Sunni View on Ibn Kathir and some other personalities?

this wahabi is also another clowron - similar the abdul-haleem+usman duo - a plague - that we have to suffer.

that he is a clown is written on his face - and he proves it by his actions by distorted replay of whom he seeks to refute. i do not understand what this helps achieve other than cast suspicion on the quote (as it is unclear).

----
mah. leave this.

and look at the strawmen he has built which he can easily refute sipping juice.

1. the claim that ibn kathir was ash'ari is by his own admission as reported by ibn Hajar in durar al-kaminah. according to the wahabi - "this is their absolute evidence (dalil qaTyi -see @1.22)."

2. jamil haleem is an open ash'ari and others do taqiyah.

3. jamil haleem says there are numerous instances in ibn katheer's work that refute ash'ari aqidah. (here the wahabi inserts his own "but these people have not researched those statements and not investigated about them")

4. he hopes jamil haleem will refute them (i.e. other ash'aris) because they have been deceptive (the wahabi says this sarcastically but also pushes his own opinion)

5. QED. the claim that ibn kathir was ash'ari is disproved (according to the wahabi)

----

reply to the wahabi:

before we refute the above, jamil haleem is not the official spokesperson of asha'irah. in fact, the ash'ari-maturidi ulama of today consider him and his sect as having dissented from ahl al-sunnah.

1. the wahabi's assertion that the "absolute proof" of ibn kathir being an ash'ari is a report mentioned in durar al-kaminah is his own strawman. that is just an additional statement. the proof of ibn kathir's being an ash'ari is in his tafsir itself where he presents the ash'ari view in almost all places that the hashawis try to exploit as proof of THEIR aqidah. yad, wajh, saaq, nafs, ayn, istiwa...

so whining about an anecdote which may not have an isnad is not the 'absolute proof'. here is homework for the wahabi (which he cleverly wants to give it to jamil haleem): find out the instances in his tafsir that are 'absolute proof' that he was a hashwi and peddled tajsim.

disclaimer: i have said earlier that ibn kathir was ibn taymiyyah's student and his admirer. but he didn't follow him in every aberration. that said, there is a possibility that he might have leaned towards his shaykh's agenda in some places. many years ago, i had made a small research to see if iK tried to present iT's ideas in aayat of sifaat, even if done subtly. i forget the details now, but predominantly it was the ashari view and not iT's. regardless, ibn taymiyyah is considered a hafiz, but not accepting his ideas in aqidah; and we do not do takfir of iT - nor takfir of ibn kathir. Allah ta'ala knows best.

---
2. what taqiyyah did they do? which are the aqayid that jamil haleem "openly" professes and the other ulama "conceal"? almost all of them - including jamil haleem expressly reject tajseem. where is the taqiya?

---
3. that is jamil haleem's view. the wahabi 'respects' him simply because he can be used to refute other ash'ariah citing this man. his claim that there are numerous instances need proof - and we have seen the wahabi clowron step aside to let jamil haleem do the dirty work.

---
4. let jamil haleem bring those proofs first - because i suspect you are not literate enough to fish them out (if they exist).

---
5. based on strawmen.

note: someone might comment why i didn't reply in arabic when the video was in arabic. the answer is: the question is asked on an english forum and our job is to clarify it for the anglophones. Allah ta'ala knows best.

 

See this wahabi gleefully cash in on Jamil's idiotic comment. Classic case of goonga gaaye behra bajaye! (sorry can't think of an english equivalent analogy right now). He too doesn't have the decency to say that Ibn Kathir is citing a hadith, and shamelessly acts like those are Ibn Kathir's personal words!

That's why imam Ghazali said that more harm is done to deen by fools claiming religiosity than by active enemies of Islam. Both these guys are enough to confuse and misguide many Muslims.

 

This is doing the rounds on twitter...

1513804217709912066 is not a valid tweet id

 

but it is true that he was ibn taymiyyah's student and a great admirer of ibn taymiyyah. if i remember well safadi listed a few aberrations which ibn kathir followed his shaykh. that said, his tafsir is a very good resource for references in hadith (tafsir bi'l ma'thur).

Allah ta'ala knows best.

 

but what is vile is jamil haleem should have just turned the page to learn about ibn kathir's opinion concerning istiwa:

 

jamil haleem should forget about ibn kathir and do tawbah for his own deplorable aqidah about ismat al-anbiya first. the proverbial speck in another's eye is visible to this fellow with huge rocks stuck in (on?) his own eyes.

----
like his shaykh he is a slanderer and either ignorant or wilfully suppresses the truth like the ahl al-kitab. he makes a lot of accusations and the proof of ibn kathir being mujassim is a hadith cited in his tafsir.

true, ibn kathir cited a hadith, but he did not say that "my aqidah is the literal interpretation of this hadith".

----
we have seen elsewhere that harari is intellectually dishonest despite the many titles heaped upon him - and ahbash are a deviant sect. they are not ahl al-sunnah even if they claim to be sunnis and oppose wahabis.

when ibn kathir has cited a hadith with isnad - if jamil was a scholar (and not just a rabble-rouser) it was his responsibility to verify if that hadith really exists and if so, the status of the hadith.

if you go by this fellow's logic, imam bayhaqi and imam ibn furak were also mujassimin (al-iyadhu billah) because their books "al asma wa's sifat" and "ta'wil mushkil al-hadith" are compilations of such apparently problematic hadith.

----
if a hadith has such words which are outwardly problematic, we first try to establish if the hadith is narrated with an authentic chain; and if it is, we then explain it in a way that it does not clash with established aqidah - and it is the established aqidah of ahl al-sunnah that there is no similitude for Allah ta'ala and He sub'Hanahu wa ta'ala is neither a body, nor can he be described as having properties of bodies.

----
- this hadith is reported by tabarani. is he a mujassim too?





- suyuti in his super collection (jamiy al-hadith) and ali al-muttaqi in kanz al-ummal (a reordering of suyuti's work) have cited this hadith.
- furthermore suyuti in his al-durr al-manthur cited this hadith - so is suyuti a mujassim too? in fact in his la'ali al-masnu'ah suyuti says that the narrators of this hadith are deemed trustworthy (mawthuqun).




la'ali:




- hafiz mundhiri in his al-targhib wa't tarhib also mentioned this hadith. mujassim? [strangely, albani rules this hadith as mawDuu even though all the narrators are thiqah]



===
Allah ta'ala knows best.

 

... as a quoted hadith. So then it's not Ibn Kathir's own words, but rather a hadith that needs tawil or tafwid like the hadith of Allah "laughing" at His slave.

Unless I'm misunderstanding Jamil Haleem, or looking in another place. But i just quickly searched this under Ibn Kathir tafsir under Surah Taha.

 

I'm aware that he is aicp, however what he states is indeed found in the tafsir of ibn kathir.

However, is the conclusion he reaches a fair one? Is it valid if someone considers him a mujassim and mushabbih based upon this?

 

Numerous 'real' hanbalis also give him this title including modern day Azhari sufi salafi-hating hanbali's such as Shaykh Yusuf ibn Sadiq. Not sure if he believes ibn taymiyyah repented from his aqeedah or not

 

So what do we do with Allamah Ibn Abidin Shami who called ibn taymiyyah as "shaykhul Islam"?

 

Is there any reference as to where hazrat said this? The link posted here does not seem to be working.

جزاك الله خيرا

 

Jazak Allahu Khairan

Thank you everybody for your Help. This really clarified many doubts in my mind. Just one last question. We hold bothe Hazrat Shaykh-ul-Akbar and Hazrat Mulla 'Ali al-Qari in high esteem. Then was Hazrat Mulla Ali al-Qari mistaken in denouncing the works of Shaykh al-Akbar?

 

Sayyidi AlaHazrat's Malfuzat and Sayyid Abu al-Husain Barkati's Siraj al-Awarif make occasional references to Shaykh al-Akbar's works. Even AlaHazrat's computation of the most probable occurence date of Qiyamah draws heavily upon Shaykh al-Akbar's prediction. Siraj al-Awarif extensively cites Ibn Arabi's Futuhat al-Makkiyyah in second and third section (lustre) of the book.

In Malfuzat, AlaHazrat explains wahdat al-wujud in very concise terms (with likely intention to dissuade laymen from delving into it further).

----

I have heard a number of instances where the ability of a Shaykh to discourse on Shaykh al-Akbar's Fusus al-Hikam is/was considered as the true yardstick of that scholar/sufi's spiritual station.

While most of the Shaykh al-Akbar's work are inaccessible to laymen, his book Ruh al-Quds (translated as Sufis of Andalusia), which is a summary of his experience from different spiritual masters in the Maghrib, is definitely a safe, easy read.

 

Wa3aleikum Salam

You betcha!

Yes, he defended Shaykh Al-Akbar and held him in very high esteem as a wali, along with ALL the other shuyukh of the Qadiri, Noori, Barakati, Ridawi salasil.

 

Assalaamu 'Alaykum

Brother 'Abd al-Qaadir

Is it true that Ala Hazrat has defended Shaykh ibn Arabi?

 

Fine by me but he doesn't even provide a single piece of evidence of Ibn Kathir's tajsim or his views being contrary to that of ahl al-sunna or why he is part of a deviant sect. Have any of Ibn Kathir's contemporaries or any earlier scholars held a similar view and if so who?

What is the Mufti's view on Imam al-Dhahabi?

 

Shaykh Abdul Wahhab Al-Sha3rani in his Yawaqeet says that tamperings and discrepancies made their way into the works of Shaykh Al-Akbar, and that he is pure of many of the blasphemous points found in books that are attributed to him - and this is the right opinion - afaik according to Ala Hazrat too, this is the case.

The shias attribute a million and one bogus and blasphemous statements to Sayyidina Maula Ali and Hasanayn Kareemayn and Imam Ja3far Sadiq radi Allahu 3anhum, and others. It doesn't mean they said it. Same story here with zindiq sufis and Shaykh Al-Akbar. Just because some idiot like mark hanson says Shaykh Al-Akbar said this or that, it doesn't mean he did.

 

That really is complicated. On one hand we have Great Scholars who praise him and on the other hand we have scholars like Hazrt Mulla Ali al-Qari who condemn him. Very difficult really to say anything. I am honoured Janaab abu Hasan that you personally answered my question.

@bro Faqir The piece of information you provided also has put me in double mind. But thank you brother for your information.

I would rather follow Huzoor Taajush Shariah in this matter. For I have deleted Tafsir ibn Kathir which I downloaded, but I will not delete Qasas-ul-Anbiya!

Thanks a lot everybody!

 

it is quite complicated.

even mulla ali al-qari in his two rasayil (one on wahdat al-wujud and another on purported iman of firawn) includes both opinions; though, he leans towards his opposition or even takfir. (the copy of the rasayil i have - PDF - is unreadable on many key pages. in fact, yesterday night i read the whole risalah, except for the washed-out pages; but the pages deteroriate in the middle of interesting analysis..)

----
ali qari mentions that great imams like tajuddin ibn aTayillah as-sakandari and imam as'ad al-yafiyi have considered him a great wali; and others have criticised him.

he repeatedly cites sultan al-ulama, shaykh izzuddin ibn abd as-salam as having called him a zindiq. others he mentions are al-simnani, ibn hajar, ibn taymiyah (of course) and his students.

the third position he mentions is: that we do not speak about shaykh ibn arabi himself, though the passages in his books like fuSuS and futuHat are kufr.

----
as for us, great muhaddithin and fuqaha like imam jalaluddin suyuti, ibn hajar al-haytami, shaykh abdu'l haq dihlawi, abdu'l wahhab al-sha'arani, ibn abidin and almost all later ulama/sufiyah have praised him and called him muHiyuddin shaykh al-akbar.