Al-Naseeha Al-Thahabiyya: A Formal Investigation Using the Principles of the Laws of Evidence

8/9/2019 Al-Naseeha Al-Thahabiyya: A Formal Investigation Using the Principles of the Laws of Evidence

1/35

1

Al-Naseeha Al-ThahabiyyaA Formal Investigation Using the Principles of the Laws of Evidence

By Abdalla S. Alothman

IntroductionStructure of the Available ManuscriptThe Reasons For Investigating the LetterThe Analytical Methods Used for InspectionDating Letters in Islamic history

Problems With Al-Naseeha Al-Thahabiyya

The Significance of Al-Naseeha Under the Laws of EvidenceWelcome to the Sufi World of Deception!Enclosed Materials

Introduction

Al-Naseeha Al-Thahabiyya is the letter that was supposedly sent by Al-Thahabi to his teacher Ibn Taymiyya. None, amongst late scholarsconsidered it authentic. The Sufis deceitfully claim that two late scholarsencountered it: One of them didn't reject it, while the other praised it this deception will be discussed. Among recent scholars, only two amongthousands have considered it authentic.

What should be the general ruling on this letter? It is legally invalid. Payattention to legally, because in my approach I will resort to the

fundamentals of Evidence Laws that exist in universal legal proceedingsfound in the Islamic Jurisprudence (I don't mean fiqh, here, but ratherqadhaa-a, as if the letter is presented to a Qadhi/Judge).

The reason why I selected to legally inspect Al-Naseeha Al-Thahabiyya isbecause the Laws of Evidence are 100% in accord with common logic. Ifthe Laws of Evidence are illogical there would simply be no justiceanywhere in the world. Since Al-Naseeha Al-Thahabiyya is supposed to bea written communication between two parties, it is a perfect candidate topass through legal inspection.

However, at the end of this study, we will not only see that Al-Naseeha Al-Thahabiyya does not constitute to be a letter (or a message, or an epistle,or whatever flashy name the Sufis have used to describe Al-Naseeha), butthe evidence that will float while you are reading this paper will show thateven the Epistles of Paul are more genuine and authentic than Al-Naseeha.

Structure of the Available Manuscript

An image of the available manuscript of Al-Naseeha Al-Thahabiyya will beenclosed along with this document.

The document consists of the following:


2/35

2

1. A statement from the last copier Zahid Al-Kawthari (d. 1371 A.H.) where he states: "This is what I found in the handwriting of Ibn QadhiShubah (d. 851 A.H.): 'A letter from Al-Thahabi (d. 748 A.H.) to IbnTaymiyya which I copied from the handwriting of Burhan Ad-Deen bin

Jama'ah, who copied it from Abu Sa'eed bin Al-'Alaa-ee, who copied itfrom the handwriting of Al-Thahabi.' "

2. Following the above is the contents of the document that includes nodates, no names, no signatures, or anything.

3. After the document ends, the last copier immediately writes a couple ofnotes as if he was with Al-Thahabi when he supposedly wrote the letter.

The Reasons For Investigating the Letter

Attempting to prove that this message is genuine is in my opinion unnecessary, because it cannot be proven genuine and successfully

attributed to its supposed sender in the first place. In legal proceedings,

the burden of proof lies on the claimant (Sufis, etc.). However, inspecting

the document is certainly a delightful experience to whoever enjoys

watching the Sufis getting more and more bankrupt, and to whoever

enjoys knowing how the Sufis tailor their deceptions.

Analyzing the letter by Ahl Al-Sunnah has two purposes:

To defend Ibn Taymiyya

And defend Al-ThahabiAlthough it is supplementary, the defense of Ibn Taymiyya is takenseriously by Ahl Al-Sunnah because he operated on a lot of innovationsand deviated sects of today. However, the arguments and the richknowledge inherited from Ibn Taymiyya is considered separate from hispersona. Therefore, if the Sufis and the Ash'ariyya (and many others)discredit Ibn Taymiyya, the arguments he presented and the knowledgeinherited from him stand unshaken.

As for Al-Thahabi, the Sufis do not care how he appears, because he is ofno importance to them. What they consider important are the shaikhs whofly, walk on water, talk to horses, charm snakes, and such. Remember,Sufism is mysticism, it looks behind the text. People like Al-Thahabi andIbn Taymiyya stick to the text and do not exceed by approaching Sufi-likesuperstitions.

Therefore the Sufis and their likes do not care if Imam Al-Thahabi appearsas an unstable scholar of Islam where he presents hundreds of pages fullwith text that praises Ibn Taymiyya and lists his qualities and virtues, andthen he writes nonsensical letters like Al-Naseeha about his shaikh.

Also see the commentary preceding abiographical entry in the enclosedmaterials.


3/35

3

The Analytical Methods Used for Inspection

To sum up how this message is analyzed by Ahl Al-Sunnah, I noticed twopaths in discussing this message. I was guided by those two techniques to

extract two methods: The Elaborate Methodand the Formal Method.

The Elaborate Method is an exhausting analysis of the message thatproposes numerous valid and controversial possibilities, it also traces themessage and its beholders: the sender and the receiver, and uses a lot offormal techniques when desired.

The Elaborate Method also examines everything, from the title of theletter, (i.e., is Al-Thahabiyya a reference to Imam Al-Thahabi or is it wayto express the description of the letter? As to say: The Golden(thahabiyya) Advice (Naseeha)?) passes through it word by word,

analyzing every statement and linking it with possible conclusions.Furthermore, the style of the expressions present in the letter (which arevery harsh, while Al-Thahabi was known in his writings to be very gentle)is compared with the originator's available style throughout his writings.

The Formal Method relies on the formal given facts without suggestingany valid or invalid possibilities. The formal aspect of any writtencommunication consists of the usual elements found in a writtencommunication. Personally, I favor the Formal Method.

Further, In the Formal Method, the content of the message is not

investigated. Thus, we don't really care what the message talks about.Further, we don't delve into the personal details of the sender and thereceiver, because in this method they are nothing more than elements.

The elements are necessary fields, such as:

From: Xyz Date: Jan 5, 2010.To: Abc[contents of the message][closing of the message]

Xyz [Name / Signature / seal]

Thus, when we find this formality missing in Al-Naseeha which is

supposed to be apersonal letterfrom Al-Thahabi it would certainly be

perplexing and more doubtful, especially when we keep in mind that Al-

Thahabi is a highly learned scholar.

This type of formality existed many centuries before Al-Thahabi was

known, in fact we know for sure that it was a common norm in Islam

seven centuries before Al-Thahabi appeared.


4/35

4

A letter from the Messenger of Allah to Al-Munthir bin Sawi, the governor of Bahrain.

The green line shows that the letter starts with: "From Muhammad The Messenger of Allah"

The red line shows: "To Al-Munthir bin Sawi." The pointing finger in yellow is the sender's

SEAL.

Another letter from the Messenger of Allah to Heraclius, the Emperor of Byzantine.

The green line: "From Muhammad The Slave and Messenger of Allah."

The Red line: "To Heraclius, the great man of the Romans."

The blue pointing finger is pointing to the sender's SEAL.


5/35

5

Dating Letters in Islamic history

Dating written communications in Islam started during the reign of the

Caliph 'Umar bin Al-Khattab the story is recorded in Islamic history and

presented by many historians such asIbn Katheer in Volume 7 of his book

Al-Bidaaya Wan-Nihaaya. The first full dating took place in the year 16

A.H., before that the date included the day and month only.

That means that by the time of Al-Thahabi, adhering to the norms of

written communications was an established norm.

Problems With Al-Naseeha Al-Thahabiyya

The paper is not dated. Neither the name of the sender nor the receiver, are present at the top

of the letter as required by communication norms.

Further, the sender did not sign, seal, or even write his name at theend of the message.

There is absolutely no proof that the supposed receiver received themessage.

Under the light of the above discrepancies, if this letter is presented to

any court of law, it will be immediately discarded. The field of Islamicdetection and inspection of oral and textual reports, however, is muchmore complicated and less dismissive than any court of law.

In a court of law the authenticity of a communication is determined bythree main elements:

1. The Date of the Document

The date of the document guides the court or whoever is making ajudgment such as the audience in our case to any other position or

opinion made prior to or after the document. For example: X writes downall his negative impressions about Y in a letter dated May, 1, 1990. A yearlater, the problems X had with Y are solved and they become greatfriends, so X writes a flattering letter to Y on June 8, 1991.

Without the date, we can't determined whether there were any changesthat took place on X's negative impressions or that he changed his opinionor something.

When it comes to Al-Thahabi and Ibn Taymiyya, the given evidences showthat both scholars had an unusual relationship: Simply put, the writings of

Al-Thahabi on Ibn Taymiyya show that the former loved the latter.
http://ar.wikisource.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%A9_%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D9%87%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%A9/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D8%B2%D8%A1_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%B9/%D8%B5%D9%81%D8%AD%D8%A9_%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AD%D8%AF%D8%A9http://ar.wikisource.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%A9_%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D9%87%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%A9/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D8%B2%D8%A1_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%B9/%D8%B5%D9%81%D8%AD%D8%A9_%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AD%D8%AF%D8%A9http://ar.wikisource.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%A9_%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D9%87%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%A9/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D8%B2%D8%A1_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%B9/%D8%B5%D9%81%D8%AD%D8%A9_%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AD%D8%AF%D8%A9http://ar.wikisource.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%A9_%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D9%87%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%A9/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D8%B2%D8%A1_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%B9/%D8%B5%D9%81%D8%AD%D8%A9_%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AD%D8%AF%D8%A9http://ar.wikisource.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%A9_%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D9%87%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%A9/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D8%B2%D8%A1_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%B9/%D8%B5%D9%81%D8%AD%D8%A9_%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AD%D8%AF%D8%A9http://ar.wikisource.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%A9_%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D9%87%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%A9/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D8%B2%D8%A1_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%B9/%D8%B5%D9%81%D8%AD%D8%A9_%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AD%D8%AF%D8%A9


6/35

6

Therefore, the date is an essential requirement which is missing from Al-Naseeha.

2. The Source of the Document

The source of the document is the primary source of which the copieswhere produced from. It includes the sender's name, and his handwriting.

In Al-Naseeha Al-Thahabiyya, this element does not exist.

3. The Destination of the Document

The destination is the element which includes the letter that Ibn Taymiyyareceived which includes his name on the document.

In Al-Naseeha Al-Thahabiyya, this element also does not exist. There is no

proof that exists that shows Ibn Taymiyya received the document.Furthermore, the document does not include Ibn Taymiyya's name.

Let the court of law = The objective reader.Let Al-Thahabi = All those who reject Al-Naseeha Al-Thahabiyya.Let Ibn Taymiyya = All those who claim that Al-Naseeha is genuine.

Then: Consider Al-Naseeha as a dispute:

Al-Thahabi writes a letter where he openly insults and bashes IbnTaymiyya, and then he sends the letter to someone to copy it (Abu Sa'eed

Al-'Alaa-ee), who sends it to another one to copy it (Burhan Ad-Deen binJamaa'ah), who sends it to another person to copy it (Ibn Qadhi Shubha).The last copier writes his notes, and then publishes the letter. Afterwards,the first two copiers disappear, but the last one hangs around.

Ibn Taymiyya receives the letter, and decides to sue Al-Thahabi and asksfor a compensation by fining Al-Thahabi. Both attend in front of the judge.Ibn Taymiyya presents the letter. Al-Thahabi denies that the letteroriginated from him.

The judge looks at the letter and notices the three copiers, he asks Al-Thahabi: Where is the original letter you wrote? He replies: It doesn'texist. The judge asks: What date did you write this letter? He replies: Ididn't write in the first place.

If Ibn Taymiyya confronts Al-Thahabi by referring to the statements madein the document, Al-Thahabi can reply: "I did not intend addressing you."And when the judge looks at the letter, he wont find Ibn Taymiyya's nameor nickname or anything specific related to him.

If the judge calls Ibn Qadhi Shuhba as a witness, since he is the one whowrote: "A letter from Al-Thahabi to Ibn Taymiyya," Al-Thahabi can object,because any ruling cannot be based on any other party's personalconclusion or interpretation when the sender is already present --especially when we know that Ibn Qadhi Shuhba wasn't born when the


7/35

7

letter was supposedly written (Al-Thahabi died in 748 A.H., Ibn QadhiShuhba died 851 A.H.! That's more than a 103-year gap!)

But even if Ibn Qadhi Shuhba attends, the first question he will be askedis: Where is the source document you copied from? Unfortunately, it's

unavailable. That's why the Law of Evidence is useful.

The Significance of Al-Naseeha Under the Laws of Evidence

A universal subsystem of laws exists in every court of law. This subsystemis called The Law of Evidence it existed in Islamic litigation centuriesago and explained in almost all Islamic Fiqh (jurisprudence)encyclopedias. The modern Laws of Evidence present in almost any civilcountry are very much similar when it comes to written documents.

Since I am a Kuwaiti living in Kuwait, and since I'm familiar with our laws,

I will use the Kuwaiti Law of Evidence (KLE), but the reader can use anyLaw of Evidence for any country (the differences rarely apply to writtendocuments).

The set of laws in the Evidence of Law are basic and adhere to commonsense, especially when it comes to written documents.

Touring the Law of Evidence

Written communications addressed by the Law of Evidence come in twotypes:

1. Official Documents:

These documents confirm what a civilian or a public servant obliged todo during the execution a certain task and show the type of task thathas been executed by hand under the given legal circumstances andwithin the limits of his authority. The document becomes officialwhenever the authorized officers sign it, else it becomes a customarydocument. (SeeKLE, Article:8.)

The carried task present in an official document and committed by thesignee, and within his authorization, is contested by all disputingparties. (SeeKLE, Article:9)

A copy of an official document obtains the power of evidence as long asit matches the original copy. (SeeKLE, Article:10)

The copy of the original obtains its power as long as long as itsauthenticity is not challenged. (SeeKLE, Article:11)

Every copy of the original provides no evidence except for entertainingthe court. (SeeKLE, Article:11) (bad news for Al-Naseeha)
http://www.gcc-legal.org/MojPortalPublic/DisplayArticle.aspx?country=1&LawArticleID=2642http://www.gcc-legal.org/MojPortalPublic/DisplayArticle.aspx?country=1&LawArticleID=2642http://www.gcc-legal.org/MojPortalPublic/DisplayArticle.aspx?country=1&LawArticleID=2642http://www.gcc-legal.org/MojPortalPublic/DisplayArticle.aspx?country=1&LawArticleID=2643http://www.gcc-legal.org/MojPortalPublic/DisplayArticle.aspx?country=1&LawArticleID=2643http://www.gcc-legal.org/MojPortalPublic/DisplayArticle.aspx?country=1&LawArticleID=2643http://www.gcc-legal.org/MojPortalPublic/DisplayArticle.aspx?country=1&LawArticleID=2644http://www.gcc-legal.org/MojPortalPublic/DisplayArticle.aspx?country=1&LawArticleID=2644http://www.gcc-legal.org/MojPortalPublic/DisplayArticle.aspx?country=1&LawArticleID=2644http://www.gcc-legal.org/MojPortalPublic/DisplayArticle.aspx?country=1&LawArticleID=2645http://www.gcc-legal.org/MojPortalPublic/DisplayArticle.aspx?country=1&LawArticleID=2645http://www.gcc-legal.org/MojPortalPublic/DisplayArticle.aspx?country=1&LawArticleID=2645http://www.gcc-legal.org/MojPortalPublic/DisplayArticle.aspx?country=1&LawArticleID=2645http://www.gcc-legal.org/MojPortalPublic/DisplayArticle.aspx?country=1&LawArticleID=2645http://www.gcc-legal.org/MojPortalPublic/DisplayArticle.aspx?country=1&LawArticleID=2645http://www.gcc-legal.org/MojPortalPublic/DisplayArticle.aspx?country=1&LawArticleID=2645http://www.gcc-legal.org/MojPortalPublic/DisplayArticle.aspx?country=1&LawArticleID=2645http://www.gcc-legal.org/MojPortalPublic/DisplayArticle.aspx?country=1&LawArticleID=2644http://www.gcc-legal.org/MojPortalPublic/DisplayArticle.aspx?country=1&LawArticleID=2643http://www.gcc-legal.org/MojPortalPublic/DisplayArticle.aspx?country=1&LawArticleID=2642


8/35

8

2. Customary Documents:

The originating source of the customary document is attributed towhoever signed it, sealed it, or stamped it with his fingerprint, unlessthe originating source clearly denies the document. (See KLE,

Article:13)

The customary document cannot be contested upon others unless it hasa fixed date inserted by the originator or another party designated bythe originator. (SeeKLE, Article:14)

Signed letters (Messages, etc.) are considered customary papers.Telegraphs possess the same consideration, if the submitted originalcopy is signed by the sender, and the originally submitted documentmatches the telegraph. If the original submitted document does notexist, it serves to entertain the court but not used as evidence. (See

KLE, Article:16)

Applying the Law of Evidence to Al-Naseeha

Al-Naseeha Al-Thahabiyya is a mixture of both document types. It is anofficial document because it has been published, thus the communicationis no longer private between two parties. Al-Naseeha is also a customarydocument, because in its original form is it nothing more than a personalcommunication between two parties.

Notice that we don't really need the actual law, we just need to test the

validity and the authenticity of the document using the principles of theLaw of Evidence.

In a nutshell:

Al-Naseeha Al-Thahabiyya is not dated. It does not contain the name of the sender. The sender did not sign it. The original copy (and reproduced copies) does not exist. The handwriting of the sender cannot be compared with the published

copy.

Thus, under the Laws of Evidence, Al-Naseeha Al-Thahabiyya

becomes an attractive VIP for every trashcan.

We can close the case here, but we should continue in weakening itfurther by showing the greasy, high-calorie Sufi deception!

Welcome to the Sufi World of Deception!

We will first take a look at how the Sufis interact with Al-Naseeha:
http://www.gcc-legal.org/MojPortalPublic/DisplayArticle.aspx?country=1&LawArticleID=2647http://www.gcc-legal.org/MojPortalPublic/DisplayArticle.aspx?country=1&LawArticleID=2647http://www.gcc-legal.org/MojPortalPublic/DisplayArticle.aspx?country=1&LawArticleID=2647http://www.gcc-legal.org/MojPortalPublic/DisplayArticle.aspx?country=1&LawArticleID=2648http://www.gcc-legal.org/MojPortalPublic/DisplayArticle.aspx?country=1&LawArticleID=2648http://www.gcc-legal.org/MojPortalPublic/DisplayArticle.aspx?country=1&LawArticleID=2648http://www.gcc-legal.org/MojPortalPublic/DisplayArticle.aspx?country=1&LawArticleID=2650http://www.gcc-legal.org/MojPortalPublic/DisplayArticle.aspx?country=1&LawArticleID=2650http://www.gcc-legal.org/MojPortalPublic/DisplayArticle.aspx?country=1&LawArticleID=2650http://www.gcc-legal.org/MojPortalPublic/DisplayArticle.aspx?country=1&LawArticleID=2648http://www.gcc-legal.org/MojPortalPublic/DisplayArticle.aspx?country=1&LawArticleID=2647http://www.gcc-legal.org/MojPortalPublic/DisplayArticle.aspx?country=1&LawArticleID=2647


9/35

9

28. Bayan Zaghl al-Ìlm wa al-Talab in which al-Dhahabi states: "Ibn Taymiyya was consideredby his enemies to be a wicked Anti-Christ and disbeliever, while great numbers of the wise and theelite considered him an eminent, brilliant, and scholarly innovator (mubtadi` fadil muhaqqiq bari`)."33

29. An epistle entitled al-Nasiha al-Dhahabiyya written when al-Dhahabi was around fifty-five

years of age and addressed to Ibn Taymiyya towards the end of his life. In this brief butscathing epistle the author distances himself from his contemporary and admonishes him withoutnaming him, calling him "an eloquent polemicist who neither rests nor sleeps."34 A "Salafi" apologistrecently cast doubt on the authenticity of al-Dhahabi's authorship of this epistle, also claiming that,

even if al-Dhahabi wrote it, then it is directed to someone other than Ibn Taymiyya. 35 However,both Salah al-Din al-Munajjid and Dr. Bashshar Àwwad Ma`ruf declared that there was no

doubt al-Dhahabi wrote it towards the end of his life and addressed Ibn Taymiyya.36 IbnHajar voiced no doubt as to the authenticity of this epistle as attributed to al-Dhahabi,37 nor al-Sakhawi who calls it "a glorious statement of doctrine."38 [Source]

Let's comment on some of the foolishness those people say:

28. Bayan Zaghl al-Ìlm wa al-Talab in which al-Dhahabi states: "Ibn Taymiyya was consideredby his enemies to be a wicked Anti-Christ and disbeliever, while great numbers of the wise and theelite considered him an eminent, brilliant, and scholarly innovator (mubtadi` fadil muhaqqiq bari`)."

I don't know if the writer of this joke was sketching his opinion during aloud Sufi dancing ritual or some other weird Sufi ceremony. Of course IbnTaymiyya was considered a liar and a dajjal and even more, but by hisenemies. If the Sufi expects Ibn Taymiyya's enemies to consider him anangel or a teddy bear, then I guess he needs serious help.

"An epistle entitled al-Nasiha al-Dhahabiyya written when al-Dhahabi was around fifty-fiveyears of age and addressed to Ibn Taymiyya towards the end of his life. In this brief butscathing epistle the author distances himself from his contemporary and admonishes him without

naming him"

[A]. First, it is not an epistle. It can't be an epistle since it doesn't havethe name of the sender and the name of the receiver. Even the Epistlesof Paul are properly addressed than this so called Epistle!

[B]. How did they know that Al-Thahabi was 55 when he supposedly wrotethe letter? No clue. In The Sufi Land of Wonders, everything is possible!

[C]. They say that the letter is addressed to Ibn Taymiyya. Butsurprisingly they admit that Ibn Taymiyya's name never appears oncethroughout the contents of the so called letter.

However, both Salah al-Din al-Munajjid and Dr. Bashshar Àwwad Ma`ruf declared that therewas no doubt al-Dhahabi wrote it towards the end of his life and addressed Ibn

Taymiyya.36

[A] Again, "towards the end of his life" in this context proposes areference to Al-Thahabi. Was the letter that Al-Thahabi supposedly wrotewas written towards the end of Al-Thahabi's life, or was it written towards

the end of Ibn Taymiyya's life? Ibn Taymiyya died in 728 A.H. while Al-Thahabi died in 748 A.H. and he was born in 673 A.H. So if he wrote the
http://www.sunnah.org/history/Scholars/al_dhahabi.htmhttp://www.sunnah.org/history/Scholars/al_dhahabi.htmhttp://www.sunnah.org/history/Scholars/al_dhahabi.htmhttp://www.sunnah.org/history/Scholars/al_dhahabi.htm


10/35

10

letter in 728 (The year Ibn Taymiyya died) he was 55, and lived 20 moreyears. That doesn't sound as the "end" of anybody's life.

[B] They make a conclusion based on two references, one by Salah Ad-Deen Al-Munajjid, and the other by Dr. Bashar Awwad. But they list one,

and dismiss the other: "36. Cf. Bashshar `Awwad Ma`ruf, al-Dhahabi (p. 146)."

As for Salah Ad-Deen Al-Munajjid, that's what he really declared:

..

] .14 [

"Some have doubtedthe attribution of this 'Naseeha/Advice' to Al-Thahabi, but I have no doubtsthat it belongs to Al-Thahabi because its manuscripts had been copied from the handwriting of Al-Thahabi and none of the scholars who copied it such as Ibn Qadhi Shubha have denied it. Inaddition, this is Al-Thahabi's style when he attacks, and though it appears that he wrote theletter at the end of his life. And nobody has flattered and praised Ibn Taymiyya like the way Al-Thahabi did, but he criticized Ibn Taymiyya in some issues for the sake of his love to Ibn Taymiyyaand sympathy." [ Shaikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya, by Salah Ad-Deen Al-Munajjid, P. 14]

As for Bashar 'Awwad Ma'rouf, that's what he declared:)(...

...

[ ]10214661.

" Al-Sakhawi is the only one who referred to that letter , and that made it possible toattribute the letter to Al-Thahabi, even though more than one have doubted it."

He Also says: " and some have considered it a forgery, but I see no use in that." [Al-Thahabi wa-Manhajuhu fee Kitabat Tareekh Al-Islam, By Dr. Bashar Awwad Ma'rouf. P. 61,102, 146]

The perplexing issue is that Al-Munajjid suggests that Al-Thahabi

supposedly wrote the letter at the end of his life. Notice Al-Munajjid doesnot even mention any numbers like 55. But anyway, if Al-Thahabi wrotethat letter at the end of his life, the receiver (Ibn Taymiyya) was alreadydead.

But if Al-Thahabi wrote it towards the end of Ibn Taymiyya's life, thenthree copiers would have known about it as well as the guards of the jail,because the royal creed dictates that Ibn Taymiyya should rarely interactwith the outside world (seeIbn Katheer, V. 14). The royal creed forbadeIbn Taymiyya from issuing any rulings (Fatwa), therefore when hereceives a letter from the outside world, the jailers would regularly open it

and verify that it is not a request for a Fatwa. So if the jailers saw Al-
http://ar.wikisource.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%A9_%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D9%87%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%A9/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D8%B2%D8%A1_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%B9_%D8%B9%D8%B4%D8%B1/%D8%AB%D9%85_%D8%AF%D8%AE%D9%84%D8%AA_%D8%B3%D9%86%D8%A9_%D8%B3%D8%AA_%D9%88%D8%B9%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%86_%D9%88%D8%B3%D8%A8%D8%B9%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%A6%D8%A9http://ar.wikisource.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%A9_%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D9%87%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%A9/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D8%B2%D8%A1_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%B9_%D8%B9%D8%B4%D8%B1/%D8%AB%D9%85_%D8%AF%D8%AE%D9%84%D8%AA_%D8%B3%D9%86%D8%A9_%D8%B3%D8%AA_%D9%88%D8%B9%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%86_%D9%88%D8%B3%D8%A8%D8%B9%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%A6%D8%A9http://ar.wikisource.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%A9_%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D9%87%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%A9/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D8%B2%D8%A1_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%B9_%D8%B9%D8%B4%D8%B1/%D8%AB%D9%85_%D8%AF%D8%AE%D9%84%D8%AA_%D8%B3%D9%86%D8%A9_%D8%B3%D8%AA_%D9%88%D8%B9%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%86_%D9%88%D8%B3%D8%A8%D8%B9%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%A6%D8%A9http://ar.wikisource.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%A9_%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D9%87%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%A9/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D8%B2%D8%A1_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%B9_%D8%B9%D8%B4%D8%B1/%D8%AB%D9%85_%D8%AF%D8%AE%D9%84%D8%AA_%D8%B3%D9%86%D8%A9_%D8%B3%D8%AA_%D9%88%D8%B9%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%86_%D9%88%D8%B3%D8%A8%D8%B9%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%A6%D8%A9


11/35

11

Thahabi's letter, they would spread the news much faster than a whirlingSufi dancing in fast motion.

|| Note ||The Intent Behind Obfuscating"Towards the End of His Life"

As it is apparent from what we quoted from the Sufis, they intentionally

bewilder their audience regarding the period the letter was written by its

supposed original author. From nowhere, the calaimed that Al-Thahabi was 55.

In their first usage, they say: "when al-Dhahabi was around fifty-five years of age

and addressed to Ibn Taymiyya towards the end of his life." In their second usage,

they say: "However, both Salah al-Din al-Munajjid and Dr. Bashshar `Awwad Ma`ruf

declared that there was no doubt al-Dhahabi wrote it towards the end of his life

and addressed Ibn Taymiyya."The trick is where " Ibn Taymiyya" is positioned: In the first instance, it precedes

"towards the end of his life," while in the second instance it proceeds "towards the

end of his life." This is not a mere coincidence by those specific Sufis, they are

used to tricking their readers. The first instance serves to convey that Al-

Thahabi wrote the letter at the end of Ibn Taymiya's life. While the second

instance suggest that Al-Thahabi wrote it towards the end of his own life.

The reason why this obfuscation was inserted by the Sufis is because they

really want to consider Al-Naseeha as a form of evidence, but they know for a

fact that it is not dated. Also, notice how they capitalize on "addressed to Ibn

Taymiyya," because they know that addressing the receiver is a requirement inevery letter and it doesn't exist in their artifact. When it comes to the date, the

poor Sufis do not have it. So they give themselves the permission to make up

ideas that Al-Thahabi was 55 and rely on others who made conclusions based

on misleading information. Further, both instances are locks to counter and

avoid the embarrassment when obvious objections are raised:

1. If Al-Thahabi (d. 748 A.H.) wrote the letter towards the end of his life, then

this would be a time when Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 A.H.) was dead.

2. If Al-Thahabi wrote the letter towards the end of Ibn Taymiyya's life, then

they will certainly be confronted by the massive works of Al-Thahabi, which arebiographies that flatter and praise Ibn Taymiyya in his books: Thayl Tareekh

Al-Islam, Tabaqat Al-Huffaath, Mu'jam Shiyookh Al-Thahabi, and including an

entire book titled," Al-Durra Al-Yatamiyya, fee seerat Ibn Taymiyya." Not to

mention that he wrote a sadpost-death bemoaning poem (marthiyya)on his

shaikh Ibn Taymiyya. Not to mention that a lot of the works of Ibn Taymiyya

came to us through Al-Thahabi. ALL these works were made after Ibn

Taymiyya's death.

Furthermore, both Al-Munajjid and Dr. Bashar have made it clear that

there were doubts regarding this so called letter, but the Sufis said thatthose two declared that there were no doubts! Also Dr. Bashar gives the


12/35

12

reason why he considers this authentic: Because Al-Sakhawi made areference to it no one else other than Al-Sakhawi. So from where didthe Sufis conclude that Ibn Hajar " voiced no doubt as to the authenticity of this epistleas attributed to al-Dhahabi?" We will see that shortly. But first we should inspect

what Al-Sakhawi presented in his book!

Al-Sakhaawi:

The reference given for Al-Sakhawi was cited by the Sufis: " 38In al-I`lan waal-Tawbikh (p. 77=54)." Now, when you go to that book (which is availableonline) you will see that Al-Sakhawi was pointing to Bayan Zaghl Al-'Ilm,not Al-Naseeha Al-Thahabiyya Al-Sakhawi never mentions Al-NaseehaAl-Thahabiyya, and he doesn't quote a single word from it. So what madethose two scholars, Al-Munajjid and Bashar Awad claim that Al-Sakhawipointed to Al-Naseeha? The were mislead by Al-Kawathari, the deceiverwho has serious psychological problems.

This is what Al-Sakhawi said:

... )... (

"And I (Al-Sakhawi) have seen a letter that Al-Thahabi wrote to Ibn Taymiyya to show that he (Al-Thahabi) has no fanaticism towards Ibn Taymiyya, where he once said about him. (Quoting ZaghlAl-'ilm)." [Al-I'lan Bit-Tawbeekh, by Al-Sakhawi, p. 136]

What happens is that Al-Kawthari twisted Al-Sakhawi's defense of Al-Thahabi, and made the statement appear as if Al-Sakhawi saw both, Al-Naseeha and Bayan Zaghl Al-'Ilm, when Al-Sakhawi only intended to referto Zaghl Al-'ilm, with the proof that he didn't quote a single word from Al-Naseeha.

Ibn Hajar Al-'Asqalani:

The also cited Al-Durrar Al-Kamina by Ibn Hajr Al-'Asqalani, andconcluded: "Ibn Hajar voiced no doubt as to the authenticity of this epistle as attributed to al-Dhahabi,37" When you go to 37, it is: 37. In al-Durar al-Kamina (1:166). And theyhave taken the liberty to translate that passage:

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (d. 852/1449; Rahimahullah) recorded al-Dhahabi assaying in his al-Durar al-Kamina (1,161): "People who know him well sometimes accuse me offailing to do justice; his opponents sometimes charge me with puffery. I have been abused by bothparties-his supporters and his adversaries. (His hair and beard were salt-and pepper coloured,containing little grey, his hair reaching his ear lobes. His eyes were like eloquent tongues. Ofmedium height, he was broad shouldered and had a loud, expressive voice and was quick ofspeech). Though anger would sometimes grip him, he would conquer it with forbearance. I have notseen his like for supplications and appeals and for his abundant concern for others. But I do notbelieve him to be infallible; indeed, I disagree with him on both basic and secondary issues. For,despite his vast learning, his extreme courage, his fluid mind, and his regard for the sanctities of

religion, he was but a man."
http://www.sunnah.org/history/Scholars/al_dhahabi.htm#NOTEShttp://www.sunnah.org/history/Scholars/al_dhahabi.htm#NOTEShttp://www.sunniforum.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-2889.htmlhttp://www.sunniforum.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-2889.htmlhttp://www.sunniforum.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-2889.htmlhttp://www.sunniforum.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-2889.htmlhttp://www.sunniforum.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-2889.htmlhttp://www.sunnah.org/history/Scholars/al_dhahabi.htm#NOTES


13/35

13

Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani also recorded al-Dhahabi as saying in al-Durar al-

Kamina (1,161): "In discussion he would be possessed by rage, anger, and hostility against hisadversaries, which implanted enmity in their spirits. If he had only treated his antagonists with civility,they would have been reconciled with him, for the most notable of them deferred to his learning,acknowledged his ardent zeal, and agreed that his lapses were few."

Here is a portion of the original passage in Arabic:

"...

."In reality, the two passages are one. Therefore, both passages should belinked instead of splitting them up: ".. Due to his high regard for the sanctities ofreligion, he was a human like every other human, where in discussion he would be subjected tosharpness in researching the matter discussed, anger, and harshness towards his opponents. If he

would only treat his opponents with more kindness (lutf), they would have agreed with him"

Anyway, I personally fail to see how this passage is a reference to Al-Naseeha Al-Thahabiyya which is cruel and unfair. The way I see it is thatIbn Hajar voiced nullin regards to Al-Naseeha Al-Thahabiyya.

Also, the tarjama (biographical entry) that Ibn Hajar reported from Al-Thahabi has been reported and is present in several other books that arededicated to the virtues and qualities of Ibn Taymiyya (Like Al-'Uqood Al-Durriyya, and is also copied by Ibn Rajab Al-Hanbali in his books Thayl(tail) Tabaqat Al-Hanabila (V.2) none of those many others proposed

that Al-Thahabi hated Ibn Taymiyya as suggested by Al-Naseeha Al-Thahabiyya. Moreover, most of the people we mentioned were Al-Thahabi's companions who studied along with him under Ibn Taymiyya so they are the closest witnesses one can have.

Thus, the Sufi claim that: "Ibn Hajar voiced no doubt as to the authenticity of this epistleas attributed to al-Dhahabi," appears nothing more than wishful thinking that's

worthy of discarding.

Among the references they cited:

35. Muhammad al-Shaybani, al-Tawdih al-Jali fi al-Radd `ala al-Nasiha al-Dhahabiyya al-Manhula `ala al-Imam al-Dhahabi (al-Kuwait: Markaz al-Makhtutat wa al-Turath, 1993). This

type of revisionist scholarship is reminiscent of the story-teller who was caught by Imam

Ahmad saying: "Ahmad ibn Hanbal narrated to us..." whereupon the unfazed fibber replied:

"I meant another Ahmad ibn Hanbal, not you!"

That's the habitual Sufi response when they are crippled: They alwaysresort to mockery. And they forget that they are the whirling dervishes.

It should be noted that the Sufi author whom we mostly quoted is astudent of Nazim Al-Haqqani who is quite popular on YouTube, yet he

doesn't hesitate mocking others who are definitely more rational than hisShaikh.
http://www.sunnah.org/history/Scholars/al_dhahabi.htmhttp://www.sunnah.org/history/Scholars/al_dhahabi.htmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoE-ZhsZk3khttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoE-ZhsZk3khttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoE-ZhsZk3khttp://www.sunnah.org/history/Scholars/al_dhahabi.htm


14/35

14

There is, however, another book by Muhammad Abdullah Ahmad Al-Quwnawi, titled: "Adhwaa-a 'ala Al-Risaala Al-Mansouba ilaa Al-Hafith Al-Thahabi," ( ( published in 1423A.H. (2002 C.E.) The book is pretty comprehensive, yet maintains a

very reasonable size. In fact, I copied the text of Al-Naseeha from thatbook, which shows how the letter looks like by including the openingwhichthe Sufis were hiding. (Please refer to the enclosed materials.)

Wal Hamdulillaahi Rabbil 'Alameen

Abdalla S. Alothman

) (

Kuwait, May 12, 2010
http://www.mediafire.com/?byymd3dwm1ehttp://www.mediafire.com/?byymd3dwm1ehttp://www.alsunna.org/rsaalah-aaldhhby-labn-tymyah.htmlhttp://www.alsunna.org/rsaalah-aaldhhby-labn-tymyah.htmlhttp://www.alsunna.org/rsaalah-aaldhhby-labn-tymyah.htmlhttp://www.alsunna.org/rsaalah-aaldhhby-labn-tymyah.htmlhttp://www.mediafire.com/?byymd3dwm1e


15/35

15

Al-Naseeha Al-Thahabiyya in its original manuscript in Arabic text, published forthe first time by it's copier Al-Kawthari in 1347 A.H. (1928 C.E.). The opening(surrounded by red) includes a word from Ibn Qadhi Shuhba, stating that he copiedthe letter with his handwriting based on a copy by Burhan Ad-Deen bin Jamaa'ah,who copied it from the handwriting of Abu Sa'eed bin Al-'Alaa-ee and later sent toIbn Jamaa'ah, who copied it from a copy [that was supposedly found] from Al-ImamAl-Thahabi.

All this is present in the Arabic text but it was dismissed in the English translationsfor obvious reasons.


16/35

16

The green line indicates where the message is terminated. The rest that follows are notesby Al-Kawthari. These notes confused many people including Salah Ad-Deen Al-Munajjiidand Dr. Bashar Awwad. The intention of the notes was to portray the document as avery popular one.


17/35

17

The Arabic text of Al-Naseeha Al-Thahabiyya

The first paragraph highlighted in purple is the opening that details whocopied from who.

::((

:

.

.

.:

:.

..

.:

.

)(.

...

.

.

.


18/35

18

.

.

.:

!

(( ..

The English translation of Al-Naseeha Al-Thahabiyya

Notice how they omit the opening paragraph in order to show that themessage was directly originated by Al-Thahabi in the headings.

Source:http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/dhahabi.htm

Letter from Hafiz Imam al-Dhahabito his former sheikh, Ibn Taymiyyaal-Nasihah al-Dhahabia li ibn Taymiyya(Sincere Advice to Ibn Taymiyya, Maktab al-Misria 18863)

In the Name of Allah Most Merciful and Compassionate.

Praise be to Allah for my lowliness. O Lord, have mercy on me, diminishmy mistakes, and preserve my Iman for me. What sadness at my lack of

sadness; what sorrow over the sunna and the departure of its people;what longing for believing brothers to share with me in weeping; whatgrief over the loss of people who were light-giving lamps of SacredKnowledge, men of taqwa, and treasure-troves of every good; alas for notfinding a dirhem that is halaal or a brother who is loving.

Great good tidings to him whose own faults divert him from those ofothers, and woe to whom the faults of others divert him from his own.

How long will you see the speck in your brother's eye and forget the login your own? How long will you praise yourself, your prattle, your style,

while blaming religious scholars and searching out people's shameful
http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/dhahabi.htmhttp://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/dhahabi.htmhttp://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/dhahabi.htmhttp://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/dhahabi.htm


19/35

19

points, knowing as you do that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give himpeace) forbade it saying:

"Mention not your dead save with good, for they have gone onto whatthey have sent ahead."

Of course, I realise that you will defend yourself by telling me the attacksare only for those who've never smelled the scent of Islam and don't knowwhat Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace) brought and that isyour jihad. Not so, by Allah those who you attack know what is evenbetter than the amount that suffices if the servant acts on it to make himsucceed. Moreover, they are ignorant of a great deal that does notconcern them. And "the excellence of a persons Islam includes leavingwhat does not concern him." By Allah man! Give us respite from you, foryou are an eloquent polemicist who neither rests nor sleeps. Beware ofdoubt-creating, problematic religious questions. Our Prophet (Allah bless

him and give him peace) was offended by too many questions, found faultwith them, and forbade excessive asking. He also said:

"The thing I fear most for my people is the eloquent hypocrite."

Too much talking, if free of mistakes, hardens the heart when it concernsthe halaal and haraam. So how should it be when it concerns the words ofthe Yunusiyya, the philosophers, and expressions of kufr, which makehearts go blind? By Allah, we've become a laughing stock in existence.How long will you disinter the details of philosophical expressions of kufrfor us to refute with our minds? You've swallowed, man, the poison of the

philosophers and of their works more than once; and by too much usingof a poison one's constitution gets addicted. It collects, by Allah, in thebody.

O, what longing for a group among whom the Qur'an is recited withreflection, where awe is experienced through its meditation, where thereis silence from its contemplation. O, what longing for an assembly wherethe pious are mentioned, for mercy descends where the righteous peopleare remembered, not where the righteous are spoken of with contemptand curses. The sword of al-Hajjaj and the tongue of Ibn Hazm werebrothers [ie no Muslims was safe from them], and now you have joinedthe family. By Allah, give us a break from talking about "the bid`a ofThursday", and "eating the grains", and rather make a serious effort toremember the bid`as we used to consider the source of all misguidance,which have now become the "genuine sunna" and the "basis of tawhid",and whoever doesn't know them is a Kafir, or a donkey, and whoeverdoesn't call him a Kafir is a bigger Kafir than Pharaoh. You consider thevery Christians like us.

By Allah, there are misgivings in hearts. You are fortunate if your faith inthe two shahadahs has remained unscathed. Oh the disappointment ofhim who follows you, for he is exposed to corruption in basic beliefs andto dissolution. Particularly if he is short of learning and religion, a self-

indulgent idler who does well for you by fighting on your behalf with hishand and tongue, while he is actually your enemy in his being and heart.


20/35

20

What are your followers but hidebound do-nothings of little intelligence,common liars with dull minds, silent outlanders strong in guile, or drylyrighteous without understanding? If you don't believe it, just look at themand honestly assess them.

The donkey of your lusts, O Muslim, has stepped forward to applaud yourself. How long will you dote on your ego and attack the finest people? Howlong will you credit it, and disdain the pious? How long will you exalt it,and despise the devotees? How long will you be its closest friend, anddetest the abstinent? How long will you praise your own words in amanner you do not even use for the Sahihs of Bukhari and Muslim? Wouldthat the hadiths of the two Sahihs were safe from you, as you continuallyattack them, by suggesting weakness, considering them fair game, orwith figurative explanations and denial. Hasn't the time come to give up?Is it not it time to repent and atone? Aren't you at that tenth of a man'slife when he reaches seventy years and the final departure has drawn

near? Indeed, By Allah, I don't recall that you remember death much. Yousneer at whoever remembers death. So I don't think you'll take to mywords or hear my exhortation. You will, instead, probably show greatenergy and concern to demolish this piece of paper with weighty volumes,snipping off the ends of my sentences for me until you gain the upperhand and can close the argument with a triumphant "...at all. And he wassilent."

If this is how you stand in my eyes, and I am someone sympathetic toyou, fond and affectionate, how do you think you stand with yourenemies? By Allah among your enemies, there are the righteous and

intelligent men and virtuous ones, just as among your friends there arethe wicked, liars, ignoramuses, layabouts, the vile, and cattle.

I can accept that you should publicly disparage me, while secretlybenefiting from what I have said. "May Allah have mercy on the man whoshows me my faults" [words attributed to `Umar (Allah be pleased withhim)]. For I have many faults and sins, and woe to me if I myself do notrepent, and how enormous my disgrace from Him who knows the Hidden.The sole remedy for me is the forgiveness of Allah and His clemency, Hisgiving success and His guidance.

Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds. Allah bless our lieglord Muhammad,the Last of the Prophets, his folk and companions one and all.

The Bemoaning Poem Al-Thahabi Authored to His Shaikh Ibn Taymiyya

It is a sad post-death poem where Al-Thahabi praises and flatters Ibn Taymiyyaafter he passed away. The poem appeared in a couple of early references such as Al-Rad Al-Waafir, by Ibn Naser Al-Dimashqi, Al-'Uqood Al-Durriyya, by Muhammadbin Abd Al-Hadi, and finallyAl-Risala Al-Zakiyya, by Mar'i bin Yusuf Al-Hanbali.

The reader can find the poem by searching the books above with the followingsearch string: " " (Al-Thahabi starts the poem with: "O! Death")
http://ar.wikisource.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%AF_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%B1_%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89_%D9%85%D9%86_%D8%B2%D8%B9%D9%85_%D8%A3%D9%86_%D9%85%D9%86_%D8%B3%D9%85%D9%89_%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%86_%D8%AA%D9%8A%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A9_%D8%B4%D9%8A%D8%AE_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85_%D9%83%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%B1http://ar.wikisource.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%AF_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%B1_%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89_%D9%85%D9%86_%D8%B2%D8%B9%D9%85_%D8%A3%D9%86_%D9%85%D9%86_%D8%B3%D9%85%D9%89_%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%86_%D8%AA%D9%8A%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A9_%D8%B4%D9%8A%D8%AE_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85_%D9%83%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%B1http://ar.wikisource.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%82%D9%88%D8%AF_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9_%D9%85%D9%86_%D9%85%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%82%D8%A8_%D8%B4%D9%8A%D8%AE_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85_%D8%A3%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF_%D8%A8%D9%86_%D8%AA%D9%8A%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A9/27http://ar.wikisource.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%82%D9%88%D8%AF_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9_%D9%85%D9%86_%D9%85%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%82%D8%A8_%D8%B4%D9%8A%D8%AE_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85_%D8%A3%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF_%D8%A8%D9%86_%D8%AA%D9%8A%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A9/27http://ar.wikisource.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A9_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B2%D9%83%D9%8A%D8%A9_%D9%81%D9%8A_%D8%AB%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%A1_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%A6%D9%85%D8%A9_%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89_%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%86_%D8%AA%D9%8A%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A9http://ar.wikisource.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A9_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B2%D9%83%D9%8A%D8%A9_%D9%81%D9%8A_%D8%AB%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%A1_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%A6%D9%85%D8%A9_%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89_%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%86_%D8%AA%D9%8A%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A9http://ar.wikisource.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A9_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B2%D9%83%D9%8A%D8%A9_%D9%81%D9%8A_%D8%AB%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%A1_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%A6%D9%85%D8%A9_%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89_%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%86_%D8%AA%D9%8A%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A9http://ar.wikisource.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A9_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B2%D9%83%D9%8A%D8%A9_%D9%81%D9%8A_%D8%AB%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%A1_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%A6%D9%85%D8%A9_%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89_%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%86_%D8%AA%D9%8A%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A9http://ar.wikisource.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%82%D9%88%D8%AF_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9_%D9%85%D9%86_%D9%85%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%82%D8%A8_%D8%B4%D9%8A%D8%AE_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85_%D8%A3%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF_%D8%A8%D9%86_%D8%AA%D9%8A%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A9/27http://ar.wikisource.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%AF_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%B1_%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89_%D9%85%D9%86_%D8%B2%D8%B9%D9%85_%D8%A3%D9%86_%D9%85%D9%86_%D8%B3%D9%85%D9%89_%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%86_%D8%AA%D9%8A%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A9_%D8%B4%D9%8A%D8%AE_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85_%D9%83%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%B1


21/35

21

" "

:

:

)1(

))3 )2( )4(

))5

" 9 )1(

. " )2(

. . )3( )4(

.. )5(
http://mosa1390.jeeran.com/archive/2009/3/840289.htmlhttp://ar.wikisource.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%AF_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%B1_%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89_%D9%85%D9%86_%D8%B2%D8%B9%D9%85_%D8%A3%D9%86_%D9%85%D9%86_%D8%B3%D9%85%D9%89_%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%86_%D8%AA%D9%8A%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A9_%D8%B4%D9%8A%D8%AE_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85_%D9%83%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%B1http://ar.wikisource.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%AF_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%B1_%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89_%D9%85%D9%86_%D8%B2%D8%B9%D9%85_%D8%A3%D9%86_%D9%85%D9%86_%D8%B3%D9%85%D9%89_%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%86_%D8%AA%D9%8A%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A9_%D8%B4%D9%8A%D8%AE_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85_%D9%83%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%B1http://ar.wikisource.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%AF_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%B1_%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89_%D9%85%D9%86_%D8%B2%D8%B9%D9%85_%D8%A3%D9%86_%D9%85%D9%86_%D8%B3%D9%85%D9%89_%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%86_%D8%AA%D9%8A%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A9_%D8%B4%D9%8A%D8%AE_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85_%D9%83%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%B1http://ar.wikisource.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%AF_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%B1_%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89_%D9%85%D9%86_%D8%B2%D8%B9%D9%85_%D8%A3%D9%86_%D9%85%D9%86_%D8%B3%D9%85%D9%89_%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%86_%D8%AA%D9%8A%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A9_%D8%B4%D9%8A%D8%AE_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85_%D9%83%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%B1http://ar.wikisource.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%AF_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%B1_%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89_%D9%85%D9%86_%D8%B2%D8%B9%D9%85_%D8%A3%D9%86_%D9%85%D9%86_%D8%B3%D9%85%D9%89_%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%86_%D8%AA%D9%8A%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A9_%D8%B4%D9%8A%D8%AE_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85_%D9%83%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%B1http://mosa1390.jeeran.com/archive/2009/3/840289.htmlhttp://mosa1390.jeeran.com/archive/2009/3/840289.html


22/35

22

Why The Sufis Target Al-Thahabi Specifically

We present here a typical biographical entry for Ibn Taymiyya by IbnRajab Al-Hanbali from his book Thayl Tabaqat Al-Hanabila, V.2.

The purpose of displaying this entry is to show that most of the scholarswho introduced a biography for Ibn Taymiyya relied heavily on Al-Thahabi's works (mentioned in the entry below). Notice that Ibn Rajabwas also Ibn Taymiyya's student, as was Muhammad bin Abdil-Hadi whowrote a book about Ibn Taymiyya (Al-'Uqood Al-Durriyya) and relied onAl-Thahabi's reports.

Therefore, when the Sufis and their likes try to shake Al-Thahabi's opinionon Ibn Taymiyya, the goal is to defy the good things said about IbnTaymiyya, because most of the praising comes from Al-Thahabi.

If the Sufis cannot distract their audience from the goodness found inthose reports (which are relatively very huge chunks of texts found inencyclopedias and books on Ibn Taymiyya by Al-Thahabi), the least theycan achieve is to portray Al-Thahabi as an unstable person who hadcontrary views about Ibn Taymiyya.

Note that Al-Thahabi was bright, he was one of the top historians andbiographers in Islam. But as mentioned, the Sufis care less about thescholars of Islam, what attracts their attention are so called shaikhs whofly, and who appear in more than one place at the same time, and who

can turn flesh into gold and such superstitions.

Now, the reader is advised to look at the biographical entry; every linethat starts with bold text highlighted with purple is a reference that comesfrom Al-Thahabi about Ibn Taymiyya, and is followed by huge chunks oftexts. It's that huge chunks of texts that disturbs the Sufis.

..

..
http://ar.wikisource.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%82%D9%88%D8%AF_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9_%D9%85%D9%86_%D9%85%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%82%D8%A8_%D8%B4%D9%8A%D8%AE_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85_%D8%A3%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF_%D8%A8%D9%86_%D8%AA%D9%8A%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A9/27http://ar.wikisource.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%82%D9%88%D8%AF_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9_%D9%85%D9%86_%D9%85%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%82%D8%A8_%D8%B4%D9%8A%D8%AE_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85_%D8%A3%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF_%D8%A8%D9%86_%D8%AA%D9%8A%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A9/27


23/35

23

.

"". ..

..

.

:

.

...

...

.

:.

..

:.

:..:.

.:.

.


24/35

24

--:

.

. .

..

..

.:

.

:""

.

--

.

:

.

:..

--:.:

.

..


25/35

25

:

:.

: :

....

.

.:

:.-..-

....

.:

.."":

.

.....

""...

:

:--:

.


26/35

26

-:.:-

:

......

.....

...

::.

::::.-

.

:.

.

.

.:


27/35

27

:

.:.

..:

.

.

:

.

:.

:

.

.

.

.:-..

.-.


28/35

28

....

. ..

..:..

.

.

..

::

.":38" "" :

".:120" ": "

--

.

.:

.

:""

..

."

.".

:

.


29/35

29

.:

-

- : .

--:::.::

::.:::

.::

::.

--

.

..

--:

.

.:::.

.

:

..


30/35

30

:

: .

:::

.

.

:.:

::

::

..

.

. .

:

.:.

:..

.


31/35

31

-:::-

.

:.

:.

.

..

.

:

.

.:.

.

:

..

:.:.

.


32/35

32

:

.

:

:.::

..

:.-:

:.

.:

: "".:13" "

:

:

.

.

.:

..

"""":"""""".""""


33/35

33

""""..

"""

""""""""

:"""""""""""".""

""""""

""""

""":."

."""""""""."

.

.

.

..

.:

.:

..


34/35

34

..:.

..

.

:: "

".:54.55" "

-:.-

:..

..

.

..

..

:

..


35/35

.

..

.:: "".

...

.":".

.

.

.