In previous articles we showed how contemporary Jahmite Ash'aris have attempted to accuse Ibn Taymiyyah of speaking with "divisibility" (inqisaam) for Allaah, the Most High, and we pointed out that these people failed (as usual) to grasp that the quotes they were attempting to use are in reference to a type of argument used by ar-Raazee to negate that Allaah is above the Throne, and that this type of argument is the very same one that all the Mu'attilah (deniers of the Attributes) use to accuse others of claiming Allaah is composite (murakkab) and divisible (munqasim).

Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah denies inqisaam (divisibility) and composition (tarkeeb) for Allaah, the Most High, with the established and known meanings for these terms in the language of the Qur'aan and the language of the Arabs.

As for what is intended by the likes of ar-Raazee and those poisoned with their Kalaam theology of al-jawhar (substance) and al-'arad (incidental attribute) and their theory of Atomism (al-Jawhar al-Fard) - then they invent new meanings for these terms, and then use these terms to deny what is clearly established in the Book and the Sunnah. Regarding terms used in this way, Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah exposes and uncovers the deception of the likes of ar-Raazee specifically and the Mutakallimoon in general.

We find very clear and explicit statements from Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah on the impossibility of the meanings of divisibility for Allaah in the "Bayaan", as an example, (3/461):

Which translates as:

And the Surah Ikhlaas comprises the entire truth regarding that, for Allaah says:

Say: He is Allaah, the Ahad. Allaah, the Samad (al-Ikhlaas 112:1-2)

And these two names, al-Ahad, and as-Samad, Allaah has not mentioned them except in this surah, and they negate from Allaah whatever He is declared free of from at-tashbeeh (resemblance), at-tamtheel (likeness), and of at-tarkeeb (composition) and al-inqisaam (divisibility) and at-tajseem (Anthropomorphism). For His Name, al-Ahad, negates any likeness (mithl) or equal (nadheer) just as has preceded in (our) speech from its textual evidences, and we explained that al-Ahad from Allaah's Names negates that there is a likeness to Him from anything from all the things. So He is al-Ahad in everything that befits Him. And His Name, as-Samad, negates at-tafarruq (splitting), al-inqisaam (divisibility), at-tamazzuq (fragmentation), and whatever follows on from that of at-tarkeeb (composition) and its likes. For the name as-Samad indicates unity.

And then further on in the same volume (3/466)

Which translates as:

So it has become apparent that His Name al-Ahad necessitates declaring Him free of what is obligatory to negate from Him of at-tashbeeh (resemblance) and al-mumaathalah (likeness) with those other than Him in anything from amongst the things. And His Name as-Samad necessitates declaring Him free of what is obligatory to negate from Him of al-inqisaam (divisibility) and at-tafarruq (splitting, separation) and what is similar to that, from what negates the perfection of His Samadiyyah, Sublime and Exalted is Allaah from what the oppressors say (about Him) with a great and lofty exaltation.

And also in (7/569):

Which translates as:

The seventeenth angle: That Allaah the Most High mentioned these two names, al-Ahad and as-Samad in this surah and did not mention them in the Qur'aan except in this surah which equals one third of the Qur'aan. And through them He negated from Him(self) at-tarkeeb (composition) which is the Tajseem (being a body like the created bodies) that is negated from Him. And He negated from Him(self) at-tamtheel (likening) which is the tashbeeh (resemblance) that is negated from Him. So this surah is best discourse regarding that which is obligatory to negate from Allaah the Most High of at-tashbeeh and at-tajseem.

And then also in (3/128-130):

Which translates as:

When it becomes known that the intent of the leading (scholars) of this saying of negating at-tajazzee and al-inqisaam (both meanings of divisibility) is not the [meaning] of the presence of divisibility (al-inqisaam) where part of Him separates from another part, and nor the possibility (imkaan) of that (applying to Him) - even if the word regarding that is more apparent than that in others - for they do not intend by the generality of their terminological words that which is well-known in the language of their meaning. Rather, they are meanings they have claimed specifically by [their] speech regarding them, either in negation, or affirmation. This is why Imaam Ahmad said about them, "They speak with the ambiguous of speech, and they deceive the ignorant people on account of the doubts they place over them".

Simply put, Ibn Taymiyyah is saying that those (Mutakallimoon) do not intend by the words "at-tajazzu'" and "al-inqisaam" their well-known meanings in the language, this is not their intent, rather they have other devised meanings which they speak of either in terms of negation or affirmation.

He continues:

And these two meanings (of at-tajazzee and al-inqisaam, divisibility) are from those [meanings] that the Muslims are agreed upon that Allaah should be purified and sanctified from them, for indeed Allaah, the Sublime, is "Ahad" and "Samad", He does not separate into parts (yatajazzee, yataba''ad) and is not divisible (munqasim) with the meaning that part of Him separates from another (part) just like a divided, split-up body is separated - like what is divided of the connected bodies, such as bread, meat and clothing and so on. A part of Him does not separate (from Him) like what separates from the hayawaan (animate, mammal) of its superfluities. And He (Allaah) is purified of such meanings, with the meaning that they (these meanings) are non-existent (regarding Him) and are impossible for Him. Thus, His Essence does not accept tafreeq or tab'eed (division, separation). Rather, He is not ajwaf (i.e. does not have an interior like humans do) as has been said by the Companions and the Taab'ioon in explanation of [the meaning of] as-Samad, that "He is the one without a jawf (interior)", and whose explanation will shortly follow.

And the majority of people do not understand from the negation of at-tab'eed, at-tajzi'ah, al-inqisaam, and at-tarkeeb (all meanings of divisibility, separability and composition) except these two meanings and their likes.

And the negation of that (for Allaah) is agreed upon amongst the Muslims except, O Allaah, that there may be some misguided ignoramuses whom I do not know about who have permitted (the likes of these meanings) for Allaah - that part of Him separates from another part, as has been quoted from some of the Disbelievers. It is not possible to encompass what the offspring of Aadam speak with, but what is intended here is that [of] those positions that are quoted from the [various] factions of the Ummah, I did not find this saying amongst them (i.e. of Allaah being divisible with this meaning) from any of those factions.

And these are just a few examples of the kind of very explicit negation and denial by Ibn Taymiyyah that Allaah, the Sublime, is divisible (munqasim) or composite (murakkab).

Notes and Comments

To follow inshaa'Allaah.