This chapter is especially dedicated to the false assertion made by the Ahlelbayt.com website wherein the author Ibn al Hashimi sought to desperately convince his Sunni readership that Ibn Taimiyah was not a Nasibi. He wrote this moving article under this heading ‘Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah’s Love for Ahlel Bayt’ wherein he stated:
One of the harshest opponents of the Shia was Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, and because of this, some of the Shia have slandered him by claiming that he was a Nasibi (i.e. hater of Ahlel Bayt). Answering-Ansar refers to him as “Imam of the Nasibis, Ibn Taymiyya”. And yet, Ibn Taymiyyah was a lover of Ahlel Bayt; not only did he love the Ahlel Bayt, but he publically declared the necessity of loving the Ahlel Bayt as a part of the creed of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah. Let us narrate what Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah wrote in his most famous book, Al-Aqeedah Al-Wasitiyyah; he said:
“They (the believers) accept what has been reported continuously from the Prince of the Believers Ali Ibn Abi Talib…”
(Ibn Taymiyyah, Al-Aqeedah Al-Wasitiyyah, Chapter 4) Ibn Taymiyyah said further:
“The best men of this Ummah after its Prophet are: Abu Bakr; then Umar; third: Uthman; and fourth: Ali Ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with them all).”
(Ibn Taymiyyah, Al-Aqeedah Al-Wasitiyyah, Chapter 4)In regards to the Prophetic Household, Ibn Taymiyyah said:
“The Ahlus Sunnah should love the Prophet’s family, give them support, and honor the Prophet’s will in regards to them, as he said at Ghadir Khumm: ‘I ask you by Allah to take care of my family; I ask you by Allah to take care of my family.’”
(Ibn Taymiyyah, Al-Aqeedah Al-Wasitiyyah, Chapter 4)Explaining the Sunni creed, Shaykh al-Islam said:
“They (Ahlus Sunnah) love the people of the household of the Messenger of Allah; they regard them with love and loyalty, and they heed the command of the Messenger of Allah concerning them…but they reject the way of the (Shia) Rafidhis who hate the Sahabah and slander them, and they reject the way of the Nasibis who insult Ahlel Bayt in words and deed.”
(Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmoo al-Fatawa, 3/154)
We had previously cited the Hadith of the Prophet (s) that one sign of a munafiq is when he speaks he lies. Ibn Taimiyah may well have stated all these things, but did he really believe them? The answer is no, Ibn Taimiyah was merely asserting these things to convince the Sunni Ulema of the time that he was a mainstream Sunni, and as such statements such as this were merely written to stave off criticism of him. If Ibn al Hashimi claims that Ibn Taimiyah would never adopt such deception then we suggest he ponders over these facts. Once whilst in prison he declared himself to be Ash’ari:
Ibn Taimiyah remained in the jail till the prince Mehana al-Fadel intercede for him. In the 23th of Rabee al-Awal he (Ibn Taimiyah) was brought to the fort and debated with some scholars then they wrote a report that he (Ibn Taimiyah) admitted to be Ash’ari.
Al-Durar al-Kamina, Volume 1 page 47
The fact that Ibn Taimiyah pretended to be an Ashari when actually he was not, proves that he was prepared to hide his beliefs before the Sunni Ulema if it meant getting an early prison release date. The same is the case with these fatwas that Ibn al Hashimi cited. These were there merely to convince the Sunni clergy of the time that he adhered to the Ashari creed on loving the Ahl’ul bayt (as). The reality was very different, and to prove this allow us to present to our readers the venom that he spewed against the Ahl’ul bayt (as). The facts that we shall present is not hearsay testimony from some obscure secondary Rafidi source. These are the words from them pen of Ibn Taimiyah himself.
While comparing Abu Bakar with Ali bin Abi Talib (as), Ibn Taimiyah states in Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 7 page 331:
“His reign is better than Ali’s reign and his benefit to Muslims in their religion and life is greater than Ali’s”
Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 8 page 230:
“Ali fought to secure obedience and rule the people and money, so how can that be deemed as fighting for sake of religion?”
We read in Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 8 page 205:
There are two opinions as to whether Ali’s conversion to Islam released him from kufr or not”
Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 4 page 137:
“Ali intended to marry so as to hurt her (Fatima) on purpose.”
Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 7 page 172:
“Allah had revealed for Ali {O ye who believe! Draw not near unto prayer when ye are drunken, till ye know that which ye utter,} when he prayed and recited and then got mixed up.”
Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 7 page 172:
The prophet said to them ‘{but man is more than anything contentious}’. When he said to him (Ali) and Fatima, ‘Wont you pray?’ They replied: ‘Our souls are in the hands of Allah (swt)’
Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 3 page 53:
“When he (the Prophet) ordered them to offer the night prayer, Ali (ra) came up with the prepared excuse that ‘if Allah wants he will wake us up’, the prophet realized that this was merely an argument that was not right, therefore he recited {but man is more than anything contentious}“.
Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 8 page 166:
“Ali, there is disagreement about him as to whether he had memorized the whole Quran or not.”
Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 6 page 67:
“Their fighting served no benefit for the Muslims in their religion nor in their life, on the contrary the good had been decreased and the evil had been increased.”
Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 4 page 20:
“His (Allamah Heli’s) statement that Ali would pray one thousand raka, surely there is no virtue in it”
Relevantly, comments like the above that we cited that were so outrageous that ibn Hajr Asqalani stated in Lisan Al Mizan Volume 8 pages 551-552:
“But I find him (Ibn Taymiyyah) attacking so much that he rejects the hadiths Ibn Al Muthahhar, though most of them were false and weak, but in his refutation he also rejected many good narrations who when writing the book didn't provided the references from where the narrations were taken. Because of his good memory he relied on what he memorized. While a human often encountered forgetting. And the exaggeration in refuting the Rafidhi's text has sometimes taken him towards degrading Imam Ali (ra)”
In another of his works Ibn Hajr Asqalani sought to paraphrase sum comments of Ibn Taymiyyah that attracted the ire of the Sunni clergy:
“Among them (i.e. the 'Sunni' scholars) were those who accused him (i.e. Ibn Taymiyyah) of hypocrisy due to his statement about Ali (a.s) that we have mentioned, and on account of his statement that he (i.e Ali) was humiliated wherever he turned, and that he repeatedly sought the Khilafah but did not get it, and that he fought only for power and not for religion, and due to his (Ibn Taymiyyah's) statement that he loved power whereas Uthman loved money, and on account of his (Ibn Taymiyyah's) statement that Abu Bakr accepted Islam as an adult who knew what he was saying while Ali (a.s) accepted Islam as a child, and the Islam of a child upon his statement is invalid”
Al Durar Al Kaminah Volume 1 page 154
Ibn Taimiyah who is known for having a grudge against Ali bin Abi Talib (as) proudly claims that none of the Sunni jurists attained teachings from Imam Ali (as).
None of the four imams nor the other of the jurists refer to him (Ali) in their jurisprudence. Verily if Malik’s knowledge was obtained from the people of Madina, the people of Madina did not take Ali’s statements. They took their jurisprudence from the seven jurists, Zaid, Umar, ibn Umar and so on.
Shafiyee obtained jurisprudence from the people of Makka, the companions of Ibn Juraij like Saeed bin Salem al-Qadah and Muslim bin khalid al-Zenji. Ibn Juraij obtained knowledge from the companions of Ibn Abbas, like Atta and others. Verily Ibn Abbas was an independent mujtahid. Whenever he gives fatwa, according to the Sahabas, he would give the fatwa of Abu Bakr and Umar, not Ali’s. He disagreed with Ali on few things.
Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 7 pages 529 – 530
Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 5 page 522:
Verily Abu Bakr is an Imam who did not act for himself but for the Muslims and as for the money, he did not take it for himself but for the Muslims whilst Fatima was demanding it for herself.
Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 4 page 132:
Hasn’t Allah (swt) condemned the hypocrites those who said about them {And of them is he who defameth thee in the matter of the alms. If they are given thereof they are content, and if they are not given thereof, behold! they are enraged. If only they had been content with what Allah and His Messenger gave them, and had said, “Sufficient unto us is Allah! Allah and His Messenger will soon give us of His bounty to Allah do we turn our hopes} Allah mentioned people that if they are given they will be pleased, but if they are not given they get angry, and Allah condemned them.
Such blasphemy lead to Sunni scholar Mahmoud Subaih in his book Akhta ibn Taimiyah, page 63 commenting:
A huge mistake by Ibn Taimiyah that is unforgivable, unless he repented prior to death, was his likening the anger of Lady Fatima az-Zahra (may Allah be pleased with) towards as-Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with) with the anger of hypocrites.
Ibn al Hashimi tell us, is comparing the action Sayyida Zahra (as) to that of a hypocrite evidence of his love for this blessed lady? Is this how Shiekh ul Islam showed his love for the Ahl’ul bayt (as)? Calling any Muslim a munafiq without basis is a sin, and he attributes such signs to the daughter of the Prophet (s)!
Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 4 page 19:
“To be deemed as the most ascetic and knowledgeable people of their time, this is a proofless claim.”
Whilst we shall inshallah address this quote in greater depth later, it is worthy to consider this comment that Ibn al-Hashimi proudly placed in his article ‘the status of the twelve imams’:
Shaykh Gibril Haddad was asked about the status of the Imams of the Shia, to which he replied:
I heard Dr. Nur al-Din `Itr in class say: “Each one of them was a pious, upright Muslim from the noble Prophetic Tree and many of them were also among the foremost people of knowledge in their time.”
Screen shot from Ibn al-Hashimi’s article – top
Screen shot from Ibn al-Hashimi’s article – text
We shall now show our readers how the Shaykh of Ibn al-Hashimi graded those that he claims were “among the foremost people of knowledge in their time.”
Shaykh Ibn Taimiyah desperately sought to distinguish himself from Nawasib, but his writings on Imam Ali bin Abi Talib (as) and other Imams of Ahlulbayt (as) leaves us with little doubt to conclude that his stance was just like those espoused by Nasibis. About the three Imams namely Imam Zain ul Abdeen (as), Imam Baqir (as) and Imam Jafar Sadiq (as) he stated as follows:
“Ali bin al-Hussain, his son Abu Jafar and his son Jafar bin Muhammad taught people what Allah (swt) taught them in the same manner that (Allah) taught the other scholars during their lives. Verily there were people during their lifetimes that were more knowledgeable and more useful for the nation than them.”
Minhaj al Sunnah, Volume 6 page 387
And we also read the following proud confession of Ibn Taimiyah:
“These four Imams, no one of them took any thing related to jurisprudence from Jaffar.”
Minhaj al Sunnah, Volume 7 page 533
Ibn Taimiyah then proceeds to widen his attacks further to encompass Imam Ali bin Muhammad al-Hadi (as) and Imam Hassan Askari (as) whom he referred to as ‘Askaris’:
“Those that came after the three (Imams) like the Askaris, did not possess useful knowledge for the nation. They didn’t have a helpful hand for the nation. Verily they were just like any Hashmi”.
Minhaj al Sunnah, Volume 6 page 387
At one place Imam Taimiyah after citing the comments of some Sunni scholars stated:
“Each one of those (Sunni scholars) was more knowledgeable than the two Askaris about the religion of Allah and His Messenger… What is wajib for the people like the two Askaris is to learn from one of those (Sunni scholars)”
Minhaj al Sunnah, Volume 2 page 470-473
Ibn Taimiyah has the audacity to draw comparison between the Imams of Ahlulbayt (as) to their students and then drew this conclusion:
“No doubt what the jurists narrate from Abu Hanfia, Malik, al-Shafiyee, Ahmad and others are more correct than what the Rafidis narrate from the two Askari and Muhammad bin Ali al-Jawad and others; and no doubt that they (Abu Hanifa etc) are more knowledgeable in the religion of the Prophet (s) than those (al-Jawad etc).”
Minhaj al Sunnah, Volume 2 page 476
We also read:
“Verily al-Zuhari is more knowledgeable about the Prophetic hadiths, statements and actions than Abu Jafar Muhammad bin Ali and the scholars agreed on that, and (al-Zuhari) was a contemporary of the Prophet (s).
However regarding Musa bin Jafar, Ali bin Musa and Muhammad bin Ali, no one among those who possess knowledge doubt that Malik bin Anas, Hamaad bin Zaid, Hamaad bin Salama, al-Laith bin Saad, al-Awzaei, Yahya bin Saeed, W’akei bin al-Jarah, Abdullah bin al-Mubarak, al-Shafiyee, Ahmad bin Hanbal, Ishaq bin Rahwei and others were more knowledgeable about the Prophetetic hadith than them”
Minhaj al Sunnah, Volume 2 page 460-462
From this paragraph we can see that Ibn Taimiyah had indigestion in his stomach about eight Imams of Ahlulbayt (as). Ibn al-Hashimi sought to convince his readers that he backed the comments of Haddad, namely that the Imams were “among the foremost people of knowledge in their time.” That is certainly not how Ibn Taimiyah views them. He sought to play down their knowledge base, and suggested they brought no value to the Deen. Why are you not affirming the same beliefs as your Shaykh? Why don’t you put up these comments on your website so that your readers can appreciate the true belief held by your Shaykh, rather than relying on a modern day scholar Haddad who your own Salafi Ulema deem deviant?
The Sheikh ul Islam of the Salafis was so blinded by his hatred of the Ahl’ul bayt (as) that he rejected the authentic hadith literature praising them (as). These sorts of reactions of course displays of the natural human characteristic of jealousy and hatred. When an individual hates a respected figure, the typical reaction will be to downplay or deny his virtues in hope of lowering their status in the eyes of others. Let us see some examples of his bigotry:
Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 7 page 278:
“His statement ‘he is the guardian of every believer after me’ is a lie attributed to Allah’s messenger”
Imam Ibn Haban recorded it in his book of Sahih traditions ‘Sahih ibn Haban’ volume 15 page 374. Imam Tirmidhi recorded it in his book ‘Sunnan al-Tirmidhi’ volume 5 page 296 and declared it as Hasan. Imam Ibn Uday said: “Nisai recorded it in his Sihah” (Mizan al-Etidal, v1 p410). These were the scholars who came before Ibn Taimiyah while the scholars who came after him include Dahabi who was also one of the students of Ibn Taimiyah who recorded it in his book ‘Tarikh al-Islam’ volume 11 page 71 and declared it as Sahih according to the condition of Muslim. Imam Ibn Hajar recorded it in his book ‘al-Isaba’ volume 4 page 468 and declared the chain of the tradition as strong. Albaani recorded it in his book ‘Silsila Sahiha’ volume 5 page 222 and declared it as Sahih. Hussain Salim Asad in his footnote on ‘Musnad Abi Y’ala’ volume 1 page 294 declared the narrators of this traiditon as the narrators of Sahih. Moreover, Albaani commented in ‘Silsila Sahiha’ volume 5, page 222 as follows:
“It is really strange that Sheikh ul Islam dared to deny this hadith and deemed it a lie in his book Minhaj al-Sunnah”
This tradition is recorded in many other Sunni other books such as:
At another place Ibn Taimiyah rejects a similar version of this hadith. We read in Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 5 page 35:
His statement ‘You are the guardian of every believer after me’ is fabricated according to the agreement of hadith scholars.
Al-Hakim recorded it in his book ‘al-Mustadrak’ volume 3, page 134 and declared it as Sahih. Imam Dahabi in his book ‘Talkhis al-Mustadrak’ also declared it as Sahih. Albaani in his book ‘Dhilal al-Janah’ volume 2 page 338 declared it as Sahih.
This version of tradition has been recorded in other prominent Sunni books such as:
1. Musnad Ahmad, Volume 1, p331
2. Al-Sunnah, by ibn Abi Asem, p552
3. Tarikh Dimashq, v42, p102
Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 5 page 17:
“His statement ‘Close all the doors except Ali’s door’; verily, this was fabricated by the Shia”
Al-Hakim recorded it in his book ‘al-Mustadrak’ volume 3 page 125 and declared it as Sahih. Dahabi in his book ‘Talkhis al-Mustadrak’ also declared it as Sahih. Imam Al-Haythami recorded it in his book ‘Majma al-Zawaed’ volume 9 page 114 and declared it as ‘Hasan’. Ibn Hajar recorded it in his book ‘Fath al-Bari’ volume 7 page 13 and stated that the narrators are authentic. Albaani declared it as Sahih in his book ‘Sahih al-Tirmidhi’ hadith number 3732. Qadhi Shawkani said in his book ‘al-Fawaed al-Majmoa’ volume 1, page 361 about it: ‘The hadith is true and it is not permissible for any Muslim to deny it’ Ahmad bin al-Sidiq declared it as Hasan in his book ‘Fath al-Malik’ page 61. Abdullah al-Ghemari in his book ‘Ergham al-Mubteda’ page 18 declared it as Sahih.
The tradition is recorded in various other Sunni books:
Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 7 page 378:
“The tradition of ‘I am the city of knowledge and Ali is the gate’ is weaker (than other traditions). Therefore it is counted among the fabrications”.
A number of highranking Sunni Imams have graded the Hadith as authentic. Al-Hakim recorded it in his book al-Mustadrak, volume 3, page 126 and declared it as Sahih. Imam Yahya ibn Moin declared it as Sahih (Tahdib al-Kamal, v18 p72 Translation 3421). Imam Ibn Jareer Tabari in his book ‘Tahdib al-Athaar’ page 104 declared it as Sahih. Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani declared it as Hasan (al-Fawaed al-Majmoa, Volume 1, p348 by Shawkani). Suyuti said: ‘Hasan’ (Tarikh al-khulafa, v1 p69). Al-Shawkani in his book ‘al-Fawaed al-Majmoa’ volume 1 page 348 declared it as ‘Hasan le Gharyu’. Al-Sakhawi in his book ‘al-Maqasid al-Hasana’ page 123 declared it as ‘Hasan’. Abdullah al-Ghemari in his book ‘Rad Etebar al-Jame al-Saghir’ page 15 declared it as Sahih. Ahmad bin al-Sidiq in his book ‘Fath al-Malik’ page 10 declared it as Sahih. Allamah Hassan al-Saqaf in the footnote of his book ‘Tanaqudat Albaani’ volume 3 page 82 declared it as Sahih. Al-Zarkashi in his book ‘al-Leale al-Manthura’ page 163 declared it as Hasan. Muhammad ibn Tulun al-Hanafi (d. 953 H) in his book ‘al-Shazara’ page 130 declared it as Hasan. Imam Al-Zarqani in his book ‘Mukhtasar al-Maqaed’ page 170 declared it as Hasan. While Mullah Muttaqi Hindi relied upon the words of Suyuti as follows:
‘I answered (that the hadith is Hasan) for years until I noticed that Ibn Jareer declared this hadith Sahih in his book Tahdib al-Athaar beside the declaration of being Sahih by al-Hakim of this tradition that is narrated by ibn Abbas. I then performed isthikhara and became convinced that the Hadeeth ‘I am the city of knowledge and ‘Ali is its gate’ is Sahih not Hasan. Allah knows best.’
Kanz al Ummal, Volume 13 page 148 Tradition 36464
Allamah Muhammad bin Yusuf al-Salehi al-Shami (d. 942 H) declared it Hasan (Subul al-Huda wa al-Rashad, Volume 1, p501). Imam Samarqandi declared it Sahih (Fath al-Malik by Hafiz Ibn Sidiq, p60). Hanafi Imam Mullah Ali Qari in his famed work Mirqat Sharh Mishkat, Volume 5 page 571 records that according to Imam Darqutni this hadith is Thaabit (proven). Imam of Ahle Sunnah Salahuddin Khalil al-Alaai (d. 761 H) declared this Hadith as Hasan (Kashf al-Khafa by Ajloni, v1 p203) and for all those who have criticized this Hadith out of Nasibism, he stated:
‘Neither Abu al-Faraj nor others provided any tangible argument for the hadith except the claim of being fabricated and they reject it because of its content’
al-Laale al-Masnoa by Suyuti, Volume 1 page 306
The Mufti of Dar ul Uloom Qadiriyah Jilaniyah, London namely Mufti Ghulam Rasool al-Hanafi refutes the statement of Ibn Taimiyah in the following manner:
“Question: Ibn Taimiyah in his book Minhaj al-Sunnah has stated that the Hadith of ‘I am the city of knowledge and Ali is the gate’ is extremely weak and it has been counted amongst the Modhouat. When it is weak and Maudhu then it cannot be used for inference.
Answer: The statement of Ibn Taimiyah (d. 728) that the Hadith of ‘I am the city of knowledge and Ali is the gate’ is weak and Maudhu is void (Batil) and evil (Mardood). Yahyah bin Moin has declared this Hadith as Sahih and has called its main narrator Abu Sult as Thiqa and Seduq. Since Yahyah bin Moin has declared this Hadith as Sahih therefore there should not be any doubt about this Hadith being Sahih and worthy of being inferred because Yahyah bin Moin is Imam of Jarah and Tadeel. While praising him, Ibn Hajar Asqalani wrote….”
Subeh Sadiq, page 156 (Published in London)
Then Mufti Ghulam Rasool took two pages mentioning the authoritative place enjoyed by Yahyah bin Moin in Ahle Sunnah and then he stated:
This proves that Yahyah bin Moin was one of the greatest scholars in the knowledge of Hadith and fields related to it. He was the one who was very well aware of the authenticity or unreliability of Hadith; and Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal has also clarified it that Yahyah bin Moin knows more about Sahih or weak Hadith. If Yahyah bin Moin mention the authenticity of any Hadith then it will be deemed Sahih. Those who would state anything opposing that will not be believed. When the Imam of Jarah and Tadeel namely Yahyah bin Moin has declared the Hadith ‘I am the city of knowledge and Ali is the gate’ as Sahih; moreover Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal has recorded it; moreover it is recorded in Jami Tirmidhi, then the statement of Ibn Taimiyah calling it weak and Maudhu is wrong and void. Moreover while relying on Yahyah bin Moin, Ibn Taimiyah himself stated that he is among the greatest Muhaditheen from the aspect of veracity, loyalty and Jarah and Tadeel. Moreover he stated: ‘Yahyah bin Moin and others have more capability of knowing the Sahih Hadiths. They have more eligibility of distinguishing between truth and lie, Sahih and Maudhu Hadith. If someone wants to investigate whether a particular Hadith is Sahih or weak or Maudhu, one should refer to Yahyah bin Moin and his likes’ (Tasfiyah Ma bayn Sunni o Shia, page 65 citing Minhaj al-Sunnah).
When Yahyah bin Moin declares a Hadith as Sahih then it is Sahih. When this is the situation then what meaning does the Ibn Taimiyah (d. 728)’s denying the Hadith ‘I am the city of knowledge and Ali is the gate’ being Sahih have! Ibn Taimiyah on one hand stated that Yahyah bin Moin has more knowledge in knowing the Sahih or Maudhu Hadith and the statement of Yahyah bin Moin will be more authentic in this regard. But on the other hand Yahyah bin Moin declared the Hadith ‘I am the city of knowledge and Ali is the gate’ as Sahih, Ibn Taimiyah then denied the same and stated that the Hadith is weak and Maudhu. This is stubbornness and extremism of Ibn Taimiyah. Therefore this statement of Ibn Taimiyah is void and evil, and the Hadith is Sahih.
Subeh Sadiq, pages 160-161 (Published in London)
The words of Ibn Taimiyah used by Mufti Ghulam Rasool can be read directly from the online Minhaj al-Sunnah:
Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 8 page 418
This tradition is mentioned in many books:
Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 4 page 248:
His statement that they all narrated that the Prophet (s) said: ‘Oh Fatima, surely Allah gets angry when you are angry and gets pleased when you are pleased’, it is a lie. No one narrated that from the Prophet; and it is not recorded in known hadith books; and it doesn’t have a chain to the Prophet (s), neither Sahih nor Hasan.”
Al-Hakim recorded it in his book ‘al-Mustadrak’ volume 3,page 154 and declared it as Sahih. Al-Haythami recorded it in his book Majma al-Zawaed, Volume 9 page 203 and declared it as Hasan. Shaykh Salehi al-Shami declared it as Hasan in his book ‘Subul al-Huda’ volume 11 page 44.
It is narrated in other books such as:
Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 4 page 417:
His statement ‘Whoever I am his leader Mawla, Ali is his Mawla, Oh Allah support those who support him…’ etc this is not recorded in the main books except in Tirmidhi. But it is only recorded ‘Whoever I am his leader Mawla, Ali is his Mawla’. However, the addition is not part of the hadith.
Imam Ibn Haban recorded this hadith in his book of Sahih traditions ‘Sahih ibn Haban’ volume 15 page 376 with the additional part. Al-Hakim in his book ‘al-Mustadrak’ volume 3 page 109 recorded that hadith with the additional part and declared it as Sahih according to the conditions of the two Sheikh while Dahabi in his book ‘Talkhis al-Mustadrak’ kept silent which means he agreed with al-Hakim. Imam Al-Haythami recorded it with the additional part in his book ‘Majma al-Zawaed’ volume 9 page 103 and declared its narrators to be authentic. Ibn Hajar said in his book ‘Fath al-Bari’ volume 7 page 61 about the tradition: ‘Many of it chains are Sahih and Hasan’. Al-Ejloni in his book ‘Kashf al-Khefa’ volume 2 page 274 said: ‘Thirty companions narrated it with the addition ‘Oh Allah support whoever support him’ hence the hadith is Mutwatir’ Albaani recorded it with the additional part in his book ‘Silsila Sahiha’ volume 4 page 249 and declared it as Sahih and then he wrote:
I saw Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taimiyah state that he deemed the first part as weak and deemed the second part as a lie! And this is of his exaggerations due to his haste in rejecting the traditions before he collected the other chains and revised them accurately. And it is the help of Allah that is sought in that.
Ibn Taimiyah claimed that it is not recorded in any main book other than Tirmidhi. That is yet another lie on the part of this shameless enemy of Ahulbayt (as). The tradition has been recorded in many other prominent Sunni books that include:
Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 7 page 279:
His statement, “(the Book and) my progeny my family and they will never separate till they meet me on the Pool” that is narrated by Tirmidhi; and Ahmad ibn Hanbal was asked about it therefore he declared it weak. Similarly more than one scholar declared it weak and said that it is not Sahih.
Tirmidhi recorded it in his book ‘Sunnan al-Tirmidhi’ volume 5 page 328 and declared it as Hasan. Al-Baghawi in his book ‘Sharh al-Sunnah’ volume 7 page 206 declared it as Hasan. Ibn al-Arabi in his book ‘Aridat al-Ahwadi’ volume 7 page 159 declared it as Sahih. Imam Al-haythami recorded it in his book ‘Majma al-Zawaed’ volume 9 page 163 and declared its chain to be good. Imam Tahawi in his book ‘Mushkel al-Athaar’ volume 5 page 18 declared it as Sahih. Albaani recorded it in his book ‘Silsila Sahiha’ volume 4 page 260 and declared it as Sahih.
It is recorded in many books such as:
Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 7 page 280:
His statement ‘the likeness of my Ahlulbayt is the likeness of Noah’s Ark’; verily there is no correct chain for it and it is not recorded in any reliable hadith book.
Al-Hakim recorded the tradition in his book ‘al-Mustadrak’ volume 2 page 343 and declared it as Sahih according to the condition of Muslim. Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti in his book ‘Al-Jame al-Saghir’ volume 2 page533 declared it as Hasan. Imam Al-Sakhawi in his book ‘Al-Baldanyat’ page 186 declared it as Hasan.
The tradition is recorded in famous Sunni books such as:
Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 2 page 13:
Some liars fabricated a tradition which says that the verse was revealed in favor of Ali when he gave his ring as charity during prayers and this is a lie according to the Ijma of scholars.
Ijma means ALL the scholars; so can the filthy followers of Ibn Taimiyah cite the names of ten scholars that died before ibn Taimiyah and deemed this a lie?
Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 7 page 107:
That proves the lie of what has been narrated from some companions such as Jabir: ‘We used to recognize the hypocrites during the time of Allah’s Messenger by their hatred for Ali bin Abi Talib’
This tradition is narrated by six of the companions:
Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal records in Fadhail al-Sahaba, Volume 2, page 639 hadith number 1086:
Abi al-Zubair said: ‘I asked Jabir: ‘How was Ali’s status amongst you?’ He replied: ‘He was amongst the best of mankind; we used to recognize the hypocrites through their hatred of him.’
Salafi scholar Dr. Wasiullah bin Muhammad Abbas in his margin of the book ‘Fadhail al-Sahaba’ published by the the second largest Salafi/Wahabi university namely Umm Al-Qura University in Makkah, graded the tradition as ‘Hasan’.
Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal also records in Fadhail al-Sahaba, Volume 2, page 579 hadith number 979:
Abu Saeed al-Khudari said: “We recognized the hypocrites by their hatred of Ali”
Dr. Wasiullah declared it as ‘Sahih’.
Fadha’il al-Sahaba, Volume 2 page 549 (Published in Makkah Mukkarmah, Saudi Arabia)
One of the pioneer Sunni scholars Imam Ali bin Muhammad al-Hemayri (d. 323 H) who has been referred to as “Imam, Faqih and Allamah”by Imam Dahabi (Siar alam al-nubala, v15 p13) has also recorded this tradition with a different chain of narration in his book ‘Juzu al-Hemayri’ page 34 Hadith 38:
ثنا هارون بن إسحاق ثنا سفيان بن عيينة عن الزهري عن يزيد بن خصيفة عن بسر بن سعيد عن أبي سعيد الخدري قال ما كنا نعرف المنافقين على عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم إلا ببغض علي
Harun bin Ishaq – Sufyan bin Ayyna – al-Zuhari – Yazid bin Khusayfa – Busr bin Saeed – Abi Saeed al-Khudri said: ‘During the time of Messenger of Allah (pbuh), we used to recognize the hypocrites through their hate towards Ali’.
Juzu al-Hemayri, page 34 Hadith 38
All the narrators in the chain are authentic. Harun bin Ishaq: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Seduq‘ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p257), Dahabi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Al-Kaashef, v2 p329). Sufyan bin Ayyna: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p371), Dahabi said: ‘Thiqah Thabt’ (Al-Kaashef, v1 p449). Al-Zuhari: Ibn Hajar said: ‘There is an agreement about his magnificence and mastery’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p133), Al-Dahabi said: ‘The Imam, the Hafiz of his time’ (Siar alam alnubala, v5 p326). Yazid bin Khusayfa: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p327), Dahabi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Al-Kaashef, v2 p386). Busr bin Saeed: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p125) while Dahabi have recorded various accolades given to him by Sunni scholars (Tarikh al-Islam, v6 p302).
We read same tradition with another chain of narration in Al-Mustadrak, Volume 3 page 129:
Abu Dhar said: ‘We used to recognize the hypocrites through their denial of Allah and his messenger, abandoning the prayers and their hatred against Ali bin Abi Talib.’
Imam Al-Hakim said: ”Sahih according to the condition of Muslim.”
It is recorded in some other famous Sunni books:
Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 5 page 16:
It contain words which are a lie on Allah’s Messenger (s), such as ‘Don’t you like to be to me as what Aaron was to Moses except there is no prophet after me and I shall not leave without you being my successor’.
Al-Hakim declared it as Sahih in his book al-Mustadrak, Volume 3 page 133 while Dahabi in his book al-Talkhis agreed with al-Hakim and declared it as Sahih. Imam Al-Haythami declared it as Sahih in his book Majma al-Zawaed, Volume 9 page 120. Shaykh Ahmad Shakir in his footnote on Musnad Ahmad declared it as Sahih. Albani in his book Dilal al-Janah, Volume 2 page 337 declared it as Hasan.
The tradition is also recorded in other famous books
Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 8 page 210:
The Rafidhi said: ‘The eleventh (proof) is that He (s) sent (Abu Bakr) to report the chapter of “Baraa”, then he sent Ali (replacing Abu Bakr) and ordered him (Abu Bakr) to return…this is a lie according to the agreement of the scholars.
The prejudice of Ibn Taimiyah in this statement is as clear as the sun on a clear day. We read in Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 365:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
On the Day of Nahr (10th of Dhul-Hijja, in the year prior to the last Hajj of the Prophet when Abu Bakr was the leader of the pilgrims in that Hajj) Abu Bakr sent me along with other announcers to Mina to make a public announcement: “No pagan is allowed to perform Hajj after this year and no naked person is allowed to perform the Tawaf around the Ka’ba. Then Allah’s Apostle sent ‘Ali to read out the Surat Bara’a (At-Tauba) to the people; so he made the announcement along with us on the day of Nahr in Mina: “No pagan is allowed to perform Hajj after this year and no naked person is allowed to perform the Tawaf around the Ka’ba.”
The same incident has been recorded in the following manner in Sunnan Tirmidhi, Volume 4 page 339:
Anas bin Malik said: The Prophet (s) sent Abu Bakr to announce the chapter of Baraa. Then he called him (Abu Bakr) to return and said: ‘No one shall announce that except a man from my family’. Then he called Ali and gave it to him.
Imam Tirmidhi declared it as Hasan. Imam Al-Hakim declared it as Sahih in his book al-Mustadrak, Volume 3 page 133 while Dahabi in his book al-Talkhis agreed with al-Hakim and declared it as Sahih. Imam Al-Haythami in his book Majma al-Zawed, Volume 3 page 241 said ‘The narrators are reliable’. Ibn Hajar in his book Fath al-Bari, Volume 8 page 241 declared it as Hasan. Albaani declared it as Hasan in his book Sahih al-Tirmidhi, hadith number 3090. Al-Wadei declared it as Hasan in his book al-Sahih al-Musnad, page 100. Shaykh Ahmad Shakir in his footnote on Musnad Ahmad declared it as Sahih.
The tradition is also recorded in the following famous books:
Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 8 page 94:
Ali’s knowledge about the unseen is a clear lie. To have the knowledge of part of the unseen is not his duty; and the knowledge of whole unseen he didn’t have.
We read in Tafsir al-Quran by Imam Abdulrazaq San’ani, Volume 3 page 241:
Abdulrazaq from Mu’amar from Wahab bin Abdullah from Abi al-Tufail who said: ‘I witnessed Ali was addressing and saying: ‘Ask me, by Allah whatever you ask me about till the Day of judgment, I will inform you about it.’
Abdulrazaq San’ani: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p599). Mu’amar bin Rashid: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah Thabt’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p202). Wahab bin Abdullah: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p292). Abu al-Tufail: A Sahabi.
According to him, Imam Ali (as) does not have knowledge of the unseen. But the same Ibn Taimiyah attested that Umar bin al-Khatab had knowledge of the unseen. We read in Awlya al-Rahman by Ibn Taimiyah, page 123:
Umar bin al-Khatab, when he sent an army, he appointed a man called Sarya as a commander. While Umar was on the pulpit addressing, he started to shout and say: ‘Oh Sarya! Watch out the mountain! Oh Sarya watch out the mountain!’ Then when the messenger of the army arrived, he said: ‘Oh commander of believers , we faced our enemies and they defeated us. Then we heard a voice saying: ‘Oh Sarya, watch out the mountain! Oh Sarya, watch out the mountain!’ Then we gave our backs to the mountain and then Allah defeated them.’
Ibn Tamiyah wrote in Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 7 page 263:
“Hadith al-Tayr is among the lies and fabrications”
Again, it was sheer Nasibism on Ibn Tamiyah’s part that made him discard yet another merit of Ali bin Abi Talib (as) to the dustbin without bothering to substantiate his claim. The truth is that even if Ibn Tamiyah had been granted an extra life to lead and spread hatred and Nasibism across the globe, he would have still been frustrated in his efforts to prove Hadith Tayr weak according to the Sunni science of Hadith because it has reached to the level of Tawatur. Let us first remind our readers the definition of a Mutawatir Hadith:
Imam Jalaluddin Suyti records in ‘Tadrib al-Rawi’ Volume 2 page 174:
Al-Estakhari said: ‘The minimum limit is ten narrators and that is the chosen view’
Modern day Sunni scholar and the Cheif of Islamic research center in Syria, Dr. Muhammad Habash (born in 1962) records in Sharh al-Umdah, Volume 1 page 44:
“The ‘Mutwatir’ is what has been narrated by ten or more”
Modern day Sunni scholar Ibrahim Abdulmuqtader states in Manzilat al-Sunnah, page 11:
“To be narrated in every generation (tabaqa) a large number attain a Tawatur level, there is disagreement about the minimum number of the many, the chosen are ten persons or nine, which is that the tradition narrated by nine of the Sahaba and from them nine of Tabyeen and from them nine of their followers and so on.”
Now in the light of this definition, let us prove the Tawatur of Hadit Tayr:
If Nasibi fingers are itching to write something against the authenticity of the above mentioned references in terms of their chains of narrations then let us quash their filthy desires by reminding them that they need not bother doing this because Ibn Hajar records in ‘Nuzhat al-Nadhar’ page 10:
“The Mutwatir do not require to have their narrators checked, verily one must work with it without checking”
Sunni scholar and a teacher at the University of Makka Allamah Ahmad bin Umar bin Salim records in Al-Muqtareb fi Bayan al-Mutareb, page 10:
“The Tawatur do not require checking of narrators, verily one must work with it without checking because it is acceptable”
Present day Salafi scholar and one of the students of Shaykh Bin Baz namely Abdulkarim al-Khudhair (born in 1374 H) records in Tahqiq al-Raghba fi Tawdih al-Nukhba, page 44:
The Mutwatir: Traditions that should be believed because they are absolutely true, there is hence no need to check through its narrators”
We read the aspect of a Mutawatir tradition in Tadrib al-Rawi by Jalaluddin Suyuti, Volume 2 page 173:
“Hence one must work with it without checking the narrators.”
Thus, we have proven that Hadith Tayr is Mutawatir and hence cannot be objected on any ground anyone that had the audacity to reject a Mutawatir Hadith just because it is in favour of Ali bin Abi Talib possesses impure blood flowing through his veins. Although technically there remains no point of discussing the authenticity of the traditions separately in the light of all above discussion let us conclude the issue by presenting two such examples:
Imam Hakim records Hadith Al-Tayr in the following manner:
Anas Ibn Malik narrated:
I was serving the Messenger of Allah and a roasted bird was presented to the Messenger of Allah. He said, “O Allah, bring me the most beloved of your creation to share this bird with me.” I said, “O Allah, make it a man from the Ansar.” Ali, May Allah be pleased with him, came and I said to him, “The Messenger of Allah is engaged in something.” He came again and I said, “The Messenger of Allah is engaged in something.” He came again and the Messenger of Allah said, “Open the door,” and so he entered and the Messenger of Allah said, “What is your business, O Ali?” He said, “This is the third time I came by and on each occasion Anas sent me away. He claimed you were engaged in something.” He said, “Why did you do what you did?” I said, “O Messenger of Allah, I heard your supplication and I liked it to be someone from my people.” The Messenger of Allah said, “The man loves his people.”
Mustadrak, Volume 3 page 119 Hadith 4650
Hakim then wrote:
“This Hadith is Sahih according to the standards of the two Sheikhs but they do not report it. It was narrated from Anas by more than thirty companions and the Hadith has been authentically narrated through Ali, Abu Saeed al-Khudhri, Safeena and Thabit al-Banani”
Here the shameless enemies of Ahlulbayt (as) i.e. the staunch adherents of Ibn Tamiyah may argue that Dhahabi was unauware of one of its narrators namely Ibn Ayadh thus entitling him to reject its authenticity. Dhahabi passed this remark for reasons best known to him because we see Dhahabi did mention Ibn Ayahd in his book Tareekh al-Islam but nevertheless, it is no excuse because if one person failed to find Ibn Ayadh’s biography whilst other Sunni scholars did, the authenticity of the above cited Hadith cannot be rejected. To clarify this once and for all, let us cite the comments of Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani from Lisan al-Mizan, Volume 5 page 57:
He (Ibn Ayadh) narrated Hadith al-Tayr, and al-Hakim said that it is (Sahih) according to the standards of Bukhari and Muslim. I say that all the narrators are Thiqah except this one (Ibn Ayadh) thus he has been commented upon but then I found out that he (Ibn Ayadh) is ‘Seduq’.
Moreover, according to Dahabi himself, Hadith al-Tayr is genuine, as he stated in his book Tazkirat al-Hufaz, Volume 3 page 1034.
“Hadith al-Tayr has so many chains of narration, I collected them in a separate book and the total of it proves that the hadith is genuine”.
Let us cite another version of Hadith al-Tayr narrated from the Sahabi Safina as recorded by Imam Tabarani in Mu’jam al-Kabir, Volume 7 page 82 Hadith 6437:
“Ubayd al-Ajli narrated from Ibrahim ibn Sa’eed al-Jawhari from Husayn ibn Muhammad from Sulayman ibn Qarm from Fatr ibn Khalifah from Abdur-Rahman ibn Abi Na’m from Safinah, free slave of the Holy Prophet:
The Holy Prophet came with a bird and said: ‘O Allah! Bring unto me the most beloved of your creatures (after me) to eat this bird with me’. Then Ali came. The Holy Prophet said: ‘O Allah! He is the most beloved of creations to me too!’”
Imam Al-Haythami also recorded this particular version of Hadith and then stated:
“Al-Tabarani has narrated it and its narrators are narrators of the Sahih (al-Bukhari and Muslim) except Fatr ibn Khalifah but he is Thiqah”.
Majma al-Zawaid, Volume 8 page 471 Hadith 14612
In the end we would like to mention the views of Ibn Tamiyah about the famous ‘Hadith Rad al-Shams’ pertaining to the incident wherein Prophet (s) had asked Ali bin Abi Talib (as) to bring the sunset back and He (as) complied to the instruction. Ibn Tamiyah stated in Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 8 page 113:
“Hadith Rad al-Shams has been mentioned by some scholars such as Tahawi and Qazi Ayadh and they considered it as a miracle by the prophet (pbuh) but the scholars who investigate the hadith’s science know that this hadith is fabricated”.
The statement of Ibn Tamiyah itself contains names of two famed Sunni scholars Tahawi and Qazi Ayadh who believed the incident as authentic. Let us now cite the comments of Imam Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari al-Hanafi (d. 1371 H) who in his authority work al-Hawi fi Sirat al-Tahawi, page 27 stated:
“You see him (Ibn Tamiyah) ruled on him (Tahawi) with this tough judgment simply because he (Tahawi) authenticated the tradition of returning the sun to Ali may Allah bless his face. Therefore, affirming the authenticity of this tradition contradicted his (Ibn Tamiyah’s) deviation from Ali may Allah be pleased with him. The signs of hatred against Ali peace be upon him, appears in his (Ibn Tamiyah’s) words appear in every line of his statement”.
Do we need to comment anymore as to the reasons that Ibn Tamiyah al-Nasibi’s got stomach indigestion over Hadith Rad al-Shams? It is clear that he rejected the incident because he could accept this immense merit of Ali bin Abi Talib (as). Let us cite the comments of other Sunni scholars who have deemed the incident as authentic. Imam Ibn Abi Bakar al-Haythami stated in Majma al-Zawaid, Volume 8 page 524 Tradition 14096:
“Al-Tabarani narrated and one of the chains contains those who are the narrators of Sahih”
Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti stated in his book Al-Durar al-Muntathira, page 23:
I say: ‘Ibn Mandah and Ibn Shaheen recorded it from Asma bint Umays and Ibn Marwih recorded it from Abu Huraira and the chain of narration is Hasan. And those who graded it Sahih are Tahawi and Qazi Ayadh. Ibn al-Jawzi claimed it a fabricated narration thus he is mistaken as I have proved in Mukhtasar al-Mawdoat.’
Ibn Hajar Makki al-Haythami records in Al-Sawaiq al-Muhriqa, Volume 2 page 376:
“Tahawi and Qazi Ayadh in his book al-Shifa graded the hadith as Sahih while Sheikh ul Islam Abu Zur’a and others declared it as Hasan”.
Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani also rejected the views of Ibn Tamiyah and Ibn Jauzi. He stated in Fatah al-Bari, Volume 6 page 155:
“Ibn al-Jawzi was mistaken when he recorded in al-Mawdoat (book) and so was Ibn Tamiyah who deemed it a fabrication in his book when answering the Rawafidh”.
Allamah Zaini Dahlan al-Shafiyee (d. 1304 H) in his famed biography of Holy Prophet Al-Siyrah al-Nabawya, Volume 3 page 119 recorded the statement of Imam Zaqrani:
Al-Zarqani said: ‘Ibn Mandah and Ibn Shaheen recorded it from Asma bint Umays (ra) via a Hasan chain of narration and so did Ibn Mardweh with a Hasan chain of narration from Abu Huraira. Al-Tabarani also recorded it in his book al-Mujam al-Kabir with a Hasan chain of narration as did Sheikh ul Islam and Qazi al-Quza Waliuddin al-Iraqi who confirmed it’.
On the next page, Zaini stated:
“The multiple chains shows that the hadith is genuine”.
Allamah Badruddin al-Aini in Umdat al-Qari Sharah Sahih Bukhari, Volume 22 page 262 has recorded the following words of Ahmad bin Saleh:
“Ahmad bin Saleh used to say that the knowledge holders should not fail to record the hadith of Asma because it is a great sign of prophethood”
It is interesting that Ibn al Hashimi had argued that Ibn Taimiyah loved the Ahl’ul bayt (as) but the reality is the Ulema of Ahle Sunnah have testified to the Nasibism of Ibn Tamiyah. Imam Ibn Hajar records in Lisan al-Mizan, Volume 6, page 320:
“The exaggeration in refuting the Rafidhi text has sometimes taken him to towards belittling Ali (ra)”
Sunni scholar from Morocco Hafiz Ahmad bin Sidiq (d. 1354 H) records in ‘Fath al-Malik al-Ali’ page 109:
“The extremist Nawasib such as Ibn Taimiyah and those to him.”
Allamah Hasan bin Ali al-Saqqaf (born in 1961) is a contemporary Sunni scholar of modern day. He is the chief of Imam Nawawi center in Jordan. He has been the student of some esteemed Sunni scholars such as al-Azeemi (the margin writer of the book Sahih Ibn Khuzaima), Hafiz Ghemari and Sheikh Bouti. Allamah Saqqaf in the margin of the book ‘Sahih Sharh Aqida Tahawya’ page 651 states:
“From those who followed the path of Bani Ummaya and practiced Nasb against Ali, Lady Fatima, Ahlulbayt and attacked them is Ibn Taimiyah al-Harani and his Nasibi companions.”
A Shafiyee scholar hailing from a family that has provided a number of great scholars to Ahle Sunnah namely Allamah Mustafa al-Attas states in his book ‘Mash-had al-Imam al-Attas Be Hadramout’ page 118:
“It is sufficient that Dahabi the Nasibi has authenticated this tradition which is already Mutwatir, and he is alike his Sheikh Ibn Tamiyah, as they never authenticate any tradition regarding Prophet’s Ahlulbayt unless they have consumed and run out of all the tricks to unauthenticate and criticize its chain of narration or its text”.
Modern day Salafi scholar Hassan bin Farhan al-Maliki writes in his book ‘Qeraah fi Kutub al-Aqaed’ page 176 (Markaz al-Derasat al-Tarikhya, Kingdom of Jordan, P.O. Box 143680):
“Such as Ibn Taymiah, Ibn Kathir and Ibn Qayyim – Ibn Taymiah was the most extreme from amongst them – they were fearful of the virtues of Ali and Ahlulbayt and they sought to unauthenticate a plethora of Sahih traditions regarding their (Ahlulbayt) virtues, whereas they (Ibn Taymiah etc.) would exaggerate in their praise others.”
Also on page 136, he admits the traits of Ibn Tamiyah whilst highlighting the double standards of the Salafi masses:
“According to them, cursing Mu’awyia is worse than cursing Ali bin Abi Talib!! That’s why you see them reacting severely towards those who criticise Mu’awyia such as Ibn Abdulbar, Nisai and Hakim whilst they praise those who belittled Ali bin Abi Talib such as Ibn Taymiah, Abi Bakr bin Abi Dawud and Barbahari”
Let us end this chapter with the following words of Imam of Ahle Sunnah Shah Abdul Aziz Muhadith Dehalwi:
“At times, the text of Ibn Taimiyah in books such as ‘Minhaaj as Sunnah’ and others have been too atrocious. They particularly belittled the Ahlulbayt, he prohibits visiting the tomb of Rasulullah (s), rejects the Ghauth, Qutub and Abdaal and disparages the Sufies … According to the views of Ahlul Sunnah, his text is cursed. Therefore Ahlul Sunnah cannot be criticized on account of his writings”.
Fatawa Azizi, Volume 2 page 79 (Published in Deoband)
