News Flash: Ibn Taymiyya Kidnapped at Sesame Street By Abdalla S. Alothman

At his blog space on the Daily Telegraph, Christopher Howse reaches an interesting conclusion that one of the well known Muslim scholars – ibn Taymiyya – endorsed the opinion that "God could have settled on a mosquito’s back and the creature would have found him light" in order to reach his final conclusion that, " But if God could settle on a mosquito’s back, why could he not take flesh and dwell amongst us?"

In this document I shall discuss what Howse brought forth, and that could be summarized in the following topics:

1. "God Settling" on a mosquito's back.

2. Ibn Taymiyya: The Hero of the "Wahhabis."

3. The Criticism on ibn Taymiyya Hardly Discredits his Accomplishments.

4. Can the Creator Become Flesh and Dwell Amongst his Creation?

1. "God" Settling on a mosquito's back In its basic essence, the accusation of Allah (TT) settling on a mosquito's back is a straw-man which was weaved against ibn Taymiyya to make him appear as an anthropomorphist – that is the notion that the Creator (TT) possessing certain characteristics and attributes that are similar to human beings. Both, the Shee'ah and the Sufis heavily invested on the mosquito's back in hope to achieve that goal. However, both factions discovered – in an intriguing way – that the popular Muslim scholar 'Uthman bin Sa'eed al-Darmi also mentioned the mosquito's back, and hence, he also had to receive his share from that criticism even though he was not the primary target – but ibn Taymiyya was; And the goal was to discredit him in a way that would directly affect his 'aqeeda (belief/creed). Here's how the story went:

• When the Sufis and the Shee'ah discovered that ibn Taymiyya mentioned the mosquito's back, they swiftly started the discrediting process without taking heed.

• They later found the same passage mentioned by the Muslim scholar, 'Uthman bin Sa'eed al-Darmi; And that was a problem, because al-Darmi had to be accused as well. Al-Darmi's opinions on

the Islamic belief system however is quite known, solid, and hard to shake. He also stood neutral at many occasion, therefore attacking him wasn't a wise move by the Sufis and the Shee'ah.

• Surprisingly, a confusion arose amongst the attackers: They just

didn't know how both scholars (ibn Taymiyya and al-Darmi) mentioned the Mosquito's Back.

Of course, if the reader searches for the following Arabic line in Google, the results would be amazing:

1خ الجهمية تلبيس بيان This line comes for a larger quotation that can be found posted by Sufis on the Internet. However, what interests me is 1خ at the end of the line because it shows that one Sufi copied that error from the other. It is typical that Sufis have sloppy Arabic – their weakness in written and read Arabic cannot be mistaken, and the same applies to their transliteration techniques when translating Arabic material. When they write 1خ they intended to write 1ج , which is the letter "Jeem" – an abbreviation for Juz (جزء) which is V, Volume (V1). Apparently they replaced the letter KHA (خ) with the letter JEEM. And then they say that ibn Taymiyya said Allah (tt) could have settled on a mosquito's back, and here's an example of where they say:

That being said, Ibn Taymiyyah stated in his book “Bayaan Talbiis Al-Jahmiyyah”:

568ص/1خ, بيان تلبيس الجهمية(ولو قد شاء الستقر على ظهر بعوضة فاستقلت به بقدرته ولطف ربوبيته ). “If Aļļaah had willed He could have settled on a mosquito, and it [the mosquito] would have found Him [Aļļaah] light [or it would have carried Him on its back], by Aļļaah’s Power and His Gentle Lordship (Bayaan Talbiis Al-Jahmiyyah, 1/568).” This is a plain statement attributing the possibility of sitting on a mosquito to Aļļaah, which is something that can be for what is a body in a place only. It is also plain in stating that Aļļaah has a weight, as it says that the Mosquito would carry Him. We know from this that the author believes that Aļļaah is a body with a weight. This is blasphemy and shows an incredibly silly mind.

And that's how scholarship is cooked in the Sufi and the Ash'ari, and even the Shee'i land of wonders!

The Refutation: The refutation takes two facets: 1. Ibn Tayymiya clearly said in Bayaan Talbees Al-Jahmiyya that he is constructing his refutation to the Jahmiyya based on what 'uthman bin sa'eed al-Darmi said, and that was a source of confusion for the Sufis and the Shee'ah. Usually, what happens is that one guy pops out of nowhere, and posts his findings, the rest receive the misquoted passage and clap. Then, they find another instance of the passage mentioned by someone else, and they get confused. This is what ibn Tayymiya said page 324 (the online copy of Talbees Al-Jahmiyya can be found here):

من وأعجب وصاحبه المريسي على نقضه في الدرامي سعيد بن عثمان قال كالصبيان وزعمت كبير أو صغير من ووزنه ومقداره العرش بقياس هللا قياسك كله هذا

صيرتم فقد أصغر هللا كان فإن مثله أو منه أصغر أو العرش من أكبر هللا إن العميان كان وإن العرش عن فضال فيه ادعيتم فقد العرش من أكبر كان وإن منه أعظم العرش

وترهات بها تكلم خرافات مع أكبر كانت واألرض السموات العرش إلى ضم إذا مثله هذا لقوم والخيبة لسانه قشرة لقطع ل يعمل من كان لو بها يضل وضالالت بها يلعب

فيقال# والضالالت الجهاالت هذه وكل النظر وهذا كله التمييز مع إليه والمنظور فقيههم العرش يحمله ولم خلق كل من وأكبر شيء كل من أعظم هللا إن النفاج البقباق لهذا

حملوه ولكنهم بعرشه استقلوا وال بقوتهم حملوه العرش حملة وال قوة وال عظما بقدرته

حمله عن ضعفوا وبهائه عزته في الجبار وفوقه العرش حملوا حين أنهم بلغنا وقد

هللا بقدرة به فاستقلوا بال إال قوة وال حول ال لقنوا حتى ركبهم على وجثوا واستكانوا فيهن من وال األرض وال السموات وال الحملة وال العرش به استقل ما ذلك ولوال وإرادته

على فكيف ربوبيته ولطف بقدرته به فاستقلت بعوضة ظهر على الستقر شاء قد ولو والعرش يقله عرشه أن النفاج أيها تنكر وكيف واألرض السموات من أكبر عظيم عرش

ما واالرضين السموات في العرش كان ولو السبع واألرضين السبع السموات من أكبر "السابعة السماء فوق ولكنه وسعته

The second occurrence of the passage appears on page 445:

قال العرش على هللا ألستواء المنكر الجهمي على رده ضمن في قوله أيضا وقدمنا" وزعمت كبير أو صغير من ووزنه ومقداره العرش بقياس هللا قياسك كله هذا من وأعجب

فقد أصغر هللا كان فإن مثله أو منه أصغر أو العرش من أكبر هللا كان أن العميان كالصبيان وإن العرش عن فضال فيه ادعيتم فقد العرش من أكبر كان وإن منه أعظم العرش صيرتم

بها تكلم خرافات من أكبر كانت واألرض السموات العرش إلى ضم إذا فإنه مثله كان لسانه ثمرة لقطع ل عليه يعمل من كان لو بها يضل وضالالت بها يلعب وترهات هذه وكل النظر وهذا كله التمييز هذا مع إليه والمنظور مقيههم هذا لقوم والخيبة

من وأكبر شيء كل من أعظم هللا إن النفاخ البقباق لهذا فيقال# والضالالت الجهاالت وال بقوتهم احتملوه العرش حمله وال قوة وال عظما العرش يحتمله ولم خلق كل

ذلك لوال وتأييده وإرادته ومشيئته بقدرته حملوه ولكنهم أسرهم بشدة بعرشه استقلوا عزته في الجبار وفوقه العرش حملوا حين أنهم بلغنا وقد حمله أطاقوا ما

بال اال قوة وال حول ال لقنوا حتى ركبهم على وجثوا واستكانوا حمله عن ضعفوا وبهائه السموات وال الحملة وال العرش به استقل ما ذلك ولوال وارادته هللا بقدرة به فاستقلوا

ولطف بقدرته به فاستقلت بعوضة ظهر على ستقل ال شاء قد ولو فيهن ومن واالرض كان ولو السبع واالرضين السبع السموات من اكبر عظيم عرش على فكيف ربوبيته "# السابعة السماء فوق ولكنه وسعته ما واالرضين السموات في العرش

Essentially, the statement proposed by al-Darmi is a negated conditional: A presupposition that the author uses in order to negate an argument and the supposition itself – a lot of it exists in the Quran and common speech styles as we shall discuss in the second facet. As it clearly appears in Talbees Al-Jahmiyya, ibn Taymiyya is citing 'Uthman bin Sa'eed al-Darmi. In the first instance, he mentions him by name (highlighted in yellow and colored in purple), in the second instance he refers to him by mentioning his book and his opponent. 2. Some of the ignorant Sufis did try to spend some energy in proving that ibn Taymiyya favored the opinion presented by al-Darmi, by that, they went to another work made by another Sufi in order to prove that point. Why? Because they can't read Arabic, they strive to attack, but they can't read. And yes, ibn Taymiyya did favor the al-Darmi's opinion in his reply to al-mareesi the Jahmi. However, there is nothing wrong with what al-Darmi proposed; It's 100% in accordance with the Islamic creed. He was simply arguing with the Jahmi over ideas that Almareesi suggested, that: (a): Allah (tt)is not bound by weight or size in comparison to the Throne. (b): The Angels and the Throne are actually powerless to withhold Allah (tt), however, they carry the task simple because Allah (tt) empowered them. (c): If Allah (tt) wills, he can substitute the Angels and the Throne, and empowers the substitute, and he gave the mosquito as a substitute: as an example contrary to the size of the Throne and the might of the Angels. But as proposed by al-Darmi, Allah (tt) does not settle on a mosquito's back, simply because He is on His Throne [which contains His chair which is] larger than the heavens and the earth. That's it. There's no anthropomorphism involved. There are no parallel lines drawn to compare the Creator to the created. In fact, the Jahmi tried

to argue about the size of Allah (tt) in comparison to the Throne, and he was answered in that matter. 2. Ibn Taymiyya, the Hero of the Wahhabis! Back to Howse's message:

"This opinion is adduced to prove that Ibn Taymiyya was a heretic. This is something that matters, because Ibn Taymiyya is a hero of the Wahhabis, the sect that rules Saudi Arabia in alliance, for now, with the royal family."

"Wahhabi," "Wahhabis," "Wahhabism" is a stereotype tailored by Sufis and the Shee'ah. The goal of the label serves two purposes: An inner purpose and an outer purpose. The outer purpose is to refer to followers of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab, a formidable scholar who appeared in the 1700s in today's Saudi Arabia. The inner purpose developed by the Sufis and the Shee'ah is to cast anyone who disagrees with those two factions with a ridiculing label. So basically, when the average Muslim disagrees with a Sufi (or an Ash'ari) or a Shee'i, the first reply the Muslim will receive is being labeled as "Wahhabi." The Sufis (and the Ash'aris) and the Shee'ah would have no problem calling each other "Wahhabi" when they disagree – It's the natural dismissible response one can expect from the weak. Moreover, the followers of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab did not form a sect. They started as a religious movement, which later became a political movement. Eventually, the movement successfully established its goals and disappeared. Today, there are no Wahhabis. The term however became a label used by the Sufis and the Shee'ah to tag anyone who disagrees with them – including one another. It is also worth highlighting that Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab's movement did not directly target the Shee'ah or the Sufis, there were however certain practices adopted by existing heretics; These ill practices and rituals were also common amongst the Sufis and the Shee'ah, and that's the reason behind the grudge. An example of such practices include grave worship, obtaining blessings from the dead, supplicating to the dead, and so on. There were also other ill practices such as obtaining blessings from trees for marriage and fertility and such beliefs that were inherited from paganism. Such beliefs were successfully wiped out by ibn Abdul Wahhab's movement.

The claim that modern day Saudis are Wahhabis is a total misconception. In modern Saudi Arabia they do not abide by one school of fiqh (law, thought, etc.), instead, they use all the four schools favoring the most solid opinions all or most schools agreed upon. For example, in a certain issue, if the Hanbali, the Maliki, and the Shafi'y school agreed on one opinion, but the Hanafi school agreed on another opinion, they would select the first opinion because it was supported by the majority. Ibn Abdul Wahhab did not follow this system, he was a strict Hanbali, even though he was very well educated in other schools as well. So how can we consider the modern day Saudi Arabians Wahhabis when both the Saudis and ibn Abdul Wahhab followed different systems? That is just like presuming that Billy the Methodist is a Baptist. In addition, ibn Abdul Wahhab's system did not tolerate the practices of the Sufis and the Shee'ah, while the modern Saudi Arabians exert tolerance to a certain extent towards ill Sufi and Shee'ah practices. Just open the TV and see how the Sufis and the Shee'ah hang on the Ka'ba in Makkah. There's always Islam, as it is, and Islam as how an outsider wants it to be. The non-Muslim (such as critics from the western world) are an outsider to Islam. Similarly, Sufism is also an outsider to Islam – for many reasons, one: Sufism is a global religion with roots in Buddhism, Hinduism, and Kabbalah Judaism, and archaic Christianity. Shee'ism is also an outsider to Islam, because most of the focus in that religion is concentrated on certain characters and historic events rather than the Quran and the Teachings of the Messenger of Islam. If Islam was like that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeJ2H-s_O6k or like that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BvSLgJSBBY or perhaps like that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMEQnp1gSNo If that was Islam, the western world would have applauded Islam. But unfortunately, the Islam that the west strives to see, is and has been always rejected by Muslims, whether they are ibn Taymiyya, ibn Abdul Wahhab, or the Kings of Saudi Arabia.

3. The Criticism on ibn Taymiyya Hardly Discredits his Accomplishments.

It is also unfortunate that a person who is supposed to be well educated uses a flawed evaluation on someone else. This is how Howse tries to transmit the idea that ibn Taymiyya should be discarded:

"The traveller Ibn Battuta heard Ibn Taymiyya preach and suggested that he was slightly bonkers – that he had “some kink in his brain” as H.A.R. Gibb translated it in 1929."

And this how Howse wants the architects to learn architecture – by getting the knowledge from the carpenter. Simply put, Ibn Battuta is an explorer, he isn't a scholar of Islamic sciences. There is also no evidence in our hands that shows that ibn Battuta had any background in clinical psychology or neurology. However, ibn Taymiyya did indeed receive heavy criticism from opponents, and that only shows that he was indeed a controversial character with ideas that guaranteed to terminate wishful thoughts and ideas that had no solid grounds. As Chuang Tzu said, "When animals face death, they do not care what noises they make." And this is the case with Ibn Taymiyya's critics, as I see it. Even though ibn Taymiyya criticized many who endorsed Sufi ideas, unbiased scholars never ceased to praise him as he deserves. The following is from Jalaludeen Al-Siyooti, a scholar whom the Sufis hold dear:

شيخ البارع المفسر المجتهد الفقيه الناقد الحافظ العالمة اإلمام الشيخ تيمية ابن" بحور من وكان (...) بن أحمد العباس أبو الدين تقي العصر نادرة الزهاد علم اإلسالم

. مراراً وأوذي وامتحن مجلدة ثالثمائة ألف واألفراد والزهاد المعدودين األذكياء ومن العلممن النسخة 244-243صفحة –نقالً عن طبقات الحفّاظ إلمام جالل الدين السيوطي [

]اإللكترونية من موقع مكتبة مشكاة اإلسالمية

"Ibn Taymiyya, the Shaikh, the Imam, the Knowledgeable, the Memorizer, the Jurist, the Diligent, the Talented Exegetist; The Shaikh of Islam, the Source of Knowledge for the asceticists, the unique character in time (…) He was a sea from the seas of knowledge, a rare bright intellect, an ascetic who authored 300 books, and he was tried in turbulence after another." [From Tabaqaat Al-Huffaath, by Imam Jalaludeen al-Siyooti, page 243-244 from the online copy]

In my humble opinion, I think an opinion from a scholar on another scholar is more useful than the opinion of an explorer. 4. Can the Creator Become Flesh and Dwell Amongst his Creation? Rather, "Can the Creator become the created?" This is the question that Howse implies at the conclusion of his message:

"But if God could settle on a mosquito’s back, why could he not take flesh and dwell amongst us?"

The Answer: Guess what? The question is logically flawed, and in no way does it serve the Christian cause. That is, it doesn't really matter whether the Creator can become the created (and dwell amongst his creation or whatever…). The question is: Did the Creator become the created? What the Christians need is a proof not a possibility. So what if the Creator can become the created? It doesn't mean the possibility took place. Similarly, I can smoke, but I don't. I can also drink alcohol, but I don't. And as for the argument of the mosquito's back, which was originally used by 'Uthman bin Sa'eed al-Darmi, and cited by ibn Taymiyya – well, that was a negated conditional as it appeared: A presupposition inserted by the author to anull another argument and the supposition itself. That is, al-Darmi was arguing about Allah's settlement on HIS THRONE (not the back of a mosquito), and since his opponent – Almareesi, the Jahmi – was arguing about the size of the Allah (tt) and His Throne, the example of the back of the mosquito was introduced to be annulled and to annul the opponents arguments altogether. According to the given: If the argument proposed by Howse is a based on a availability of a negated clue (a clue that is false), then the argument is false. In other words, If "God" became flesh and dwelt amongst His creation, because He could have settled on a mosquito's back, then He did not become flesh and dwell amongst his creation, because He never settled on a mosquito's back. HE (tt) has a Throne; And likewise, He does not need to become the created because he also erects prophets and messengers…

Wal Hamdulillaahi Rabbil 'Alameen

Abdalla S. Alothman April 9, 2010