เสนออีกแง่มุมนึงครับ
Bismillah wa salatu wa salamu ala rasulilah wa b'ad
asalamu alaikum akhee
Assalamu Alaykum
I need help on this topic for the Asharis are trying to make out that Ibn Kathir was an Ashari. They present two pieces of evidence.
yeah, this is the silly nature of these ash'arite, always tryuing to recruite heavy weights. they even go as far as reporting an "alledged" repentence from IT himself, and even adh-Dhahabee.
however, truth cannot be overturned by their falsehood.
here goes proof 1
Evidence #1:
Ibn Kathir seems to have made ta'weel of Allah's hand in Surah 3:73.
Also Ibn Kathir is said to have claimed to be an Ashari...
روى الحافظ ابن حجر العسقلاني في ترجمة ابراهيم نجل ابن القيم الجوزية رحمه الله كما جاء في كتابه الدرر الكامنة ما نصه :
ابراهيم بن محمد بن أبي بكر بن أيوب بن قيم الجوزية ... تقدم وأفتى ودرس , وذكره الذهبي في المعجم المختص فقال : تفقه بأبيه وشارك في العربية وسمع وقرأ واشتغل بالعلم ..ومن نوادره أنه وقع بينه وبين عماد الدين ابن كثير منازعة في تدريس الناس فقال له ابن كثير : أنت تكرهني لأنني أشعري . فقال له : لو كان من رأسك الى قدمك شعر ما صدقك الناس في قولك أنك أشعري وشيخك ابن تيمية !! )) انتهى كلام الحافظ ابن حجر
ذكر في الدرر الكامنة للحافظ ابن حجر
Basically, Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani [RH] is reporting in ad-durar al-kamina chapter 1 page 65 a dispute between Ibn Kathir and the son of Ibn Al-Qayyim Al-Jawziyya.
Ibn Kathir said to him: "You do not like me because I am an ash' ari".
The son of Ibn Al-Qayyim replied:
"Even if you had hair from head to feet, people would not believe that you are ash' ari as your sheikh is Ibn Taymiyya!!"
its refutation
Ibn Kathir, explicitly stated his so-called anthropomorphic beliefs in al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya, in conformity to Ibn Taymiyya:
“In this month [i.e. Dhil-Hijja], on a Thursday the 27th, the two brothers of Shaykh Taqi al-Din [Ibn Taymiyya]: Sharaf al-Din and Zayn al-Din were called from the prison to attend a session with the deputy of the Sultan Sallar. Ibn Makhluf al-Maliki [Ibn Taymiyya’s arch enemy] also attended, and they all discussed extensively. Sharaf al-Din managed to defeat the Maliki Qadhi with textual proofs, evidences and knowledge, and further highlighted his errors in several issues where the latter had made false claims. The discussion was on the issue of Allah’s Throne, speech and descent”
So here we have Ibn Kathir, explicitly agreeing with Ibn Taymiyya on the issue of Allah’s Throne, Speech and Descent, and explicitly disagreeing with the Ash’ari-Maliki Qadhi.
This is why Ibn al-Qayyim’s son said to him that no one would ever believe that you are an Ash’ari whilst your beloved Shaykh is Ibn Taymiyya! And therefore, do not think that my feud with you is because I think you are an Ash'ari!
secondly, none of the hufaadh in our history, NONE, have stated, even in the tabaqaat ashaf'iyyah of as-Subki narrated this "asharism" of Ibn kathir. beleive me, if as-Subki even remotely found that Ibn kathir became an ash'ari, that would have been the pinnicle climax of ash'arism since the time of fakhru-deen.
Moreover, he is historically known as Ibn Taymiyya follower, and none, to my knowledge, ever remarked that he was recanted his theological views, let alone that he was an Ash’ari. In fact, Taqi al-Hisni wrote Daf’ Shubah man shabbaha wa tamarrad, in which he attacked Ibn Kathir and Ibn al-Qayyim, both for being Ibn Taymiyya fanatics. This book was published by al-Kawthari who also made absolutely no comment over al-Hisni’s attack. Why would he? For al-Kawthari himself attacks Ibn Kathir for his Ibn Taymiyya fanaticism in his maqalat.
The son of Ibn al-Qayyim and Ibn Kathir had rift over teaching position. It seems Ibn Kathir implied that the dislike for him is due to his Ash’ari roots. This is why Ibn al-Qayyim’s son said to him: No would ever believe you that you are an Ash’ari. It is impossible. This statement only consolidates the fact that Ibn Kathir was famous for fanaticism for Ibn Taymiyya, such that none would ever even think for a second that he was an Ash’ari! And guess what? The Shafi’i-Ash’ari biographies all seem to concede with this, too. The only one to hallucinate on this issue by insiuating that Ibn kahitr became an ash'ari is none other than these pseudo ash'aris that came 700 years later claming a reality that none of the shaf'i'ees conceded to about Ibn kathir
shubha 2
Another interesting snippet of information from the above on-line link is that apparently Imam al-Subki [RH] mentions in "Tabaqat ash-shafi' iyya" volume 10 page 398 that a condition to teach at the house of hadith "Al-Ashrafiyya" was to be ash' ari in 'aqida and that apparently Imam Ibn Kathir occupied the post of professor at this house of Hadith in the month of Moharam in the year 772H.
it refutation
The historian Al-Fasi (d. 832) writes in his Ta’rif Dhawil ‘Ula in biography of al-Dhahabi:
“It has reached me that al-Dhahabi refused to take up the teaching position at Dar al-Hadeeth al-Ashrafiyya in Damascus because he was not an Ash’ari. This is when the position was vacated due to the death of the previous teacher al-Hafidh Jamal al-Din al-Mizzi. Al-Mizzi himself did not attain the position until he testified for himself that he is an Ash’ari, for that was the stipulated condition for the teacher therein. This indicates the richness of al-Dhahabi’s religiosity and piety, for it was also possible for him to testify for himself that he is an Ash’ari and take up the position, and that wouldn’t have affected him, in that he does not have Ash’ari beliefs.” (page 50)
This quote from al-Fasi is very important, and from this we deduce:
1) One of the reasons why Ash’ari Madhab spread. Basically, you’re jobless if you’re not an Ash’ari.
2) al-Dhahabi was not an Ash’ari, and refused to call himself one just to attain the position as a teacher
3) al-Mizzi was the greatest Muhaddith of his time and a beloved friend of Ibn Taymiyya who was also tested like Ibn Taymiyya.
4) Even though al-Mizzi was not an Ash’ari, he believed it permissible to testifying that he is an Ash’ari – intending by that the Ash’ari of al-Ibana, and not the Ash’ari of Ibn Furak, al-Juwayni, etc.
5) Ibn Kathir was, like al-Mizzi and al-Dhahabi, not an Ash’ari. However, like al-Mizzi, but unlike al-Dhahabi, he testified for himself that he is an Ash’ari to take up the vacated position at Ashrafiyya.
If one truly wants to know Ibn Kathir’s stance with respect to Ibn Taymiyya and Ash’arism, then let him read Ibn Kathir’s al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya, and see for himself what exactly was his stance towards the ‘aqida and works of Ibn Taymiyya.
For instance, with respect to al-Hamawiyya, he mentioned that Ibn Taymiyya had a debate over his Hamawiyya with a group of scholars and he silenced them all. al-Hamawiyya is an attack on Ash'aris in particular.
For instance, read his account of the tribunal set up for Ibn Taymiyya’s al-Wasitiyya. One of the first Ash’aris to challenge Ibn Taymiyya was Safi al-Din al-Hindi (al-Razi’s student), who was supposedly the most leading Ash’ari of the day! And guess how Ibn Kathir describes it:
“al-Shaykh Safi al-Din al-Hindi attended and debated with Shaykh Taqi al-Din [Ibn Taymiyya] extensively, however, his waterwheel was up against an ocean!!”
How does Ibn Kathir describe the end of this debate?
“Then the meeting was ended, having accepted ‘Aqida [al-wasitiyya] to be correct. The Shaykh returned to his house in great veneration and respect. It has also reached me that the common folk carried candles [in veneration of Ibn Taymiyya] from Bab al-Nasr to al-Qassa’in, as they commonly do at such occasions”
What does Ibn Kathir think of Ibn Taymiyya’s opponents?
“There was a group of jurists who were envious of Shaykh Taqi al-Din due to his good relations with the government, him taking the lead in ordering the good and forbidding evil, the general obedience people showed to him, the increasing number of his followers, and his eagerness to defend the truth, along with his knowledge and actions”
How does Ibn Kathir describe the third tribunal set up to discuss al-Wasitiyya?“Then a third tribunal was set up on the seventh of Sha’ban in the Citadel, and the gathering showed contentment over the aforementioned ‘aqida [al-wasitiyya]”
How does he describe Ibn Sarsari’s return (who was Ibn Taymiyya’s enemy and one of the main instigators) to Damascus and his reappointment as a judge?
“He [Ibn Sarsari] returned to Damascus [from Egypt] on Friday the sixth of Dhil-Qi’da, while people’s hearts were full of hate and abhorrence for him”
Ibn Kathir’s anti-Ash’ari view on Allah’s throne, speech and descent:
“In this month [i.e. Dhil-Hijja], on a Thursday the 27th, the two brothers of Shaykh Taqi al-Din [Ibn Taymiyya]: Sharaf al-Din and Zayn al-Din were called from the prison to attend a session with the deputy of the Sultan Sallar. Ibn Makhluf al-Maliki [Ibn Taymiyya’s arch enemy] also attended, and they all discussed extensively. Sharaf al-Din managed to defeat the Maliki Qadhi with textual proofs, evidences and knowledge, and further highlighted his errors in several issues where the latter had made false claims. The discussion was on the issue of Allah’s Throne, speech and descent”
Ibn Kathir’s view on the impotency of Ibn Taymiyya’s enemies:
“They then assembled on Sunday by a royal decree through out the day. However, none attended from the judges, but only a large number of jursists… When they requested that the judges should attend, they made excuses, some of them saying that they are unwell, while others made other excuses, for they knew that Ibn Taymiyya is fully equipped with various sciences and proofs, and that none of those present can challenge him”
Moreover, al-Fasi, when he mentions that al-Mizzi became the headmaster of al-Ashrafiyya, claiming that he is an Ash’ari, whilst he does not agree with the beliefs of the Ash’aris, how could it ever be thought of al-Fasi that he is indirectly belittling al-Mizzi or accusing him of deception?!
Rather, what is clear from al-Fasi’s comment is that al-Mizzi’s action was legally 100% legit, although, what al-Dhahabi did was better. And if they had any acquaintance with fiqh (and they are the ones who brag as being the muqalids of fiqh), then they should read up on the chapter on tawriyya and they would have seen that some scholars actually considered it permissible, while others deemed it makruh. Whatever the case, it is a fiqhi issue, open for discussion to those who are qualified to discuss fiqh.
Another point to note is that Ibn Kathir was al-Mizzi’s son-in-law, and al-Mizzi himself was very much like Ibn Taymiyya, in terms of his theological and philosophical views. He was regarded to be from the special followers of Ibn Taymiyya. What illustrates this especial relationship is that once al-Mizzi was simply reading al-Bukhari’s book to his class in public, khalq af’al al-‘ibad. Some Shafi’is, when they heard his sessions, they thought that al-Mizzi (who was a shafi’i himself), was accusing the Ash’aris of being Jahmis. So they complained to a Hanafi Qadhi who threw al-Mizzi in jail.
Ibn Taymiyya heard of this whist he was giving a lesson, and as soon as he heard, he got up and left, bare feet, to the rescue of his friend al-Mizzi, and physically pulled him out of prison by hand.
This is how close these two figures were in terms of their theological views, and the same Ibn al-Subki would confirm for you in Tabaqat.
Knowing that Ibn Kathir was al-Mizzi’s son-in-law, no wonder he too was very close to Ibn Taymiyya, such as Shafi’i biographers remember Ibn Kathir as a staunch follower of Ibn Taymiyya in his views, due to which he was persecuted, and amongst the views he supported was three talaqs in one session being counted as one. For instance, it states in Tabaqat al-Shafi’iah
كانت له خصوصية بابن تيمية ومناضلة عنه واتباع له في كثير من آرائه وكان يفتي برأيه في مسألة الطلاق وامتحن بسبب ذلك وأوذي توفي في شعبان سنة أربع وسبعين وسبعمائة ودفن بمقبرة الصوفية عند شيخه ابن تيمية
“Ibn Kathir had a special relationship with Ibn Taymiyya, who was his defender, and follower of many of his views. He would issue verdicts in accordance with his view with respect to Talaq, due to which he placed under hardship and harmed. He passed away in Sha’ban 774 AH, and was buried in the Sufi Graveyard, next to his Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya”
This is what Ibn Kathir’s biography is ‘tainted’ with in the works of Shafi’i Tabaqat. I do not know of a single Shafi’i historian who, ever, gave a different view of Ibn Kathir. None of them ever said that he was an Ash’ari. None of them ever claimed that Ibn Kathir changed his views. None of them ever said that Ibn Kathir agreed with the views of Ibn Taymiyya, bar his theological views.
Now, to come after seven centuries and to claim, out of the blue, for the first time in history, that ‘Ibn Kathir was indeed an Ash’ari’, would be viewed as nothing but academic dishonesty, resulting from blind partisanship and bigotry, especially, when Ibn Kathir’s history work is crammed full of support for Ibn Taymiyya’s theological works and views!
shubha 3
Evidence #2
Imam Ibn Kathir - an example of his practising Tafwid
Imam Ibn Kathir says in his Tafsir of the verse ثُمَّ ٱسْتَوَىٰ عَلَى ٱلْعَرْشِ translated by some as: "Then He ‘was established’ (istawa) upon the Throne" (Qur’an 7 : 54) :
وأما قوله تعالى: { ثُمَّ ٱسْتَوَىٰ عَلَى ٱلْعَرْشِ } فللناس في هذا المقام مقالات كثيرة جداً ليس هذا موضع بسطها، وإنما نسلك في هذا المقام مذهب السلف الصالح مالك والأوزاعي والثوري والليث بن سعد والشافعي وأحمد وإسحاق بن راهويه وغيرهم من أئمة المسلمين قديماً وحديثاً، وهو إمرارها كما جاءت من غير تكييف ولا تشبيه ولا تعطيل، والظاهر المتبادر إلى أذهان المشبهين منفي عن الله، لا يشبهه شيء من خلقه و
{ لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَىْءٌ وَهُوَ ٱلسَّمِيعُ ٱلْبَصِيرُ }
[translation of above - let me know if there are mistakes!]
...people have many positions on this matter, and this is not the place to present them at length. On this point, we follow the position of the early Muslims (salaf)—Malik, Awza‘i, Thawri, Layth ibn Sa‘d, Shafi‘i, Ahmad, Ishaq ibn Rahawayh, as well as others among the Imams of the Muslims, ancient and modern—namely, to let the verse pass as it has come, without saying how it is meant (bi la takyif), without any resemblance to created things (wa la tashbih), and without nullifying it (wa la ta‘til), and the literal outward meaning (dhahir) that comes to the minds of anthropomorphists (al-mushabbihin) is negated of Allah, for nothing created has any resemblance to Him: "There is nothing whatsoever like unto Him, and He is the All-hearing, the All-seeing"
Its refutation
This is a problem with ash'ari ignorance
there is no tafweedh in the above. the only tafweedh recognized above is to relegate the nature of the attribute, not he meaning that is apparently understood.
in the words of Ibn kathirr above can be summoned in a number of points
1. that he is relaying what the salaf beleived in whih consists of
2. to let the verse pas as it has come. of course the basic understanding of that is if Allah said he istwa over the Throne, then guess what, he istiwaa over the throne,. The phrase 'let it pass on as it has come" is refuting the ash'aris who did not "let it pass as it has come" rather they made "tafweedh bil m'ana" of these ayaah and then they made 't'awil" where necessary to these ayaah. How does "let it pass on as it has come' sound logically connectedwith making tafweedh of its meaning. Your not passing it on, your relegating it to Allah.
3. while negating tashbeeh (accepted of course)
4. without t'atil
5. and the literal outward meaning (dhahir) that comes to the minds of anthropomorphists (al-mushabbihin) is negated of Allah
That is why adh-Dhahabee said in his al-‘Uluw:
“The latter ones from the speculative theologians (ahl al-nadhar, i.e. Ash’aris) invented a new belief, I do not know of anyone preceding them in that. They said: ‘These attributes are passed on as they have come and not interpreted (la tu’awwal), while believing that the literal meaning is not intended (dhahiruha ghayr murad).’
This follows that the literal meaning (dhahir) could mean two things:
First; that it has no interpretation (ta’wil) except the meaning of the text (dilalat al-khitab), as the Salaf said: ‘The rising (al-Istiwa) is known’, or as Sufyan and others said: ‘Its recitation is in fact its interpretation (tafseer)’ – meaning, it is obvious and clear in the language, such that one should not opt for interpretation (ta’wil) or distortion (tahrif). This is the Madhab of the Salaf, while they all agree that they do not resemble the attributes of human beings in any way. For the Bari has no likeness, neither in His essence, nor in His attributes.
Second; that the literal meaning (dhahir) is what comes to imagination from the attribute, just like an image that is formed in one’s mind of a human attribute. This is certainly not intended, for Allah is single and self-sufficient who has no likeness. Even if He has multiple attributes, they all are true, however, they have no resemblance or likeness”
So it becomes clear from the two close comrades and fellow students of Ibn taymiyyah that what Ibn kahitr says in the fifth point mentioned in his tafseer is that what is negated from Allah of the dhaahir "is that which coms in the minds of the anthropomorphists" and not that when it is taken on its apparent meaning then that is by default tajseem, whih is why adh-Dhahabee commented that there could only be two impression of tajseem.
So casting the two together, what Ibn kathir is negating is the second point mentioned by adh-dhahabee, not he first.
6. and then mentions a primary rule intended to refute both the negators and the mujassimah, that being that there is nothing like Him.
I hope this clarifies these shubahaat
asalamu alaaikum
ที่มา
http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/archive/index.php/t-84.html
