To whom it may concern from amongst my students, followers, and the generality of the Muslims:

I recently accused Ibn Taymiyyah of affirming composition and divisibility into "quantitative parts" for Allaah on the basis of a statement of Ibn Taymiyyah, the text of which is:

I have now come to realize that this statement is made by Ibn Taymiyyah in the course of refuting an argument borrowed by Fakhr ud-Din ar-Razi from the Philosophers in order to deny Allaah being above the heaven, above the Throne.

I inferred from this statement (from my understanding) that:

Ibn Taymiyyah is saying that there is no proof for the impossibility of Allaah being described with what Fakhr ud-Din ar-Razi claims to be "tarkeeb (composition through parts)"

And on this basis I accused Ibn Taymiyyah of stating explicitly that Allaah is composite (i.e. made up of parts). Leaving my treachery in quoting to one side, I now realize this is a gross error for reasons that will be clarified below. I also claimed on the basis of this same statement that Ibn Taymiyyah is essentially saying that nothing can exist, not even Allaah, without parts (ajzaa') that are in need (iftiqaar). I now realize that this claim regarding this statement of Ibn Taymiyyah is totally false and baseless for reasons that will be clarified below.

After making my baseless allegation based upon this statement of Ibn Taymiyyah, it was brought to my attention by those good, benevolent folks over at Asharis.Com in the first of their Sunni responses to my Jahmite meanderings that I had misunderstood the words of Ibn Taymiyyah.

In their first response - besides my treachery in quotation which I was later forced to acknowledge and correct - they clarified that Ibn Taymiyyah explicitly negates "composition (tarkeeb)", "divisibility (inqisaam, tajazzee)" for Allah in clear, unambiguous words and that the problem he has with the argument of Fakhr ud-Din ar-Razi is that ar-Razi is simply employing the argument of the Philosophers which is the proof of "tarkeeb" (composition). This proof of the Philosophers is used to establish the existence of a Maker, and on account of it they were forced to deny all the attributes, because affirming attributes for the Maker would have necessitated according to their proof that Allaah is composite (murakkab), being made up of parts (ajzaa') that are in need (muftaqirah) of the whole.

And those good folks at Asharis.Com brought statements from Ibn Taymiyyah that explained that what is intended by such a proof is to negate the notion of distinction such as what is found between Allaah's attributes in that His hearing is other than His seeing, which are both other than His speech and so on. And even if this is deceptively labelled as "tarkeeb (composition)" it is obligatory to accept and affirm this meaning for every existing thing, the Creator and the created - because there is nothing in existence except that it is described with multiple distinct attributes.

Despite all these clarifications, my crippled and defunct intellect betrayed me and refused to accept this explanation of Ibn Taymiyyah that was presented to me in clear unambiguous statements from the "Bayaan Talbees al-Jahmiyyah". In fact, even after they brought another three articles (here, here and here) on the subject of tarkeeb and inqisaam, making the issue as clear as the sun in a cloudless sky, my decrepit intellect continued to betray me and the education and training of my kalam atomist teachers over there in Syria and Kuwait availed me nothing. I continued to insist and persist. This led me in a childish fit of anger and frustration to write a new article (dated 25th August 2009) re-asserting the very same allegation against Ibn Taymiyyah and insisting on my (false and baseless) reading and understanding of the quotation in question.

It wasn't until those good folks at Asharis.Com pointed out what has been written by Muhammad bin Yusuf as-Sanusi (d. 895H) who is an Ash'ari scholar whose books are standard texts in Ash'ari dogma, and a work of whom I have myself translated. This scholar wrote on this exact same subject regarding ar-Razi and his affectations towards the Philosophers and their argument of "tarkeeb" (composition) and ar-Razi being deceived by them, and when I read his words it was then that I finally woke from oblivion and understood, finally, what Ibn Taymiyyah was talking about.

So what I now understand and what I hold on this issue is:

• The Philosopher's argument for a Maker for the universe is what is called "proof through composition (tarkeeb)". The essence of this proof is that created bodies in the universe (ajsaam) are composed (murakkabah) and anything that is composite is needy and dependent (muftaqir) upon its parts (ajzaa'), and everything that is needy (muftaqir) then its existence is only possible (as opposed to necessary), and that whose existence is only possible must have an agent whose existence is necessary. And numerousness (kathrah) in the essence (dhaat) of that whose existence is necessary is impossible, since that necessitates that it is composite (murakkab) and has need (muftaqir), and this contradicts its necessary existence.

• Both Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah - in the many quotations brought by those good folks at Asharis.Com - and likewise Muhammad bin Yusuf as-Sanusi, a prominent later Ash'ari, are refuting this argument of the Philosophers which has simply been employed, unscrupulously, by Fakhr ud-Din ar-Razi, and which he was clearly affected by.

• I acknowledge that what Muhammad bin Yusuf as-Sanusi wrote between pages 118-121 of his Sharh al-Kubraa is in fact exactly the same as what Ibn Taymiyyah wrote in the quoted passage that I used to slander him. Since, the Philosophers argue that attributes are distinct parts (ajzaa') within the Essence, and hence, tarkeeb (composition) is necessitated. Ar-Razi is using the "proof through tarkeeb (composition)" argument of the Philosophers, which to us Ash'aris necessitates outright kufr and Atheism - and he is using it to deny Allaah is above the Throne, arguing that this necessitates Allaah is composite through parts.

• Ibn Taymiyyah's argument against ar-Razi is that we reject for Allaah the meanings of the words "tarkeeb" and "inqisaam" and "iftiqaar" that are well-known and established in the language. As for what you are trying to do, which is to include meanings of truth (Allaah being above the Throne) into these terms, and then demand that these terms are rejected outright - which would include negation of a true meaning established in the texts, and agreed upon by the Salaf in their entirety and likewise by the prominent early Ash'ari Scholars as well as many other factions - then we are not falling for that deception because what you are doing here is based upon the argument of the Philosophers who reject all of Allaah's attributes in their entirety because in their view this necessitates that Allaah is composed (murakkab) of distinct parts (ajzaa') which are in need (muftaqirah), thereby making Allaah's necessary existence to be impossible. So Ibn Taymiyyah is saying that this thing that you O Razi are calling "tarkeeb", then there is no proof that it is impossible at all. Rather to deny this and claim that this is impossible is pure sophistry - since there is nothing in existence except that it is described with multiple attributes.

• And I acknowledge that after providing a refutation of the "proof of tarkeeb (composition)" used by the Philosophers to deny the attributes, as-Sanusi writes (Sharh al-Kubraa, p. 119):

  Sharf ud-Din Ibn at-Tilmisani said: And when al-Fakhr [ud-Din ar-Razi] believed the correctness of this proof, meaning the doubt of the Philosophers that "al-iftiqaar" - with the meaning of unrestricted dependence - necessitates (only) the possibility (of existence), and that every composed (thing) is in need of its (composite) part (juz') and (in need of) the part that is other than it, and that anything that is need of what is besides it cannot (have) except a possible (existence), and (the doubt of) the presumption of "tarkeeb" (composition) [for Allaah] through consideration of the attributes - [so ar-Razi, believing in the correctness of all that] when he used these precepts in seeking evidence for the possibility (of existence) of everything that is besides Allaah, the Exalted, he perceived (that this also meant) the invalidation of the attributes of Allaah, the Exalted. So on one occasion he (ar-Razi) said, "This is from (amongst those affairs) in which we beseech Allaah, the Exalted, for counsel"...

  And he also says (p. 120):

  And what has led him (i.e. ar-Razi) to most of these corrupt views is fleeing entirely from "at-tarkeeb" (composition) which the Philosophers have presumed to be binding from the affirmation of the attributes, and for that reason, they negated them - whilst (we should note) that something does not increase (numerically) on account of the numerousness of its attributes and nor does it increase (numerically) on account of the numerousness of its considered qualities (such as hearing, seeing, speaking).

  And he also says (p. 120):

  Sharf ud-Din bin at-Tilmisani said: And at-Tarkeeb (composition) in [Allaah's} Essence is binding upon him (ar-Razi) as well, because the quiddity (the true essence of a thing) of every attribute amongst life (al-hayaat), knowledge (al-ilm), power (al-qudrah), will (al-iraadah) are distinguished (mutamayyizah) from the others in the mind. From them are those that have no dependence (on others) such as life (al-hayaat), and from them are those that do have dependence, but do not have influence (upon other things) such as knowledge (al-ilm). And from them are those which are dependent and also have influence such as power (al-qudrah) and will (al-iraadah). So when they are distinguished (from each other) and are different (to each other in Allaah's Essence), they (the Attributes) necessitate different aspects in that which is required for them (to exist) [meaning Allaah's Essence], and when the Philosophers realized that, then it was not possible for them except to deny the attributes, and so they deceived the Muslims in applying them (to Allaah) whilst negating their realities (haqaa'iq), and they explained them (the attributes) with affairs that are different to their true essence - such as their explanation of His being knowing (aalim) as meaning "He is not a jism (body) or established within a body (meaning He is not a body or an incidental attribute of a body)"...

  And he also writes (p. 121):

  Know that this doubt is the very one that misled the Philosophers to reject all the attributes, and it misled the Imaam, al-Fakhr (ud-Din ar-Razi) until he said what he said, and Allaah guides whomever He wills to the right path.

• That Ibn Taymiyyah and as-Sanusi (who is one of my scholars) are on one side of the line in this issue of the "proof of tarkeeb (composition)", and ar-Razi is on the other side of the line with those "evil, nasty, heretical, deviant" Philosophers - and I decided to stand by ar-Razi on the side of the Philosophers, by considering their underlying argument of "tarkeeb" to be the truth in the course of my slander of Ibn Taymiyyah. Woe to me, and woe to me again!

• That my attempt to claim that Ibn Taymiyyah has two different meanings for "composition" and "divisibility", and that he denies one but affirms the other, is just mere sophistry and an outright fraud. Rather, there is only the known, clear and established meanings for these terms in the language of the Qur'an and the language of the Arabs. As for the second meaning that I am trying to claim Ibn Taymiyyah does not deny, then it is a meaning concocted in the minds of the Philosophers and in the mind of ar-Razi who claimed that Allaah being above the Throne means that part of Him is distinguishable from another and He is therefore composite (murakkab). And this meaning was fabricated in the mind of ar-Razi and he tried to impute this meaning to anyone who spoke in affirmation of Allaah being above the Throne and did not agree with the necessities of this proof through "tarkeeb" (composition) that originated with the Philosophers.

• And I acknowledge that it is outright hypocrisy for me to not permit my opponent to use that very same response and rebuttal that I use against the Philosophers to rebut the very allegation that I also make against my opponent.

And in light of what has become clear to me, I state in all seriousness and earnestness:

• I, Abu Adam Naruiji, do repent from my slander against Ibn Taymiyyah on this issue, and when it is the case that it is haraam in Islaam to lie upon and slander a pagan (despite his shirk), or an atheist philosopher (despite his kufr) - since the repugnance of what they are upon, and hatred of them, does not make it lawful in the Sharee'ah to lie and slander them - and as a very large and significant body of the Ummah hold Ibn Taymiyyah in high esteem and recognized his stature, erudition and piety - then it is certainly not permissible for me to let loose my tongue upon him with scandalous intellectual frauds and deceptions merely because I have hatred of him. Thus, I announce my repentance and ask forgiveness from Allaah for my iniquities.

• I, Abu Adam Naruiji, do repent from supporting the corrupt proof of the Philosophers, the "proof through composition (tarkeeb)" against the truth that was clarified by Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728H) and after him, as-Sanusi (d. 895H), who is one of the Ash'ari Scholars of the later times. For grievously odious it is that I put on a display of refuting those "vile, nasty, evil" Philosophers with one face, and then with another face use their very same arguments to make takfir of Allaah-fearing scholars. The hypocrisy in this would be similar to me using the arguments outlined by Ibn Taymiyyah against the Philosophers which are, at the very same time, also a refutation of my own creed. And this clearly is hypocrisy and dishonesty of the highest order.

• I, Abu Adam Naruiji, do repent from defrauding my students, followers (and RSS subscribers) into thinking that I am some sort of highly-charged, erudite, pro-Ash'ari, kalam atomist guru. It is clear that I have still not learned the very basics as evidenced by the fact that I fell prey to the arguments of those "nasty, vile, evil" Philosophers of which I am supposed to be an avowed enemy. And this is besides the dishonesty and lack of integrity displayed in quoting and conveying the statements of Ibn Taymiyyah.

• I, Abu Adam Naruiji, do repent from my implied slander upon the early Ash'ari Scholars such as Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari, al-Qadi Abu Bakr al-Baqillani, Ibn Mahdi at-Tabari, Abu al-Abbas al-Qalanisi and others (see here) all of whom held Allaah to be above the heaven, above the Throne without that necessitating that He is a jism (body) confined in space - rather they affirmed His uluww, with His Essence, whilst negating Jismiyyah, and thus, I do not consider it far removed that I would be able to accept this one day - when I have cleansed myself of the impurities of tajahhum.

• I, Abu Adam Naruiji, do make hasty repentance for claiming - on account of considering ar-Razi and his arguments to be correct - that Allaah spoke manifest clear kufr when He said - upon what is apparent in the Arabic language - "ar-Rahman ascended above the Throne", and likewise, clear manifest kufr when He said, "And He is al-Qaahir, above His servants", and likewise, clear manifest kufr when He said, "And the Angels and the Ruh ascend to Him ..." and clear manifest kufr when He said, "... rather, He raised him (Eesaa) up unto Himself ..." and clear manifest kufr when He said, "...they fear their Lord from above them..." - and thereafter not once did Allaah reveal to His Prophet that the apparent meanings were not intended. Instead Allaah inspired the Prophet with multitudes of statements in the Sunnah only corroborating and affirming that Allaah is above the Throne with His Essence, and using language that could only possibly lead those hearing them to conclude conclusively that Allaah is above the creation, above the Throne, with His Essence. And thereafter, [my claim that] the Prophet, never once explained to the Companions that the apparentness of all of that is not what is intended, and that taking all of that upon its apparent meaning is kufr. And thereafter, [my claim that] the Companions continued to transmit all of that, without ever once explaining that the apparent meaning, that Allaah is above the Throne, with His Essence, is not what is intended. So I repent from claiming all of this, and my viewpoint by necessity meant that I claim all these repugnant things regarding Allaah's Book and the Prophet's Sunnah - that they comprise what is essentially kufr.

• I, Abu Adam Naruiji, do admit to one agonizing thing that I must absolutely come to terms with, which is that if I am going to persist in my slander of Ibn Taymiyyah on this issue then I must accuse the aforementioned early Ash'ari Scholars of what is far worse. Rather, I have to accuse them of two things

  a) their being gross Anthropomorphists for affirming Allaah being above the Throne with His Essence, since according to ar-Razi, just the mere affirmation of Allaah being above the Throne necessitates composition and divisibility into parts and

  b) their falling into a ridiculous contradiction when they held that Allaah is above the Throne and is not a body (jism) - for this, according to ar-Razi, is impossible

• I, Abu Adam Naruiji, am faced with the prospect of having to admit in this regard that the Anthropomorphist Karraamiyyah were more rationally sound and intellectually consistent in their view that "Allaah is above the Throne and is a body (jism)" than were the early Ash'arites in their view that "Allaah is above the Throne and not a body". Thus, I have yet to resolve this agony in my mind as to who to pledge allegiance with:
  • Should it be with ar-Razi and those "nasty, evil, vile" Philosophers and their "proof of composition (tarkeeb)" which necessitates that Allaah being above the Throne must make Him a body, there being no escaping from this conclusion. This option is clearly not available to me since I am repenting from this very thing which I used to slander Ibn Taymiyyah!

  • Or should it be with those Anthropomorphist Karraamiyyah who I have to admit were rationally more sound and consistent in their saying - even if I do not accept it - that Allaah is above the Throne and is a body (jism). Because this view, upon the arguments of ar-Razi, is more rational and sound.

  • Or should it be with those early Ash'arites who - if I was to accept and persist upon ar-Razi's argument against Ibn Taymiyyah through the proof of "tarkeeb" - would be considered to be the worst of all three factions for falling into what amounts to sophistry, namely, claiming that Allaah is above the Throne, but not a body (jism)! So they fell into Anthropomorphism and that which is a contradiction!

  This is my dilemma!

Finally I say: O He who revealed about Himself in His Book:

He who is above the Heaven, and He to whom both the Angels and the goodly word ascend, and He who raised Eesaa unto Himself, and He who sends down the revelation upon whomever He wills from His servants, and He who is feared by His servants from above them, and He who ascended above His Throne

I turn to you and I beseech you to forgive me for the aforementioned iniquities, that you save me from the mires of tajahhum and that you guide my heart to find the creed of the early Ash'ari Scholars to be more agreeable than the Jahmee and Mu'tazilee creed of the later Ash'ari Scholars that has led me to into this disgrace, and perhaps through that transition I may come a step closer to adopting the creed of the Salaf wholeheartedly. Ameen.

Signed: _______________________ Date: ___________

In the presence of:

Witness 1: ________________________________

Witness 2: ________________________________