and just cause. Including the two years and three months of his last imprisonment, Ibn Taimīyah spent about five years in different prisons.
In the Islamic perspective, ‘reform’ is understood quite differently than in Christian terminology. In Islam, ‘reform’ means purification of the original Islamic teachings, and the removal of un-Islamic new practices (bid‘āt) and misconceptions. In this sense of the word, Ibn Taimīyah was a great reformer.
According to ‘Allāmah Shiblī Nu’mānī, the highest reformer is one who revolutionizes religion or politics; who does not merely follow others, but expounds his own thoughts, who bears hardships, makes sacrifices and does not hesitate even to lay down his life for that cause.33 Each of these essential qualities of a reformer is found in Ibn Taimīyah.
1. The main aspects of his reforms
The most important elements of Ibn Taimīyah’s reforms were: (a) to bring about a revolution against un-Islamic practices (bid‘āt) that had crept into Islam and to emphasize the concept of Tawḥīd with all its implications; (b) a return to the fundamental priorities of Islam and its original spirit, instead of disputing over secondary and non-fundamental problems; and (c) serving the public good through such state intervention in economic life as promotes justice and security and prevents exploitation and selfishness.34 He devoted all his energies to these activities throughout his life.
By the thirteenth century, the pure sweet spring of Islam had become muddied – on the one hand by un-Islamic customs and rites and false innovations such as tomb worship; on the other hand, by certain forms of Sufism which enervated the revolutionary message of Islam. Ibn Taimīyah carried reform in both directions.
Sufism was widespread at that time, in diverse groupings, with diverse concepts, techniques and cults. But all the forms of Sufism preached a life of seclusion and individualism; any effort to organize for collective good and any participation in such effort was considered worldliness.35 Some Sufis invented ideas and beliefs different from, even contrary to, the teachings of Islam; in the end, they only diverted the attention of their followers from the actual problems of life. Ibn Taimīyah bitterly criticized such ideas and practices. Once he wrote a letter to Shaikh Naṣr Manbijī the spiritual adviser of Baibars Jāshankīr in which he condemned the monism of Ibn ‘Arabī. Manbijī became angry with him and on his advice, Jāshankīr exiled him to Alexandria.36 At that time Cairo was dominated by the Sufis. Ibn Taimīyah wanted to break their power and preached against them. As a result he faced strong opposition from the Sufis and their followers. In Damascus, a certain Shaikh Ibrāhīm al-Qaṭṭān, who had disfigured himself and was accused among other things of antinomianism, was brought to him. Ibn Taimīyah persuaded him to civilize and better his condition.37 In 1305, he also reformed a similar group of Rifā‘īyah.38
Some misguided people glorified tombs. Tomb-worship is contrary to the Islamic belief in Tawḥīd, the denial of divinity and power to anyone except Allah the Almighty. Tomb worship and related un-Islamic innovations violate this principle. Ibn Taimīyah denounced them and wrote many treatises on these issues.
Ibn Taimīyah wrote books and took an active part in reform on politico-economic matters. The details of his economic views will be discussed later. It is worthwhile to note that many of the reforms of Sultan Nāṣir Muḥammad bin Qalāwūn, perhaps the most successful ruler of the period, were inspired by Ibn Taimīyah.39
The principles behind Ibn Taimīyah’s economic views are well expressed in a letter he wrote to the Sultan of the time advising him to fight starvation, to satisfy basic needs, to help the oppressed, to listen to persons in distress, and to enjoin good and forbid evil, for he counted such actions as the pillars of justice and goodness.40
On another occasion, when a tyrant governor of Damascus imposed excessive taxes, Ibn Taimīyah had him transferred by the Sultan and the taxes repealed.41
Ibn Taimīyah saw great upheavals in his time. He saw how a false concept of religion can lead to exploitation and disturbance, and how misconceptions enter into religion especially when it is deprived of power. He was of the opinion that religion and the state should be indissolubly linked. Without the coercive power of the state, religion is in danger: without the discipline of the revealed law, the state becomes a tyrannical organization.42
D. Attack on philosophy and logic
Another target of Ibn Taimīyah’s criticism was Greek philosophy and logic. Translations from Greek into Arabic had started in the early periods of Islam. A few Abbasid caliphs even established academies for this purpose. Within two or three centuries, a great number of Muslim philosophers appeared who propounded Greek ideas or tried to justify the Islamic ideas and creeds from Greek-philosophical points of view.
The truths of Islam were distorted through conflicting interpretations. By the thirteenth century AD, Greek philosophy had such a hold over people’s minds that they could hardly think without its help, indeed it had become a measuring stick for even religious truths. As a result of the influences of Greek philosophy, it became near-impossible for people to keep steadily to the right path of Islam.
Ibn Taimīyah was aware of this. He knew that unless the crippling falsehood of Greek philosophy was removed, the people would not be able to grasp the divine truth of Islam. He studied critically all the great Muslim philosophers and their works, such as al-Fārābī (who is called the next master after Aristotle), Ibn Sīnā (Avicenna), Ibn Tufail, Ibn Rushd (Averroes), etc. He criticized even al-GhazālI (d. 1111), himself a great critic of philosophy in his last days, for not wholly abandoning philosophy.43 During his exile in Alexandria in 1307 Ibn Taimīyah wrote one of his most valuable works, al-Radd ‘Alā al-Manṭiqi‘īn. The French scholar, Henri Laoust, is of the opinion that in Alexandria he might have met and come under the influence of the passing Muwaḥḥidūn of the Maghrib44 who were vehemently opposed to philosophical thinking in religion and very strict in their belief in the unicity of Allah.
‘Ibn Taimīyah was opposed to extreme rationalism. Like Kant (d. 1804) he did not believe that reason could lead us to the knowledge of Ultimate truths. He was opposed to logic in its application to the truths of religion or Ultimate truths. He was not against reasoning as such, but believed that it was not confined to the Aristotelian logic or syllogistic reasoning. Logic, he demonstrated, was not a measure of the Truth or Reality. It was only a means of judging the consistency of arguments. Its Constant use sharpened the intellect and assisted in discovering fallacies in the existence of a thing. It was neither a source of existential nor valuational knowledge …’
‘In the opinion of Ibn Taimīyah logic was also not in conformity with reason, because reason could not be subordinated to principles laid down by one man. Reason had its own nature and it had its own methods. Its course and functioning could not be determined by anyone. The lines prescribed by Aristotelian logic were too narrow for reason and in fact reason was not restricted to these ways alone …’
‘As against the deductive method, Ibn Taimīyah emphasized the need and importance of the inductive and empirical method,’45
E. His method of teaching, style of writing and his disciples
Ibn
