Slander against Ibn Taymiyyah, his student Ibn Qāḍī al-Jabal, and his defender Ibn Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Dimashqī, claiming that they were pleased when people took soil from the grave of Ibn Taymiyyah for cure.
They said:
The story of ʿAlī ibn ʿAbd al-Karīm [a student of Ibn Taymiyyah], seeking healing through soil from the grave of Ibn Taymiyyah and presenting the story to Ibn Qāḍī al-Jabal [also a student of Ibn Taymiyyah] who approved of it and he would ask ʿAlī to recount this story publicly.
Seeking healing with grave soil is makrūh according to the Ḥanābilah, and is considered major shirk by some individuals. It would therefore necessitate that they describe Ibn Qāḍī al-Jabal and Ibn Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Dimashqī as being among the “grave-worshippers”.
𒆜━━━✤༺𒆜༻✤━━━𒆜
“ʿAlī ibn ʿAbd al-Karīm ibn al-Shaykh Sirāj al-Baghdādī al-Aṣl al-Baṭāyiḥī al-Mizzī informed me of something strange. He said: “I was a young man, and I had a daughter who was afflicted with an eye ailment, and we had belief in Ibn Taymiyyah, he was a companion of my father, and he used to come to us and visit my father. So I said to myself: I shall take some soil from the grave of Ibn Taymiyyah to apply as kuḥl [eye-liner] to her eyes, for her ailment had lasted a long time and no kuḥl had [any longer] remained in it [i.e., benefited it].
I went to the grave and found a man from Baghdād who had gathered some soil into a pouch. I said: ‘What will you do with this?’ He said: ‘I took it for an eye ailment, I will apply it as kuḥl to my children’s eyes.’ I said: ‘And does that benefit?’ He replied: ‘Yes,’ and he mentioned that he had tried it.
My certainty increased in what I had intended, so I took from it and applied it as kuḥl to her eyes while she was sleeping, and she was cured.
I related this to Ibn Qāḍī al-Jabal, meaning al-Imām Sharaf al-Dīn Abū al-ʿAbbās Aḥmad ibn al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAbdullāh ibn Shaykh al-Islām Abī ʿUmar al-Maqdisī, and he used to come to us, and this story pleased him. He would ask me about it in the presence of people, and I would relate it, and it would please him.”” End quote.
𒆜━━━✤༺𒆜༻✤━━━𒆜
Response:
1. Ali ibn ‘Abd al-Karim was NOT a student of Ibn Taymiyyah at all.
The story itself states that Ibn Taymiyyah used to visit his father, not him.
Secondly, the researcher of Radd al-Wāfir the very book these people quote states in the footnotes:
والقصة مردودة سندا فان راويها من البطائحية وهم قبوريون واهل شعوذة
“This story is rejected in terms of its chain, because its narrator is from the Bata’ihiyyah and they are grave-worshippers and people of sorcery.”
Radd al-Wāfir, p.135 (see comments for the image)
Then the researcher states, They are those who eat snakes, strike themselves with iron blades [in rituals], and claim that fire does not burn them… among other things they believe. And the polytheists of India have things that far exceed what they have.
The story of Sheikh al-Islam [Ibn Taymiyyah] with the Al-Bata’iha specifically is well-known, when he opened their falsehood to enter the fire as they did.
2. Slander against Ibn Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Dimashqī
Ibn Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Dimashqī clearly stated that he saw this in the handwriting of Abū al-‘Abbās Ibn Ḥajjī:
وحكى في معجم شيوخه المجرد فيما وجدته بخطه المجود قال علي بن عبد الكريم ابن الشيخ سراج الدين البغدادي الأصل البطايحي المزي أخبرني بشيء غريب…
“And he (Abū al-‘Abbās Ibn Ḥajjī) reported in his Mu‘jam of his shaykhs, in what I found written in his own fine handwriting, that ‘Ali ibn ‘Abd al-Karīm al-Baghdādī al-Baṭā’iḥī al-Mizzī told me something strange…”
This clearly indicates that it was a gharib, unusual report, not something related to Sharī‘ah, fiqh, or established creed.
3. Slander against Ibn Taymiyyah
This story blatantly contradicts the teachings of Ibn Taymiyyah.
Ibn Taymiyyah said in Ziyārat al-Qubūr (1/54):
( بيان حكم التمسح بالقبر وتقبيله وتمريغ الخد عليه وأما التمسح بالقبر أى قبر كان وتقبيله وتمريغ الخد عليه فمنهى عنه باتفاق المسلمين ولو كان ذلك من قبور الأنبياء ولم يفعل هذا أحد من سلف الأمة وأئمتها بل هذا من الشرك ) . اهـ
“Clarifying the ruling on wiping the grave, kissing it, and rubbing one’s cheek upon it:
As for wiping oneself on a grave any grave kissing it or rubbing the cheek upon it, this is prohibited by the unanimous agreement of the Muslims, even if the grave belongs to a prophet. None of the early generations of this Ummah or its imams ever did this. Rather, this is a form of shirk.”
This alone is enough to invalidate the story entirely.
4. Slander against Ibn Qāḍī al-Jabal
It is claimed that Ibn Qāḍī al-Jabal was “amazed” and would ask that this story be repeated in his circle.
The researcher of Radd al Wafir said:
And what is the value of this ‘Ibn al-Sheikh Siraj’ if he narrates from himself, or relays from some unknown Baghdad! The specific ruling for the known, agreed-upon principle is that the soil of graves any graves is [a cause for] ruin for the one who uses it, not for healing.
It is conceivable that Ibn Qadi al-Jabal was asking the Bata’ihi to narrate that story to mock him, or to jest and banter with him. Ibn Hajar said about him in Al-Durar al-Kamina (1/179): “He was a man of amusing tales.” And in Thulamat al-Alam (2/230): “And he was given to jesting.”
Another point is that Ibn Qāḍī al-Jabal was the teacher of Ibn Rajab al-Ḥanbalī, Ibn Rajab succeeded his teacher after his death, taking over his gatherings.
Ibn Rajab, the direct student of Ibn Qāḍī al-Jabal, explicitly refuted tabarruk with graves or the soil of the dead:
“وكذلك التبرك بالآثار، فإنما كان يفعله الصحابة مع النبي-صلى الله عليه وسلم- ولم يكونوا يفعلونه مع بعضهم.. ولا يفعله التابعون مع الصحابة، مع علو قدرهم فدل على أن هذا لا يُفعل إلا مع النبي -صلى الله عليه وسلم- مثل التبرك بوضوئه، وفضلاته، وشعره، وشرب فضل شرابه وطعامه. وفي الجملة فهذه الأشياء فتنة للمعظّم وللمعظّم لما يخشى عليه من الغلو المدخل في البدعة ، وربما يترقى إلى نوع من الشرك . كل هذا إنما جاء من التشبه بأهل الكتاب والمشركين الذي نهيت عنه هذه الأمة .
“Although the Companions sought tabarruk from the Prophet (peace be upon him), they never did so with one another.
Nor did the Tabi‘un do so with the Companions, despite their tremendous rank.
This shows that it is not to be done; it may also evolve into shirk.
All of this is imitation of the People of the Book and the Mushriks, which this Ummah has been forbidden from.”
(al-Ḥikam al-Jadīrah bi-l-Idhā‘ah, pp. 46–47)
This alone proves that Ibn Qāḍī al-Jabal could not have approved such a practice because his own students and intellectual legacy contradict it entirely.
In Summary
The report contradicts the fundamental creed of Ahl al-Sunnah.
The report contradicts the teachings of Ibn Taymiyyah, who was the strongest opponent of using grave soil for cure.
The report contradicts the positions of his students Ibn al-Qayyim, Ibn Kathīr, Ibn ‘Abd al-Hādī who all prohibited such actions.
The report contradicts the students of Ibn Qāḍī al-Jabal, especially Ibn Rajab al-Ḥanbalī, who crushed these false graveside beliefs.
Therefore:
An isolated story from grave worshipers and sorcerers opposing Qur’an, Sunnah, and unanimous teachings of the Imams is rejected and discarded. And even if someone’s eye got cured, Islam is not based upon personal experiences, tomorrow if a hindu says, I get provision because I ask idols for help. That doesn’t make idol worship halal naudhibillah. It will remain shirk.