Ibn Taymiyyah’s Legacy and al-Azhar
Below is a translation of Ustadh Alaa’ Hasan’s article, Ibn Taymiyyah wal-Azhar... bayna al-Tanāfur wal-Wifāq.
Introduction:
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah is regarded as one of the great scholars of Islam who profoundly impacted jurisprudence, creed, and Qur’ānic exegesis. His knowledge and ijtihād had a far-reaching influence that extended across generations. Many scholars throughout various eras benefited from his intellectual legacy, including scholars of al-Azhar al-Sharīf, who transmitted his views, cited his statements, and relied upon his works in their research and writings.
Despite certain jurisprudential differences between the scholars of al-Azhar and the scholars of the reformist da‘wah, this did not preclude scholarly collaboration nor recognition of each side’s efforts in serving Islam.
Some contemporary individuals have claimed that Ibn Taymiyyah was a “troubled” figure, that he is not regarded as a reliable authority in al-Azhar, and that his scholarly conclusions are not cited. This claim is incorrect. Al-Azhar al-Sharīf continues to draw upon much of Ibn Taymiyyah’s jurisprudence in addressing complex financial transactions and rulings related to divorce, facilitating matters for Muslims—just as it does with other scholars of Islam. Among the evidence for this is the encyclopedia authored by Dr. ‘Alī Jum‘ah in three volumes titled Fatāwá al-Imām Ibn Taymiyyah fī al-Mu‘āmalāt wa-Ahkām al-Māl, in which he praised, in the introduction, the juristic contributions of Shaykh al-Islam, his precise insight, views, and selections that have resolved many contemporary issues.
Within the framework of the objectives of the Salaf Research and Studies Center—including the defense of eminent imāms and the refutation of false claims made against them—this study presents the views of al-Azhar scholars regarding Ibn Taymiyyah and his reformist school. We demonstrate how his positions were relied upon in Azhari works not only in jurisprudence, but across various Islamic sciences—such as creed, thought, Hadīth sciences, and others. We then clarify the causes and motives behind the contemporary campaign against Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, while stressing the importance of scholarly fairness in engaging with historical figures, away from partisanship and bias.
The study will be organized into three main sections:
Section One: Is Ibn Taymiyyah Recognized as an Authority in al-Jāmi‘ al-Azhar?
In this section, we present a group of prominent scholars of al-Azhar al-Sharīf—both past and present—who recognized Ibn Taymiyyah as an authoritative figure, referred to him as Shaykh al-Islam, and cited his views as evidence across various fields of Islamic law, including creed, jurisprudence, Hadīth, and beyond.
1- العلامة جلال الدين السيوطي:
1– The Distinguished Scholar Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī:
He was among the scholars who taught at al-Jāmi‘ al-Azhar.[1]
– Al-Suyūṭī states:
“Ibn Taymiyyah, the shaykh, imām, erudite scholar, expert ḥadīth critic, jurist, mujtahid, exceptional exegete, Shaykh al-Islam, the exemplar of ascetics, the rarity of the age, Taqī al-Dīn Abū al-‘Abbās Aḥmad, son of the muftī Shihāb al-Dīn ‘Abd al-Ḥalīm, son of the mujtahid imām Shaykh al-Islam Majd al-Dīn ‘Abd al-Salām ibn ‘Abd Allah ibn Abī al-Qāsim al-Ḥarrānī—one of the eminent figures.”[2]
– He also states:
“Long ago, in the year 867 or 868 AH, I authored a book prohibiting engagement in the discipline of logic, which I titled al-Qawl al-Mushriq. In it, I included quotations from the Imāms of Islam condemning and prohibiting it, and I mentioned therein that Shaykh al-Islam, one of the mujtahids, Taqī al-Dīn Ibn Taymiyyah, authored a refutation of its principles, though at the time I had not yet seen it. Twenty years passed, and this year, I spoke of the grace Allah bestowed upon me in attaining the rank of ijtihād.”[3]
In his aforementioned book, al-Jalāl al-Suyūṭī cited numerous statements of Ibn Taymiyyah criticizing the views of the Mutakallimun and adopted his opinions—matters that are undoubtedly related to creed and intellectual discourse.
2– Shaykh al-Azhar Aḥmad al-Damanhūrī (may Allah have mercy on him):
Shaykh al-Azhar al-Damanhūrī cited Ibn Taymiyyah as evidence and referred to him as Shaykh al-Islam in his book Iqāmat al-Ḥujjah al-Bāhirah. He quoted the views of the four madhhabs, dedicating a chapter to each, and then stated:
“I came across a fatwá and its response on this matter by the erudite mujtahid, Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, in which he elaborated extensively on the subject with evidences and proofs. He said: ‘Cairo remained for nearly two hundred years under rulers who did not govern by the Sharī‘ah of Islam.’”[4]
It is known that the scholar al-Damanhūrī passed away in the year 1192 AH / 1778 CE, over a century before Shaykh Muḥammad ‘Abduh’s time. Thus, it cannot be claimed that the reformists influenced him. This clearly indicates that citing and relying on Ibn Taymiyyah was a long-established practice within al-Azhar.
3– Shaykh al-Azhar Salīm al-Bishrī (may Allah have mercy on him):
Shaykh Salīm al-Bishrī was asked about attributing direction (jiha) to Allah and the association of this view with Ibn Taymiyyah. After negating direction and spatial location in accordance with the Ash‘arī creed, he replied:
“Among those to whom the attribution of direction was made in later times is Aḥmad ibn ‘Abd al-Ḥalīm ibn ‘Abd al-Salām Ibn Taymiyyah al-Ḥarrānī al-Ḥanbalī, one of the scholars of the century. This was among several matters attributed to him in which he is said to have opposed consensus based on his own opinion, and his contemporaries criticized him harshly…Some of his students undertook to defend and exonerate him from what was attributed to him. They presented his statements, clarified their meanings, and explained the people’s error in understanding his intent. They cited other explicit statements that refute the accusation against him and that he did not depart from the consensus. This is what is to be presumed of the man due to his lofty stature and firm grounding.”[5]
Regardless of Shaykh Salīm al-Bishrī’s position on the issue of direction, he nonetheless affirmed Ibn Taymiyyah’s innocence from anthropomorphism, owing to what he described as his noble standing and deeply rooted scholarship.
4– Shaykh al-Azhar ‘Abd al-Majīd Salīm (may Allah have mercy on him):
Shaykh ‘Abd al-Majīd consistently cited Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim in his fatāwá, referring to both as Shaykhs of Islām.
– Among these is his response to a fatwá concerning the regulation of prices, in which he stated:
“Price regulation in this case, as Shaykh al-Islam Ibn al-Qayyim said in his book al-Ṭuruq al-Ḥukmiyyah fī al-Siyāsah al-Shar‘iyyah, is the enforcement of the justice that Allah has obligated upon them. What has been reported from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ concerning his refraining from price-setting and his statement, ‘Indeed, Allah is the Restrainer and the Expander,’ is, as Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said, a specific circumstance that does not apply universally. In that particular incident, no one withheld from selling what the people needed. Thus, as Ibn al-Qayyim said, price regulation in such a case is not only permissible but obligatory.”[6]
– In the fatāwá of Dār al-Iftā’ al-Miṣriyyah, among the responses of Shaykh Salīm al-Bishrī regarding the question of burying the deceased inside a mosque, he stated:
“We have reviewed the Ministry’s letter no. 2723 dated 21-3-1940, in which clarification is sought on the Sharī‘ah ruling concerning the request made by the head caretaker of the ‘Izz al-Dīn Aybak Mosque to be buried in one of the two graves located within the mosque.
We inform you that Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah issued a fatwá stating that it is not permissible to bury any deceased person in a mosque—neither young nor old, neither distinguished nor otherwise. For mosques are not to be likened to graveyards. He said in another fatwá: it is not permissible to bury a deceased person in a mosque, and if the mosque precedes the burial, then it must be altered—either by leveling the grave or exhuming it if it is recent, etc. This is because burying within a mosque removes part of the mosque from its established purpose—namely, the performance of the prescribed prayers and their associated acts, such as supererogatory prayers, remembrance of Allah, and the teaching of knowledge. This is not legally permissible. Furthermore, establishing a grave in a mosque in the manner described in the question leads to performing prayer towards or near the grave, and many ḥadīths have been reported indicating the prohibition of that.”[7]
5– Shaykh al-Azhar ‘Abd al-Ḥalīm Maḥmūd (may Allah have mercy on him):
Shaykh ‘Abd al-Ḥalīm, a distinguished figure among the Ṣūfīs, nonetheless praised the Salafī reformist efforts of Ibn Taymiyyah, saying:
“I indeed consider Imām Ibn Taymiyyah to have had great merit and a profound impact in exposing the corruption of logic, which had become widespread in Islamic circles since the time of al-Kindī, al-Fārābī, and Ibn Sīnā. Imām Ibn Taymiyyah wrote some of the most valuable works on this topic, especially his book al-Radd ‘alá al-Manṭiqiyyīn (Refutation of the Logicians). Ibn Taymiyyah did not restrict himself to critiquing logic; rather, he exerted himself fully in discrediting every deviant idea held by them.”[8]
6– The Distinguished Scholar Dr. Muḥammad Abū Shahbah (may Allah have mercy on him):
Shaykh Muḥammad Abū Shahbah frequently cited Ibn Taymiyyah, referred to him as Shaykh al-Islam, and held his school in high esteem.
– He stated: “Imām Ibn Kathīr possessed a refined sensitivity and a firmly established faculty in the critique of transmitted reports, as well as in identifying their origins and sources, and in clarifying how they were inserted into the Islamic narrative tradition. He critiqued Ibn Jarīr—despite his stature and precedence—in relation to some of the Isrā’īliyyāt and fabricated reports he included in his exegesis. This is not surprising, for Ibn Kathīr belonged to a school renowned for its mastery of ḥadīth—both in transmission and comprehension—its originality in critique, and its integration of reason and revelation. It is the school of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah and his students: Ibn al-Qayyim, al-Dhahabī, Ibn Kathīr, and their peers. May Allah reward him abundantly for this contribution.”[9]
– He also stated:
“Likewise, what has been reported regarding the interpretation of the verse: {And a conscious ear will retain it}—that the ear intended is the ear of ‘Alī—they narrate that the Prophet ﷺ, when the verse was revealed, took hold of his ear and said: ‘It is your ear, O ‘Alī,’ and in another narration: ‘O Allah, make it the ear of ‘Alī.’ Both of these reports are fabricated, as Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah pointed out.”[10]
He also said:
“Imām Taqī al-Dīn Aḥmad Ibn Taymiyyah has an excellent statement on this matter. He said, may Allah have mercy on him: ‘Differences in tafsīr are of two kinds: those based solely on transmitted reports and those known through other means. For knowledge is either a transmission that is verified or a sound reasoning. As for the transmitted, it is either from the infallible or from someone who is not infallible.’”[11]
– In fact, Shaykh Abū Shahbah commended the efforts of the Salafīs, stating in his book, Difā‘ ‘an al-Sunnah:
“It would be remiss of me not to highlight the efforts made in this field by two noble brothers and esteemed shaykhs: the scholars ‘Abd al-Raḥmān ibn Yaḥyá al-Mu‘allimī al-Yamānī and Muḥammad ‘Abd al-Razzāq Ḥamzah. Each of them produced a substantial work on the subject. May they receive from Allah, exalted is He, the fullest reward, and from the people, praise and supplication.”[12]
Both scholars he referenced and praised are among the prominent figures of the Salafī school. Despite this, Shaykh Abū Shahbah’s book Defence of the Sunnah is recognized as a reliable source at al-Azhar al-Sharīf, and the Islamic Research Academy oversaw its printing and verification.
If the methodology of al-Azhar were to prohibit referencing Salafīs, how then could the distinguished scholar Abū Shahbah openly commend their scholars?
7– Shaykh ‘Aṭiyyah Ṣaqr – Former Head of the Fatwá Committee (may Allah have mercy on him):
He stated, while discussing the fronts defending the universality of Islam:
“Books were authored in refutation of doubts concerning matters of creed, purifying them from the impurities of philosophy and the superstitions that had intruded upon Islamic thought. Acts of worship and religious rulings were also purified from innovations and reprehensible practices. Debates were held, books were sent to opponents, and a powerful intellectual movement emerged. Al-Ghazālī distinguished himself in rebutting the philosophical intrusions into creed and in advocating for the purification of religion from erroneous ideas…Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim wrote in refutation of the doubts raised by the People of the Book and in rationally clarifying the principles of the religion. They denounced the innovations and superstitions attached to the religion in its creeds and rituals. They believed that Muslims were distant from the true religion, which—had they truly known and sincerely implemented it—they would not have found themselves in the painful condition that allowed foreigners from East and West to assault them and dominate the fate of the caliphate.
Then came Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb, whose call was a continuation of theirs, and it was among the strongest movements known in recent centuries and the most enduring in its political and intellectual impact. Likewise, Shāh Walī Allah emerged in India, who lived during the decline of the Mughal Empire. He called for the purification of Ṣūfism from what had tainted it and insisted that the true Muslim must not accept the decadence that prevailed in his era. He aspired to establish an Islamic state in India resembling the Mughal state to restore the strength of the Muslim society.”[13]
– Shaykh ‘Aṭiyyah also stated:
“Shaykh Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb was a religious reformer who emerged in the Arabian Peninsula. He denounced evils and innovations that were incompatible with the religion and placed great emphasis on affirming the oneness of Allah, exalted is He. Some people, for example, sought intercession through certain awliyā’ and sought blessings from them and revered them to such an extent that it appeared as though they were prophets—or as though they were the very essence of Allah, exalted is He. Excessiveness in love is blameworthy. When the Prophet ﷺ saw the Companions’ extreme expressions of love for him, he feared that they would elevate him above his proper station, so he said: ‘Do not exaggerate in praising me as the Christians exaggerated in praising the Messiah, son of Mary. Rather, say: the servant of Allah and His Messenger.’ Exaggerated love is rejected and wholly unacceptable.
Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb, in his reform movement, focused on purifying the oneness of Allah, exalted is He, and upholding the belief that He alone is the one who acts in all things, the one who enriches, gives life, and causes death. However, when people seek blessings from certain individuals to the extent that some would say, ‘This great shaykh heals the sick,’ or ‘This great shaykh brings provision,’ this kind of excessive veneration leads to disbelief because Allah alone possesses all power. Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb undertook this reformist awakening and focused intensely on devoting tawḥīd purely to Allah, exalted is He.
Even though some of his students or those who adopted his school went to extremes in this matter of tawḥīd—prohibiting even things that carried the faintest scent of associating partners with Allah—this excessiveness in any matter can cause great harm. We must be moderate, we must be reasonable, and we must reflect and understand carefully before passing judgment. Hastening to declare someone a disbeliever is extremely dangerous. You all know the ḥadīth: ‘Whoever says to his brother, “O kāfir,” it returns upon one of them.’ What is important is that some followers of this great shaykh went to extremes in this issue and condemned certain matters to the point of declaring people disbelievers. Moderation is necessary.”[14]
As for the fatāwá of Shaykh ‘Aṭiyyah Ṣaqr and his regard for the opinions of Ibn Taymiyyah:
Anyone who examines the encyclopedia of fatāwá of Shaykh ‘Aṭiyyah Ṣaqr will find that he frequently cites the views of Ibn Taymiyyah—at times favoring his opinion and at other times citing it as one of the recognized positions, even if he ultimately prefers another view.
For example, in his response to a question regarding zakāh, he stated:
“According to Abū Ḥanīfah and al-Shāfi‘ī in one of his two opinions, it is permissible to pay zakāh from the very merchandise in which one trades. There is no objection to following this view, though it is preferable to consider what is of greater benefit to the needy—such as cash or medicine—as Ibn Taymiyyah indicated in his fatāwá.”[15]
In response to a question regarding the books attributed to ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib that contain claims of foretelling the unseen—such as the book al-Jafr and others—Shaykh ‘Aṭiyyah listed scholars who attributed such works to ‘Alī, including al-Ghazālī and others. He then said:
“Ibn Taymiyyah rejected the attribution of such works to ‘Alī, saying: ‘Some people attribute to him statements about future events, such as al-Jafr and the like. Others attribute to him other matters of which Allah knows that ‘Alī—may Allah ennoble his face—is completely innocent.’ Ibn Taymiyyah’s statement is supported by what is narrated by al-Bukhārī: “Most of what is reported from ‘Alī is false.”[16]
It is evident that Shaykh ‘Aṭiyyah Ṣaqr frequently relied on the responses and positions of Ibn Taymiyyah, which clearly indicates that Ibn Taymiyyah is recognized as a credible authority within al-Azhar.
8– The Senior Hadīth Scholar of al-Azhar, Aḥmad Shākir:
Before citing the words of Shaykh Aḥmad Shākir, it is fitting to highlight his status among the scholars of al-Azhar. Among the acknowledgments of his stature is what was said by Dr. Ibrāhīm al-Murshidī, a Ṣūfī Ash‘arī:
“Then shone the light of the imām, the great ḥadīth scholar, master of ‘ilal (hidden defects in narration) and expert in the criticism of narrators and chains of transmission, the erudite Shaykh Aḥmad Muḥammad Shākir, who passed away in 1958 CE. He was, without doubt, the most knowledgeable of his time in the refined science of ḥadīth. His brother, the renowned literary scholar Maḥmūd Muḥammad Shākir, wrote an article titled Aḥmad Muḥammad Shākir, Imām of the Hadīth Scholars, and Ustādh Muḥammad ‘Izzat al-Ṭahṭāwī wrote: Shaykh Aḥmad Shākir, the Imām of the Imāms of Hadīth in This Era.”[17]
Once his position among Azhari scholars is recognized, it should be noted that Shaykh Aḥmad Shākir—may Allah have mercy on him—was Salafī in orientation and a supporter of the reformist da‘wah.
He said:
“We have been companions and brothers for over forty-five years, for the sake of Allah and in His cause, united by one opinion and a sound, pure creed, adhering firmly to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger ﷺ, never deviating from them as far as we are able, and striving to support the Salafī creed and defend it to the best of our capacity. Nothing of the harm or hardship we encountered has turned us away from this path we committed ourselves to and defended. And perhaps we were among the earliest to work toward spreading the correct creed in our lands. I do not seek pride in my work nor in yours—we did nothing but for the sake of Allah. Among the greatest sources of knowledge from whose light we benefitted—after the Noble Book and the purified Sunnah—were the works of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah and his student, the ḥadīth scholar Ibn al-Qayyim and then the writings of Shaykh al-Islam, the reviver of the twelfth century, Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb—may Allah have mercy on them all.”[18]
9– The Heritage Scholar Maḥmūd Muḥammad Shākir:
Although Shaykh Maḥmūd Shākir was not an Azhari like his brother, he is nonetheless recognized within al-Azhar for his methodology and intellectual orientation. Azhari scholars refer to him as “Shaykh al-‘Arabiyyah,” and some members of the Council of Senior Scholars at al-Azhar studied under him, such as Dr. Muḥammad Abū Mūsá and others.
– Maḥmūd Shākir stated:
“Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb strove against innovations and doctrines contrary to the pure creed of tawḥīd upon which the Salaf of this Ummah were united—tawḥīd being the greatest pillar of Islam. He was not content with authoring books, but rather he descended to the common people in the Arabian Peninsula and caused a tremendous stir at the heart of Dār al-Islām.”[19]
– In describing the intellectual stagnation and cultural decline of the later generations, he wrote:
“Amid this deterioration, the revival and awakening of Dār al-Islām were undertaken by five great scholars: al-Baghdādī, al-Jabartī, Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb, al-Murtaḍá al-Zabīdī, and al-Shawkānī.”[20]
– His student, Dr. Maḥmūd al-Ṭanāḥī, recounts:
“Among the events of those days was that Professor Dr. Ṭāhā Ḥusayn—may Allah have mercy on him—was engaged in the publication of the book al-Mughnī fī Abwāb al-Tawḥīd wal-‘Adl by the Mu‘tazilī judge ‘Abd al-Jabbār ibn Aḥmad. This book is one of the foundational texts of the Mu‘tazilah and is a voluminous work. Dr. Ṭāhā Ḥusayn had secured support from the Egyptian Ministry of Endowments to print the book. At the time, the Minister of Endowments was Ustādh Shaykh Aḥmad Ḥasan al-Bāqūrī, who was one of the admirers of Ustādh Maḥmūd Muḥammad Shākir and a regular attendee of his gatherings.
Ustādh Maḥmūd spoke to him in his characteristic manner when passionate and convinced about something, saying: ‘It is not appropriate for the Ministry of Endowments to assist in publishing the legacy of the Mu‘tazilah while having no role in publishing the works of the Salaf!’ Shaykh al-Bāqūrī agreed with what our shaykh had proposed, and the Ministry supported Dār al-‘Urūbah in publishing the book Minhāj al-Sunnah by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah. Two volumes were released under the supervision of Professor Dr. Muḥammad Rashād Sālim.”[21]
Thus, Shaykh Aḥmad Ḥasan al-Bāqūrī—may Allah have mercy on him—was directed to support the printing of the works of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah at the suggestion of Shaykh of Arabic Maḥmūd Shākir, out of his deep concern for the heritage of the Salaf, and with the collaboration of the distinguished scholar Dr. Muḥammad Rashād Sālim.
10– Dr. Muḥammad Muḥammad Abū Mūsá – Member of the Council of Senior Scholars at al-Azhar (may Allah preserve him):
He stated:
“Shaykh Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb has been accused of extremism—a claim repeated by those who cannot even properly read a single book authored by Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb. The late Maḥmūd Muḥammad Shākir mentioned that Shaykh Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb was among the leading figures of the Islamic awakening whom colonialism sought to eliminate when it entered our lands. This is recorded in this book, in the essay Maḥmūd Shākir wal-Fajr al-Sādiq. The same accusation was made against Ibn Taymiyyah, though he is among the most erudite of our scholars.”[22]
He also said:
“No one disputes that Ibn Taymiyyah is one of the great scholars, whether one agrees or disagrees with him. Likewise, no one disputes that Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb is one of the great scholars, ranking alongside al-Shāṭibī and others who dedicated their lives to exposing innovations and deviations and purifying the religion of Allah from them. Neither of the two shaykhs—Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb—could have imagined that someone from the land of Egypt—which Imām al-‘Aynī called the ‘Ka‘bah of Islam’—would one day accuse them of terrorism. Yet it seems we are living in strange times, where the nights give birth to the most astonishing things.”[23]
11– Shaykh Muḥammad al-Rāwī (may Allah have mercy on him) – One of the Senior Scholars of al-Azhar:
Shaykh Muḥammad al-Rāwī said:
“By Allah—then by Allah—and I say this as a testimony before Allah: these days I hear the terms ‘Wahhābī’ and ‘non-Wahhābī’ being used frequently. But by Allah, besides whom there is no deity, I have never heard such labels from them—ever. What I have known of them—and I live among them—is that what truly matters is the evidence from the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. Wherever the evidence is, that is where the truth lies.
For twenty-five years, no one ever spoke to me—not once—about what Wahhābism is. As for Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb, all he sought was evidence from the Qur’ān and the Sunnah. So, what is the problem with that?! Moreover, it is not appropriate for us to sever our ties with our brothers over slogans created for us by our enemies so that we continue to fight one another in this way.”[24]
12– Dr. Muḥammad Ḥasan Mahdī Bakhīt – Professor of Creed and Philosophy at al-Azhar al-Sharīf:
Dr. Bakhīt stated:
“Shaykh al-Islam Taqī al-Dīn Ibn Taymiyyah’s stance on Aristotelian logic differs significantly from that of his predecessors. He did not reject or attack logic based on emotional or sentimental grounds; rather, he opposed it on scientific foundations grounded in reason, not in legal verdicts. He addressed its various components with valuable, methodical critical observations that served as a starting point for the modern philosophers—particularly David Hume and John Stuart Mill—in their critique of Aristotelian logic.”[25]
He also said:
“Ibn Taymiyyah called for attention to be given to the inductive method, which is credited with the advancement of empirical sciences in the modern era. Induction, which Aristotle neglected, is the method of reasoning that moves from the particular to the universal.”[26]
It is worth noting that Dr. Muḥammad Mahdī Bakhīt is Ash‘arī in creed and has authored books on theology according to the Ash‘arī school.[27] Therefore, there is no basis for claiming that he was biased in favor of Salafism or the reformists; rather, his words reflect fairness and respect for the scholars of Islam—qualities sorely lacking among many who take the lead in discourse today.
13– ‘Abd al-Fattāḥ al-Ḥusaynī al-Shaykh – Former President of al-Azhar University (may Allah have mercy on him):
In the introduction to his book Fiqh al-‘Ibādāt, under the chapter titled “Fiqh in the Era of the Recent Renaissance,” he praised the reformist movement and its impact on Islamic jurisprudence, stating:
“Many commendable efforts were made toward juristic reform from the late 13th century AH, and their fruits began to appear in the first half of the 14th century AH… These efforts began in earlier centuries with the call of Imām Ibn Taymiyyah to abandon blind following and to advocate for ijtihād so that Islamic jurisprudence might be revitalized. Then, after him, Shaykh Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb carried the torch in the Ḥijāz.”[28]
He then affirms that al-Azhar University drew inspiration from this reform movement, stating:
“Universities—and foremost among them, al-Azhar University—devoted attention to studying Islamic jurisprudence. The focus was placed on comparative study between the various madhhabs and on preferring one juristic view over another based on evidence.”[29]
14– Dr. Aḥmad ‘Umar Hāshim – Former President of al-Azhar University:
In a press interview, journalist Ḥamdī Rizq asked him: Has Ibn Taymiyyah not been extreme? Is he not considered the imām of extremists?
He answered:
“No, Ibn Taymiyyah was neither extreme nor harsh. Rather, others falsely attribute that to him. He was an imām and a mujtahid who left behind a tremendous juristic legacy that the Ummah preserves. He authored fatāwá compiled into a massive book of more than thirty volumes known as Fatāwá Ibn Taymiyyah. In it, he even spoke about Ṣūfīs, categorizing them into three groups: those who exaggerated concerning the awliyā’ and elevated them beyond their proper rank, those who were moderate, and those who were genuine believers. He clarified that among them were those who were balanced, and he spoke a word of truth.”[30]
He also stated in a Friday sermon at al-Jāmi‘ al-Azhar:
“This is Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah standing before the leader of the Tatars, demanding the release of the captives and their freedom. The Muslim captives were released, but Shaykh al-Islam said: ‘I will not leave this place until you release all the captives—Muslims, Jews, and Christians alike.’ Thus, he secured the release of all of them, applying the Islamic principle upheld by Islam and the Imāms of Islam everywhere so that the people of evil would not ignite sectarian strife among us and so that they would not sow terrorism among our Ummah.”[31]
15– Dr. Muḥammad ‘Imārah – Member of the Council of Senior Scholars at al-Azhar (may Allah have mercy on him):
Dr. Muḥammad ‘Imārah was among those who held Ibn Taymiyyah’s methodology in great esteem, regarding it as the foundation for renewal and reform in the Islamic world. In defense of Ibn Taymiyyah, he authored his treatise Raf‘ al-Malām ‘an Shaykh al-Islam, along with numerous articles and books illustrating Ibn Taymiyyah’s role in intellectual renewal.
Dr. ‘Imārah even considered Ibn Taymiyyah’s project as the path toward the revival of the Ummah, saying:
“If Ibn Taymiyyah’s renewal project had found a state and political system to carry it forward, the face and course of the Islamic world would have changed, and the Ummah would have shortened its eras of civilizational decline by several centuries.”[32]
He also stated:
“Ibn Taymiyyah was not merely a jurist and philosopher; he was a reviver of the Ummah’s thought, life, and lived reality. For this cause, he sacrificed his life and his freedom as an offering in this struggle.”[33]
He also said regarding Salafism:
“Salafism responded to the simplicity of thought among the common people and to the scarcity of complex and philosophical thinking. Likewise, the public and general masses responded positively to its thoughts and figures. Thus, Salafism proceeded to combat philosophy and oppose the Mutakallimun, relying on the transmitted texts and reports. It continued in this manner during its early emergence, throughout its intermediary phase, and again through the Wahhābī movement in the modern era—a movement that arose in the Arabian Peninsula, tasked with the mission of renewing the religion and purifying its creeds from the innovations and superstitions that had accumulated throughout the Mamlūk and Ottoman periods.”[34]
And he said regarding Shaykh Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb:
“Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb is regarded as the most significant figure who moved Islamic renewal in the modern era from the realm of individual reform and intellectual projects to the realm of a da‘wah supported by a state that protected it and fought to spread it. This granted his call an influence and continuity not attained by other renewal movements, even if some of those movements were more firmly rooted in renewal thought.”[35]
16– The Scholar ‘Abd al-Muṭṭa‘āl al-Ṣa‘īdī – Expert in Rhetoric and One of the Intellectual Figures of al-Jāmi‘ al-Azhar:
Shaykh ‘Abd al-Muṭṭa‘āl al-Ṣa‘īdī mentioned Shaykh Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb among the mujaddids of this Ummah. He noted his birth, upbringing, and scholarly journeys and then said:
“He returned to his homeland after this long educational journey, having acquired what was not available to other scholars of Najd. Thus, he was broader in knowledge than them and more familiar with the earlier scholars who had engaged in reform movements. He did not fall into the stagnation and inertia that afflicted the scholars of his time, who had become accustomed to the innovations and treated them as if they were part of the fundamentals and pillars of the religion.
When the Shaykh returned to his homeland, he was not content with the silence of the Najdī scholars regarding these innovations. He sought to revive the legacy of his predecessors among the Ḥanbalīs, especially Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah—may Allah have mercy on him. He had studied Ibn Taymiyyah’s books and reformist treatises during his formative years.”[36]
Speaking about the Wahhābī da‘wah, he said:
“It is now highly regarded by many among the modern educated Muslims. It is only viewed with hostility by the commoners and those resembling the commoners—those upon whose hearts, eyes, and ears religious stagnation has been imprinted—such that they see the light as darkness, guidance as misguidance, and beauty as ugliness.”[37]
17– Shaykh al-Azhar Sayyid Ṭanṭāwī (may Allah have mercy on him):
In his tafsīr of Sūrat al-Kahf, while discussing al-Khiḍr (peace be upon him), he stated:
“The verifying scholars hold the view that he died just as all other humans die. This was the view of al-Bukhārī, Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, his student Ibn al-Qayyim, and others. Other scholars hold that he is alive and will die at the end of time. Ibn al-Qayyim said: ‘The aḥādīth mentioning that he is alive are all fabricated; there is not a single authentic narration in that regard.’ This issue is one that the scholars have discussed in detail. Refer to their statements if you wish.”[38]
Moreover, Shaykh Sayyid Ṭanṭāwī—may Allah have mercy on him—inclined toward the methodology of the Salaf. He said:
“{And Allah spoke to Mūsá with [direct] speech} [al-Nisā’, 164]; the phrase {with [direct] speech} is an emphatic verbal noun affirming its verb and negating the possibility of figurative interpretation. Al-Farrā’ said: The Arabs may call anything that reaches a person ‘speech’ regardless of the manner—unless it is confirmed with an emphatic verbal noun. If it is so confirmed, it can only mean literal speech. Thus, Allah’s saying {with [direct] speech} proves that Mūsá truly heard the speech of Allah in reality, without any intermediary, though the manner of it is known only to Him, exalted is He.”[39]
He also said—may Allah have mercy on him—after refuting the figurative interpretation adopted by the later scholars:
“They—the Salaf—believed that He, exalted is He, is in the heaven, in the manner intended by Him, with complete transcendence. The ḥadīth of the slave girl, to whom the Messenger ﷺ said: ‘Where is Allah?’ and she pointed to the sky, is among the strongest evidences in this regard. Interpreting it in the manner adopted by the later scholars is a departure from the path of fairness according to the people of sound intellect.
The meaning is: ‘Do you feel secure, O people, against Him who is in the heaven’—meaning Allah, exalted is He—‘that He would not cause the earth to swallow you up, and thus its highest parts become its lowest,’ so that the earth quakes beneath you, shakes violently, and your lives are destroyed.”[40]
In his tafsīr of the verse of al-Wasīlah in Sūrat al-Mā’idah—which the grave worshippers use as a pretext for seeking aid—Dr. Sayyid Ṭanṭāwī favored the view that al-Wasīlah refers to righteous deeds. He then quoted extensively from Ibn Taymiyyah on the meaning of al-Wasīlah as evidence and said:
“Al-Ālūsī summarized the matter as follows: Some people use this verse to argue for the permissibility of seeking help from the righteous and making them intermediaries between Allah and the servants, or swearing an oath upon Allah by them, saying: ‘O Allah, we swear upon You by so-and-so that You grant us such-and-such.’ Some even call upon the absent or the deceased among the righteous, saying: ‘O so-and-so, ask Allah to grant me such-and-such,’ claiming that this constitutes seeking al-Wasīlah.
All of this is far removed from the truth by many degrees. The correct understanding in this matter is that seeking help from a created being and making him a means—in the sense of requesting supplication—is undoubtedly permissible if the one requested is alive. It does not depend on the requested being more virtuous than the requester, as the virtuous may request from one less virtuous. It has been authentically reported that the Prophet ﷺ said to ‘Umar when he sought permission to perform ‘umrah: ‘Do not forget us, my brother, in your supplication.’ However, it has not been reported from any of the Companions—who were the most eager for all good—that they ever requested anything from a deceased person.”[41]
It is clear from what has preceded that Dr. Sayyid Ṭanṭāwī supported the reformist vision and prohibited supplicating to the dead. Thus, if the methodology of al-Azhar al-Sharīf did not recognize Ibn Taymiyyah, how could Dr. Sayyid Ṭanṭāwī cite him approvingly in al-Tafsīr al-Wasīṭ on such a sensitive issue?
18– Shaykh Muḥammad al-Ghazālī (may Allah have mercy on him):
He stated:
“Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb was known among the people as a zealous advocate for the creed of tawḥīd. He sought to eradicate from people’s minds the notion that there could be any intermediary between the Creator and the creation. He declared an all-out war on the common people’s attachment to graves and their supplication to those buried therein, asking from them what may only be asked of the Lord of all worlds.
Tawḥīd is undoubtedly the foundation and hallmark of Islam. Vast crowds have gone astray in preserving its sanctity in their thought, emotions, and conduct. They turned toward those characterized by righteousness—whether living or dead—treating them as Christians treat their saints. And this is a manifest error.”[42]
He also said:
“And why should we be ashamed to describe grave-worshippers as engaging in shirk when the Messenger ﷺ described showing off as shirk, saying: ‘Showing off is shirk’? The duty of the scholar is to look upon these reprehensible acts of seeking intercession with denunciation and to exert his efforts in teaching their practitioners the path of truth—not to exhaust himself in finding excuses and justifications!
I am not among those who love to declare people disbelievers for the flimsiest reasons, but it is forbidden for us to remain silent about ignorance in matters of creed while we witness it. What crime does a physician commit if he reassures a patient, withholds medicine from him, and deceives him into believing that he is healthy and sound? Such conduct is impermissible.”[43]
The above represents a brief selection of the views of prominent scholars of al-Azhar al-Sharīf concerning Ibn Taymiyyah, his school, and the reformist da‘wah. By the grace of Allah, we have demonstrated that the leading scholars of al-Azhar cited, relied upon, and incorporated their views into their curricula and research without hesitation. Had the scope permitted, we could have mentioned even more examples.
Section Two: The Relationship Between the Reformist Da‘wah and al-Azhar al-Sharīf:
Interaction between the two schools began at a very early stage. When some of the sons of Shaykh Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb were exiled to Egypt during the era of Ibrāhīm Pasha, they established direct contact with the scholars of al-Azhar. They studied under them, and strong bonds were formed between the two groups.
This was not merely a passing encounter; rather, the writings of Azhari scholars began to show praise for the scholars of the Reformist Da‘wah. Some of them even assumed academic positions within al-Azhar itself.
– Among them was Shaykh ‘Abd al-Raḥmān ibn ‘Abd Allah ibn Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb, who was appointed as the Shaykh of the Ḥanbalī Riwāq (study area) at al-Jāmi‘ al-Azhar. Al-‘Allāmah al-Bayṭār wrote in his biography:
“Shaykh ‘Abd al-Raḥmān ibn Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb al-Najdī al-Ḥanbalī, the renowned scholar, and the eminent figure whose excellence was widely acknowledged… He devoted himself to seeking, learning, teaching, benefiting, and imparting knowledge until he became the Shaykh of the Ḥanbalī Riwāq at al-Azhar. He was known for his manifest piety, righteousness, asceticism, and devotion.”[44]
Shaykh Amīn al-Ḥalwānī states:
“As for the aforementioned Shaykh ‘Abd al-Raḥmān, I met him at al-Jāmi‘ al-Azhar, where he was teaching the Ḥanbalī school of thought. He was the Shaykh of the Ḥanbalī Riwāq in 1273 AH and passed away in 1274 AH. He was a scholar and jurist with a noble appearance, characterized by visible piety and righteousness.”[45]
– Shaykh ‘Abd al-Raḥmān, the author of the book Fatḥ al-Majīd Sharḥ Kitāb al-Tawḥīd, mentioned his academic background at al-Azhar:
“As for our teachers in Egypt, among the most distinguished in knowledge were Shaykh Ḥasan al-Qūwaysnī, under whom I attended the explanation of Jam‘ al-Jawāmi‘ in the principles of jurisprudence by al-Maḥallī and the abridgment of al-Sa‘d in rhetoric and explanation… Among them was Ibrāhīm al-Bayjūrī, under whom I read the explanation of al-Khulāṣah by al-Ashmūnī up to the addition, and I attended his lessons in al-Sullam and with Muḥammad al-Dimnāwī in al-Isti‘ārāt and al-Kāfī in the sciences of prosody and rhymes. He taught us with his commentary at al-Jāmi‘ al-Azhar, may Allah grant it long life in knowledge and Iman.”[46]
The distinguished Azhari scholar Shaykh Muḥammad al-‘Azīzī al-Shāfi‘ī al-Khalwatī stated:
“When the noble Wahhābīs arrived in Egypt, the foremost and greatest among them was our beloved, the eminent and complete figure, our master Shaykh ‘Abd Allah al-Ḥanbalī [referring to Shaykh ‘Abd Allah ibn Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb], and his esteemed brother, our beloved, the man of commendable character and prophetic conduct, Shaykh Ibrāhīm al-Ḥanbalī. Also among their notable, noble, and intelligent figures was our master ‘Abd al-Raḥmān ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz—may Allah have mercy upon him with a vast mercy by His bounty and generosity. Our beloved Shaykh ‘Abd Allah—may Allah have mercy upon him—was among the virtuous scholars, and he raised his son, Shaykh ‘Abd al-Raḥmān al-Ḥanbalī, who was among the most intelligent and righteous of the scholars.”[47]
The interaction between the two schools confirms that al-Azhar al-Sharīf was never closed off to a particular mode of thought. Rather, it has always been a beacon of knowledge engaging dynamically with diverse legal and intellectual traditions.
In the modern era, beginning from the reign of King ‘Abd al-‘Azīz, there has been cooperation in the field of heritage verification between the scholars of al-Azhar and the scholars of the reformist da‘wah. Moreover, Saudi universities welcomed Azhari scholars to teach in their institutions. Had the Salafīs been declaring Azhari scholars to be disbelievers—as some falsely claim—they would not have accepted them to teach at their academic institutions.
Among the manifestations of the reformist da‘wah’s respect for al-Azhar is that, in 1420 AH / 2000 CE, the King Faisal International Prize for Service to Islam was awarded to al-Jāmi‘ al-Azhar, making it the first institution to ever receive the prize, in recognition of its immense contributions to the Islamic world. Many Azhari scholars have also been recipients of the King Faisal Prize, such as Shaykh Muḥammad al-Ghazālī, Shaykh Ḥasanayn Makhlūf, Dr. ‘Abd al-Salām Hārūn, and Dr. Ḥasan al-Shāfi‘ī.
Section Three: Why This Campaign Against Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah?
After surveying the testimonies of the leading scholars of al-Azhar al-Sharīf regarding Ibn Taymiyyah and his reformist school, it becomes clear that he was not a marginal figure rejected by the collective scholarly consciousness, as some claim. Rather, he was a recognized authority among a large group of Azhari scholars who cited his opinions and relied on his works in matters of religious knowledge and law.
As for the current campaign against Shaykh al-Islam, it is, in many cases, based on erroneous generalizations and emotional reactions prompted by the actions of extremists who have misappropriated and misapplied his words. Such an approach is unsound. It is necessary to clarify the error of these extremist groups in attributing themselves to Ibn Taymiyyah and exonerate him from their misguidance. After all, various sects among the Mu‘tazilah and Karrāmiyyah have claimed affiliation with Abū Ḥanīfah, and secularists and atheists have claimed Ibn Rushd as their own. Yet, none of this has led to the removal of Ibn Rushd from the body of Islamic heritage.
Among the motivations upon which the critics also rely is the claim that Ibn Taymiyyah generated much controversy during his time, with many of his contemporaries responding to him. From this controversy, the critic concludes that Ibn Taymiyyah was a “troubled” figure—using their expression—and therefore, the safest course is to distance oneself from him.
However, this conclusion is flawed in its reasoning; scholarly disagreement should not be taken as a pretext to dismiss Ibn Taymiyyah—or any of the prominent figures of Islamic thought.
The critic’s argument can, in fact, be answered with the very same reasoning:
This phenomenon of intellectual contention has occurred throughout Islamic history with major thinkers. Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī, ‘Abd al-Ghanī al-Maqdisī, Ibn Rushd, and others all faced scholarly disputes, yet this did not necessitate disregarding their contributions or erasing their legacy.
Al-Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ said:
“As for Shaykh Abū Ḥāmid [referring to al-Ghazālī], he was a man of terrible reports and frightening writings. He went to extremes in the way of Ṣūfism and devoted himself to defending their school, becoming a caller to it. He authored his well-known works in this regard, which contain many questionable points, and a significant portion of the Ummah harbored ill thoughts about him. Allah alone knows his true state.”[48]
Al-Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ even went so far as to allude to takfīr of al-Ghazālī, saying—after mentioning al-Jāḥiẓ’s view regarding the excusal of the followers of Judaism and Christianity:
“Al-Ghazālī inclined toward a similar view in his book al-Tafriqah. Anyone who says such things is a disbeliever according to the consensus—since there is unanimous agreement that whoever does not declare disbelievers among the Jews, Christians, or anyone who departs from the religion of Islam or hesitates in declaring them disbelievers or doubts therein—is himself a disbeliever.”[49]
Abū ‘Amr Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ said:
“A section clarifying some important matters criticized against Abū Ḥāmid [al-Ghazālī]: In his works are points that the scholars of his own school disapproved of due to their oddness. Among them is his statement in logic: that it is the foundation of all sciences and that whoever does not master it cannot have any true knowledge. This is rejected, for every sound-minded person is naturally logical, and how many an imām never raised his head with logic at all.”[50]
The exegete Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said regarding al-Ghazālī:
“His book titled al-Iqtiṣād is, in my view, a form of heresy and a treacherous avenue toward disturbing the Muslims’ belief in the finality of Muḥammad’s ﷺ prophethood. So beware, beware of it. And Allah is the Guide by His mercy.”[51]
Among the prominent figures who also stirred intense controversy was al-Ḥāfiẓ ‘Abd al-Ghanī al-Maqdisī, who was wronged and persecuted throughout his life. He died as a fugitive because of accusations of anthropomorphism and was declared a disbeliever and innovator by the Ash‘arīs. Judges and scholars expelled him from Iṣfahān, Mosul, Damascus, and Egypt, as mentioned by al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Kathīr.[52]
Al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Rajab said regarding the ordeal of ‘Abd al-Ghanī:
“As for their claim that ‘the jurists unanimously issued a fatwá declaring him a disbeliever and innovator,’ then how astonishing is this! How could there be consensus while the most knowledgeable of the Sunnah and its preservation in his time—meaning ‘Abd al-Ghanī—opposed them? This, alongside the opposition of the jurist of Islam in his time—meaning Ibn Qudāmah—of whom it was said: no one more learned entered al-Shām after al-Awzā‘ī, and a great number of scholars and jurists accompanied him.”[53]
Nevertheless, al-Ḥāfiẓ ‘Abd al-Ghanī’s stature was recognized by the leading scholars, and successive great figures engaged with his work al-Kamāl fī Asmā’ al-Rijāl through abridgment and arrangement, such as al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Mizzī, then al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Dhahabī, and then al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī.
These are examples of great Imāms who stirred intense debate during their eras—whether due to differences in creed or the barriers of contemporaneity—yet this did not lead to their expulsion from the corpus of Islamic heritage. Were it not for fear of undue length, we could have mentioned others who were imprisoned or exiled, such as al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Mizzī, Ibn al-Qayyim, Ibn Abī al-‘Izz al-Ḥanafī, Ibn Rushd al-Andalusī, and others.
The point is this: if it were valid to dismiss Ibn Taymiyyah because of the controversy in his time, we would consequently have to dismiss many towering figures of the Islamic Ummah. No rational person would doubt that this would constitute corruption and harm, leading to the destruction of the intellectual heritage of the Muslims.
Moreover, we affirm that those who criticized Ibn Taymiyyah were a tiny minority compared to the vast majority of scholars who respected him. It is sufficient to note that when ‘Alā’ al-Dīn al-Bukhārī spoke critically of Ibn Taymiyyah, the scholars of the Islamic lands rejected his statements and praised the book al-Radd al-Wāfir by Ibn Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Dimashqī in refutation of him.
Al-Sakhāwī said:
“So al-Ḥāfiẓ of al-Shām, Shams Ibn Nāṣir al-Dīn, took it upon himself to compile a book which he titled al-Radd al-Wāfir ‘alá man Z‘ama anna man Sammá Ibn Taymiyyah Shaykh al-Islam Kāfir (The Sufficient Refutation Against Those Who Claimed That Whoever Called Ibn Taymiyyah ‘Shaykh al-Islam’ Is a Disbeliever). In it, he collected the statements of the prominent Imāms of his era—across all the madhhabs, not only the Ḥanbalīs—who referred to Ibn Taymiyyah with the title ‘Shaykh al-Islam.’ Their number was considerable. He included much of Ibn Taymiyyah’s biography and sent a copy of the book to Cairo. It was endorsed there by our shaykh—meaning Ibn Ḥajar—as well as by the great scholar al-Balqīnī, al-Tafahānī, al-‘Aynī, and al-Basāṭī, and their endorsements are recorded elsewhere.”[54]
In Conclusion:
Those working for the cause of Islam must rise above these historical disputes and show due respect to the scholars of the Ummah. For undermining the scholars is tantamount to undermining the heritage of the Islamic nation—and indeed, it is an attack on the religion itself in the hearts of the Muslims. This, in turn, causes Islam to diminish in the eyes of the common people.
We must not respond to the extremism of some among the Salafīs with extremism in return, for a wrong is not corrected by another wrong.
Yes, matters of scholarly disagreement should remain within the framework of academic discourse, governed by the manners and ethics of scholarly inquiry. As for attacking and discrediting the imāms and scholars through slander and public defamation, this is not the way of those truly grounded in knowledge and understanding.
It is more fitting for us to elevate the level of scholarly dialogue, to move beyond narrow partisan classifications, and to make our ultimate goal the pursuit of truth—not merely defending preconceived stances.
And may Allah send blessings and peace upon our Prophet Muḥammad, and upon his family and companions.
[1] al-Azhar fī Álfi ‘Ām (2/296).
[2] Ṭabaqāt al-Ḥuffāẓ (p. 516–517).
[3] Ṣawn al-Manṭiq wal-Kalām ‘an Fanī al-Manṭiq wal-Kalām (p. 33).
[4] Iqāmat al-Ḥujjah al-Bāhirah (p. 165).
[5] Furqān al-Qur’ān (p. 74).
[6] Fatāwá Dār al-Iftā’ al-Miṣriyyah (6/98).
[7] Fatāwá Dār al-Iftā’ al-Miṣriyyah (7/154).
[8] Majallat al-Buḥūth al-Islāmiyyah – Issue: Muḥarram–Jumādá al-Thāniyah, 1400 AH.
[9] al-Isrā’īliyyāt wal-Mawḍū‘āt fī Kutub al-Tafsīr (p. 129).
[10] al-Isrā’īliyyāt wal-Mawḍū‘āt fī Kutub al-Tafsīr (p. 332).
[11] al-Isrā’īliyyāt wal-Mawḍū‘āt fī Kutub al-Tafsīr (p. 110).
[12] Difā‘ ‘an al-Sunnah (p. 10).
[13] al-Dīn al-‘Ālamī wa-Manhaj al-Da‘wah ilayh (p. 139–140).
[14] Part of an interview with Shaykh ‘Aṭiyyah Ṣaqr at the link:
[15] Kitāb Fatāwá Dār al-Iftā’ al-Miṣriyyah (9/234).
[16] Kitāb Fatāwá Dār al-Iftā’ al-Miṣriyyah (8/92).
[17] al-Muḥaddithūn fī Riḥāb al-Azhar (p. 132).
[18] Baynī wa-Bayna Ḥāmid al-Faqī (p. 11–12).
[19] Risālah fī al-Ṭarīq ilá Thaqāfatina (p. 82).
[20] Risālah fī al-Ṭarīq ilá Thaqāfatina (p. 117).
[21] Madkhal ilá Nashr al-Turāth (p. 153).
[22] Min al-Ḥiṣād al-Qadīm (p. 12).
[23] Min al-Ḥiṣād al-Qadīm (p. 260).
[24] Part of an interview with Shaykh Muḥammad al-Rāwī on the program (Lillāh Thumma lil-Tārīkh), on Azharī Channel:
[25] al-Manṭiq al-Arisṭūṭālīsī bayna al-Qabūl wal-Rafd (p. 93).
[26] al-Manṭiq al-Arisṭūṭālīsī bayna al-Qabūl wal-Rafd (p. 115).
[27] Such as the book ‘Aqīdat al-Mu’min in two volumes: ‘Aqīdat al-Mu’min fī al-Ilāhiyyāt and ‘Aqīdat al-Mu’min fī al-Nubuwwāt wal-Sam‘iyyāt.
[28] Fiqh al-‘Ibādāt (p. 162).
[29] The previous reference (al-Marja‘ al-Sābiq) (p. 164).
[30] Interview with Dr. Aḥmad ‘Umar Hāshim on Ṣadā al-Balad Channel with journalist Ḥamdī Rizq (minute 33).
[31] Excerpt from a sermon by Dr. Aḥmad ‘Umar Hāshim at al-Jāmi‘ al-Azhar: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJGXBe1b2GVmYYhOEArBBGg
[32] Maqām al-‘Aql ‘inda Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah (p. 5), published in Majallat al-Azhar.
[33] Rawā’i‘ Ibn Taymiyyah (p. 127).
[34] al-Salafiyyah (p. 52–53).
[35] Shakhṣiyyāt Lahā Tārīkh (p. 144).
[36] al-Mujaddidūn fī al-Islām (p. 438).
[37] Tārīkh al-Iṣlāḥ fī al-Azhar (p. 220–221).
[38] al-Tafsīr al-Wasīṭ (8/552).
[39] al-Tafsīr al-Wasīṭ (3/393).
[40] al-Tafsīr al-Wasīṭ (15/20).
[41] al-Tafsīr al-Wasīṭ (4/141).
[42] Ma‘rakat al-Muṣḥaf fī al-‘Ālam al-Islāmī (p. 162).
[43] ‘Aqīdat al-Muslim, by Muḥammad al-Ghazālī (p. 72).
[44] Ḥilyat al-Bashar fī Tārīkh al-Qarn al-Thālith ‘Ashar (1/839).
[45] Mukhtaṣar Maṭāli‘ al-Su‘ūd fī Akhbār al-Wālī Dāwūd (p. 117); see also: Mashāhīr Najd wa-A‘lāmuha (p. 50).
[46] From the book: al-Īmān wal-Radd ‘alá Ahl al-Bida‘ (p. 53), printed within Majmū‘at al-Rasā’il wal-Masā’il al-Najdiyyah. Also cited by the author of ‘Ulamā’ Najd wa-Ghayruhum.
[47] Kitāb al-Ijāzah al-‘Ilmiyyah fī Najd: Qirā’ah Istiqrā’iyyah (2/518–521); see also: the manuscript of the ijāzah in the handwriting of the authorizing scholar, preserved in Leiden Library under no. (2496).
[48] See: Siyar A‘lām al-Nubalā’ by al-Dhahabī (19/327).
[49] al-Shifā’ (2/602–603).
[50] See: Siyar A‘lām al-Nubalā’ by al-Dhahabī (19/329).
[51] al-Muḥarrar al-Wajīz (4/388).
[52] See: al-Bidāyah wal-Nihāyah (7/40).
[53] Dhayl Ṭabaqāt al-Ḥanābilah (4/16) – Deaths of the Seventh Century.
[54] al-Ḍaw’ al-Lāmi‘ li-Ahl al-Qarn al-Tāsi‘ (9/292).
Beautifully explained with so many clear examples.
جزاكم الله خيرا كثيرا وبارك الله فيكم