When reflecting on the claim that Ibn Taymiyyah retracted his creed, it becomes immediately clear that this accusation is false. Its contradiction to the life, knowledge, and condition of Shaykh al-Islam is as al-Mutanabbi said:

وليس يصِحُّ في الأذهانِ شيءُ … إذا احتاج النهارُ إلى دليلِ
“Nothing can be sound in the mind if daylight itself needs proof.”

Those who give weight to such reports ignore what is widely known from his life, writings, and the testimony of his students. It is like believing a weak and strange narration that contradicts what is mass-transmitted and established (al-Jami‘ li-Sirat Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah khilal Sab‘at Qurun wa-Takmilat al-Jami‘, p. 44).

Ibn Hajar’s Account of the Trial

Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar mentioned that Ibn Taymiyyah was imprisoned and later released after allegedly writing that he was Ash‘ari and affirming statements about the Throne and the Qur’an that contradict his known creed. This account, reported in al-Durar al-Kaminah (1/145), became the basis for later claims that he had repented from his beliefs.

The Context of Imprisonment and Oppression

Ibn Taymiyyah’s imprisonment was under the authority of his enemies, who were his judges, witnesses, and accusers. Ibn Abd al-Hadi recorded that in 707AH, Ibn Taymiyyah was brought before the Egyptian judges and accused of affirming that Allah speaks with letter and sound, that He is above the Throne, and can be pointed to. When pressured, he refused to concede and was imprisoned. He remained in prison for a year and a half before being released, after which he wrote some phrases they proposed to him under the threat of death (al-‘Uqud al-Durriyyah, pp. 250–253).

Assessment of the Historical Sources

Muhammad Aziz Shams and Ali al-‘Imran reviewed all historical sources regarding this event. They found that:

• Among the contemporaries, only Ibn al-Muʿallim and al-Nuwayri report a detailed “retraction” text. Later writers mostly follow their wordings. Their reports place the sessions in Rabi al Awwal and Rabi al Akhir 707 AH, and include claims that Ibn Taymiyyah said he was Ashʿari and retracted positions on the Throne, the Qur’an, descent, and istiwa. (al-Jāmiʿ li-Sīrat Shaykh al-Islām, 44–51)
• Al-Barzalī, a close companion, does not record any retraction in the extant parts of his history for those years. Some later attributions to him suggest he mentioned something now lost or found in other works like Muʿjam al-Shuyūkh, but no explicit text survives in what is available. (al-Jāmiʿ, 256–258)
• Al-Dawādārī notes a further session on 14 Rabi al Akhir 707 AH with agreed “wording changes” to a creed, and that the session ended well. He does not establish a clear, explicit retraction that matches the detailed claims. (al-Jāmiʿ, 284)
• Ibn Rajab reports, following al-Dhahabī and al-Barzalī, that Ibn Taymiyyah wrote for them general phrases due to fear and threats of death, without giving a text that contradicts his creed. (al-Jāmiʿ, 592)
• Ibn Kathīr, a student, is silent in al-Bidāyah wa al-Nihāyah about any retraction text, which is weighty given his proximity and detail elsewhere. (al-Jāmiʿ, 44–51)
• Al-Maqrīzī is also silent in al-Muqaffā al-Kabīr about a retraction document. (al-Jāmiʿ, 622–623)
• Ibn Ḥajar reproduces a detailed version close to al-Nuwayrī, and attributes it to al-Barzalī, which creates a transmission chain that leans on a text not found in the available Barzalī material. (al-Durar al-Kāminah 1/145; al-Jāmiʿ, 650–651)
• Ibn Taghrībirdī gives a narrative aligned with Ibn Ḥajar and seems to draw from a hostile biography by Ibn al-Zamlakānī, an opponent of the Shaykh, which affects reliability. (al-Manhal al-Ṣāfī; al-Nujūm al-Zāhirah; al-Jāmiʿ, 2690, 2693–2694)
• Al-Dhahabī records the coercive setting and states he “wrote phrases they proposed to him” with threats of death, which fits with a general non-committal writing under duress rather than a substantive creed retraction. (al-ʿUqūd al-Durrīyyah, 251–252, quoting al-Dhahabī)

Pattern across sources: silence or generalities from nearer, sympathetic imams, with details concentrated in two contemporaries and later compilers who rely on them or on hostile intermediaries. (al-Jāmiʿ, 44–51)

From this we see that

• Some historians did not mention the story or any written retraction.
• Some mentioned that he wrote under fear and threat.
• Others gave details but omitted any mention of coercion.

What we gather from this historically is that only Ibn al-Mu‘allim and al-Nuwayri, among his contemporaries, detailed such a retraction, while others either ignored or contradicted it. Later historians merely followed these two reports (al-Jami‘, pp. 44–51).

The Three Possible Views

• View 1. Deny the entire episode. This ignores multiple independent notices of sessions, imprisonment, and some form of writing, and does not account for reports of threats and coercion. (al-ʿUqūd, 250–253; al-Jāmiʿ, 44–51)
• View 2. Affirm that he wrote something general under duress, without retracting creed or endorsing invalid beliefs. This aligns with: the repeated mention of threats of death, the reports that speak of “phrases” rather than a full creed switch, the silence of close students on any real retraction, and the continued consistency of his writings before and after 707–708 AH. (al-ʿUqūd, 251–253, 394; al-Jāmiʿ, 44–51, 256–258, 592; Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā 3/160f.)
• View 3. Accept a full retraction as narrated by Ibn al-Muʿallim and al-Nuwayrī. This relies on isolated reports that clash with stronger, wider testimony, and with the Shaykh’s own record where he rejects imposed terminologies and reaffirms the creed of the Salaf. It also fails a chronology check, since similar demands recurred in 708 AH, which would be strange if a prior signed capitulation existed. (al-Jāmiʿ, 44–51, 160–161; al-Tisʿīnīyyah 1/109–119)
• Why View 2 is correct.
  • Consistency: His works show no shift or hint of regret. He resumes teaching and writing on the same creed. (Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā 3/160f.; al-ʿUqūd, 253)
  • His close companions are silent on a real retraction, while others only state he wrote general phrases under fear. (al-Jāmiʿ, 256–258, 592)
  • Coercion: multiple reports record threats of death and judicial hostility, which explains a non-committal, general writing. (al-ʿUqūd, 251–253)
  • Chronology: renewed attempts in 708 AH to obtain a fresh handwritten concession prove there was no prior binding confession. (al-Tisʿīnīyyah 1/111; al-Ikhnāʾiyyah, 104–105; al-Jāmiʿ, 160–161)
  • Self-testimony: Shayk Al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah himself describes the sessions, rejects innovative wordings on jihah and tahayyuz, and affirms only what is in the Book and Sunnah and upon which the Salaf agreed. (al-Tisʿīnīyyah 1/109–119)

Reasons for Rejecting the Retraction Claim

• The alleged text contradicts the creed that Ibn Taymiyyah defended before and after the incident.
• None of his many writings show any trace of retraction or mention such a document.
• When he later gained power and freedom, he never reclaimed or denied such a document, which would have been expected had it truly existed.
• He endured many trials but was never known to retract from his beliefs, only to remain silent temporarily before resuming his stance (al-‘Uqud al-Durriyyah, p. 394).
• He viewed his opponents as insignificant, once saying: “They are nothing but like flies,” showing his firmness and disregard for their hostility (al-‘Uqud, p. 330).

Al-Dhahabi described his resolve, saying that crowds of scholars rose against him, accusing him of innovation, yet he remained firm, speaking the truth as his ijtihad and knowledge led him to, without flattery or compromise (Mu‘jam Ashab Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, p. 23; al-‘Uqud, pp. 218–219, 240–241).

Forgery and Fabrication by Opponents

The most that can be said is that Ibn Taymiyyah wrote general expressions that did not contradict sound creed.

His enemies forged a detailed document, added statements, and called witnesses to it.

Forgery and lying against him were common practices among his opponents, as recorded repeatedly by his students (al-‘Uqud, pp. 259, 264, 266, 269, 397–398).

Al-Barzali said about them: “They distorted the words and lied with a great lie,” and that they placed Ibn Taymiyyah’s words where they did not belong. The Shaykh himself confirmed that forged letters were circulated in his name containing distorted creeds, which he denied knowing (al-Jami‘, pp. 39–47).

Evidence of Continued Hostility After 707AH

If a written retraction existed in 707AH, his opponents would not have asked him again in 708AH to write on the same issue. In that year, the shaykhs of Tadamarah demanded that he sign a statement abandoning the issues of the Throne and the Qur’an. He rejected them, saying:

“You are asking me to write in my own hand that there is no god worshipped above the Throne, no Qur’an in the mushaf, and no speech of Allah in the earth.”

He then said: “O Allah, I bear witness that they are calling me to disbelief in You, Your Book, and Your Messengers, and I will never do that.” He also said: “If they kill me, it is martyrdom. If they exile me, it is migration.” (al-Tis‘iniyyah, 1/111; al-Ikhnaiyyah, pp. 104–105; al-Jami‘, pp. 160–161).

This proves they had no such earlier confession and relied on false reports.

Ibn Taymiyyah’s Own Account

In al-Tis‘iniyyah, Ibn Taymiyyah himself described the trial. In 706AH, he was summoned by the emirs and judges, who had already heard his opponents for months without listening to him. He demanded a fair hearing, quoting the verse:

“إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَأْمُرُكُمْ أَنْ تُؤَدُّوا الْأَمَانَاتِ إِلَى أَهْلِهَا”
“Indeed, Allah commands you to render trusts to whom they are due, and when you judge between people, to judge with justice…” (al-Nisa 58)

They presented him with a false paper demanding that he deny direction and confinement for Allah, and to stop saying that Allah’s speech is with letter and sound. He rejected it, clarifying that these wordings are innovations and that he affirms only what is in the Quran and the Sunnah.

He said that whoever means by “no direction” that there is no Lord above the heavens or no God above the Throne opposes the consensus of the Ummah.

He confirmed that Allah is above creation but not contained within it.

He also rejected the claim that Allah cannot be pointed to or that raising hands in supplication is impermissible, citing the hadith:

«إِنَّ اللَّهَ حَيِيٌّ كَرِيمٌ، يَسْتَحْيِي مِنْ عَبْدِهِ، إِذَا رَفَعَ يَدَيْهِ إِلَيْهِ، أَنْ يَرُدَّهُمَا صِفْرًا»
“Allah is shy and generous. He is shy from His servant, when he raises his hands to Him, to turn them back empty.” (Tirmidhi 3556)

He concluded that concealing knowledge is not allowed, quoting:
“إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَكْتُمُونَ مَا أَنْزَلْنَا”
“Indeed, those who conceal what We have sent down of clear proofs and guidance…” (al-Baqarah 159).

He wrote that his refusal to comply led to anger from his accusers, and he left the session denouncing them for altering the deen (al-Tis‘iniyyah, 1/109–119).

Conclusion

The story of Ibn Taymiyyah’s repentance or retraction is false. It originated from biased sources and was contradicted by stronger, well-known reports. His life, writings, and his own words refute it. He was threatened, imprisoned, and pressured, but he never retracted his creed. His writings after this event prove that he continued to hold, defend, and teach the same beliefs until his death (Majmu‘ al-Fatawa, 3/160; al-‘Uqud al-Durriyyah, p. 253).

Full Article

When reflecting on this so-called “doubt” or rather “accusation,” one finds that proving its falsehood and its contradiction to the condition, efforts, and knowledge of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah is like the saying of al-Mutanabbi:

وليس يصِحُّ في الأذهانِ شيءُ … إذا احتاج النهارُ إلى دليلِ

“Nothing can be sound in the mind if daylight itself needs proof.”

Whoever gives attention to such claims and reports, compared to what is widely known about Shaykh al-Islam’s life, his works, and what people witnessed in his writings, is like someone who clings to a strange, weak narration that contradicts what is widely transmitted and well known from the authentic reports.

The main thing that caused confusion to those who transmitted this story is what al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned in his biography of Ibn Taymiyyah, while recounting his trials and his dealings with his opponents.

He said: “They brought the three judges, the Shafi‘i, the Maliki, and the Hanafi, and he spoke with them about releasing him. They agreed that they would impose conditions upon him and that he should retract some points of creed. They sent to him several times, but he refused to appear before them and remained as he was.

Ibn Taymiyyah stayed in the dungeon until Muhanna, the amir of Al Fadl, interceded for him. He was released in Rabi al Awwal on the twenty third of the month and was brought to the Citadel.

A discussion took place with some jurists, and a written record was made against him stating that he said, I am Ash‘ari.

Then a text in his handwriting was found with the following: What I believe is that the Quran is a meaning established in the Essence of Allah. It is one of His eternal Attributes. It is uncreated, and it is not letter nor sound.

As for His saying, The Most Merciful rose over the Throne, it is not upon its apparent, and I do not know the reality of what is meant by it. None knows it but Allah.

The statement regarding the descent is like the statement regarding rising over the Throne. Written by Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah. Then they called witnesses to testify that he repented from whatever contradicts that, by choice.

That was on the fifteenth of Rabi al Awwal in the year 707. A large number of scholars and others testified to it. The situation calmed, he was set free, and he resided in Cairo.

Then a group of the Sufis gathered with Taj al Din Ibn Ata. In the middle ten days of Shawwal they requested that he be summoned to the Citadel.

They complained that Ibn Taymiyyah spoke regarding the rights of the shaykhs of the path, and that he said, help is not sought from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, in istighathah. The situation then required that an order be given to send him to al Sham, so he set out on the mounted postal horses.”

Ad-Durar Al-Kaaminah (1/145)

The first thing to be said in discussing this report is that we are dealing with the story of a prisoner under the authority of his enemies. They were the ones judging him, witnessing against him, and reporting what he said. He was under their power and domination.

Ibn Abd al-Hadi said: “ In the year 570AH an order came from Egypt that he be asked about his doctrine of belief, so the judges and scholars gathered for him in the council of the deputy of Damascus, al Afram.

He said, I had been asked about the doctrine of the Sunnah, so I answered it in a booklet years ago. They asked for it from his house, so it was brought and read.

They disputed with him over two or three places in it, and the session went on at length. They stood and met twice more to complete the booklet and they examined him thoroughly. Then they agreed that this is a sound Salafi doctrine. Some of them said that reluctantly.

The Egyptians had been working against the Shaykh and had cooperated with the amir Rukn al Din al Jashnkir, who had taken power, against him, so he was summoned to Egypt on the postal mounts. (He is Baybars ibn Abd Allah al Mansuri, Rukn al Din. He was one of the emirs of the Mamluks. He took the throne after al Malik al Nasir Muhammad ibn Qalawun was deposed in the year 708, and his rule did not last a full year. Al Malik al Nasir seized him, brought him before him, and strangled him with a bowstring he had in his hand in the year 709. See Ayan al Asr 2, 71 to 75, and Mawrid al Latafah concerning those who held the sultanate and caliphate, 2, 59 to 63.)

On the second day after his arrival, the judges and jurists gathered for a session in the Citadel of Egypt, and Ibn Adlan (He is Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Uthman al Kanani al Masri al Shafi‘i, of the jurists. He was close to al Jashnkir. He has a commentary on al Muzani’s Mukhtasar in manuscript. He died in the year 749 at about ninety years old. See Ayan al Asr 4, 297 to 299, and al Durar al Kaminah 3, 333 to 334.)

stood against him as an opponent and brought a claim against him before the judge Ibn Makhluf the Maliki.(Ibn Makhluf the judge. He is Ali ibn Makhluf ibn Nahid al Nuwayri al Maliki. He held the judgeship and was criticised for little knowledge and haste in judgement. He died in 718. See Raf al Isr 2, 405 to 406, and Ayan al Asr 3, 543 to 545. Shaykh al Islam said about him, he has little knowledge and little religion. Majmu al Fatawa 3, 235.)

He said, This man says that Allah spoke the Quran with letter and sound, and that He, exalted is He, is above the Throne with His Essence, and that Allah can be pointed to. He said, I ask that he be punished for that. 

The judge said, What do you say, O jurist.

He praised Allah and praised Him.

They said to him, Hurry up, we did not bring you to deliver a sermon.

He said, Do you prevent me from praising Allah.

The judge said, Answer, for you have praised Allah.

He remained silent, so they pressed him.

He said, Who is the judge in this matter.

They pointed to the judge Ibn Makhluf.

He said, You are my opponent, how do you judge me. He became angry and agitated and the judge was silenced.

The Shaykh and his two brothers were made to stand and they were imprisoned in the dungeon of the Citadel of the Mountain, and many events took place.

A royal letter was written to al Sham to speak ill of him. It was read in the congregational mosque and the people were distressed for him.

He then remained a year and a half, and was released, and he wrote for them phrases they proposed to him. He was threatened or warned with death if he did not write them. 

He stayed in Egypt teaching knowledge and crowds gathered around him, until he spoke about the Ittihadiyyah, those who say with wahdat al wujud, that is union of existence. They are Ibn Sabin, Ibn Arabi, al Qunawi, and those like them, so the Sufis and the poor gathered against him and worked against him, alleging that he spoke regarding the awliyah (saints).

A public gathering was made for him, then they sent him out on the postal mounts, then they returned him a day’s distance from Egypt. They saw that their interest was in detaining him, so they imprisoned him in the prison of the judges for a year and a half. (Ibn Sabin is Abd al Haqq ibn Ibrahim ibn Muhammad al Ashbili, from the philosophers among the Sufis who say with union of existence, and he has writings in Sufism and philosophy. He died in 669. See Tarikh al Islam 15, 168. Ibn Arabi is Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Muhammad ibn Arabi al Ta’i al Andalusi, Muhyi al Din al Hatimi, known as al Shaykh al Akbar, among the great of the Sufis who say with union of existence, and he has many writings. He died in 638. See Tarikh al Islam 14, 273. Al Qunawi is Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Muhammad Sadr al Din al Qunawi al Rumi, among the greatest students of Ibn Arabi. Ibn Arabi married his mother and raised him, and he has many writings in Sufism. He died in 673. See Tarikh al Islam 15, 266.)

His companions began to enter to him in secret, then they made it open, so the state sent him out on the postal mounts to Alexandria and he was imprisoned in one of its towers. It was spread about him more than once that he had been killed and that he had drowned.

When the sultan returned, may Allah support him, from al Karak and destroyed his opponents, he hastened to bring the Shaykh to Cairo with honour. He met him and spoke with him and confided to him in the presence of the judges and the great ones and increased him in honour.

Then he descended and lived in a house, and after that he met with the sultan, and the Shaykh was not a man of the states, nor did he walk with them according to those protocols, so after that the sultan did not meet him. When the sultan came to repel the enemy from al Rahbah, the Shaykh came to Damascus in the year twelve and seven hundred.”

al-‘Uqud al-Durriyyah by Ibn Abd al-Hadi Page 250-253

The two scholars Muhammad Aziz Shams and Ali al-‘Imran examined all the historical sources about this trial and compared their reports. They said: “It becomes clear from this comparison that some historians did not mention this story at all, nor any writing. Some mentioned it briefly, noting that he was threatened with death. Others gave details and quoted the alleged text but did not mention the threats and coercion that accompanied it.

The Issue of the Shaykh Allegedly Retracting His Creed

Here is a point that requires careful clarification. Many have found it problematic that some sources report that the Shaykh, may Allah have mercy on him, wrote a document containing a creed that opposes what he called to and issued fatwas upon throughout his life, and for which he was even imprisoned. We say, clarifying this point and refuting those driven by desires and doubts:

This alleged retraction is mentioned by each of the following:

1. His student Ibn Abd al Hadi, d. 744, as in al Uqud al Durriyyah, pages 251 to 252, quoting al Dhahabi.
2. Al Dhahabi, d. 748, his student, as quoted by Ibn Abd al Hadi in the work just mentioned. His wording is:
   … Many events then took place. A royal letter was sent to al Sham to denounce him, it was read in the congregational mosque, and the people felt pain for him. Then he remained a year and a half, meaning the year 707, and he was released, and he wrote for them phrases that they proposed to him, and he was threatened and warned with death if he did not write them. He remained in Egypt teaching knowledge and crowds gathered around him … end quote.
3. Ibn al Muallim, d. 725, in Najm al Muhtadi wa Rajm al Muatadi, Paris manuscript number 638, and al Nuwayri, d. 733, in Nihayat al Arab, as in al Jami, pages 223 to 225. In it is that this session took place after the arrival of Amir Husam al Din Muhanna, Rabi al Akhir 707, and that the Shaykh was released on Friday, 23 Rabi al Awwal 707. Then al Nuwayri transmitted the substance of what was in the document that recounts what occurred in the session, that the Shaykh said he was Ashari, that he placed the book of al Ashari on his head, and that he retracted in the issues of the Throne, the Quran, descent, and rising over the Throne, from his madhhab, the madhhab of Ahl al Sunnah, and that the document was dated 25 Rabi al Awwal 707. Then another session was convened, and wording similar to the previous was written on 16 Rabi al Akhir 707, and witnesses were called to it.
4. As for al Barzali, d. 739, his companion, he did not mention during the events of those years anything of the matter. Al Jami, pages 256 to 258.
   (It has already been mentioned that al Barzali, in his history, did not mention anything about the document or a retraction, but the fact that a group of historians attributed something to him indicates that he mentioned something of it, so perhaps he mentioned it in parts of his history we did not access, or in another book of his such as Muajam al Shuyukh.)
5. Al Dawadari, after 736, mentioned in Kanz al Durar, al Jami, page 284, that they held another session for him on 14 Rabi al Akhir 707 after Amir Husam al Din departed, and that they agreed to change the wordings in the creed, and the session ended well.
6. Ibn Kathir, d. 774, his student, did not mention anything in al Bidayah wa al Nihayah about such a retraction.
7. Ibn Rajab, d. 795, mentioned in al Dhayl, al Jami, page 592, similar to what Ibn Abd al Hadi mentioned in al Uqud, saying: al Dhahabi and al Barzali and others said that the Shaykh wrote for them in his own hand general phrases and wordings that contain something of what they contain because he feared and was threatened with death.
   (It has already been stated that al Barzali, in his history, did not mention anything of the document or the retraction, but the attribution of a group of historians to him indicates that he mentioned something of that, so perhaps he mentioned it in parts of his history we did not reach, or in another of his books such as Muajam al Shuyukh. He did not mention the exact wording, nor the document.)
8. Al Maqrizi, d. 845, did not mention in al Muqaffa al Kabir, al Jami, pages 622 to 623, anything about a retraction or a document.
9. Al Hafiz Ibn Hajar, d. 852, mentioned in al Durar al Kaminah, al Jami, pages 650 to 651, something similar to what al Nuwayri mentioned in Nihayat al Arab, then Ibn Hajar attributed what he transmitted to the history of al Barzali.
10. Ibn Taghribirdi, d. 874, mentioned in al Manhal al Safi, al Jami, page 2690, something similar to what al Hafiz Ibn Hajar mentioned. The flow of his transmission indicates that he transmits from a book by Kamal al Din Ibn al Zamlakani, whose enmity toward the Shaykh is known, which includes a biography of the Shaykh. He also transmitted from it in al Nujum al Zahirah, al Jami, pages 2693 to 2694.

From this survey it becomes clear that:

1. Some historians did not mention the story at all, nor any document.
2. Some of them only alluded to it without detailing the text of what he wrote, while mentioning that he wrote under fear and under the threat of being killed.
3. Some of them gave details and quoted the text of the alleged writing, but without mentioning the threats and intimidation with death that accompanied it.

Based on this, we can say that Ibn al Muallim and al Nuwayri alone among the contemporaries of the Shaykh transmitted the alleged retraction and the wording of what he wrote, and some later writers followed them. On this basis, one of the following positions can be taken concerning this matter:

1. To reject everything the historians mentioned in full, and to say that none of it ever occurred.
2. To affirm the basic occurrence, without affirming any retraction in creed, and without affirming the document that contains explicit opposition to what the Shaykh called to before this date and after it.
3. To affirm everything that Ibn al Muallim and al Nuwayri uniquely reported concerning retraction and writing.

The first is a push back by bare denial. The third is to affirm isolated and anomalous reports and place them over what is more well known and widespread. What stands firm under critique and is stronger is the second position. The Shaykh wrote for them general phrases after threats and intimidation, but there was no retraction of his creed, no adoption of a false creed, and no document with all of that. This is for many reasons:

• This document contradicts the creed of the Shaykh which he called to and defended throughout his life, before this incident and after it.

• There is nothing in his writings and works that shows any trace of such a retraction, nor any hint to such a document or to what it allegedly contained. Had any of that occurred, it would have been fitting that after he prevailed over his enemies, at least, and had power over them after the downfall of al Jashnkir and the return of al Nasir, that he would demand that document or deny it about himself.

• The Shaykh, may Allah have mercy on him, faced many pressures in many issues before this date and after it. He was imprisoned for them and reproached, yet he was never known to retract anything of them. At most he would remain silent from issuing fatwas about it for a time, then return to it and say, It is not lawful for me to conceal knowledge, as in the issue of divorce. Al Uqud, page 394. How then would he write for them this time what contradicts the creed of Ahl al Sunnah and affirm the madhhab of the people of innovation.

• As for the matter of opponents with the Shaykh, may Allah have mercy on him, it was only as he described them himself when it was said to him, O master, people have spoken much against you. He said, They are nothing but like flies, then he lifted his palm to his mouth and blew into it. Al Uqud, page 330. Al Dhahabi described the firmness of the Shaykh before his opponents, saying: … until crowds from the scholars of Egypt and al Sham stood against him to a level beyond which there is nothing. He remained firm, not flattering and not favoring, but saying the bitter truth that his ijtihad, the sharpness of his mind, and the breadth of his knowledge of the Sunnah and sayings led him to. All of this informs you about how credible that alleged retraction and that document are.

• Another point that weakens this falsehood is that a group asked the Shaykh to say that this creed which he wrote and for which he debated the opponents is the creed of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, meaning that it is a followed madhhab, so it should not be opposed. The Shaykh did not accept this. Rather, he declared openly that this is the creed of the Salaf of the Ummah, all of them, and that Ahmad has no special claim to it. Al Uqud, pages 275 and 300.

• The most that can be said concerning his writing for them is that it was a general writing in issues of creed that does not conflict with truth and correctness. Look at examples of what the Shaykh would use with his opponents to force them back and silence them, while they harbored what they harbored within themselves, in al Uqud, pages 270, 275, and 301. The enemies could not force him to write more than that generality. Then they saw that there was no benefit in publicizing that writing in the form that he wrote it, so they forged words upon him, then forged his signature, and brought people to testify against him so that their aim would be achieved. Lying, fabricating, and forging against the Shaykh had become among the most well known traits of his opponents. See many places in al Uqud, pages 259, 264, 266, 269, and 397 to 398.

• Al Barzali said in the first place about his opponents, They distorted the words and lied with a terrible lie. He said in the second place, The opponents differed in their transmissions of the session, they distorted it, and they placed the Shaykh’s words where they do not belong, and Ibn al Wakil and his followers scandalized the matter by claiming that the Shaykh retracted his creed. Allah is the One sought for help. The Shaykh himself said in the third place, News reached me that a forged letter in my name was sent to Amir Rukn al Din al Jashnkir containing the mention of a distorted creed. I did not know its reality, but I knew that this is a lie.

• The Shaykh said in the fourth place, I know that people lie about me, just as they have lied about me more than once. Ibn Abd al Hadi said in the last place, The scandal was magnified against the Shaykh, meaning in the issue of traveling with saddled mounts, and words were distorted against him and things were transmitted from him that he did not say. He also recorded against them lying, forgery, and distorting words in many other places. So it is not strange that they would forge this time what they forged, and call people to bear false witness against him.

• What also supports the falsity of this fabrication is that this document they claim was written in the year 707. How can this be sound when they were asking him in the year 708 to write something in his own hand on the same issue. When the shaykhs of the Tadamarah came to him around the year 708 and said, O master, they have made us carry words to say to you, and they made us swear that none but us will know of it, that you give up for them the issue of the Throne and the issue of the Quran, and that we take your handwriting on that, and we will present it to the Sultan and say to him, This is what we imprisoned Ibn Taymiyyah for, and he has retracted it, and we will tear up the paper.

• He said to them, You are asking me to write in my own hand that there is no God worshipped above the Throne, that there is no Quran in the mushafs, and that there is no speech of Allah in the earth. He struck the ground with his turban, stood up, raised his head to the sky, and said, O Allah, I bear witness that they are calling me to disbelief in You and Your Books and Your Messengers, and that this is something I will not do, then he supplicated against them. (See al Tisainiyyah, 1, page 111, and al Ikhnaiyyah, pages 104 to 105, and see Mawqif Ibn Taymiyyah min al Ashairah, 1, pages 179 to 180, the footnote by Shaykh Abd al Rahman al Mahmoud.) (This shows that they had despaired of his retracting from his creed. The most they wanted was to take something in his handwriting that would excuse them before the Sultan concerning his imprisonment. Yet even this they did not obtain from the Shaykh.)

When they said to him, They will do all of this until you agree with them, and they are working to kill you or exile you or imprison you, he said to them, If they kill me, then it is martyrdom. If they exile me, then it is migration. They then forgot the matter and left. (This was narrated by Ibrahim ibn Ahmad al Ghayyani, the servant of Shaykh al Islam. See al Jami, pages 160 to 161.)

If they had a document in his handwriting on those issues, as they claimed, they would not have asked him to write another document in his own hand. We conclude that the only thing they had the first time was lying, forgery, and distortion.

At the end of this introduction, we repeat the call for more contact and exchange of benefit, giving thanks and acknowledging the favor of everyone who offered a remark or a benefit, especially the two respected teachers Hasan al Bar for his valuable notes, and Khalid al Zahrani for what he exerted and sought in obtaining those benefits and others.

Kitab al-Jami‘ li-Sirat Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah khilal Sab‘at Qurun wa-Takmilat al-Jami‘ By Muhammad Aziz Shams Pages 44-51

Therefore, only Ibn al-Mu‘allim and al-Nuwayri, from among his contemporaries, mentioned this alleged retraction and detailed the writing. Some later writers followed them.

From this, three possible stances can be taken:

• First, to reject completely all that these historians reported and deny that anything of it occurred.
• Second, to affirm the event of writing something, but without any retraction in creed or acceptance of the invalid beliefs they alleged.
• Third, to affirm all that Ibn al-Mu‘allim and al-Nuwayri narrated of retraction and confession.

The first is excessive denial, and the third is reliance upon rare and isolated reports over what is widespread and known.

The correct and sound position is the second: that the Shaykh wrote for them some general words under threat and fear, but without retracting his creed, adopting false belief, or writing anything contradicting what he had always taught.”

They listed several reasons for this: That such writing contradicts the creed that Shaykh al-Islam defended and called to his entire life, before and after that incident.

That none of his writings or works contain any hint of retraction or mention of such a document. Had it truly occurred, he would have referred to it later when his opponents weakened after al-Jashnkir’s downfall and the return of al-Nasir, for he could then have reclaimed or denied it.

That he faced many other trials before and after this date, was imprisoned and questioned for various issues, but was never known to retract any of his positions. The most he ever did was to remain silent for a time, then say later, “It is not lawful for me to conceal knowledge,” as in the issue of divorce (al-‘Uqud al-Durriyyah, page 325).

How then could he write something opposing the creed of Ahl al-Sunnah and affirming the doctrine of innovation, when his view of his opponents was as he himself described them: when told, “People have spoken much against you,” he said, “They are nothing but like flies,” then blew into his hand. (al-‘Uqud, page 268).

Al-Dhahabi described his firmness before his opponents, saying: “Most of his writings were directed to people of virtue and asceticism, and that is with truth. In some of his words, he said, He is a mujtahid (an independent jurist), and his madhhab (school of thought) is one of broad excuse for people, and he does not declare anyone a disbeliever until the proof is established against him.

He said: Indeed, he defended pure Sunnah and the Salafi path, supporting it with proofs, reasonings, and arguments that no one before him had presented. He used expressions that earlier and later scholars had refrained from using out of caution, but he went forward with them. Crowds of scholars from Egypt and al Sham rose against him with no limit to their opposition. They accused him of innovation, debated with him, and opposed him fiercely, yet he remained firm, not flattering and not favouring anyone. He spoke the bitter truth to which his ijtihad (independent reasoning), sharp intellect, wide knowledge of the Sunnah and opinions led him, together with what was known about him of scrupulousness, completeness of thought, quick understanding, fear of Allah, and great reverence for the sanctities of Allah. (also found in al-‘Uqud, pages 218–219, 240–241).

Kitab Mu‘jam Ashab Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah By Walid al-Amawi Page 23

At most, his writing to them was general phrasing about matters of creed that did not contradict truth or sound belief. Examples of how he used similar general expressions with opponents to silence them are mentioned in al-‘Uqud (pages 212, 215, 240–241).

His enemies could not force him to write beyond such generalities, so they saw no use in spreading what he actually wrote. They fabricated and forged statements upon him, signed his name falsely, and called witnesses to it in order to achieve their goal. Lying and forging against the Shaykh had become a known habit of his enemies, as seen many times in al-‘Uqud (pages 200, 204, 207, 209, 328).

Al-Barzalī said of them in one place: “They distorted the words and lied with great falsehood.” In another: “The opponents differed in their reports of the session, altered it, and placed the Shaykh’s words where they did not belong.

Ibn al-Wakil and his followers falsely claimed that he retracted his creed. Allah is the one sought for help.” The Shaykh himself said: “It reached me that a forged letter in my name was made to Emir Rukn al-Din al-Jashnkir containing a distorted creed. I did not know its content but knew it was a lie.” He also said: “I know that some people lie about me, as they have done before many times.”

A further proof of falsehood is that they claimed this writing occurred in 707 AH, yet in 708 AH they were still asking him to write again on the same issue. It is reported that when some of the Tadamarah shaykhs came to him around 708 AH and said: “Our masters have ordered us and made us swear that no one will see this except us, to ask you to give up the issue of the Throne and the Quran and to give us your written statement, which we will show the Sultan and say: this is what we imprisoned Ibn Taymiyyah for, and he has retracted it, and then we will destroy the paper,” the Shaykh replied: “You are asking me to write in my own hand that there is no deity worshipped above the Throne, no Quran in the mushaf, and no speech of Allah in the earth?” Then he struck the ground with his turban, stood up, raised his head to the sky, and said: “O Allah, I bear witness that they are asking me to disbelieve in You, Your Book, and Your Messengers, and this is something I will never do.” Then he prayed against them.

When they said: “They only do this so you will agree, otherwise they will kill, exile, or imprison you,” he said: “If they kill me, it is martyrdom; if they exile me, it is migration.” They despaired of him and left (reported by Ibrahim al-Ghayani, servant of Shaykh al-Islam, in al-Jami‘, pages 147–148).

If they had already had a written confession from him, why would they ask for another one? Hence, the only thing they ever had was fabrication and lies.

Check al-Jami‘ li-Sirat Shaykh al-Islam (pages 39–47).

Moreover, Shaykh al-Islam himself mentioned a part of this trial, which lasted about eighteen months, describing what his enemies demanded from him and how he answered them. This appears at the beginning of his refutation of the Ash‘aris concerning the issue of speech, titled al-Tis‘iniyyah.

He said after the introduction: “Praise be to Allah. We seek His help and forgiveness, and we seek refuge in Allah from the evil of our own selves and from our bad deeds. Whoever Allah guides, none can misguide, and whoever He misguides, none can guide. I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, and I bear witness that Muhammad is His servant and His Messenger.

At the end of the month of Ramadan, in the year 706AH, two amirs came as messengers from the gathering of emirs, judges, and those with them. They mentioned a message from the emirs, the content of which was a request for my attendance to speak before the judges so that the case might be resolved and settled.

The request was that I come, that the discussion be brief, and other such matters.

I said: Convey my greetings to the emirs and say to them: For a year, and before that for another period, you have been listening to my opponents night and day, and until this very moment you have not heard a single word from me.

This is among the greatest forms of injustice. Even if the opponent were a Jew or a Christian or another enemy of Islam and of your rule, it would not be permissible for you to judge him before hearing his side. Yet you have listened to the words of my opponents alone in many sessions, so listen to my words alone in one session. After that we can gather and discuss in your presence. This is the least measure of justice that Allah commanded when He said:

“Indeed, Allah commands you to render trusts to whom they are due, and when you judge between people, to judge with justice. Excellent is that which Allah instructs you. Indeed, Allah is ever Hearing and Seeing.” (al Nisa 58)

The two messengers requested that I write this in a document, so I wrote it, and they left. They then returned and said: The request is that you attend, so that the judges may speak with you briefly, and then the matter will end.

In the first half of the mentioned month, these two messengers came to us with a paper written for them by the judge who had been appointed as arbiter, Abu al Hasan Ali ibn Makhluf al Maliki. It was long. I asked them for copies of it, but they did not agree.

I examined it and found it to be false except for one phrase, that Allah is truly above the Throne and that His speech is letter and sound established with Him without asking how and without likening.

I said: This is neither from my words nor in my handwriting. He then addressed me with a lengthy statement which is mentioned elsewhere. They regretted writing that paper and wrote another one.

I said: I will not appear before those who judge by the rule of ignorance and by other than what Allah has revealed, and who do to me what even the Jews and Christians would not deem lawful, as you did in the first session.

I said to the messenger: That took place in your presence. Do you want to plot against me as they plotted the past year?

I will not agree to this. But whoever claims that I have said something false, let him write in his own hand what he objects to in my words and his proof, and I will write my reply with his statement. Then my words and his words will be presented to the scholars of the East and the West. I said this in al Sham, and I say it here.

This is my creed which I presented in al Sham before its judges, its shaykhs, and its scholars. Your deputy has sent you the copy that was read and has informed you of what took place, even if there was shortcoming and aggression against me and leniency toward the opponents, as Allah and the Muslims know.

Look at the copy you have. Another copy was also with me, so I said: Take this copy, for it is my creed. Whoever objects to anything in it, let him write what he objects to and his proof, so that I may write my answer.

They took the creed and left, then returned with a paper that contained no objection to my words, but instead they had written a new text with requests. The messenger said that they had written one paper, then tore it, then wrote this one. Its wording was:

What is required of him to believe is that he must deny direction (al jihah) and spatial confinement (al tahayyuz) for Allah, and that he must not say that the speech of Allah is letter and sound established in His Essence, but that it is meaning existing in His Essence, and that He, exalted is He, is not pointed to with fingers in a physical way. They also requested that he not address the hadiths and verses concerning the Attributes (al sifat) before the common people, nor write about them to other lands, nor include them in fatwas related to them.

When he showed me the paper, I wrote my answer on it immediately, extemporaneously, though the messenger was in haste.

As for the statement of the one who said that what is required of him to believe is to deny direction and confinement for Allah, this wording is not in my speech, for to use this wording in affirmation or denial is an innovation. I only say what is in the Book and the Sunnah and what the Salaf of the Ummah agreed upon.

If the one who says this means that there is no Lord above the heavens, no God above the Throne, and that Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, was not taken up to his Lord, and that above the creation there is only absolute nothingness, then this is false and contrary to the consensus of the Ummah and its imams.

If he means by it that Allah is not encompassed by His creation and is not within the created things, then this is mentioned and stated clearly in my words. So what benefit is there in repeating it?

As for the statement of the one who said that he must not say that the speech of Allah is letter and sound established with Him, but that it is meaning existing in His Essence, this is not in my words either, and I have never said it. Rather, the saying that the Quran is letter and sound established with Him is an innovation, and the saying that it is meaning existing in His Essence is an innovation. None of the Salaf said this or that. My words contain none of these innovations. Rather, my words contain what the Salaf agreed upon, that the Quran is the uncreated speech of Allah.

As for the statement of the one who said that Allah cannot be pointed to with fingers in a physical way, this wording is not in my speech. Rather, my words reject the innovations of the innovators among the negators, such as their saying, “He cannot be pointed to,” for such negation is also an innovation.

If the one who said this means that Allah is not contained within creation or other meanings that are correct, then this is true. But if he means that whoever calls upon Allah does not raise his hands to Him, this contradicts the mutawatir Sunnah from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and what Allah has made instinctive in His servants of raising their hands to Allah in supplication.

The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “Allah is shy and generous. He is shy from His servant, when he raises his hands to Him, to turn them back empty.” (Tirmidhi 3556) If someone calls this a physical pointing and says it is not allowed, it is not accepted from him.

As for the statement of the one who said that he must not speak about the hadiths and verses of the Attributes before the common people, I have never opened such discussion with any layperson at all.

As for answering one who sincerely seeks guidance and knowledge with what Allah sent His Messenger with, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “Whoever is asked about knowledge and conceals it will be bridled with a bridle of fire on the Day of Resurrection.” (Riyad As Salihin 1390)

nd Allah said: “Indeed, those who conceal what We have sent down of clear proofs and guidance…” (al Baqarah 159).

So a scholar is not commanded with what would bring upon him the curse of Allah.

They took my reply and left. They were absent for a long time, then returned without any useful statement except again requesting my attendance. I spoke harshly to them and said to them in a loud voice: O you who alter the religion, O you who have turned away from the Sharia, O heretics, and much other speech. Then I stood up, asked that the door be opened, and returned to my place.

Here I have written part of what relates to this trial they demanded of me on that day, clarifying some of what it contained of altering the religion and following other than the way of the believers, for the benefit that is in that for the Muslims. This has many aspects, and I have written from them what Allah, exalted be He, has made easy.

al-Tis‘iniyyah (1/109–119)

From all this, the falsehood of this accusation becomes clear to anyone who has studied the life and method of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah.

Also see Majmu‘ al-Fatawa (3/160 and after) and al-‘Uqud al-Durriyyah by Ibn Abd al-Hadi (page 253 and after, Dar ‘Alam al-Fawaid).