Not according to, among others, Prof. Chittick, even though his reasons differ from

those offered by people like A. Schimmel, for example. Recently I looked a bit into it

and there are many clues in the thought of Rumi's father Baha al-Din Valad which

suggest that the link between Ibn Arabi is more coincidental, stemming from their

shared, in many respects, world view and not from Qunavi. Think Ghazalis, both,

Ahmad and Abu Hamid. Besides, Qunavi distorted Ibn Arabi's thought and made it

more philosophically static, which definitely is not the case in Ibn Arabi's own

thought which is very dynamic, constantly shifting the perspectives. I have also

noticed that both, Ibn Arabi as well as Rumi, share a great deal of similarities which

in fact come from Asharites, they often appear as a reference in Baha Valad, Ibn

Arabi and Rumi.

Ibn Taymiyya, Taqi al-Din (1263-1328)

by JAMES PAVLIN (ROUTLEDGE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY, © 1998, Routledge, vol. 4, str. 655-56)

Ibn Taymiyya was a staunch defender of Sunni Islam based on strict adherence to the Qur'an and authentic sunna (practices) of the Prophet Muhammad. He believed that these two sources contain all the religious and spiritual guidance necessary for our salvation in the hereafter. Thus he rejected the arguments and ideas of both philosophers and Sufis regarding religious knowledge, spiritual experiences and ritual practices. He believed that logic is not a reliable means of attaining religious truth and that the intellect must be subservient to revealed truth. He also came into conflict with many of his fellow Sunni scholars because of his rejection of the rigidity of the schools of jurisprudence in Islam. He believed that the four accepted schools of jurisprudence had become stagnant and sectarian, and also that they were being improperly influenced by aspects of Greek logic and thought as well as Sufi mysticism. His challenge to the leading scholars of the day was to return to an understanding of Islam in practice and in faith, based solely on the Qur'an and sunna.

Ibn Taymiyya was born in Harran, Syria, and died in Damascus in ah 728/ad 1328. He lived in a time when the Islamic world was suffering from external aggression and internal strife. The crusaders had not been fully expelled from the Holy Land, and the Mongols had all but destroyed the eastern Islamic empire when they captured Baghdad in ah 656/ad 1258. In Egypt, the Mamluks had just come to power and were consolidating their hold over Syria. Within Muslim society, Sufi orders were spreading beliefs and practices not condoned by orthodox Islam, while the orthodox schools of jurisprudence were stagnant in religious thought and practice. It was in this setting of turmoil and conflict that Ibn Taymiyya formulated his views on the

causes of the weakness of the Muslim nations and on the need to return to the Qur'an and sunna (practices) as the only means for revival.

Although Ibn Taymiyya was educated in the Hanbali school of thought, he soon reached a level of scholarship beyond the confines of that school. He was fully versed in the opinions of the four schools, which helped lead him to the conclusion that blind adherence to one school would bring a Muslim into conflict with the letter and spirit of Islamic law based on the Qur'an and sunna. Similarly, he had acquired a deep understanding of philosophical and mystical texts. In particular, he focused on the works of Ibn Sina and Ibn al-'Arabi as examples of philosophical and mystical deviation in Islam, respectively. Both of these trends had come to exert strong influence on Muslim scholars and lay people alike.

Ibn Taymiyya placed primary importance on revelation as the only reliable source of knowledge about God and about a person's religious duties towards him. The human intellect ('aql) and its powers of reason must be subservient to revelation. According to Ibn Taymiyya, the only proper use of 'aql was to understand Islam in the way the Prophet and his companions did, and then to defend it against deviant sects. When discussing the nature of God, he argued, one must accept the descriptions found in the Qur'an and sunna and apply the orthodox view of not asking how (bi-la kayf) particular attributes exist in God. This means that one believes in all of the attributes of God mentioned in the Qur'an and sunna without investigating the nature of these, because the human mind is incapable of understanding the eternal God. For example, one accepts that God is mounted upon a throne above the heavens without questioning how this is possible. This same attitude is held for all of God's attributes such as his sight, his hearing or his hand.

This view is very much opposed to the philosophical view of God as First Cause and as being devoid of attributes. Thus the philosophical argument that the oneness of God precludes a multiplicity of attributes was not acceptable to Ibn Taymiyya, because God says that he is one and that he has various attributes. This denial of the attributes of God based on rationalism was adopted by the Mu'tazila (see Ash'ariyya and Mu'tazila), of whom Ibn Taymiyya was especially critical. Even the more orthodox views of the Ash'aris, who accepted seven attributes basic to God, were criticized by Ibn Taymiyya. However, he did not go so far as to declare these two groups heretical, for they deviated only in their interpretation of God's nature. But he did not spare the label of apostate for those philosophers such as al-Farabi and Ibn Sina who, in addition to the denial of God's attributes, also denied the createdness of the world and believed in the emanation of the universe from God.

Ibn Taymiyya attacked the idea of emanation not only in its philosophical but also in its mystical context, as adopted by the Sufis (see Mystical philosophy in Islam). He felt that the beliefs and practices of the Sufis were far more dangerous than were the ideas of the philosophers. The latter were a small elite group that had little direct effect on the masses. The Sufis, however, were widespread and had a large popular following. However, Ibn Taymiyya saw a link between the ideas of the

philosophers and those of the Sufis, even though apparently they had little in common.

The main tenet of Sufi thought as propounded by Ibn al-'Arabi is the concept of the oneness of existence (wahdat al-wujud). Through this belief, Sufis think they are able to effect a merging of their souls with God's essence. That is, when God reveals his truth to an individual, that person realizes that there is no difference between God and the self. Ibn Taymiyya saw a link between the Sufi belief of wahdat al-wujud and the philosophical concept of emanation. Although the philosopher would deny that a human soul could flow into, and thus be, the First Cause, the mystical experience of the Sufis took them beyond the realm of intellectual discourse. According to the mystic, a merging occurred but could not be expressed in rational terms. For Ibn Taymiyya, both the philosopher and the mystic were deluded, the former by reliance on a limited human intellect and the latter by excessive emotions.

Ibn Taymiyya's argument against the Sufis is on two levels. First, there is the theological position that God has attributes and that one of these attributes is God as creator. Ibn Taymiyya believed that the Qur'an firmly establishes that God is the one who created, originated and gave form to the universe. Thus there exists a distinction between God the creator and the created beings. This is an absolute distinction with no possibility of merging. He then went on to say that those who strip God of his attributes and deny that he is the creator are just one step away from falling into the belief of wahdat al-wujud. This is the basis for the second part of his argument. Ibn Taymiyya believed that a Sufi is simply someone who is overcome by an outburst of emotion. For example, someone may deny God's attributes but could then be overwhelmed by a feeling of love for God. However, the basis of that person's knowledge is not the authentic information from the Qur'an, and so their weak intellectual foundation collapses with the onslaught of emotion. For according to Ibn Taymiyya, sense perception and emotions cannot be trusted, and the likelihood of being led astray by them is compounded when one has a basis of knowledge which is itself errant and deviant. One holds a proper belief in God and maintains a proper relationship with him, Ibn Taymiyya argued, by establishing a foundation of knowledge based on the Qur'an and authentic sunna.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[23] ON TASAWWUF Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/ad 1328)

Reproduced with permission from Shaykh M. Hisham Kabbani'sThe Repudiation of "Salafi" Innovations (Kazi, 1996) p. 354-366.

His admirers cite this jurist and hadith master of the Hanbali school as an enemy of Sufis, and he is the principal authority in the campaign of "Salafis" responsible for creating the present climate of unwarranted fanaticism and encouragement to ignorance regarding tasawwuf. Yet Ibn Taymiyya was himself a Sufi. However,

"Salafis" are careful never to show the Sufi Ibn Taymiyya, who would severely hamper their construction of him as purely anti-Sufi.

Ibn Taymiyya's discourse on tasawwuf is riddled with contradictions and ambiguities. One might say that even though he levelled all sorts of judgments on Sufis, he was nevertheless unable to deny the greatness of tasawwuf upon which the Community had agreed long before he came along. As a result he is often observed slighting tasawwuf, questioning his Sufi contemporaries, and reducing the primacy of the elite of Muslims to ordinariness, at the same time as he boasts of being a Qadiri Sufi in a direct line of succession to Shaykh `Abd al-Qadir al-Gilani, as we show in the lines that follow.

It should be clear that the reason we quote the following evidence is not because we consider Ibn Taymiyya in any way representative of tasawwuf. In our view he no more represents tasawwuf than he represents the `aqida of Ahl al-Sunna. However, we quote his views only to demonstrate that his misrepresentation by Orientalists and "Salafis" purely as an enemy of tasawwuf does not stand to scrutiny. Regardless of the desires of one group or another, the facts provide clear evidence that Ibn Taymiyya had no choice but to accept tasawwuf and its principles, and that he himself not only claimed to be a Sufi, but also to have been adorned with the cloak (khirqa) of shaykhhood in the Qadiri Sufi Order.

We have already mentioned Ibn Taymiyya's admiration for `Abd al-Qadir Gilani, to whom he gives the title "my Shaykh" (shaykhuna) and "my Master" (sayyidi) exclusively in his entire Fatawa. Ibn Taymiyya's sufi inclinations and his reverence for `Abd al-Qadir Gilani can also be seen in his hundred-page commentary on Futuh al-ghayb, covering only five of the seventy-eight sermons of the book, but showing that he considered tasawwuf essential within the life of the Islamic community.1

In his commentary Ibn Taymiyya stresses that the primacy of the Shari`a forms the soundest tradition in tasawwuf, and to argue this point he lists over a dozen early masters, as well as more contemporary shaykhs like his fellow Hanbalis, al-Ansari al-Harawi and `Abd al-Qadir, and the latter's own shaykh, Hammad al-Dabbas:The upright among the followers of the Path - like the majority of the early shaykhs (shuyukh al-salaf) such as Fudayl ibn `Iyad, Ibrahim ibn Adham, Ma`ruf al-Karkhi, al-Sari al-Saqati, al-Junayd ibn Muhammad, and others of the early teachers, as well as Shaykh Abd al-Qadir, Shaykh Hammad, Shaykh Abu al-Bayan and others of the later masters -- do not permit the followers of the Sufi path to depart from the divinely legislated command and prohibition, even were that person to have flown in the air or walked on water.2

Elsewhere also, such as in his al-Risala al-safadiyya, Ibn Taymiyya defends the Sufis as those who belong to the path of the Sunna and represent it in their teachings and writings:The great shaykhs mentioned by Abu `Abd al-Rahman al-Sulami in Tabaqat al-sufiyya, and Abu al-Qasim al-Qushayri in al-Risala, were adherents of the school of Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama`a and the school of Ahl al-hadith, such as al-Fudayl ibn `Iyad, al-Junayd ibn Muhammad, Sahl ibn `Abd Allah al-Tustari, `Amr ibn

`Uthman al-Makki, Abu `Abd Allah Muhammad ibn Khafif al-Shirazi, and others, and their speech is found in the Sunna, and they composed books about the Sunna.3

In his treatise on the difference between the lawful forms of worship and the innovative forms, entitled Risalat al-`ibadat al-shar`iyya wal-farq baynaha wa bayn al-bid`iyya, Ibn Taymiyya unmistakably states that that the lawful is the method and way of "those who follow the Sufi path" or "the way of self-denial" (zuhd) and those who follow "what is called poverty and tasawwuf", i.e. the fuqara' and the Sufis:The lawful is that by which one approaches near to Allah. It is the way of Allah. It is righteousness, obedience, good deeds, charity, and fairness. It is the way of those on the Sufi path (al-salikin), and the method of those intending Allah and worshipping Him; it is that which is travelled by everyone who desires Allah and follows the way of self-denial (zuhd) and religious practice, and what is called poverty and tasawwuf and the like.4

Regarding `Abd al-Qadir's teaching that the salik or Sufi wayfarer should abstain from permitted desires, Ibn Taymiyya begins by determining that Abd al-Qadir's intention is that one should give up those permitted things which are not commanded, for there may be a danger in them. But to what extent? If Islam is essentially learning and carrying out the Divine command, then there must be a way for the striver on the path to determine the will of Allah in each particular situation. Ibn Taymiyya concedes that the Qur'an and Sunna cannot explicitly cover every possible specific event in the life of every believer. Yet if the goal of submission of will and desire to Allah is to be accomplished by those seeking Him, there must be a way for the striver to ascertain the Divine command in its particularity.

Ibn Taymiyya's answer is to apply the legal concept of ijtihad to the spiritual path, specifically to the notion of ilham or inspiration. In his efforts to achieve a union of his will with Allah's, the true Sufi reaches a state where he desires nothing more than to discover the greater good, the action which is most pleasing and loveable to Allah. When external legal arguments cannot direct him in such matters, he can rely on the standard Sufi notions of private inspiration (ilham) and intuitive perception (dhawq):If the Sufi wayfarer has creatively employed his efforts to the external shar`i indications and sees no clear probability concerning his preferable action, he may then feel inspired, along with his goodness of intention and reverent fear of Allah, to choose one of two actions as superior to the other. This kind of inspiration (ilham) is an indication concerning the truth. It may be even a stronger indication than weak analogies, weak hadiths, weak literalist arguments (zawahir), and weak istisHaab which are employed by many who delve into the principles, differences, and systematizing of fiqh.5

Ibn Taymiyya bases this view on the principle that Allah has put a natural disposition for the truth in mankind, and when this natural disposition has been grounded in the reality of faith and enlightened by Qur'anic teaching, and still the striver on the path is unable to determine the precise will of Allah in specific instances, then his heart will show him the preferable course of action. Such an inspiration, he holds, is one of the strongest authorities possible in the situation.

Certainly the striver will sometimes err, falsely guided by his inspiration or intuitive perception of the situation, just as the mujtahid sometimes errs. But, he says, even when the mujtahid or the inspired striver is in error, he is obedient.

Appealing to ilham and dhawq does not mean following one's own whims or personal preferences.6 In his letter to Nasr al-Manbiji, he qualifies this intuition as "faith-informed" (al-dhawq al-imani). His point is, as in the commentary to the Futuh, that inspirational experience is by nature ambiguous and needs to be qualified and informed by the criteria of the Qur'an and the Sunna. Nor can it lead to a certainty of the truth in his view, but what it can do is give the believer firm grounds for choosing the more probably correct course of action in a given instance and help him to conform his will, in the specific details of his life, to that of his Creator and Commander.7

Other works of his as well abound in praise for Sufi teachings. For example, in his book al-ihtijaj bi al-qadar, he defends the Sufis' emphasis on love of Allah and their voluntarist rather than intellectual approach to religion as being in agreement with the teachings of the Qur'an , the sound hadith, and the imja` al-salaf:As for the Sufis, they affirm the love (of Allah), and this is more evident among them than all other issues. The basis of their Way is simply will and love. The affirmation of the love of Allah is well-known in the speech of their early and recent masters, just as it is affirmed in the Book and the Sunna and in the agreement of the Salaf.8

Ibn Taymiyya is also notorious for his condemnation of Ibn `Arabi. However, what he condemned was not Ibn `Arabi but a tiny book of his entitled Fusus al-hikam, which forms a single slim volume. As for Ibn `Arabi's magnum opus, al-Futuhat al-makkiyya (The Meccan divine disclosures), Ibn Taymiyya was no less an admirer of this great work than everyone else in Islam who saw it, as he declares in his letter to Abu al-Fath Nasr al-Munayji (d. 709) published in his the volume entitled Tawhid al-rububiyya of his Fatawa:I was one of those who, previously, used to hold the best opinion of Ibn `Arabi and extol his praise, because of the benefits I saw in his books, such as what he said in many of his books, for example: al-Futuhat, al-Kanh, al-Muhkam al-marbut, al-Durra al-fakhira, Matali` al-nujum, and other such works.9

Ibn Taymiyya goes on to say he changed his opinions, not because of anything in these books, but only after he read the Fusus.

We now turn to the evidence of Ibn Taymiyya's affiliation with the Qadiri Sufi Way and to his own acknowledgement, as related by his student Ibn `Abd al-Hadi (d. 909), that he had received the Qadiri khirqa or cloak of authority from `Abd al-Qadir al-Gilani through a chain of three shaykhs. These are no other than the three Ibn Qudamas who are among the established authorities in fiqh in the Hanbali school. This information was brought to light by George Makdisi in a series of articles published in the 1970s.10

In a manuscript of the Yusuf ibn `Abd al Hadi al-Hanbali entitled Bad' al 'ilqa bi labs al khirqa (The beginning of the shield in the wearing of the Sufi cloak), Ibn Taymiyya is

listed within a Sufi spiritual genealogy with other well known Hanbali scholars. The links in this genealogy are, in descending order:

`Abd al-Qadir al-Gilani (d. 561)

Abu `Umar ibn Qudama (d. 607) Muwaffaq al Din ibn Qudama (d. 620)

Ibn Abi `Umar ibn Qudama (d. 682)

Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728)

Ibn Qayyim al Jawziyya (d. 751)

Ibn Rajab (d. 795)(Both Abu `Umar ibn Qudama and his brother Muwaffaq al-Din received the khirqa directly from Abd al-Qadir himself.)

Ibn Taymiyya is then quoted by Ibn `Abd al Hadi as affirming his Sufi affiliation both in the Qadiri order and in other Sufi orders:I have worn the Sufi cloak of a number of shaykhs belonging to various tariqas (labistu khirqata at tasawwuf min turuqi jama'atin min al shuyukhi), among them the Shaykh `Abd al-Qadir al Jili, whose tariqa is the greatest of the well known ones.Further on he says:The greatest Sufi Way (ajall al-turuq) is that of my master (sayyidi) `Abd al-Qadir al Jili, may Allah have mercy on him.11

Further corroboration comes from Ibn Taymiyya in one of his own works, as quoted in his al Mas'ala at tabriziyya:labistu al khirqata al-mubarakata li al Shaykh `Abd al-Qadir wa bayni wa baynahu ithanI wore the blessed Sufi cloak of `Abd al-Qadir, there being between him and me two shaykhs.12

Ibn Taymiyya thus affirms that he was an assiduous reader of Ibn `Arabi's al-Futuhat al-makkiyya; that he considers `Abd al-Qadir al-Gilani his shaykh -- he even wrote a commentary on the latter's Futuh al-ghayb; and that he belongs to the Qadiriyya order and other Sufi orders. What does he say about tasawwuf and Sufis in general?

In his essay entitled al-Sufiyya wa al-fuqara' and published in the eleventh volume (al Tawassuf) of his Majmu`a fatawa IbnTaymiyya al Kubra, he states:The word sufi was not well-known in the first three centuries but its usage became well-known after that. More than a few Imams and shaykhs spoke about it, such as Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Abu Sulayman al Darani, and others. It has been related that Sufyan al-Thawri used it. Some have also mentioned that concerning Hasan al Basri.13

Ibn Taymiyya then goes on to deduce that tasawwuf originated in Basra among the generations after the tabi`in, because he finds that many of the early Sufis originated from there while he does not find evidence of it elsewhere. In this way he mistakenly reduces tasawwuf to a specific place and time, cutting it off from its links with the time of the Prophet and the Companions. This is one the aberrant conclusions which gives rise, among today's "Salafis," to questions such as: "Where

in the Qur'an and the Sunna is tasawwuf mentioned?" As Ibn `Ajiba replied to such questioners:The founder of the science of tasawwuf is the Prophet himself to whom Allah taught it by means of revelation and inspiration.14 By Allah's favor, we have put this issue to rest in our lengthy exposition on the proofs of tasawwuf in the pages above.

Ibn Taymiyya continues:Tasawwuf has realities (haqa'iq) and states of experience (ahwal) which the Sufis mention in their science... Some say that the Sufi is he who purifies himself from anything which distracts him from the remembrance of Allah and who becomes full of reflection about the hereafter, to the point that gold and stones will be the same to him. Others say that tasawwuf is safeguarding of the precious meanings and leaving behind pretensions to fame and vanity, and the like. Thus the meaning of sufi alludes to the meaning of siddiq or one who has reached complete Truthfulness, because the best of human beings after prophets are the siddiqin, as Allah mentioned in the verse:Whoever obeys Allah and the Apostle, they are in the company of those on whom is the grace of Allah: of the prophets, the truthful saints, the martyrs and the righteous; ah, what a beautiful fellowship! (4:69)

They consider, therefore, that after the Prophets there is no one more virtuous than the Sufi, and the Sufi is, in fact, among other kinds of truthful saints, only one kind, who specialized in asceticism and worship (al-sufi huwa fi al haqiqa naw`un min al-siddiqin fahuwa al-siddiq alladhi ikhtassa bi al zuhdi wa al '`ibada). The Sufi is "the righteous man of the path," just as others are called "the righteous ones of the `ulama" and "the righteous ones of the emirs"...[Here Ibn Taymiyya denies the Sufis' claim that they represent Truthfulness after the Prophets, and he makes their status only one among many of a larger pool of truthful servants. This stems from his earlier premise that tasawwuf originated later and farther than the Sunna of the Prophet. We have already mentioned that this premise was incorrect. All of the Sufis consider that the conveyors of their knowledge and discipline were none other than the Companions and the Successors, who took it from none other than the Prophet himself. In this respect the Sufis and the great Companions and Successors are not differentiated in essence, although they are differentiated in name, by which precedence is given to the Companions and the Successors according to the hadith of the Prophet.

Then Ibn Taymiyya arbitrarily separates Sufis and scholars into two seemingly discrete groups, whereas we have seen that all the Sufis were great scholars, and that many of the greatest scholars were Sufis. Al-Junayd anticipated such high-handed distinctions in his famous statement: "This knowledge of ours is built of the Qur'an and the Sunna." Also addressing this important mistake in his Tabaqat al-kubra, Sha`rani quotes al-Junayd and goes on to state:Every true Sufi is a scholar is Sacred Law, though the reverse is not necessarily true.15]Some people criticized the Sufis and said that they were innovators and out of the Sunna... but the truth is that they are exercising ijtihad in view of obeying Allah just as others who are obedient to Allah have also done. So from them you will find the Foremost in Nearness (al-sabiq al-muqarrab) by virtue of his striving, while some of them are

from the People of the Right Hand... and among those claiming affiliation with them, are those who are unjust to themselves, rebelling against their Lord. These are the sects of innovators and free-thinkers (zindiq) who claim affiliation to the Sufis but in the opinion of the genuine Sufis, they do not belong, for example, al-Hallaj.[Here Ibn Taymiyya's inappropriate citing of al-Hallaj is far more symptomatic of his own misunderstanding of tasawwuf that it is illustrative of the point he is trying to make. In reality, as `Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi said of al-Hallaj, "his case (among the Sufis) is not clear, though Ibn `Ata' Allah, Ibn Khafif, and Abu al-Qasim al-Nasir Abadi approved of him."16 Furthermore, we have already mentioned that major scholars in Ibn Taymiyya's own school rejected the charges leveled against al-Hallaj, and even considered him a saint, such as Ibn `Aqil and Ibn Qudama. Can it be that Ibn Taymiyya was unaware of all these positions which invalidate his point, or is he merely affecting ignorance?]Tasawwuf has branched out and diversified and the Sufis have become known as three types:

1. Sufiyyat al haqa'iq: the Sufis of Realities, and these are the ones we mentioned above;

2. Sufiyyat al arzaq: the funded Sufis who live on the religious endowments of Sufi guest-houses and schools; it is not necessary for them to be among the people of true realities, as this is a very rare thing

3. Sufiyyat al rasm: the Sufis by appearance only, who are interested in bearing the name and the dress etc.17

About fana' -- a term used by Sufis literally signifying extinction or self-extinction -- and the shatahat or sweeping statements of Sufis, Ibn Taymiyya says:This state of love characterizes many of the People of Love of Allah and the People of Seeking (Ahl al irada). A person vanishes to himself in the object of his love -- Allah through the intensity of his love. He will recall Allah, not recalling himself, remember Allah and forget himself, take Allah to witness and not take himself to witness, exist in Allah, not to himself. When he reaches that stage, he no longer feels his own existence. That is why he may say in this state: ana al haqq (I am the Truth), or subhani (Glory to Me!), and ma fi al-jubba illa Allah (There is nothing in this cloak except Allah), because he is drunk in the love of Allah and this is a pleasure and happiness that he cannot control...

This matter has in it both truth and falsehood. Yet when someone enters through his fervor a state of ecstatic love (`ishq) for Allah, he will take leave of his mind, and when he enters that state of absentmindedness, he will find himself as if he is accepting the concept of ittihad (union with Allah). I do not consider this a sin, because that person is excused and no one may punish him as he is not aware of what he is doing. The pen does not condemn the crazed person except when he is restored to sanity (and commits the same act). However, when he is in that state and commits wrong, he will come under Allah's address:O Our Lord, do not take us to task if we forget or make mistakes (2:286), There is no blame on you if you unintentionally make a mistake.18

The story is mentioned of two men whose mutual love was so strong that one day, as one of them fell in the sea, the other one threw himself in behind him. Then the first one asked: "What made you fall here like me?" His friend replied: "I vanished in you and no longer saw myself. I thought you were I and I was you"... Therefore, as long as one is not drunk through something that is prohibited, his action is accepted from him, but if he is drunk through something prohibited (i.e. the intention was bad) then he is not excused.19

The above pages show the great extent of Ibn Taymiyya's familiarity with the broad lines of tasawwuf. Such knowledge was but part of the complete education of anyone who had a claim to learning in his day and before his time. It did not constitute something extraneous or foreign to the great corpus of the Islamic sciences. And yet, similarly to his case in `aqida which we have unravelled in the previous pages, Ibn Taymiyya's misunderstanding of tasawwuf massively outweighed his understanding of it. This point was brought to light with quasi-surgical precision by the great Sufi Shaykh Ibn `Ata' Allah in the debate he held with Ibn Taymiyya in the mosque of al-Azhar in Cairo.

1 The commentary is found in volume 10:455-548 of the first Riyadh editionof the Majmu` fatawa Ibn Taymiyya.

2 Majmu` fatawa Ibn Taymiyya 10:516.

3 Ibn Taymiyya, al-Safadiyya (Riyad: matabi` hanifa, 1396/1976) 1:267.

4 Ibn Taymiyya, Majmu`at al-rasa'il wa al-masa'il (Beirut: lajnat al-turath al-`arabi) 5:83.

5 Majmu` fatawa Ibn Taymiyya 10:473-474.

6 Ibid. 10:479.

7 Ibn Taymiyya, Majmu`a al-rasa'il wal-masa'il 1:162.

8 Ibn Taymiyya, al-Ihtijaj bi al-qadar (Cairo: al-matba`a al-salafiyya, 1394/1974) p. 38.

9 Ibn Taymiyya, Tawhid al-rububiyya in Majmu`a al-Fatawa al-kubra (Riyad, 1381) 2:464-465.

10 George Makdisi, "L'isnad initiatique soufi de Muwaffaq ad-Din ibn Qudama," in Cahiers de l'Herne: Louis Massignon (Paris: Editions de l'Herne, 1970) p. 88-96; "Ibn Taimiya: A Sufi of the Qadiriya Order," in American Journal of Arabic Studies I (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1974) p. 118-129; "The Hanbali School and Sufism," in Boletin de la Asociacion Espanola de Orientalistas 15 (Madrid, 1979) p. 115-126.

11 Ibn `Abd al Hadi, Bad' al 'ilqa bi labs al khirqa, ms. al-Hadi, Princeton Library Arabic Collection, fols. 154a, 169b, 171b 172a; and Damascus University, copy of original Arabic manuscript, 985H.; also mentioned in at Talyani, manuscript Chester Beatty 3296 (8) in Dublin, fol. 67a.

12 Manuscript Damascus, Zahiriyya #1186 H.

13 Ibn Taymiyya, Majmu`a al-fatawa al-kubra 11:5.

14 Ibn `Ajiba, Iqaz al-himam p. 6.

15 al-Sha`rani, al-Tabaqat al-kubra 1:4.

16 `Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi, Usul al-din p. 315-16.

17 Ibn Taymiyya, Majmu`a al-fatawa al-kubra 11:16-20.

18 Op. cit. 2:396 397.

19 Op. cit. 10:339.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Ibn Taymiyyah: Misunderstood Genius - Dr Rachid Ghannuchi

January 8, 2008

VIR: http://maqasid.wordpress.com/2008/01/08/ibn-taymiyyah-misunderstood-genius-dr-rachid-ghannuchi/ (6.9.2014)

The Life and Legacy of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah

The name Ibn Taymiyyah is not unknown to those currently interested in Islam and Muslims, be they activists, thinkers, journalists or others. Yet too often, little beyond the name and a hazy preconception of this man is known to people. So who was Ibn Taymiyyah about whom such controversy persists eight centuries after his death?

Ahmed Taqi ud-Din Ibn Taymiyyah came from a prominent Hanbali family known in the field of Shari’ah. He was born in Harran [between modern-day Syria and Turkey] on 10 Rabi’ al-Awwal 661 AH/1263 AD. He remained there until the age of seven, when the Mongol invasion took over the region spreading terror and destruction. The Ibn Taymiyyah family left under the cover of night, carrying the most precious possessions for a family of knowledge – books. The dangerous journey to Damascus had a great influence on the young Ibn Taymiyyah, instilling in him hatred of the Tatar occupier. It is then not surprising that he dedicated his life to opposing them through his pen, tongue and sword, and to urging the rulers and the ruled to resist them, through liberating the Ummah from innovations and the negative creeds which in his view constituted the causes for disabling the Ummah’s capacities and killing in it the spirit of Jihad and Ijtihad.

Soon after the arrival of the family in Damascus, Shaykh Shihab ud-Din, the father of Ibn Taymiyyah, rose again to prominence in the cultural environment of Damascus,

which venerated knowledge. People flocked to his lessons at the Umayyad Mosque, and he became the shaykh of Dar al-Hadith Al-Sukkariyyah, where his son grew up.

Taqi ud-Din memorised the Qur’an whilst still young a boy. He studied under his father, in addition to the Qur’an, Hadith and Fiqh, and studied the Science of language, usul and other sciences of religion with other Scholars. The young Ibn Taymiyyah did not limit himself to the sciences inherited within his family, learning in depth the sciences of theology, philosophy, mathematics, algebra, and the history of religions. He as describes as ‘’fast to memorise and slow to forget’’.

Before the age of twenty, he became qualified to issue fatawa [legal opinions], and at the age of twenty-one, upon the death of his father, he succeeded him to teach Hadith and Fiqh at the Dar al-Hadith al-Sukkariyyah. He also succeeded his father at the Umayyad mosque, where he gave lectures on Tafsir. In 1296, at the death of his professor Zayn al-Din Ibn Munajja, Ibn Taymiyyah succeeded to the chair of Fiqh vacated in the Madrasal al-Hanbaliyyah.

Realising the centrality of Tawhid in the entire Islamic edifice, the greater part of his efforts was dedicated to purifying Islamic thought and Aqidah [creed] of traces of Hellenic philosophy, agnosticism, inconsequential theological debates and philosophical mysticism. Those traces had deeply penetrated all branches of Islamic culture, most importantly the conception of Man, is place in this existence, and his freedoms and responsibilities, all of which were affected by the creeds of Wahdat al-Wujud [pantheism monism - that everything is one essence/substance] and hulul [immanence/incarnation]. Ibn Taymiyyah was alarmed at these creeds, which spread division, confusion, rigidity and passivity, having targeted at the heart of the body of the Ummah, disabling its movements and desensitising it to the dangers facing it.

Ibn Taymiyyah’s efforts were pioneering in the movement of reform. Though they did not meet with success and wide acceptance during his time because of the deep-rootedness of the heritage of decline and the powerful alliance built between Fiqhi Taqlid, reclusive tariqas and despotic rule, his efforts did not go to waste and have had a great impact on contemporary reform movements. The re-establishment of the link between the reality of the Ummah and its problem on the one hand and the pure sources on the other, and the related liberation of the creed of Tawhid from subsequent deviations, the establishment of the awareness of Man’s responsibility towards his message and mission and the necessary consequences of Ijtihad and jihad are at the heart of Ibn Taymiyyah’s work and its importance for revival. Many may take such principles for granted, having been used to viewing intellectual, political, economical and every-day problems in the light of the Qur’an and the Sunnah, and thus may not appreciate the efforts of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah or subsequent reformers who clarified this methodology and brought it out of the ruins of history.

It is sufficient for today’s youth who may not be aware of the significance of such pioneering efforts to consider that at the end of the eighteenth century a group of

scholars were brought before the judge in Damascus under the charge of committing Ijtihad! However, it is important to note that while contemporary reform movements draw inspiration from Ibn Taymiyyah’s thought, this has often been a formal relation, while the social dimensions of Ibn Taymiyyah’s thought, which established great principles such as intellectual and political freedom and social justice, have often been neglected and marginalised. It is also important to note that those who claim to be followers of this great scholar are not all necessarily representative of his thought.

In the field of politics, Ibn Taymiyyah established the principles of justice as the foundation of political theory, even with no recourse to the text. As clarified by his student Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, political theory does not need to be prescribed by the text; it is sufficient that it does not contradict it. Ibn Taymiyyah also established the principle of the Ummah as the sole foundation of the ruler’s legitimacy, interpreting, for instance, the covenant of Al-Saqifa [following the death of the Prophet] or the six companions delegated by Umar after his death appointed Uthman, not as binding pledges [bay’ah] but rather as nominations. Ibn Taymiyyah also established the principle of state interference in economical life to control prices, stop monopoly and other methods of activating the state’s social role.

The writings of any thinker should be read in the light of the context in which they lived, the challenges they faced and the particular circumstances and the concerns that were dealing with. This is in fact the nature of the message of Islam, which by virtue of its eternal nature, necessitates the emergence of reformers who re-interpret the sources in light of new situations. The cultural life in the seventh and eighth centuries was characterised by the following:

In the field of Fiqh, taqlid of the four madhahib – among Sunnis – was predominant. The work of jurist was mostly restricted to writing commentaries and summaries of previous works and defending the madhab against its ‘rivals’, with the rivalry aggravated when a ruler adopted or became biased towards one of them, favouring its scholars. Ibn Taymiyyah had a Hanbali upbringing and a great admiration for Imam Ahmad. Nevertheless, he was a free thinker, only convinced by authentic texts and the example of the companions and their successors. Thus, he had ijtihads and opinions that were not only different from those of his madhab, but of all four madhahib, displaying great courage and breaking the rigidity of taqlid. This audacity brought him a lot of problems, casting upon him the wrath of scholars and their followers in defense of taqlid.

Tasawwuf was predominant in the field of Tarbiyyah, and part of it was plagued with creeds of wihdat-ul-wujud [monism], hulul [incarnationism] and jabar [fatalism]. Ibn Taymiyyah opposed those creeds and the consequent disregard for commands and prohibitions, and alliance with despotic rulers and invaders. He opposed deviant innovations that had crept into tasawwuf including a monasticism, which he viewed as alien to Islam imported from Christianity [itself influenced by Hellenic philosophy] that glorified poverty and weakness. The divisions between various schools of thought and tasawwuf that further fragmented society

particularly the state’s support of some at the expense of others, and the emergence of a class resembling the infallible clergy. These deviations reduced Islam to a ritualistic fatalistic monasticism that stripped Islam of its social and political dimensions.

Despite Ibn Taymiyyah’s perceived hostility to tasawwuf because of that virulent criticism, he did not generalize his judgment but rather distinguished between authentic and deviant trends in tasawwuf. He often praised the early Shuyukh of tasawwuf such as Al-Junaid and Al-Kaylani, while criticising the philosophical mysticism of Al-Hallaj, Ibn ‘Arabi, Ibn Sab’een, Al-Naqawi and others. He criticised some practices that contradicted the Sunnah, and the alliance of some with the Tatars, Crusaders and despotic rulers. Ibn Taymiyyah belonged to the Sufi order of the Qadiriyyah, named after the Hanbali Sufi ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani, whom he praised and wrote a partial commentary on his Sharh Futuh al-Ghayb.

Thus, the concerns and challenges of the time were incorporated into and influenced the work of Ibn Taymiyyah. The wealth of writings left by him represent the fruits of his long experience and vast knowledge, and an attempt to comprehend the culture of his time and weigh it using the scales of Shar’ – which for him includes the manqul [revealed] as well as the ma’qul [rational], using a sharp mind and a heart full of the love of Allah, His messenger (s), and the early generations. His conclusion was that the Ummah had deviated from its original nature, and he and other reformers identified the distance between the Ummah and Islam as the true explanation of the Ummah’s decline, backwardness and submission to other nations. He began a project of comprehensive reform under the principle of the saying by Imam Malik, ‘’the latter generations of this Ummah will not succeed except by that which made its first generation successful’’.

He opposed the methodology of the theologians and philosophers using that of the Salaf, which makes Shari’ah the judge over the mind rather than judged by it, while holding that there is no real contradiction between the two. He opposed the rigidity of the scholars by calling for Ijtihad and viewing matters of differences in the light of the Qur’an and Sunnah. He opposed the creeds of hulul and wihdat-ul-wujud by calling for the creed of the Salaf, and the resulting methodology of tarbiyyah and suluk by calling for the prophetic methodology of Tarbiyyah, based on Taqwa and jihad. He opposed the rulers despotism and negligence of the responsibilities towards society, by calling for a governance based on consultation between the ruler and the ruled and the proptection of the people’s interests through the state’s interference in economic life to protect the poor sectors and imposing supervision and control of distribution and prices, as detailed in his book ‘’Al-Hisbah’’.

Despite the above, Ibn Taymiyyah did not wish to call for division. He sought to revive and invigorate the Ummah – rulers, scholars, and the masses. He did not only do so through his words – he would often go directly to the rulers to convey the people’s complaints and demands, and when it was required, he fought against the invaders and politically contributed to the solution of the problem of war prisoners.

The military and civilisational external challenges, as well as the internal crisis should be taken into account when attempting to understand thus great reformer. The multiple crises put the Ummah in a position of defense, in need of emphasizing its distinct character, rather than searching for what is common. Seeing it in its context reveals that Ibn taymiyyah’s project was a positive response to the challenges and priorities of his time.

However, his call came at a time when the Ummah was in a sate of deep decline and his call disturbed their slumber. Instead of considering his call, the leaders of the Ummah violently rushed to silence it. He was tried in a series of trials, which in reality were not a trial for him as a person but a trial for the renaissance he heralded, and the judges were not the Maliki or Shafi’ scholars but the age of decline. His ordeals were written about extensively by his Shafi’ disciples al-Birzali, al-Dhahabi, and Ibn Kathir, and by the other Hanbali bibliographer Ibn Rajab. However, his prison was, as he wrote, a blessing – adding the honour of ‘amal to that of ‘ilm, and the crown of jihad to that of Ijtihad.

The biographers cite a number of statements made by Ibn Taymiyyah during his imprisonment that show his sate of mind, such as ‘’what can my enemies possibly to do me? My paradise is on my breast; wherever I go it goes with me, inseparable from me. For me, prison is place of retreat; execution is my opportunity for martyrdom; and exile from my town is but a chance to travel’’.

Three months before his death, his chief opponent al-Ikhna’i, against whom he had written a refutation, complained to the sultan, who ordered that Ibn Taymiyyah be deprived of the opportunity to write; his ink, pen, and paper were taken away from him. On 20 Dhul Qa’dah 728 [26 Sept 1328] Ibn Taymiyyah died in prison at the age of sixty-five. According Ibn Kathir, a train of 60,000 to 100,000 people, of which at least 15,000 were women, joined the funeral procession.

Al-Hafidh Al-Mizzi said, ‘’ I did not see anyone like him, nor did he see anyone like himself, and I did not see anyone more knowledgeable of the book of Allah and Sunnah of His prophet nor more adherent to them than him.’’

List of works

Ibn Taymiyya (1263-1328) Mas'ala fi al-'aql wa al-nafs (Concerning the Matter of the Intellect and the Soul), in A.A.M. Qasim and M.A.A. Qasim (eds) Majmu' fatawa Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya, vol. 9, Riyad: Matba'ah al-Hukama, 1996. (This is a short essay in which Ibn Taymiyya summarizes his views on the relationship between the intellect and the soul.)

Ibn Taymiyya---- (1263-1328) al-'Ubudiyya fi al-Islam (The Concept of Worship in Islam), Cairo: al-Matba'ah al-Salafiyya. (This is one of Ibn Taymiyya's most important statements concerning issues of faith and belief in Islam. He speaks extensively on matters of predestination, love for God and Sufi concepts of the annihilation of the soul.)

---- (1263-1328) al-Jawab al-sahih li-man baddala din al-masah (The Correct Answer to the One Who Changed the Religion of the Messiah), trans. T.F. Michel, A Muslim Theologian's Response to Christianity, Delmar, NY: Caravan Books, 1984. (This is an abridged translation, with an excellent introduction to Ibn Taymiyya's polemics against various groups and an extensive bibliography.)

References and further reading

Bell, J.N. (1979) Love Theory in Later Hanbalite Islam, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. (This work investigates the role of love in the thinking of Hanbali scholars and shows how they defined it in opposition to philosophers and mystics.)

Hallaq, W.B. (1993) Ibn Taymiyya against the Greek Logicians, Oxford: Clarendon Press. (An excellent translation of Ibn Taymiyya's most important arguments against Greek logic. The introduction and notes give depth and perspective to this very difficult topic. It also contains an extensive bibliography.)

Izutsu Toshihiko (1965) The Concept of Belief in Islamic Theology: A Semantic Analysis of Iman and Islam, Yokohama: Yurindo Publishing Company. (Although this work focuses on the concept of belief in early Islam, the author makes extensive use of Ibn Taymiyya's theories to explain how orthodox scholars came to understand this term.)

Pavlin, J. (1996) 'Sunni Kalam and Theological Controversies', in S.H. Nasr and O. Leaman (eds) History of Islamic Philosophy, London: Routledge, ch. 7, 105-18. (Includes a discussion of Ibn Taymiyya's view.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IBN TAYMIYYA, A Brief Survey

by Dr. G.F. Haddad (http://www.livingislam.org/n/itay_e.html, 6. 9. 2014)

Ahmad ibn `Abd al-Halim ibn `Abd Allah ibn Abi al-Qasim ibn Taymiyya, Taqi al-Din Abu al-`Abbas ibn Shihab al-Din ibn Majd al-Din al-Harrani al-Dimashqi al-Hanbali (661-728). The most influential scholar of the late Hanbali school, praised by the hadith master Salah al-Din al-`Ala'i as "Our shaykh, master, and imam between us and Allah Almighty, the master of verification, the wayfarer of the best path, the owner of the multifarious merits and overpowering proofs which all hosts agree are impossible to enumerate, the Shaykh, the Imam and faithful servant of his Lord, the doctor in the Religion, the Ocean, the light-giving Pole of spirituality, the leader of imams, the blessing of the Community, the sign-post of the people of knowledge, the inheritor of Prophets, the last of those capable of independent legal reasoning, the most unique of the scholars of the Religion, Shaykh al-Islam..."

A student of Ibn `Abd al-Da'im, al-Qasim al-Irbili, Ibn `Allan, Ibn Abi `Amr al-Fakhr, Ibn Taymiyya mostly read by himself until he achieved great learning. He taught, authored books, gave formal legal opinions, and generally distinguished himself for his quick wit and photographic memory. Among his most brilliant students were Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, al-Dhahabi, Ibn Kathir, and Yusuf ibn `Abd al-Hadi. His opinions and manner created intense controversy both in his life and after his death, to the point that scholars were divided into those who loved him and those who did not. An illustration of this is the fact that the Shafi`i hadith master al-Mizzi did not call anyone else Shaykh al-Islam in his time besides Ibn Taymiyya; yet the Hanafi scholar `Ala' al-Din al-Bukhari issued a fatwa whereby anyone who called Ibn Taymiyya Shaykh al-Islam commited disbelief.1 In Bayan Zaghl al-`Ilm al-Dhahabi states: "Ibn Taymiyya was considered by his enemies to be a wicked Anti-Christ and disbeliever, while great numbers of the wise and the elite considered him an eminent, brilliant, and scholarly innovator (mubtadi` fadil muhaqqiq bari`)."2

First Incident of Tashbih

His first clash with the scholars occurred in 698 in Damascus when he was temporarily barred from teaching after he issued his Fatwa Hamawiyya. In this epistle he unambiguously attributes literal upward direction to Allah Almighty. He was refuted by his contemporary, the imam and mufti of Aleppo then Damascus Ibn Jahbal al-Kilabi (d. 733), in a lengthy reply which Taj al-Din al-Subki reproduced in full in his Tabaqat al-Shafi`iyya al-Kubra. Ibn Taymiyya then returned to his activities until he was summoned by the authorities again in 705 to answer for his `Aqida Wasitiyya. He spent the few following years in and out of jail or defending himself from various "abhorrent charges" according to Ibn Hajar. Because he officially repented, his life was spared, although at one point it was officially announced in Damascus that "Whoever follows the beliefs of Ibn Taymiyya, his life and property are licit for seizure." These events instigated great dissension among the scholars in Damascus and Cairo as detailed in Imam Taqi al-Din al-Husni's Daf` Shubah Man Shabbaha wa Tamarrad wa Nasaba Dhalika ila al-Sayyid al-Jalil al-Imam Ahmad ("Repelling the Sophistries of the Rebel who Likens Allah to Creation, Then Attributes This Doctrine to Imam Ahmad").3

Ibn Taymiyya at various times declared himself a follower of the Shafi`i school - as did many Hanbalis in Damascus - and an Ash`ari.

Ibn Hajar wrote in al-Durar al-Kamina:

An investigation [of his views] was conducted with several scholars [in Cairo] and a written statement was drawn in which he said: "I am Ash`ari." His handwriting is found with what he wrote verbatim, namely: "I believe that the Qur'an is a meaning which exists in Allah's Entity, and that it is an Attribute from the pre-eternal Attributes of His Entity, and that it is uncreated, and that it does not consist in the letter nor the voice, and that His saying: "The Merciful established Himself over the Throne" (20:4) is not taken according to its literal

meaning (laysa `ala zahirihi), and I don't know in what consists its meaning, nay only Allah knows it, and one speaks of His 'descent' in the same way as one speaks of His 'establishment.'"

It was written by Ahmad ibn Taymiyya and they witnessed over him that he had repented of his own free will from all that contravened the above. This took place on the 25th of Rabi` al-Awwal 707 and it was witnessed by a huge array of scholars and others.4

The Hanbali scholar Najm al-Din Sulayman ibn `Abd al-Qawi al-Tufi said:5

He used to bring up in one hour from the Book, the Sunna, the Arabic language, and philosophical speculation, material which no-one could bring up even in many sessions, as if these sciences were before his very eyes and he was picking and choosing from them at will. A time came when his companions took to over-praising him and this drove him to be satisfied with himself until he became conceited before his fellow human beings. He became convinced that he was a scholar capable of independent reasoning (mujtahid). Henceforth he began to answer each and every scholar great and small, past and recent, until he went all the way back to `Umar (r) and faulted him in some matter. This reached the ears of the Shaykh Ibrahim al-Raqi who reprimanded him. Ibn Taymiyya went to see him, apologized, and asked for forgiveness. He also spoke against `Ali (r) and said: "He made mistakes in seventeen different matters."... Because of his fanatic support of the Hanbali school he would attack Ash'aris until he started to insult al-Ghazzali, at which point some people opposed him and would almost kill him.... They ascertained that he had blurted out certain words, concerning doctrine, which came out of his mouth in the context of his sermons and legal pronouncements, and they mentioned that he had cited the tradition of Allah's descent (to the nearest heaven), then climbed down two steps from the minbar and said: "Just like this descent of mine" and so was categorized as an anthropomorphist. They also cited his refutation of whoever uses the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- as a means or seeks help from him (aw istaghatha).... People were divided into parties because of him. Some considered him an anthropomorphist because of what he mentioned in al-`Aqida al-Hamawiyya and al-`Aqida al-Wasitiyya and other books of his, to the effect that the hand, foot, shin, and face are litteral attributes of Allah and that He is established upon the Throne with His Essence. It was said to him that were this the case He would necessarily be subject to spatial confinement (al-tahayyuz) and divisibility (al-inqisam). He replied: "I do not concede that spatial confinement and divisibility are (necessarily) properties of bodies," whereupon it was adduced against him (ulzima) that he held Allah's Essence to be subject to spatial confinement. Others considered him

a heretic (zindiq) due to his saying that the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- is not to be sought for help and the fact that this amounted to diminishing and impeding the establishing of the greatness of the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- .... Others considered him a dissimulator (munafiq) because of what he said about `Ali:... namely, that he had been forsaken everywhere he went, had repeatedly tried to acquire the caliphate and never attained it, fought out of lust for power rather than religion, and said that "he loved authority while `Uthman loved money." He would say that Abu Bakr had declared Islam in his old age, fully aware of what he said, while `Ali had declared Islam as a boy, and the boy's Islam is not considered sound upon his mere word.... In sum he said ugly things such as these, and it was said against him that he was a hypocrite, in view of the Prophet's -- Allah bless and greet him -- saying (to `Ali): "None but a hypocrite has hatred for you."6

Another reason why Ibn Taymiyya was opposed was his criticism of Sufis, particularly Shaykh Muhyi al-Din Ibn `Arabi, although he described himself, in his letter to Abu al-Fath Nasr al-Munayji, as a former admirer of the Shaykh al-Akbar:

I was one of those who, previously, used to hold the best opinion of Ibn `Arabi and extol his praise, because of the benefits I saw in his books, such as what he said in many of his books, for example: al-Futuhat, al-Kanh, al-Muhkam al-Marbut, al-Durra al-Fakhira, Matali` al-Nujum, and other such works.7

According to Ibn `Abd al-Hadi, Ibn Taymiyya also declared himself a follower of several Sufi orders, among them the Qadiri path of Shaykh `Abd al-Qadir al-Gilani.8 In al-Mas'ala al-Tabriziyya Ibn Taymiyya declares: "Labistu al-khirqa al-mubaraka li al-Shaykh `Abd al-Qadir wa bayni wa baynahu ithnan - I wore the blessed Sufi cloak of `Abd al-Qadir, there being between him and me two shaykhs."9

Further Heresy

Further charges of heresy were brought against Ibn Taymiyya for his assertion that a divorce pronounced in innovative fashion does not take effect, against the consensus of the scholars which stipulated that it does, though innovative. After spending the years 719-721 in jail, he was jailed again in 726 until his death two years leater for declaring that one who travels to visit the Prophet commits innovation. His burial was attended by about 50,000 people.

His student al-Dhahabi praised him lavishly as "the brilliant shaykh, imam, erudite scholar, censor, jurist, mujtahid, and commentator of the Qur'an," but acknowledged that Ibn Taymiyya's disparaging manners alienated even his admirers. For example, the grammarian Abu Hayyan praised Ibn Taymiyya until he found out

that he believed himself a greater expert in the Arabic language than Sibawayh, whereupon he disassociated himself from his previous praise. Other former admirers turned critics were the qadi al-Zamalkani and al-Dhahabi himself, in whose al-Nasiha al-Dhahabiyya he addresses Ibn Taymiyya with the words: "When will you stop criticizing the scholars and finding fault with the people?"

Dr. al-Buti pointed out that although Ibn Taymiyya blamed al-Ghazzali and other Ash`ari scholars for involving themselves in philosophical or dialectical disputations, yet he went much further than most into kalam and philosophy. This is shown by his books in kalam and philosophy, most notably by his positions in al-Radd `ala al-Mantiqiyyin ("Against the Logicians") on the "generic beginninglessness" of created matters and Aristotelian causality (al-`illa al-aristiyya).10 Al-Dhahabi alluded to this in his epistle to Ibn Taymiyya: "When will you stop investigating the poisoned minutiae of philosophical disbelief, so that we have to refute them with our minds? You have swallowed the poisons of the philosophers and their treatises, not once, but several times!"11

Ibn Hajar al-Haytami on Ibn Taymiyya

Al-Haytami wrote in his Fatawa Hadithiyya:

Ibn Taymiyya is a servant which Allah forsook, misguided, blinded, deafened, and debased. That is the declaration of the imams who have exposed the corruption of his positions and the mendacity of his sayings. Whoever wishes to pursue this must read the words of the mujtahid imam Abu al-Hasan (Taqi al-Din) al-Subki, of his son Taj al-Din Subki, of the Imam al-`Izz ibn Jama`a and others of the Shafi`i, Maliki, and Hanafi shaykhs... It must be considered that he is a misguided and misguiding innovator (mubtadi` dall mudill) and an ignorant who brought evil (jahilun ghalun) whom Allah treated with His justice. May He protect us from the likes of his path, doctrine, and actions!... Know that he has differed from people on questions about which Taj al-Din Ibn al-Subki and others warned us. Among the things Ibn Taymiyya said which violate the scholarly consensus are:

1. that whoso violates the consensus commits neither disbelief (kufr) nor grave transgression (fisq);

2. that our Lord is subject to created events (mahallun li al-hawadith) - glorified, exalted, and sanctified is He far above what the depraved ascribe to Him!

3. that He is complex or made of parts (murakkab), His Entity standing in need similarly to the way the whole stands in need of the parts, elevated is He and sanctified above that!

4. that the Qur'an is created in Allah's Entity (muhdath fi dhatillah), elevated is He above that!

5. that the world is of a pre-eternal nature and exists with Allah since pre-eternity as an "ever-abiding created object" (makhluqan

da'iman), thus making it necessarily existent in His Entity (mujaban bi al-dhat) and not acting deliberately[GH1] (la fa`ilan bi al-ikhtyar), elevated is He above that!12

6. his suggestions of Allah's corporeality, direction, displacement, (al-jismiyya wa al-jiha wa al-intiqal), and that He fits the size of the Throne, being neither bigger nor smaller, exalted is He from such a hideous invention and wide-open disbelief, and may He forsake all his followers, and may all his beliefs be scattered and lost!

7. his saying that the fire shall go out (al-nar tafni),13

8. and that Prophets are not sinless (al-anbiya' ghayr ma`sumin), 9. and that the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- has no special

status before Allah (la jaha lahu) and must not be used as a means (la yutawassalu bihi),14

10. and that the undertaking of travel (al-safar) to the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- in order to perform his visitation is a sin, for which it is unlawful to shorten the prayers,15 and that it is forbidden to ask for his intercession in view of the Day of Need,

11. and that the words (alfaz) of the Torah and the Gospel were not substituted, but their meanings (ma`ani) were.

Some said: "Whoever looks at his books does not attribute to him most of these positions, except that whereby he holds the view that Allah has a direction, and that he authored a book to establish this, and forces the proof upon the people who follow this school of thought that they are believers in Allah's corporeality (jismiyya), dimensionality (muhadhat), and settledness (istiqrar)." That is, it may be that at times he used to assert these proofs and that they were consequently attributed to him in particular. But whoever attributed this to him from among the imams of Islam upon whose greatness, leadership, religion, trustworthiness, fairness, acceptance, insight, and meticulousness there is agreement - then they do not say anything except what has been duly established with added precautions and repeated inquiry. This is especially true when a Muslim is attributed a view which necessitates his disbelief, apostasy, misguidance, and execution. Therefore if it is true of him that he is a disbeliever and an innovator, then Allah will deal with him with His justice, and other than that He will forgive us and him.

Imam al-Kawthari on Ibn Taymiyya

Imam Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari stated in strong terms that Ibn Taymiyya's position on Allah's attributes is tantamount to disbelief and apostasy because it reduces Allah to a corporeal body. He states in his Maqalat:

In al-Ta'sis fi Radd Asas al-Taqdis ("The Laying of the Foundation: A Refutation of al-Razi's "The Foundation of Allah's Sanctification") Ibn Taymiyya says: "Al-`arsh (the throne) in language means al-sarir (elevated seat or couch), so named with respect to what is on top of it, just as the roof is so named with respect to what is under it. Therefore, if the Qur'an attributes a throne to Allah, it is then known that this throne is, with respect to Allah, like the elevated seat is with respect to other than Allah. This makes it necessarily true that He is on top of the throne." So then the throne is, for Ibn Taymiyya, Allah's seat (maq`ad)- Exalted is He from such a notion!

He also says: "It is well-known that the Book, the Sunna, and the Consensus nowhere say that all bodies (ajsam) are created, and nowhere say that Allah Himself is not a body. None of the imams of the Muslims ever said such a thing. Therefore if I also choose not to say it, it does not expel me from religion nor from Shari`a." These words are complete impudence. What did he do with all the verses declaring Allah to be far removed from anything like unto Him? Does he expect that the idiocy that every single idiot can come up with be addressed with a specific text? Is it not enough that Allah the Exalted said: "There is nothing whatsoever like Him" (42:11)? Or does he consider it permissible for someone to say: Allah eats this, chews that, and tastes the other thing, just because no text mentions the opposite? This is disbelief laid bare and pure anthropomorphism.

In another passage of the same book he says: "You [Ash`aris] say that He is neither a body, nor an atom (jawhar), nor spatially bounded (mutahayyiz), and that He has no direction, and that He cannot be pointed to as an object of sensory perception, and that nothing of Him can be considered distinct from Him. You have asserted this on the grounds that Allah is neither divisible nor made of parts and that He has neither limit (hadd) nor end (ghaya), with your view thereby to forbid one to say that He has any limit or measure (qadr), or that He even has a dimension that is unlimited. But how do you allow yourselves to do this without evidence from the Book and the Sunna?"16 The reader's intelligence suffices to comment on these heretical statements. Can you imagine for an apostate to be more brazen than this, right in the midst of a Muslim society?

In another place of the same book he says: "It is obligatorily known that Allah did not mean by the name of "the One" (al-Wahid) the negation of the Attributes." He is here alluding to all that entails His "coming" to a place and the like. He continues: "Nor did He mean by it the negation that He can be perceived with the senses, nor the denial of limit and dimension and all such interpretations which were innovated by the Jahmiyya and their followers. Negation or denial of the above is not found in the Book nor the Sunna." And this is on an

equal footing with what came before with regard to pure anthropomorphism and plain apostasy.

In another book of his, Muwafaqa al-Ma`qul, which is in the margin of his Minhaj, Ibn Taymiyya asserts that things occur newly in relation to Allah and that He has a direction according to two kinds of conjecture.17 And you know, O reader, what the Imams say concerning him who deliberately and intently establishes that Allah has a direction, unless his saying such a thing is a slip of the tongue or a slip of the pen. Then there is his establishing that the concept of movement applies to Allah, along with all the others who establish such a thing; his denial that there is an eternal sojourn in hellfire has filled creation; and his doctrine of "generic beginninglessness" (al-qidam al-naw`i).18

Ibn Taymiyya's Two Tawhids

Also among Ibn Taymiyya's controversies in kalam was his division of tawhid into two types: tawhid al-rububiyya and tawhid al-uluhiyya, respectively, Oneness of Lordship and Oneness of Godhead.19 The first, he said, consisted in the acknowledgment of Allah as the Creator of all, a belief shared by believers and non-believers alike. The second was the affirmation of Allah as the one true deity and only object of worship, a belief exclusive to believers. His natural conclusion was that "whoever does not know tawhid al-uluhiyya, his knowledge of tawhid al-rububiyya is not taken into account because the idolaters also had such knowledge." He then compared the scholars of kalam to the Arab idol-worshippers who accepted tawhid al-rububiyya but ignored tawhid al-uluhiyya. This dialectic was adopted by Ibn Abi al-`Izz in his commentary on al-Tahawi's `Aqida.20

Abu Hamid Ibn Marzuq wrote:

Tawhid al-rububiyya and tawhid al-uluhiyya were invented by Ibn Taymiyya who claimed that all Muslims among the mutakallimun worshipped other than Allah due to their ignorance of tawhid al-uluhiyya; he claimed that the only tawhid they knew was tawhid al-rububiyya. The latter consists in affirming that Allah is the Creator of all things, as, he says, the polytheists conceded. He then declared all Muslims to be unbelievers. Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab imitated him in this, and others imitated Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab. The late erudite scholar al-Sayyid Ahmad ibn Zayni Dahlan (d. 1304) looked into this matter in a small section of his treatise al-Durar al-Saniyya fi al-Radd `ala al-Wahhabiyya ("The Resplendent Pearls in Refuting the Wahhabis"). So did the savant al-Shaykh Ibrahim al-Samnudi al-Mansuri (d. 1314) who spoke excellently in his book Sa`ada al-Darayn fi al-Radd `ala al-Firqatayn al-Wahhabiyya wa al-Zahiriyya ("The Bliss of the Two Abodes in the Refutation of the Two Sects: Wahhabis and Zahiris"). The late erudite scholar al-Shaykh

Salama al-`Azzami (d. 1376) also wrote valuable words about it in his book al-Barahin al-Sati`a fi Radd Ba`d al-Bida` al-Sha'i`a ("The Radiant Proofs in Refuting Some Widespread Innovations")...

Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal... never said that tawhid consisted in two parts, one being tawhid al-rububiyya and the other tawhid al-uluhiyya. Nor did he ever say that "whoever does not know tawhid al-uluhiyya, his knowledge of tawhid al-rububiyya is not taken into account because the idolaters also had such knowledge."... None of the followers of the Followers ... None of the Successors ... None of the Companions of the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- ever said that tawhid consisted in two parts, one being tawhid al-rububiyya and the other tawhid al-uluhiyya, nor did any of them ever say that "whoever does not know tawhid al-uluhiyya, his knowledge of tawhid al-rububiyya is not taken into account because the idolaters also had such knowledge."... Nowhere in the extensive Sunna of the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- ... is it related that the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- ever said or ever taught his Companions that tawhid consists in two parts, one being tawhid al-rububiyya and the other tawhid al-uluhiyya, nor that "whoever does not know tawhid al-uluhiyya, his knowledge of tawhid al-rububiyya is not taken into account because the idolaters also had such knowledge." If mankind and jinn joined together to establish that the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- ever said such a thing, even with an inauthentic chain of transmission, they would not succeed.

The books of the Sunna of the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- overflow with the fact that the call of the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- to the people unto Allah was in order that they witness that there is no God except Allah alone and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and in order that they repudiate idol-worship. One of the most famous illustrations of this is the narration of Mu`adh ibn Jabal when the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- sent him to Yemen and said to him: "Invite them to the testimony that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah...." And it is narrated in five of the six books of authentic traditions, and Ibn Hibban declared it sound, that a beduin Arab reported the sighting of the new moon to the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- and the latter ordered the people to fast without asking this man other than to confirm his testimony of faith. According to this drivel of Ibn Taymiyya, it would have been necessary for the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- to call all people to the tawhid al-uluhiyya of which they were ignorant - since tawhid al-rububiyya they knew already - and he should have said to Mu`adh: "Invite them to tawhid al-uluhiyya"; and he should have asked the beduin who had sighted the new moon of Ramadan: "Do you know tawhid al-uluhiyya?"

Finally, in His precious Book which falsehood cannot approach whether from the front or from the back, Allah never ordered tawhid al-uluhiyya to His servants, nor did He ever say that "whoever does not know this tawhid, his knowledge of tawhid al-rububiyya is not taken into account."21<

Ibn Taymiyya's method in debate was to provide a barrage of quotes and citations in support of his positions. In the process he often mentioned reports or stated positions which, upon closer examination, are dubious either from the viewpoint of transmission or from that of doctrine. For example:

1. His report of Ibn Batta's narration whereby Hammad ibn Zayd was asked by a man: "Our Lord descends to the heaven of the earth - does that mean that he removes Himself from one place to another place? (yatahawwalu min makan ila makan?)" Hammad replied: "He Himself is in His place, and He comes near His creation in the way that He likes (huwa fi makanihi yaqrabu min khalqihi kayfa sha')."22

2. His report from Ishaq ibn Rahawayh's words to the Emir `Abd Allah ibn Tahir: "He is able to descend without the Throne being vacant of Him" (yaqdiru an yanzila min ghayri an yakhlua al-`arshu minhu).23

3. His report from Abu `Umar al-Talmanki's book al-Wusul ila Ma`rifa al-Usul: "Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama`a are in agreement (muttafiqun) that Allah established Himself in person (bi dhatihi) on the Throne."24 Note that Ibn Taymiyya quotes inaccurately, as al-Dhahabi quotes from the same book the following passage: "The Muslims of Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama`a have reached consensus (ajma`[u]) that Allah is above the heavens in person (bi dhatihi) and is established over His Throne in the mode that He pleases (kayfa sha')."25 Both assertions are of course false as no such consensus exists, and the position of Ahl al-Sunna is that whoever attributes direction to Allah commits apostasy.

4. His statements: "Allah's elevation over the throne is literal, and the servant's elevation over the ship is literal" (lillahi ta`ala istiwa'un `ala `arshihi haqiqatan wa li al-`abdi istiwa'un `ala al-fulki haqiqatan).26 "Allah is with us literally, and He is above His throne literally (Allahu ma`ana haqiqatan wa huwa fawqa al-`arshi haqiqatan). . . . Allah is with His creation literally and He is above His Throne literally (Allahu ma`a khalqihi haqiqatan wa huwa fawqa al-`arshi haqiqatan)."27

The above statements corroborate Ibn Hajar's reports whereby he once climbed down the minbar in purported illustration of Allah's descent to the nearest heaven.

The writings and notoriety of Ibn Taymiyya were by and large forgotten until the "Salafi" movement revived them through the publishing efforts of the Wahabi Gulf states from the 1930s to our day.

SOURCES:

al-Dhahabi, Tadhkira al-Huffaz 4:1496 #1177.Ibn Kathir, al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya 14:5, 14:42-48.Ibn Hajar, al-Durar al-Kamina 1:144-160 #409.al-Haytami, Fatawa Hadithiyya.al-Kawthari, Maqalat. NOTES1Cf. Hajji Khalifa, Kashf al-Zunun (1:838).2Cited in al-Sakhawi, al-I`lan (p. 78).3Published in Cairo at Dar Ihya' al-Kutub al-`Arabiyya, 1931.4The names of the scholars who counter-signed Ibn Taymiyya's deposition are listed by al-Kawthari in his notes to Ibn al-Subki's al-Sayf al-Saqil (p. 95-96).5In Ibn Hajar's al-Durar al-Kamina (1:153-155).6Narrated from `Ali by Muslim, al-Tirmidhi, al-Nasa'i, and Ahmad.7Ibn Taymiyya, Tawhid al-Rububiyya in Majmu`a al-Fatawa (2:464-465).8See George Makdisi, "L'isnad initiatique soufi de Muwaffaq ad-Din ibn Qudama," in Cahiers de l'Herne: Louis Massignon (Paris: Editions de l'Herne, 1970) p. 88-96; "Ibn Taimiya: A Sufi of the Qadiriya Order," in American Journal of Arabic Studies I (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1974) p. 118-129; "The Hanbali School and Sufism," in Boletin de la Asociacion Espanola de Orientalistas 15 (Madrid, 1979) p. 115-126. Based on Ibn `Abd al-Hadi, Bad' al-`Ilqa bi Labs al-Khirqa, ms. al-Hadi, Princeton Library Arabic Collection, fos 154a, 169b, 171b-172a; and Damascus University, copy of original Arabic manuscript, 985H.; also mentioned in al-Talyani, manuscript Chester Beatty 3296 (8) in Dublin, fo 67a.9Ms. Damascus, Zahiriyya #1186 H.10Cf. al-Buti, al-Salafiyya (p. 164-175). See our translation of Ibn Khafif's `Aqida §41 ("Things do not act of their own nature...") and note.11Al-Dhahabi, al-Nasiha al-Dhahabiyya, in the margin of his Bayan Zaghl al-`Ilm wa al-Talab, ed. al-Kawthari (Damascus: Qudsi, 1928-1929); also in Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya, Siratuhu wa Akhbaruhu `inda al-Mu'arrikhin, ed. Salah al-Din al-Munajjid (Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-`Arabi, 1976) p. 11-14. See n. 1715.12This is mentioned about Ibn Taymiyya also by Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Bari (1959 ed. 13:411). This doctrine was refuted by Muhammad ibn Isma`il al-San`ani in his Risala Sharifa fi ma Yata`allaqu bi Kam al-Baqi Min `Umr al-Dunya? (Precious Treatise Concerning the Remaining Age of the World") ed. al-Wasabi al-Mathani. (San`a': Maktaba Dar al-Quds, 1992).13This doctrine was refuted by Muhammad ibn Isma`il al-San`ani in his Raf` al-Astar li-Ibtal Adilla al-Qa'ilin bi-Fana al-Nar ("Exposing the Nullity of the Proofs of Those Who Claim That the Fire Shall Pass Away"), ed. Albani (Beirut: al-Maktab al-Islami, 1984).14This is explicitly contradicted by the vast majority of scholars, including Ibn Taymiyya's own students Ibn al-Qayyim (cf. al-Nuniyya, section on tawassul) and al-Dhahabi, as well as al-Shawkani and countless others. See the volume on tawassul in Shaykh Hisham Kabbani's Encyclopedia of Islamic Doctrine.15Ibn Hajar says in Fath al-Bari about Ibn Taymiyya's prohibition to travel in order to visit the Prophet: "This is one of the ugliest matters ever reported from Ibn Taymiyya." In his notes on Fath al-Bari (1989 ed. 3:66) the late "Salafi" scholar Bin Baz comments: "This was not an ugly thing but a correct thing for Ibn Taymiyya to say."16Ibn Taymiyya, al-Ta'sis (1:101). Compare to Imam Malik's statement: "He is neither ascribed a limit nor likened with anything" (lâ yuhaddad wa lâ yushabbah). Ibn al-`Arabi said after citing it in Ahkam al-Qur'an (4:1740): "This is a pinnacle of tawhîd in which no Muslim preceded Malik."17Ibn Taymiyya, Muwafaqa al-Ma`qul on the margins of Minhaj al-Sunna (2:75, 1:264, 2:13, 2:26). The Muwafaqa was republished under the title Dar' Ta`arud al-`Aqli wa al-Naql.18Al-Kawthari, Maqalat (p. 350-353).19In his Fatawa (1:219, 2:275); Minhaj al-Sunna (2: 62); Risala Ahl al-Suffa (p.34).20But by no other commentator of the same text. See the commentaries on the Tahawiyya by Hasan al-Busnawi (d. 1024), al-Maydani, al-Bajuri, al-Saqqaf, and others. Al-Busnawi does follow Ibn Abi al-`Izz in other matters.21Ibn Marzuq, Bara'a al-Ash`ariyyin Min `Aqa'id al-Mukhalifin (1:89, 1:94f.) Chapter reprinted in Ibn

Marzuq, al-Tawassul bi al-Nabi (s) wa al-Salihin (Istanbul: Hakikat Kitabevi, 1993) p. 25-101. Cf. Shaykh Hasan `Ali al-Saqqaf's al-Tandid bi man `Addada al-Tawhid ("Punishment of Him Who Counts Several Tawhîds").22Ibn Taymiyya, Majmu`a al-Fatawa (5:376). Narrated with its chain by al-Dhahabi in the Siyar (8:213, chapter of Bishr ibn al-Siriy).23Ibn Taymiyya, Majmu`a al-Fatawa (5:376-377). Also narrated by al-Dhahabi with a sound chain according to al-Albani in Mukhtasar al-`Uluw (p. 192 #235). However, al-Bayhaqi in al-Asma' wa al-Sifat (al-Asma' wa al-Sifat, ed. Kawthari p. 451-452; al-Asma' wa al-Sifat, Hashidi ed. 2:375-377 #950-953) narrates the reports of Ishaq's encounter with the Emir `Abd Allah ibn Tahir with five chains (three of them sound according to al-Hashidi), none of which mentioning the words "without the Throne being vacant of Him." This apparent interpolation is nevertheless the foundation of Ibn Taymiyya's position in Sharh Hadith al-Nuzul (p. 42-59) that Allah descends in person yet remains above the Throne in person. That position has been characterized by Imam Abu Zahra as a dual assertion of Allah's aboveness and belowness on the part of Ibn Taymiyya (see n. 456 and 711), although strenuously denied by Ibn Taymiyya himself in Minhaj al-Sunna (2:248) and by al-Albani who defends the latter against Abu Zahra's conclusion in his introduction to Mukhtasar al-`Uluw (p. 40-41, 192-193).24Ibid. (5:189).25Al-Dhahabi, Mukhtasar al-`Uluw (p. 264 #321). Al-Dhahabi criticizes these assertions: see our May 1999 post entitled "Allah is now as He ever was," toward the end.26Ibn Taymiyya, Majmu`a al-Fatawa (5:199)27Ibid. (5:103).

____________________________________________________

The Wahhabi Sect: in Middle Eastern History by Robert Dailey.

(https://suite.io/robert-dailey/cfs255, 6. 9. 2014)

(Some information for this article is based on "God's Terrorists: The Wahhabi Cult and The Hidden Roots of Modern Jihad” by Charles Allen, De Capo Press, 2006)

The Wahhabi sect of Islam, to which the royal family of Saudi Arabia belongs, had its

origins in the 13th century, but the cult became refined in the 18 century.

The Wahhabis take their name from Abd Al-Wahhab, a sheikh who lived in the early

18th century and taught a religious fundamentalism named "The Call to Unity" (ad

Dawa lil Tawhid). This theology embraced absolute monotheism (a denial of any

pluralistic theologies such as the Christian concept of a Trinity). It also declared that

there was only one interpreter of the Quran (the Holy Book of Islam) and the Hadith

(narrations of the "lived example" of the Prophet Muhammed). That interpreter was

Abd Al-Wahhab himself.

Al Wahhab taught that true Muslims had to swear loyalty to their religious leader

and to follow his teachings in all ways. It also required that those who wanted to be

considered true Muslims must join Al-Wahhab in jihad (in his interpretation of

jihad as a “holy war.”) The objective of this jihad was to convert or kill all Muslims

whom Al-Wahhab considered apostate, unbelievers and blasphemers. Finally, Al

Wahhab taught that members of this new sect must hate all those Muslims who

did not follow his teachings.

The actual seeds of Wahhabism came from a thirteenth century sheikh, Ibn

Taymiyya. During that period, many Sunni Muslims were rankling under Mongol

rule. Ibn Taymiyya named himself as a mujtaheed, or one who, through enlightened

reasoning, could interpret the sharia, the “path” of Islam. He redefined Islam, using

a strict and literal interpretation of the Quran, and ruled against any changes in this

interpretation.

Now a religious leader, loved by some Muslims, hated by others, Ibn Taymiyya was

the first holy leader who interpreted jihad as a “holy war.”

He took two verses from the Quran and interpreted them to mean total and

ceaseless war against anyone who was in the way of the destiny of Islam.

“And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail

justice and faith in God; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those

who practice oppression.”

-The Quran, Chapter 2, verse 193

The second verse is from Chaper 8 of the Quran:

“And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail

justice and faith in God altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily God doth

see all that they do.”

-The Quran, Chapter 8, verse 39

There were four enemies of Islam, according to Ibn Tamiyya:

1. Infidels (which included, presumably Christians, Jews and pagans). He did

approve of peaceful coexistence with the infidels, eating with them, and

even allowed Muslims to marry infidel women. He also granted clemency to

those infidels captured in battle if they converted to Islam.

2. Muslims who had “fallen away” and must be fought and killed if they did not

return to the true path.

3. Muslims who said they were practicing the faith, but practiced Islam

improperly were to be killed without mercy.

4. People who had left Islam, but who still called themselves Muslim. Ibn

Taymiyya said that all these people should be treated mercilessly and killed

under all circumstances and given no quarter.

At the time, many Muslims condemned Ibn Taymiyya’s teachings. Even today, Sunnis

who belong to the much more moderate mainstream still reject his theology.

Among the relatively small Wahhabi sect and in Saudi Arabia particularly, Ibn

Taymiyya is revered and honored, only second to Al Wahhab himself.