Summary

Saʿid Foudah claims that Ibn Taymiyyah held it impossible for Allah to exist without any created thing at any time. According to Foudah, Ibn Taymiyyah believed that the actual existence of a created thing is part of the Creator’s perfection, and that saying Allah could exist alone without creation would be a form of negating His attribute.

Aḥmad ʿIṣām al Najjār refutes this by saying that Foudah’s claim is not established with certainty from Ibn Taymiyyah’s words.

At most, he says, it may appear from some wording in al Nubuwwat, but it is not a clear, firm, or unrestricted position of Ibn Taymiyyah.

More importantly, it does not follow from the very work Foudah is criticising, namely the Risālah fī Ḥudūth al ʿĀlam “Treatise on the Origination of the Universe”.

Al Najjār says that Ibn Taymiyyah, in that treatise, clearly holds that an originated thing can occur without being preceded by any locus or matter.

This means that creation from nothing besides Allah is possible.

Therefore, Ibn Taymiyyah’s position there permits the meaning that Allah was alone with no created thing, then created what He willed.

He also explains that the hadith, “Allah was, and there was nothing before Him,” does not prove that Ibn Taymiyyah denied the possibility of Allah existing without creation.

Ibn Taymiyyah’s concern was mainly over which wording of the hadith is most firmly established, not over denying that Allah could be alone without any created thing. The wording “before Him” is the wording Ibn Taymiyyah treated as strongest, while other wordings such as “with Him” and “other than Him” are matters of hadith wording and textual precision.

Al Najjār also mentions that Ibn Qadi al Jabal, one of Ibn Taymiyyah’s students, clearly said, “Allah was, and there was nothing with Him,” and ascribed this meaning to Ibn Taymiyyah. Ibn Taymiyyah did not reject it.

Rather, he told him to expand it in prose because most people would not understand the poetry. This shows that the meaning itself did not oppose Ibn Taymiyyah’s belief.

So, Saʿid Foudah turned a possible implication into a definite accusation. Ibn Taymiyyah did not clearly say that Allah could never exist without creation.

Rather, his words in Risālah fī Ḥudūth al ʿĀlam “Treatise on the Origination of the Universe” permit creation from nothing besides Allah, and the understanding of his own student confirms that saying “Allah was, and there was nothing with Him” was not deemed to be false according to Ibn Taymiyyah.

Aḥmad ʿIṣām al Najjār’s Refutation of Saʿid Foudah

The Third Fabrication: Ibn Taymiyyah Prevents the Existence of Allah without Any Created Thing at Any Time

Foudah says: “He agreed with them that the actual existence of a created thing is from the perfection of the Creator. For that reason, he opposed the mutakallimun in their statement that it is possible for Allah, Most High, to exist without any created thing with Him, whether that is in eternity or in the future, and he counted this ruling as taʿtil (negation) of the attribute.” (Tanzih al Rahman, p. 19, Saʿid Foudah.)

This does not follow against Ibn Taymiyyah, except through his words in al Nubuwwat, and even then, not by way of certainty and firm assertion. It is not binding upon him at all in the Treatise on the Origination of the Universe, which Foudah set out to criticise. The verification of Ibn Taymiyyah’s madhhab on the issue of whether external possibility necessarily requires a locus has already passed.

Ibn Taymiyyah’s madhhab in the Treatise on the Origination of the Universe, which Foudah criticises here, was that possibility does not require a locus at all. This means that, in the treatise, he holds that the occurrence of an originated thing is possible without it being preceded by a locus. Meaning: creation can occur from nothing besides the Creator, Most High. His words on this are clear, as has already passed in the explanation of the treatise.

Perhaps that is connected to the Prophetic hadith reported in Sahih al Bukhari. He said: “Accept the glad tidings, O people of Yemen, since Banu Tamim did not accept them.” They said: “We accept. We have come to you to gain fiqh (understanding) in the religion, and to ask you about the beginning of this matter: what was it?” He said: “Allah was, and there was nothing before Him. His Throne was upon the water.

Then He created the heavens and the earth, and He wrote everything in the Record.” (Sahih al Bukhari 7418.) This is a purely hadith based inquiry, since what is established according to Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728AH) is the wording: “and there was nothing before Him.”

The noble hadith has been narrated with the following wordings:

First: “Allah was, and there was nothing before Him.”

Second: “Allah was, and there was nothing with Him.”

Third: “Allah was, and nothing was with Him.”

Fourth: “Allah was, and there was nothing other than Him.” (Sahih al Bukhari 7418.)

It has appeared in Sahih al Bukhari with the wording: “Allah was, and there was nothing before Him,” and the wording: “Allah was, and there was nothing other than Him.” Ibn Taymiyyah therefore holds that the wording established in wording is his saying: “Allah was, and there was nothing before Him.” (Najjar has gone into detail on this noble hadith in the book Nadh ariyyat al Zamān ʿinda Ibn Taymiyyah “The Theory of Time and Place according to Ibn Taymiyyah”, when examining the objections to the issue of the sequence of occurrences.)

But is there in this any clear statement that it is impossible for Allah, Most High, to be alone, without any created thing from the created things? Of course not. This is in addition to what has already passed, that Ibn Taymiyyah, in the Treatise on the Origination of the Universe, holds that possibility does not require a locus at all. So occurrence from nothing besides the Creator, Most High, is not impossible. It is therefore permissible that Allah, Most High, was alone, without any created thing, and then created a created thing from nothing.

Even with his later madhhab, which we have established, he does not hold that external possibility requires a locus so that it may be a locus and matter. Rather, it is so that it may be a locus and place for the originated thing. The locus may be a non existent matter, as I have already made clear. Likewise, his words may possibly refer to creation in the realm of witness, not the unseen.

So creation from nothing besides the Creator is also sound. This is what I see as his later madhhab. But even if his later madhhab was that a positive locus is necessary, Saʿid Foudah is writing here a critique of the Treatise on the Origination of the Universe, not of the book al Nubuwwat. In the Treatise on the Origination of the Universe, the Shaykh clearly goes to the view that a positive locus is not required. I mean: fairness requires mentioning that this statement may only follow against Ibn Taymiyyah in his later view, not in what he mentioned in the rest of his books, among them the treatise which he set out to criticise.

Likewise, the wording of “other than” and “with” in the hadith does not fit with the body of the hadith. This is because the hadith contains no clear statement about the creation of anything besides the creation of the heavens and the earth, while it clearly mentions the existence of the Throne and the water with Allah, Most High, before the creation of the heavens and the earth. The Throne is created, and the water is created.

The intended point here is that there is no clear statement in Ibn Taymiyyah’s words about this noble hadith, nor in his words in the Treatise on the Origination of the Universe, nor in his words in al Nubuwwat, that the existence of the Originator, Most High, alone, without any created thing, is impossible. Could his words in al Nubuwwat require that, or have that as their apparent meaning? Yes, but not by way of certainty and surety, as I have mentioned.

What confirms this is that this was the understanding of the students of Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah regarding the issue. Among them was Imam Ibn Qadi al Jabal (d. 774AH), who presented to him a poem concerning his understanding of the issue. He said in his treatise Occurrences with No Beginning: “I said: We say: The universe is originated, created, and came to be after it did not exist.

The choosing doer has preference according to power and choice. Allah was, and there was nothing with Him. I composed a poem on this meaning, consisting of more than eighty verses, and I presented it to him while seeking the issue of occurrences, in the year 722, in his home at Madrasat al Qassaʿin. He said to me: Spread it out in prose, because most people do not understand this poetry.”

So notice Imam Ibn Qadi al Jabal’s use of the wording: “Allah was, and there was nothing with Him.” There is nothing in this that opposes the statement of occurrences with no beginning at all. The inquiry about the hadith is only about the established wording.

The proof here is that Ibn Qadi al Jabal presented this meaning to Ibn Taymiyyah, and he agreed with it. Rather, he called him to spread this meaning out in prose. Therefore, there is no opposition in it to what Ibn Taymiyyah believed.