Barelwis and G.F. Haddad quote only part of Mulla Ali al-Qari’s statement and claim that he changed his stance on Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah. In this article, we will present the full quote of Mulla Ali al-Qari, and InshaAllah, we will show that he actually agreed with what Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said. First, let us see what G.F. Haddad quoted here: http://www.livingislam.org/n/itay_e.html
Mulla Ali al-Qari said:
“Ibn Taymiyyah – one of the Hanbalis – committed excess when he declared it prohibited to travel to visit the Prophet ﷺ, just as others also committed excess by saying that it is obligatory in the Religion to know that visitation (ziyara) is an act that draws one near to Allah (qurba), and whoever denies it is judged to be a disbeliever (kafir). Yet the latter view is probably closer to being correct than the first, because to declare prohibited something the Ulema by consensus declared desirable (mustahabb) is disbelief. For it is graver than to declare prohibited something agreed to be merely permitted (mubah) in this matter.”
(Sharh al-Shifa, vol. 2, p. 152)
Comment:
Nowhere does Mulla Ali al-Qari say that Ibn Taymiyyah (RA) is a kafir. He was discussing Ibn Taymiyyah’s opinion regarding travelling to visit the Prophet ﷺ, not the act of visiting graves in general.
There is a significant difference:
-
Travelling to visit the Prophet ﷺ – This is a disputed issue.
-
Visiting graves – This is recommended, even according to Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, as clarified by both Imam Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Kathir.
See the following quote for clarification.
Ibn Kathir Defends Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, He said
( دخل القاضي جمال الدين بن جملة وناصر الدين مشد الأوقاف وسألاه عن مضمون قوله في مسألة الزيارة فكتب ذلك في درج وكتب تحته قاضي الشافعية بدمشق قابلت الجواب عن هذا السؤال المكتوب على خط ابن تيمية إلى إن قال وإنما المحز جعله زيارة قبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وقبور الانبياء صلوات الله وسلامه عليهم معصية بالإجماع مقطوعا بها فانظر الآن هذا التحريف على شيخ الاسلام فإن جوابه على هذه المسألة ليس فيه منع زيارة قبور الأنبياء والصالحين وإنما فيه ذكر قولين في شد الرحل والسفر إلى مجرد زيارة القبور.
وزيارة القبور من غير شد رحل إليها مسألة ، وشد الرحل لمجرد الزيارة مسألة أخرى والشيخ لم يمنع الزيارة الخالية عن شد رحل بل يستحبها ويندب إليها وكتبه ومناسكه تشهد بذلك ولم يتعرض إلى هذه الزيارة في هذا الوجه في الفتيا ولا قال إنها معصية ولا حكى الاجماع على المنع منها ولا هو جاهل قول الرسول ( زوروا القبور فإنها تذكركم الاخرة ) والله سبحانه لا يخفى عليه شيء ولا يخفى عليه خافية وسيعلم الذين ظلموا أي منقلب ينقلبون ) أهـ
“Qadi Jamal al-Din ibn Jamlah and Nasir al-Din… came to Ibn Taymiyyah while he was in prison and asked him about the meaning of his statement regarding the issue of visiting graves. Ibn Taymiyyah wrote his response on a piece of paper, and under it, the Shafi‘i Qadi of Damascus wrote a note. I compared this response with Ibn Taymiyyah’s own writings.
It was falsely claimed that he said: ‘Visiting the grave of the Prophet ﷺ and the graves of other Prophets is a sin according to consensus.’ This is a forgery against Shaykh al-Islam.
In reality, Ibn Taymiyyah did not forbid visiting the graves of Prophets or righteous people. He only discussed two issues:
Visiting graves without travelling to do so.
Travelling solely to visit graves.
Visiting graves without travelling is permissible and even recommended. Travelling only for the purpose of visiting graves is the matter that was disputed. Shaykh did not prohibit visiting graves in general. In fact, he considered it commendable and desirable. He did not say it is a sin, nor did he claim there is consensus forbidding it.
He was fully aware of the hadith of the Prophet ﷺ:
“Visit the graves, for they remind you of the Hereafter.”
Nothing is hidden from Allah, and those who do wrong will come to know how they are overturned.”
[Al Bidaya wal Nihaya vol 14 page 124]
Shaykh ul Islaam Imam Ibn Taymiyyah raihmahullah said
وإن كان المسافر إلى مسجده يزور قبره صلى الله عليه وسلم، بل هذا من أفضل الأعمال الصالحة
“If a traveler goes to the Masjid (al-Nabawi), then he should visit the grave of the Prophet ﷺ; indeed, this is among the best righteous deeds.”
(Majmu‘a al-Fatawa, 27/330)
Comment:
It is clear that Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah never prohibited visiting graves, and Mulla Ali al-Qari only stated that it would be disbelief if someone claimed that visiting graves is prohibited.
Even if one were to agree with Haddad and the Barelwis, a question arises: what would they say about Imam Ibrahim al-Nakha‘i, a scholar from the generation of the Sughar Tabi‘een, or Imam Shu‘bah, one of the great Tabi‘een?
Before quoting Shaykh al-Islam’s opinion, Mulla Ali al-Qari clearly addressed the context of the discussion, which is often hidden by Barelwis from the public.
Mulla Ali al-Qari said:
وَما وقع للشعبى والنخعى وغيرهما مما يقتضي كراهة زيارة القبور شاذ لا يعول عليه لمخالفته الاجماع
“What occurred from Ibraheem ibn al-Nakha‘i, Shu‘bah, and others suggesting that visiting graves is makrooh is odd and not to be relied upon, as it contradicts consensus.”
[Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari al-Harawi, Sharh al-Shifa, Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyya, 2001, vol. 2, p. 152]
Comment:
Immediately after this, he quotes Ibn Taymiyyah’s opinion and discusses the issue of disbelief claims. Does this mean that Mulla Ali al-Qari declared takfeer on these great Tabi‘een or scholars like Qadi Iyad and Imam Malik (RA), who held similar opinions to Ibn Taymiyyah? Obviously, the answer is no.
So why do some groups, like the Barelwis and Haddad, misquote Mulla Ali al-Qari and claim that he changed his stance on Ibn Taymiyyah?
In fact, Mulla Ali al-Qari aligned with the opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah, opposing the misrepresentations of the Barelwis.
Right after the passage quoted by Haddad and the Barelwis, he explicitly states:
فى هذا الباب نعم يمكن حمل كلام من حرم أو كره على صورة خاصة من الزيارة من الاجتماع فى وقت خاص على هيئة منكرة أو صفة مكروهة من اجتماع الرجال و النساء فى وقت واحد لما فيه من اتخاذ قبره عيدا والموجب لما أورد فيه وعيدا
“In this chapter, yes, it is possible to apply the ruling of someone who prohibited or disliked visiting a grave in a specific situation — such as gatherings at a particular time, in a sinful context, or in a disliked manner — including the simultaneous mixing of men and women, where the grave is treated as a place of celebration. This is necessarily due to what has been narrated as a warning.”
[Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari al-Harawi, Sharh al-Shifa, Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyya, 2001, vol. 2, p. 152]
Comment:
Notice how they hide both the preceding and following passages? These are fully in line with the opinions of Ahlus Sunnah.
a) Making a grave a place of gathering is prohibited — this is also the view of Mulla Ali Qari. Yet, the Barelwis celebrate the Urs of deceased Auliya Allah. According to Mulla Ali Qari, this is prohibited.
b) Whoever claims that visiting graves is haram commits disbelief. The claim that Ibn Taymiyyah said visiting graves is haram is a forgery, as clarified by Ibn Kathir. In reality, visiting graves is a recommended act, which is also the opinion of Mulla Ali Qari. See what Mulla Ali Qari said — which the Barelwis deliberately hide from innocent people.
Regarding the Barelwis:
Mulla Ali Qari likened them to Shias and other deviants. He said:
هذا كلام ظاهر الفساد مائل إلى وحدة الوجود أو الإتحاد كما هو مذهب أهل الإلحاد
“This statement is clearly corrupt, leaning towards Wahdat al-Wajood or Ittihad, which is the doctrine of the people of union (Mulhideen).”
[Al-Radd al-Qaiyleen be Wahdat al-Wajood, p. 13]
Mulla Ali Qari even wrote an entire book refuting Wahdat al-Wajood.
According to the fatwa of Mulla Ali Qari, complete knowledge of the Prophet (peace be upon him) is only claimed by the Shia (and nowadays, the Barelwis also make this claim). He said:
“As for things connected to this world, it is not a precondition that the Prophets be protected from a lack of knowledge about them, as is misconceived by the Shia. They are refuted by the saying of Al-HudHud to Sulayman (peace be upon him): ‘I have grasped (the knowledge of a thing) which you have not grasped’ (27:22).”
[Sharh Ash-Shifa, vol. 2, p. 211, Dar Al-Kutub Al-Ilmiyah, quoted from Br. Ali Hassan Khan]
He also said:
“اللهم لا تجعل قبري وثنا يعبد”
“O Allah, do not make my grave like a wathan (idol) to which people venerate, visit, or prostrate, as we see today in some shrines and mashahid.”
[Mirqaat, Hadith no. 750, vol. 2, p. 228]
Additionally, he said:
“في الأزهار: النهي عن تجصيص القبور للكراهة، وهو يتناول البناء بذلك وتجصيص وجهه، والنهي في البناء للكراهة إن كان في ملكه، وللحرمة في المقبرة المسبلة، ويجب الهدم وإن كان مسجداً.”
“It is mentioned in Al-Azhaar that disallowing the plastering of graves is makrooh. Disallowing the building is makrooh if it is on his property, but if it is a common shrine, it is prohibited, and demolition is obligatory even if it is a mosque.”
[Mirqaat, vol. 3, p. 1217, Hadith no. 1697]
Yet, for the Barelwis, Mulla Ali Qari is labeled a Wahhabi.
After that, Mulla Ali al-Qari said:
وقال بعض الشراح من علمائنا ولإضاعة المال وقد أباح السلف البناء على قبر المشايخ والعلماء المشهورين ليزورهم الناس ويستريحوا بالجلوس فيه
“Some of the commentators among our scholars said: ‘And do not waste money.’ Our Salaf permitted erecting buildings around the graves of the mashaikh and famous ulama so that people can visit them and rest by sitting there.”
[Mirqaat, vol. 3, p. 1217, Hadith no. 1697]
Here, he was quoting the differences of opinion among his companions and predecessors. His own rulings, however, are more precise. He said regarding graves:
(ولا قبرا مشرفا) هو الذي بني عليه حتى ارتفع دون الذي أعلم عليه بالرمل والحصباء ، أو محسومة بالحجارة ليعرف ولا يوطأ . (إلا سويته) في الأزهار قال العلماء: يستحب أن يرفع القبر قدر شبر، ويكره فوق ذلك، ويستحب الهدم، ففي قدره خلاف، قيل إلى الأرض تغليظاً، وهذا أقرب إلى اللفظ، أي: لفظ الحديث من التسوية، وقال ابن الهمام: هذا الحديث محمول على ما كانوا يفعلونه من تعلية القبور بالبناء العالي، وليس مرادنا ذلك بتسنيم القبر بل بقدر ما يبدو من الأرض، ويتميز عنها، والله سبحانه أعلم.
“Regarding high graves: Whatever is built on them should be levelled—not the elevation that protects the grave. Without levelling, it is mentioned in Al-Azhaar that scholars say it is mustahab to raise a grave by a hand span; raising more than that is makrooh. It is also mustahab to demolish excessive elevation. There is a difference of opinion regarding the amount to be levelled; some say it should be levelled to the ground to alert people (Taghleeza). This interpretation is closest to the wording of the hadith of leveling (al-Taswiyah). Ibn Hammam said this hadith refers to what people did by elevating graves with large constructions, not normal elevations with sand, which should remain like ordinary graves.”
[Mirqaat al-Mafateeh, Kitab al-Janaiz, vol. 2, Hadith no. 1696, p. 272]
Mulla Ali al-Qari also commented on reprehensible innovations:
وهي ما أنكره أئمة المسلمين كالبناء على القبور وتجصيصها وقيد البدعة بالضلالة لإخراج البدعة الحسنة كالمنارة ، كذا ذكره ابن الملك
“These innovations, which are rejected by the great scholars of the Muslims, include building upon graves and plastering them. Reprehensible innovations are specified to exclude good innovations, like minarets, as mentioned by Ibn al-Malik.”
[Mirqaat, vol. 1, p. 377, Hadith 168]
Thus, according to Mulla Ali al-Qari, building or plastering graves is an innovation (bid‘ah).
He also cited Imam at-Taibee:
عرف أنه مرتحل، وخاف من الناس أن يعظموا قبره كما فعل اليهود والنصارى
“It is as though the Prophet (peace be upon him) knew he would depart, so he feared that people would venerate his grave as the Jews and Christians did with other prophets.”
[Mirqaat al-Mafateeh, Hadith no. 712]
Then he said:
( اتخذوا قبور أنبيائهم مساجد ) : سبب لعنهم إما لأنهم كانوا يسجدون لقبور أنبيائهم تعظيما لهم ، وذلك هو الشرك الجلي ، وإما لأنهم كانوا يتخذون الصلاة لله تعالى في مدافن الأنبياء ، والسجود على مقابرهم ، والتوجه إلى قبورهم حالة الصلاة ; نظرا منهم بذلك إلى عبادة الله والمبالغة في تعظيم الأنبياء ، وذلك هو الشرك الخفي لتضمنه ما يرجع إلى تعظيم مخلوق فيما لم يؤذن له ، فنهى النبي – صلى الله عليه وسلم – أمته عن ذلك لمشابهة ذلك الفعل سنة اليهود ، أو لتضمنه الشرك الخفي ، كذا قاله بعض الشراح من أئمتنا ،
They have taken the graves of their apostles as places of worship. The reason they were cursed is that they made sajdah to the graves of the Ambiya in veneration, which is clear shirk. They used to pray to Allah while facing the graves of the Prophets and prostrate on the graves during Salaah. According to them, they thought they were worshiping Allah while exaggerating in veneration of the Prophets; this is hidden shirk. It contains hidden shirk, and therefore the Prophet (peace be upon him) forbade his Ummah from doing this, as it resembles the practices of the Jews. This is also mentioned by some commentators among our scholars.”
[Mirqat, Sharh al-Mishqaat, vol. 2, p. 202]
Note: After this, Mulla Ali al-Qari clarifies further (a portion often quoted by Brailwis but incompletely):
أما من اتخذ مسجدا في جوار صالح أو صلى في مقبرة وقصد الاستظهار بروحه أو وصول أثر ما من أثر عبادته إليه لا للتعظيم له والتوجه نحوه فلا حرج عليه ألا ترى أن مرقد إسماعيل عليه السلام في المسجد الحرام عند الحطيم ثم أن ذلك المسجد أفضل مكان يتحرى المصلي لصلاته والنهي عن الصلاة في المقابر مختص بالقبور المنبوشة لما فيها من النجاسة، كذا ذكره الطيبي وذكر غيره أن صورة قبر إسماعيل عليه السلام في الحجر تحت الميزاب، وإن في الحطيم بين الحجر الأسود وزمزم قبر سبعين نبياً.
“Anyone who builds a mosque near the grave of a righteous person or prays in a graveyard intending to seek knowledge through his soul or barakah from the traces of his worship, without giving him reverence or directing acts of worship to him, there is nothing wrong in that. Do you not see that the grave of Hadrat Ismail (A.S.) is inside Masjid al-Haram near the Hateem, and this mosque is the best place for a person to pray? The prohibition on praying in graveyards applies only to exposed graves due to impurity. At-Taybi and others mention that the grave of Ismail (A.S.) is under the Mizab in the Hateem, and that between the Hajr al-Aswad and Zamzam is the grave of seventy Prophets.”
[Mirqat, Sharh al-Mishqaat, vol. 2, p. 202]
Clarification: Brailwis misrepresent this as Mulla Ali al-Qari’s personal opinion. In fact, he was quoting Qadi and previous scholars. The full passage reads:
وقال القاضي : كانت اليهود والنصارى يسجدون لقبور أنبيائهم ويجعلونها قبلة ، ويتوجهون في الصلاة نحوها ، فقد اتخذوها أوثانا ، فلذلك لعنهم ، ومنع المسلمين عن مثل ذلك ، أما من اتخذ مسجدا في جوار صالح ، أو صلى في مقبرة وقصد الاستظهار بروحه ، أو وصول أثر ما من أثر عبادته إليه ، لا للتعظيم له والتوجه نحوه ، فلا حرج عليه ، ألا ترى أن مرقد إسماعيل – عليه السلام – في المسجد الحرام عند الحطيم ، ثم إن ذلك المسجد أفضل مكان يتحرى المصلي لصلاته ، والنهي عن الصلاة في المقابر مختص بالقبور المنبوشة ، لما فيها من النجاسة كذا ذكره الطيبي وذكر غيره أن صورة قبر إسماعيل – عليه السلام – في الحجر تحت الميزاب ، وأن في الحطيم بين الحجر الأسود وزمزم قبر سبعين نبيا ،
Qaadi said:
“As the Jews and Christians used to prostrate themselves before the graves of their prophets and perform prayers facing these graves, they made these graves into idols, and therefore they were cursed. Muslims were forbidden from doing the same. As for one who builds a mosque near the grave of a righteous person or prays there with the intention of seeking blessings through his soul, or intends to benefit from the traces of his worship without venerating him or dedicating acts of worship to him, there is no harm in it. Do you not see that the grave of Hadrat Ismail (A.S.) is inside Masjid al-Haram near the Hateem, and praying there is superior to anything else? However, praying near graves is only forbidden when the soil becomes impure due to the remains of the deceased. At-Teebi mentioned the same.” [end quote]
Mulla Ali Qari replied right after that (which Brailwis hide):
وفيه أن صورة قبر إسماعيل – عليه السلام – وغيره مندرسة فلا يصلح الاستدلال به
The grave of Ismaeel (A.S.) and others no longer exists, so it is not correct to make rulings based on them.
[Mirqat, Sharh al-Mishqaat, Volume 2, Page 202]
c) Then he quoted Ibn Hajar al-Haytami:
وقال ابن حجر : أشار الشارح إلى استشكال الصلاة عند قبر إسماعيل ، بأنها تكره في المقبرة ، وأجاب : بأن محلها في مقبرة منبوشة لنجاستها ، وكله غفلة عن قولهم : يستثنى مقابر الأنبياء ، فلا يكره الصلاة فيها مطلقا ; لأنهم أحياء في قبورهم ، وعلى التنزل فجوابه غير صحيح لتصريحهم بكراهة الصلاة في مقبرة غير الأنبياء ، وإن لم تنبش لأنه محاذ للنجاسة ، ومحاذاتها في الصلاة مكروهة ، وسواء كانت فوقه أو خلفه أو تحت ما هو واقف عليه.
The commentator noted the problem of praying at the grave of Ismaeel (A.S.), as praying in graveyards is generally disliked. He replied that it is disliked only if the graveyard soil is impure. However, the graves of the Prophets are excluded; praying in them is not disliked because they are alive in their graves. Thus, the answer that it is disliked to pray at the graves of others is incorrect if the graves are intact and no impurity is present. The ruling applies whether the grave is above, behind, or beneath the person praying.
[Mirqat al-Mafateeh, hadith no. 712]
d) Then Mulla Ali Qari quoted Sharah as-Sunnah:
وفي شرح السنة : اختلف في الصلاة في المقبرة فكرهها جماعة ، وإن كانت التربة طاهرة والمكان طيبا ، واحتجوا بهذا الحديث والذي بعده ، وقيل : بجوازها فيها ، وتأويل الحديث أن الغالب من حال المقبرة اختلاط تربتها بصديد الموتى ولحومها ، والنهي لنجاسة المكان ، فإن كان المكان طاهرا فلا بأس ، وكذلك المزبلة والمجزرة وقارعة الطريق ، وفي القارعة معنى آخر ، وهو أن اختلاف المارة يشغله عن الصلاة
In Sharah as-Sunnah, it is mentioned that there is a disagreement regarding praying in graveyards. A group (Jam‘ah) disliked it, even if the soil is pure, basing their ruling on this hadith and the one after it. Others said it is permissible, interpreting the hadith to mean that the prohibition was due to impurity of the soil, since pus and flesh of the dead mix with it. If the soil is pure, there is no harm. Similarly, it is disliked to pray near dung heaps, slaughterhouses, or on roads; praying on roads is discouraged because the passing people distract the worshipper.
[Ibid]
Note: The wrong opinion begins with “Qeela” (it is said), while the correct opinion is that of the Jam‘ah, as affirmed in Sharah as-Sunnah.
e) Then Mulla Ali Qari quoted al-Haytami again:
قال ابن حجر : وقد صح أنه عليه الصلاة والسلام نهى عن الصلاة بالمقبرة ، واختلفوا في هذا النهي هل هو للتنزيه أو للتحريم ؟ ومذهبنا الأول ، ومذهب أحمد التحريم ، بل وعدم انعقاد الصلاة ; لأن النهي عنده في الأمكنة يفيد التحريم والبطلان كالأزمنة
Ibn Hajar said it is proven that the Prophet ﷺ prohibited praying near graves, but there is a difference of opinion whether this prohibition was for tanzeeh (purity) or tahreem (prohibition). Our madhhab is the first one (i.e., because of purity), while the madhhab of Imam Ahmad is that it is prohibited, and that the prayer is invalid there. According to him, prohibition in certain places is similar to the Prophet forbidding prayer at certain times.
[Mirqat, Sharh al-Mishqaat, Volume 2, Page 202, Hadith no. 712]
Comment: One can see that Mulla Ali Qari stated it is not correct to derive general rulings from this. They also omit what he said earlier: that praying to Allah in the maqabir (graves) of the Prophets and prostrating before the graves is clear shirk. Whoever believes they are venerating the Prophet ﷺ or worshipping Allah through the graves is committing hidden shirk.
Now see the praise Mulla Ali Qari gave to Ibn Taymiyah: he strongly defended him and, by implication, rejected the views of the likes of Brailwiyah.
He said:
وقد سبق عن هذه المنكرات في كلام ابن عربي لا سبيل إلى صحته تأويلها فلا يستقيم اعتقاد أنه من أولياء الله مع اعتقاد صدور هذه الكلمات منه إلا باعتقاد أنها خلاف ما صدر عنه مما تقدم هنالك أو رجوعه إلى ما يعتقده أهل الإسلام في ذلك ولم يجيء بذلك عنه خبر ولا روي عنه أثر فذمه جماعة من أعيان العلماء وأكابر الأولياء لأجل كلامه المنكر
There is no way to perform ta’wil (interpretation) on the false statements of Ibn Arabi mentioned above. After reading his sayings, it is not correct to claim that he was among the Auliya of Allah, except to believe that these words are not truly from him or that he repented and returned to what the People of Islam believe. However, there is no evidence (khabr or athar) that he repented. A group of prominent scholars and Auliya refuted his statements.
[al-Radd al-Qaiyleen be Wahdat al-Wajood, pp. 153–155]
Then he said:
فإن كنت مؤمنا حقا مسلما صدقا فلا تشك في كفر جماعة ابن عربي ولا تتوقف في ضلالة هذا القوم الغوي والجمع الغبي فإن قلت هل يجوز السلام عليهم ابتداء قلت لا ولا رد السلام عليهم بل لا يقال لهم عليكم أيضا فإنهم شر من اليهود والنصارى وإن حكمهم حكم المرتدين
So, if you are a true believer and a sincere Muslim, do not doubt the kufr of the followers of Ibn Arabi, and do not hesitate regarding the misguidance of this misguided group. If you ask whether it is permissible to greet them (salam), I say NO — do not initiate salam, do not reply to their salam, and do not even say “Wa Alaikum” to them, because they are worse than Jews and Christians and are outside the pale of Islam.
[al-Radd al-Qaiyleen be Wahdat al-Wajood, pp. 155–156]
Comment: Brailwis quote this partially, hiding the full context. This is why scholars say, “Little knowledge is harmful.” According to the fatwa of Mulla Ali Qari, the followers of Ibn Arabi are considered kuffar.
Mulla Ali Qari defending Shaykh Ibn Taymiyah
a) Mulla Ali Qari on the Siffaat of Allah
Mulla Ali Qari said:
وأما ما ورد من الآيات المتشابهة والأحاديث المشكلات حيث جاء فيهما ذكر الوجه واليد والعين والقدم وأمثالها من الصفات ففيه ثلاث مذاهب بعد الإجماع على التنزيه من التشبيه أحدها تفويض علمها إلى عالمها وعليه جمهور السلف وكثير من الخلف ويؤيده قوله تعالى والراسخون في العلم يقولون آمنا به كل من عند ربنا وثانيها تأويلها وإليه مال أكثر الخلف وبعض السلف وثالثها أن لا تأويل ولا توقف بل المذكورات كلها صفات زائدة على الذات لا يعلم معناها من جميع الجهات وهو مختار إمامنا الأعظم وأحمد بن حنبل وأتباعه كابن تيمية وهو قول ابن خزيمة وغيرهم من أكابر الأمة من المحدثين ونسب إلى عامة السلف وقد وافقهم إمام أهل السنة أبو الحسن الأشعري في بعض الصفات في جميع المتشابهات فإن له في الاستواء
Translation and explanation:
Here, Mulla Ali Qari is discussing the Siffaat of Allah. After the consensus on tanzih (affirming Allah’s transcendence and rejecting anthropomorphism), he mentions three schools of thought regarding the Siffaat:
-
Tafweed (delegation) – leaving the knowledge of their reality to Allah. This is the position of the majority of the Salaf and many of the Khalaf. It is supported by the Qur’anic verse: “And the firmly grounded in knowledge say: We believe in it; all is from our Lord” (3:7).
-
Ta’weel (interpretation) – giving metaphorical explanations to the Siffaat. This is the position of many of the Khalaf and some of the Salaf.
-
Neither tafweed nor ta’weel – affirming the Siffaat without interpretation and without likening them to creation. This is the position taken by Imam al-Adham (Abu Hanifa), Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and his followers like Ibn Taymiyah, as well as Ibn Khuzaima and other prominent scholars and muhadditheen. It is attributed generally to the Salaf. Even Imam Abu al-Hasan al-Ash‘ari agreed with them regarding some Siffaat.
[Al-Radd al-Qaiyleen be Wahdat al-Wajood, p. 105]
Comment: According to the Brailwiyah, these Imams are sometimes labeled as Mushabbiha for not performing ta’weel of Allah’s Siffaat. However, Mulla Ali Qari praised them as great Imams of Ahlus Sunnah. Mulla Ali Qari himself adopted tafweed al-kayfiyya, aligning with the Maturidiyyah by affirming only eight eternal attributes and rejecting the Ash‘ari method of ta’weel.
b) Ibn Hajar al-Haytami on Ibn Taymiyah and Ibn al-Qayyim
Ibn Hajar al-Haytami [one of the greatest Shafi‘i fuqaha’, d. 974 AH; not to be confused with Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, author of Fath al-Baari, d. 852 AH] criticized Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah and his student Ibn al-Qayyim, accusing them of describing Allah in physical terms, likening Him to His creation, and holding other abhorrent beliefs.
However, many scholars refuted these accusations, explaining that Ibn Taymiyah and Ibn al-Qayyim were innocent of any belief contrary to the Qur’an and Sunnah. One of the scholars who defended them was:
Mulla Ali Qari (may Allah have mercy on him), who said, after quoting Ibn Hajar’s accusations and criticisms of their ‘aqeedah:
أقول : صانهما الله عن هذه السمة الشنيعة والنسبة الفظيعة ، ومن طالع شرح منازل السائرين لنديم الباري الشيخ عبد الله الأنصاري الحنبلي – قدس الله تعالى سره الجلي – وهو شيخ الإسلام عند الصوفية حال الإطلاق بالاتفاق ، تبين له أنهما كانا من أهل السنة والجماعة ، بل ومن أولياء هذه الأمة ، ومما ذكر في الشرح المذكور ما نصه على وفق المسطور هو قوله على بعض صباة المنازل ، وهذا الكلام من شيخ الإسلام يبين مرتبته من السنة ، ومقداره في العلم ، وأنه بريء مما رماه أعداؤه الجهمية من التشبيه والتمثيل على عاداتهم في رمي أهل الحديث والسنة بذلك ، كرمي الرافضة لهم بأنهم نواصب ، والنواصب بأنهم روافض ، والمعتزلة بأنهم نوائب حشوية ، وذلك ميراث من أعداء رسول الله – صلى الله عليه وسلم – في رميه ورمي أصحابه ، بأنهم صراة قد ابتدعوا دينا محدثا ، وهذا ميراث لأهل الحديث والميمنة من نبيهم بتلقيب أهل الباطل لهم بالألقاب المذمومة ، وقدس الله روح الشافعي حيث يقول ، وقد نسب إليه الرفض :
إن كان رفضا حب آل محمد فليشهد الثقلان أني رافضي
ورضي الله عن شيخنا أبي عبد الله بن تيمية حيث يقول :
إن كان نصبا حب صحب محمد فليشهد الثقلان أني ناصبي
وعفا الله عن الثالث حيث يقول :
فإن كان تجسيما ثبوت صفاته وتنزيهها عن كل تأويل مفتر
فإني بحمد الله ربي مجسم هلموا شهودا واملئوا كل محضر
I say: Allah protected them – i.e., Ibn al-Qayyim and his Shaykh Ibn Taymiyah – from this abhorrent accusation. Anyone who studies Sharh Manaazil al-Saa’ireen by Nadeem al-Baari, Shaykh ‘Abd-Allaah al-Ansaari al-Hanbali – who is regarded as Shaykh al-Islam by the Sufis – will clearly see that they were among Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah and indeed among the awliya’ (close friends of Allah) of this Ummah. Among what he wrote in the book was the following:
“These words of Shaykh al-Islam highlight his position as a prominent scholar of Ahl al-Sunnah and his standing among the scholars. They demonstrate that he is innocent of the accusations of his Jahmi enemies, who claimed he likened Allah to His creation – the same type of accusation often hurled at the scholars of Hadith and Sunnah. Just as the Raafidis accuse them of being Naasibis, the Naasibis accuse them of being Raafidis, and the Mu’tazilah accuse them of being anthropomorphists. This is a legacy of the enemies of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), who accused him and his companions of inventing a new religion. Likewise, it is a legacy of the scholars of Hadith and Sunnah from their Prophet that people of falsehood give them offensive labels.”
May Allah sanctify the soul of al-Shafi‘i, who said when accused of being a Raafidi:
“If being a Raafidi means loving the family of Muhammad, then let the two races (mankind and jinn) bear witness that I am a Raafidi.”
May Allah be pleased with our Shaykh Abu’l-‘Abbaas Ibn Taymiyah, who said:
“If being a Naasibi means loving the family of Muhammad, then let the two races (mankind and jinn) bear witness that I am a Naasibi.”
May Allah forgive the third – Ibn al-Qayyim – who said:
“If being an anthropomorphist means affirming the divine attributes and regarding them as beyond the interpretation of a liar, then praise be to Allah, I am an anthropomorphist; bring your witnesses.”
[Mirqaah al-Mafaateeh, al-Mulla ‘Ali Qaari, 8/146–147. Source: IslamQA]
Conclusion:
-
Mulla Ali Qari never changed his stance. For him, Ibn Taymiyah was a true friend of Allah (Wali Allah).
-
According to Mulla Ali Qari, people like Brailwis engage in prohibited acts during the URS of any Wali, with some committing clear shirk and others hidden shirk.
-
For Mulla Ali Qari, Brailwis are comparable to the Shias in their innovations and misguidance.