الحمد للہ وحدہ، والصلاۃ والسلام علی من لا نبی بعدہ۔
Purpose of This Writing
The purpose of this article is an academic examination of the attributions and allegations made by a grave-venerating debater against Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah (رحمه الله)—using support from Ḥanafī/Ashʿarī sources. Our methodology is simple:
❀ The original text of the allegation will be presented.
❀ Then each allegation will be answered in two ways:
① A principled response (rules of Jarḥ wa Taʿdīl)
② A textual response (explicit texts/quotes with references)
❀ Where the chain is doubtful or the narrator is accused/biased, its credibility will be shown to collapse.
Main Objective
If a Ḥanafī / grave-venerating person cites a certain biased author to accuse Ibn Taymiyyah (رحمه الله), then first he must answer the clarification that those very sources/authors themselves are unqualified and biased.
The criticism of a biased enemy is, in principle, rejected.
Objection ① (Zāhid al-Kawtharī)
Allegation (Quoted Claim)
Al-Kawtharī says that scholars were hasty in praising Ibn Taymiyyah (رحمه الله); then he began increasing in his “unique opinions”; major scholars abandoned him; until even Imām al-Dhahabī (رحمه الله) eventually deviated from him, etc. (summarized)
Answer (Principled + Textual)
① Principle of Jarḥ wa Taʿdīl: The Criticism of a Biased Enemy Is Rejected
Arabic Text:
«… ومِمَّن ينبغي أن يُتَوَقَّف في قبول قوله في الجرح: مَن كان بينه وبين من جَرَحه عداوة سببُها الاختلاف في الاعتقاد.»
— Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Lisān al-Mīzān
Translation:
Among those whose criticism should be treated with reservation is the one who has enmity with the one he criticizes due to difference in creed.
② Al-Kawtharī’s Own Admission
Arabic Text:
«وروايةُ العدوِّ والمتعصِّب مردودة عند أهل النقد.»
— al-Kawtharī, Ta’nīb al-Khaṭīb
Translation:
According to the ḥadīth critics, the narration of an enemy and a fanatic is rejected.
③ ʿAbd al-Ḥayy Lakhnawī
Arabic Text:
«… الجرحُ إذا صدر من تعصّبٍ أو عداوةٍ فهو جرحٌ مردود…»
— al-Rafʿ wa al-Takmīl
Translation:
If criticism is issued due to fanaticism or enmity, then it is rejected.
✅ Conclusion: Since al-Kawtharī is ideologically opposed and biased against Ibn Taymiyyah (رحمه الله), such general attacks are not valid as evidence.
④ Claim: “Scholars abandoned him” — Where is the proof?
Al-Kawtharī’s general statements are mursal/of unknown transmission (majhūl al-naql)—no reliable chain, no specified incidents, and no contemporary evidence.
In contrast, reliable sources contain explicit statements affirming Ibn Taymiyyah’s scholarly rank:
Arabic Text (al-Dhahabī):
«ابنُ تيميّة… الشيخ الإمام العلامة الحافظ الناقد الفقيه المجتهد المفسّر البارع، شيخ الإسلام… من بحور العلم… أثنى عليه الموافق والمخالف…»
— al-Dhahabī, Tadhkirat al-Ḥuffāẓ
Translation:
Ibn Taymiyyah… the Shaykh, the Imām, the great scholar, the ḥāfiẓ, the critic, the jurist, the mujtahid, the outstanding exegete—Shaykh al-Islām… an ocean of knowledge… praised by both supporters and opponents.
⑤ “Al-Dhahabī later deviated” — An Unproven Attribution
Al-Dhahabī’s established and explicit testimonies in praise of Ibn Taymiyyah (رحمه الله) are established (the text of Tadhkirat al-Ḥuffāẓ has already been quoted above); likewise, in Tārīkh al-Islām he cited Ibn Taymiyyah’s views as proof at several places and counted him among the people of ijtihād. A chainless claim holds no weight against reliable, affirmative texts.
Summary of Objection ①
◈ The criticism of a biased enemy is rejected.
◈ Al-Kawtharī’s claims are vague and chainless.
◈ Clear praise from al-Dhahabī and other major scholars is established.
✔ Therefore, both principally and textually, this portion is not fit for proof.
Objection ② (Narrations of al-Ṭūfī / al-Āqshahrī) and Their Research Response
Objection Text
A grave-venerating debater quotes a long passage from al-Durar al-Kāminah, creating the impression that Ibn Taymiyyah (رحمه الله) fell into arrogance, refuted elders, and even attacked Sayyidunā ʿUmar (رضي الله عنه) and Sayyidunā ʿAlī (رضي الله عنه)—and that all of this was written by Ibn Ḥajar.
Reality
Ibn Ḥajar (رحمه الله) merely transmitted reports from some contemporary opponents (especially the treatise of al-Āqshahrī and Sulaymān b. ʿAbd al-Qawī/al-Ṭūfī). On investigation, this is not Ibn Ḥajar’s own explicit statement or adoption—rather, it is a narration of circulating statements.
① Introduction of the Narrators and Criticism Against Them
1) Sulaymān b. ʿAbd al-Qawī al-Ṭūfī al-Ṣarṣarī (d. 716H)
Arabic Text (Ibn Rajab):
«… شيعِيٌّ منحرفٌ في الاعتقاد عن السُّنَّة، حتى إنه قال في نفسه:
حنبليٌّ رافضيٌّ أشعريٌّ … هذه إحدى العِبَر»
— Ibn Rajab, Dhayl Ṭabaqāt al-Ḥanābilah
Translation:
He was Shīʿī, deviated in creed away from Sunnah—so much so that he said about himself: “Ḥanbalī, Rāfiḍī, Ashʿarī…”—this is one of the strange lessons.
2) al-Āqshahrī (Muḥammad b. Aḥmad b. Amīn… al-Āqshahrī)
In al-Durar al-Kāminah, Ibn Ḥajar gave quotations from al-Āqshahrī’s treatise at several places. This is the narration of the opposing circle, which Ibn Ḥajar mentioned in a narrative manner; he did not state its isnād or the narrator’s integrity (ʿadālah).
✅ Principle: Such quotations from a hostile/biased transmitter are not fit for proof (see the principle in Part One: Ibn Ḥajar, Lisān al-Mīzān; al-Lakhnawī, al-Rafʿ wa al-Takmīl; and al-Kawtharī’s own admission).
② Explicit Texts of Ibn Taymiyyah That Refute These Allegations
A) Eternity of Paradise and Hell (Khulūd)
Arabic Text:
«ثم أخبر ببقاء الجنة والنار بقاءً مطلقًا.»
— Ibn Taymiyyah, Bayān Talbīs al-Jahmiyyah
Translation:
Then (the texts of Allah and His Messenger) informed of the absolute permanence of Paradise and Hell.
Arabic Text:
«اتَّفَق سلفُ الأمة وأئمّتها وسائر أهل السنة والجماعة على أنّ من المخلوقات ما لا يُعدَمُ ولا يَفنَى بالكلية كالجنّة والنار والعرش…»
— Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā
Translation:
The Salaf of the Ummah, its Imāms, and all Ahl al-Sunnah are agreed that among creation are things that will not perish completely—such as Paradise, Hell, and the Throne…
Arabic Text:
«فإنّ نعيمَ الجنة وعذابَ النار دائمَان مع تجدّد الحوادث فيهما، وإنما أنكر ذلك الجهم بن صفوان.»
— Ibn Taymiyyah, Minhāj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah
Translation:
The bliss of Paradise and the punishment of Hell are everlasting, despite renewed occurrences in them; only Jahm b. Ṣafwān denied this.
Arabic Text:
«ليس للجنة والنار آخر، وإنهما لا تزالان باقيتين؛ لا يزال أهل الجنة يتنعمون، وأهل النار يُعذَّبون؛ ليس لذلك آخر.»
— Ibn Taymiyyah, Dar’ Taʿāruḍ al-ʿAql wa al-Naql
Translation:
Paradise and Hell have no end; they remain forever—Paradise’s people remain in bliss and Hell’s people remain punished; there is no end to that.
✔ Thus, the allegation “Ibn Taymiyyah believed Hell will end” is false against these explicit texts.
B) Love of Ahl al-Bayt—Especially Sayyidunā ʿAlī (رضي الله عنه)
Arabic Text:
«قيل: فما تُحِبُّون أهلَ البيت؟ قلتُ: محبتُهم عندَنا فرضٌ واجبٌ… من أبغضهم فعليه لعنةُ الله والملائكة والناس أجمعين.»
— Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā 4/488
Translation:
It was said: Do you love Ahl al-Bayt? I said: Their love, with us, is an obligatory duty… Whoever hates them—upon him is the curse of Allah, the angels, and all people.
Arabic Text:
«وقال عليٌّ رضي الله عنه: “لا يُحِبُّني إلا مؤمنٌ، ولا يُبغضني إلا منافقٌ”.»
— Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā 10/65 (the ḥadīth cited by way of affirmation)
Translation:
ʿAlī (رضي الله عنه) said: “None loves me except a believer, and none hates me except a hypocrite.”
✔ Ibn Taymiyyah (رحمه الله) declares love of Ahl al-Bayt obligatory and hatred of Ahl al-Bayt a sign of hypocrisy; so the attribution of “attacking ʿAlī (رضي الله عنه)” is false.
❖ “Al-Dhahabī (رحمه الله) Deviated from Ibn Taymiyyah (رحمه الله)” — Is It Proven?
Al-Dhahabī’s consistent and numerous statements speak of Ibn Taymiyyah’s imāmate, memorization, ijtihād and asceticism/bravery:
Arabic Text:
«… شيخ الإسلام… أحدُ الأعلام… برع في الرجال وعلل الحديث وفقهه… أحد الأذكياء المعدودين… أثنى عليه الموافق والمخالف…»
— al-Dhahabī, Tadhkirat al-Ḥuffāẓ
Translation:
“Shaykh al-Islām… one of the eminent scholars… he excelled in the narrators (rijāl), the hidden defects (ʿilal) of ḥadīth and its fiqh… one of the few exceptionally intelligent people… both supporters and opponents praised him…”
✔ Hence attributions such as “al-Dhahabī wrote a refutation at the end” are not established by any chain; and researchers have raised doubts about the very attribution of Zaghal al-ʿIlm/al-Naṣīḥah al-Dhahabiyyah (e.g. the statements of Shaykh Ḥammād al-Anṣārī and others — the attribution is doubtful).
❖ Summary
◈ The objection rests on transmitters such as al-Ṭūfī/al-Āqshahrī with deviant/Rāfiḍī tendencies; such transmission is unreliable in principle.
◈ Ibn Taymiyyah’s definitive texts exist on the eternity of Hell/Paradise and on love of Ahl al-Bayt, which nullify all these accusations.
◈ Al-Dhahabī’s established testimonies are in praise of Ibn Taymiyyah; a chainless claim against them is not reliable.
Objection ③ (al-Subkī / Fayḍ al-Qadīr) and the False Attributions of “Fanā’ al-Nār”
Objection Text
A grave-venerating debater quotes Fayḍ al-Qadīr claiming that:
① al-Subkī said about Ibn Taymiyyah: هو ضالٌّ مُضِلٌّ (he is misguided and misleads others)
② and that al-Manāwī gave the impression that Ibn Taymiyyah/Ibn al-Qayyim supported “fanā’ al-nār”.
Research Reality
① Background of the نقل in Fayḍ al-Qadīr
al-Manāwī (رحمه الله) here mentioned statements from Zamakhsharī/Ashʿarī circles by way of transmission; for the sentences that came about Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim he gave no chain, nor did he adopt them as a ruling. In the passage, “وقد قال السبكي…” comes as a narration, not as al-Manāwī’s own accepted proposition.
✔ A chainless transmitted narration does not become the adoption of any Sunni imām.
② “Fanā’ al-Nār” Attribution Is Rejected Against Ibn Taymiyyah’s Explicit Texts
Ibn Taymiyyah’s (رحمه الله) explicit texts (four separate places in Part Two) are on the eternity of Paradise and Hell:
◈ Bayān Talbīs al-Jahmiyyah: «بقاءً مطلقًا»
◈ Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā: «اتَّفَق سلف الأمة… على… كالجنّة والنار»
◈ Minhāj al-Sunnah: «نعيم الجنة وعذاب النار دائمان… أنكر ذلك الجهم»
◈ Dar’ al-Taʿāruḍ: «ليس للجنة والنار آخر… لا يزالان باقيتين»
✔ With these definitive texts present, no chainless narration of an opponent carries any weight.
❖ Further Textual Evidence — Ibn Taymiyyah’s (رحمه الله) Methodology in Creed
A) The Status of Ahl al-Bayt
Arabic Text:
«محبةُ أهل البيت فرضٌ واجب… ومن أبغضهم فعليه اللعنة.» — Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā 4/488
Translation:
Love of Ahl al-Bayt is an obligatory duty… whoever hates them, upon him is the curse.
B) Methodology of the Attributes (without tamthīl/taʿṭīl) — al-Dhahabī’s Transmission of the Creed
Arabic Text (al-Dhahabī quoting Ibn Taymiyyah):
«يصفون الله بما وصف به نفسه… من غير تحريفٍ ولا تعطيلٍ ولا تكييفٍ ولا تمثيل؛ إثباتٌ بلا تمثيل وتنزيهٌ بلا تعطيل… {لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ} ردٌّ على الممثِّلة، {وَهُوَ السَّمِيعُ البَصِيرُ} ردٌّ على المعطِّلة.»
— al-ʿArsh by al-Dhahabī
Translation:
Ahl al-Sunnah ascribe to Allah the attributes which He Himself or the Messenger described, without distortion (taḥrīf), denial (taʿṭīl), modality (takyīf) or likening (tamthīl)… “There is nothing like Him” is in refutation of the anthropomorphists (mushabbihah); “and He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing” is in refutation of the deniers (muʿaṭṭilah).
✔ Ibn Taymiyyah’s (رحمه الله) methodology rests on the Salafī balance; he holds neither tashbīh/tajsīm nor taʿṭīl.
❖ A Principled Caution — The Quotations of al-Subkī, al-Zamakhsharī, al-Manāwī and Others
◈ The intense Ashʿarī colouring and hostility of al-Subkī/al-Zamakhsharī are well known; their chainless attacks belong to the category of criticism by an enemy, which in principle is rejected (see: the principles of Ibn Ḥajar/al-Lakhnawī).
◈ Al-Manāwī transmitted narrations; he compiles passages from Ḥanafī/Ashʿarī sources, and this is not al-Manāwī’s own ruling.
❖ Summary
① The attributions of “ḍāll muḍill” and “fanā’ al-nār” are chainless narrations.
② Ibn Taymiyyah’s explicit texts stand on the eternity of Paradise and Hell and on love of Ahl al-Bayt; hence these accusations are false.
③ In the methodology of the Attributes, Ibn Taymiyyah adopts the position of the Salaf without tamthīl and taʿṭīl; the accusation of tashbīh/tajsīm comes from deviants.
Objection ④: Criticism Using “Zaghal al-ʿIlm” and “al-Naṣīḥah al-Dhahabiyyah”
① The Attribution Itself Is Disputed
Some researchers objected to attributing Zaghal al-ʿIlm and the attached “al-Naṣīḥah al-Dhahabiyyah” to al-Dhahabī:
Arabic Text (Shaykh Ḥammād al-Anṣārī):
«أنا في شكّ من نسبة هذا الكتاب إلى الحافظ الذهبي؛ لأن فيه كلامًا لا تصحّ نسبته إليه عندي… والرسالة الملحقة به مشكوك في نسبتها إليه، ولم ينسبها إليه إلا السخاوي، ومعلوم أنّ السخاوي أشعري مقلِّد لأشياخه بمصر.»
— al-Majmūʿ fī Tarjamat al-Shaykh Ḥammād al-Anṣārī
Translation:
I have doubt about the attribution of this book (Zaghal al-ʿIlm) to al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Dhahabī, because it contains words which, in my view, cannot be attributed to him… and the treatise attached to it is also of doubtful attribution; only al-Sakhāwī attributed it to him, and it is known that al-Sakhāwī was an Ashʿarī who blindly followed his teachers in Egypt.
✔ If the attribution is not established, it cannot serve as proof.
② Even If, Hypothetically, the Attribution Were Correct—Ambiguity Still Remains
In the passage of Zaghal al-ʿIlm where “Ibn Taymiyyah” is mentioned, it is not specified which Ibn Taymiyyah is meant; al-Dhahabī (رحمه الله) himself mentioned three/four “Ibn Taymiyyahs” (Majd al-Dīn, Fakhr al-Dīn, Taqī al-Dīn Aḥmad, Sharaf al-Dīn); therefore merely saying “Ibn Taymiyyah” does not necessarily mean Taqī al-Dīn Aḥmad.
③ Clear, Established Praise from al-Dhahabī
Against the unproven/doubtful reports, there are al-Dhahabī’s (رحمه الله) definitive, positive testimonies:
Arabic Text:
«ابن تيمية الشيخ الإمام العلامة الحافظ الناقد الفقيه المجتهد المفسّر البارع، شيخُ الإسلام، علمُ الزهّاد، نادرةُ العصر… أثنى عليه الموافق والمخالف وسارت بتصانيفه الركبان…»
— al-Dhahabī, Tadhkirat al-Ḥuffāẓ
Translation:
“Ibn Taymiyyah was Shaykh al-Islām, the Imām, the great scholar, the critical ḥāfiẓ, the mujtahid jurist, the outstanding exegete, the banner of the ascetics and the rarity of the age… both supporters and opponents praised him… and his works became widely known.”
And in Muʿjam al-Shuyūkh:
«شيخُنا الإمام تقيُّ الدين… فريدُ العصر علمًا ومعرفةً وذكاءً وحفظًا وكرمًا وزهدًا…» — al-Dhahabī, Muʿjam al-Shuyūkh al-Kabīr
“Our Shaykh, the Imām Taqī al-Dīn… was unique in his age in knowledge and understanding, intelligence and memorization, generosity and asceticism…”
✔ Thus, in the presence of established texts, doubtful/chainless narrations carry no weight.
Objection ⑤: Attributions to Mullā ʿAlī al-Qārī
Harsh Early Statements and Later Retraction/Correction
In some compilations, harsh statements of Mullā ʿAlī al-Qārī (رحمه الله) have been quoted; but in his later works he removed/corrected them and counted Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim among the elders and awliyā’ of Ahl al-Sunnah:
Arabic Text:
«… صانهما الله من هذه السِّمة الشنيعة والنِّسبة الفظيعة؛ ومن طالع شرح منازل السائرين تبيَّن له أنهما كانا من أكابر أهل السُّنّة والجماعة، ومن أولياء هذه الأمة.»
— Mullā ʿAlī al-Qārī, Jamʿ al-Wasā’il fī Sharḥ al-Shamā’il
Translation:
May Allah protect them both from this ugly label and terrible attribution. Whoever studies Sharḥ Manāzil al-Sā’irīn will realize that they were among the elders (akābir) of Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jamāʿah and among the awliyā’ of this Ummah.
✔ Therefore, the harsh words attributed to Mullā ʿAlī al-Qārī were abrogated/qualified by his own later explicit statements.
❖ Summary
① The attribution of Zaghal al-ʿIlm and al-Naṣīḥah al-Dhahabiyyah is doubtful; it rests only on al-Sakhāwī’s report, and that too in an Ashʿarī context; it is not proof.
② In that same passage, the identification of “Ibn Taymiyyah” is ambiguous; al-Dhahabī mentions several “Ibn Taymiyyahs”; it is not necessary to take the name alone to mean Taqī al-Dīn.
③ Al-Dhahabī’s explicit positive testimonies (Tadhkirat al-Ḥuffāẓ/Muʿjam al-Shuyūkh/Tārīkh al-Islām) stand on Ibn Taymiyyah’s ijtihād and imāmate.
④ Mullā ʿAlī al-Qārī (رحمه الله) ultimately called Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim elders and awliyā’ of Ahl al-Sunnah; hence his earlier quoted statements were cancelled by his retraction/correction.
Objection ⑥: “According to Subkī/Shāmī, Ibn Taymiyyah is an innovator regarding tawassul and visitation”
① Ibn ʿĀbidīn al-Shāmī’s Own Explicit Position
Arabic Text:
«(وَ) كُرِهَ قولُه: بحقِّ رسلِك وأنبيائِك وأوليائِك أو بحقِّ البيت؛ لأنّه لا حقَّ للخلق على الخالق تعالى…»
— Ibn ʿĀbidīn, Radd al-Muḥtār (Bāb al-Aymān)
Translation:
It is disliked to say in supplication: “by the right of Your messengers/prophets/saints…” or “by the right of the House,” because the creation has no right over the Creator.
✔ So making the “tawassul by the right (of someone)”, which Ibn ʿĀbidīn himself declares disliked, the basis for attacking Ibn Taymiyyah is self-contradiction.
② Al-Subkī’s General Attribution — Bias/Hostility
In Shifā’ al-Siqām and related attributions, al-Subkī’s intense Ashʿarī/Ṣūfī colouring and his hostility towards Ibn Taymiyyah (رحمه الله) are well known. According to the principles of jarḥ, the attack of a hostile/biased person is rejected (see: Lisān al-Mīzān; al-Rafʿ wa al-Takmīl).
Objection ⑦: “Ibn ʿĀbidīn said: Ibn Taymiyyah’s filth cannot be washed by seven seas”
① Source Confusion and Distortion
This sentence is commonly attributed to Ibn ʿĀbidīn in Barelwī writings (e.g. “Gustākh Kaun?” by Ḥanīf Qureshī) with reference to “Muntahā al-Maqāl”; whereas “Muntahā al-Maqāl” is actually a book of Ṣadr al-Dīn Āzurdah, in which there is a reference to harsh words of Taqī al-Dīn al-Subkī—it is not Ibn ʿĀbidīn’s own statement.
✔ That is, there is confusion/distortion in the reference; the attribution is not correct.
② Ibn ʿĀbidīn’s Reliance Upon Ibn Taymiyyah
Ibn ʿĀbidīn (رحمه الله) himself writes in Radd al-Muḥtār:
Arabic Text:
«ورأيتُ في كتاب الصارم المسلول لشيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية… لم أرَ من صرَّح به عندنا لكنه نقله عن مذهبنا وهو ثَبْتٌ فيُقبل.»
— Ibn ʿĀbidīn, Radd al-Muḥtār
Translation:
I saw this in al-Ṣārim al-Maslūl by Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah… I did not see anyone explicitly state it among us, but he transmitted it from our madhhab and he is trustworthy, so it is accepted.
✔ If Ibn ʿĀbidīn had really uttered the “seven seas” abuse, he would not have relied in this way on Ibn Taymiyyah’s (رحمه الله) trustworthiness in transmission. This proves that the Barelwī attributions are false/distorted.
❖ Summary
① Ibn ʿĀbidīn himself declares tawassul “by the right (of someone)” disliked; attacking Ibn Taymiyyah on this basis is self-contradiction.
② The chainless/biased attributions of al-Subkī and Ashʿarī circles are rejected in principle.
③ Ibn ʿĀbidīn expressed reliance upon Ibn Taymiyyah’s transmission from al-Ṣārim al-Maslūl; hence the attributions of abuse to him are false attributions.
Objection ⑧: “Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī severely refuted Ibn Taymiyyah”
① Background of the Quoted Statements and Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī’s Cautious/Conditional Style
In al-Fatāwā al-Ḥadīthiyyah, where Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī quotes harsh statements, he himself also writes:
Arabic Text:
«وقال بعضُهم: ومن نظر إلى كتبه لم ينسب إليه أكثر هذه المسائل غير أنّه قائلٌ بالجهة وله في إثباتها جزء… فإن صَحَّ عنه مُكفِّرٌ أو مُبدِّعٌ يعامله الله بعدله، وإلاّ يغفرُ لنا وله.»
— Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī, al-Fatāwā al-Ḥadīthiyyah
Translation:
Some said: Whoever looks into his books will not attribute most of these issues to him—except that it is said he held the view of direction (jihah) and has a treatise affirming it… If disbelief or innovation is truly established from him, Allah will deal with him in justice; otherwise, may Allah forgive us and him.
✔ Point: Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī’s style is transmissive/narrative and conditional; he is not passing a categorical “definitive ruling”, but quotes people’s statements and at the end says a conditional sentence. This itself shows that certainty and conviction in the matter were questionable even for him.
② Ibn Taymiyyah’s (رحمه الله) Salafī Balance in the Creed of Attributes (without tamthīl/taʿṭīl)
Arabic Text (al-Dhahabī quoting Ibn Taymiyyah):
«يصفون الله بما وصف به نفسه… من غير تحريفٍ ولا تعطيلٍ ولا تكييفٍ ولا تمثيل؛ إثباتٌ بلا تمثيل، وتنزيهٌ بلا تعطيل… {لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ} ردٌّ على الممثّلة، {وَهُوَ السَّمِيعُ البَصِيرُ} ردٌّ على المعطّلة.»
— al-Dhahabī, al-ʿArsh
Translation:
“Ahl al-Sunnah affirm for Allah the same attributes which He affirmed for Himself… without distortion, denial, modality or likening; that is, affirmation without resemblance and transcendence without denial… ‘There is nothing like Him’ in refutation of the anthropomorphists (mushabbihah), and ‘He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing’ in refutation of the deniers (muʿaṭṭilah).”
✔ Hence the attributions of tashbīh/tajsīm are false; Ibn Taymiyyah’s methodology is the middle way of the Sunnah.
Objection ⑨: “Ibn Taymiyyah said: ʿAlī made 300+ mistakes; ʿUthmān loved wealth”
① These Are Hostile Reports Without Proof
In al-Durar al-Kāminah, Ibn Ḥajar recorded the narrations of some contemporary opponents (e.g. the treatise of al-Āqshahrī; and also Abū al-Ḥasan al-Bakrī and others); the words there came as follows:
Arabic Text (the attributed narration):
«… أخبر عنه بعضُ السّلف أنه ذكر عليًّا رضي الله عنه في مجلسٍ آخر، فقال: إنّ عليًّا أخطأ في أكثر من ثلاثمائة مكان…»
— Ibn Ḥajar, al-Durar al-Kāminah (in the course of listing narrations)
Translation:
“Some people reported that in a gathering he mentioned ʿAlī (رضي الله عنه) and said: ʿAlī erred in more than three hundred places…”
✔ Caution: There is no chain/proof here; it is an opponent’s narration. Of the same kind is the attribution from Abū al-Ḥasan al-Bakrī that “ʿUthmān (رضي الله عنه) loved wealth”, which is also based on hostility; Ibn Taymiyyah wrote the treatise al-Istighāthah fī al-Radd ʿalā al-Bakrī refuting al-Bakrī’s false views on istighāthah—i.e. hostility is established on both sides; such quotations are not proof in principle.
② Ibn Taymiyyah’s Explicit Texts About the Companions and Ahl al-Bayt
A) Love of Ahl al-Bayt Is Obligatory
Arabic Text:
«قيل: فما تُحِبُّون أهلَ البيت؟ قلتُ: محبتُهم عندنا فرضٌ واجب… ومن أبغضهم فعليه لعنةُ الله والملائكة والناس أجمعين.»
— Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā 4/488
Translation:
“It was asked: Do you love Ahl al-Bayt? I said: Love of them, according to us, is an obligatory duty… and whoever hates them, upon him is the curse of Allah, the angels and all people.”
B) The Methodology of Ahl al-Sunnah Regarding the Companions
Arabic Text (al-ʿAqīdah al-Wāsiṭiyyah):
«ومن أصول أهل السنة والجماعة سلامةُ قلوبِهم وألسنتِهم لأصحاب رسولِ الله ﷺ… ويُمسكون عمّا شجر بينهم… ويتولَّون أهلَ بيت رسول الله ﷺ…»
— Ibn Taymiyyah, al-ʿAqīdah al-Wāsiṭiyyah
Translation:
Among the اصول of Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jamāʿah is that their hearts and tongues remain sound regarding the Companions of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ… and they refrain from what occurred between them… and they show loyalty and love to the Ahl al-Bayt of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ…
C) Order of Virtue and Love of ʿUthmān and ʿAlī (رضي الله عنهما)
Arabic Text:
«والسنة محبّةُ عثمانَ وعليٍّ جميعًا، وتقديمُ أبي بكرٍ وعمرَ عليهما…»
— Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā
Translation:
The Sunnah is to love both ʿUthmān and ʿAlī together, and to give precedence to Abū Bakr and ʿUmar over them…
✔ After these texts, attributions such as “300+ errors of ʿAlī” or “ʿUthmān loved wealth” stand contradicted and false.
❖ Summary
① The harsh quotations of Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī are conditional/narrative; at the end he himself prayed for forgiveness in view of the possibility of their not being established—i.e. there is no certainty.
② The jibes regarding “ʿAlī/ʿUthmān (رضي الله عنهما)” are narrations from opponents’/hostile treatises (al-Āqshahrī/al-Bakrī); chain and integrity are missing; in principle they are not proof.
③ Ibn Taymiyyah’s definitive texts:
◈ Eternity of Paradise and Hell (baqā’an muṭlaqan)
◈ Love of Ahl al-Bayt is obligatory, and curse upon those who hate them
◈ Methodology regarding the Companions: soundness of hearts and tongues, refraining from what occurred between them—all are explicit and established.
✔ Conclusion: Objections ⑧–⑨ have lost all credibility, while Ibn Taymiyyah’s (رحمه الله) methodology and texts are firm and clear.
Objection ⑩: “Ibn Taymiyyah was hit with shoes in a mosque”
This story is found in Ibn Baṭṭūṭah’s travel account and al-Durar al-Kāminah, but:
① its key narrator Abū al-Ḥasan ʿAlī al-Dimashqī, who is majhūl al-ḥāl (of unknown condition)
② Ibn Baṭṭūṭah (d. 770H) himself says that he came to Damascus and was present in the gathering, whereas at that time Ibn Taymiyyah was in prison! Because of this contradiction the muḥaddithūn declared this story false.
✔ Chainless historical tales are not valid proof.
Objection ⑪: “Ibn Taymiyyah denied following the four Imāms”
In the matter of taqlīd, Ibn Taymiyyah negated the infallibility of the consensus of the four imāms; i.e. he did not say that the statements of the imāms are rejected, rather he said:
Arabic Text:
«لم يقل أحد من أهل السنة: إنّ إجماع الأئمة الأربعة حجّة معصومة… بل إذا قال مجتهد من غيرهم قولاً يُخالف قولَ الأئمة الأربعة، رُدّ إلى الله ورسوله، والقول الراجح ما قام عليه الدليل.»
— Ibn Taymiyyah, Minhāj al-Sunnah
Translation:
No one from Ahl al-Sunnah said that the consensus of the four imāms is an infallible proof… rather, if a mujtahid other than them says something that conflicts with the four imāms, it is referred back to Allah and His Messenger, and the strongest view is what evidence supports.
✔ Meaning: Ibn Taymiyyah held the Qur’ān and Sunnah to be the ultimate reference; he was not an absolute denier of taqlīd.
Objection ⑫: “Ibn Taymiyyah forbade traveling to visit the Prophet’s ﷺ grave”
He discussed shadd al-riḥāl under the authentic ḥadīth:
Arabic Text:
«لا تُشَدُّ الرِّحالُ إلا إلى ثلاثة مساجد…»
— Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī/Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim
◈ He accepted visiting the grave of the Prophet ﷺ as recommended in itself, and he himself also transmitted its virtue.
◈ However, he made “special travel” conditional upon travelling to al-Masjid al-Nabawī.
Mullā ʿAlī al-Qārī’s (رحمه الله) Retraction (as mentioned in Part Four):
In the end, he accepted Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim as the elders and awliyā’ of Ahl al-Sunnah.
Overall Summary of the Article
The objections raised against Ibn Taymiyyah (رحمه الله)—via al-Kawtharī, al-Subkī, al-Ṭūfī, Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī, Ibn Baṭṭūṭah, and others—rest either upon:
① Biased / Rāfiḍī / Ashʿarī narrators, or
② Chainless tales
According to the principles of Jarḥ wa Taʿdīl, the criticism of a biased enemy is rejected.
Ibn Taymiyyah’s Own Explicit Texts Establish:
◈ Support for the consensus on the eternity of Paradise and Hell (khulūd)
◈ Love of Ahl al-Bayt is obligatory; hatred warrants curse
◈ Sound hearts and tongues regarding all Companions
◈ Tawḥīd and Ṣifāt: affirmation without tamthīl and without taʿṭīl
◈ In taqlīd: honoring the Imāms while returning ultimately to Qur’ān and Sunnah
And major scholars (al-Dhahabī, Ibn Kathīr, Ibn Rajab, Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, etc.) described him as Shaykh al-Islām, Imām Mujtahid, and a unique scholar of his era.
Final Word
All objections of grave-venerating innovators are either:
① false, or
② taken out of context, or
③ hostile reports from biased narrators.
The explicit texts of Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah (رحمه الله) and the testimonies of trustworthy muḥaddithīn refute every allegation made against him.
Scans of Important References
