Imam Ibn Taimiah and The dogma of locus of temporals

0/b 16341IMAM IBN TAIMIAH RH: AND THE THE BELIEF THAT DIVINE ESSENCE IS LOCUS [M-H:L] OF H:AVA:DITH: According to Engineer "Ali: Mirza: one of the Kufrs of 'Ima:m 'Ibn Taimiah RH: is that he believed that Essence of Deity 'ALL-H [SVT] is a Locus [MHL;PL: M-H:A:LIL] of H:AVA:DITH: [TEMPORALITIES].

This is really His belief and he was criticised on this belief by Majority of 'Ahlussunnah Val Jama:-"ah. This view is incorrect and indifferent in essence with the Karramites belief that the Divine Essence [i.e Deity] is aLocus of Temporalities.

How ever 'Ima:m cannot be declared as Kafir or Mushrik or even Heretic just on this view. Extremists of "Asha:'irah and Maturidiah have declared that this belief can expell a person from the domain of 'Ahlussunnah Val Jama:"ah.

Yet this is an incorrect view if taken literally. The correct view is that It Is Self Absurd [M-h:a:l Bidh: Dh:a:t] THAT 'ALL-H becometh the locus of H:ava:dith:.

It is as Self Absurd as the belief that Deity 'ALL-H can incarnate in human or in animal form or can assume animal or human nature.

But the case does differ in the aspect of Fatava: .

WHAT IMAM BELIEVED CAN BE EXPLAINED AS FOLLOW:= According to 'Ima:m Ibn Taimiah RH: Divine Essence and Divine Attributes whether they be Essential or Active are Eternala And Uncreated; and Either Divine Essence is a Locus of them or they are Identical to the Divne Essence. But Divine Acts are Neither Eternal Nor Created. Divine Essence is a Locus of them. How ever Different Divine Acts are related to Different Divine Attributes.

It may be noted that 'Ima:m Ibn Taimiah appearently does not differentiate between two types of Attributes one that require interpretations and two which do not require interpretations. He thinks that the excuse of Bila: Kaifah Bila: Caifah is sufficient to nullfy the need of interpretations. He appearently believe that all Divine Attributes are equally alike, which implies that he actually does not differetiate between Essential Attributes of Deity and Active Attributes of Deity. The Divine Speech is a perfect example of 'Ima:m's view.

The Abiity to Speak is the Eternal Attribute of Deity, and the Acts of Speaking are Non Eternal andand the Acts of the Attribute of Speech. Similarly the Abilities To Create ,To Make,To Listen, To Watch, To Will etc. are Eternal and UnCreated, Yet their respectives Acts like Act of Creating, Act of Making etc. are Neiter Eternal Nor Created.

These acts are Associated with the Divine Essence and Divine Essence is a Locus of them. The same is true for other Divine Attribute like Rah:m. Karm , "Adl , "Afv , N-zu:l, 'Istiva:' and so on as according to him and his dogmas. Similarly If the Divine Hands are Divine Attributes then they are Eternal and Uncreated yet the Acts done by these Divine Eternal Acts like the Act of Making of Adam are Neither Created Nor Eternal. They are Temporal and asr associated with the Divine Eseence [Dh:a:t] 'Ima:m 'Ibn Taimiah RH: actually differentiate between a Temporal [H:a:dith:] and a Creation [Creature/Makh:lu:q]. According to his Dogmas A Creation is a Temporal that is Distinct, Seperated, Disjoint and Alien to the Divine Essence.

How ever the Basic problem is that the belief that Divine Essence is a Locus of Temporals then one cannot exclude Karramites from the folds of 'Ahlussunnah and ATLEAST 'Ima:m 'Ibn Taimiah and Karramites have a common belief, and that is Divine Essence i.e Deity is the Locus of Temporalities and Non Eternals.

It may be the case that Extremist Ash"arites and Maturidites have excluded 'ima:m 'Ibn Taimiah RH: from 'Ahlussunnah.

But moderate ones only reject his Karramite view and do accept him as one of 'Ahlussunnah Scholars.

Although it is difficult to interprete all his folowers yet it is still possible that 'Ima:m 'Ibn Taimiah RH: may be interpreted as according to an other Great Sunni Scholar Mujaddid of the Second Millionium ['Alf Th:a:ni].

Both of thse two scholars are strong apponents of Unicity of Existence [Vah:datul Vauju:d] and Strong advocates and paraclates of the dogma Of Plurality of Existences [Ta"addud 'Al Vuju:da:d].

How ever Mudaddid is a firm believer of Unicity of Observation [Vah:datush-Sh-hu:d] which is only a subcase of Plurality of Existences while Imam Ibn Taimiah is not.

But there is an other dogma on which Saiyiduna Mujaddid RH:believeth and that is Unicity Of Essence [ Vah:datudh: Dh:a:t].

According to him Deity is the only Essence [Qa:'im Bi Nafsihi: and Qa:'im Bidh: Dh:a:t] may be denoted by the term Per Se Subsistent or Self Subsistent or Per Se Sustained or Self Sustaind, and all the Creations are sustained with the Deity or Divine Essence .

But he regularly denieth that Divine Essence is the Locus of them. According to Majority of 'Ahlussunnah To Subsist With Divine Essenc and Divine Essence is a Locus of Some thing are Synonym Expressions.

But according to Mudaddid 'Alf Th:a:ni: they are different.

As accoring to 'IOma:m 'Ibn Taimiah RH: the word Locus is not in the meaning of Majorities of 'Ahlussunnah who do not differentiate between Sustainment and Being Locus. But his meaning is same as the Sustainment of Mujaddid Alf Th:a:ni: of Sarhind.

So the Locus of 'Ima:m 'Ibn Taimiah is not the Locus [M-H:L PL: M-H:A:LIL?] of Mudaddid Alf Th:a:ni but the Sustainment With Other [Qiya:m Bil Ghair] of of Mujaddid.

Now the differnce between the two scholars is very clear. In the terms of Mujaddid ,'Ima:m 'Ibn Taimiah only believeth that "Only Divine Acts of Deity is are Sustained wIth THE DIVINE ESSENCE with out Divine Essence being their Locus (Locus in the meaning of Mujaddid and Not of 'ima:m) while according to Mujaddid each and every thing that is a Creation is Sustained with the Divine Essence and Divine Essence is not their Locus.

How ever it may be noted that in English language the word "Subsist " is followed by the preposition "In" as "Subsisteth In" or Subsist In" or" Subsists In" but this does convey a very negative meaning if taken literally. The word In implieth Inclusion . In "Arabic it means Fi:. But the required meaning is of "Arabic Preposition Bi. which may be translated as With.

So to Subsist in Divine Essence [ Qa:'im Fi Dh:a:til Ba:ri] is not Meant and the required meaning in translations is To Subsist With Divine Essence.

Accoually Trintarians believe that Divine Hypostases are in Divine Essence , and each one of the Hypostases Does Subsist In Divine Essence and Not Subsist With Divine Essence. They only Express this meaning by the term Communicable, that is the Divine Essence is communicable to three Mutually Distinct and Incommunicable Hypostases.

Comming back to the principle topic Shaikul Hind Maula:na Mah:mu:d 'Al H:asan RH: IN HIS book 'Al J=hd have expressed different meanings of the word Qiya:m.

It is is said B [AN ATTRIBUTE] is Q:a'im With A [An Essence] then the Primery meaning is that the Self of the Attribute is Associted with the Self of the Essence. In Secondary meaning it means the Attribute is not associated with any essence other than the said Essence. But not implied that the very Self of the Attribute is Associated with the Very Self of the Essence A stated above. It doeth not imply that B Subsisteth With A in ther Primery meaning. It may be the case that B doeth not Subsiseth with any thing in the Primery Meaning. As one may see in abstractions and relations.

His words further clearifies the concept of Ima:m 'Ibn Taimiah.

One may say that in Primary meaning the to be a Locus means that the Self of the Essence Say A is the Real Locus of Self of the Attribute B. But in secondary meaning it means that the very self of the Attribute B has no locus that is other than A. It does not imply that A is the Locus of B in primery meaning. It may be the case that B doeth not have any Locus in the Primery meaning as in the cases of relations, abstractions etc.

Although Relations are not Per Se Subsistent , they are neither Attributes[ S:-fa:t]] nor Accidents ['A"ra:d:]and are neither Qa:'im nor Have a Locus [M-h:l] in the Primery meanings.

So the meaning of 'Ima:m 'Ibn Taimiah may be interpreted.

Actually the Divine Attributes of M-ba:di [Originators] of Divine Acts and Divine Acts are neither Associated With Divine Essence[ Sustaind With Divine Essence/Qa;'im Bi Dh:a:til Ba:ri] Nor Divine Essence is there Locus.

Acctually the Divine Essence is Self Necessary and Self Necessary Existent and it is Self Impossible upon It that it be Locus og Self Possible Non Eternal Things.

How ever some do claim that Divine Attributes are Eternal Yet H:a:dith: Bidh: Dh:a:t and Not Qa:di:m Bidh: Dh:a:t.

Yet their non Existence is Self absurd. They claim that only Self Necessary is Self Eternal. Their this view is out of the scope of this work. But it is certainly a different case. 'Ima:m 'Ibn Taimiah is certainly not discussing the Problem whether Divine Attributes are Self Necessay or Self Possible , even if they are Eternal. A number of Scholars opine that an Eternal Self Possible Divine Attribute is is Not Self Eternal. Yet its Negation , Annhilation Contradiction, and Mutation are Self Absurd.

They are Eternally Implied with Self Im[plication yet as according to them only Self Necessary Existent is Self Eternal they are compelled to admit that the are Self Temporal [H:a:dith: Bidh: Dh:a:t] and Qadi:m with Necessary Implication. They do not call them Va:jib Bil Ghair but call the Va: jib Ldh: Dh:a:t.

Any how when a Possible Interpretation does exist then it is incorrect that 'Ima:m 'Ibn Taimiah be accused of Karramites' views.

But what if 'Ima:m 'Ibn Taimiah RH: did believe in the dogma that stateth that Divine Essence is the Locus of Non Eternals.

If he really believed in this Dogma then only thing one can say is that this dogma is incorrect and Must be rejected. How ever 'Ima:m 'Ibn Taimiah RH: cannot be declared as Ghair 'Ahl-Sunnah due to this incorrect view. The same is true for those who accepted this view.

One must reject this view but must not declare the believers of this view as Out of fold of 'Ahlussunnah.

As for those Ash"arites and Maturides who declare this view as a sufficient proof to expell some one from the folds of 'Ahlussunnah they do err like those Salafites who expell 'Ash"arites and Maturidites from the Folds of 'Ahlussunnah . None of them has any reason to make such claims or verdicts.

If some one is a Locus of Temporalities then in is Self Implied that the Locus is Temporal and Not Eternal.

It implication is questioned by a number of Philosopher yet it is the fundamental Independent Axiom and Doeth not requir any Proof what so ever.

Yet there is no dispute that it is Self Impossible that the Self Necessary Existent be the Locus of Temporals and Possibilities of Temporals.

Even the Salafites accepts that Divine Essence is not the Locus of Created Things.

But what is the Proof? It doeth not Require any Proof what so ever. The same is true of the Self Absurdity of Temporals , Possibilities of Temporals and Contingencies of of Non Eternals on Divine Essence.

The only difference is that one who believes that Divine Essence is a Locus of Creatures and Created Things is out of the folds of 'Ahlussunnah and One who believe that Divine Essence is the Locus of Non Eternals is certainly wrong and definitely incorrect yet cannot be expelled from 'Ahlussunnah.

Similarly those who make interprtations about Organic Attributes ,Organs ["-D:V; Pl: 'A"d:a:'] and Divine Parts cannot be expelled from the folds of 'Ahlussunnah.

But the question is if that is so then why Karramites are accused. Probebly because they applied the term creations on the Divine Acts and Probebly because they believed that Divine Attributes are Not Eternal instead of Divine Acts.

0054