawadith with no beginning that occur in Allah. Praise to Allah; He is clear of what he thinks about Him.”
The true case of Ibn Taymiyah is not a clear one for people nowadays as it was during his time. Ibn Taymiyah was a man with alot of knowledge however he lacked the comprehension of that knowledge and he became misguided after being guided. In the coming future I will post for information regarding the history of this man and his beliefs In sha' Allah. In the mean time one can check the following references and read for themselves what the scholars said about Ibn Taymiyah.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ibn Hajar Al-`Asqalaniyy, Ad-Durar Al-Kaminah, Vol. 1, pp. 144- 153. 2.
Ibn Al-Wardiyy, Tatimat Al-Mukhtasar fi Akhbar Al-Bashar (Tarikh Ibn Al-Wardiyy), Vol. 2, p. 381, p. 398. 3.
Salah Ad-Din As-Safadiyy[1], ‘A`yan Al-`Asr wa A`wan An-Nasr (manuscript), Vol. 1, p. 34. 4.
Taqiyy Ad-Din Al-Husniyy, Daf` Shubah man Shabbaha wa Tamarrad, pp. 41-42, 43-45. (He quoted Ibn Shakir Al-Kutbiyy in his book of Tarikh, Vol. 20.) Al-Husniyy said: “Ibn Shakir was one of the followers of Ibn Taymiyah and was beaten severely because he said to a caller of athan you committed kufr when the caller said O Prophet of Allah you are my means. They wanted to sever off his head, but he renewed his faith in Islam. I only mention what he said because that is more prudent to establish the case against Ibn Taymiyah, in spite the fact that he neglected things out of his spitefulness and wickedness, which if mentioned would deeply degrade his role model. The surprising thing is that Ibn Taymiyah mentioned them, while he ignored them.”
Ibn Shakir Al-Kutbiyy, `Uyun At-Tawarikh (manuscript), p. 179. 6.
Ibn Al-Mu`allim Al-Qurashiyy, Najm Al-Muhtadiyy wa Rajm Al-Mu`tadiyy (manuscript), p. 630-631.
