He was asked about the words of the Shaykh al-Islam regarding events that have no beginning.

The questioner : My teacher, this question may bring us back to the first issue in a similar way. You mentioned in your book, regarding the hadith , that Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) was mistaken in his statement about events that have no beginning. In the sense you presented—that there is no event except that before it is another event, extending to a point with no beginning—this meaning which you derived or cited as an explanation of Shaykh al-Islam’s words, did you derive it from Shaykh al-Islam’s own words, or was it presented to you as the intended meaning?

The Shaykh : No, that is Ibn Taymiyyah’s statement: there is no created thing except that before it is a created thing.

The questioner : In existence; in existence, meaning...

The Shaykh : Ah, there is no created thing except that before it is a created thing, and so on to a point with no beginning.

The questioner : Do you remember...

The Shaykh : Perhaps I do not remember well; but it is most likely that it is in *Minhaj al-Sunnah* by Ibn Taymiyyah. As he says, “There is no created thing except that it is preceded by non-existence.” Both phrases are from the words of Ibn Taymiyyah.

The questioner : How do you reconcile this with his statement that the first thing Allah created was the Throne, when I have not seen this meaning from Shaykh al-Islam?

The Shaykh : All right, how do you reconcile it then with the statement “events that have no beginning”?

The questioner : He is speaking about possibility, not about existence. There is a difference.

The Shaykh : How?

The questioner : He says it is possible for there to be events that have no beginning; he does not say that there exist events that have no beginning.

The Shaykh : No; how not? If we said that the first created thing is an existent, that would mean we have denied Allah (Mighty and Majestic) of His attributes.

The questioner : My Shaykh, the whole issue lies in the discussion of whether Allah’s attributes are eternal or not. He says it is possible for there to be events that have no beginning; that is how I understood it.

The Shaykh : But events, my brother; do they exist or do they not exist? I mean, is his research about what is in the mind or about what is outside the mind?

The questioner : It is not in the mind; that is, are these events existent or non-existent? He does not investigate that; rather, he ties it to the report of the Truthful One, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him): whether they existed or did not exist. He ties existence to the report of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and his speech is on the issue of possibility and capability.

The Shaykh : All right, if this is the statement of Ibn Taymiyyah, and we hope it is so, what is the difference between him and those who oppose him?

The questioner : He opposes those who say that Allah’s attributes are denied in their eternity.

The Shaykh : Excuse me, you did not answer me.

The questioner : Did I not understand the question?

The Shaykh : I am saying, if this is the intent of Ibn Taymiyyah, and yes, what is the reason for the opposition of the majority of scholars to Ibn Taymiyyah in this statement? This is a matter on which there is no disagreement; I mean, this is a matter on which two people do not differ and no two camels butt heads, from among those who claim to be within the circle of the people of the Sunnah. As for the philosophers and others, what do we have to do with them, correct?

The questioner : Yes, that is correct.

The Shaykh : All right, what is the disagreement between him and the others?

The questioner : Now the question becomes a digression or an inquiry: who are the opponents in the first place in establishing such a statement? Those who say that Ibn Taymiyyah holds to events that have no beginning in the issue of existence itself? They did not cite any evidence for that from his words.

The Shaykh : Allow me, we are not investigating now whether they have evidence or whether they do not have evidence.

The questioner : My Shaykh, from the words...The Shaykh .

The Shaykh : Allow me, may Allah bless you. I am saying my question is as follows: If this is the intent of Ibn Taymiyyah, that he is investigating a matter that is not real, a mental matter, and he often addresses this distinction between what is established in the mind and what is real in the external world, correct? If this is the intent of the statement as you understood it, then it is not conceivable that there would be an opponent from the other sects, such as the Maturidiyyah and the Asha'irah and others, at all; because this is not a clear point of disagreement. My question?

The questioner : It is clear, because their opposition to us does not bind us. Also, this is what I want to say: their opposition to him and their discussion of it does not bind us that his statement means this. They are as they wish, but...

The questioner : ... contrary to his intent, and especially since those who take issue with him on this statement are mostly biased and have prior words about Ibn Taymiyyah, such as Ibn Hajar al-Haytami. The original point is that there is no disagreement; he does not oppose the majority in this matter... He is speaking about the possibility that the objection is to place an objection, and Ibn al-Abbas al-Hanafi clarified this in his commentary on the *Tahawiyyah*. The objection is the denial of the possibility of that, namely that Allah is not a Creator. He says this matter is possible, but Allah (Mighty and Majestic) is a Creator, and there is no evidence that in many of his books he explicitly states that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) was and there was nothing with Him, and he explicitly states that the entire universe is created and that there is nothing with Allah (Mighty and Majestic).

Another questioner : I want a point from the words of Ibn al-Abbas al-Hanafi, quoted from the words of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, that the issue of existence; the existence of events, when they existed; what is the first event, this is tied to the report of the Truthful One, who is the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). So now he ties it to the condition that they existed or did not exist, by what? By the report of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). As for the issue of possibility, that is what Shaykh al-Islam investigates. So the Shaykh’s words on the issue of why they differed with him? They differed with him by attributing to him that he says there is primordial matter with Allah, uncreated; where is this statement?

The Shaykh : It is fine, we know they added to him here and in other statements, but allow me, do you not remember, or am I forgetting, do you not remember that he distinguishes between “Allah was and there was nothing before Him” and “Allah was and there was nothing with Him”? Do you not remember that he distinguishes between the two narrations? Which one does he prefer?

The questioner : He preferred the narration “before Him.”

The Shaykh : He preferred the narration “Allah was and there was nothing before Him.” Does he say the validity of “nothing with Him”?

The questioner : He does not hold it.

The Shaykh : If this is also mental and not real? “Nothing before Him,” this correct hadithical report, does it speak about a mental matter or a real matter?

The questioner : The hadith speaks about a real matter.

The Shaykh : All right, if the hadith speaks about a real matter, and it is so, why does Ibn Taymiyyah exclude the validity of the narration “nothing with Him”?

The questioner : I do not know why he excludes it; perhaps to link it...
Al-Halabi : This is his statement in reality; there is no exclusion from the phrase “nothing with Him.”

The Shaykh : How?
Al-Halabi : He says...

Another questioner : ... the narrator, of course, one person, perhaps he combined three phrases... there is a phrase, but he...

The Shaykh : Correct, but we want to see the reason that led Ibn Taymiyyah to prefer one phrase over the other two. What is it? Let us see what you have, and if I am also saying that this research is not good to raise now; do you see, because this research is minimized in your view... In any case, you have benefited us with the place you want now...
Al-Halabi : From the *Tahawiyyah*, from the eighteenth part of his book *Sharh Hadith Imran*, in these two places.

The Shaykh : All right, the book *Kitab al-'Arsh* by him...
Al-Halabi : The book *Kitab al-'Arsh* also, in his research on the hadith *Sharh Imran*, clarified, my Shaykh, that the hadith is “there was nothing before Him or with Him.”

The Shaykh : If Allah wills, we should review this research well; because in truth I am saying that the words of Ibn Taymiyyah in this issue; his words are philosophical, and the Muslims have no need for them at all. I, of course, my position differs from the position of the opponents and the well-wishers; I am saying this statement; it was not good to delve into it. It is enough that the one who loves people, meaning Ibn Taymiyyah, is like me, that this issue is misunderstood. This is enough; there are many like me; there are many like me. An issue on which there are no texts from the Book and the Sunnah; then he comes and argues with general texts that imply these arguments. This is what came to my mind, in addition to the phrase that is also in my mind: that there is no created thing except that before it is a created thing; as he says, there is no created thing except that it is preceded by non-existence; and this last statement; it is the one by which we are reassured of the correctness of the creed of Ibn Taymiyyah. But we hoped and wished that he would not delve into such a research; because it is most like a philosophical research from which faith benefits nothing.
Al-Halabi : My Shaykh, he was compelled, compelled, to this research.

The Shaykh : I said earlier that let us leave the philosophers; we have scholars of the Shari'ah. I mean, right now, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, not al-Haythami. He is not one of the philosophers; he is a man of hadith and an Ash'ari. He and thousands like him misunderstand the words of Ibn Taymiyyah in the sense that is established in my mind. And, by Allah, this is a very great matter.

The questioner : Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani does not mention this issue in this matter, except that the issue is that a group of people say it is narrated from him thus...

The Shaykh : Do you mean he accepted it?
Al-Halabi : No, he did not accept it.

The questioner : He rejected it being attributed to him.
Al-Halabi : I mean, he found the issues abhorrent.

The questioner : Does it indicate that he saw them...

The Shaykh : Okay, please do not expand the topic. Does it indicate that he saw them, or that he saw them? This is a side topic. Allow me; allow me. But does it not indicate that he was averse to them?

The questioner : Of course; in the sense presented, they come to you, and it is in the mind of our professor.

The Shaykh : Okay; okay, this is my point. I said it clearly earlier: this is a statement made by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, not something I understand. I do not understand it, nor does Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani understand it. He is a man. Because when you presented the topic, you presented it as if he related it, as if he did not deny it. But he related it as being attributed to him, and he was averse to it. The important thing, my dear, is that we need to conclude the topic with an issue that the audience present now can benefit from. Do you have anything?