statement the Prophet (peace be upon him) accepted because of her ignorance!
I say: Reflect on how he vigorously defended Ibn Hibban due to the latter’s agreement with his own creed, while he accused those who criticized him of being biased against anyone who figuratively interprets the Attributes and follows the path of the Mu’attila (those who divest Allah of His Attributes).
Furthermore, here he is in his book al-Durar al-Kamina, mentioning the disagreement regarding the declaration of disbelief (takfir) of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him), yet he does not defend him as he defended Ibn Hibban!
He stated (1/180): “People split into factions regarding him. Some attributed anthropomorphism (tajsim) to him because of what he mentioned in the creeds of al-Hamawiyyah, al-Wasitiyyah, and others—such as his statement that the Hand, the Foot, the Shin, and the Face are real Attributes of Allah, and that He is established over the Throne in His Essence. It was said to him: ‘This necessitates spatial confinement (tahayyuz) and divisibility (inqisam).’ He replied: ‘I do not concede that spatial confinement and divisibility are exclusive properties of bodies (ajsam),’ and thus he was held to the implication that he affirmed spatial confinement for the Essence of Allah.”
“Others attribute heresy (zandaqa) to him because of his statement that the Prophet (peace be upon him) should not be called upon for aid (la yustaghathu bihi), and that this constitutes disparagement and a prevention of honoring the Prophet (peace be upon him)...” etc. He mentioned this without following it up with any rebuttal as he did in the case of Ibn Hibban.
Al-Kawthari the Jahmite, as his words were previously cited in the introduction.
Hassan bin Farhan al-Maliki. He claimed in the book Qira’a fi al-Aqa’id, citing al-Qaysi’s statement to Ahmad: “(It is narrated from Ibn al-Mubarak...),” then he said: “(The narration is broken (munqati’) from Ibn al-Mubarak; even if it were authentic from him, it would not be a proof, for the term ‘limit’ (al-hadd) appears neither in the Book nor the
قَبِل النبي ﷺ قولَها لجهلها!
قلت: وتأمل كيف دافع عن ابن حبان بقوة لموافقته له في معتقده، ورمى من طعن فيه بأنهم يتحاملون على كل من تأول الصفات وسلك فيها مسلك المعطلة.
ثم ها هو في كتابه «الدرر الكامنة» يذكر الخلاف في تكفير شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية رحمه الله ولا يدافع عنه كدفاعه عن ابن حبان!
فقال (١٨٠/١): افترق الناس فيه شيعًا، فمنهم من نسبه إلى التجسيم لما ذكر في العقيدة «الحموية» و«الواسطية» وغيرهما من ذلك
كقوله: إن اليد، والقدم، والساق، والوجه صفات حقيقية لله، وأنه مستو على العرش بذاته، فقيل له: يلزم من ذلك التحيز والانقسام.
فقال: أنا لا أسلم أن التحيز والانقسام من خواص الأجسام، فألزم بأنه يقول بتحيز في ذات الله.
ومنهم من ينسبه إلى الزندقة لقوله: إن النبي ﷺ لا يُستغاث به، وأن في ذلك تنقيصًا ومنعًا من تعظيم النبي ﷺ .. إلخ
فذكر ذلك ولم يتعقبه بشيء كما صنع مع ابن حبان.
١٤- الكوثري الجهمي كما تقدم كلامه في المقدمة.
١٥- حسن بن فرحان المالكي.
قد زعم في كتاب «قراءة في العقائد» وساق قول القيسي لأحمد:
(يُحكى عن ابن المبارك .. )، فقال: (الرواية منقطعة عن ابن المبارك، ولو صحت عنه لما كانت حُجَّة، فلم يرد لفظ (الحد) في الكتاب ولا
