_ living islam : Islamic tradition _ https://www.livingislam.org/ Three Tawhid Explanation Q: What do you make of this piece by Surkheel (Abu Aaliyah) Sharif http://web.mac.com/jawziyyah/The_Jawziyyah_Institute/Reading_Room_files/Tawhid.pdf the article asserts that it was Ibn Ba++ah al-'Ukbari (I am not familiar with him) who initially put forward the categorisation of Tawhid as we have come to know from the Salafi scholars and have commonly believed that it was Ibn Taymiyya who was the originator of this? A: (1.) First of all, Ibn Batta's text is misquoted. The PDF document has: "This is because the basis of faith in God, which people are obliged to believe in, requires affirming faith in three things: Firstly, to believe in His lordship (rabbaniyyah) so as to be distinct from the negaters; those who do not recognize a Creator. Secondly, to believe in His oneness (wahdaniyyah)..." The reference given in the footnote was: "15. Al-Ibanah `an Shari`at al-Firqat al-Najiyah (Riyadh: Dar al-Rayah, 1993), 2:181-2." However, the text of Ibn Batta's Ibana in the Dar al-Rayah edition nowhere has: "Firstly, to believe in His lordship (rabbaniyyah)." The actual text has: "First, he must firmly believe in his _aaniyyatahu_..." This is a scan of the passage: https://www.livingislam.org/ir/d/_img-d/IbnBatta-Ibana-Tawhid.jpg This wording is acknowledged by a Saudi university site: http://www.imamu.edu.sa/support_deanery/graduate/MasterStudies/Master_1424_1425/m0115/Pages/Page_187.htm Ibn Batta coined the neologism _aaniyya_ from the Greek infinitive _einai_. This term is used in Greek philosophy and the Greek New Testament to mean "to be, to exist, to happen, to be present." See the Christian site: http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1511 The participle form of _einai_ is _on_, genitive _ontos_, which gave us the philosophical adjective "ontic" in English. The correct translation, therefore, would be: "First, the servant must believe in His ontic being, so that he will steer clear of the way of the deniers, who do not affirm a Creator..." As is evident for all to see, Ibn Batta in his Ibana presented a Greek philosophical term as a requisite of a Muslim's tawhid - the extreme irony of which fact completely escapes the Wahhabis even as they acknowledge, as per the Jami`at al-Imam Ibn Saud URL already quoted, the fact that the term is [...ARABIC]. (2.) Second, the terminology innovated by Ibn Batta is: "aaniyyatahu"/"wahdaniyyatahu" i.e. "ontic being" and "singularity" whereas the terminology innovated by Ibn Taymiyya is: "tawhid al- rububiyya" and "tawhid al-uluhiyya" i.e. "oneness of lordship" and "oneness of godhood." The difference is no more immaterial than the difference of certain dual or triple subdivisions found in Ash`ari texts. (3.) Third, the application of such a division of terminology against Muslims also differed. Ibn Batta targeted the Jahmis, a non-Sunni minority considered kafir according to the stringent Hanbali view, so there is nothing new there. However, Ibn Taymiyya targeted the mutakallimun of Ahl al-Sunna, i.e. the vast Sunni majority. Sunni readers should not lose sight of the latter fact when objectors try to confuse them with purported triple-tawhid quotes from al- Tabari or Ash`aris and Maturidis such as al-Qurtubi or al-Qari. In illustration of the above two points, note well the words of Abu Hamid Ibn Marzuq in his book Bara'at al-Ash`ariyyin (1:89, 1:94f.): "Tawhid al-rububiyya and tawhid al-uluhiyya were invented by Ibn Taymiyya who claimed that all Muslims among the mutakallimun worshipped other than Allah due to their ignorance of tawhid al- uluhiyya; he claimed that the only tawhid they knew was tawhid al- rububiyya. The latter consists in affirming that Allah is the Creator of all things, as, he says, the polytheists conceded. He then declared all Muslims to be unbelievers. Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab imitated him in this, and others imitated Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab." (4.) Fourth, the PDF text calls Ibn Batta's innovation "an ancient taxonomy" and this is deception. Even Imam Ahmad never said this, and he was not a Tabi`i nor even a taba` al-tabi`in but he studied under the next generation. And Ibn Batta did not reach Imam Ahmad, nor did he meet Imam Ahmad's students nor even his students' students, but for the most part took from the next generation. What "ancient"? Again note well Ibn Marzuq's clear demonstration regarding the novel nature of Ibn Taymiyya's taxonomy: "Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal... never said that tawhid consisted in two parts, one being tawhid al-rububiyya and the other tawhid al- uluhiyya. Nor did he ever say that 'whoever does not know tawhid al- uluhiyya, his knowledge of tawhid al-rububiyya is not taken into account because the idolaters also had such knowledge.'... None of the followers of the Followers ... None of the Successors ... None of the Companions of the Prophet (sallAllahu alayhi wasallam) ever said that tawhid consisted in two parts, one being tawhid al- rububiyya and the other tawhid al-uluhiyya, nor did any of them ever say that 'whoever does not know tawhid al-uluhiyya, his knowledge of tawhid al-rububiyya is not taken into account because the idolaters also had such knowledge.'... Nowhere in the extensive Sunna of the Prophet (sallAllahu alayhi wasallam) ... is it related that the Prophet ever said or ever taught his Companions that tawhid consists in two parts, one being tawhid al-rububiyya and the other tawhid al- uluhiyya, nor that 'whoever does not know tawhid al-uluhiyya, his knowledge of tawhid al-rububiyya is not taken into account because the idolaters also had such knowledge.' If mankind and jinn joined together to establish that the Prophet ever said such a thing, even with an inauthentic chain of transmission, they would not succeed." (5.) Fifth, the PDF quotes al-Dhahabi's positive words about Ibn Batta's character but he omits his words about his unreliability and this is more deception. `Ubayd Allah ibn Muhammad, Abu `Abd Allah al-`Ukbari, known as Ibn Batta (d. 387) was a student of al-Najjad and one of the main authorities in doctrine and law in the Hanbali school, a pious scholar who never left his house in forty years and fasted all year round except on the two `Ids. Al-Dhahabi declares him "an Imam in the Sunna and an Imam in fiqh" but then cites Abu al-Qasim al-Azhari's verdict that "Ibn Batta is extremely weak" (da`if da`if) while al- Khatib declares him a forger and narrates from Abu Dharr al-Harawi and others that al-Daraqutni questioned his truthfulness. Ibn Hajar stated: "I discovered something in connection with Ibn Batta which I found scandalous and hideous." He then shows that Ibn Batta may have added words to the hadith of the Burning Tree narrated in al-Tirmidhi - so as to give it an anthropomorphic slant - whereby the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, said: "When Allah Most High spoke to Musa, the latter was wearing a robe of wool, a wool cloak, and a pair of sandals made of untanned ox leather." The addition found by Ibn Hajar to be apparently forged by Ibn Batta reads: "He [Musa] said: 'Who is the Hebrew (man al-`ibrani) speaking from the tree?' And Allah said: 'I am Allah.'" The doctrinal position of Ahl al-Sunna wal-Jama`a is that Musa (upon him peace) heard Allah *without direction* as narrated from Ibrahim al-Nakha`i in al-Tha`alibi, Tafsir (4:117), al-Khatib, Tarikh Baghdad (10:371-374, 13:167), al-Dhahabi, Mizan (3:15 para:5394), and Ibn Hajar, Lisan (4:113-114 para:231). WAllahu a`lam. GF Haddad 2009-02-15