The Humble I

THIS POST LOOKS at how Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah advised some people who were in the grip of an intense and frenzied theological dispute, which was unleashing untold fitnah, had gone beyond bounds, and was inciting mutual hatred, schisms and boycotting. The lessons the Shaykh is hoping to impart, and get us to take to heart, are as relevant today as they were when he first offered the advice.

I shall quote a few large passages from the letter or epistle, adding comments and observations here and there. I will also divide the letter into sections, so as to help the flow of the argument and give us a better view of what the Shaykh is trying to achieve.

I. REASON FOR THE LETTER

Ibn Taymiyyah, rahimahullah, starts by explaining what compelled him to pen this word of advice, and his dismay at how bad the situation had become over an issue that is not a point of consensus (ijma‘), but one where the salaf themselves differed. He writes:

‘What prompted this letter was that a group of you informed me of things to do with schisms and divisions between yourselves, to such an extent that they mentioned the affair has almost resulted in fighting. They stated that the cause of this is the difference concerning the disbelievers seeing their Lord (ru’yat al-kuffar rabbihim). We didn’t think the matter about this issue could ever reach this level, for the issue is a light one.

‘What is important is that each Muslim must believe that the believers will see their Lord in the abode of the Afterlife, on the plains of Resurrection, after having entered Paradise — according to hadiths that have been mass-transmitted (tawatur) from the Prophet, peace be upon him, by the scholars of Hadith. For he, peace be upon him, informed us: “Surely you will see your Lord as you see the full moon on a clear night, or the sun at noon; you will not have any obstructions in seeing Him.”1

‘Allah’s Beatific Vision (al-ru’yah), glory be to Him, is the sublimest delight of Paradise and is the utmost of what is sought by those who worship Allah, making religion purely for Him — but their seeing Him shall be of differing degrees, each according to their closeness (qurb) to Allah and their heart’s knowledge (ma‘rifah) of Him.’2

2. DISTINGUISHING THE IJMA’ BIT FROM THE IJTIHAD BIT

Having established that the believers seeing Allah in Paradise is a firm and well-established part of the orthodox Muslim creed, because it is one which is supported by mutawatir hadiths and a scholarly consensus or ijma‘, Ibn Taymiyyah then cuts to the chase and says:

‘As for the issue of the disbelievers seeing Him, the first time talk about this began to spread, and the difference people had over it — as far as what I’ve come to know — was after the third century of the hijrah. A faction of the scholars witheld speaking about it, while others discussed it. They differed about it having three opinions. Yet I do not know of any of those differing in it reviling each other or boycotting one another due to it.’3

3. NOT MAKING MOUNTAINS OUT OF MOLEHILLS

Over the next fifteen odd pages, Ibn Taymiyyah delves into the topic from a textual, grammatical and hermenutical perspective; mustering the views of the past scholars on the matter, their nuances and the reasons for their differing ijtihads. He then said – and it is the real aim behind him writing this letter, and for me quoting it:

‘In short: My aim behind this letter wasn’t to discuss the issue in detail, for knowledge concerning it is vast. Rather, my desire was to explain that this issue isn’t from those all-important ones that oblige a great deal of speech about, or requires conveying it to the learned and the general public alike until it becomes a distinguishing emblem which necessitates splitting the hearts or dispersing desires.

‘This is not an issue, as far as I am aware, that obliges boycotting people over or cutting-off from them. For those who spoke about it before us were from the generality of ahl al-sunnah and their followers. Their differing about it never led to shunning or cutting-off; just as the differing of the sahabah, may Allah be pleased with them — or those who came after — concerning the Prophet, peace be upon him, seeing his Lord in this world. There were some strong words about it, like the statement of ‘A’ishah, the Mother of the Believers, may Allah be pleased with her: ‘Whoever claims that Muhammad saw his Lord has come with a tremendous lie against Allah.’4 Yet despite that, this dispute did not lead to boycotting or severing ties.

‘Similarly, Imam Ahmad debated a group from ahl al-sunnah regarding the issue of [whether one can] categorically testify to the Ten in Paradise, until the debate caused voices to be raised. Ahmad and others held that one can categorically testify, yet they didn’t shun those who saw its impermissiblity. There are many other issues of this same nature.’5

4. METHOD OF TRUE SALAFISM V. FALSE SALAFISM

He then said something we all need to pay careful attention to, and that can help resolve much of the conflict and confusion today, where true Salafism is being honoured more in the breech than the actual observance. He explains:

‘Here there are certain protocols (adab) that must be guardedly observed:

‘From them, that whoever keeps silent in the issue, nor calls to anything of it, then it is unlawful to abandon him; even if he believes in one of the two views. For the innovations that are far worse, then one isn’t boycotted due to it, unless he actively calls to it and does not remain quiet. This [issue] is more deserving [not to be used to divide people].

‘From them, that it is imperative for the scholars to not make this issue an inquisition (mihnah): [turning it into] a symbol by which those who agree with them are preferred over those who do not. The likes of this is detested by Allah and His Messenger.

‘Likewise, not to open this up to the general Muslims who are sheltered and safe from this trial. However, if a person asks about it, or he sees someone qualified to know about it, he may relate to him what he has knowledge of, hoping to benefit him. This is contrary to the belief that the believers shall see their Lord in the Hereafter. For belief in this is a required obligation, as it has been mass-transmitted from the Prophet, peace be upon him, as well as from the sahabah and the salaf of this ummah.’6

5. schisms are the cause of corruption, not errors of ijtihad

Beginning to round-up the matter, and a few paragraphs on, Ibn Taymiyyah then writes:

‘No one should leave what is textually-related, even if differences will occur in some of its meanings; which is something bound to happen. Hence the affair is as our Prophet, peace be upon him, informed. And all goodness lies in following the righteous salaf; increasing in knowledge of the hadiths of Allah’s Messenger, peace be upon him; gaining deep insight into them; and clinging to the rope of Allah and to whatever calls to unity or togetherness, and shunning whatever invites to schisms and sectarianism — except if the matter is a crystal-clear one which Allah and His Messenger have ordered to avoid; this must be accepted gladly and without question.

‘If, however, the matter is unclear whether the statement or act is that for which a person deserves punishment or not, then it is required to leave-off punishment, due to the Prophet’s statement, peace be upon him: ‘Avert the prescribed punishments (hudud) because of doubt. For to err in pardoning is better than to err in punishing.’ Related by Abu Dawud.7 This is especially the case when the affair results in a long, drawn-out evil, and divides [the ranks of] ahl al-sunnah wa’l-jama‘ah. For the corruption that eminates from such schisms is many times worse than the bad that might arises from the mistake of a few people in a furu‘ issue.’8

6. the taymiyyan prayer and hope

Subhanallah! There’s much to ponder and internalise in the last paragraph alone, and ample wisdom that might heal our current wounds and restore sanity to our otherwise insane situation. The letter ends with this hopeful Taymiyyan prayer of purpose:

‘After all this, I ask Allah, the August, Lord of the Tremendous Throne, that He grant us and you that which He loves and is pleased with, of speech and action; that He enables us to follow the guidance of His Messenger, peace be upon him, inwardly and outwardly; that He bring our affairs together on right guidance, that accords, by His grace, with His order; that He make our hearts like the heart of the best of us; and that He protects us from Satan, saving us from the evils of our own souls and our own evil actions.

‘I only wrote this letter in order to clarify the right guidance, for I only wish reconciliation to the best of my ability. There is no enabling grace, except with Allah. This, along with the fact that I have not really fully understood the situation between you all, or the [real] state of your affairs. I wrote to you in so far as I understood what you informed me about. But the greater purpose was reconciliation and bringing hearts together.’9

♦

The emphasis on not spreading fitnah or schisms in non-ijma’ issues aside, another principle we might cull from the Taymiyyan advice is that ‘aqidah has three levels. There is what might be called:

[i] Essential ‘aqidah: beliefs that are the dividing line between faith (iman) and disbelief (kufr). Many such beliefs come under the rubric of: al-ma‘lum min al-din bi’l-darurah – ‘things known to be part of the [Islamic] religion by necessity.’

[ii] Orthodox ‘aqidah: These are beliefs that form the boundary between orthodoxy and heterodoxy, due to them being mutawatir or ijma’-sanctioned. These are beliefs that, when one comes to reliably know of them, one is required to accept it. Prior to that, one may be excused for not knowing them.

[iii] Personal ‘aqidah: beliefs that theologians legitimately differ over (like the issue being discussed). Such beliefs, regardless if one holds one view or the other, or refrains from taking a position, has no bearing at all on one’s piety, orthodoxy, or ultimate standing with Allah.

Not making a distinction between these levels is where much of the divisions, false accusations of deviancy, and fitnah originate.

And Allah’s help is sought.

≈

1. Muslim, no.302, paraphrased.

2. Majmu‘ al-Fatawa (Riyadh: Dar ‘Alam al-Kutub, 1991), 6:485.

3. ibid., 6:486.

4. Muslim, no.177.

5. Majmu‘ al-Fatawa, 6:502.

6. ibid., 6:503-04.

7. Al-Tirmidhi, no.1424; al-Bayhaqi, Sunan, no.16834. I could not find it in Abu Dawud, nor did the various takhrij sources I consulted ascribe it as so. So Allah knows best. Al-Albani graded the various chains and wordings of the hadith as mildly weak (da‘if) in Irwa’ al-Ghalil fi Takhrij Ahadith Manar al-Sabil (Beirut: al-Maktab al-Islami, 1979), nos.2316, 2355. Ibn Mas‘ud’s saying: ‘Avert flogging or executing the Muslims as much as you can’, is in Ibn Abi Shaybah, Musannaf, 11:70:2, and al-Albani graded its chain hasan. 

8. Majmu‘ al-Fatawa, 6:505.

9. ibid., 6:506.