ibn taymiyya on trial in damascus (sherman jackson)

Journal of Semitic Studies XXXIX/1 Spring 1994

IBN TAYMIYYAH ON TRIAL IN DAMASCUSTo "Be-Bop"

(Michael Emerson)

SHERMAN A. JACKSON

INDIANA UNIVERSITY

The Damascus trials of TaqI al-Dln Ibn Taymiyyah (661-728/1263-1328) constitute a land-mark not only in die career of this celebratedHanball theologian but also in the ongoing confrontation between tra-ditionalism and rationalism in Islam. Seminal to theological discoursesince, these trials stand on a par with such milestones as die promul-gation of die Qadiri Creed1 by the Baghdad Caliphs al-Qadir (381-422/991-1031) and al-Qa'im (422-67/1031-75) or, before that, thefamous Inquisition {mihnah) inaugurated by die Caliph al-Ma'mun(198-218/818-33). Indeed, not only would Ibn Taymiyyah's testimony(and subsequent writings) raise traditionalism to a new level ofrespectability, but rationalism, in confronting diis redoutable foe,would also be forced to refine its theological and polemical approach.

The Damascus trials took place over a period of approximately onemonth and included three separate hearings. These were held onMonday, 8 Rajab 26 January, Friday, 12 Rajab 30 January and Tues-day, 7 Sha'ban 24 February, 705/1306. Though they ended ostensi-bly in a vindication of Ibn Taymiyyah, they were immediately fol-lowed by a summons from the high court in Cairo, where he wasmade to appear the following month on 23 Ramadan 8 April705/1306. This time he was accused of anthropomorphism and sen-tenced to imprisonment in the Cairo citadel. This marked the begin-ning of a seven-year sojourn in Egypt, a period of intense debate andgreat intellectual output, a period that in many ways defined IbnTaymiyyah's agenda for the rest of his life.2

1 The Qadiri Creed was a religious manifesto promulgated against radical Shi'ism,ratonalistic Mu'tazilism and AsrTarism. See G. Makdisi, Ibn 'Aqll et la resurgence deI'Islam traditonaliste au XI' siecle (V siecle de I'Higire) (Damascus, 1963), 303-10.

2 Summaries of these events can be found in the studies of H. Laoust, 'IbnTaymiyya,' EP\ "La biographie d'lbn Taymiya d'apres Ibn Katir," Bulletin d'itudesonentales, DC (1942-3), 136-48; Essai sur Us doctrines sociales etpohttques de Takl-l-Dln Ahmad b. Taymiya (Cairo, 1939), 125-43. See also M Swartz's discussion

41

IBN TAYMIYYAH ON TRIAL IN DAMASCUS

There are numerous references to the Damascus trials scatteredthroughout the chronicles and biographical sources on the period.What is known of the actual details, however, comes mainly from theaccounts of two Shafi'l historians, 'Alam al-Dln al-Birzall (665-739/1261-1339) and Shams al-Dln al-Dhahabl (673-748/1274-1347).3 These accounts, while favourable to Ibn Taymiyyah, presentan incomplete picture of the trials, which obscures their overallmeaning. The present study is thus an attempt to shed additionallight on the Damascus hearings by introducing in translation a mem-oir written by Ibn Taymiyyah himself.

The exact date of Ibn Taymiyyah's memoir is not known, thoughit must have been written not less than several years after the trials.Shortly after the third hearing, on Monday 5 Ramadan 21 March705/1306, Ibn Taymiyyah left Damascus for Cairo4 whence he didnot return until Dhu al-Qa'dah 712/1313.5 This seven year timelapse is reflected in the text, where frequently he states that his mem-ory of certain details has grown faint and that he is thus unable torecall them exactly as they occurred. This defect, however, is morethan compensated for by the depth and quantity of details given andby the fact that other than the brief summary by his brother, Sharaf

along with his translation of al-Aqidah al-Wdsitiyah, A seventh-century (A.H.)Sunni creed: the 'Aqlda Wasitlya of Ibn Taymlya,' Humamoum Islamica I, ed. H.WMason, R.L. Nettler and J. Waardenburg (Monton, The Hague, Paris, 1973), 101-02. D.P. Little also discusses the trials, adding some valuable insights and sugges-tions in "The Historical and Histonographical Significance of the Detention of IbnTaymiyya," International Journal of Middle East Studies 4 (1973), 320-27.Little's article provides an extensive list, with some useful descriptions, of the pri-mary sources dealing with the life and times of Ibn Taymiyyah.

3 Little, 'Detention', 319. What is known of al-Dhahabl's account is distributedthroughout the biographical sources on the period. Al-Birzall is the source of thebrief account entitled 'al-Munazarah fi al-'Aqidah al-Wasitiyyah' in Ibn Taymiyah'sMajmu' al-rasd'il al-kubrd (hereafter MR), 2 vols. (Cairo, n.d.), 1:415-21. See also,Majmu fatdwd Shaykh al-hl&m Ahmad Ibn Taymiyyah (hereafter MF), 37 vols. ed.'Abd al-Rahman b. Muhammad Qasim al'Asiml al-Najdi al-Hanball (Beirut,1398/1977), 3:194-201.

4 Ibn Kathlr, al-Biddyah wa-al-mhdyah, 14 vols. (Beirut, 1405/1984), 14:38;Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalanl, al-Durar al-kdmtnah, 5 vols. ed. Muhammad Sayyid Jadal-Haqq (Cairo, 1385/1966), 1:156; Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Abd al-Hadl,al-'Uqud al-dumyyah min mandqib Shaykh al-IslAm Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah, ed.Muhammad Hamid al-Fiqi (Beirut, 1356/1938), 248-49. See also Abu Bakr b.Muhammad b. Aybak al-Dawadari, Kanz al-durar wa-jdmt' al-ghurar vol. 9, ed.H. R. Roemer (Cairo, 1960), 9:136-37, where it is stated that the subpoena fromCairo arrived in Damascus on 5 Ramadan, that Ibn Taymiyyah departed on 10Ramadan and that he arrived in Cairo on Thursday, 22 Ramadan.

5 Laoust, Ibn Taymiyya, 52.

42


al-Dln, Ibn Taymiyyah's remains the only eyewitness account of thetrials that has come down to us thus far. These qualities, inevitablebias notwithstanding, render it easily the most reliable accountknown to date.

There are two rescensions of Ibn Taymiyyah's memoir. One is pre-served by a Hanball pupil of his, Muhammad b. Ahmad b. 'Abd al-Hadl (704-44/1304-43), in al-'Uqud al-durriyyah min mandqibShaykh al-Isldm Ahmad Ibn Taymiyyah.6 The other appears inMajmic' Fatdwd Shaykh al-Isldm Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah? These tworescensions are comparable both in length and content. The MFrescension includes, however, a number of extremely important addi-tions.8 I have therefore chosen to translate the latter, placing betweenasterisks additional material not found in 'Uqiid. Minor differencesbetween the two rescensions are indicated in the notes.

The Account of Sharaf al-Dln Ibn Taymiyyah

Ibn Taymiyyah's younger brother, Sharaf al-Dln (666-727/1267-1327),9 includes a brief summary of the trials in a letter to anotherbrother, Zayn al-Dln, in which he attempts to dispel rumours thathad been circulating about what had happened at the trials. This isan adumbrated summary, mostly paraphrases with few direct quotes.It tells little about the actual proceedings other than the moreassertive role played by certain Maliki opponents.10 Its chief attrac-tion is a list it provides of those who attended the trials. Sharafal-Dln indicates that these scholars were all at the first hearing, whilehe states that he himself only attended the second.11 As IbnTaymiyyah states that the second hearing included scholars who werenot present at the first, Sharaf al-Din's list probably consists of thosehe counted at the second hearing and assumed to have been also pre-sent at the first and third. His list includes the following:

6 'Uqiid, 206-48. The editor indicates that this edition was based on a uniquemanuscript from the Zahinyyah library in Damascus. Ibid, 13.

7 MF, 3:160-93. The editor gives no information about his manuscript source.8 See especially paragraphs 44 through 48 of the translation.9 For a biographical note on Sharaf al-Dln Ibn Taymiyyah, see Ibn Rajab, Kitdb

al-Dhayl 'aid Tabaqdt al-Handbilah, 2 vols. (Beirut, n.d.), 2: 382-84 Sharaf al-Din's account appears in MF, 3:202-10.

10 MF, 3:208-09. In particular, Sharaf al-Din identifies a Maliki deputy judgeby the name of Najm al-Dln, whom I have not been able to locate in the sources.

11 Ibid., 3:204.

43


1. Najm al-Dln b. Sasra (Shafi'l chief justice)2. Shams al-Dln al-Harirl (Hanafi chief justice)3. Jamal al-Dln al-ZuwawI (Malikl chief justice)4. TaqI al-Dln Sulayman (Hanbali chief justice)5. Jalal al-Dln [al-QazwInl] (Shafi'l deputy)6. Shams al-Dln b. al-'Izz (Hanafi deputy),7. 'Izz al-Dln [?] (Hanbali deputy judge)8. Najm al-Dln [?] (Malikl deputy judge)9. Kamal al-Dln b. al-Zamlakanl (Shafi'l)

10. Kamal al-Dln al-SharisI (Shafi'l)11. Sadr al-Dln b. al-Wakil (Shafi'l)12. Burhan al-Dln b. 'Abd al-Haqq (Hanafi),13. Shams al-Dln al-Harirl (Malikl) [sic]14. Shihab al-Dln al-Majd (Shafi'l)15- Muhammad b. Qawwam16. Muhammad b. Ibrahim al-ArmawI17. Safi'al-Dln al-Hindl (Shafi'l)12

Al-Dhahabl and al-Birzall

Neither al-Dhahabi nor al-Birzall appear on the list of Sharaf al-Dln.The reason for their exclusion from the trials may be that they wereregarded more as hadith experts than as theologians and juriscon-sults.13 In addition, at thirty-two, al-Dhahabi appears to have beenslightly too young to serve on the tribunal. His first formal teachingposition had been that of tasdlr of a halqah at Umayyad mosque— a position normally reserved for advanced graduate students14 —which he did not assume until 699/1299.15 Assuming that the trials

12 Safi al-Dln was brought along to the second hearing. MF, 3:181.13 This appears to have applied to the Shafi'l traditionalist, al-Mizzi, as well On

Monday, 22 Rajab, roughly half-way between the second and diird hearings, he wasordered to be arrested by the Shafi'l chief justice, Ibn Sasra, after publicly denigrat-ing Ash'arism before a gathering at Umayyad mosque. This action by al-Mizziappears to have been based on a gross miscalculation on his part, one he would nothave committed had he been present at the trials. For more on the al-Mizzi affair,see Ibn Hajar, Durar, 155-56; al-Dawadarl, Kanz, 9:134-35; 'Uqud, pp. 204-05;Biddyah, 14:37.

14 Tasaddur (or tasdlr) was the final step towards the ultimate aim of receivingthe licence to teach and issue legal opinions (al-ijdzah li-al tadris wa-al-ifid'). Seethe excellent study by G. Makdisi, The Rise of Colleges: Institutions of Learning inIslam and the West (Edinburgh, 1981), 203-04.

15 Ibn Hajar, Durar, 3:427.

44


were held in closed session,16 even if al-Dhahabl had reached therank of master-jurisconsult by 705/1306, he would have beenexcluded on grounds that he was too junior. For he would have beenjust coming into this rank, while the normal custom was that onlyranking jurisconsults {akdbir) spoke out on important matters whilejunior scholars (asdgbir) remained silent in deference to the mas-ters.17

As for al-Birzall, who was forty at the time of the trials and whoseaccount is not piecemeal but narrative, here too there is further evi-dence suggesting that he was not in attendance. To begin with, hisintroduction states that he related his information on the authorityof Ibn Taymiyyah: naqala al-Shaykh 'Alam al-Dln [al-Birzdli] 'an al-Shaykh [Ibn Taymiyyah] anna-hu qdla}& This statement is of courseambiguous, meaning either that al-Birzali received this informationat the trials or at some later date. Al-Birzall goes on, however, to nar-rate his entire account in the first person, frequently stating, in thewords of Ibn Taymiyyah, 'It was said to me ... So I said...' This sug-gests that he was himself not present at the trials but received hisinformation from Ibn Taymiyyah at a later date, most likely after thelatters return to Damascus in 712/1313. Though al-Birzali's accountis much shorter and less detailed than that of Ibn Taymiyyah, it bearsa striking resemblance to the latter and shows clear signs of a com-mon source.19

The Main Players

Damascus in the years around 705/1306 was dominated by theShafi'l school of law. It comes as no surprise, then, that they playedthe major role in prosecuting the case against Ibn Taymiyyah. Theleading Shafi'is at the trials include the following: Najm al-Dlnb. Sasra, Sadr al-Dln b. al-Wakll, Safl al-Dln al-Hindl and Kamal

16 This is suggested by the statement of Ibn Taymiyyah's brother, Sharaf al-Dln,who says that he did not attend the first hearing because he did not know when orwhere it was to take place. MF, 3:204.

17 See, for example, the statement by Ibn Amir al-Hajj, al-Taqrir wa-al-tahblr,3 vols. (Beirut, 1403/1983), 3:102, line 32-3.

18 "Al-Munazarah," MR, 1.415.19 It should be noted that Ibn Kathlr, another important source of information

on the trials, was also not an eyewitness. First, he was only four years old at thetime of the trials. Second, he states that he and his family did not move to Damas-cus until 706/1307. See Btddyah, 14:17; see also, ibid., 14:46, where he states thathis family relocated in 707/1308.

45


al-Din al-Zamlakanl. Following are brief profiles on these importantmen.

1. Najm al-Din Ibn Sasra20 (Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Salim b.Abl al-Mawahib) (655-723/1257-1323): ShafTl chief justice ofDamascus in 705/1306,21 he belonged to one of the more powerfulfamilies in Damascus, his brother, Nasr al-Din, serving as wazir.22 Inaddition to several prestigious teaching posts, he served in the chan-cellory (dlwdn al-inshd'), as shaykh al-shuyilkh, and qddi al-'askar.23

In terms of political influence, he was probably the single most pow-erful ShafTl at the trials, though he was not the most accomplishedin the religious sciences. Ibn Kathlr describes him as the enemy of al-Mizzi, which suggests that he had Ash'ari leanings.24 Some confir-mation of this may be inferred from al-Subkl s favourable treatmentof him in the latter's TabaqdtP His relationship with Ibn Taymiyyah,meanwhile, was mercurial. The two had a bitter confrontation overthe arrest of al-Mizzi.26 Yet, at the third hearing when Ibn Sasraresigned as chief justice in response to comments made by his fellowShafi'ls, Ibn Taymiyyah offered him words of support.27 At the endof the trials he was summoned to Cairo, along with Ibn Taymiyyah,as a witness for the prosecution.

2. Sadr al-Din Ibn al-Wakll (Muhammad b. 'Umar b. Makkl b.Abd al-Samad b. al-Murahhil) (665-716/1266-1316): a leading andcharismatic ShafTi, he held several teaching positions and was anapparent favourite of the viceroy, al-Afram,28 the Sufi shaykh, Nasral-Din al-Manbiji, (advisor to Baybars al-Jashnikir, ustaddr and latersultan in Egypt), as well as Sultan al-Nasir.29 A somewhat wilycharacter, he was charged at one point with moral turpitude30 and

20 Ibn Sasra is referred to in Western sources as Ibn Sasarl, Ibn Sasarra and IbnSasarl. W. M . Brinner has concluded the correct pronuncia t ion to be Ibn Sasra. See' T h e Banu Sasra: a Study in the Transmission of a Scholarly Tradit ion, ' Arabtca (7)I960, 171-73.

21 Biddyah, 14:21-02.22 Ibid., 14:5.23 Ibid., 14:106-07.24 Ibid., 14:37.25 Taj a l -Din al-Subkl, Tabaqdt al-Shdfi'iyyah, 10 vols. 'Abd al-Fattah M u h a m -

mad al-Hulw and Mahmiid Muhammad al-Tanahl (Cairo, n.d.), 9:20-22.26 See above, n. 13 .27 MF, 3:173-74. Cf. however, Laoust, Essai, 130-31.28 Biddyah, 14-80; Durar, 1:426, 4:235- See the lengthy biographical note on

al-Afram in Durar, 4:234-41.29 Biddyah, 14:58.30 Durar, 4:235.

46


stripped of his positions in Damascus, afterwhich time he moved toAleppo and then to Cairo, where he died.31 He was a committedrationalist; al-Subki praises him for being of sound belief and 'versedin Ash'ari kaldm.'32 He dabbled as well in medicine, philosophy andthe Greek sciences ('ulum al-awd'il), in light of which he wouldoften interpret scripture.33 He was not on particularly good termswith Ibn Taymiyyah and often engaged the latter in public disputa-tions.34 Sharaf al-Dln Ibn Taymiyyah reports that Ibn al-Wakllspread lies after the trials, including the rumor that Ibn Taymiyyahhad recanted and claimed to be 'a ShafTl in theology'.35

3. Safl al-Dln al-Hindl (Muhammad b. eAbd al-Rahlm b.Muhammad) (644-715/1246-1315): born in Delhi, he settled inDamascus in 685/1286 after having lived in several other parts of theMuslim world. Despite a thick Indian accent, he landed several teach-ing positions, in addition to a brief tenure as shaykh al-shuyukh. IbnKathlr refers to him as 'the rationalist',36 while al-Subkl is moreexplicit, hailing him as 'the Ash'ari rationalist' (al-mutakallim 'aidmadhhab al-Ash'ari)?7 Both al-Subkl and Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalanl inti-mate that al-Hindl was limited as a disputator, al-Subkl describinghim as naive and prolix, often losing his listeners in his arguments.38

Ibn Hajar even cites an incredible report to the effect that al-Hindlhad memorized only one fourth of the Qur'an and that he oncerecited the mysterious letters alif, lam, mlm, sad as 'al-mass\39 Thesecomments may represent an attempt by al-Subkl and Ibn Hajar, bothAsh'aris, to explain away al-Hindl's failure to defeat Ibn Taymiyyahdespite the fact that he was universally recognized as the leading ratio-nalist of the day. In fact, it was in this capacity that he was broughtalong to the second hearing to prosecute the case against IbnTaymiyyah.40 He reportedly proved no match for the latter, however,and was subsequently replaced by Kama! al-Dln al-Zamlakanl.41

31 Bidayah, 14 :59.32 Tabaqdt, 9 :254 .33 Bidayah, 14:80.34 Ibid., 14:80. Ibn 'Abd a l -Hadl records three such disputat ions in 'Uqud, 9 5 -

103, 107-12, 113-16.35 MF, 3 .210 . See also 'Uqud, 204 ; Durar, 1:155; Kanz, 9 :134 .36 Bidayah, \A-75.37 Tabaqdt, 9 :162 .38 Ibid., 9 :163-64.39 Durar, 4 :133 .40 MF, 3 :181 , 3 :204; Bidayah, 14:36; Kanz, 9 :133 .41 Bidayah, \A-3G; Kanz, 9 :133; 'Uqud, 204.

47


4. Kamal al-Din al-Zamlakanl (Muhammad b. eAll b. "Abd al-Wahid b. 'Abd al-Karlm) (666 or 7-727/1267 or 8-1327): perhapsthe most accomplished Shafi'l in terms of his mastery of the religioussciences, he held several prestigious teaching positions and a numberof government posts, including nazar al-khizdnah, nazar al-mdristdnal-nuri, nazar dlwdn al-malik al-sa'id and wikdlat bayt al-mdl.42 In724/1324, he was appointed chief justice of Aleppo and was latercalled to Cairo to receive investiture as chief justice of Damascus.He died, however, before reaching the capital city. His position at thetrials is not quite clear. On the one hand, Ibn Taymiyyah reportsthat he became furious over charges of unbelief cast against Shafi'l-Ash'arls such as al-Juwaynl and others.43 On the other hand, the tra-ditionalists, al-Dhahabl44 and Ibn Kathir45 (both ShafTi supportersof Ibn Taymiyyah) praise him highly, Ibn Kathir even reporting thatal-Zamlakanl was summoned to Cairo following the trials, 'due tohis (close) affiliation with Ibn Taymiyyah.'46 Al-Subkl, meanwhile, iscool towards him,47 and Ibn Hajar is even hostile: 'He was extremelyarrogant (kdna kathir al-takhayyut) and was often annoyed by his fel-low ShafTls and would oppose them, as they would oppose him.And because of this they worked against him on several occasions.'48

Overall, al-Zamlakanl appears to have had strong traditionalist lean-ings but to have also been bound by an intense loyalty to the Shafi'lschool, home of the leading Ash'aris.49 This may explain why in theyears after the trials, as Ibn Taymiyyah grew to be an embarassmentto all ShafTls, especially the traditionalist wing, al-Zamlakanl endedup writing two refutations against the shaykh, not in theology but inlaw, one on divorce, the other on visitation of graves.50 Ibn Kathir

42 Btddyah, 1 4 : 1 3 1 .43 MF, 3 : 173 . See also Kanz, 9 :135 .44 See Durar, 4 : 1 9 3 . Al-Zamlakanl is also referred to as Ibn al-ZamlakanT.45 Biddyah, 1 4 : 1 3 1 .46 Ibid., 1 4 : 4 1 ; Kanz, 9 :136. H e sought the intervention of the viceroy, al-

Afram, however, w h o got the s u m m o n s rescinded.47 Tabaqdt, 9 : 190-206.48 Durar., 4 :194 . Makdisi has eloquently argued that the great upheaval between

Aih 'ar ism and traditionalism, particularly in Damascus, was taking place no tbetween Shafi ts and Hanbal ls but 'within the Shdfi'i school itself, (emphasis no tadded) See 'Ash'ari and the Ash'arites in Islamic Religious His tory II , ' Studta Islam-tca 18 (1963) , 3 8 .

49 According to Makdisi , traditionalist ShafTis were always limited in their abil-ity to attack Ash'ar ism by the fact that the majortiy of Ash'arts belonged to theirschool of law. See ibid., 3 7 .

50 Biddyah, 1 4 . 1 3 1 ; Durar, 4 : 1 9 3 ; Tabaqdt, 9 : 1 9 1 .

48


reports that upon his return to Damascus as chief justice in 727/1327, al-Zamlakanl had planned on finally putting Ibn Taymiyyahin his place.51

Why al-'Aqidah al-Wdsitiyyah?

It is commonly held that the Damascus trials were convened for thepurpose of conducting an inquiry into Ibn Taymiyyah's al-Aqldah al-Wdstiyyah?1 Ibn Taymiyyahs account, meanwhile, raises some doubtabout this.53 He reports that the decree ordering his trial came fromSultan al-Nisir in Egypt instructing the viceroy, al-Afram, to sum-mon him before the notables of Damascus to ask him about hiscreed and about certain theological works that he had allegedly writ-ten to people in Egypt.54 After hearing Ibn Taymiyyah's response tothese charges, the viceroy asks him to clarify his creed before the tri-bunal. Ibn Taymiyyah proceeds to dictate his creed but then stopsand says,

I know that some groups have [recently] invented lies against me, asthey have spread lies about me before on more than one occasion. Andwere I to go on dictating my creed from memory, they are likely to say,'He is concealing parts of it,' or 'He is trying to wheedle his way,' or'He is circumventing [issues].' So let me bring forth a written credo,compiled some seven years ago before the Mongols came to Syria.55

This account suggests that it was not Ibn Taymiyyahs al-Wdsitiyyah that landed him before the viceroy but, rather, his alleged

51 Biddyah, 14 :132 .52 Laoust, Ibn Taymiyya, 9 5 2 ; Swartz, 'Aqlda Wdsitiya, 1 0 1 .53 Laoust appears to have had some access to Ibn Taymiyyah's account via Ibn

'Abd al-Hadl 's 'Uqud. However, it is not clear in what form nor to what extent hewas able to use it. At one point he cites it in a footnote in Essai (which appeared in1939), indicating that M u h a m m a d H a m i d al-Fiql would publish it in 1938 (p. 11).At another po in t in Essai (p. 130, n. 1), he refers the reader to p 95 of 'Uqud fora discussion between Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Wakll. Th is discussion is in factfound beginning on p. 95 of the pr inted edit ion. But Laoust also states that al-Wdsitiyyah was writ ten in response to a request from a group of people from Wasi t(Essai, p . 112), whereas Ibn Taymiyyah gives the name of the individual for w h o mhe wrote this work, a certain Radl a l -Dln al-Wasit l ('Uqud, 210) . O n p. 129,Laoust states, 'Le vice-roi fit alors savoir au saih qu'il etait chargd de l 'interroger surson credo; le saih presenta, en reponse, sa 'Aklda wdsitiya.' (emphassis added) Thiscompor t s wi th Ibn Taymiyyah's account in 'Uqud, 207-10 , bu t goes against theaccount in Laoust's article in El2, which appeared in 1965.

54 Ibn Taymiyyah had in fact gone to Egypt in 700/1300 to seek the sultan'sassistance in stemming the Mongol threat. Biddyah, 14:15.

55 MF, 3:162-63; 'Uqud, 209 (para.9, below).

49


activities overall, including those in Egypt. This explanation, how-ever, while addressing the question of the states motives in tryingIbn Taymiyyah raises a further question about Ibn Taymiyyah him-self, namely, why draw the authorities' attention to the WdsitiyyahiCertainly in the years prior to 705/1305, he had written other theo-logical works, e.g. his al-Hamawiyyah al-Kubrd, which dates back to698/1298 and which became a central focus at the subsequent hear-ings in Cairo.56 What, if any, specific reasons could he have had inpresenting al-Wdsitiyyah to the tibunal?

It appears that Ibn Taymiyyah chose al-'Aqidah al-Wditiyyah inorder to be able to refute certain political charges that had been asso-ciated with the theological accusations being made against him. InJumada I December 702/1302, he was accused of collaborating withthe Mongols in a plot to unseat al-Afram and replace him with hispredecessor, Qibjaq,57 who had governed Damascus during the reignof al-Nasir's predecessor, Lajln, but who had gone over to the Mon-gols in 698/1299.58 These rumours, alongside Ibn Taymiyyah's suc-cess in negotiating with the Mongols during the Qazan crucible of699-700/1299-1300, must have reached the authorities in Cairoand aroused their suspicions about a now much-talked-about 'IbnTaymiyyah phenomenon,'59 i.e. the idea that Ibn Taymiyyah wasnot devoid of political ambitions which, if left unchecked, mightconceivably shake the throne of Egypt and Syria.60 Al-Wdsitiyyah,meanwhile, must have been identified by his detractors as the vehiclethrough which he planned to convert the Mongols, to his cause.Wasit, the town after which the credo was named, was, afterall, animportant Hanball centre.61 It had recently come under Mongolcontrol and some of the latter had even professed Islam. IbnTaymiyyah's grasp of this coincidence of facts must have increased as

56 In 698/1299, Ibn Taymiyyah was subpoenaed and questioned about thiswork in Damascus. See 'Uqud, 200-2; Biddyah, 14:12; Laoust, Essai, 117; IbnTaymiyya, 951. A number of sources intimate that the file on al-Hamawiyyah waslater reopened in Cairo following the failed attempt to convict Ibn Taymiyyah inDamascus. Biddyah, 14-37; Kanz, 9:136.

57 'Detention', 322. Implicated along with Ibn Taymiyyah were Kamal al-Dinal-Zamlakanl, Shams al-Din al-Harlri, and a third Shafi'l jurist, Ibn al-'Attar. Seeal-Biddyah, 14:22. According to Ibn Kathlr, Ibn Taymiyyah finally succeeded inhaving al-Afram transferred to Tripoli in 711/1311. Biddyah, 14:60-61.

58 Biddyah, 14:2.5 9 ' D e t e n t i o n ' , 3 2 1 .60 Ibid., 322.61 Laoust, Essai, 112.

50


things began to unfold before the viceroy. But so did his realizationthat to refute these political charges would be a major blow to hisopponents' case overall, impugning their credibility and placing dis-tance between them and the viceroy al-Afram. On this realisation,Ibn Taymiyyah decided to disassociate himself publicly, along withal-Wdsitiyyah, from all political activity involving the Mongols. Tothis end he conspicuously announced: (1) this credo had been writ-ten before the Mongols came to Syria by seven years; (2) he had beenrequested to write it, while he himelf had tried to turn the requestdown; (3) this credo was written for an individual-whom he namesand who was neither a Mongol nor a Hanball; and (4) though hewrote it for a man in Wash, copies of it had circulated not only inEgypt but in Iraq and other places as well.62 In other words, IbnTaymiyyah set out to make it perfectly clear that his al-Wdsitiyyahwas not a catechism with which he intended to convert the Mongolsand lead them in some type of reform movement after the fashion ofan Ibn Tumart. The Damascus trials represented for him the righttime and the right place to bring this point forcefully to the fore.

The Theological Debate

Reports implicating Shi'ites, Sufis and others notwithstanding, IbnTaymiyyah's account reveals that the Damascus trials involved nomore than a confrontation between traditionalism and Ash'arism.The main objective of his adversaries was to establish the legitimacyof allegorcial interpretation (ta'wil). To this end they argued (1) thatsome of the pious ancestors (salafi, e.g., al-Shafi'i and Mujahid,63

had actually practiced ta'wil;64 (2) those 'anthropomorphic' hadithsfor which no authoritative allegorical interpretation had been handeddown were actually unauthentic;65 (3) ta'wil was an acceptable prac-tice according to al-Ash'ari;66 and (4) the disallowance of ta'wil lednecessarily in some cases to anthropomorphism.67

62 MF, 3:164; 'Uqud, 210-11 (para. 14, below).63 Mujahid b. Jabr, (ca. 21/642-104/722) a famous Successor and student of the

Companion, Ibn 'Abbas, from whom he reportedly learned Quranic exegesis. SeeZirikll, al-A'ldm, 5:278.

64 MF, 3.193; Uqud, 247-48 (para. 115 ff., below).65 MF, 3:191-92; 'Uqud, 245-46 (para. 109 ff., below).66 MF, 3:172, 187, 188, 189-90; 'Uqud, 234, 241, 242, 243. (para. 77, 97,

102, 106, below).67 MF, 3:178; 'Uqud, 229 (para. 65, below).

51


Ibn Taymiyyah's response was first of all to deny that the PiousAncestors had ever practiced ta'wil as it later developed among themutakallimun. In those cases where they had denied the literal mean-ing of an expression, no divine attribute had been at stake.68 Indeed,the policy of the salafwas to accept the scriptural references to thedivine attributes with their literal meanings in tact, 'without tahrif,without ta'til, without takylf and without tamthil.' As for those'problematic' hadiths deemed unauthentic, here Ibn Taymiyyah sim-ply produced evidence to show that they were not.69 But it wasclearly in response to the claim that ta'wil was endorsed by al-Ash'ariand that it was a practice necessary to the avoidance of anthropo-morphism that Ibn Taymiyyah delivered his most vexing and indeedmost damaging testimony.

Ibn Taymiyyah reports that along with his al-Wdsitiyyah a numberof other books were brought to the trials to serve as evidence in hisdefense. Among these was a copy of Tabyin kadhib al-muftari fi-mdnusiba ill al-Imdm Abi al-Hasan al-Ash'ari of the ShafTi-Ash'ari, Ibn"Asakir (d.571/1175). This work, as shown by Professor G. Makdisi,was actually an apologia aimed at legitimizing kaldm in the eyes oftraditionalist ShafTls, the better to preempt the latters' attacksagainst their Ash'arl co-religionists within the ShafTl school.70 In theprocess of crafting this work, however, Ibn 'Asakir had included in itan unforeseen weakness that would later prove to be its undoing atthe hands of Ibn Taymiyyah. This was his attempt to place al-Ash'aribeyond traditionalist reproach by aligning his theology with that ofthe great champion of traditionalism, Ahmad b. Hanbal.

This was a risky decision on the part of Ibn 'Asakir; for it wouldbe impossible for anyone to claim that Ahmad b. Hanbal hadendorsed kalim. And if al-Ash'ari was to be considered a true fol-lower of Ibn Hanbal, the same would have to be said of him. Butthere it was in black and white; and Ibn Taymiyyah availed himselffully. Publicly, before the entire tribunal, he read aloud from Ibn'Asakir's Tabyin not only al-Ash'ari's thoroughly traditionalist creed,as it appeared in al-Ibdnah fi usul al-diydnah, but also the lattersstatement to the effect that he was a follower of 'the virtuous imamand consumate leader, Ahmad b. Hanbal, dirough whom God made

68 See for example, MF, 3 :193; 'Uqud, 247-48 (para. 115-16, below), for hisdiscussion of the term wajh (face) in the Q u r ' a n .

69 MF, 3:192; 'Uqud, 246-47 (para. 111-13).70 'Ash'art and the Ash'arites in Islamic Religious His tory I, ' Studio. Islamtca 17

(1962), 53-57.

52


manifest the truth.'71 From here, Ibn Taymiyyah would go on torefute the claim, later resurrected by al-Subkl, that al-Ash'ari had twopositions on kaldm, one for and one against.72 This, Ibn Taymiyyahinsisted, was pure fiction. It was only a party of al-Ashcaris followerswho held two views on kaldm; al-Ash'ari himself had nothing to dowith this.73

To be sure, this public dissection of Ibn "Asakir's Tabyin was noth-ing short of a coup. By this act, Ibn Taymiyyah virtually destroyedthe single most important work that had insulated Ash'arism withinthe Shafi'l school for over a century and a half. Now not only wasAsh'arism in Damascus crippled; it was without a crutch to standon. Little wonder it is that just over a generation later the great Tajal-Dln al-Subkl would produce his masterful Tabaqdt al-Shdfi'iyyah,clearly an attempt to fill the void left by Ibn "Asakir's fallen Tabyin.74

But if the rationalist programme, including ta'wil, was superflu-ous, how was the literal truth of the divine attributes to be main-tained without this constituting anthropomorphism? Here IbnTaymiyyah was a bit more esoteric. His response, however, wasclearly conditioned by his desire to address a more permanent prob-lem in the history of Muslim theological discourse, namely, theconflict between immanence and transcendence. From the early daysof the Mu'tazilites, rationalist tendencies in Islam had exerted anupward presure on the idea of God's transcendence, a tendency thatthreatened to place God beyond the reach of the ordinary worship-per. Traditionalism, meanwhile, often responded in ways thatoffended the intellect. Ibn Taymiyyah recognized the inadequacyof both extremes. For him, right theological belief had at once tosafeguard God's transcendence while at the same time providing forHis immanence.

71 For the relevant passages from Ibn 'Asakir, see 'All b. al-Hasan b. Hibat Allahb. Asakir, Tabyin kadhib al-muftarifi-md nusiba ild al-Imdm Abl al-Hasan al-Ash'arl(Beirut, 1404/1984), 152-63. On p. 157, al-Ash'ari is quoted referring to IbnHanbal as 'al-imdm al-fddd wa-al-ra'ts al-kdmilalladhlabdna Alldhu bi-hi al-haqq!Ibn Taymiyyah's reading from the Tabyin is confirmed by his brother, Sharaf al-Dln. See MF, 3:205.

72 See Makdisi, Ash'aft II, 34-35.73 MF, 3:190; 'Uqud, 242 (para 106, below).74 On al-Subkl's Tabaqdt, see Makdisi, Ash'arll, 57-70. Interestingly, during the

same period, the traditionalist Ibn Kathlr also produced a Tabaqdt al-Shdfi'iyyah,perhaps as a counter to al-Subkl. See Tabaqdt al-Shdfi'iyyah, Arabic MS no. 4993,Yahuda section, Garrett collection, Princeton University library.

53


Ibn Taymiyyah's approach begins with the distinction betweendenotative (musbtarak) and connotative {mutawdti') terms.75 A deno-tative term is one originally coined two or more times {yild'uwad'ayn) to carry as many meanings, making it applicable to multi-ple, mutually exclusive referents; e.g., the Arabic word 'ayn may referto an eye, a letter of the alphabet, a spring of water. Connotativeterms, meanwhile, entail abstract universals and, though they arecoined only once to carry a single meaning, they may also apply toseveral mutually distinct entities; e.g., the Arabic word hayawdn sub-sumes horses, frogs, lions, squirrels and even humans. According toIbn Taymiyyah, the divine attributes are connotative. As such, in thesame way that their common status as animals {hayawdn) does notblur the distinction between frogs and humans, neither does God'sparticipation in abstract categories blur the distinction between theCreator and the created. Hence, just as God can literally exist, as docreated beings, so can He literally have a hand or mount the throne,even if how cannot be known exactly, since the Creator is not per-fectly analogous to any created being.76

75 MF, 3:188, 190-91; 'Uqud, 240-1, 243-44 (para. 101, 107-8, below). I havediverged from the c o m m o n translations of 'mushtarak' (sometimes cited erroneouslyas mushtank) and 'mutawdti". S. Pines, e.g., translates mushtarik [sic] as 'equivocal'{The Guide of the Perplexed, 2 vols. [Chicago, 1963], 2:640) . W. Madelung gives'equivocal' for ishtirdk and 'univocal ' for tawdtu' ('Aspects of Isma'ili Theology: T h eProphetic Cha in and the G o d Beyond Being,' Religious Schools and Sects in Islam(London: 1985), 60 (XVII)). G. Houran i , meanwhile, gives ' h o m o n y m y ' forishtirdk al-ism (Averroes on the Harmony of Religion and Philosophy [London, 1961] ,119). H o m o n y m y is certainly the closest of these to the meaning of ishtirdk I mus-tarak ('equivocal' and 'univocal ' are better reserved for terms like mujmal, zdhir,nass). M y use of 'denotative' and 'connotative, ' however, is designed to highlight aparticular dist inction between mushtarak and mutawdti' terms, namely, tha t themutawdti' refers to several things via a single act of coinage, whereas the mushtarakdoes so via more than one act of coinage Mushtarak terms thus denote severalthings, whereas mutawdti' terms connote several things by virtue of their mutua lparticipation in an abstract universal. For more on this aspect of istirdk lafzi, seeShihab a l -Din al-Qarafi, al-'Iqd al-manzum fi al-khusus wa-al-'umilm, Arabic M Sn o 16724 (Dar al-Kutub al-Misriyah), fol. 9 recto-verso. O n mushtarak andmutawdti' terms in general, a long wi th a third type, 'ambiguous ' {mushakkikah), seeShihab al-Din al-Qarafi, Shark tanqih al-fusul, ed. T a h a 'Abd al-Ra'uf Sa'd (Cairo,1398 /1977) , 2 9 - 3 1 ; Sayf a l -Din al-Amidl, al-Ihkdm fi usulal-ahkdm, 4 vols. (Cairo,n.d.) 1:18-24. Ibn Taymiyyah also discusses these terms discursively in MF, 5 ' 2 0 1 -0 3 , 331 -32 and passim.

76 Ibn Taymiyyah insisted that it was only, ' T h e ignorant [who] th ink that theterm 'literal' {haqiqah) is applicable only to created entities' {MF, 5 :202) . It was onthis fallacy that the rationalists, according to h im, were driven to an th ropomor -phism, which in turn led to divestiture {ta'til) by way of ta'wil: 'As for the partisans

54


The true significance and indeed innovativeness of Ibn Taymiy-yah's approach emerges when one considers that the problem of thedivine attributes could have just as easily been resolved assumingthem to be denotative, i.e., by saying that just as 'ayn has one mean-ing when the subject is bodies of water and another when the subjectis the alphabet, so does 'mounting' have one meaning when appliedto created beings and another when applied to God. The problemwith this solution, however, would be that, since God is not compa-rable to any created entity, His attributes would remain sui generis,i.e., abstract and essentially devoid of concrete meaning. This in factappears to have been the position maintained by traditionalism upto the time of Ibn Taymiyyah. Witness, for example, the statementof his recent predecessor, the Hanball Ibn Qudamah al-Maqdisi(d. 620/1223).

We are in no need of knowing the meaning of what God intended byHis attributes. For they require no action; and there is no duty con-nected with them other than belief in them. And belief is possiblewithout knowing the meaning intended by them. For, indeed, beliefwithout knowledge is sound.77

This was not satisfactory to Ibn Taymiyyah. For him, the divineattributes had to have not abstract but concrete meaning. The key tohis solution was the idea that connotative terms, via which all divineattributes were expressed, entailed abstract universals. This providedfor a more concrete conceptualizaton of God in that the remainingconstituents of these abstract universals were grounded in creation,which gave rise to a natural association in the mind between, thedivine attributes and those of created entities. Meanwhile, God'stranscendence is preserved in that this relationship between Creatorand created exists only in the mind and does not extend to the outsideworld7& In other words, God remains transcendent in that there are

of divestiture, they understand God's names and attributes only as these would befitcreated entities. Then, on this understanding they set out to deny these attributes,thus joining the practice of assuming likenesses to God with that of divestiture:they begin by assuming likenesses to Him and they end by divesting Him of Hisattributes. This is tashblh and tamthil on their part.' See MR, 1:439.

77 Tahrim al-nazarfi kutub ahl al-kaldm (Ibn Qudamah's Censure of SpeculativeTheology), ed. and trans. G. Makdisi (London, 1962), 32 (Arabic text).

78 In MF, 5:203 Ibn Taymiyyah stated explicitly that to say that God andcreated entities share a particular quality does not imply that they are somehowphysically related or that they share some substance in the outside world. Theyparticipate, rather, only in an abstract universal, which exists only in the mind.

55


no existential likenesses to Him, while He is immanently conceivedof in the mind of the believer via these mental associations.79 On thisapproach, a hadlth such as the one asserting God's descent to thelower heavens to offer forgiveness to repentent sinners80 is trans-formed from an abstract mystery into a concrete promise of immanentgrace. For, what is understood by 'descent' is now informed by itsmeaning in the case of created entities, without this entailing, mean-while, the belief that God actually descends like anything created.

To be sure, Ibn Taymiyyah's testimony at the Damascus trials wasformidable; and it raised the traditionalism-rationalism debate to anew level of intensity. In the end, however, his refusal to compromisereduced the confrontation to a zero-sum propostion. At one point,fearing schism, even those who supported him pleaded with him toallow the dispute to be settled by exchanging recognition for hisview, as the Hanball position, for recognition of the view of hisopponents. But Ibn Taymiyyah flatly refused, insisting that his wasthe view not of Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, but of the Prophet himself. Thisleft his adversaries with only two choices: convert to his doctrine ordestroy him. Having refused the first, they would go on to pursuethe second. But this is altogether another chapter of history.

Translation

In the name of God, the Ever-Merciful, the Mercy-Giving1. Praise be to God, the Ever-Merciful, the Mercy-Giving, Master

of the Day of Judgment. I bear witness that there is no god exceptGod alone, Who has no partner, no aid and no assistant. And I bearwitness that Muhammad is His servant and His messenger whom Hesent to all of humanity, may God's blessings and abundant saluta-tions be upon him, his family, *his Companions* and the rest ofGod's righteous servants.

2. To proceed: I have been asked, on more than one occasion, towrite down whatever I could recall of what transpired at the threehearings held to discuss [my] theological beliefs in compliance witha royal decree from the sultan in Egypt to his viceroy in Damascus,following the complaints of a group of Jahmites, ittihddiyyah panthe-ists, Shi'ites {rdfidah) and others who harboured ill will. The viceroy

79 This is perhaps what Ibn Taymiyyah has in m i n d when he asserts that it maybe wrong to disallow what some people may refer to as tashblh. See MF, 3 :166 ;'Uqud, 210 (para, 2 3 , below).

80 See 'al-Aqldah al-Wisit iyyah, ' MR, 1:398-99.

56


duly summoned the four chief justices of the four schools of law,among others, including the latters' deputies, the muftis, shaykhs andothers who were revered and whose opinions were deemed worthy ofconsideration, these people all the while unaware of the reason forwhich they were being summoned. This occurred on Monday 8Rajab 705 [1306].

3. The viceroy said to me, This assembly has been convened foryou. We have received a royal decree from the sultan [in Cairo]ordering that I ask you about your creed and about the books youwrote to the people of Egypt inviting them to [your] theologicaldoctrine. And I think he said, 'and that I summon the judges andjurisconsults and that you debate these matters [in my presence].'

4. So I said, As for the tenets of faith {i'tiqdd), they are receivedneither from me nor from any other scholar greater than me. Rather,they are received from God, His Messenger and the consensus of theAncestors of the community. Whatever appears in the Qur'an mustbe believed in, even as those hadlths that have been confirmed assound, such as those embodied in the sahlh collections of al-Bukhariand Muslim. As for the books [you mention], I have not on my ownaccord written anything to anyone inviting him to any creed. I sim-ply wrote responses to whomever among the people of Egypt or else-where asked me [about such things]. And it had reached me that abook containing heretical views had been falsely attributed to meand sent to the sultan's ustdddr, Rukn al-Dln al-Jashnikir. Though Idid not know the exact contents of this book, I knew that it hadbeen trumped up [against me]. Meanwhile, I continued to receivefrom Egypt and other places people who would ask me questionsabout theological and other matters, to which I would respond basedon the Qur'an, the Sunnah and the doctrines of the Ancestors of thecommunity.

5. So he said, We would like you to draw up a creed for us [righthere].

6. I said, Let it be written.7. So he ordered Shaykh Kamal al-Dln [al-Zamlakanl]81 to write

down [what I said]. I dictated for him an adumbrated creed coveringthe divine attributes (sifdt), predestination (qadar), questions on faith(imdn), divine threat {wa'id), the imamate and the superiority ofsome of the Companions over others (tafdit):

81 Sharaf al-Dln identifies al-Zamlakanl as the viceroy's secretary. MF, 3:204.

57


The creed of AhI al-Sunnah iva al-Jamd'ah is to believe in God as Heand His Messenger have described Him, without distorting thisdescription {tahrifi, without divesting Him of any attribute (ta'til),without inquiring about the modality of His attributes (takytfj, andwithout assuming similarities between Him and created beings{tamthlt); and to believe that the Qur'an is the uncreated word ofGod, from Him it began and to Him it will return; and to believe thatGod is the creator of every thing, including the acts of humans andother things; and that whatever God wills comes into being, and what-ever He does not will does not; and that He commanded obedience toHim, being pleased therewith and loving it, and forbade disobedienceand loathes it; and that the human being actually commits his actions{fa'dun haqiqatan), while God is the creator of his acts {khdliqfi'li-h);and that faith and religion consist of words and deeds and are subjectto increase and decrease; and that we do not hold to be an infidel,because of sins committed, any professing Muslim {ahl al-qiblah); andwe do not hold that any believing Muslim {ahl al-tmdn) will dwell inhell-fire forever; and that the caliphs succeeding the Prophet are AbuBakr, 'Umar, 'Uthman, and 'All, respectively, may God be pleased withthem;82 and their order in virtue is as their order in assuming thecaliphate; and whoever places 'All above 'Uthman denigrates both theEmigrants {Muhdjiriin) and the Helpers {Ansdr).

8. I mentioned this and similar things. But my memory has nowgrown faint, and I do not quite remember exactly what I said at thetime. *But everything I said was duly recorded at the time.*

9. Then I said to the viceroy and those in attendance, I know thatsome groups have [recently] invented lies against me, as they havespread lies about me before on more than one occasion. And were Ito go on dictating my creed from memory, they are likely to say, 'Heis concealing parts of it,' or 'He is trying to wheedle his way,' or 'Heis circumventing [issues].' So let me bring forth a written credo,compiled some seven years ago before the Mongols came to Syria.

10. Before the written creed was brought fordi, I said some otherdiings of which my memory has now grown faint; and I rememberbecoming extremely angry. And I remember diat I said, I know thatpeople have spread lies about me and that they have related things tothe sultan [about me]. And I said some other things that I felt neededto be said, e.g., I said, Who, other dian me, has stood up for Islam inits time of need? And who has clarified its proofs and made clear itsessence, and fought against its enemies? Who straightened its backwhen it began to slope, when everyone else had abandoned it and

82 Radiya Allah 'art-hum, 'Uqud, 209.

58


there was no one to enunciate its plea nor to fight in its defencewhen I stood up, openly proclaiming its proofs, fighting in itsdefence and enhancing its attractiveness? Now, if these people desireto talk [negatively] about me, what will they perpetrate againstothers? And were some Jew to request a fair hearing from the sultan,it would be incumbent upon the latter to oblige him. As for me,I may relinquish my right [to justice]; and I may not. I may insteadrequest from the sultan that he treat me justly and that he summonthose who spread lies against me to be questioned83 about theirinventions. I went on at length, adding similar things. But my mem-ory of all of this has now grown faint.

11. Anyway, the amir instructed the chancellor, Muhyl al-Dln, tomake a record of what I had said.. 12. I added, I know the doctrines of those who disagree with any-thing I have written better than they themselves. I do not rememberwhether I said this before or after the written creed was broughtforth. But I [do remember that] after the creed was brought forth andread aloud [in court] I said, There is not a single chapter in this creedthat does not have its opponents among those who profess Islam;every sentence in it contradicts the doctrine of some or another group.

13. Then I sent [someone] to my home to get a copy of the writ-ten creed, along with some notebooks that had been written in myown hand. Al- 'Aqidah al-Wdsitiyyah was thus brought forth.

14. I said to them, The reason this work was written was that oneof the qddts from a district in Wasit, a man named Radl al-Dln al-Wasiti, *a ShafTi,* came to us on his way to the pilgrimage, he beinga man of righteousness and religion, and he complained about thepreponderance of ignorance and injustice among his people and theeffacement of religion and knowledge from their land and those areasnow under the Mongols. He asked me to write a creed for him thatcould serve as a pillar for him and his family. I tried to extricatemyself from this request, and I said to him, People have composednumerous creeds; choose one of those by one of the imams of theSunnah. But he persisted in his request, saying, 'I shall not be pleasedexcept by a creed drawn up by you yourself.' So I drew up this creedfor him as I sat after the afternoon prayer. And many copies of ithave since circulated in Egypt, Iraq and other places.

15. The amir signalled that I not read the written creed myself, thebetter to avoid suspicion. He gave it, instead, to his secretary, Shaykh

83 MF, 3:162: li-yuwafaqu; 'Uqud, 210: li-yuhdqaqu.

59


Kamal al-Dln [al-Zamlakanl]. The latter read it aloud to those inattendance, word for word, while everyone listened. Those who hadobjections would stop him at various points to voice their objections.The amir would also inquire about a point from time to time.

16. Everyone knew of the antagonism and undisciplined passionsharboured by a party among those in attendance, some of which waswidely known among the people. Some of this [antagonism] was dueto theological differences, and some of it was based on other things.

17. Now, I cannot recall everything that was said, nor all of thedebates that took place during these proceedings; for a lot was said,some of which cannot be reproduced exactly. But I will write a sum-mary for you of what I am able to recall, even though my memoryof these things has now grown faint and despite all of the shoutingand clamour that took place, all of which cannot be reproduced.

18. Among the things to which one of them objected was mymentioning in the beginning of the creed, "And a part of belief inGod is to believe in Him as He and His messenger have describedHim, without distorting this description (tahrif), without divestingHim of any attribute (ta'til), without inquiring about the modalityof any attribute (takyif) and without assuming similarities betweenHim and created beings (tamthil)."

19. He said, What do you mean by tahrif and ta'til? His pointwas that this disallows ta'wil, which is to divert a term away fromits apparent meaning, either by necessity or by licence, a methodclaimed valid by the partisans of allegorical interpretation (ta'wil).

20. I said, [I mean] diverting words away from their proper usage(tahrif al-kalim 'an mawadi'i-h), which God has censured in HisBook. This means divesting utterances of the meaning they [nor-mally] convey, such as obtains in the allegorical interpretation(ta'wil) of some Jahmites regarding the words of the Exalted, 'andGod spoke to Moses literally' (kallama Alldhu Musd takliman)-}^They say that this means, "He cleaved him literally with the talons ofwisdom" (jarraha-hu bi-azdfir al-hikmah tajrihan). And such as theallegorical interpretations of the bdtiniyyah Qarmathians and others,including Jahmites, Shi'ites, Qadarites and others.

21. At this he fell silent, his soul, however, harbouring what itwould.

22. I mentioned on another occasion, not at this hearing, that Iopted to cite the term tahrif instead of ta 'wil because tahrif is a term

84 4.164.

60

1BN TAYMIYYAH ON TRIAL IN DAMASCUS

censured in the Qur'an itself; and I have taken care in this creed tofollow the Qur'an and the Sunnah. Thus I rejected that which Godhad censued of tahrif, without making specific mention of ta'wil,either for or against, because the latter is a term that has a number ofmeanings, as I have made clear in a related discussion on religiousprecepts {qawd'id). Indeed, the meaning of ta'wil in the Book ofGod is not the same as its meaning in the technical language of laterlegal theoreticians and jurists, nor in the technical parlance of manyQuranic exegetes and Ancestors. In fact, among those practicesreferred to as ta'wil are some that are sound and have been handeddown on the authority of some of the Ancestors. Thus, I chose notto reject that for which there is proof of its soundness. For, if thereis proof of its soundness and it has also been handed down on theauthority of the Ancestors, it cannot be considered tahrif.

23. I also said to him, I cited the disallowance of tamthil-anthro-pomorphism without citing the disallowance of tasbbih-znthiopo-morphism because God disallowed tamthll unequivocally in HisBook, where He said, 'Nothing is anything like him' (laysa ka-mithli-hi shay');8^ and where He said, 'Do you know of a likeness to Him?'(hal ta'lamu la-hu samiyyan)86 Thus I preferred [citing the wordtamtbil] over a term that is not in the Book of God nor in the Sun-nah of the Messenger of God, even though the latter term [i.e., tash-bih] may carry a meaning whose disallowance would be proper, justas it may carry a meaning whose disallowance would be improper!

24. When I mentioned, 'They [Ml al-Sunnah wa-al-Jamd'ah] do notreject any attribute that He ascribes to Himself; nor do they distort themeanings of words; nor do they cast aspersions on God's names and Hisverses,' one of those in attendance took offence, realizing that this was anopen refutation of his position. But he could not find the words [withwhich to voice his objections]. So he tried to overtake me with questionsthat I had grown used to hearing. But this did not avail him because hecould not avoid acknowledging the soundness of my responses.

25. When I cited the Verse of the Chair (dyat al-kursi), I thinkit was the amir who asked about my statement, '... no devilwill approach him until he awakes [the following morning].'87 So Irelated to him the hadlth of Abu Hurayrah about the man who usedto steal from the alms offerred at the end of Ramadan; and I men-tioned that al-Bukhari cited this in his sahih collection.

85 42:11.86 19:65.87 Part of a longer hadlth cited by the editor of al-'Uqud, 215-16.

61


26. Then they began citing the disallowance of tashbih- andtajsim- anthropomorphism, being excessive therein and making allu-sions to what some people have attributed to us [Hanbalis] of suchthings.

27. So I said, My statement, 'without inquiring about theirmodality (takyif) and without iawz^/Z-anthropomorphism,' disallowsall such fallacies. I simply chose these two terms [in particular]because the disallowance of inquiring about the modality of God'sattributes (takyif) has been handed down on the authority of theAncestors, as appears, for example, in the famous dictum of Rabl'ah,Malik, Ibn 'Uyaynah and others, which the scholars [over the gener-ations] have received with favour: 'God's mounting the throne isknown; how is unkown; belief in it is obligatory; and inquiringabout its modality is unsanctioned innovation (bid'ah).' Now, thesegreat Ancestors all agreed that how is unkown to us. Thus, I disal-lowed takyif, following the example of the Ancestors, while it is alsoforbidden by scripture; for subjecting the verses on God's attributesto allegorical interpretation (ta'wil) entails allegorically interpretingthe One described, as well as His attributes. These are matters theinner meaning (ta'wil) of which is the preserve of God alone, as Ihave established in a separate precept on 'inner meaning' (ta'wil) and'meaning,' (ma'nd) and the difference between our knowing themeaning of a statement and our knowing its inner meaning.

28. Similarly, tamthil -anthropomorphism has been disallowed byscripture, as well as age-old consensus, not to mention the rationalproofs of its incorrectness along with the incorrectness of takyif sincethe inner essence of the Giver of Form is not known to man.

29. I mentioned in the course of this the words of al-Khattabl,88

who related that it was the doctrine of the Ancestors to pass on theverses and hadlths on God's attributes with their literal meaningsintact, without engaging in takyif or iaf^^i^-anthropomorphism,since speculating about the divine attributes entails speculationabout the divine essence itself, the former going along with the latter

88 Abu Sulayman Hamd b. Muhammad b. Ibrahim b. al-Khattab (al-Khattabl)al-Bustl, 319/931-388/998), a Shafi'I traditionalist jurist and hadlth expert Hewrote an anti-kaldm work entitled, al-Ghunyah 'an al-kaldm wa-ahl-h (Dispensingwith kaldm and its partisans) to which Ibn Taymiyyah is probably referring here.See Makdisi, Ash'ari I, 48-49, nt. 2. Ibn Taymiyyah appears fond of quoting thiswork apparently as proof that his position is not exclusive to Hanbalis but is sharedespecially by leading ancestors of the Shafi'I school. See, for example, 'al-'Aqldah al-Hamawiyyah al-Kubra,' MR, 1:45O.

62


and following its example. Moreover, just as the affirmation of anyessence is an affirmation of its existence, not of its modality, so is theaffirmation of an attribute an affirmation of its existence, not of itsmodality.

30. So one of the leaders from among the opponents protested,'Then it is permissible to say that He is a body dissimilar to [other]bodies (huwa jismun Id ka-al-ajsdm)V I said, along with some of thesavants in attendance, '[On the conrary], it is simply said that God isdescribed according to the manner that He and His Messenger havedescribed Him.' And there is nothing in either die Qur'an or theSunnah suggesting that God is a body, such that would raise such aquestion. * I added — I'm not sure whether this was during the firstor second sessions — The First person to say that God is a body wasthe Shi'ite, Hisham b. al-Hakam.89

31. At this, one of the judges among those in attendance whowere known for their religiosity wanted to make an open show of hisdisavowel of the charges levelled by some against us. So he began anexaggerated disavowel of tashblh- and ftz/.si>«-anthropomorphism.90

So I said, It has already been stated in more than one place, 'withoutdistortion (tahrif), without divestiture {ta'til), without positingmodalities (takyif) and without assuming likenesses to created beings{tamthlt)!

32. I Had already stated early on in the credo, 'And part of beliefin God is belief in Him as He has described Himself in His Bookand as His Prophet Muhammad has described Him, without distor-tion (tahrtf), without divestiture {ta'til), without positing modality

89 Abu M u h a m m a d Hisham b. a l -Hakam was a Shi ' i te mutakallim, born inKufa, raised in Basra and later settling in Baghdad. H e is said to have attached h im-self to Yahya al-Barmakl and the Barmakid halqah and to have gone into h id ingwhen the Barmakids fell in 187 /803 . Whi le he is said to have died while in hiding,there is a wide controversy over his date of death. Al-Zirikll cites a series of datesranging from 175/791 to 199/814. See al-A'ldm, 8 :85, n. 1. From the asterisk tothe end of this paragraph actually appears in the text between paragraph 93 and 94 .(See MF, 3 :186 ; 'Uqud, p . 238) There , however, it appears ou t of place. I haverelied on al-Birzall's account in inserting it here. See 'al-Munazarah, ' MR, All.

90 This was probably the Hanaf i chief justice, Shams al-Din al-Harlr l( M u h a m m a d b. c U t h m a n b. Abl al-Hasan) (653-728 /1255-1328) . A s taunch sup-porter of Ibn Taymiyyah, he insisted that if the latter was no t a shaykh al-isldm, n oone was. H e even went so far as to write an affidavit in suppor t of Ibn Taymiyyahto the authorit ies in Cairo following the latter's impr i sonment in Ramadan (April)of 7 0 5 / 1 3 0 6 . H e also submi t ted affidavits against Ibn al-Wakll, insisting on the lat-ter's incompetence. See Biddyah, 14 :134; Durar, 4 :157 -59 , 4 :236 -37 .

63


(takyif), and without assuming likenesses between Him and createdbeings {tamthil).'

33. So I followed this up, '... and in the Prophet's description ofhis Lord, as appears in the sound hadlths which the scholars havereceived with favour; belief in this too is an article of faith' ... until Isaid, '... and (in) the likes of those sound hadlths in which theProphet informs us of whatever he informs us. For the Party of Sal-vation (al-firqah al-ndjiyah), Ahl al-Sunnah wa-al Jamd'ab, believe inall of this, as they believe in the reports God gives in His Book, with-out distortion, without divestiture, without positing modalities, andwithout assuming created likenesses to God. Indeed, they follow amiddle path amid the various factions of the community, just as thecommunity follows a middle path amid other communities. Indeed,regarding God's attributes, the community follows a middle pathbetween the Jahmite partisans of divestiture and the tamthil-a.nthro-pomorphists.'

34. But when the aforementioned judge saw how conspirationaland partisan they were and how few of them would acknowledge andsupport [the truth] and he became fearful of them, he said, 'You havecompiled the creed of Imam Ahmad; shall we91 just say, then, thatthis is the creed of Ahmad [b. Hanbal]? I mean, the man has merelycompiled [a creed] according to his school {madhhab); he should notbe molested for this. For this [Hanbali] school is a recognizedschool.' His aim in all of this was simply to dismantle the disputants'objections.

35. So I said, I have simply compiled the creed of the Pious Ances-tors as a whole; Imam Ahmad has no special claim to this. ImamAhmad simply communicates whatever knowledge comes to him onthe authority of the Prophet. Were he to assert, on his own, some-thing that did not come from the Prophet, we would not accept it.Indeed, this creed is the creed of Muhammad, God's blessings andsalutations be upon him!

36. I reiterated many times over: I give three years respite toanyone who disagrees with anything I have mentioned in thiscreed. Should he bring forth from the first three centuries of Islam— which the Prophet praised via his statement, 'The best of cen-turies is the one in which I was sent, then the following one, then theone following that' — a single consonant contradicting what I havestated herein, I will rescind my statement, while I assume, on theother hand, the duty of bringing forth what has been handed down

91 'Uqiui, 218: fa-naqulu; MF, 169: fa-taqulu.

64


from all the parties from the first three centuries — Hanafis, Malikls,ShafTls, Hanball's, Ash'arls, Sufis, the Partisans of Hadith and others— all of which concurs with what I have said.

37. I also stated on another occasion, not at this hearing, BecauseImam Ahmad came to possess more than other scholars in the wayof the Sunnah and textual reports on the authority of the Prophetand because he weathered the Great Inquisition (mihnah) and(courageously) repudiated those given to unsanctioned innovation(ahl al-bid'ah) more than did other scholars, his statements andknowledge92 in this area surpass that of other scholars. As a cham-pion {imam) of the Sunnah, he thus became more prominent thanothers. Or, one might put the matter in the words of one of therighteous, knowledgeable shaykhs from North Africa, 'Credit forestablishing doctrine belongs to Malik and al-ShafTl, while promi-nence as a leader belongs to Ahmad b. Hanbal,' meaning thatAhmad's doctrine was the same as that of all the great imams,notwithstanding the fact that some of them may surpass others interms of knowledge, clarity of articulation, championing the cause oftruth and fighting against falsehood.

38. *And when the secretary came to that section of the creed thatstated, ... and [to believe in] the Prophet's description of his Lordcontained in the sound hadlths which the people of knowledge havereceived with favour* and he read [during the course of this] thehadith of Abu Sa'id cited in the two sound collections [of Muslimand al-Bukhari] on the authority of the Prophet, 'God will say on theDay of Judgment, "O Adam!" The latter will respond, "Your wishand Your command {labayka wa-sa'dayk)." Then a voice will cry out,"God commands that you send a contingent to hell-fire",'93 the amirasked, "Is this hadith sound?"

39. I said, Yes. It is in the two sound collections [of Muslim andal-Bukhari]. No one disputed this. The disputant was thus forced todemur, *and everyone else agreed.*

40. Then the amir requested a discussion of the issue of the voiceand the letter, as was requested of him.94

92 'Uqud, 220 : kdna kaldmu-hu wa-'amalu-h; MF, 170: kdna kaldmu-hu wa-'ilmu-h.

93 For this and other such hadlths appearing in the credo, see 'al- 'Aqldah al-Wastiyyah, ' MR, 1:399. According to Sharaf a l -Dln, the Malikl deputy judge,Najm al-Dln, protested at this point , 'You are saying that G o d calls ou t in a voice!'MF, 3:209.

94 According to Kanz, 9:135, this request seems to have come from Ibn al-Wakll.

65


41. I said, That which many people attribute to Imam Ahmadand his disciples *on the authority of Majd al-Dln b. al-Khatlb andothers,* i.e. that the voice of the reciters and die ink in the writtencopies of the Qur'an have existed from eternity, is a concocted lie.Ahmad never said this; nor has any other Muslim scholar, neitherfrom among the disciples of Ahmad nor any other party. I broughtforth a copybook, which had been brought along with the writtencopy of the creed, containing verbatim what Abu Bakr al-Khallal hadcited in Kitdb al-Sunnah on the authority of Imam Ahmad, alongwith what his companion, Abu Bakr al-Mirwadhl, had collected ofthe statements of Imam Ahmad, his disciples and the leading schol-ars of his times, Whoever says, 'My utterance of the Qur'an is cre-ated,' is a Jahmite; and whoever says that it is uncreated is a hereti-cal innovator. I said, This is what al-AshfarI cited in Maqdldt[al-Isldmiyyin] on the authority of Ahl al-Sunnah and the Partisans ofHadlth, adding that this was the view that he himself endorsed.'*Then I said, 'So what about one who says, "My utterances [of theQur'an] have existed from eternity?" What about one who says, "Myvoice is uncreated?" What about one who says, "My voice is sem-peternal?'" *And there are clear statements on the authority of ImamAhmad, as have been related by al-Bukari, author of al-Sahih, in hisKitdb Khalq afdl al-'ibdd, among others from the imams of the Sun-nah, stipulating the difference between God's speaking with a voiceand the voice of humans.*

42. I brought forth the response to a question I had been askedlong ago about a man who swears, on pain of divorce, concerningthe issue of the voice and the letter and the literal truth of the [verseson the] throne. *I cited the response that I had given to this questionback then, along with an explanation thereof and the fact thatunqualified statements to the effect that the Qur'an is both the voiceand the letter or neither the voice nor the letter are both hereticalinnovations which did not appear until after the third century ofIslam.* Then I said, Here, this is my response.

43. This question [on the voice and the letter] had actually beensent by a group of obstinent pseudo-Jahmites, some of whom werepresent at the hearing. But when they were confronted with the inci-sive response, which is the [true] position of Ahl al-Sunnah, not theposition that tiiey advocate, nor what diey attribute to Ahl al-Sunnah,perhaps on the authority of some ignorant people, they were flabber-gasted. My response included, Indeed the Qur'an in its entirety is dieword of God, both its words and its meaning; for 'qur'an is not aterm that is restricted to eidier words or meaning alone.

66


44. *I said in the course of this to Sadr al-Dln b. al-Wakil, in orderto show the extent to which he contradicted himself and the fact thathe did not hold consistently to any doctrine but merely strove tocause strife {fitnah) and dissension among the Muslims, 'I have acredo by Shaykh Abu al-Bayan in which it is stated, 'Whoever saysthat a single letter in the Qur'an is created is an unbeliever,' to whichyou attached in your own hand, 'This is the madhhab of al-ShafTiand his leading disciples.' You indicated further that you yourselfworshipped God according to this creed.' He admitted this; andwhen he did, Shaykh Kamal al-Dln b. al-Zamlakanl rose to con-demn him.

45. Ibn al-Wakll responded, 'This is the doctrine of al-Shafi'l ver-batim.' And he challenged the latter's objections repeatedly. So whenwe met at the second hearing it was mentioned to Ibn al-Wakll thatIbn Darbas95 related exactly what I had cited in his Kitdb al-Intis&ron the authority of al-ShafTl. Then, when we met at the third hear-ing, Ibn al-Wakll returned to this issue [once again].

46. So Shaykh Kamal al-Dln [al-Zamlakanl] said to Sadr al-Dlnb. al-Wakll, 'You said to Shaykh Taql al-Dln [Ibn Taymiyyah] at the[first] hearing that whoever says that a single letter in the Qur'an iscreated is an unbeliever.' He [Ibn al-Wakll] then reiterated this doc-trine. At this Shaykh Kamal al-Dln became extremely angry andraised his voice, exclaiming, 'This man charges our rationalist Ash'arlbrethren, such as Imam al-Haramayn [al-Juwaynl] and others whosay that the letters of the Qur'an are created, with unbelief. We can-not tolerate such charges against our fellow ShafTls!'

47. Ibn al-Wakll then denied that he had said this, and said, 'Inever said that; I simply said that whoever denies a single letter ofthe Qur'an is an unbeliever.' Those in attendance promptly repudi-ated this, saying, '[Nay] you said such and such [i.e., exactly what al-Zamakanl claimed].' They added: 'You should not make statementsand then retract them.' Then one of them said, 'He never said this[i.e., what al-Zamlakanl claimed].' So when they [succeeded in]twisting his words, the latter said, 'We never heard him say this.'This reached the point that the viceroy himself interjected, 'Oneperson lies; another bears witness; and Shaykh Kamal al-Dln isnow upset.' So they turned to the Shafi'l chief justice, Najm al-Dln[b. Sasra], urging him to reprimand Ibn al-Wakll, since the latter had

95 Ibn Darbas was the first Shafi'I chief justice of Egypt appointed by Saladinupon the latter's ascension to the sultanate. See Ibn Iyas, Badd'i' al-zuhurfi waqd'i'al-duhiir, 6 vols. ed. Muhammad Mustafa (Cairo, 1402/1982), 1:233.

67


charged his [Shafi'l] partisans with unbelief. But Qadl Najm al-Dlnsaid, 'I never heard this.' At this Shaykh Kamal al-Dln becameexceedingly angry, and uttered something the exact wording ofwhich I did not catch but the meaning of which was that this was adenigration of al-ShafieI and a disgrace to the ShafTls, that their lead-ing scholars should be charged with unbelief and no one comes totheir defense.

48. I myself did not hear what Shaykh Kamal al-Dln had saidabout Qadl Najm al-Dln, though I tried to ascertain this from oth-ers who were in attendance, asking them if they heard him say any-thing about the latter. They responded in the negative. But QadlNajm al-Dln took whatever was said to be an insult directed againsthim and his position as judge representing the [ShafTl] madhhab andthe fact that he did not defend his [ShafTl] partisans.96 It was hisbelief that Shaykh Kamal al-Dln's words [regarding the denigrationof Shafi'l, etc.] were directed at him. So he became angry and said,'Be it witnessed that I hereby remove myself from office!' He pro-ceeded to cite the reasons why he deserved to lead [his partisans] andto be paid the proper respects, along with the fact that he had neverspoken in a manner prejudicial to the honour of any of those inattendance, calling upon the viceroy himself to confirm this. I myselfspoke to him words of support, including the fact that he deservedto remain in office under the present circumstances.*

49. When it came to the issue of the Qur'an, i.e., 'And part ofbelief in God is belief that the Qur'an is the uncreated word of God,from Him it began and to Him it will return,' some of them dis-puted its beginning with and returning to Him, and they petitionedan explanation thereof.

50. I said, As for this doctrine, it is the established doctrinehanded down on the authority of the Ancestors, such as, for exam-ple, what 'Amr b. Dinar related, 'For seventy years I have known thepeople to say, "God is the Creator; all else is created, except theQur'an; it is the uncreated word of God. From Him it proceeded,and to Him will it return".' And a number of people, * such as thehadith experts Abu al-Fadl b. Nasir and Abu'Abd Allah al-MaqdisI,*have collected statements on the authority of the Prophet, the Com-panions and Successors to this effect.

96 According to al-Dawadarl, al-Zamlakanl's statement was, 'What has befallenthe Shafi'ls is nothing compared to the fact that you should be their leader (mdjard'aid al-Shdfi'iyyah qalilun kawnu an takuna anta ra'isa-hd).' Kanz, 9:135. See alsoDurar, 1:151 for a similar report.

68


51. As for the meaning of their statement, 'from Him it pro-ceeded,' it is that it is He who actually uttered it and revealed it fromHimself. It was not, as the Jahmites claim, created in the air or someother place, nor did it proceed from other than Him.

52. As for 'to Him it will return,' He will lift it from the copies ofthe Qur'an and from the breasts of men at the end of time so thatnot a word of it remains in the breasts of men and not a letter in thewritten copies. Most of those in attendance agreed on this point, andthose who disagreed fell silent.

53. I had spoken to one of them outside these hearings, duringwhich conversation I showed him a copy of the creed that had beencompiled by the [Abbasid] Caliph al-Qadir bi-Allah, in which it wasstated, 'The Qur'an is the word of God; it issued forth from Him{kharaja min-h).' He [my interlocutor] expressed some reservationabout the phrase kharaja min-h (it issued forth from Him). So I said,This is the wording of the Prophet himself: 'God's servants draw notnear to Him via anything as they do via that which issued forth fromHim,' meaning the Qur'an. Khabbab b. al-Aratt97said, O so andso!98 Draw near to God by whatever means you can; but you willnever draw near to Him by anything more loved by Him than thatwhich issued forth from Him.' And Abu Bakr al-Siddlq said, whenthe qur'an of Musaylamah the arch-liar was read to him, 'This speechdid not issue forth from any sacred being,' meaning, 'any Lord.'

54. It was read from [al-Wdsitiyyah],99 'And Part of belief in Himis to believe that the Qur'an is the uncreated revealed speech of God;from Him it proceeded and to Him it will return; and that Godactually spoke its words {takallama bi-hi haqiqatan); and that thisQur'an which God revealed to Muhammad is the actual speech ofGod, not the speech of anyone else. It is not permissible to say thatit is a report about God's speech (hikdyah 'an kaldm Allah) or simplya means of conveying it {'ibdrah). Rather, when the people recite theQur'an or make written copies of it, it does not cease thereby to bethe speech of God. For indeed speech is attributed to the one who

97 Khabbab was a C o m p a n i o n98 According to Ibn Manzur 's Lisdn al-'Arab 6. vols. (Cairo, n.d) , 6 :4715 , yd

hant&h (or hanatdh) is used either as a second person feminine vocative, i.e., yd hdd-hthi, or to mean, " O dull-witted one ," (yd balhd") to a female. However, the dialectsof Banu 'Uqayl and Banu Qays allow the use of hanatdh (with sukun over the finalhd") as a vocative in the masculine. See ibid., 6 :4714 . This is apparently the case inthe present hadith, as all of the subsequent verbs are second person masculine.

99 "Al-'Aqldah al-Wasitiyyah," MR, 1:401-02.

69


utters it originally, not to the one who utters it as transmitter orcommunicator.'

55. So one of them took exception to the assertion that it was theactual speech of God, after conceding that God actually spoke it.Then he conceded that it was the actual speech of God when it wasexplained to him that, while it is permissible to deny the literal truthof metaphorical statements, it is not permissible to deny this [whichproves that it is not merely metaphorically true], and that the state-ments handed down from the ancients and the poetry attributed tothe poets is their actual speech, and that the relationship of theQur'an to God is no less than this. *A11 in attendance concurredwith what I cited on the question of the Qur'an and the fact thatGod actually spoke it and that it is the literal word of God, not thespeech of anyone else.*

56. When it was mentioned [in the creed] that actual speech isattributed literally to whomever utters it originally not to one whoutters it as communicator, they applauded these words and laudedthem. Even some of the chief disputants,100 *such as Ibn al-Waklland others,* began to extol these words *and to make an open showof how pleased they were with this synopsis.* One of them said, 'Youhave done away with our apprehensions *and put our hearts atease.'* And he went on to make similar declarations.

57. When it came to what I had mentioned about belief in theLast Day, its details and the chronology of its events, they applaudedthis and extolled it.

58. The same occured when it came to belief in predestination{qadar) and the fact that it operates on two levels, and other venera-ble precepts regarding this doctrine.

59. The same occurred when it came to what was said about mis-creant professing Muslims (al-fdsiq al-millt) and faith. But here theyraised a number of objections,101 which I shall now cite.

60. All in all, the objections of these tendentious quarrelers, afterthe entire creed had been read and discussed, came down to fourquestions: first, our statement, Among the tenets of the Party of Sal-vation (usiil al-firqah al-ndjiyah) is that faith and religion comprisewords and deeds and are subject to increase and decrease; theycomprise the words of the heart and tongue and the deeds of dieheart, tongue and limbs.' They said, If diese are held to be among

100 'Uqud, 226. wa-akhada ahadkubara al-khusum; MF, 176: wa-akhadha akbaral-khusum.

101 ''Uqud, 226. itaradu; MF, 176: itarada-hu.

70


the principles of the Party of Salvation, then those who do not holdthis position must not be included among this party, e.g., our ratio-nalist bretheren (ashdbu-nd al-mutakallimun) who say that faith is[merely] assent (tasdiq), or those who hold that faith is assent joinedby verbal profession (al-tasdiq wa-al-iqrdr). If these people are notgoing to be saved, then they must be doomed to perdition.102

61. As for the remaining three objections — which constitutedtheir main contention — they were levied against our statement,'And included in what we have mentioned of belief in God is beliefin that of which He informs us in His Book and in what reaches usvia disparate and concurrent channels (tawatara) from the Prophetand in that upon which the Ancestors of the community were inunanimous agreement (ijmd'), i.e. that He, be He exalted, is abovethe heavens, upon His throne, exalted above His creation, yet withthem wherever they are and knows what they do, as He has indicatedin His statement,' He it is who created the heavens and the earth insix terms; then He mounted the throne. He knows what enters theearth and what exists therefrom and what descends from the heavensand what ascends through it. And He is with you wherever you are.And God sees every act that you commit.103

62. Now, the meaning of, 'He is with you,' is not that he [physi-cally] permeates creation; for such is not dictated from the stand-point of language, as it also contradicts the consensus of the Ances-tors and runs counter to man's God-given intuition. Rather, themoon is one of God's signs from among the smallest of His creation.And while it is placed in the sky, it is with the traveller [on earth],along with those who are not travelling, wherever they may be. AndHe, be He exalted, is above the throne, watching over His creation,guarding over them, cognizant of what they do, etc. , according to allthat is commensurate with His divine lordship (rububiyyah). All thatGod has mentioned here, e.g., that He is above die throne and thatHe is with us, is literal truth in need of no distortion [of its literalmeaning]. But it should be guarded against false ideas.

102 Interestingly, these were Hanafi positions, the first being attributed to al-Maturidl and even Abu Hanlfa himself, though the latter was more popularlyknown to endorse the second view. See Abu Ja'far Ahmad b. Muhammad al-Tahawi,Shark al-'aqidah wa-al-tahdwlyah (Cairo, n.d.), 313-31. See also, J. M. Pessagno,'The Murji'a, Iman and Abu 'Ubayd,' Journal of the American Oriental Society, 95-3(1975): 382-94.

103 57:4.

71


63. The second objection,104 Some of them said, 'We accept theliteral wording of these reports, as we do the hadlth of al-cAbbas,105

i.e., the so-called "hadlth of the Ibex {hadlth al-aw'dl)," and the lit-eral wording of, "God is above the Throne." But we do not say, "Heis above the heavens," or "He is upon the Throne".' And they added,'We say 'The Merciful settled upon the throne {al-Rahmdnu 'aid al-'arsh istawd)," but we do not say, "God settled upon the throne{Allah 'aid al-'arsh istawd);" nor do we say, "He is settling"...' Andthey repeated this doctrine many times over, i.e., that the wording ofscripture must be reproduced verbatim, and that it may not be sub-stituted for by synonyms, and that no meaning is to be understoodfrom these words at all, and that they may not be said to constituteproof of the existence of any divine attribute. This was discussed atlength106 during the second hearing, as I shall mention subsequently,God willing.

64. The third objection,107 They said, 'Your comparison involvingthe moon entails comparing God's being in the heavens with themoon's being in the heavens.'

65. The fourth objection,108 They said, 'Concerning your state-ment, "literally true" {haqqun 'aid haqiqati-h); now, literal truth{haqiqah) refers to the lexical meaning [of a term]. And [in this case]literal truth could only be understood to refer to the mounting{istiwd') and aboveness {fawqiyyah) of corporeal bodies {ajsdm), asthe Arabs coined these terms to be used exclusively with reference tocorporeal bodies. Thus, to speak of literal truth [in this case] is sheerta/V/wz-anthropomorphism. And to disavow tajsim while speaking ofliteral truth is either contradiction or sheer sophistry.'

66. At this point I offered a response to these objections.67. I said, My statement, 'the doctrine of the Party of Salvation,'

refers to the party described by the Prophet as being saved, in hisstatement: 'My community will divide into seventy-three sects;seventy-two wil enter hell-fire and one paradise. The latter is com-posed of those who adhere to my way and that of my Companions.'This doctrine, then, has been handed down on the authority of theProphet and his Companions. They, along with those who follow

104 'Uqiid, 2 2 8 : al-su'dl al-awwal.105 Uqiid, 2 2 8 : radiya Allah 'anh.106 Mf, 3:178: nabsitu al-kaldm ft hddhd...; 'Uqiid, 229: inbasata al-kaldm ft

hddhd...107 'Uqiid, 229: al-su'dlal-thdni.108 Ibid.: al-su'dlal-thdlith.

72


them, are the Party of Salvation. And, it has been confirmed on theauthority of more than one of the Companions that they used tosay, 'Faith increases and decreases.' Indeed, everything that I havementioned in this regard has been handed down on the authority ofthe Companions, through sound chains of transmission, in letter orin spirit.109 And if those who came after the Companions contra-dicted this, this does no harm to these doctrines.110

68. Then I said to them, Not everyone who disagrees with somepart of this creed is necessarily doomed. For one who disputes someaspect of this creed may do so on the basis of some faulty exercise ofpersonal judgment {ijtihdd), for which God may forgive him. Or theinformation he has received regarding a particular point may notconstitute sufficient proof to him. Or his good deeds may be of suchmagnitude that God uses them to wipe out bad deeds. And since thepronouncements of divine threat against those who violate rightbelief are not necessarily inclusive of those who do so on the basisof [innocently faulty] interpretation (al-muta'awwil), or those whorepent,111 or those who have expiatory good deeds, or those whosefaults have been forgiven, among others, one who commits some[minor] violation is exempted a fortiori. Nay, the upshot of what Ihave said here is that whoever believes according to this creed attainssalvation commensurate with this belief. And those whose belief con-tradicts this creed may attain salvation; and they may not. As thesaying goes, 'Saved is the one who suspends judgment.'

69. As for the second objection, firsdy, I answered that every wordthat I have said has been handed down on the authority of the Prophet,e.g., 'above the heavens,' 'upon the throne,' 'above the throne...' And Isaid, Write down my response! So the secretary commenced writing.

70. Then some of them said, Today's session has gone on longenough. Let us postpone this response for another session. You canprepare a written response and bring it to that session. Some of thosewho were in agreement [with me] supported the suggestion that thediscussion be concluded with a written response, in order to limit thenumber of questions and objections raised by the opposition.

71. And it appeared that the opposition112 was seeking someadvantage in postponing the recording of my response: They wantedto prepare themselves, read up [on a few matters], summon some of

109 j^F, 3:179: lafzu-hu wa-ma'nd-hu; 'Uqud, 230: lajzu-hu aw ma'nd-hu.110 MF, 3:179: lam yadurra ft dhdlika, 'Uqud, 230: lam yadurra-ni dhdlika.111 MF, 3:179: aw al-qdnit; 'Uqud, 231: aw al-td'tb.112 MF, 3:180: wa-kdna al-khusum; 'Uqud, 231: wa-ka-anna al-khusuma.

73


their colleagues who were not present [at the first hearing], and pon-der [my] creed among themselves in order to be able to impugne itand raise further objections against it.

72. So agreement was reached that the discussion be concludedon the coming Friday. And at this we adjourned.

73. And God had manifested the veracity of [my] proofs and theclarity of the [right] way such that He raised the stature of thesunnah and the Orthodox Majority (al-jamd'ab), and He debased thepeople of unsanctioned innovation and error. But many of those inattendance harboured apprehensions about what would happen atthe second session.

74. In the meantime, [the opposition] pondered my creed and themanner in which I had responded to certain questions connected tomatters of belief, such as the Hamawiyyah question on mounting thethrone, the divine attributes and other things.

II

75. When the second session was held on Friday 12 Rajab, fol-lowing the congregational prayer,113 they brought with them theirleading shaykbs,114 some of whom were not present at the first hear-ing, *In addition, they brought along Safl al-Din al-Hindl, and theysaid, 'He is the most accomplished of the group and our shaykhin 'ilm al-kaldm* They [had] discussed matters among themselves,agreed on a plan and conspired. And they came forth in greatstrength and with a readiness which they did not have before; for thefirst session had taken them by surprise, not to mention that it alsotook me by surpise, I being the defendant, the respondent and the chiefdiscussant.

76. So when we met, and I had brought forth my written responseto their questions, the reply to which they requested be postponeduntil today, I opened by praising God via the preamble of need, thepreamble of Ibn Mas'ud.115 Then I said, Indeed, God has commanded

113 'Uqud, 232: bdda al-saldh.114 Mf, 3:181: ahdaru aktham shuyukhi-him; 'Uqud, 232: ahdaru akbara

shuyukhi-him.115 'Indeed, praise is for God. We seek His aid, His guidance and His forgive-

ness And we seek refuge in God from the evil of our souls and the ill of ourdeeds...' (innal-hamda U-Alldh, nasta'inu-hu wa-nastahdi-hi wa-nastaghfiru-hu, wa-na'udhu bi-Alldh min shurun anfusi-nd wa-min sayyi'dti dmdli-nd...) This is part ofa longer hadith recorded by al-Tirmidhl on the authority of 'Abd Allah Ibn Mas'ud.See the editor's footnote in 'Uqud, 233.

74


us to remain a harmonious community; and He has forbidden divi-sion and schism. He said to us in the Qur'an, 'And hold fast,altogether, to the rope of God, and be not disunited.'116 And Hesaid, 'Verily those who have divided their religion and becomesectarians, you have nothing to do with them.'117 And He said, Andbe not as those who became divided and differed among themselvesafter clear guidance had come to them.'118 And our lord is one; ourBook is one; our Prophet is one; and the basic principles of our reli-gion do not accomodate division and dissension. And I advocate thatwhich promotes community among the Muslims. And this is whatwas agreed upon by the Ancestors. Now, if the group agrees [withthis], then God be praised. If not, I will uncover the secrets andshred the veils of whomever disagrees with me, and I will exposethose heretical doctrines that have corrupted religious communitiesand governments. I will go to the sultan [in Egypt] myself, bypost-mule, and acquaint him with matters that I have not mentionedduring these hearings. For, indeed, there are words to be spoken attimes of peace, and there are words to be spoken at times of war!

77. I said, No doubt, people dispute among themselves, this onesaying, 'I am a Hanball,' that one, 'I am an Ash'ari,' and then thereruns among them division, *strife* and dissension over matters thetruth of which they do not understand. But I have brought along withme a work that clearly establishes that all of the schools of thoughtare in agreement with what I have stated [during the course of thesehearings]. Then I brought forth Kitdb Tabyln Kadhib al-Muftari fi-md Yunsabu ild al-Shaykh Abi al-Hasan al-Ash'ari *(God show himmercy)* of the hadith expert, Abu al-Qasim b. al-Asakir, *(Godshow him mercy)* and I said, Nothing comparable to this bookon the praiseworthy reports from al-Ash'arl has ever been written.It includes al-Ashcarl's position exactly as it appears in [the latter's]Kitdb al-Ibdnah (fi usul al-diydnah).U9

78. When I came to mention of the Mu'tazilites,120 the amirasked about the meaning of 'Mu'tazilites.'

79. I said, In ancient times, people disputed over die status of mis-creant professing Muslims [i.e., are they believers or unbelievers?].

116 3:103.117 6:159.118 3:105.119 Here is where Ibn Taymiyyah apparently began reading from Ibn 'Asakir's

Tabyln.120 The Tabyin includes al-Ash'ari's refutation of Mu'tazilism.

75


This was the first controversy that occurred in the community. TheKharijites said, 'They are unbelievers,' while the [orthodox] majority(al-jamd'ah) said, 'They are believers.' So one group responded, 'Wesay that they are miscreants, neither believers nor unbelievers; rather,we relegate them to a status between the two {manzilah bayn al-manzilatayn).' And they held that such people would dwell in hell-fire forever. Then they seceded from the study circle of al-Hasan al-Basrl [d. 110/728] *(God show him mercy)* and his companions.Because of this they were named 'secessionists' {Mu'tazilah).

80. The chief among them objected vociferously, It is not as youhave explained! Rather, the first controversy among the Muslims wasover the question of [divine] speech, and the mutakallimun werenamed so because of their discourse about this issue. The first one toraise this issue was 'Amr b. 'Ubayd [d. 144/761], who was then suc-ceeded after his death by 'Ata' b. Wasil — sic; and he mentionedsimilar things.

81. I became extremely angry at this shaykh and I said, You arewrong! And this is a lie that contradicts consensus. I said to him, Youhave shown neither propriety, nor virtue, nor have you conductedyourself properly in addressing me; nor is your response correct!

82. Then I said, The controversy over divine speech occurred dur-ing the caliphate of al-Ma'mun [198-218/813-33] and afterwards,during the last part of the second [eigth] century. As for theMu'tazilites, they appeared long before that, during the time of 'Amrb. 'Ubayd, after the death of al-Hasan al-Basrl at the beginning ofthe second [eigth] century. These early Mu'tazilites did not discussthe issue of divine speech, nor were they party to any controversyover it. Rather, their first innovations involved their discourse overthe divine names (al-asmd'), the [five] principles (al-ahkdm),m andthe issue of divine threat (al-wa'id).

83. So he [this shaykh] responded, Al-Shahrastani cites the viewthat I just stated in his Kitdb al-Milal wa-al-Nihal.

84. I said, Al-Shahrastani mentioned that in connection withthe term, mutakallimun, i.e. why they were called mutakallimun.He did not cite this in connection with the term, mu'tazilah. Andthe amir simply asked about the term mu'tazilah.

121 A reference to the famous 'five principles' {al-abkdm al-khamsah) of theMu'tazilites: (1) montheism (tawhld); (2) divine justice (W/); (3) divine threat andpunishment {al-wa'd wa-al-wa'id); (4) the station between the two {al-manzilahbayn al-manzilatayn); (5) commanding good and forbidding evil (al-amr bi-al-ma'ruf wa-al-nahy 'an al-munkaf).

76


85. Those in attendance then rose against this shaykh and said,'You are wrong.'122

86. I said during the course of this: I know of every innovationthat has occurred in Islam, the first one's to introduce it, and thereason behind its being introduced. Moreover, that which al-Shahras-tanl cited regarding the term, mutakallimum is wrong. For themutakallimun were called by this name before their involvement inthe controversy over divine speech. [In fact,] they used to endorse theview that God speaks and they credited Him with the attribute ofspeech, on the authority of Wasil b. 'Ata', before the controversyover divine speech had even occurred.

87. I said, along with some others, It was Wasil b. 'Ata'[d. 131/748] [who first introduced the question of divine speech],not cAta' b. Wasil, as peviously stated. I said, And Wasil did notlive after the death of 'Amr b. 'Ubayd; he was, rather, a [contempo-rary] relative (qarib) of the latter.123 Thus it could be related thatWasil once delivered a speech, to which 'Amr b. 'Ubayd replied,'Were a prophet to be sent, he would not speak words more beauti-ful than these.' And Wasil's eloquence was well-known, to the pointthat it was said that though he suffered a speech impediment becauseof which he would avoid pronouncing the letter r (ra), one day itwas said to him, The amir has ordered that a well be dug in themiddle of the road.124 To this he responded, Is the general too goodto have a well dug in the road?125

88. *When I came to what al-Ash'arl had stated,*126 their leadingshaykh, who had been put forth to represent them, said, There is nodoubt that Imam Ahmad is a great imam, among the greatest inIslam. But there are people who have made unsanctioned innova-tions while claiming affiliation with him.

89. I said, This is true. But this is not exclusive to Imam Ahmad.On the contrary, there is not a single imam who has not beenclaimed by some party with whom he has nothing to do. Malik hasbeen claimed by people with whom he has nothing to do. Al-ShafTl

122 'Uqud, 235: wa-qdla; MF, 184; wa-qdlu.123 Wasil was married to a sister of 'Amr. See W. M. Watt, The Formative Period

of Islamic Thought (Edingburgh, 1973), 213.124 'Uqud, 236: Amara al-amiru an yuhfara bi'run fl qdri'ati al-tariq (a state-

ment replete with the letter V. ); MF, 184: amara al-amlru anyahfara bi'run.125 A-wa-'azza al-qd'idu an yuqallaba qallbun fi al-jdddah, a phrase replete with

recondite words but essentially carrying the same meaning without a single V.126 Probably a reference to al-AsrTari's praise of Ahmad b. Hanbal. See Tabyin,

157-58. See above, note 70.

77


has been claimed by people with whom he has nothing to do. AbuHanlfah has been claimed by people with whom he has nothing todo. Moses, upon him be peace, has been claimed by people withwhom he has nothing to do. Jesus, upon him be peace, has beenclaimed by people with whom he has nothing to do. "All b. Abl Talibhas been claimed by people with whom he has nothing to do. Andour Prophet, God's blessings and salutations be upon him, has beenclaimed by the Qarmathians, the Bdtiniyyah and others, including alltypes of atheists and hypocrites, with whom he has nothing to do.

90. This shaykh had mentioned in the course of this that peoplefrom among the hashwiyyah and fcw/;£z#-anthropomorphists haveclaimed affiliation with Ahmad. And he added similar assertions.

91. I said, The tashblh- and i3/«>w-anthropomorphists numbermore among other groups than they do among the disciples of ImamAhmad. These various groups of Kurds, for example, all of them areShafTls; and there is tashblh- and ta/.«>?z-anthropomorphism amongthem such as exists among no other group. The people of Jllan, someof them are ShafTls and some Hanbalis. I said: As for the pureHanbalis {al-Hanbaliyyah al-mahdah), these fallacies do not afflictthem as they do their counterparts. And my coup de grace here was,These ta/yfwz-anthropomorphist Karramites, all of them are Hanafis!

92. I went on to speak about the term, hashwiyyah, though I amnot sure whether this was in response to a question from the amir orsomeone else, or simply of my own accord.

93. I said, The first ones to innovate this term were theMu'tazilites, who used to refer to the majority and the masses ashashw, just as the Shi'ites refer to them as al-jumhicr (plebians,general public). The hashw among a people are its commoners, themajority, in contradistinction to the distinguished nobility. They say,'This person is from the hashw of the people,' just as it is said, 'Thisperson is from the jumhur.' And the first person to speak of this wasAmr b. 'Ubayd, who used to say: "Abd Allah b. 'Umar was ahashwl! Thus, the Mu'tazilites refer to the majority as hashw, just asthe Shi'ites refer to them as al-jumhur.

94. I said to the aforementioned shaykh, 'Who among the leadingdisciples of Imam Ahmad, God show him mercy, are hashwiyyah,according to what you mean by that term.127 Al-Athram? Abu

127 In para. 93, Ibn Taymiyyah had discussed the original meaning of the termhaswhl. Here he discusses it in its later sense, viz., fideism, anti-intellectualism andunsophisticated literal interpretation of scripture. See further, Ibn Rushd, Kashf'anmandhij al-addlah fi 'aqd'td abl al-mtllah (Cairo: Muhammad 'All Subayh, 1353/1935), 42.

78


Dawud? Al-Mirwadhl? Al-Khallal? Abu Bakr cAbd al-'AzIz?128 Abual-Hasan al-Tamlml? Ibn Hamid? Qadl Abu Ya'la? Abu al-Khattab?Ibn 'Aqll?' Then I raised my voice and said, 'Name them! Tell me!Are any of these men hashwisi Who are they?129 Is the sharfah to bedismantled and the lineaments of religion effaced on the strength ofIbn al-Khatlb's130 lies and his misrepresenting people's doctrines? Forexample, as he and others have attributed to some people that theysay, 'The sempiternal Qur'an is the voices of the reciters and the inkof the copyists, and the voice and the ink are sempiternal.' Now,whoever said this? And in what book are these statements of theirs tobe found? Tell me! Similar is his attributing to them the belief thatthere will be no beautific vision of God in the Hereafter, accordingto what he claimed to be the necessary implications of a premise heclaimed they endorsed.'

95. I went on to insist that this shaykh, being the leader of the group,their patron and a man of reason and religious devotion, deserved to betreated accordingly. And I instructed [the secretary] to read the creedall over for him, since he was not present at the first session but wassimply brought along to the second to strengthen the opposition.

96. After this hearing, a trusted individual (thiqah) informed methat he met with this shaykh and that the latter said to him, 'Tell mewhat happened at the first hearing.' So this individual said to him:'So and so [i.e., Ibn Taymiyyah?] has committed no sin, and neitherhave I. The amir simply asked him about something to which heresponded, though you may have been given to understand that hehad asked him about something else.'

97. He [my informant] said, I said to them, You have no validobjections against the man; he simply supported abstaining fromallegorical interpretation (ta'wil), while you support allegorical inter-pretation. And both of these are positions attributed to al-Asheari.He added, I myself favour the position against allegorical interpreta-tion. He presented his credo in which he had affirmed his creed; andin it was the doctrine of abstaining from allegorical interpretation.

98. My informant then said to me, 'So I said to this shaykh, "Ihear that at the end of the hearing, when everyone was called upon

128 'Uqud, 238: Abu Bakrtn bnu 'Abdi al-Aziz.129 'Uqud, 238: man hum? man hum?; MF, 186: min-hum? man hum?130 Perhaps a reference to the famed Fakhr al-Dln al-Razi (544/1149-

606/1209). According to Laoust, Ibn Taymiyya, 952, SafI al-Dln al-Hindl was apupil of al-Razi.

79


to give sworn testimony indicating their agreement [to exonerate IbnTaymiyyah], you said, 'Do not write that I approve nor that I disap-prove.' Now, why was that?"'

99. The shaykh responded, 'For two reasons; first, I did not attendthe full reading of the creed at the first session. Second, because themembers of my school asked me to attend the hearings in order tobolster their position; and it would have been improper, in light ofthis, for me to make an open display of disagreement with them. SoI abstained from supporting either party.'

100. I had reiterated the order more than once that the creed beread over in its entirety for this shaykh. But some of those in atten-dance thought that this would take too long, so they suggested thatonly those parts about which they had questions be read. And themost significant matter here was [my use of] the word haqiqah. Sothey read this to him.

101. This shaykh himself cited a handsome argument in connec-tion with the meaning of the term [haqiqah], for which I expressedmy admiration and praised him. I added, There is no doubt thatGod is literally alive {hayyun haqiqatan), *literally knows,* literallyhears, and literally sees. On this there is consensus among Ahl al-Sunnah and those who accept the divine attributes among all theparties. Were some who are given to unsanctioned innovation {ahlal-bid'ah) to dispute any part of this, there would remain no doubtthat God [still] exists. But created beings also exist. Whether theterm 'existence' is applied to the uncreated and the created denota-tively {bi-al-ishtirdk al-lafzi), or connotatively (bi-al-tawdtu'), whichentails the intermingling of both the expression and its meaning, orambiguously (bi-al-tashkik), which is a type of connotative usage —on every usage, God literally exists; and created entities literally existas well. To apply a term in its literal sense to both the Creator andthe created entails no danger.

102. During this session, however, I did not come out in favourof any one of these three usages. For my point was duly made assum-ing any one of them.131 My point was simply to establish the truthof what I had said about the position of all the parties, and to clarifythe fact that the position of the Ancestors and those who followthem is in agreement with what I said, and that the position of theleading scholars of the four schools of law, as well as that of al-Ash'ariand his leading disciples, concurs with what I have said.

131 MF, 3:188: 'aid kulli maqsudh; 'Uqud, 241: 'aid kulli maqsudin.

80


103. For, sometime before this second hearing, I was visited by agroup of leading scholars, some ShafTls, some who claim affiliationwith al-AshearI, some Hanafls, and others, all of whom had graveapprehensions about the upcoming hearing and [the possibility of] atriumph by the opposition. They were also fearful of what wouldbefall them [should this hearing result] in schism. For, were I to givemanifest proof in support of what I said, or if none of the leaders oftheir schools concurred with my arguments, the result would beschism, and it would become difficult thereafter for those who vis-ited me to express publicly views that contradicted those of theirgroup, this being grist to the mill of their adversaries. Meanwhile,were there among the leaders of their schools some who supportedmy view, there being proof to back up what I had said and to clarifythe fact that this was the position of the Ancestors, these peoplewould then be able to advocate these views openly, not to mentionthat this is what they believed in their hearts to be the truth all along.

104. [Their apprehensions reached the point] that one of theleading Hanafls who had come to meet me said, If you would onlysay, 'This is the position of Ahmad b. Hanbal,' and substantiate it,the dispute would be terminated. He meant that I could fend off theopposition on grounds.that this was a recognized school of thought,while, at the same time, both those who supported me and thosewho disagreed with me would be relieved of having to expressapproval [with my creed].132

105. I said, No, by God! Ahmad b. Hanbal has no special claimto this. This is simply the doctrine of the ancestors of the commu-nity and the Imams of the Parisans of Hadlth. This, I added, is thecreed of the Messenger of God. For every word I have mentioned Icould cite a verse from the Qur'an, or a hadlth, or an ancient con-sensus, and I could quote from all the parties of Muslims — the fol-lowers of the four schools, the mutakallimun, the Partisans ofHadlth, and the Sufis — people who related a consensus on theauthority of the Ancestors [confirming what I said].

106. I said to the those leading Shafi'is who addressed me: "Look,I will make clear that what I have stated is the position of the Ances-tors and the leading scholars among the followers of al-Shafi'l. Iwill cite the doctrine of al-Ash'ari and the leading scholars among his

132 In other words, it would not matter whether they agreed with it or not; itwould enjoy protected status as one of several equally orthodox views. Makdisi haspointed out that al-Subki was fond of invoking this 'principle of the double legaltruth' in an effort to insulate divergent theological views. See Ash'ari II 34-35.

81


disciples, which will refute #the position of these opponents. EveryShafTl will gain a victory; and so will everyone who advocates thatposition of al-Ash'ari which is in agreement with the doctrine of theAncestors. I will prove that the view attributed to him [al-Ash'ari] insupport of allegorically interpreting the divine attributes has no basisin anything he ever said but is, rather, the view of a party of his fol-lowers. Indeed, it is the Ash'arites who have two views [on thisissue], not al-Ash'ari!"

107. When I mentioned at the hearings that all of the names ofGod that are also used with reference to created beings, such as theterm 'existence', which is used to refer to the reality of the necessary{wdjib) and the possible (mumkin), according to the three [previouslymentioned] usages, two of the elders began to dispute over whetherthe term 'existence' is used denotatively (bi-al-ishtir&k) or connota-tively (bi-al-tawdtu'). Said one of them, 'It is used connotatively.'Said the other, 'It is used denotatively,' in order to avoid beingbound to a theory of composition (tarkib).m Said the latter, 'Fakhral-Dln [al-Razl] has said that this controversy is based on the ques-tion of whether His existence is identical to His essence. Those whosay that the existence of every thing is identical to its essence say that"existence" is denotative; those who say that the existence of a thingis something additional to its essence say that "existence" is connota-tive.' Then the former began to give preponderance to the view ofthose who say that existence is additional to essence, in order todefend the thesis that 'existence' is used connotatively. The seconddisputant replied, 'It is not the thesis of al-Ashcari and Ahl al-Sunnahthat His existence is identical to His essence.'134 The first elder thendenounced this.

133 According to Ibn Taymiyyah, the theory of composition was a fallacy of thephilosophers and some mutakallimun, apparently following Plato: 'They thoughtthat abstract universals {kulliydt mutlaqah) actually existed in the outside world as apart of individual entities and that, as such, individual entities were composed ofthis common or shared universal plus that which distinguished them as individualentities. On such a view, they were bound to hold that God, the Necessarily Exist-ing, is composed of this universally shared existence plus that which distinguishedHim as God, i.e., necessariness, existence, ipseity, despite the fact that it is wellknown among the logicians that universals exist only in the mind, not in individ-ual entities themselves.' See MF, 5:332. Ibn Taymiyyah's point, is, again, that thefeared composition would occur only in the mind, not in reality

134 Both rescensions of the text read laysa madhhabu al Ash'ari wa-ahli al-sunnahanna wujuda-hu 'aynu mdhdyatt-h. Perhaps 'laysa here is a mistake.

82


108. So I said, As for the Speculative Rationalists of Ahl al-Sun-nah {mutakallimu ahl al-sunnah), according to them the existence ofevery thing is identical to its essence. As for the other doctrine, it isthe doctrine of the Mu'tazilites, i.e., that the existence of everythingis something additional to its essence. And both of these groups arecorrect from a certain point of view. Indeed, the truth of the matteris that these names are in fact used connotatively {bi-al-tawdpi'), asI have established elsewhere where I rectified the fallacy of composi-tion {shubhat al-tarkib) in two well-known treatises. As for this beingbased on the existence of every thing being identical to its essence ornot, this is a result of the false doctrine attributed to Ibn al-Khatlb.For, indeed, even if we say that the existence of every thing is identi-cal to its essence, it does not necessarily follow that the name used todesignate this thing and its corresponding likeness {nazir) denotesonly nominal similarity {ishtirdk lajzi) between them, as is the casewith generic nouns. For indeed, the term 'blackness' applies, conno-tatively {bi-al-tawdtu'), to this blackness and to that blackness, whilethis blackness is not the same as that. Rather, what the term refers tois only what is common {al-qadr al-mushtarak) between them,namely, an abstract universal. But true abstract universals exist onlyin the mind. Yet, it does not follow [from this] that what is commonamong entities existing in the outside world must be denied. Forsuch would necessitate the denial of all connotative nouns {al-asmd'al-mutawdti'ah); and these constitute the bulk of nouns found inlanguages, i.e., generic nouns (asmd' al-ajnds), which are nouns thatapply to a thing and all its resemblances, be it a concrete noun {ismal-'ayn), or an adjectival noun {ism sifah), primary {jdmid), or deriv-ative {mushtaqq), and whether it be a generic of logic, law, or other.Nay, generic nouns [alone], linguistically speaking, include genera,categories, species and the like. And all of these are connotativenouns whose referents are individually distinguishable in the outsideworld.

109. Then one of them petitioned a re-reading of the hadlths citedin the creed, so that he could impugne the validity of some of them.

110. I understood what he was hinting at, so I said, 'It seems thatyou have come prepared to impugne die hadldi of the Ibexes {hadlth al-aw'at), i.e., the hadlth of al-'Abbas b. eAbd al-Muttalib.' And they hadgone to great pains until they finally came upon what Zaki al-Din cAbdal-'AzIm mentioned about al-Bukharl's statement in die latter's Tdrlkh,i.e., "Abd Allah b. cAmIrah is not known to have heard from al-Ahnaf.'

111. I said, This hadlth, in addition to being narrated by thecompilers of the sunan collections, such as Abu Dawud, Ibn Majah,

83


al-Tirmidhi and others, has also been narrated via two other well-known channels. To criticise one of these does not amount to a validcriticism of the others.

112. So he responded, Does not this hadlth revolve around theperson of Ibn 'Amlrah, while al-Bukharl has already stated that hewas not known to have heard from al-Ahnaf?

113. I said, The great imam of imams, Ibn Khuzaymah, relatedthis hadlth in his Kitdb al-Tawhld, a book in which he stipulated thathe would adduce only those reports that had been passed on from onereliable transmitter to another, going all the way back to the Prophet.I added, Assertion [in matters such as the validity of a report] takesprecedence over denial. Al-Bukharl, meanwhile, simply denied that heknew of Ibn 'Amlrah's having heard from al-Ahnaf; he did not denythat other people might know of this. If someone else, such as theimam of imams, Ibn Khuzaymah, knows of an unbroken chain oftransmitters, his knowledge and his assertion are to be given prece-dence over the denial and lack of knowledge on the part of others.

114. The group then agreed on this. And some of them began toheap praise upon me in ways better left unmentioned.

115. Then they began to debate things that had not been men-tioned in the creed but which were related to some of the things thatI had said in response to [their] questions and in response to whatsome people may have understood from what was stated in thecreed. One of the chiefs among them brought forth al-Bayhaql'sKitdb al-Asmd' wa-al-sifdt, and said, This contains an allegoricalinterpretation (ta'wil) of the face (al-wajh) on the authority of theAncestors. I said, Perhaps you have in mind the Exalted's statement,'So whichever way you turn, there will be the face of God (fa-aynamdtuwallu fa-thamma tuajhu Allah).Xii He said, 'Yes; and Mujahidand al-ShafTl have said, "This means the direction of God {'qiblatAllAh)"-

116. I said: Yes. This is rightly attributed to Mujahid, al-ShafTland others. And this [interpretation] is correct. But this verse is notof the verses on divine attributes. Whoever considers it such, as oneparty does, is simply in error. For the context of these words point toits intended meaning: God says, 'And to God belongs the east andthe west. So whichever way you turn, there will be the face {wajh) ofGod.136 Now, the east and west are directions; and 'face' {wajh) here

135 2:115.136 2:115.

84


means direction. One says, 'Which face do you want,' meaning,'Which direction do you want [to go],' as one says, 'I want this face,'meaning, 'I want [to go in] this direction,' as the Exalted said, 'Everycommunity has a direction towards which it faces {wa-li-kullinwijhatun huwa muwalli-hd) .137 And because of this He said, 'Sowhichever way you turn, there will be the face of God', meaningwhichever way you face, whichever way you turn. God knows best.*And may He shower His blessings upon Muhammad.*

137 2:148.

85

ibn taymiyya on trial in damascus (sherman jackson)

Documents