AHLUSSUNNAH WAL JAMA:’AH

IMAM IBN TAIMIAH

INTERPRETED IN
REGARD TO HIS ABOUT
SENTENCES HAVADITH
AND DIVINE ESSENCE
ANSWERING ALI MIRZA
Talat naqvi
[Pick the date]

Engineer ‘:Ali : Mirza: of Jhelum has tried to declare ‘Ima:m ;Ibn Taimiah as Committer of Kufr in
regard to some of his sentences about the no beginning of H:ava:dith and Locus of H:ava:dith:. So a
system of interpretations is presented to understand ‘Ima:m ‘Ibn Taimiah correctly from ‘Ash’:atite and
Maturidite approach. The author is an ‘ash’:ari: who respect ‘Ima:m ‘Ibn Taimaiah.
Page 1 of 14

Page 1 of 14
 Page 2 of 14

Introduction

Engineer ‘:Ali Mirza: of Jhelum has tried to shew that ‘:Ima:m ‘Ibn Taimiah has committed Three Kufrs.

1] He believes that G-d hath H:-du:th:

2] He believes that G-d is Locus of H:-du:th:

3] He believes that H:-du:th is Beginning less and wit out first [La: ‘Auval Lahu]

So it is required to study these Objections and to respond the Heretic Of Jhelum who has now proved to
be an Enemy of Saiyidu:na: ‘Abu: Bakr and ‘:Umar as well.

So Engineer of Jhelum is a Rafid:i: and it is very natural for such a person to declare ‘Ahlussunnah as
Nas:ibi: or Ka:fir or both.

There are several defences , and answers of ‘Ima:m ‘Ibn Taimaiah .

The are different approaches to the interpretations of his sentences.A number of scholars opine that
great ‘Ima:m believed in the Perpetual Creations .

This is an Infinite back ward series of Non Eternal Individuals which never approaches to Infinite Eternity
but tends towards it. So there is no thing Eternal Except in the series and even the series is not Eternal
since each individual of the series is non Eternal implying the series to be Non Eternal. Additionally the
series is just an Abstraction of mind and not a an Individual consisting of parts. Gh:air Qa:r ‘Adh Dh:a:t,

That is opposite to Qa:r ‘Adh: Dh:a:t.

This is Aeveternity without first yet it is Non Eternity.

But there are some other interpretations of the sentences of ‘Ima:m ‘Ibn Taimiah RH: such that they can
be interpreted according to the Majority of Sunnism ‘Asha:’:irah and Ma:turi:diah.

So atleast when Possible interpretations exist then no one can make any objection based one such
sentences. So other sentences may be interpreted differently.

So we are taking an approach which brings the some sentences of ‘Ima:m ‘Ibn Taimiah in Agreement
with the ‘Asha;’irah and Ma:turi:diah.

This discussion consists of a number of preliminaries and a conclusion with some answers to some
possible objections , which we our self have made to exhaust the possible objection makers .

First Preliminary.

According to Majority of ‘Ahlussunnah ‘Al H:-du:th: Naqs: Van Naqs: ‘:Alalahi M-tana’: Bidh: Dh:a:t.

Page 2 of 14
 Page 3 of 14

So a large number of Sunni Scholars [‘Asha:’:irah and Ma:turi:diah] do not use the Word H:du:th: or H:-
dath: for Divine Essence. But some do use an other form of this word H:-dath: . For Example ‘Ima:m
Bukh:ari: . See Kita:but Tauh:i:d #93 ,Chapter 42

He saith : Va ‘Anna H-d-th:ahu: La: Yashbahu Hadath:al Makh:lu:qi:n.

So a confusion is natural. To solve the problem due to confusions one may say that Divine Acts are Non
Eternal ,and Divine Essence and Divine Essential Attributes are Eternal.

So Divine Acts are Non Eternal [H:a:dith:] but they do not use phrases like H:adath: Of G-d since such
sentences do cause confusions.

Second Preliminary.

Engineer ‘:Ali: Mirza: of Jhelum has made the following allegation on ‘Ima:m ‘Ibn Taimaiah RH: in regard
to H-du:th: , H:ava:dith: and Hadath: and their relation towards Divine Essence [G-d].

1] ‘Ima:m ‘Ibn Taimiah RH: believes that H-du:th: can be Ascribed to G-d [Divine Essence].

2]’Ima:m ‘Ibn Taimiah RH: believes that H:ava:th: has no beginning.

3] ‘Ima:m ‘Ibn Taimiah RH: believes that G-d that is Divine Essence is the Locus [M-h:l] of Hava:dith: and
H:adath:a:t.

Third Preliminary

There are different POSSIBLE answers and different POSSIBLE approaches to answer these allegations.

In this essay , the one which is selected is very close to the Majority of ‘Ahlussunnah i.e ‘Asha:’:irah and
Maturidiah.

But it must be made clear once for all the time that this is not the only answer and this approach is not
the only approach. It may be noted that according to the Principles of Argumentation, the plurality of
answers and plurality of approaches to answer an objection is a very power proof that the objection is
invalid in multiple ways.

Forth Preliminary

An existing individual whether it be Subsistent or not , may be called Eternal From two different
perspectives.

1] From the perspective of very self of the individual.

2]From the perspective of the Originator [Mabda:’] or Generator [Mabda:’] of the individual.

Page 3 of 14
 Page 4 of 14

So if the Individual is not Eternal [i.e it is Non Eternal] from the perspective of the very Self of the
Individual , it may be called Eternal from the Perspective of the Mabda:’ or Mansha:’ of the Individual.

As the Divine Acts and Doings are Non ETERNAL in regard to their respective selves , they can be said to
be ETERNAL in regard to their Mana:shi: [Generators] and Maba:di: [Originators] which are Divine
Eternal Attributes of Divine Essence. It must be noted that Deity is the Very Self of the Divine Essence,
that is Deity is the Divine Essence and Divine Essence is the Deity.

But as the Divine Acts are Non Eternal that is they are Not Eternal they can also be called Non Eternals in
regard to their respective Selves.

This means that a Single Individual in some cases can e called as Eternal in one regard and the very same
individual can be said to be Non Eternal in another regard.

But if an Individual is Eternal in regard to its Self then it cannot be called as Non Eternal in regard t o any
thing.

Fifth Preliminary

If an Individual is Eternal in any Regard it is Beginning less and without First in that regard.

If an Individual is Eternal in regard to its Self then it is Beginningless and Without First in regard to its
Self.

But if an Individual is Eternal in regard to its Originator or Generator then it is Beginningless and Without
First in regard to its Originator or Generator or both.

It must be noted that Eternity is Beginningless and Without first.

Sixth Preliminary

As it is clear that the dispute is just verbal uptill now, so it is clear that IT CAN BE SAID that a Non Eternal

Individual is Beginningless in regard. If such an expression or sentence is stated or sentenced then this
means that the Individual is Non Eternal inregard to its self and without beginning in regard to its
originator or generator. This is the interpretation of the sentence of this construction or similar
constructions.

Seventh Preliminary

To say that the G-d i.e Divine Essence is the Locus [M-h:-l] of Non Eternals [H:ava:dith:] the word Locus is
not used in the strict meaning of Majority of ‘Ahlussunnah ‘Asha:’:irah and Ma:turi:diah. When it is said
that the Deity i.e Divine Essence is not the Locus of Non Eternals then it means that the word Locus is
used in the strict meaning of the stated above Majority.

Page 4 of 14
 Page 5 of 14

Similarly if it is said that G-d H:va:dith Sustaineth in/with G-d i.e Divine Essence then the word
Sustainment or any derivative of it is not used in the Strict meaning of the stated above Majority;

If it is said that Non Eternals doeth not sustain in/with Divine Essence i.e Deity then the word
Sustainment or any derived word from this Grammatical Noun of the infinitive “To Sustain” is used in the
strict meaning of the stated above majority.

That is the reason that when it is said that “ ‘Al H:-du:thu Naqs:un Van Naqs:u ‘:Alallahi M-mtana’: Bidh:

Dh:a:t “ that is Non Eternity is a Defect (all) defect(s) Upon G-d [Divine Essence] is (are) Per Se Absurd, it
means in the strict meanings/definitions of the words/terms Locus and Sustainment [and any word/term
derived from any one of the two].

It may be noted that an Attribute of Divine Essence Sustaineth With the Divine Essence [Qa:’im Bi
Dh:a:til Ba:ri:] so the proper word is With but in English Language the word In is used as a Preposition
with the words Sustain , etc. so it may cause some confusion since it means Qa:’im Fi Dh:a:til Ba:ri: ,
which is not the accurate translation. So an Attention was necessary and this attention is made in order
to save from any possible confusion due to the prepositions of two different languages . This means that
there is no contradiction when it is said that G-d is the Locus of Non Eternals and when it is said that G-d
is not the Locus of Non Eternals since the meanings are different.

Similarly there is no contradiction when it is said that Non Eternals are Sustained with/in G-d and when it
is said that Non Eternals are Not Sustained with/in Divine Essence since the meanings of the word
Sustained is different in each sentence.

Eight Preliminary

To say G-d i.e Divine Essence is the Locus or Non Eternals or to say Non Eternals are Sustained With/In
Divine Essence i.e G-d etc. such sentences and expressions means only that Divine Essence and Divine
Eternal Attributes have very special Relations with these Non Eternal Individuals and these Non Eternal
Individuals have very special relations with Divine Essence and Divine Eternal Attributes.

This is the Relation of Generator and Generated, and Originator and Originated.

Ninth Preliminary

With the difference in meanings there can be a major agreement a real agreement and a minor
disagreement , a verbal disagreement .

Things may be brought in agreement instead of disagreements.

For example the Sentence “All A is B” contradicteth the sentence “Some A is not B” if the meaning of B is
one and same. But if the meaning are entirely different it is Possible that they do not contradict one an
other.

Tenth Preliminary

Page 5 of 14
 Page 6 of 14

There can be a dispute over the meaning of a Term even if the meaning or definition is acceptable with a
different term.

For example Majority of ‘Ahlussunnah do not use the word Shakh:s: for Divine Essence.

The word Shakh:s: means a Person or a Suppositum but this term is not used for Divine Essence, even if
the meaning of the word Shakh:s: is taken as Per Se Subsistent Essence.

In ‘Isla:mic Theology the word Essence meaneth an Individual that is Per Se Subsistent . But the word
Shakh:s: is not used for Divine Essence even if this word is used in the meaning of Essence [Dh:a:t].

Similarly of the word Shakh:s: is defined as an Essence even then this word cannot be used for the the
Divine Essence. How ever there are some traditions like

Narrated Al-Mughira:

Sa`d bin 'Ubada said, "If I saw a man with my wife, I would strike him (behead
him) with the blade of my sword." This news reached Allah's Messenger (‫)ﷺ‬
who then said, "You people are astonished at Sa`d's Ghira. By Allah, I have
more Ghira than he, and Allah has more Ghira than I, and because of Allah's
Ghira, He has made unlawful Shameful deeds and sins (illegal sexual
intercourse etc.) done in open and in secret. And there is none who likes that
the people should repent to Him and beg His pardon than Allah, and for this
reason He sent the warners and the givers of good news. And there is none
who likes to be praised more than Allah does, and for this reason, Allah
promised to grant Paradise (to the doers of good)." `Abdul Malik said, "No
person has more Ghira than Allah."

Chapter 20, 97 Book of Tauh:i:d

We do interpret that the word Shakhs: [Person] as Dh:a:t [Essence] but do not use this word for Divine
Essence to make a clear distinction between Trinity/Tri-unity of Christianity and Absolute Unicity of
‘Isla:m. Similarly the words like Hypostase [‘Uqn—m] and Suppositum [ ‘Ash Shakh:s: ‘Al Kabi:r] are not
used in order to avoid possible confusions. Further the Text of Holy Tradition doeth not Predicate the
Word Sh:akh:s: to Divine Essence [Dh:a:tul Ba:ri:] providing the doubt that he term Shakh:s: is not
applicable to the Divine Essence. For example if some one says that No Creation is Greater than ‘ALL-H
certainly do not imply that the word Creator cab be applied to Deity ie Divine Essence .

A full discussion is beyond the scope of this essay.

[It is not known whether Engineer of aJhelum used the word Person [Shakh:s:] for Divine Essence or
not].

Page 6 of 14
 Page 7 of 14

Eleventh Preliminary

The word individual is used in this essay as a general term for any Existing Individual whether it be a
Created Per Se Subsistent [ Qa:’im Bidh: Dh:a:t] or a Created Per Alas Subsistent [ Qa:’im Bil
Gh:air],Accident [‘:Ard:], An Entity, A Substance, An Accident A movement

An Abstraction [‘Intiza:’:] or a Relation [‘Id:a:fah] or a Divine Eternal Attribute , An Act or A Doing or the
Very Divine Essence Itself.

So any thing that is Non Non Existent [Gh:air Ma’:du:m] is called an Individual whether it be Eternal or
Not and Per Se Subsistent or Not, THROUGHOUT in this essay.

Twelfth Preliminary

Mujaddid ‘Alf Th:a:ni: also holds a similar view though not an exactly same view.

It is explained as follow.

He holds that there is only one Per Se Subsistent, that is only one Essence that Existeth.

That is the Divine Essence.

Any other existent whether it be a Substance or an Accident, an Essence or an Attribute is Per Alias
Subsistent [Q:a’im Bil Gh:air]. But he was of the view that Divine Essence is not the Locus of any Created
Existing Individual.

Now it is clear that the Great Mujaddid of the Second Millennium [‘Alf Th:a:ni] used the word Susbistent
in a broad meaning and the word the word Locus in the strict meaning.

Now one can compare between the ‘Ima:m and the Mujaddid where they agree and where they differ.

‘Ima:m useth the word Locus in the broad meaning and not in the strict meaning. Mujaddid useth the
word Subsist in Broad meaning. It doeth mean that if the word Subsist if used by ‘Ima:m is like to be used
in the broad meaning that is the meaning of Locus in the Nomenclature of Mujaddid.

But these two great scholars of ‘Isla:m disagree on the isuue of Per Alias Subsistent. Mujaddid considers

Every Created Existent as Per Alias Subsistent in the Broad meaning, [i.e one that Subsisteth in/with
some thing Separate [Gh:air] where ‘Ima:m considers Divine Acts as Per Alias Subsistent in the Broad
meaning.

This also means that the very Self of the Divine Eternal Attribute and the Connection [Ta’:alluq] of the
Divine Will togather constitute the Necessary and Sufficient Condition of the Existent.

But ‘Ima:m do not say that Created Substances,Entities [’A’:ya:n], Accidents, Essences, Attributes,
Abstractions of Created Substances,Accidents of them are Per Alias Subsistent. But Mujaddid say it.

Page 7 of 14
 Page 8 of 14

Additionally Mujaddid doeth not call Created Individual as Eternal and Without First even if he accepteth
that they are Per Alias Subsistent.

But as the meanings of the Terms are different from ‘Asha:’:irah and Maturidiah then there is no
contradiction at all with their views and expressions. So neither ‘ima:m nor Mujaddid contradict them in
meaning.

It may be noted Mujaddid is referred due to the reason that he uses broad meaning of the word
Sustainment or Subsistence . [Qa:’im].

The Conclusion of the Preliminaries.

1] ‘Imam does not say that H:ava:dith: do not have First [Beginning] , that is they have no First in regard
to the respective selves of them. That is the Great ‘Ima:m is not saying :-

That the H:ava:dith: have no first in regard to their respective selves.

2] ‘Ima:m is not saying that certain H:ava:dith: are associated with Divine Essence in regard to their
respective selves but he is saying that they are associated with the Divine Essence in regard to their
Common Babda:’ or Common Mansha:’ or both.

3] The word H:adath: itself is used by ‘Ima:m Bukh:a:ri so the word H:adith: may be used when there is
no confusion. So one is advised not to used these words unless and otherwise there is no confusion at all
. These words are used for Divine Non Eternal Acts.

See Chapter#42 , Book of Unity/Unicity [Kita:but Tauh:i:d], the heading

of the chapter.

Possible Objections Of Engineer ‘:Ali Mirza: of Jhelum

After answering the objection of the Engineer of Jhelum it became necessary to speculate the possible
objection which can be made by him on the essay which defeneth ‘Ima:m ‘Ibn Taimiah from the
approach of ‘Ashairaism and Maturidiaism.

So it was tried by the companions of the author to make objections from our selves in order to test the
validity of arguments and argumentations.

So the following possible objections were proposed , and they were answered .

It is necessary that they must also be given so that the Engineer of Jhelum may not be able to use them,
if his pragmatic mind conceives them.

First Possible Objection

Page 8 of 14
 Page 9 of 14

If an Individual is not Eternal in regard to its very self , yet it can be said to be Eternal in regard to its
Mabda:’ or Mansha:’ or both, then every Created Human Being or Created Angel Being or Jin Being can
be called as Eternal by the parity of reasoning or with analogy.

Answer

Only the Acts, Doings, Relations and Abstractions can be said as such, which are Directly ascribed to
Divine Eternal Attributes or Divine Essence. As the acts, doings, abstractions and relations of Created Per
Se Subsistents [Essences, Substances and Entities] are not directly ascribable to Divine Essence and
Divine Eternal Attribute since the Created Per Se Subsistents are the media/V-sa:’it: [Sing:
Medium/Vasit:ah] are primarily ascribed by them then only those Abstractions, Relations, Acts and
Doings can be said so which are Direcctly Ascribed and are Directly Ascribable. So the objection is
incorrect and invalid.

Second Possible Objection

‘Ima:m ‘Ibn Taimiah RH: HOLDS the view that Non Eternals [H:-va:dith:] are General and Creations are
Particular. In this case this explanation is not in agreement with the particularity of Creations
[Makh:luqa:t] and Generality of Non- Eternities [H:-va:dith:] .

Answer

An individual that can be called Eternal in Regard to Eternal Mabda:’ or Eternal Mansha:’ or both even if
it is not Eternal to its own Self , can be called Uncreated Non Eternal.

But those Individuals which cannot be called so are called Creations. So there is no disagreement at all
what so ever.So the term” Non Eternal” includes both of these types and the term Creation is just one of
the two types of Non Eternal.

Third Possible Objection

This explanation cannot cannot be used for a number of Salafites but at most for ‘Ima:m ‘Ibn Taimiah
and atleast for ‘Ima:m ‘Ibn Taimiah and some Salafites.

Answer

We are not defending each and every Salafite, but we are defending ‘Ima:m ‘Ibn Taimiah and some
others.

Forth Possible Objection

What ‘Imam ‘Ibn Taimiah said is similar to K-ramites. Karamiah also believe that G-d is Locus of Non
Eternals.

So what is the difference between the two.

Answer

Page 9 of 14
 Page 10 of 14

Since the meanings of the sentences of ‘Ima:m ‘Ibn Taimiah are different in meaning and the belief of
Kara:m is different in meaning , it is infinite incorrect to analogue between ‘Ima:m ‘Ibn Taimiah and
Kara:m.

Fifth Possible Objection.

‘Ima:m ‘Ibn Taimiah believes in perpetual creation. So this apology may not be valid.

Answer

This apology i.e defence [not in the meaning of excuse] is for those sentences like ‘Al H:ava:dith: La:
‘Auvala Laha: etc. If there are some other sentences any objection on any one of them shall be
responded according to the sentence and the objection ‘Insha: ‘All-h.

Sixth PossibleObjection

There are different approaches of answering the objections on some sentences of ‘Ima:m ‘Ibn Tasimiah.

So why this one was selected.

Seventh Possible Objection

Salafites are against ‘Asha:’iran and Ma:turidiah. So why ‘Ima:m ‘Ibn Taimiah is tried to be defended from
‘Ash’arite and Ma:turi:dite approaches. These Salafites do not consider them as ‘Ahlussunnah and equate
them with M-taz-lahs and Jhamiahs.

So why to defend their ‘Ima:m?

Answer.

This is an Internal Dispute of ‘Ahlussunnah. So as an ‘Ahlussunnah be should be defended.

Page 10 of 14
Page 11 of 14

Page 11 of 14
 Page 12 of 14

Page 12 of 14
Page 13 of 14

Page 13 of 14