DR. AL-BUTI DEFENDS IBN TAYMIYYAH

I�m not  fan of this Dr though I like some of his writings about Islam. But his stand on Ibnu Taymiyah shows he has some fairness in this subject. The Dahlani moderator used Dr�s name to slander Sheikhul Islam Ibnu Taymiyah. I thought that may be too far stretching of truth!!!. In any case, Dr Buti. generally is not respected reference in these matters since he fought hard Salafi school in Syria for the last three decades without success. But his comments shows he has guts to say it as it is without fear.  

Abu Mujahid

____________________________________________________________ __________

Dr. Saeed Ramadan Al-Buti Defends Ibn Taymiyah

 Even Dr. Sa'eed Ramadaan al-Buti, who Kabbani happily quotes (pp. 117-134) because he wrote what was in Kabbani�s view a �landmark study of the �Salafi� innovation�, is quick to point out the fallacy of the accusations against ibn Taymiyyah:

"We are amazed when we see the extremists declaring ibn Taymiyyah, may Allaah have mercy upon him, to be an unbeliever. And also at them saying that he was one who held Allaah to be a body (mujassid), and I have studied long and hard as to where I could find a statement or a word from ibn Taymiyyah that he wrote or said which would indicate his holding Allaah to be a body as was quoted from him by as-Subki and others and I have not found anything from him like this. All I found was him saying in his legal rulings, 'Indeed Allaah has a Hand as He said, and has risen over the Throne as He said, and He has an Eye as He said'."

Al-Buti adds to this:

"I referred to the last work written by Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari, 'al-Ibaanah', and I found him saying exactly what ibn Taymiyyah said..." (Nadwa Ittjaahaat al-Fiqr al-Islaamee, pp. 264-265, of al-Buti)

Abu Mujahid wrote: DR. AL-BUTI DEFENDS IBN TAYMIYYAH   I�m not  fan of this Dr though I like some of his writings about Islam. But his stand on Ibnu Taymiyah shows he has some fairness in this subject. The Dahlani moderator used Dr�s name to slander Sheikhul Islam Ibnu Taymiyah. I thought that may be too far stretching of truth!!!. In any case, Dr Buti. generally is not respected reference in these matters since he fought hard Salafi school in Syria for the last three decades without success. But his comments shows he has guts to say it as it is without fear.   Abu Mujahid ____________________________________________________________ __________ Dr. Saeed Ramadan Al-Buti Defends Ibn Taymiyah  Even Dr. Sa'eed Ramadaan al-Buti, who Kabbani happily quotes (pp. 117-134) because he wrote what was in Kabbani�s view a �landmark study of the �Salafi� innovation�, is quick to point out the fallacy of the accusations against ibn Taymiyyah:     "We are amazed when we see the extremists declaring ibn Taymiyyah, may Allaah have mercy upon him, to be an unbeliever. And also at them saying that he was one who held Allaah to be a body (mujassid), and I have studied long and hard as to where I could find a statement or a word from ibn Taymiyyah that he wrote or said which would indicate his holding Allaah to be a body as was quoted from him by as-Subki and others and I have not found anything from him like this. All I found was him saying in his legal rulings, 'Indeed Allaah has a Hand as He said, and has risen over the Throne as He said, and He has an Eye as He said'."   Al-Buti adds to this:   "I referred to the last work written by Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari, 'al-Ibaanah', and I found him saying exactly what ibn Taymiyyah said..." (Nadwa Ittjaahaat al-Fiqr al-Islaamee, pp. 264-265, of al-Buti)

1) Your refrence mentioned a "fallacy", and I did not find any actual argument that showed a "fallacy".

2)

All I found was him saying in his legal rulings, 'Indeed Allaah has a Hand as He said, and has risen over the Throne as He said, and He has an Eye as He said'."

That says enough. Anthropomorphism. Your sect can play sematics all day long, the proof is in the eating of the pudding.

3) As far as the reviewed source, 'al-Ibaanah', my question is, "which edition". It is a fact that different "versions" exist, due to the creative workings of your sect, which is simply more of your sects "interpolating" creatively to prove their theological bankruptcy.

So once more, your evidences are "corrupted", and unreliable.

Have a nice day