بَشِعَةٌ.Horrible.
Horrible.
حَيْثُWhereإِنَّthatمَنْwhoيَطَّلِعُexaminesعَلَىonرِسَالَةِthe messageالسُّبْكِيِّof Al-SabkiيَفْهَمُunderstandsأَنَّthatابْنَIbnتَيْمِيَّةَTaimiyyahهُوَisأَوَّلُthe firstمَنْwhoتَكَلَّمَspokeفِيinهَذِهِthisالْمَسْأَلَةِ،issue,وَالْحَالُwhereasأَنَّهُhe isمَسْبُوقٌprecededإِلَىtoذَٰلِكَ،that,وَالْوَاجِبُand it is obligatoryعَلَىonالسُّبْكِيِّAl-Sabkiوَغَيْرِهِand othersالْإِنْصَافَfairnessوَالْعَدْلَand justiceوَهَذَاand thisاللَّائِقُsuitableبِمَقَامِto the rankالْعُلَمَاءِ،of the scholars,لَكِنَّbutالسُّبْكِيَّAl-Sabkiأَغْفَلَignoredكَلَامَthe speechالْعُلَمَاءِof the scholarsالسَّابِقِينَprecedingعَلَىtoالشَّيْخِthe Sheikhوَجَعَلَand madeابْنَIbnتَيْمِيَّةَTaimiyyahمُبْتَدِعًاinnovatorلَهَا.of it.
Wherever one examines the message of Al-Sabki, one understands that Ibn Taimiyyah is the first one who spoke on this issue, while he is preceded to that. It is obligatory for Al-Sabki and others to be fair and just, which is fitting for the rank of scholars. But Al-Sabki ignored the speech of the preceding scholars to the Sheikh and made Ibn Taimiyyah an innovator of it.
وَقَدْAnd hasذَكَرَmentionedالْفَخْرَAl-FakhrالرَّازِيَّAl-Raziالْمُتَوَفَّىwho passed awayسَنَةَin the year٦٠٦هـ606 AHالْقَائِلِينَthe ones who saidبِذَٰلِكَthisوَسَاقَand broughtفِيin"تَفْسِيرِهِ"his interpretation"أَدِلَّةًevidencesالْقَائِلِينَof the ones who saidبِفَنَاءِof the extinctionالنَّارِthe fireمِنَfromالْقُرْآنِthe Qur'anوَالْمَعْقُولِ.and rational.
And Al-Fakhr Al-Razi, who passed away in the year 606 AH, has mentioned those who said this, and brought in his interpretation evidences of those who said of the extinction of the fire from the Qur'an and rational.
ثَالِثًا:Thirdly:عَزَىAl-Sabki attributedالسُّبْكِيُّto Al-Sabkiلِابْنِto IbnتَيْمِيَّةَTaimiyyahأَنَّهُthat heيَخْتَارُchoosesالْقَوْلَthe statementبِفَنَاءِof the extinctionالنَّارِ،the fire,وَأَنَّهُand that heيُنَسِّبُهُattributes itلِلْسَّلَفِto the predecessors.
Thirdly, Al-Sabki attributed to Ibn Taimiyyah that he chooses the statement of the extinction of the fire, and that he attributes it to the predecessors.
بِالرُّجُوعِUpon returningإِلَىtoرِسَالَةِthe messageابْنِof Ibnتَيْمِيَّةَ،Taimiyyah,نَجِدُwe findأَنَّthatمَاwhatذَكَرَهُhe mentionedالسُّبْكِيُّAl-Sabkiلَيْسَis notمُسَلَّمًاacceptedلَهُ،for him,وَذَٰلِكَand thatمِنْfromوَجْهَيْن:two aspects:أA--زَعْمُهُHis claimأَنَّthatالْقَوْلَthe statementبِفَنَاءِof the extinctionالنَّارِthe fire,اخْتِيَارٌchoosingابْنِIbnتَيْمِيَّةَ،Taimiyyah,فَإِنَّfor thisهَذَاthisالِاخْتِيَارُchoiceلَاdoes notيَوْجَدُexistفِيinهَذِهِthisالرِّسَالَةِmessageوَلَاnorغَيْرِهَاothersمِنْofكُتُبِهِhis books--فِيْمَاas far asأَعْلَمُI know.
Upon returning to the message of Ibn Taimiyyah, we find that what Al-Sabki mentioned is not accepted for him, and that is from two aspects: A - His claim that the statement of the extinction of the fire is the choice of Ibn Taimiyyah, for this choice does not exist in this message nor in any of his books - as far as I know.
بB::قَوْلُهُ:His statement:"إِنَّهُ"That heقَوْلُthe statementالسَّلَفِ،"of the predecessors,"},{
B: His statement: "That he is the statement of the predecessors," is not correct as the Sheikh's phrase is as follows: "And as for the statement of the extinction of the fire, there are two known statements from the predecessors and the successors.".
رَابِعًا:Fourthly:عَرَضَAl-Sabki presentedالسُّبْكِيُّto Al-Sabkiفِيinرِسَالَتِهِhis messageأَكْبَرَthe largestقَدْرٍamountمِنَofأَدِلَّةٍthe evidencesالْكِتَابِthe Bookوَالسُّنَّةِand the Sunnahالدَّالَّةِindicatingعَلَىonبَقَاءِthe persistenceالنَّارِ،of the fire,وَابْنُand IbnتَيْمِيَّةَTaimiyyahلَمْdid notيَكُنْbeيَجْهَلَignorantهَذِهِof theseالْآيَاتِversesوَالأَحَادِيثِand the hadithsوَحَاشَاهُand he is far from--رَحِمَهُ اللهُmay Allah have mercy on himأَنْthat heيُنْكِرَdeniesثُبُوتَهَاtheir establishmentوَدَلَالَتِهَاand their implicationsعَلَىonالْبَقَاءِ،the persistence,وَبِالتَّالِيand consequentlyفَإِنَّthatاهْتِمَامَthe interestالسُّبْكِيِّof Al-Sabkiبِاسْتِقْصَاءِin exhaustively examiningذِكْرِthe mention ofالأَدِلَّةِthe evidencesلَاdoes notيُضِيفُaddشَيْئًاanythingجَدِيدًاnewغَابَthat was absentعَنْfromابْنِIbnتَيْمِيَّةَTaimiyyahبَلْratherهُوَisتَجَاهُلٌignoringمِنْهُfrom himلِمَعْرِفَةِto the knowledgeشَيْخِSheikhالْإِسْلَامِof Islamبِهَاof itمُلاحَظَتِهِhis observanceوَالتَّسْلِيمِand submissionبِهَا.to it.
Fourthly, Al-Sabki presented in his message the largest amount of evidences from the Book and Sunnah indicating the persistence of the fire, and Ibn Taimiyyah was not ignorant of these verses and hadiths; may Allah have mercy on him, that he denies their establishment and implications for persistence. Consequently, the interest of Al-Sabki in exhaustively examining the mention of the evidences does not add anything new that was absent from Ibn Taimiyyah, but rather it is his neglect of the knowledge of the Sheikh of Islam concerning it and his submission to it.
وَعَلَيْهِThereforeفَالإِشَارَةُthe indicationأَوْorالتَّلْمِيحُthe allusionمِنَfromالسُّبْكِيِّAl-Sabkiبِنَسِبَتِهِattributingشَيْخَthe Sheikhالإِسْلَامِof Islamلِلْتَّضْلِيلِ.to misguidance.
Therefore, the indication or allusion from Al-Sabki attributing the Sheikh of Islam to misguidance.
(١)(1)"التَّفْسِيرُ الْكَبِيرُ""The Great Interpretation"لِلْفَخْرِof Al-FakhrالرَّازِيِّAl-Razi١٨/٦٣-٦٦.18/63-66.
(1) "The Great Interpretation" of Al-Fakhr Al-Razi 18/63-66.
(٢)(2)الْاعْتِبَارُconsiderationبِبَقَاءِof the persistenceلِلَّجْنَةِof the committeeوَالنَّارِ"and the fire""٦٧"67."
(2) Consideration of the persistence of the committee and the fire" 67.
(٣)(3)انْظُرْSee"ص٥٢""p52."
(3) See "p52."